EAC Agenda 04/02/2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
AGENDA
April 2, 2003
9:00 A.M.
Commission Boardroom
W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F")—Third Floor
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of March 5, 2003 Meeting Minutes
IV. Land Use Petitions
V. Old Business
A. Land Development Code Amendments
1. 2.2.27 Rural Lands Stewardship Area, RLSA Overlay
2. 2.6.22 Supplemental District— Manatee
3. 3.5.7 Excavation (Littoral Standards)
00^-` 4. 3.14 Vehicle on the Beach Regulations
5. 6.3 Definitions — Density
VI. New Business
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 March 28, 2003 if you cannot
attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition
(732-2505).
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.
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NAPLES,FL
March 5,2003
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 9:00AM in
regular session in the County Commissioners Boardroom,Building"F",3301 Tamiami
Trail,Naples FL,with the following members present:
Ii
Members: Thomas Sansbury
Michael G. Coe
,•-� Ken Humiston
Alfred Gal
Alexandra Santoro
Ed Carlson
John Dowd(arrived at 9:05am)
Erica Lynne and Michael Sorrell had excused absences.
Collier County: Bill Lorenz,Barb Burgeson,Stan Chrzanowski,Laura Roys,Fred
Rieschell,Doug Suitor,Ron Hovell,Maura Krauss,July Ardames Minor,and Patrick
White(arrived at 9:07 am)
II
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Building"F",3rd Floor
County Commission Boardroom
3301 Tamiami Trail
Naples,FL 34104
9:00AM
Minutes
March 5,2003
Chairman Thomas Sansbury called the meeting to order at 9:00am.
Attendance: Thomas Sansbury,Michael G. Coe,Ken Humiston, Alfred Gal,
Alexandra Santoro,Ed Carlson,John Dowd(arrived at 9:05am)
-Erica Lynne and Michael V. Sorrel had excused absences.
/0--N
-A Quorum was established.
Collier County: Bill Lorenz,Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski,Laura Roys,Fred
Rieschell,Doug Suitor,Ron Hove11,Maura Krauss,July Ardames Minor,Patrick White
(arrived at 9:07am)
II. Approval of Agenda: j
-Barbara Burgeson stated she had a few items to discuss under new business.
III. Approval of Minutes for December 4,2002:
-Alexandra Santoro noted that on Page 10 it should read that Mr. Carlson was also
volunteered to be on the EAC sub-committee. Mr. Carlson stated that he agreed and
accepted the position.
-Mr. Coe moved to approve the minutes of February 5, 2003 with the noted addition. It
was seconded by Alexandra Santoro. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0.(Mr.Dowd
was not present at the time)
IV. Land Use Petitions
-Barbara Burgeson stated the BCC and the CCPC have readopted an ordinance
where the petitioner does the presentation and staff is available for question. She
explained that they were going to put this in effect at this meeting.
A) Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDA-2002-AR-2240
Development of Regional Impact No. DRI-86-1
"Twelve Lakes PUD/DRI
Section 4,Township 50 South,Range 26 East
-Mr. Coe swore in all those who would be testifying.
-There were no ex parte disclosures.
-Don Pickwarth, attorney for Centex Homes, stated that Wilson Miller is the
consultant on the project. He provided the committee with an overview of the
project. He explained that the petition is to amend the original PUD from 1987.
The petition proposed to decrease the number of—1300 units to 1,000 units. He
added that the preserve goes from —48 acres to 91 acres in the new PUD, the
development standards have been brought on-line with current code, there is a
main road through the project which will be a public road thorough-fare to assist
with the traffic issues, and the moratorium in the area has been lifted. He added
that they agree with the staff recommendations listed in the staff report.
-Mr. Sansbury stated that Mr. Murray and Mr. Durham are consultants to his
employer, but he does not believe this will affect his judgement on this petition
and the denial or approval of this petition in no way effects his employer. He
stated he would vote and participate in discussion on this matter as long as no one
had any objections. There were no objections made.
-Tim Durham, Wilson Miller and Chief Environmental Consultant of this
project, stated that they have rearranged the preserve so that it almost doubles in
size. The wetlands on site are a blend of Cypress, Pine, and Malucca. Mr.
Durham used a map to show the different areas of the site. He explained that the
preserve area would be a continuation of the neighboring preserves on an adjacent
project rather than two smaller preserve sites between the two projects. A listed
species survey was done on the site. The RCW's have moved off site in the last
five years and he doesn't anticipate their return, but the preserves would be
accommodating if the RCW's did return. He added that mitigation was made for
impacts; this will include removal of the exotics on site, the stabilization of the
hydro-period, the recruitment of natural vegetation back into the site, and the
perpetual management of those lands. Fox Squirrels have been identified in the
area and the preserve area will be able to accommodate them.
-Mr. Coe asked if the mitigation for destruction of wetlands was required. Mr.
Durham stated that it was, but they were also enhancing the preserve and 16 acres
of the wetland mitigation bank.
-Mr. Coe asked about the flow across Davis Blvd. Mr. Durham stated that it was
captured in the storm water management plan and the primary movement would
go along Davis and then south. He explained that this is following with the
overall plan for the area, which ties into the county program as requested.
-Mr. Coe asked if this project would have the ability to be a 6-lane highway. Mr.
Perry,Wilson Miller, stated that there is sufficient right of way is existing and
they have reserved additional land in case the state wants the land.
�-. -Alexandra Santoro asked if the Gopher Tortoises and rare plants on site would be
protected in the preserve areas. Mr. Durham stated that they would be protected
in the preserve areas.
-There was no public comment.
-Mr. Carlson moved to approve the petition. It was seconded by Mr.Coe. All
were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
B) Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2002-AR-3142
"North Naples Regional Park"
Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East
-Mr. Coe swore in all those who would be testifying.
-There were no ex parte disclosures.
-Dominic Amico, representing Collier County Parks and Recreation, stated
that this is a conditional use application for the North Naples Regional Park.
The project is located between I75 and the Future Livingston Road. The
project covers —212 acres and is intended to be a regional park. The
masterplans for the park were shown. There will be eight soccer fields, five
softball fields, a pool complex, walking tracks, boardwalks, and other related
regional park type facilities. He added that they agree with the staff
stipulations listed in the staff report.
-Tim Hall, Senior Biologist for Turrell and Associates, used a variety of maps
to show the site. He explained that the vegetative communities and the
r-� existing and proposed land uses of neighboring sites had been taken into
consideration. The site will cover 212 acres and there will be an impact to
—50% of the —160 acre wetlands. The project will preserve the other half of
the wetlands and some of the uplands located in the SW corner of the site.
The RCW's are not currently on site and were last sighted in the 1990's. In
the previous year a survey was done and no endangered species were noted.
The reports were provided in the EIS. They received their water management
permit in September 2002 and they are currently under review with the Corps
of Engineers.
-Mr. Carlson asked if mitigations had been made. Mr. Hall replied that in
addition to the preservation, they will be purchasing 23 credits at an off-site
mitigation bank. Mr. Carlson asked if they will encroach on the preserve area
in the future or if it had been set aside in perpetuity. Mr. Hall stated that the
conservation easement and the enhancement activities were in perpetuity. The
conservation easement being filed with the county will be permanently in
effect.
-There was no public comment.
-Laura Roys, Environmental Review, stated that the preservation
requirements fall under the 15% category rather than the 25%, since they fall
under commercial, industrial, and other. Therefore they would be required to
preserve 27.95. They are proposing to preserve 98.57 acres.
r•.\ -Mr. Humiston moved to approve the petition. It was seconded by Alexandra
Santoro. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
C) Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003-AR-3569
"North Naples Research and Technology Park"
Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East
-Mr. Coe swore in all those who would be testifying.
-There were no ex parte disclosures.
-Robert Duane, Hole Montes and Associates, stated that the site was located
in the northern reaches of Collier County and it borders the Lee County line.
This is an existing golf course driving range. The site has access from 41. He
used a variety of maps to show the location. The site is 19 acres, which is
located in the urban mix use and residential area. This is the first park coming
into to reach the new standards recently set in the comprehensive plan. EDC
and Enterprise Florida are helping to support this project because of the high-
wage jobs that it will bring into the area. They are in agreement with the staff
recommendations except for the FPL drainage easement. He explained that
they would be in agreement with it pursuant to the approval of FPL. He stated
that he had no problem with the stipulation, but requested that it be modified
to read: "pursuant to the approval of FPL". He added that Sterling Oaks has
some standing water on the back of their residential lots. The plans were
reviewed and although they feel that the plans may not have been constructed
in accordance with their water permit, they are willing to accept some of the
water into the ditch if need be, pursuant to Sterling Oaks modifying their
plans.
r-� -Mr. Vasaga, environmental consultant for the project, used an aerial
photograph to show that the majority of the site had previously been cleared
for use by the golf driving range. Scrub habitats and Pine foresting were
located on site. He used a variety of maps to show the location and its
demographics. They are proposing to impact the 2 isolated areas due to the
low survivability probability. The area to the left of the power line will be
isolated, where they are proposing a lake. For mitigation they are removing
exotics, lowering the grade, replanting with wetland vegetation, and paying
2.9 acres at an off-site mitigation bank. There were 4 listed species found on
site: 2 Gopher Tortoises. The portion of land where the Gopher Tortoise
burrow and the tortoise are located will be preserved. They also found a scrub
area with Blazing Stars and Prickly Cactus, which will also be preserved.
-Mr. Carlson asked if the Tortoise preserve on southeast was confined and if
the tortoises would be caged in. Barbara Burgeson stated that they will be
required to submit a Gopher Tortoise relocation management plan and that
staff will be requiring them to have a fence preventing the Gopher Tortoises
from traveling out into the roadway. She added that although part of the area
will be fenced, she was not entirely sure at the time if they would recommend
the entire area be fenced.
-Terry Cole, Hole Montes and Associates project manager for this site, added
that the drainage of the site is from the East to the West into the existing ditch
along the FPL easement. When FPL came in to create an access road they
borrowed soil from both sides of the access-way, which created ditches on
both sides. He pointed out the flow of water on the site and intentions for the
future. Sterling Oaks residents have concerns about standing water on their
rear lots. Mr. Cole understood that their water management plan required a
perimeter burm with their water draining into the project and then discharging
through a water control structure. If Sterling Oaks modifies their permit and
needed to discharge some water through the proposed research property, they
would be willing to work with them on it.
-Fred Reischell,Planning Services, stated that comprehensive review has
been completed. There were some changes, which the petitioner agreed to.
This will be consistent with the sub-district and GMP. Since the site is
adjacent to Bonita Springs, staff sent a packet to the city, but has not heard
back.
-Barbara Burgeson stated that staff recommends approval of the PUD with
four stipulations from Stormwater management and the four multi-tiered
stipulations from the environmental section, which will be completed prior to
board approval.
-Robert Duane noted that he met with representatives from Spanish Wells.
Public Speakers
A) J. Gary Ray, Sterling Oaks homeowner, stated that along with others
from his neighborhood, they have been brought up to date with this project
through the last several weeks. They have met with the owner of the
research park. He has approached the manager of Sterling Oaks about the
standing water. The manager stated that they should allow Holes, Montes,
and Associates do what they need to do. He and his neighbors asked
about enforcement; what to do if the proper actions where not taken by
Sterling Oaks.
-The EAC and staff discussed the standing water problem at Sterling Oaks.
Staff explained that the burm around Sterling Oaks is supposed to hold the
water, but in heavy rains it fails. Mr. Chrzanowski told Mr. Ray that he would
provide him with his card and see if he could help in this situation, but advised
that relief in this type of situation was not always possible. Mr. Chrzanowski
further explained that he was unaware if Sterling Oaks was or was not in
compliance and the burm is a typical setup for drainage. He added that they
can check the grates when they go out. He explained that the county has no
authority to change the state water permit authority and the residents would
have to go to the water management district.
-Mr. Gal disclosed that his law firm represented Sterling Oaks joint venture.
-Mr. Sansbury stated that the assistance they could provide is to put Mr. Ray
in touch with Mr. Chrzanowski, who could put Mr. Ray in touch with the
correct individual at SWFL water management district to request their review
of compliance and procedures needed to modify the permit and correct the
problem. Mr. Chrzanowski agreed and asked Mr. Ray to come by the office
to review the designs, then he will call the water management district to find a
contact for Mr. Ray.
-Alexandra Santoro asked if the developers of the research park were offering
to help in this situation. Mr. Duane stated that they will volunteer to place a
stipulation in their PUD document stating that they will accept their water
"pursuant to a modification of their plans" if they are unable to find another
way out. He asked that this stipulation be included in the EAC motion. Mr.
Chrzanowski asked if Mr. Duane had asked water management about the
possibility of volunteering this. Mr. Duane stated that he had not.
-Barb Burgeson stated that they did added the language "pursuant to the
approval of FPL"regarding the drainage easement stipulation.
-July Ardames Minor, Stormwater management section of the county, stated
that she met with a gentlemen from Sterling Oaks a year ago. She explained
that Sterling Oaks never did their certification of completion required by
South Florida. The district then sent a letter to the developer. She added that
she does not know if they have done anything yet, but before it is turned over
to the homeowner's Association, she urged them to make sure that the
developer comply with the completion of the water management system; a
certification of completion.
-Mr. Coe moved to approve the petition as amended. It was seconded by Mr.
Carlson. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
V. Old Business
-There was no old business to discuss.
VI. New Business
LDC Amendments
-Mr. Sansbury asked if they needed to swear people in. Mr. White stated that they
did not.
A) Manatee Protection Plan Amendments
-Bill Lorenz explained that the intent was to incorporate the Manatee protection
plan and all of its land development activities into the LDC and to clarify some of
the language written in the management protection plan. He stated that the
previous morning they received the review of the Development Services Sub-
committee. He reviewed a letter from Clay Brooker, which proposed changes to
the draft that staff had compiled. Mr. Brooker's letter suggests adding
"commercial", "with ten slips or more", and"can legally obtain" to certain
portions of the LDC amendment on Manatee Protection. The letter also suggested
the removal of the narrative for the table in section 2.6.22.3.1 and breaking up the
section 2.6.22.3.3 into three sub-sections for clarity. Mr. Lorenz explained that
staff does not agree with using the word "commercial"because they feel this may
be limiting. He will speak with Patrick White about this view. For the moment,
they feel this limits the facilities that they can look at. Staff also does not
recommend using the phrase with "10 slips or more", because they again feel that
this would be limiting and they need to regulate all facilities under the Manatee
protection plan. Staff does agree with the phrase "can legally obtain". Staff also
agrees with the removal of the narrative (sections 1, 2, & 3)in section 2.6.22.3.1.
Mr. Lorenz added that they are also okay with the suggestion for section
2.6.22.3.3, but they have some two concerns about the wording. One is an issue
about removing the wording: "the five-mile on travel distance". Staff suggests
that the distance of five miles remain in this section. The second issue is with the
suggestion to remove the requirement for dredging permits prior to STP approval.
Staff recommends that you cannot receive your CO till you prove that you have
adequate depth.
-Clay Brooker , with the law firm Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe &
Anderson, P.A., stated that the purpose of the letter is to guarantee that the state
approved plan gets placed into the LDC correctly. He was glad to hear that the
discussions will continue. He explained that they believe the Manatee protection
plan only applies to boating facilities with 10 slips or more. They believe that the
removal of 10 slips or more would be inconsistent with the Manatee protection
plan, which was already adopted by the BCC. They also believe that the water
depth issue and the five mile distance is consistent with the MPP and the proposal
goes against the MPP. He added that there may be a middle ground they could
come to through future discussion. They also prefer and believe that the MPP
does allow, by the language "can legally obtain peuuits", to have an STP approval
obtained with the condition that dredging permits be required prior to the actual
CO being issued. He stated that they seem to be on "the same page" as staff on
the last issue.
-Todd Turrell, local ocean engineer, stated that he agrees with Mr. Brooker
especially pertaining to the water depth issue. He agrees "completely" with the
statement Mr. Brooker made that "the language proposed would simply render
preferred ranking impossible to obtain". He stated that he was on the committee
that assisted county staff in drafting the MPP and his recollection of the 5-mile
radius was that it was completely related to Manatee mortality and that effect on
the facility. He did not believe that it had anything to do with water depth. He
felt that the water depth was to discourage people from building marinas in
shallow water areas unless they could get dredging permits. He does not feel this
is a"practical thing" or the original intent, therefore he requested that they take
out any reference to water depth when it refers to 5-mile radius.
-Mr. Lorenz replied that the MPP intent defines multi-slip residential facilities
include "condominiums, mobile home park facilities, and neighborhood park
facilities where boat boning is concentrated in a common rather than individual
docks located behind individual residents".
-Mr. Sansbury asked if they would have to change the MPP if they put 5-10 slips
in the LDC. Mr. Lorenz stated that he did not believe they would have to,
because of the MPP definition of multi-slip facilities. He added that this is the
interpretation staff has been using since the MPP was in existence.
-Mr. Lorenz stated that in regards to the 5-mile distance, staff has always
interpreted it as they have written it in the proposed LDC amendment. He added
that they believe this is how the state interprets it as well.
-Mr. Carlson stated that it was difficult for him to not have been active in the
process and know all the details to make a decision. Mr. Coe agreed and felt that
through discussion the interested parties and staff would be able to work this out
and come to a conclusion. The EAC decided that they would like staff to meet
with the interested parties and come back to the EAC in the April meeting with
the determinations. Alexandra Santoro added that she agreed with the concept of
not using the word "commercial", the charting for preferred rating to look at the
four-foot and the number of and impact on Manatees. She explained that she
would hate to see some of the smaller creeks dredged, but she did agree with the
concepts.
A five minute recess was taken at 10:30AM.
B) Encroachments and Easements
-Stan Chrzanowski, Development Services Engineering Review, stated that five
or six years ago people began doing minor encroachments into easements, mostly
into lake maintenance easements. He explained that the problem is that the staff
has been issuing a"letter of no objection", which stated that they did not object as
long as all the other easement holders did not object, but people began feeling that
they had a"right" to encroach and the encroachments are beginning to be much
larger than before. This amendment is to try and help get a handle on this
situation. The final decision was that all encroachment decisions must go before
the board. The amendment tried to avoid all of these decisions going before the
board by providing "letter of no objection" procedure that was approved by the
BCC. The attorney's feel that this can not be done and the solution is to either
"go for a vacation or do nothing at all". After the last few meetings they have
decided that if one encroaches on an easement then they need to come in and have
that portion of the easement vacated. If the board does not allow the
encroachment, then they will have to remove whatever is encroaching the
easement. He added that as for all the encroachments previously existing under
letters of no objection, that he did not know what would happen to them. He
explained that the amendment is not final wording and it may not proceed since
they already have a"vacation procedure"in place.
-Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney, stated that staff is correct with the
problems that they have been seeing, especially the problems with permitting
review. He had two concerns. One was real property interest and tracts that have
been dedicated or conveyed to the county. He explained that the concern is that to
approve these encroachments authority has to be received by the BCC. He added
that the only way to remove the "cloud" is by a"vacation" or by the county
releasing a portion of the easement in exchange for a relocation of the easement at
its full width. The second concern is about setbacks. Mr. White explained that
this seems to be a circumstance that only applies with respect to preserves. His
review of provisions pertaining to this concept of setback, seem to speak more in
terms of buffer. He believes that they may need to do more modifications to these
parts of the texts to ensure that what they are speaking of is setbacks from
preserves for structures, whether principal or accessory, and other activities that
may be prevented or precluded in the buffer area. Mr. White felt that this
provision will not lawfully clear the "cloud" from an easement. He believed that
the only way to do so was to vacate the county interest or release the easement in
exchange for a relocated easement.
-Mr. Chrzanowski added that when he is talking about encroachments, he is
generally talking about vertical building or structure encroachments. He does not
consider sidewalks or fences are encroachments. He explained that another
concept that they will be looking at is what exactly constitutes an encroachment.
-Mr. White stated that there are procedures that exist, other than vacations or
exchanges, for authorizing the construction or erection of certain types of
structures. He used right-of-way permitting and fence permitting as examples.
He explained that in the past certain types of structures have not been seen as
encroachments on the "scope of the encroachment" and this is an acceptable idea.
He felt they could simplify defining what these types of structures are.
-Mr. Chrzanowski stated that they are currently telling people that they need to
apply for a vacation of the easement. This subject may not be brought back to the
EAC if the proposed amendment is done away with and replaced by the notion of
everyone needing to go through a"vacation". He felt this is probably what would
happen.
C) Literal Standards
-Bill Lorenz, stated that this proposed amendment addresses new standards for
their literal plantings. After a current analysis, staff determined that they are
"missing the mark" on what it is that these plants need to survive. They also feel
that the current planting elevation is too high. They attempted to provide better
standards in order to ensure the survivability of these "literal zones". He asked
the EAC to consider the "Literal shelf planting area" and the policy issue that
discusses the amount required to be planted. The current codes states that 2% of
the surface area, measured at control elevation, is required. The proposal is for
10% measured at the control elevation. He added that when the GMP was
adopted, it required 2.5%, therefore they have to have at least the 2.5%. The
Rural Fringe amendments adopted 30%. Another substantial change is that they
want to consolidate the areas as much as possible; one location as opposed to the
current various locations. They believe this will achieve a higher environmental
value and will require a simpler maintenance plan. Staff also recommends
locational criteria, that the location be "up against the preserve location" and
upstream of an outflow structure, rather than around a residential lot. A second
criteria specified looks at shelf elevation. The current code is an 8-1 slope. The
proposed amendment states an 8-1 slope or flatter; flatter will provide more
credits. A critical element in the proposed plan says that the designer must take
into account the hydro-period of the system and the maximum depth that will
occur at the planting location. This is to ensure that the proper plants are selected
for the locations. They will also require signs that specify the areas not be
sprayed. The DSAC sub-committee recommended additional criteria for the signs
and they indicated a desire for opportunities that larger systems would not have to
be located in one area. The proposed amendment has changes to how they
evaluate the success of the shelf; whatever naturally recruits on the shelf as long
as it is not exotic vegetation. The DSAC sub-committee also recommended that it
should not be nuisance vegetation either. Mr. Lorenz stated that they will be
added this language. They have eliminated the requirement to have compensating
literal zones if you have bulk heads of more than 40% of the stormwater system.
The code currently requires that if you have it in one location, then you have to
have 125% of the requirement. Now they want to encourage having the shelf in
one location so they are proposing to eliminate this requirement as well. The
amendment criteria addresses modification of existing lakes or existing plans
under the old code. The DSAC sub-committee asked staff to provide a list of
consultants that the standards have been sent to. Mr. Lorenz only knew of one
return comment that staff received. One installer stated that the direction they
were heading in was appropriate and suggested planting on 36-inch centers, which
is less costly and has the same survivability. Mr. Lorenz stated that they will look
into this suggestion and they will send the standards to the particular consultants
requested by the DSAC sub-committee. They also removed the performance
guarantee. Mr. Lorenz stated that this proposed amendment will come back to the
EAC in the next few months with final changes.
-Mr. White added that he was responsible for reviewing and signing off on the
ordinance that embodies all of these regulations. He will work with staff to
eliminate legal problems, clarifying intent and application, and bring them back to
the EAC with the provisions.
-Mr. Coe stated that he believes they waste money on medians. He doesn't
believe that just stating a 2-foot center is sufficient and wondered why they don't
put grass on medians.
-Mr. Sansbury agreed that it was good to concentrate the selves in the preserve
areas because it he feels that it is impossible to enforce single family lot
requirements. He asked how these rules relate to the rules of the environmental
resource permits of SW Florida. Mr. Lorenz stated that staff does not see a
conflict. Mr. Sansbury added that he is concerned about too many signs taking
from the beauty of the area and that the enforcement should be in the hands of the
maintenance team.
-Mr. Lorenz addressed Mr. Coe's comments about spacing. He stated that staff
has looked at manuals with regard to spacing and there requirements are on the
conservative side. They will be looking at this further. He added that they are
looking to develop a literal shelf planting at Lake Sugdeon. He showed a map
that gave a visual concept of how it would look with a 2% planting versus the
10% planting, which staff is proposing.
-The EAC stated they would like staff to return with the final changes. Mr.
Lorenz stated they will go before the DSAC committee on March 19, 2003.
D) Beaches
-Mr. Lorenz stated that the current code prohibits the ability to get large
equipment on to the beach in order to maintain the beach re-nourishment projects.
This proposed amendment makes the appropriate changes to allow cleaning and
maintenance machines. Staff is also attempting to reduce the number of
redundant sections in this portion of the code. This amendment proposes that the
setback from vegetation, in terms of raking, should be 15-feet. The state
requirement is only 10-feet. Staff will provide data and research to support the
15-feet.
-Alexandra Santoro asked why the requirement for beach raking and cleaning
devices not penetrating below one inch was changed to two inches. Maura
Krauss, Environmental Services Department, replied that this was changed in
order to be consistent with the state requirements. She added that they eliminated
tire tread and consolidated some of the sections. They attempted to make it more
consistent with the current permits being issued. Alexandra Santoro was
concerned about the environmental relevance of the change.
-Mr. Coe asked what a"valid permit" would be to go onto the beach during the
turtle nesting season. Maura Krauss informed him that the permit is required
from the state and county. The permitted vehicles are concessionaires and beach
raking. Barbara Burgeson stated that in the past beach raking was prohibited at
this time, but it was allowed in the code two years ago.
-Mr. White stated staff was looking for direction on the 15 feet versus the 10 feet
in respect to the beach raking next to the dune. The EAC had no problems with
this.
-Mr. Coe made a motion for approval. It was seconded by Mr. Carlson. All were
in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
E) Maintenance for Vegetation
-Barbara Burgeson stated that there have been some major changes to 3.97. This
proposal was an attempt to consolidate many sections of the code relating to
different aspects of the preservation areas, to incorporate staff's current policies
being used for the past ten years, and to incorporate additional guidelines that
have been recommended and used, but not in written form. Staff has chosen to
take out a small portion of this proposed amendment due to legal questions, in
attempt to have it go through this LDC amendment cycle. They will come back at
the next cycle with the full proposal after it has been reviewed for legal
sufficiency. She reviewed the changes in the proposed amendment that would be
removed and proposed for this cycle:
1) 3971 —The first sentence will be removed
2) 3972—The first sentence will be removed
3) 3975—The last sentence proposes to allow in the last sentence "unless it can
be demonstrated that it will not effect the integrity of the preserve". The only
way they would permit anything in the 10-feet adjacent to the preserve is if
that item is a structural boundary to protect the integrity of the preserve.
4) 39762—They are proposing limitations on the re-created preserve area. They
are also proposing that the minimum spacing and widths be applied to both
the created and existing preservation areas. The language was modified to
"20-foot on center for trees, with an exception of 30-foot on center for large
canopy trees where there is a greater than 40-foot spread, and 5-foot on center
for shrubs. The 2-foot on center for groundcover was changed to 3-foot on
center. They have allowed for a modification which allows for smaller plant
materials when it encourages survivability. In regards to minimum width: for
parcels less than 5-acres the minimum width is less than 20-feet, for parcels 5-
10 acres the minimum width is 30-feet, and for parcels 10-acres and greater
the minimum width is 50-feet.
-Barbara Burgeson reiterated that these are all of the changes that they are
,.� proposing to take out for"this cycle" and the DSAC sub-committee supported just
these amendments into the current cycle. She asked the EAC, since they had the
"full"proposal, that even though it may not be applicable this cycle, to send
comments to her. This will help her make improvements before the next cycle.
VII. Announcements
-Barbara Burgeson stated that she had a few announcements to make. She
congratulated Mr. Carlson on his appointment to the Collier Conservation Land
Acquisition Committee. She stated that the first meeting will be on Monday in
the same room. Alex Salecki was the staff person appointed to this committee.
She reminded the EAC that she handed out a survey and she asked the committee
to return it by the end of the month with suggestions. The survey asked how the
EAC felt in regards to the meetings, how they were run, any changes that need to
be made, etc... Mr. Sansbury will be providing the quadrennial report to the BCC
on March 11, 2003. She added that Alexandra Santoro has created a newsletter
that they would like to distribute to the EAC. She asked that the EAC consider if
they would like to distribute this to other groups. The newsletter discusses some
of the actions and accomplishments of the EAC. She also asked the EAC to
consider if they want to attach this to the EAC website. She explained that the
sub-committee for the overlay still needs to reach a date. The EAC stated they
will contact her with this date. Barbara Burgeson also noted that Erica Lynne had
requested$80 registration fee for a native plant society conference in May, 2003.
She explained that they are entitled to reimbursement of expenses approved by the
BCC and the money would come out of the EAC budget.
-Mr. Coe made a motion to approve the $80 registration fee and found that it was
reasonable for the performance of her duties. It was seconded by Alexandra
Santoro. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
-Bill Lorenz distributed the "Rural Lands Stewardship Area Implementing Land
Development Code Amendments". The package will be in this LDC cycle.
Carlton Fields is the consultant and has just distributed the packet to staff. Staff
will provide a briefing and description of the packet at the next EAC meeting in
April, 2003.
-Mr. White added that member comments on this set of LDC amendments are
desired.
-Barbara Burgeson stated that the county attorney's office has informed staff that
they have not correctly been following the voting conflict procedure. She
explained that when the forms are filled out, the signed forms must be distributed
to the board members. After the meetings, they will hand them out to the EAC so
that they have copies for their records.
VIII. Public Comment
A) Bob Krasowski,Zero Waste Collier County, stated that his committee has
been working on solid waste options since 1995. They have secured a grant
from the Department of Environmental Regulation and received assistance
from the Collier County School Board. He handed a pamphlet to the EAC
that describe a workshop and the speakers that would be presenting on the
zero waste initiative. He explained that the initiative is the application of
design, theory, principal, and practices to every component of the resource
r--• extraction, production, sales, distribution, and discard of the material life-
stream cycle. There are categories in each that prove opportunities for
efficiencies in reducing waste and recycling. The address ways of dealing
with waste other than incinerators. He invited the EAC and staff to the
workshop in order to learn more about the program and the environmental
concerns involved.
-Alexandra Santoro stated that she was concerned with commercial office
recycling and asked if staff could speak to the EAC on commercial recycling in
the future. Barbara Burgeson stated that she would call solid waste and see if they
could be scheduled to speak in May, 2003.
IX Adjournment—
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:53 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY COMMITTEE ETC. ETC.
Chairman (the Chairman's Name)
Page 1 of 1
burgeson_b
From: burgeson_b
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:40 AM
To: Alfred Gal; Allie Santoro; Ed Carlson; Erica Lynne; John Dowd; Ken Humiston; Mickey Coe; Torn
Sansbury
Cc: SchmittJoseph; lorenz_w; whiteway_c; white_p;wuerstlemargaret; murray_s; chrzanowski_s; kuck_t;
lenberger_s; hadleykim; RoysLaura; hatcher m; HennigMelissa; kraus_m; suitor_d
Subject: LDC amendments
Your EAC packages were mailed out yesterday and did not include the LDC amendments which will be presented
to you for discussion at your March EAC meeting. The LDC amendments are attached and hard copies will be
sent out today.
Please feel free to contact staff if you have any questions regarding these documents.
2/25/2003
•
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
P-4\ Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Implementing Land
Development Code Amendments
2.2.27. RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA (RLSA) OVERLAY—
STEWARDSHIP REGULATIONS
2.2.27.1. Purpose and Intent 1
2.2.27.2. Establishment of RSLA Overlay 1
A. Establishment of Stewardship Sending Area(SSA)Designations 1
B. Establishment of Stewardship Receiving Area(SRA)Designations 1
2.2.27.3. Establishment of a Stewardship Credit Database 1
2.2.27.4. Authorization to Establish a Stewardship Credit Trust 1
2.2.27.5. General 2
2.2.27.6. Lands Within the Overlay Prior to SSA or SRA Designation 2
A. Private Lands Delineated FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs 2
B. Private Lands Delineated as Open 2
C. Supplemental Delineation of Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC)/
Non-ACSC 3
D. Public or Private Conservation Lands 3
E. Baseline Standards 3
F. No Increase in Density or Intensity (in excess of the Baseline Standards) 3
G. Lands Within Overlay Not Designated(SSA or SRA) 3
2.2.27.7. Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Designation 4
A. Lands Within the Overlay that can be Designated as SSAs 4
1. May be Within a Stewardship Receiving Area(SRA)Boundary 4
2. May be Within a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Boundary 4
3. FSA Delineated Lands 4
4. HSA Delineated Lands 4
5. WRA Delineated Lands 5
B. SSA Credit Generation - Stewardship Credit System 5
1. Early Entry Bonus Credits 6
2. Credit Worksheet 6
3. Natural Resource Indices and Values 6
4. Land Use Layers to be Eliminated 9
5. Matrix Calculation 10
C. SSA Designation Application Package 11
1. Stewardship Sending Area(SSA)Designation Application 11
2. Application Fee 11
3. Natural Resource Index Assessment 11
4. Support Documentation 11
5. Stewardship Sending Area(SSA) Credit Agreement 12
6. Public Hearing for Credit Agreement 14
7. Recording of Agreement 14
8. Restoration Credit Agreement 14
9. Stewardship Easement Agreement or Deed 14
10. Natural Resource Management Plan 15
TAL#528002.1 1
r
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
D. SSA Application Review Process 15
1. Preapplication Conference 15
2. Application Package Submittal and Processing Fees 16
3. Application Deemed Sufficient for Review 16
4. Review by County Reviewing Agencies 16
5. Staff Review 17
6. Staff Report 17
E. SSA Application Approval Process 17
1. Public Hearing 17
2. Legal Description 17
3. Update Stewardship Credits Database 17
4. Update the Stewardship Overlay Map 17
F. SSA Amendments 17
2.2.27.8. Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA)Designation 18
A. Lands Within the Overlay that can be Designated as SRAs 18
1. Suitability Criteria 18
2. SRAs Within the ACSC 19
B. Stewardship Credit Entitlement 19
1. Transfer of Credits 20
2. Stewardship Credit Exchange 20
3. Public Benefit Uses 20
4. Mixed Land Use Entitlements 20
C. Forms of SRA Entitlements 21
1. Towns 21
2. Villages 21
3. Hamlets 22
4. Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) 22
5. SRAs as Part of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) 23
D. SRA Designation Application Package 23
1. Stewardship Receiving Area(SRA)Designation Application 23
2. Application Fee 23
3. Natural Resource Index Assessment 23
4. SRA Designation Application Support Documentation 24
5. SRA Master Plan 25
6. SRA Development Document 25
7. SRA Impact Assessment Report 25
8. SRA Economic Assessment Report 25
9. Stewardship Credit Use and Reconciliation Application 25
10. Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Agreement 26
E. SRA Application Review Process 28
1. Pre-Application Conference with County Staff 28
2. Application Package Submittal and Processing Fees 29
3. Application Deemed Sufficient for Review 29
4. Review by County Reviewing Agencies 29
TAL#528002.1 ii
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
5. Staff Review 30
6. Staff Report 30
F. SRA Application Approval Process 30
1. Public Hearings Required 30
2. Effective Date of SRA Designation 30
3. Update Stewardship Credits Database 31
4. Update the Stewardship Overlay Map 31
5. SRA Amendments 31
G. Master Plan Required 33
1. Master Plan Content 33
H. Development Document 34
I. DRI Master Plan 35
J. Design Criteria 35
1. Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics 35
2. Town Design Criteria[Reserved] 36
3. Village Design Criteria[Reserved] 36
4. Hamlet Design Criteria[Reserved] 36
5. CRD Design Criteria[Reserved] 36
6. Design Criteria Common to SRAs 36
7. Deviations From LDC Standards 38
8. Infrastructure Required 38
K. SRA Impact Assessments 39
1. Transportation 39
2. Potable Water 40
3. Irrigation Water 40
4. Wastewater 40
5. Solid Waste 40
6. Stormwater Management 41
7. Groundwater 41
L. SRA Economic Assessment 42
1. Demonstration of Economic Neutrality 42
2. Monitoring Requirement 42
3. Imposition of Special Assessments/Negative Fiscal Impact 42
4. Special Tax Districts Encouraged 43
2.2.27.9. Baseline Standards[Reserved] 43
TAL#528002.1 iii
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
2.2.27. RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA (RLSA) OVERLAY
STEWARDSHIP REGULATIONS
2.2.27.1 Purpose and Intent. Collier County's objective is to create an incentive based land
use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
(RLSA) Overlay, based on the principals of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter
163.3177(11), F.S. To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County RLSA that
collectively contribute to a viable agricultural industry, protect natural resources, and enhance
economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County established within its Growth
Management Plan, the RLSA Overlay (Overlay). It is the intent of the Overlay to protect natural
resources and retain viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed-use development as an
alternative to low-density single use development, and to provide a system of compensation to
private property owners for the elimination of certain land uses in order to protect natural
resources and viable agriculture in exchange for transferable credits that can be used to entitle
such compact development.
2.2.27.2 Establishment of RLSA Overlay. The RLSA Overlay_generally includes rural lands
in northeast Collier County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County
Line, and south and west of the Hendry County Line, and includes a total of approximately
195,846 acres, of which approximately 182,334 acres is privately owned. The Overlay Map is
an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The Overlay is hereby established.
A. Establishment of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Designations. An overlay
district classification to be known as Stewardship Sending Areas, and to be designated on
the official zoning atlas by the symbol "A-RLSA-SSA", is hereby established. This
overlay district classification will be used for those lands within the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area that are designated by the Board of County Commissioners as
Stewardship Sending Areas. The placement of this designation shall be governed by the
procedures as prescribed in this Section.
B. Establishment of Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Designations. An
overlay classification to be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas, and to be designated
on the official zoning atlas by the symbol "A-RLSA-SRA", is hereby established. This
overlay district classification will be used for those lands within the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area that are designated by the Board of County Commissioners as
Stewardship Receiving Areas. The placement of this designation shall be governed by
the procedures as prescribed in this Section.
2.2.27.3 Establishment of a Stewardship Credit Database. As part of the initial
implementation of the RLSA Overlay, the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator shall cause to be developed a Stewardship Credit Database to track the
generation (by SSAs) and consumption of Stewardship Credits (by SRAs) within the Overlay.
The database shall be in an electronic form that can be linked to the Stewardship Overlay Map
and can readily produce reports that will afford convenient access to the data by the public. The
database shall be updated upon approval of an SSA or SRA Designation Application.
2.2.27.4 Authorization to Establish a Stewardship Credit Trust. as part of the
implementation of the RLSA Overlay, the County may elect to acquire Credits through a
publicly funded program. Should the County pursue this option, the Community Development
TAL#528002.1 1
3/3/2003
• 5:15 PM
and Environmental Services Administrator shall be authorized to establish a Stewardship Credit
Trust to receive and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise used to
implement uses within SRAs. Nothing herein shall preclude the County from permanently
"retiring" any such credits.
2.2.27.5 General. Except as provided in Section 2.2.27.8.B., there shall be no change to the
underlying density and intensity of permitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the
Baseline Standards, as defined in Section 2.2.27.9, until a property owner elects to utilize the
provisions of the Stewardship Credit System. No part of the Stewardship Credit System shall be
imposed upon a property owner without that owner's written consent. It is the intent of the
Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection
of important agricultural and natural resources. The Baseline Standards will remain in effect for
all land not subject to the transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as provided for in
Section 2.2.27.9.
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in
permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as
Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a
candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the
property owner seeking such designation as outlined herein. A Stewardship Agreement shall be
developed that identifies those land uses which have been removed. Once land is designated as a
SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density or
additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Agreement shall be allowed on such property.
Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability criteria
and standards set forth in Section 2.2.27.8.A.1. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship
Receiving Areas or SRAs. The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA
designation are set forth herein. Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential
or non-residential entitlements in a SRA on a per acre basis. SRA density and intensity will
thereafter differ from the Baseline Standards.
Stewardship Credits generated from one SSA may be allocated to one or more SRAs, and a SRA
may receive Stewardship Credits generated from one or more SSAs.
2.2.27.6. Lands Within the Overlay Prior to SSA or SRA Designation. All lands within the
RLSA have been delineated on the Stewardship Overlay map. Prior to designation as an SSA or
SRA, lands within the RLSA are subject to the Baseline Standards contained in Section 2.2.27.9.
A. Private Lands Delineated FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. Lands delineated Flow
way Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), or Water Retention Area
(WRA) on the Overly Map, have been identified through data and analysis as having a
higher quality natural resource value than those lands not delineated. Although any land
within the District can be designated as an SSA, generally those lands delineated FSAs,
HSAs, and WRAs are the most likely candidates for designation because of the higher
credit values applied to lands with those delineations.
B. Private Lands Delineated as Open. Lands not otherwise classified as FSA,
HSA, or WRA are delineated as "Open" on the Overlay Map and are generally of a lower
natural resource quality. Open lands are the lands that may be designated as either SSAs
or SRAs.
TAL#528002.1 2
3/3/2003
• 5:15 PM
C. Supplemental Delineation of Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) or Non-
ACSC. In additional to the stewardship delineation, those lands that are within the Area
of Critical State Concern have also been delineated on the Overlay Map. Lands to be
designated as SRAs within the ACSC are subject to additional standards as defined
herein.
1. All ACSC regulations continue to apply to lands designated within the
ACSC regardless of designation under the Stewardship Program in addition to the
standards that apply to those lands that become designated as SRAs within the
ACSC.
D. Public or Private Conservation Lands. Within the RLSA, certain lands are held
in public ownership or in private ownership as conservation lands. Such lands may be
delineated on the Overlay map as FSA, HSA, or WRA but are not eligible for designation
as either a SSA or SRA.
E. Baseline Standards. Baseline Standards are the permitted uses (conventional "A"
zoning, including Conditional Uses), density, intensity and other land development
regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the Growth Management Plan, Collier
County Land Development Regulations and Collier County Zoning Regulations in effect
prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions
referenced in Final Order AC-99-002. The Baseline Standards apply until lands are
voluntarily entered into the Stewardship Program and are designated as a SSA or SRA
and will remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or receipt of Stewardship
Credits, except as provided for in Section 2.2.27.9.
F. No Increase in Density or Intensity (in excess of the Baseline Standards). No
increase in density or intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA is permitted beyond
the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System,
the Affordable Housing Density Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the
FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master
Plan.
G. Lands Within Overlay Not Designated (SSA or SRA) Subject to Special
Environmental Standards. In order to protect water quality and quantity and
maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs on the Overlay Map
prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program,
residential uses, general conditional uses, earth mining and processing uses, and
recreational uses (layers 1-4) as listed in Section 2.2.27.7.B.4.a. shall not be permitted in
FSA lands within the RLSA. Conditional use essential services and governmental
essential services, except those necessary to serve peimitted uses or for public safety,
shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or
less.
In order to protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water
regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as
FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are not within the ACSC, the use of
such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards is subject to the
regulations in Section 2.2.27.9.
TAL#528002.1 3
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
2.2.27.7. Stewardship Sending Area (SSA)Designation. Lands within the RLSA may be
designated as SSAs subject to the following regulations.
A. Lands Within the Overlay that can be Designated as SSAs. Any privately
held land within the RLSA delineated on the Overlay Map as FSA, HSA, WRA or Open,
may be designated as an SSA, including lands within ACSC.
1. May be Within a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA)Boundary. In
certain instances, a potential SSA may be partially or entirely within the boundary
of an SRA.
2. May be Within a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Boundary.
In certain instances, a potential SSA may be partially or entirely within the
boundary of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
3. FSA Delineated Lands.
a. In the case where lands delineated as FSA are entered into the
Stewardship Program and are designated as an SSA, at a minimum,
Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing
Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Land Use Matrix
in Section 2.2.27.7.B.4.a. shall be eliminated as permitted land uses.
b. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential
services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public
safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource
Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less.
c. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously
cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction in
FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats.
d. The elimination of the Earth Mining layer shall not preclude the
excavation of lakes or other water bodies if such use is an integral part of a
restoration or mitigation program within a FSA.
4. HSA Delineated Lands.
a. In the case where lands delineated as HSA are entered into the
Stewardship Program and are designated as a SSA, at a minimum,
Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated.
b. General Conditional Uses,Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and
Recreational Uses shall be allowed only on HSA lands with a Natural
Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less.
c. In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for approval of a
Conditional Use, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of an
EIS which demonstrates that clearing of native vegetation has been
minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed
species and their habitats and the use will not significantly and adversely
impact aquifers.
TAL#528002.1 4
{
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
(1) As an alternative to the foregoing, the applicant may
demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved
restoration or mitigation program.
(2) Compliance with the following standards shall be considered
by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of
impact:
(i) Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the
native vegetation on the parcel.
(ii) Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to
native vegetated areas.
(iii) Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with
Section 2.2.27.8.J.6.h.
d. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential
services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public
safety, shall only be allowed in HSAs with a Natural Resource
Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less.
e. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants are prohibited in all
HSAs.
f'N f. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously
cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction in
HSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats.
g. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA shall
comply with the best management practices of Audubon International's
Gold Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
5. WRA Delineated Lands.
a. In the case where lands delineated as WRA are entered into the
Stewardship Program and are designated as an SSA, at a minimum,
residential land uses and general Conditional Uses shall be eliminated as
permitted land uses.
b. During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to
WRAs may be required or desired,including but not limited to changes to
control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading,
excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed
subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best
management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall
be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the
WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other
areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function.
Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA
contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be
provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough.
TAL#528002.1 5
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
B. SSA Credit Generation - Stewardship Credit System. Stewardship Credits
(Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in agriculture,
open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending
Areas or SSAs. Once land is designated as a SSA and Credits or other compensation is
granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the
Stewardship Agreement shall be allowed on such property. A methodology has been
adopted in the GMP for the calculation of credits based upon; 1) the Natural Resource
Index Value of the land being designated as an SSA, and 2) the number of land use layers
being eliminated.
1. Early Entry Bonus Credits. Early Entry Bonus Credits are hereby
established to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the District.
The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of
land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship
Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSC.
a. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the
effective date of the adoption of this LDC Amendment.
b. The early designation of SSAs and the resultant generation of
Stewardship Credits, do not require the establishment of SRAs or
otherwise require the early use of Credits.
c. Credits generated under the early entry bonus may be used after the
termination of the bonus period.
d. The maximum number of Credits that can be generated under the
bonus is 27,000.
e. Early Entry Bonus Credits shall not be transferred into or otherwise
used to entitle an SRA within the ACSC.
2. Credit Worksheet. A Stewardship Credit Worksheet, adopted as
Attachment"A"of the Growth Management Plan RLSA Goals, Objectives, and
Policies, sets out a mathematical formula for determining the number of credits
available for each acre of land being considered for an SSA.
3. Natural Resource Indices and Values. A set of Natural Resource
Indices has been established as part of the Stewardship Credit Worksheet. Each
Index listed below has a range of values based upon a qualitative or quantitative
measure developed during the RLSA Study.
a. Natural Resource Indices.
Stewardship Overlay Designation
Proximity Indices
Listed Species Habitat Indices
Soils/Surface Water Indices
t•—• Restoration Potential Indices
Land Use—Land Cover Indices
TAL#528002.1 6
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
b. Index Values. During the RLSA Study, based upon data and
analysis, each acre within the Overlay was assigned a value for each Index
except for the Restoration Potential Index. The Restoration Potential
Index is assigned during the SSA designation process if appropriate, and
credit adjustments are made at that time.
(1) Slough/Strand Index Score Upgrade. An index score
upgrade is hereby established as an incentive for the protection,
enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and
Camp Keais Strand. All lands within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs
that comprise the Slough or Strand that are not otherwise included in
a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6) that
a HSA receives, if such property is designated as a SSA and retains
only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers of land use.
c. Index Map. A Natural Resource Index Map adopted as a part of the
RLSA Overlay, indicates the Natural Resource Stewardship Index value
for all land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as SSAs,
will be based upon the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time
of designation. At the time of designation, the Natural Resource Index
Assessment required in Section 2.2.27.C.3. shall document any necessary
adjustments to the index values reflected on the Index Map. Any change
in the characteristics of land due to alteration of the land prior to the
establishment of a SSA that either increases or decreases any Index Factor
shall result in an adjustment of the factor values and a corresponding
adjustment in the credit value.
d. Restoration Potential Index. At the time of SSA designation, an
evaluation of the restoration potential of the land being designated shall be
performed by the applicant and submitted as part of the SSA Designation
Application Package. In the event that a restoration value should be
applied, the applicant will submit an appropriate value supported by
documentation to demonstrate the restoration potential of the lands
affected. The credit value of each acre to which the Restoration Potential
Index value is applied shall be recalculated.
e. Restoration Stewardship Credits. Restoration Stewardship Credits
are hereby established in addition to the Restoration Potential Index
Value. In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flowway or
habitat restoration such as locations where flowways have been
constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional
land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Restoration Stewardship
Credits shall be applied to an SSA subject to the following regulations:
(1) Priority shall be given to restoration within the Camp Keais
Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs. Land dedicated for restoration
activities within the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs
shall receive four additional Stewardship Credits for each acre of
land so dedicated.
TAL#528002.1 7
l
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
(2) Two additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each
acre of land dedicated for restoration activities within other FSAs
and HSAs. The following eligibility criteria shall be used in
evaluating an applicant's request for Restoration Stewardship
Credits:
(a) FSA and/or HSA lands where restoration would
substantially increase the width of flowway and/or habitat
corridors along the Okaloacoochee Slough;
(b) FSA and/or HSA lands where restoration would
substantially increase the width of flowway and/or habitat
corridors within two miles of existing public lands;
(c) Documentation of state or federal listed species on or
adjacent to a parcel;
(d) Lands that could be restored and managed to provide
habitats for specific listed species (e.g., gopher tortoise, Big
Cypress fox squirrel, red-cockaded woodpecker, etc.), and;
(e) Occurrence of a land parcel within foraging distance from
a wading bird rookery or other listed bird species colony,
where restoration and proper management could increase
foraging opportunities (e.g., wood storks);
(3) The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not
required for the owner to receive such credits referenced above, and
the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or
private entity undertaking the restoration.
(4) In the event an owner agrees to complete the restoration
improvements,four additional Restoration Stewardship Credits shall
be granted for each acre of restored land. The additional Restoration
Stewardship Credits shall be authorized at the time of SSA
designation, but shall not become available for transfer until such
time as it has been demonstrated that the restoration activities have
met applicable success criteria as determined by the permit agency
authorizing said restoration.
(5) Restoration Credit Agreement. Pursuant to Section
2.2.27.7.C.5. a Restoration Credit Agreement is required for the
designation of all SSAs involving the generation of additional
Restoration Stewardship Credits. The Agreement shall establish the
basis for the additional Stewardship Credits, and shall include, at
minimum, the following:
(a) Legal description with sketch or survey of the portion of
the SSA lands being designated that are eligible for the
Restoration Stewardship Credits.
TAL#528002.1 8
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
(b) Restoration Plan (only required when restoration projects
are undertaken by the landowner) that addresses, at a
minimum,the following elements;
(i) Description of the work to be performed;
(ii) Identification of the entity responsible for
performing the work;
(iii) Work Schedule;
(iv) Success Criteria;
(v) Maintenance and follow-up activities.
4. Land Use Layers to be Eliminated. A set of Land Use Layers has been
established as part of the Stewardship Credit Worksheet and adopted as the Land
Use Matrix—Attachment B to the Rural Stewardship Area Overlay Goals,
Objectives and Policies. Each layer incorporates a number of the permitted or
conditional uses allowed under the Baseline Standard. Each layer listed below has
an established credit value (percentage of a base credit) developed during the
RLSA Study.
At the time of designation application, a landowner wishing to have his/her land
designated as an SSA determines which of the land use layers are to be removed
from the designated lands. A land use layer can only be removed in its entirety
(all associated activities/land use are removed), and layers shall be removed
sequentially and cumulatively in the order listed below.
a. Land Use Layers.
1 -Residential Land Uses
2 - General Conditional Uses
3 -Earth Mining and Processing Uses
4 - Recreational Uses
5 -Agriculture— Group 1
6-Agriculture—Support Uses
7-Agriculture— Group 2
TAL#528002.1 9
i r
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay
Land Use Matrix
Conservation,
Residential Land General Conditional Earth Mining and Agriculture-Support Restoration and
Use (gseg lacesgjpp p;� R re yQp�l U g i ut to G ouo� Uses , gricys tireG ouo? NaturaLResource,
Single-family dwelling, Family care facilities Excavation,extraction Golf courses and/or Crop raising; Farm labor housing(A) Unimproved pasture Wildlife management,
incl.mobile home(P) (P) or earthmining and golf driving ranges horticulture;fruit and and grazing,forestry plant and wildlife
related processing and (CU) nut production;groves; (P) conservencies,refuges
production(CU) nurseries,improved and sanctuaries
pasture(P)
Mobile homes[(P)in Collection and transfer Asphaltic and concrete Sports instructional Animal breeding(other Retail sale of fresh, Ranching;livestock Water management,
MH Overlay;(A)as sites for resource batch making plants schools and camps than livestock),raising, unprocessed raising(P) groundwater recharge
temporary use] recovery(CU) (CU) (CU) training,stabling or agricultural products;
kenneling(P) grown primarily on the
property(A)
Private boathouses Veterinary clinic(CU) Sporting and Dairying;beekeeping; Retail plant nurseries Hunting cabins(CU) Restoration,mitigation
and docks on lake, recreational camps poultry and egg (CU)
canal or waterway lots (CU) production;milk
(A) production(P)
Recreational facilities Child care centers and Aquaculture for native Packinghouse or Cultural,educational, Water supply,
integral to residential adult day care centers species(P)and non- similar agricultural or recreational facilities wellfields;oil and gas
development,e.g.,golf (CU) native species(CU) processing of farm and their related exploration(P)
course,clubhouse, products produced on modes of transporting
community center the property(A) participants,viewers or
building and tennis
tour
facilities,parks, operations,op
such as,
playgrounds and but not limited to
playfields(A)
airboats,swamp
buggies,homes and
similar modes of
transportation(CU)
Guesthouses(A) Zoo,aquarium,aviary, The commercial Sawmills(CU) Excavation and related Boardwalks,nature
botanical garden,or production,raising or processing incidental to trails(P)
other similar uses(CU) breeding of exotic Ag(A)
animals(CU)
Churches and other Wholesale reptile Natural resources not
places of worship(CU) breeding and raising- otherwise listed
non-venomous(P)and
venomous(CU)
Communications Essential services(P
towers(P)(CU) and CU)
Social and fraternal
Oil and gas field
organizations(CU) development and
production(CU)
Private landing strips
for general aviation
(CU)
Cemeteries(CU)
Schools(CU)
Group care facilities,
ALF(CU)
Uses as listed in Collier County Land Development Code-Rural Agricultural District
(P) Prinicpal Use, (A)Accessory Use, (CU)Conditional Use
5. Matrix Calculation. The maximum number of credits is established in a
matrix calculation that multiplies each Natural Resource Index Value by the value
of each Land Use Layer, thereby establishing a credit value for each acre in the
Overlay, weighted by the quality of its natural resources.
As land use layers are removed, the sum of the percentages of those layers
removed is multiplied by the Natural Resource Indices Values to determine the
Stewardship Credits to be generated by each acre being designated as an SSA.
TAL#528002.1 10
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
C. SSA Designation Application Package. A request to designate lands(s) within
the RLSA Overlay as a SSA shall be made pursuant to the regulations of this Section. An
SSA Application Package shall include the following:
1. Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Designation Application. A
landowner or his/her agent, hereafter"applicant", shall submit a request for the
designation of SSA for lands within the RLSA Overlay to the Community
Development and Environmental Services Administrator or his designee, on an
approved application form. The application shall be accompanied by the
documentation as required by this Section.
2. Application Fee. An application fee shall accompany the application.
The County shall establish an application fee sufficient to pay all the costs
associated with County services necessary to process the application. Such fee
shall be established by Resolution pursuant to Board of County Commission
policy.
3. Natural Resource Index Assessment. The applicant shall prepare and
submit as part of the SSA Designation Application a report entitled Natural
Resource Index Assessment that documents the preliminary Natural Resource
Index Value scores. The Assessment shall include a summary analysis that
quantifies the number of acres by Index Values, the level of conservation being
proposed, and the resulting number of credits being generated.
The Assessment shall:
a. Verify that the preliminary Index Value scores are still valid;
b. Determine through field verification, documentation/certification, or
recent aerial photography or satellite imagery if there has been any
alteration to the land that would otherwise change the preliminary scoring
shown on the Index Map of the land being designated as an SSA;
c. Document through field verification, documentation/certification or
revised agency-approved mapping, or other documentation any evidence
to support an adjustment in the preliminary Index Value scoring;
d. Establish the suggested "Restoration Potential" Index Value for any
acres as appropriate. Provide evidence/documentation supporting the
suggested Index Value;
e. Quantify the acreage of agricultural lands, by type, being preserved;
f. Quantify the acreage of non-agricultural acreage, by type, being
preserved;
g. Quantify the acreage of all lands by type within the proposed SSA
that have an Index Value greater than 1.2, and;
h. Quantify all lands, by type, being designated as SSA within the
ACSC, if any.
4. Support Documentation. In addition, the following support
documentation shall be provided for each SSA being designated.
TAL#528002.1 11
i I
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
a. Legal Description, including sketch or survey;
b. Acreage calculations, e.g., acres of FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs, etc.,
being put into the SSA;
c. Stewardship Overlay Map delineating the area being designated as
an SSA;
d. Aerial photograph(s) having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200
feet when available from the county, otherwise, a scale of at least one inch
equal to 400 feet is acceptable, delineating the area being designated as an
SSA;
e. Natural Resource Index Map of area being designated as an SSA;
f. Florida Department of Transportation Florida Land Use Cover and
Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) map(s) delineating the area being
designated as an SSA on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch
equal to at least 200 feet when available from the county, otherwise, a
scale of at least one inch equal to 400 feet is acceptable;
g. Listed species occurrence map(s) from USFWS, FWC, or FNAI,
delineating the area being designated as an SSA;
h. USDA-NRCS Soils map(s) delineating the area being designated as
an SSA;
i. Documentation to support a change in the related Natural Resource
Index Value(s),if appropriate, and;
j. Stewardship Credit Calculation Table that quantifies the number of
acres by Index Values, the level of conservation being offered, and the
resulting number of credits being generated.
5. Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Credit Agreement. Any landowner
petitioning to have all or a portion of land owned within the RLSA designated as
a SSA and who is to obtain SSA credits for the land so designated shall enter into
a Stewardship Sending Area(SSA) Credit Agreement with the County. SSA
Credit Agreements entered into by and between a landowner and the County shall
contain the following:
a. The number of acres, and a legal description of all lands subject to
the SSA Credit Agreement;
b. A map, or plan (drawn at a scale of 1"= 200') of the land subject to
the agreement which depicts any lands designated Flowway Stewardship
Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas or Water Retention Areas, and the
acreage of lands so designated;
c. A narrative description of all land uses, including conditional uses, if
any, that shall be removed from the land upon approval of the SSA Credit
Agreement;
TAL#528002.1 12
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
d. A Natural Resource Index Assessment worksheet for the land subject
to the Agreement and the total number of SSA credits that result from the
Natural Resource Index Assessment;
e. A copy of the Stewardship Easement, (or deed if a fee simple
transfer is proposed) applicable to the land, which shall be granted in
perpetuity and shall be recorded by the County upon approval of the SSA
Credit Agreement;
f. If there are lands described in the Agreement on which
"conservation" is the only remaining land use, a Natural Resource
Management Plan shall be included in the Agreement, which shall be
applicable only to lands where "conservation" is the only remaining land
use;
g. If applicable, the number of credits for restoration (Restoration
Credits) to be granted by the Agreement. Restoration of SSA lands, either
by designating land for restoration or by implementing restoration plans
pursuant to a Restoration Plan, is only applicable when restoration credits
are sought by the Applicant, and only under the following circumstances:
(1) Lands designated "Restoration" shall be legally described and
shall be depicted as either Restoration I ("R-I") or Restoration II ("R-
II") on the map or plan depicting all SSA lands subject to the SSA
Credit Agreement.
(2) A Restoration Agreement is included as an exhibit to the SSA
Agreement, which shall contain the following:
(a) A legal description of lands to be designated for
restoration and for which the Restoration Credits are to be
awarded in accordance with the following:
(i) Restoration Credits for lands identified as "R-I" on
the map of SSA lands shall be awarded for the
designation of lands for which restoration efforts or
activities may be carried out at some time in the future,
but there has been no commitment by the Applicant.
(ii) Additional Restoration Credits for lands identified
as "R-II" on the map of SSA lands shall be awarded when
the owner of the land, or an identified person or entity,
has agreed to implement and carry out a restoration plan
which has been or will be approved by the County for the
SSA lands designated "R-II".
(aa) For any SSA lands designated "R-II", an
acknowledgement by the public or private entity
that will be responsible for carrying out restoration
that it accepts and will carry out the Restoration
Plan;
TAL#528002.1 13
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
(bb) A Restoration Plan describing the
restoration activities and responsibilities, the
success criteria, and time period for carrying out the
restoration plan on lands designated R-II;
(cc) The number of restoration credits to be
granted for lands designated "R-I" and "R-II" within
the SSA lands.
h. Provisions requiring that, upon designation of land as an SSA, the
owner shall not seek or request, and the County shall not grant or approve,
any increase in density or intensity of any peunitted uses remaining on the
SSA lands, or any additional uses beyond those specified in the SSA
Credit Agreement on the land;
i. Provisions regarding and ensuring the enforceability of the SSA
Credit Agreement.
6. Public Hearing for Credit Agreement. A SSA Credit Agreement shall
be approved by the County by resolution at an advertised public meeting by
majority vote of the Commission.
7. Recording of Agreement. Following approval by the County a
Memorandum shall be prepared with the following portions or exhibits of the
SSA Credit Agreement as attachments. The Memorandum and attachments shall
be recorded in the public records:
a. the legal description of the lands subject to the SSA Credit
Agreement and the number of SSA Credits assigned to the land designated
as SSA;
b. the Stewardship Easement on the SSA lands, describing the land
uses remaining on the land;
c. the Restoration Agreement, if any for land within the SSA.
8. Restoration Plan (only required when restoration projects are
undertaken by the landowner). In the event that additional credits are granted
for a restoration project to be undertaken at the landowners expense, a Restoration
Plan shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant to document the conditions
of the restoration project and the parameters or measures by which the applicant
can demonstrate that the restoration project has met applicable success criteria as
determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration.
9. Stewardship Easement Agreement or Deed in the instance of a fee
simple title transfer. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a Stewardship
Easement Agreement in all cases except when the property is being deeded in fee
simple to a "conservation/preservation agency". The Agreement shall incorporate
a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement that shall be recorded for each SSA,
shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County, Department of
Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust.
The Stewardship Easement Agreement shall identify the specific land
TAL#528002.1 14
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such
measures. In the event that all land use layers are removed from the SSA (leaving
only "conservation_'_)._the applicant_shall_prepare and submit as part of.the
Agreement a Natural Resources Management Plan as provided for below. In the
event that the land being designated as an SSA is being transferred to a
conservation entity by fee simple title, a Deed shall be submitted in lieu of the
Stewardship Easement Agreement. In such a case, the development of the
Natural Resources Management Plan shall be the responsibility of the receiving
entity, and shall not be required to be part of the SSA Designation Application
Package.
10. Natural Resource Management Plan. A Natural Resource Management
Plan is required in all cases where the only remaining use of the property is
conservation. To the extent appropriate, the following elements should be
included in a Natural Resource Management Plan:
a. Identify the existing and/or potential conservation value(s) of the
land being included in the SSA;
b. Identify the objectives of the Stewardship proposal and the benefits
it will produce;
c. Include a Work Program incorporating:
(1) Initial work needed, if appropriate (Immediate Action Plan);
(2) Long-Term Maintenance Plan;
(3) Restoration Plan (if appropriate);
(4) Work schedule or timeline;
(5) Location, area and quantity of work to be included, and;
(6) Monitoring Program.
d. Identification of responsible parties/agencies in implementing the
Natural Resource Management Plan, and if other than the Applicant, the
implementing agencies/parties agree to the implementation.
D. SSA Application Review Process
1. Pre-application Conference with County Staff. Prior to the submission
of a formal application for SSA designation, the applicant shall attend a pre-
application conference with the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator or his designee and other county staff, agencies, and
officials involved in the review and processing of such applications and related
materials. If an SRA designation application is to be filed concurrent with an
SSA application, one pre-application conference shall be required. This pre-
application conference should address, but not be limited to, such matters as:
a. Conformity of the proposed SSA with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the growth management plan;
TAL#528002.1 15
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
b. Review of the Stewardship Credit Worksheet and Natural Resource
Index Assessment for the property;
c. Identification of the recognized entity to be named in the covenant or
perpetual restrictive easement, and;
d. Identification of the proposed land management measures that will
be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures.
2. Application Package Submittal and Processing Fees. The required
number of copies of each SSA Application and the associated processing fee shall
be submitted to the Community Development and Environmental Services
Administrator or his designee. The contents of said application package shall be
in accordance with Section 2.2.27.7.C.
3. Application Deemed Sufficient for Review. Within ten (10) working
days of receipt of the SSA Application, the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator or his designee shall deem the application
complete and sufficient for agency review or advise the applicant in writing of
additional information needed to find the application sufficient. If required, the
applicant shall submit additional information. Within ten (10) working days of
receipt of the additional information, the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator or his designee shall deem the application
complete, or, if additional or revised information is required, the Administrator
shall again inform the applicant in writing of information needed, and the
timeframe outlined herein shall occur until the application is found sufficient for
review.
4. Review by County Reviewing Agencies: Once the SSA application is
deemed sufficient, the Administrator or his designee will distribute it to specific
County review staff, and their reviews will encompass the following:
a. Natural Resources:
(1) Review Natural Resources Index Assessment
(2) Evaluate suggested restoration potential index value
(3) Evaluate request for additional restoration credits, if applicable
(4) Review Natural Resource Management Plan
(5) Review Stewardship Easement Agreement
(6) Review Restoration Credit Agreement, if provided
b. Planning:
(1) Review sketch and legal description(s)
(2) Review Stewardship Credits Database
(3) Review Zoning Atlas
(4) Review Stewardship Overlay Map
(5) Review SSA Credit Agreement
(6) Review Restoration Credit Agreement, if provided
c. Legal(County Attorney):
(1) Review Stewardship Easement Agreement
TAL#528002.1 16
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
(2) Review SSA Credit Agreement
(3) Review Restoration Credit Agreement, if provided
5. Staff Review. Within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of a sufficient
application, county staff shall review the submittal documents and provide
comments, questions, and clarification items to the applicant. If deemed
necessary by county staff or the applicant, a meeting shall be held to resolve
outstanding issues and confirm public hearing dates.
6. Staff Report. Within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of staff
review, county staff shall prepare a report containing their review findings and a
recommendation of approval, approval with conditions or denial. This timeframe
may be extended upon written agreement by the applicant.
E. SSA Application Approval Process
1. Public Hearing. The Board of County Commissioners shall hold an
advertised public hearing on the proposed resolution approving an SSA
Application and SSA Credit Agreement. Notice of the Board's intention to
consider the Application and proposed SSA Credit Agreement shall be given at
least fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the County. A copy of such notice shall be kept available
for public inspection during regular business hours of the Office of Clerk to the
Board of County Commissioners. The notice of proposed enactment shall state
the date, time and place of the meeting, the title of the proposed resolution, and
the place or places within the County where the proposed resolution and
agreement may be inspected by the public. The notice shall provide a general
legal description of the affected land and shall advise that interested parties may
appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed resolution.
2. Legal Description. Following the Board's approval of the SSA
Application and SSA Credit Agreement, a legal description of the land designated
Stewardship Sending Area, the SSA credits granted, and the Stewardship
easement applicable to such lands, shall be provided to the property appraiser and
the Applicant and shall be recorded within 30 days by the Applicant in the public
records.
3. Update Stewardship Credits Database. Following the approval of the
SSA Designation Application, the County shall update the Stewardship Credits
Database used to track both SSA credits generated and SRA credits consumed.
4. Update the Stewardship Overlay Map. Following the approval of the
SSA Designation Application, the County shall update the Stewardship Overlay
Map to reflect the designation of the SSA. Sufficient information shall be
included on the updated maps so as to direct interested parties to the appropriate
public records associated with the designation, e.g., Resolution number, SSA
Designation Application number, etc.
F. SSA Amendments. Collier County shall consider an amendment to an approved
SSA in the same manner as described in this Section for the establishment of a SSA.
Amendment(s) to approved SSAs shall only be considered if the application removes one
TAL#528002.1 17
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
or more additional land use layers from the existing SSA. Under no circumstances shall
land use layers, once removed as part of an SSA designation, be added back to the SSA.
The application to amend the SSA may be submitted as part of an application to
designate a new SSA provided such lands are contiguous to the previously approved SSA
and are under the same ownership.
2.2.27.8. Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Designation. SRA designation is intended to
encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic
base of the RLSA, and encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques
and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the
establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Land uses are entitled within SRAs
through the transfer of Stewardship Credits generated from SSAs. Stewardship Credits are
exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA on a per acre basis
as set forth herein. Density and intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be
increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit
System, the Affordable Housing Density Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of
the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth
herein. Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability
criteria and standards set forth herein. Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of
a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approving the
petition by the property owner seeking such designation. Any change in the residential density
or non-residential intensity of land use on a parcel of land located within a SRA shall be
specified in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits assigned to the
parcel of land.
A. Lands Within the Overlay that can be Designated as SRAs. All privately
owned lands within the RLSA Overlay that meet the suitability criteria contained herein
may be designated as SRA, except lands delineated on the Overlay Map as FSA, HSA, or
WRA, or lands already designated as an SSA. WRAs may be located within the
boundaries of an SRA and may be incorporated into a SRA Master Plan to provide water
management functions for properties within such SRA, subject to all necessary permitting
requirements.
1. Suitability Criteria. The following suitability criteria are established to
ensure consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the RLSA Overlay.
a. A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the
planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner.
b. Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group
housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service
uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural
Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
c. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential
services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and
for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural
Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
TAL#528002.1 18
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
d. Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of
the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs
exceeding 100 acres.
e. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of
greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space.
f. As an incentive to encourage open space, such lands within a SRA
located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent
shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits.
g. An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach
into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Section
2.2.27.8.J.6.h. A SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA.
h. The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or
arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that
has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in
accordance with accepted transportation planning standards.
2. SRAs Within the ACSC. SRAs are permitted within the ACSC subject
to the number, size, location, and form of SRA described herein. Nothing within
this Section shall be construed as an exemption of an SRA from any and all
limitations and regulations applicable to lands within the ACSC. Lands within
the ACSC that meet all SRA suitability criteria shall also be restricted such that
''••., credits used to entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from
SSAs within the ACSC. No early entry bonus credits can be used to entitle an
SRA within the ACSC.
a. The Hamlet form of SRA is permitted within the ACSC subject to
the limitations below.
b. The Village form of SRA is permitted within the ACSC subject to
the limitations below.
c. The only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the
Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets and CRDs of 100 acres or less
and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the
Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Villages and CRDs of not more than 300
acres and Hamlets. Provided, however, that two Villages or CRDs of not
more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the
effective date of this amendment as a result of mining operations, shall be
allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of the
effective date of the RLSA Overly, had been predominantly cleared as a
result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses.
d. The Town form of a SRA shall not be located within the ACSC.
B. Stewardship Credit Entitlement. The procedures for the establishment and
transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein. Stewardship Credits will be
exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA on a per
TAL#528002.1 19
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
acre basis, as described in Section 2.2.27.8.B.2. Stewardship density and intensity will
thereafter differ from the Baseline Standards.
1. Transfer of Credits. The transfer or use of Stewardship Credits shall
only be in a manner as provided for herein.
a. Stewardship Credits generated from any SSA may be transferred to
entitle any SRA, except where the SRA is within the ACSC, in which case
only Stewardship Credits that have been generated from an SSA within
the ACSC can be used to entitle such SRA. No early entry bonus credits
can be used to entitle an SRA within the ACSC.
b. Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet
the defined suitability criteria and standards set forth herein.
c. Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different parcels or
within a single parcel, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions
of these policies. Residential clustering shall only occur within the RLSA
through the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of
residential clustering shall not be permitted.
d. Stewardship Credits may be acquired from any credit holder and
transferred to an SRA subject to the limitations contained in this Section.
e. Stewardship Credits may be acquired from a Stewardship Credit
Trust established pursuant to Section 2.2.27.4., and transferred to an SRA
subject to the limitations contained in this Section.
2. Stewardship Credit Exchange. Stewardship Credits will be exchanged
for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA on a per acre
basis at a rate of eight (8) Stewardship Credits per gross acre of entitled land,
subject to exceptions and exclusions contained herein.
a. Open Spaces. Lands within an SRA greater than one acre with
Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space. Any such
lands within a SRA located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required
thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits.
3. Public Benefit Uses. The acreage within an SRA devoted to a public
benefit use shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. For the purpose
of this Section, public benefit uses are limited to public schools (preK-12) and
public or private post secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community
parks exceeding the minimum requirement of 200 square feet per dwelling unit;
municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities excluding
essential services as defined in the LDC.
4. Mixed Land Use Entitlements. In order to promote compact, mixed use
development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents
of rural areas, the SRA designation and the transfer of the Stewardship Credits
entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix
of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA. SRAs are
intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by
TAL#528002.1 20
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2,
4.7.3, 4.7.4 and RLSA Overlay Attachment C. Depending on the size, scale, and
character of a SRA, it should be designed to include an appropriate mix of retail,
office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses, in addition to
residential uses.
C. Forms of SRAs Entitlements. Stewardship Receiving Areas shall be designed to
accommodate and promote uses that utilize creative land use planning techniques and
Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative planning and flexible
development strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 (11),F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1).
These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite
communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-
use development that minimize the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other
uses while discouraging urban sprawl, protecting environmentally sensitive areas,
maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land
uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Four
specific forms of rural development in SRAs are permitted within the District.
1. Towns. Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full
range of housing types and mix of uses. Towns have urban level services and
infrastructure which support development that is compact, mixed use, human
scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase
livability. Towns shall be not less than 1,000 acres or more than 4,000 acres and
,.� are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual
identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve
as a focal point for community facilities and support services. Towns shall be
designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an
interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential
neighborhoods. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum
size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns shall also have
parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both
community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided
in Section 2.2.27.8.J.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate
office and light industrial uses as those permitted in the Business preferred
location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks
shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational
facilities.
a. Towns not permitted in ACSC. Towns shall not be located within
the ACSC.
2. Villages. Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity
of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the
particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000
acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a
mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support
services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system
serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green
TAL#528002.1 21
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
""*N spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail
and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Section 2.2.27.8.J.1. Villages are an
appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools
and parks shall be locatedadjacentto eachotherto allow for the sharing of
recreational facilities.
a. Villages within the ACSC. The Village form of rural land
development is permitted within the ACSC subject to the limitations of
Section 2.2.27.8.A.2.
3. Hamlets. Hamlets are small rural residential areas with primarily single-
family housing and limited range of convenience-oriented services. Hamlets shall
be not less than 40 or more then 100 acres. Hamlets will serve as a more compact
alternative to traditional five-acre lot rural subsections currently allowed in the
baseline standards. Hamlets shall have a public green space for neighborhoods.
Hamlets include convenience retail uses, in a ratio as provided in Section
2.2.27.8.J.1. Hamlets may be an appropriate location for pre-K through
elementary schools.
a. Size and numbers of Hamlets limited. In order to maintain a
proportion of Hamlets to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 Hamlets, in
combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less,may be approved as SRAs
prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5
additional Hamlets,in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may
n be approved for each subsequent Village or Town.
b. Hamlets within the ACSC. The Hamlet form of rural land
development is permitted within the ACSC subject to the limitations of
Section 2.2.27.8.A.2.
4. Compact Rural Developments (CRDs). Compact Rural Development
(CRD)is a form of SRA that will provide flexibility with respect to the mix of
uses and design standards, but shall otherwise comply with the standards of a
Hamlet or Village. A CRD may include, but is not required to have permanent
residential housing and the services and facilities that support permanent
residents. Except as described above, a CRD will conform to the characteristics
of a Village or Hamlet as set forth in Section 2.2.27.8.J.1. based on the size of the
CRD. As residential units are not a required use, those goods and services that
support residents such as retail, office, civic, governmental and institutional uses
shall also not be required, however for any CRD that does include permanent
residential housing, the proportionate support services listed above shall be
provided in accordance with the standards for the most comparable form of SRA
as described in Section 2.2.27.8.J.
a. Size and numbers of CRDs limited. In order to maintain a
proportion of CRDs of 100 acres or less to Villages and Towns, not more
than 5 CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with Hamlets, may be
approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and
thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs of 100 acres or less, in
combination with Hamlets, may be approved for each subsequent Village
TAL#528002.1 22
•
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
or Town. There shall be no more than 5 CRDs of more than 100 acres in
size.
b. CRDs within the ACSC. The CRD form of rural land development
is permitted within the ACSC subject to the limitations of Section
2.2.27.8.A.2.
5. SRAs as Part of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). SRAs are
permitted as part of a DRI subject to the provisions of Chapter 380.06 and this
Section.
a. An SRA Designation Application may be submitted simultaneously
with a Preliminary Development Agreement application that occurs prior
to a DRI Application for Development Approval (ADA).
b. The PDA and DRI ADA submittal requirements shall constitute
compliance with the Impact Assessment and Economic Assessment
requirements of this Section.
c. The DRI may encompass more than a single SRA Designation
Application. It is the intent of this Section to allow for the future
designations of SRAs within a DRI as demonstrated by the DRI phasing
schedule.
d. Although the entitlement of the entire DRI is not required as a
prerequisite to the DRI's approval, a DRI applicant is required to
demonstrate that;
(1) he/she has the necessary Stewardship Credits to entitle the DRI
as part of subsequent SRA Designation Applications, or;
(2) owns or has a contract with an owner of enough land that
would qualify as SSAs to entitle the DRI as part of subsequent SRA
Designation Applications, or has the ability to obtain the necessary
Stewardship Credits to entitle the entire DRI as part of subsequent
SRA Designation Applications.
D. SRA Designation Application Package. A Designation Application Package to
support a request to designate lands(s) within the RLSA Overlay as a SSA shall be made
pursuant to the regulations of this Section. A SSA Application Package shall include the
follow:
1. Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Designation Application. An
application shall be submitted by a landowner or his/her agent, hereafter
"applicant", to request the designation of SRA for lands within the RLSA
Overlay. The Application shall be submitted to the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator or his designee, on a form provided. The
application shall be accompanied by the documentation as required by this
Section.
2. Application Fee. A fee shall accompany the application. The
Administrator shall establish a reasonable application fee to pay for the costs
associated with the County services needed to process the application. Such fee
TAL#528002.1 23
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
shall be established by Resolution pursuant to Board of County Commission
policy.
3. Natural Resource Index Assessment. An Assessment that documents
the preliminary Natural Resource Index Value scores shall be prepared and
submitted as part of the SRA Application for Designation. The Assessment shall
include, a summary analysis that quantifies the number of acres by Index Values.
The purpose of the Assessment is to:
a. Document the preliminary Natural Resource Index Value scores (see
Support Documentation below) and identify all lands within the proposed
SRA that have an Index Value greater than 1.2;
b. Verify that the preliminary Index Value scores are still valid;
c. Determine through field verification, documentation/certification, or
recent aerial photography or satellite imagery if there has been any
alteration to the land that would otherwise change the preliminary scoring
shown on the Index Map of the land being designated as an SRA;
d. Document through field verification, documentation/certification or
revised agency-approved mapping, or other documentation any evidence
to support an adjustment in the preliminary Index Value scoring;
e. Quantify the acreage of agricultural lands, by type, being converted;
f. Quantify the acreage of non-agricultural acreage, by type, being
converted;
g. Quantify the acreage of all lands by type within the proposed SRA
that have an Index Value greater than 1.2;
h. Quantify the acreage of all lands, by type, being designated as SRA
within the ACSC, if any, and;
i. Demonstrate compliance with the Suitability Criteria contained in
Section 2.2.27.8.A.1.
4. SRA Designation Application Support Documentation. Documentation
to support the application shall be provided for each SRA being designated, to
include:
a. Legal Description, including sketch or survey;
b. Acreage calculations of lands being put into the SRA, including
acreage calculations of WRAs (if any) within SRA boundary but not
included in SRA designation;
c. Stewardship Overlay Map delineating the area being designated as
an SRA;
d. Aerial photograph delineating the area being designated as an SRA;
e. Natural Resource Index Map of area being designated as an SRA;
f. FLUCCS map(s) delineating the area being designated as an SRA;
TAL#528002.1 24
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
g. Listed species map(s) delineating the area being designated as an
SRA;
h. _ Soils map(s) delineating the area being designated as an SRA, and;
i. Documentation to support a change in the related Natural Resource
Index Value(s), if appropriate.
5. SRA Master Plan. A Master Plan shall be prepared and submitted by the
applicant as part of the SRA Application for Designation of a SRA. The SRA
Master Plan shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 2.2.27.8.I.
6. SRA Development Document. A Development Document shall be
prepared and submitted by the applicant as part of the SRA Application for
Designation of a SRA. The SRA Development Document shall be consistent with
the requirements of Section 2.2.7.8.11.
7. SRA Impact Assessment Report. An Impact Assessment Report shall be
prepared and submitted by the applicant as part of the SRA Application for
Designation a of SRA. The SRA Impact Assessment Report shall address the
requirements of Section 2.2.27.8.K. For SRAs that are part of a DRI, the DRI
Application for Development Approval (ADA)pursuant to Chapter 380.06, F.S.
shall be sufficient to meet the requirements of this Section.
8. SRA Economic Assessment Report. An Economic Assessment Report
shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant as part of the SRA Application
n for Designation of a SRA. The SRA Economic Assessment Report shall address
the requirements of Section 2.2.27.8.L. For SRAs that are part of a DRI, the DRI
Application for Development Approval (ADA)pursuant to Chapter 380.06, F.S.
shall be sufficient to meet the requirements of this Section.
9. Stewardship Credit Use and Reconciliation Application. A Credit Use
and Reconciliation Application shall be submitted as part of a SRA Designation
Application in order to track the transfer of credits from SSA(s) to SRA(s). The
Stewardship Credit Use and Reconciliation Application shall be in a form
provided by the Community Development Services Administrator, or his
designee. The application package shall contain the following:
a. The legal description of, or descriptive reference to, the SRA to
which the Stewardship Credits are being transferred;
b. Total number of acres within the SRA being entitled and the total
number of acres of the SRA within the ACSC (if any);
c. Number of acres within the SRA designated "public use"that do not
require the redemption of Stewardship Credits in order to be entitled (does
not consume credits);
d. Number of acres of"excess" open spaces within the SRA that does
not consume credits;
,.—\ e. Number of acres of WRAs inside the SRA boundary but not
included in the SRA designation;
TAL#528002.1 25
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
f. Number of acres within the SRA that consume credits in order to
entitle the SRA;
g. The number of Stewardship Credits being transferred (consumed) in
exchange for the entitlements; 1
h. acres entitled X 8 Credits/acre=_Credits to be transferred
(consumed);
i. A descriptive reference to one or more approved or pending SSA
Designation Applications from which the Stewardship Credits are being
obtained. Copies of the reference documents, e.g., SSA Stewardship
Credit Agreement, etc., should be provided. Documentation as to the
source of the Stewardship Credits to be used to entitle the SRA including:
(1) SSA application number;
(2) Pending companion SRA application number;
(3) SSA Designation Resolution (or Resolution Number);
(4) SSA Credit Agreement (Stewardship Agreement);
(5) Stewardship Credits Database Report.
j. A descriptive reference to any previously approved Stewardship
Credit Use and Reconciliation Applications that pertain to the referenced
SSA(s) from which the Stewardship Credits are being obtained, and;
k. A summary table in a form provided by Collier County that
identifies the exchange of all Stewardship Credits that involve the SRA
and all of the associated SSAs from which the Stewardship Credits are
being obtained.
(1) If at the time of the approval of the SRA Designation
Application the applicant has not acquired the number of credits
needed to entitle the SRA, the applicant shall have 60 calendar days
from the date of the approval to provide the required number of
Stewardship Credits. The Stewardship Credit Use and
Reconciliation Application shall be amended to accurately reflect the
transfer of credits that occurred following the conditional approval of
the SRA.
10. Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Agreement.
a. Any applicant for designation of a SRA shall enter into a SRA Credit
Agreement with the County which shall become effective and final upon
the County's approval of the SRA application and the assignment of the
credits specified in the SRA Credit Agreement.
b. The SRA Credit Agreement shall specify the number of Stewardship
Sending Area credits the applicant for a SRA designation is utilizing,
which credits shall be applied to the SRA land in order to carry out the
plan of development on the acreage proposed in the SRA Development
TAL#528002.1 26
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
Documents. In addition, the SRA Credit Agreement shall contain the
following:
(1) Alegal description of the.SRA land and the number of acres; _
(2) A master plan depicting the land uses within the SRA and
identifying the number of residential dwelling units, gross leaseable
area of retail and office square footage and other land uses depicted
on the plan;
(3) A description of the SSA credits that are needed to entitle the
SRA land, the anticipated source of said credits;
(4) The applicant's understanding and agreement that development
of SRA land may not commence until the applicant has assigned said
credits as needed to proceed with the SRA development. A credit
assignment, or assignments of sufficient credits to the applicant
from SSA lands must be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of
Court prior to commencement of any development on SRA lands,
and;
(5) The applicant's commitments, if any, regarding conservation,
or any other restriction on development on any lands, including
wetlands, within the SRA, as may be depicted on the SRA Master
Plan for special treatment.
c. If the development plan for a SRA constitutes, or will constitute, a
development of regional impact ("DRI") pursuant to Sections 380.06 and
380.0651, F.S., and if the applicant has obtained a preliminary
development agreement ("PDA") from the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for a portion of the SRA land, the applicant shall be
entitled to request the County to enter into a Preliminary SRA Credit
Agreement that contains the following terms and conditions:
(1) The number of preliminary SRA credits that the applicant must
purchase or obtain and that shall be assigned to the preliminary SRA
land in conjunction with the County's development approval for that
portion of the SRA land constituting the PDA land. The credits
required shall not exceed the credits needed in order to develop the
PDA authorized development located on the preliminary SRA land;
(2) The applicant's understanding and agreement that development
of the PDA land may not commence until the applicant has assigned
the SSA credits needed to proceed with the preliminary SRA
development;
(3) The applicant's agreement and understanding that assignment
of the preliminary SRA credits required by the agreement must be
made to the County within 60 days from the County's adoption of a
resolution approving the preliminary SRA Credit Agreement, or the
County's approval shall be null and void;
TAL#528002.1 27
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
(4) That the County's approval of a preliminary SRA Credit
Agreement does not in any way entitle the applicant to any
additional SRA designation, or establish any "vested rights" to
obtain further SRA approval, or in any way affect the County's right
to approve, deny, or approve with conditions a SRA Credit
Agreement for the future DRI and SRA applications that the
applicant will file at a later date;
(5) A provision requiring that the Preliminary SRA Credit
Agreement shall remain in effect until it is superceded by a SRA
Credit Agreement covering the entire SRA designated land,
including the PDA development, which constitutes a DRI;
(6) The County's determination that the proposed preliminary SRA
development as described in the PDA, will be located on land that is
suitable for the development described in the plan of development,
and is consistent with the Collier County GMP and shall be carried
out in compliance with the pertinent provisions of the Land
Development Code, and;
(7) The applicant's statement that a larger SRA will constitute a
DRI and terms specifying reasonable dates for the filing of a DRI
Application for Development Approval pursuant to Section 380.06
F.S. for the SRA.
E. SRA Application Review Process
1. Pre-Application Conference with County Staff: Prior to the submission
of a formal application for SRA designation, the applicant shall attend a pre-
application conference with the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator or his designee and other county staff, agencies, and
officials involved in the review and processing of such applications and related
materials. If an SRA designation application will be filed concurrent with an SSA
application, one pre-application conference shall be required. This pre-
application conference should address, but not be limited to, such matters as:
a. Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the growth management plan;
b. Consideration of suitability criteria described in Section
2.2.27.8.A.1. and other standards of this Section;
c. Assurance of compact, mixed-use, and self sufficient development;
d. SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the
Overlay District, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are
directed away from FSA's, HSA's, and WRA's;
e. Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient
stewardship credit to implement the SRA uses, and;
TAL#528002.1 28
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
f. Consideration of impacts, including environmental and public
infrastructure impacts.
2. Application Package Submittal and Processing Fees. The required
number of SRA Applications and the associated processing fee shall be submitted
to the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator or his
designee. The contents of said application package shall be in accordance with
Section 2.2.27.8.D.
3. Application Deemed Sufficient for Review. Within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of the SRA Application, the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator or his designee shall deem the application
complete and sufficient for agency review or provide the applicant in writing of
additional information needed to find the application sufficient. If required, the
applicant shall submit additional information. Within twenty (20) calendar days
of receipt of the additional information, the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator or his designee shall deem the application
complete, or, if additional or revised information is required, the Administrator
shall again inform the applicant in writing of information needed, and the
timeframe outlined herein shall occur until the application is found sufficient for
review.
4. Review by County Reviewing Agencies: Once the SRA application is
deemed sufficient, the Administrator or his designee will distribute it to specific
County review staff, and their reviews will encompass the following:
a. Natural Resources:
(1) Review Natural Resources Index Assessment
(2) Evaluate request(s) to change the preliminary Natural Resource
Index Values, if any.
(3) Review SRA Master Plan (includes layout plan and
development document)
b. Planning:
(1) Review sketch and legal description(s)
(2) Review SRA Master Plan
(3) Review Development Document
(4) Review SRA Impact Assessment Report
(5) Review SRA Economic Assessment Report
(6) Review Stewardship Credit Use and Reconciliation
Application
(7) Review Stewardship Credits Database
(8) Review Zoning Atlas
TAL#528002.1 29
S f
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
°'1 (9) Review Stewardship Overlay Map
(10) Review SRA Credit Agreement
c. Legal(County Attorney):
(1) Review Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Agreement
(2) Review Development Document
5. Staff Review. Within sixty(60) calendar days of receipt of a sufficient
application, county staff shall review the submittal documents and provide
comments, questions, and clarification items to the applicant. If deemed
necessary by county staff or the applicant, a meeting shall be held to resolve
outstanding issues and confirm public hearing dates.
6. Staff Report. Within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of staff
review, county staff shall prepare a report containing their review findings and a
recommendation of approval, approval with conditions or denial. This timeframe
may be extended upon agreement of county staff and the applicant.
F. SRA Application Approval Process.
1. Public Hearings Required. The Board of County Commissions shall
review the staff report and recommendations and the recommendations of the
CCPC and the Board shall,by resolution, approve, deny, or approve with
conditions the Application for Designation of Stewardship Receiving Areas only
after advertised public notices have been provided and public hearings held in
accordance with the following provisions:
a. Public Hearing Before the CCPC,Recommendation to BCC.
The Collier County Planning Commission shall hold one advertised public
hearing on the proposed resolution to designate a Stewardship Receiving
Area. A notice of the public hearing before the CCPC on the proposed
resolution, which contains the information specified in 2.2.27.8.D.4.
above, shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
County at least fifteen days in advance of the public hearing.
b. Public Hearing Before the BCC,Resolution Approved. The
Board of County Commissioners shall hold one advertised public hearing
on the proposed resolution to designate a Stewardship Receiving Area. A
public notice containing the information specified in 2.2.27.8.D.4. shall be
given to the citizens of Collier County by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the County at least ten days prior to the meeting of
the BCC. The advertised public notice of the proposed adoption of the
resolution shall in addition contain the date, time and place of the meeting,
the title of the proposed resolution and the place within the County where
such proposed resolution may be inspected by the public. The notice shall
also advise that interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard
with respect to the proposed resolution.
2. Effective Date of SRA Designation. The SRA designation approval shall
not become effective until an assignment of County-approved credits to be
TAL#528002.1 30
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
removed from designated SSA lands has been executed by the owner of the
credits assigning such credits to the applicant for SRA designation. The SSA
Credit Agreement shall contain the number of credits assigned. The assignment
of SSA credits shall be presented to the County and recorded in the public records
of Collier County by the applicant, whereupon the SRA designation and approval
by the BCC shall become effective. The Applicant's failure to present the
assignment of SSA credits to the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator within sixty days following the BCC's action approving or
approving with conditions the SRA Application shall cause the SRA approval to
become null and void. Upon assignment of the credits by the County to the SRA,
it shall become effective and the SRA project shall be vested for the development,
pursuant to the development criteria specified in the SRA Master Plan and SRA
Development Document.
3. Update Stewardship Credits Database. Following the approval of the
SRA Designation Application, the County shall update the Stewardship Credits
Database used to track both SSA credits generated and SRA credits consumed.
4. Update the Zoning Atlas and the Overlay Map. Following the approval
of the SRA Designation Application, the County shall update the Zoning Atlas
and Stewardship Overlay Map to reflect the designation of the SRA. Sufficient
information shall be included on the updated maps so as to direct interested
parties to the appropriate public records associated with the designation, e.g.,
Resolution number, SRA Designation Application number, etc.
5. SRA Amendments. Amendments to the SRA shall be considered in the
same manner as described in this Section for the establishment of a SRA. All
other amendments to a SRA shall require Board of County Commission approval
as required by Section 2.2.27.8.F.
a. Waiver of Required SRA Application Package Component(s). A
waiver may be granted by the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator or his designee, if at the time of the
pre-application conference, in the determination of the Administrator, the
original SRA Designation Application component(s) is(are) not materially
altered by the amendment or an updated component is not needed to
evaluate the amendment. The Administrator shall detelinine what
application components and associated documentation are required in
order to adequately evaluate the amendment request.
b. The Community Development and Environmental Services
Administrator shall be authorized to approve minor changes and refinements
to a SRA Master Plan or Development Document upon written request of
the developer. The following limitations shall apply to such requests:
(1) The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the
Rural Lands Overlay and the SRA Development Document's
amendment provisions.
TAL#528002.1 31
- I
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
(2) The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with
adjacent land uses and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting
land uses,water management facilities, and conservation areas within
or external to the SRA:__
c. The following shall be deemed minor changes or refinements:
(1) Reconfiguration of lakes,ponds, canals, or other water
management facilities where such changes are consistent with the
criteria of the South Florida Water Management District and Collier
County;
(2) Internal realignment of rights-of-way, other than a relocation of
access points to the SRA itself, where water management facility,
preservation areas,or required easements are not adversely affected or
otherwise provided for;
(3) Reconfiguration of parcels when there is no encroachment into
the conservation areas or lands with an Index Value of 1.2 or higher,
and;
(4) Changes in the Design Criteria that do not,in the opinion of the
Administrator, alter the functional integrity of the regulatory standards
imposed in the Development Document.
d. Minor changes and refinements as described above shall be reviewed
by appropriate Collier County Staff to ensure that said changes and
refinements are otherwise in compliance with all applicable County
ordinances and regulations prior to the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator's consideration for approval.
e. Approval by the Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator of a minor change or refinement may occur
independently from and prior to any application for Subdivision or Site
Development Plan approval,however such approval shall not constitute an
authorization for development or implementation of the minor change or
refinement without first obtaining all other necessary County permits and
approvals.
G. Master Plan Required. To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of
each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for
designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all
applicable Growth Management Plan policies of the Overlay and this Section and is
designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from lands identified as FSAs
and HSAs on the Overlay Map.
1. Master Plan Content. A master plan shall accompany a SRA
Designation Application to address the specifics of each SRA. The master plan
shall demonstrate that the SRA is designed so that incompatible land uses are
TAL#528002.1 32
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
directed away from lands identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. The
plan shall have been designed by an urban planner who possesses the education
and experience to qualify for full membership in the American Institute of
Certified Planners;and/or a landscape architect who possesses the education and
experience to qualify for full membership in the American Society of Landscape
Architects, together with either a practicing civil engineer licensed by the State of
Florida, or a practicing architect licensed by the State of Florida. At a minimum,
the master plan shall include the following elements:
a. The title of the project and name of the developer;
b. Scale, date, north arrow;
c. Location map that identifies the relationship of the SRA to the entire
RLSA;
d. Boundaries of the subject property, all existing roadways within and
adjacent to the site, watercourses, easements, section lines, and other
important physical features within and adjoining the proposed
development;
e. Identification of all proposed tracts or increments within the SRA
such as, but not limited to: residential; commercial; industrial;
institutional; conservation/preservation; lakes and/or other water
management facilities; the location and function of all areas proposed for
dedication or to be reserved for community and/or public use; and areas
proposed for recreational uses including golf courses and related facilities;
f. Identification, location and quantification of all wetland
preservation, buffer areas, and open space areas;
g. The location and size (as appropriate) of all proposed drainage,
water, sewer, and other utility provisions;
h. The location of all proposed major internal thoroughfares and
pedestrian access ways;
i. Typical cross sections of all major, collector, and local streets, public
or private, within the proposed SRA;
j. Identification of any WRAs that are adjacent to or incorporated
within the boundaries of the SRA.
H. Development Document. Data supporting the SRA Master Plan and describing
the SRA application shall be in the form of a Development Document that shall consist of
the following unless determined at the required pre-application conference to be
unnecessary to describe the development strategy: The Development Document shall
identify, locate and quantify the full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses
that provide the mix of services to and are supportive of the residential population of a
SRA, and shall include, as applicable, the following:
1. Title page to include name of project;
2. Index/table of contents;
TAL#528002.1 33
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
3. List of exhibits;
4. Statement of compliance with the RLSA Overlay Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the Growth Management Plan;
5. General location map showing relationship of the site to the boundaries of
the RLSA Overlay and to such external facilities as highways;
6. Property ownership and general description of site (including statement of
unified ownership);
7. Description of project development;
8. Legal description of the SRA boundary, and for any WRAs encompassed
by the SRA;
9. The overall acreage and proposed gross density for the SRA;
10. Identification of all proposed land uses within each tract or increment
describing: acreage; proposed number of dwelling units; proposed density and
percentage of the total development represented by each type of use; or in the case
of commercial, industrial, institutional or office, the acreage and maximum gross
leasable floor area within the individual tracts or increments;
11. Design standards for each type of land use proposed within the SRA.
Design standards shall be consistent with the Design Criteria contained in Section
2.2.27.8.J.5.;
12. All proposed variations or deviations from Design Criteria shall be
n consistent with the provisions of Section 2.2.27.8.J.;
13. The proposed schedule of development, and the sequence of phasing or
incremental development within the SRA, if applicable;
14. Environmental impact analysis based upon the Natural Resource Index
Assessment required in Section 2.2.27.7.C.3.;
15. The location and nature of all existing or proposed public facilities (or
sites), such as schools, parks, fire stations and like;
16. A plan for the provision of all needed utilities to and within the SRA;
including (as appropriate) water supply, sanitary sewer collection and treatment
system, stormwater collection and management system, pursuant to related county
regulations and ordinances;
17. Typical cross sections of all major, collector, and local streets, public or
• private, within the proposed SRA;
18. Agreements, provisions, or covenants which govern the use, maintenance,
and continued protection of the SRA and any of its common areas or facilities;
19. Development commitments for all infrastructure and related matters;
20. When determined necessary to adequately assess the compatibility of
proposed uses within the SRA to existing land uses, their relationship to
agriculture uses, open space, recreation facilities, or to assess requests for
deviations from the Design Criteria standards, the Community Development and
Environmental Services Administrator or his designee may request schematic
architectural drawings (floor plans, elevations, perspectives) for all proposed
structures and improvements, as appropriate, and;
TAL#528002.1 34
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
21. Development Document amendment provisions.
I. DRI Master Plan. If applicable, the DRI master plan shall be included as part of
the SRA Designation Application... The DRI master plan shall identify the location of the
SRA being designated, and any previously designated SRAs within the DRI.
J. Design Criteria. Criteria are hereby established to guide the design and
development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set
forth in Chapter 163.3177 (11),F.S. and 0J-5.006(5)(1). The size and base density of
each form of SRA shall be consistent with the standards set forth below. The maximum
base residential density as specified herein for each form of SRA may only be exceeded
through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending
provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable housing density
bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The
base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a
SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net
residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA
will be determined on an individual basis, subject to the regulations below, during the
SRA designation review and approval process.
1. Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. Characteristics for SRAs
designated within the RLSA Overlay have been established in the Goals
Objectives and Policies of the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay. All SRAs
designated pursuant to this Section shall be consistent with the following
characteristics:
n
TAL#528002.1 35
1 1
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
,•—• Collier County RLSA Overlay
Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics
Typical Characteristics Town' Village Hamlet Compact Rural Development
Size(Gross Acres) 1,000-4,000 acres 100-1,000 acres" 40-100 acres" 100 Acres or less" Greater Than 100 Acres'
Residential Units(DUs)per gross 1-4 DUs per gross acre"' 1-4 DUs per gross acre""' 1/2-2 DU per gross acre'"' 1/2-2 DU per gross acre""" 1-4 DUsper gross acre""
acre base density
Full range of single family and Diversity of single family and multi
Single Family and-limiteriz inti. Single Fanny and e,nt@t,,,iii —i—gto c.rnibAaui I='tea mn•Residential Housing Styles multi-family housing types,styles, family housing types,styles,lot
lot sizes sizes to tiY Ian+ily"""
lamdy""
Retail&Office-.5 Retail&Office-.5 Retail&Office-.5 Rerail z riffire_.5 Raraii R.ntfirrt-.5
Civic/GovernmentaVlnstitution-.6 Civiic/GovernmentaVlnstitution-.6!'inirrrn„ernrnenmulneuh,rir>n_,6 Civ.iclaciussnmentalanstitution- 6 c„,ir/Goue,n,nenralnner.r 6
Maximum Floor Area Ratio or AAan„farh,ringn IOhr ind„ctrial_ u
Intensity .45 r'rn"Pn sing-.45 Group-lioousing-.45 GrcupA-tousiag-.45 Goaup-Housing-.45
Group uleing-.45 Tr= siaza i odgi.g-26 upa net 7_osien*I edging-26 upa net Tranri�i n,lninn_26 upa net Traneienr i n.lning-26 upa net
TaaosienUadgiag-26 upa net
Town Center with Community and
Neighborhood Goods and
Village Center with Neighborhood 9 9 Village Center with Neighborhood
Services in Town and Village Goods and Services In Village Convenience Goods and Convenience Goods and
Goods and Services in Village
Goods and Services Centers:Minimum 65 SF gross Services:Minimum 10 SF gross Services:Minimum 10 SF gross
Centers:Minimum 25 SF gross Centers:Minimum 25 SF
building area per DU;CnrrnrarQ building area per DU building area per DU building area per DU buildinggross
Office,Ilan„jnrn,rtng and Light area per DU
Irvb strial
Individual Well and Septic Individual Well and Septic
Centralized or decentralized Centralized or decentralized System;Cen*rained or System;rgnnas,ert or Centralized or decentralized
Water and Wastewater community treatment system community treatment systems rtarentrau,ed rnrn,n„nity r4•nentralizncLcornrn,,nay community treatment systems
treatment eyetem treatment Syria
Interim Wall and coati, jnterim Well and Sortir interim Well and Cortin
Parks&Public Green Spaces w/n Public Green Space for Public Green Space for Parks&Public Green Spaces w/n
Community Parks(200 SF/DU) Neighborhoods(minimum 1%of Neighborhoods(minimum 1%of Neighborhoods(minimum 1%of Neighborhoods(minimum 1%of
gross acres) gross acres) gross acres) gross acres)
Parks&Public Green Spaces win - reatinnrrhff Colima% Anti.,e wanrearinnrr_nu Cn„rens
Neighborhoods
Recreation and Open Spaces Lakes Lakes
Arttva wenreatinnrr_nlf rn„rses Open Space Minimum 35%of Open Space Minimum 35%of
rwr., SRA SRA
Lakes
Open Space Minimum 35%of
SRA
Wide Range of Services- Moderate Range of Services- j imire.t cervices_ j invited Cantinas M,dsrate nanga nt Senticee-
Civic,Governmental and minimum 15 SF/DU minimum 10 SF/DU; ',linkman,to gniDI t
Institutional Services F,dl Flange of Srhnnlr p„n avenge of catfnnls Pre K through Etemenrary Pre-4C through Flemenray Pre ir through Elementary
Crhnnie Crhnnis Srhgole
Auto-interconnected system of Auto-Interconnected system of Auto•interconnected system of Auto-interconnected system of Auto-interconnected system of
collector and local roads;required collector and local roads;required collector and local roads;required
connection to collector or arterial connection to collector or arterial local roads local roads connection to collector or arterial
Transportation
Interconnected sidewalk and Interconnected sidewalk and Interconnected sidewalk and
Pedestrian Pathways Pedestrian Pathways
pathwaysystem pathwaysystem
pathway system
County Transit Access F't„eerrian Trans Fq„eetrinn Trails Fry,oetrinn Trails Frinactrian Trails
Co...),Transit ecrees County Transit Arra,.
•-Towns are prohibited within the ACSC,per policy 4.7.1 of the Goals,Objectives,and Policies.
'-Villages,Hamlets,and Compact Rural Developments within the ACSC are subject to location and size limitations,per policy 4.20,and are subject to Chapter 28-25,FAC.
-Density can be increased beyond the base density through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus or through the density blending provision,per policy 4.7..
”'-Those CRDs that include single or multi-family residential uses shall include proportionate support services.
I Inderlinert uses are not required uses.
2. Town Design Criteria. [Reserved]
3. Village Design Criteria. [Reserved]
4. Hamlet Design Criteria. [Reserved]
n 5. CRD Design Criteria. [Reserved]
6. Design Criteria Common to SRAs.
TAL#528002.1 36
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
a. Development can only be sited on lands with a Natural Resource
Index rating of 1.2 or less.
b. Lands with a Natural Resource Index rating greater than 1.2 must be
preserved as open space.
c. A minimum of 35% of the SRA land designated as Town or Village
shall be kept in open space.
d. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or
diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or
conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to
protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and
project control elevations and water tables.
e. Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or
private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best
management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse
impacts to such lands.
f. The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition
from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density
and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall be well
defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining
property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape
buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this
purpose.
g. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the
SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of
the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture
and SRA uses.
h. Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a
buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public
or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space
contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or
existing public or private conservation land may include: natural
preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are
allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks,
required yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-made open
space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise
Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open
space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways
and other turf areas within the first 300 feet.
7. Deviations from LDC Standards. SRAs may deviate from any of the
provisions of the Land Development Code provided the applicant can clearly
demonstrate that the proposed deviation further enhances the principles of
innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177
(11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(I).
TAL#528002.1 37
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
,0—N a. Deviations requested as part of the SRA Designation Application
shall be specifically identified in the SRA Development Document.
Sufficient justification must be provided including the citation of
appropriate examples or references that support the request.
8. Infrastructure Required. A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure
available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be
provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will
depend on the type of development, accepted civil engineering practices, and the
requirements of this Section.
a. The capacity of infrastructure serving the SRA must be demonstrated
during the SRA designation process in accordance with the Collier County
Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA
designation.
b. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water,
wastewater,irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste.
c. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater
utilities are required in Towns, Villages, and those CRDs exceeding 100
acres in size. Centralized or decentralized community water and
wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained
by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development
",,, District,the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or
other governmental entity. This Section shall not prohibit innovative
alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized
community treatment systems provided that they meet all applicable
regulatory criteria.
d. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to
a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are
permitted on an interim basis until services from a
centralized/decentralized community system are available.
e. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are
permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less
in size.
K. SRA Impact Assessments. Impact assessments are intended to evaluate the self-
sufficiency of the proposed SRA and to demonstrate support for the fiscal neutrality of
the SRA as required in Section 2.2.27.8.K. Impact assessments shall be prepared in the
following infrastructure areas:
1. Transportation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the
requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation or
procedure, shall be prepared by the applicant as component of an Impact
Assessment Report that is submitted as part of a SRA Designation Application
package.
a. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required
above, the transportation impact assessment shall specifically consider, to
TAL#528002.1 38
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
the extent applicable,the following issues related to the adjacent highway
network:
(1) Impacts to the level of service of adjacent impacted roadways
and intersections, comparing the proposed SRA to the impacts of
conventional Baseline Standard development;
(2) Effect(s) of new roadway facilities planned as part of the SRA
Master Plan on the surrounding transportation system, and;
(3) Impacts to agri-transport issues, especially the farm-to-market
movement of agricultural products.
b. The transportation impact assessment, in addition to considering the
impacts on the adjacent highway system, shall also consider public
transportation (transit) and bicycle and pedestrian issues to the extent
applicable.
c. No SRA shall be approved unless the transportation impact
assessment required by this Section has demonstrated through data and
analysis that the capacity of County/State collector or arterial road(s)
serving the SRA to be adequate to serve the intended SRA uses in
accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in
effect at the time of SRA designation.
2. Potable Water. A potable water assessment shall be prepared by the
applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as
part of a SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate
how the applicant will conform to either FAC Chapter 64E-6, for private and
limited use water systems, or FAC Chapter 62-555 for Public Water Systems. In
addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the potable
water assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal
of waste products, if any, generated by the proposed treatment process. The
applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed for potable water supply.
3. Irrigation Water. An irrigation water assessment shall be prepared by
the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as
part of a SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall quantify
the anticipated irrigation water usage expected at the buildout of the SRA. The
assessment shall identify the sources of water proposed for irrigation use and shall
identify proposed methods of water conservation.
4. Wastewater. A wastewater assessment shall be prepared by the applicant
as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of a
SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the
applicant will conform to either Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and
Disposal Systems, contained in State of Florida in Chapter 64E6, F.A.C. for
systems having a capacity not exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or Chapter 62-
600, F.A.C. for wastewater treatment systems having a capacity greater than
''-\ 10,000 gallons per day. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses
required above, the wastewater assessment shall specifically consider, to the
TAL#528002.1 39
• i
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
extent applicable, the disposal of waste products generated by the proposed
treatment process.
5.__ __.__Solid Waste.__A_solid waste_assessment shall be prepared by the applicant
as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of a
SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall identify the means
and methods for handling, transporting and disposal of all solid waste generated
including but not limited to the collection, handling and disposal of recyclables
and horticultural waste products. The applicant shall identify the location and
remaining disposal capacity available at the disposal site.
6. Stormwater Management. A stormwater management impact
assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact
Assessment Report that is submitted as a part of a SRA Designation Application
Package. The stormwater management impact assessment shall, at a minimum,
provide the following information:
a. An exhibit showing the boundary of the proposed SRA including the
following information:
(1) The location of any WRA delineated within the SRA;
(2) A generalized representation of the existing stormwater flow
patterns across the site including the location(s) of discharge from
the site to the downstream receiving waters;
(3) The land uses of adjacent properties and, if applicable, the
locations of stormwater discharge into the site of the proposed SRA
from the adjacent properties.
b. A narrative component to the report including the following
information:
(1) The name of the receiving water or,if applicable,FSA or
WRA to which the stormwater discharge from the site will
ultimately outfall;
(2) The peak allowable discharge rate (in cfs/ acre) allowed for
the SRA per Collier County Ordinance 90-10 or its successor
regulation;
(3) If applicable, a description of the provisions to be made to
accept stormwater flows from surrounding properties into, around, or
through the constructed surface water management system of the
proposed development;
(4) The types of stormwater detention areas to be constructed as
part of the surface water management system of the proposed
development and water quality treatment to be provided prior to
discharge of the runoff from the site.
7. Groundwater. A groundwater impact assessment shall be prepared by
e•., the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as
a part of a SRA Designation Application Package. The groundwater impact
assessment shall, at a minimum,provide the following information, as applicable:
TAL#528002.1 40
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
a. The proposed water sources for the consumptive uses within the
proposed SRA site (e.g. irrigation demands, potable water demands, lake
recharge, etc.);
b. The measures to be undertaken during development of the proposed
SRA to provide assurances that dewatering activities performed during
lake excavation, utility construction, and other construction activities will
not adversely affect the existing water use rights of either adjacent
developments or adjacent agricultural operations and also will not cause
drawdown in any adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA, or conservation area;
c. The types of uses proposed within the SRA that may potentially
produce or utilize in their operation possible sources of contaminants to
the groundwater. A reporting of the best management practices to be
implemented to protect the groundwater from contamination as a result of
these uses shall also be provided, if applicable.
L. SRA Economic Assessment. An Economic Assessment meeting the
requirements of this Section shall be prepared and submitted as part of the SRA
Designation Application Package. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the
following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater,
irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and
schools. Development phasing and funding mechanisms shall address any adverse
impacts to adopted minimum levels of service pursuant to the County Concurrency
Management System.
1. Demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality. Each SRA must demonstrate that
its development, as a whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County
at the end of each phase or every five (5) years, whichever occurs first and in the
horizon year(build-out). This demonstration will be made for each unit of
government responsible for the services listed in Section 2.2.27.8.K., using one of
the following methodologies:
a. Collier County Fiscal Impact Model. The fiscal impact model
officially adopted and maintained by Collier County.
b. Alternative Fiscal Impact Model. If Collier County has not
adopted a fiscal impact model as indicated above, the applicant may
develop an alternative fiscal impact model using a methodology approved
by Collier County. The model methodology will be consistent with the
Fiscal Impact Analysis Model ("FIAM") developed by the State of Florida
or with Burchell et al., 1994,Development Assessment Handbook(ULI).
The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy of fiscal neutrality to
accommodate affordable housing.
2. Monitoring Requirement. To assure fiscal neutrality the developer of
the SRA shall generate a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report") at the end of
each phase of the development project or every five years whichever comes first.
The Report will provide a fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with the
methodology outlined above.
TAL#528002.1 41
3/3/2003
5:15 PM
3. Imposition of Special Assessments in the event of negative fiscal
impact. If the Report identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project to a unit of
local government referenced above, the landowner will accede to a special
assessment on his property to offset such a shortfall or in the alternative make a
lump sum payment to the unit of local government equal to the present value of
the estimated shortfall for a period covering the previous phase (or five year
interval). The BCC may grant a waiver to accommodate affordable housing.
4. Special Tax Districts Encouraged in SRAs. The use of community
development districts, Municipal Service Betterment Units (MSBUs), or other
special taxing districts shall be encouraged in SRAs. When formed, the special
districts shall encompass all of the land designated for development in the SRA.
Subsequent to formation, the special taxing district will enter into an Interlocal
agreement with the County to assure fiscal neutrality. As outlined above, if the
monitoring reveals a shortfall of net revenue, the special taxing district will
impose the necessary remedial assessment on lands in the SRA.
2.2.27.9 Baseline Standards. [Reserved]
TAL#528002.1 42
March 21,2003
ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Doug Suitor, Senior Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services
LDC PAGE: LDC2: 192.2.7
LDC SECTION: Sec. 2.6.22
CHANGE: Incorporate all of the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) land development
requirements into the LDC; Clarify language to better reflect how staff currently applies existing
code provisions. The intent of the proposed amendments are to reflect the existing MPP in the
LDC and to ensure that the LDC is consistent with the BCC's policy direction contained in the
MPP.
REASON: These amendments allow the MPP, as it applies to proposed development activities,
to be implemented through the application of the LDC.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The proposed amendments should reduce the fiscal
impact to the regulated public in that there is now only the need to refer to one document (LDC).
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: LDC Section 2.6.21. Dock Facilities
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The proposed amendments are consistent with
the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 7.2.1
Amend the LDC as follows:
Sec. 2.6.22. Manatee protection.
.,_ . .. . . _ .. - • - : for consistency with the Manatee Protection
Plan (MPP) adopted by the Collier County Boards . . . . . . .
. . ! .., • . _ . . .
developer will submit a "Manatee Awareness and Protection Plan," which shall address,
but not be limited to, the following categories:
1. Education and public awareness.
Page 1 of 9
March 21,2003
2. Posting and maintaining Manatee awareness signs.
3. Information on type and destination of boat traffic that will be generated from the
facility.
4. Monitoring and maintenance of water quality to comply with state standards.
5. Marking of navigational channels may be required.
2.6.22.3. Marina siting.
g
The purpose of the marina site rating system is to help determine the maximum wetslip
densities in order to improve existing Manatee protection. The marina site rating system
gives a ranking based on three criteria; water depth, native marine habitat and Manatee
abundance.
In evaluating a parcel for a potential boat facility, a minimum sphere of influence for the
boat traffic must be designated. For this plan an on water travel distance of five miles is
•- - -
2.6.22.3.1. Rating criteria.
n
1. A preferred rating is given to a site that has or can legally create adequate water
high Manatee use area(See Table 2.6.22.1).
2. A moderate ranking is given to a site where: there is a adequate water depth and
. - . . . -- . - ., - - - - ' . .
a high Manatee use area.
3. A protected ranking is given to a site where: there is adequate water depth and
destruction of native marine habitat a s -- - •- .• - . -•:• ' ' . • • -- . -
2.6.22.4. Reserved.
Page 2 of 9
March 21, 2003
•• . .
Water Depth Native Marine Habitat Manatee Use
Greater Than Less Than '1' No Impact} Impact Not High
1' MLW MLW
Preferred X X X
Moderate X X X
Moderate X X X
Moderate X X X
Protected X X X
Protected X X X
Protected X X X
Protected X X X
(1) For shoreline vegetation such as mangroves, no impact is defined as no greater than five
than 100 square feet of sea grasses can be impacted.
2.6.22.5. Allowable wet slip densities.
1. Preferred sites. New or expanded wet slip marinas and multi family facilities
Expansion of existing and construction of new b•. . • . .
2. Moderate development sites. New or expanded wet slips and multi family
. ° • . . . . - • . . ! ... . . - .- !!
allowed. Construction of new boat ramps is prohibited.
3. Protected sites. New or expanded wet slip marinas and multi family facilities
. . _ . . . - • !! _.. . - • -.
boat ramps is prohibited.
2.6.22.6. Mitigation.
•
Page 3 of 9
March 21, 2003
additional boat traffic.
--
appropriate point in the county permitting process.
to all other requirements of the LCD.
(Ord. No. 95 58, § 3)
2.6.22.1 Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of this section is to specify regulations that provide for Manatee Protection
consistent with the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan, as adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners on May 23, 1995 and the County's current Growth Management Plan. In
addition to other development criteria, this section provides for boat facility siting criteria and a
rating system to determine maximum wetslip densities for regulated boat facilities. Boat
facilities regulated by this section include wet slip marinas, boat yards with water access, and
multi-slip residential facilities. Dry storage facilities are only considered if they have water
frontage, and can legally obtain the capability of launching vessels into those waters. Multi-slip
residential facilities include condominiums, mobile home park facilities, and neighborhood
facilities where boat mooring is concentrated in a common area, rather than individual docks
located behind individual residences. Single-family docks are not considered a regulated boat
facility for this section, except where otherwise noted, but shall conform to the requirements
found elsewhere within the Land Development Code.
2.6.22.2 Applicability and Exemption Provisions
Existing facilities and facilities that had state and federal permits prior to May 23, 1995, the date
of the County's adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan, shall be exempt from this section. The
applicability of the rating system described in 2.6.22.4 is to establish limitations on wetslip
densities for proposed boat facilities, and restrictions on dry storage facilities and boat ramps.
The rating system does not change a site's existing zoning classification and density provisions
as otherwise provided for in the Land Development Code.
2.6.22.3 Location Restrictions.
Boat facilities shall be prohibited in the areas identified in Figure 2.6.22.3.-1. Further site
specific criteria shall apply as follows:
2.6.22.3.1 Clam Bay System.
Boat facilities shall be limited to non-motorized vessels.
Page 4 of 9
March 21,2003
2.6.22.3.2 Wiggins Pass.
The waters of the Wiggins Pass area are very shallow, on average less than 5 feet at Mean Lower
Low Water (MLLW). Boat facilities within the Wiggins Pass system shall post signs noting the
shallow depth of the Wiggins Pass system.
2.6.22.3.3 Port of the Islands.
Shoreline development within the seawalled basin at Port of the Islands shall be restricted as
follows:
1. Single family residential docks shall be restricted to one boat slip per 100 feet of shoreline or
increments thereof with one boat slip allowed for single family property lots with less than
100 feet of shoreline, providing requirements of section 2.6.21.2.4 have been met.
2. Multi-family residential docks shall be restricted by allowing only parallel docking of vessels
along the seawall. The amount of docks shall be based on this configuration and the
proposed boat sizes.
3. The commercial marina shall be restricted to the total 175 slips currently permitted. If future
demands exceed this number, additional slips may be permitted only after proving no further
deleterious effects to manatees have occurred subsequent to the adoption of the Collier
County Manatee Protection Plan.
4. These restrictions shall supercede the requirements of Section 2.6.22.4.
Figure 2.6.22.3.-1 Boat Facility Siting Maps
-f•+.,
Figuce 2.6.22.2-2'
i
A ,... . ,...
,,, .a i Figure 2 6 t2.2-:
r,. ',V ..4- '!' Filth 2 6.22.2-4.
I .‘ ' ' 4 .i': RN" k
'X
> 7
_may 4 . } + � -' ,.„o-er' *24 •' � i ,1 {}
4-1 01”4i1.711:,;Cr'''.1":'er.,.;.- .%:;a: fair; , tie
9
--' .. e *F 3 •
5 ,a' `ice, .'. 'k1�4�'�`' ", \ V
u1-30-03.
Page 5 of 9
March 21, 2003
Figure 2.6.22.3.-2 Boat Facility Siting Maps
r ° Boat Facilities Prohibited
tt
qI. t
in311.0 M.
.
Henderson
'- Creek
1
Keewaydin Island \ ''" .
�I
01-30-03 rco JsIan �/ �Y®•ice
ff
Figure 2.6.22.3.-3 Boat Facility Siting Maps
1–_ - — _ Pert Of
rtF ds
Marcot.
:;T
�` 735 �� :�,: r
;
A s
1-1 Boat Facilities Prohibited 01-30-03
Page 6 of 9
March 21,2003
Figure 2.6.22.3.-4 Boat Facility Siting Maps
PoilOt
Boat Facilities Prohibited
The Islands_
_ _ // _-.
--y- -- v r, l es
i',Gity
,IF ,,V., ,..e
? _,, ---,
,_ ,
1 lvCL .,. .
I. :,K .`
l e _„ _ =.,J _ -
.nisi% . 41-..$ . • -,.
•
•_ �: ®' '.iJrr'r:•.o-w _ _ ear.-�
.. s�'''.17=1-1.7.41--17F-."="44-2r'....7....7'
ieas,rrn�..�.w ro+-
• �" wer'4'aro (3----. •.
rmm® a‘a
Chokoloskee
0.1-30-0
2.6.22.4 Boat Facility Restrictions (Siting Criteria)
The purpose of this section is to reduce the impact of allowed boat facilities on manatees and
habitats by evaluating the water depth, native marine habitat, and manatee abundance at the
proposed location. This evaluation will result in a Rating Designation that will identify
allowable wet slip densities for proposed boat facilities, and restrictions on dry storage facilities
and boat ramps. This evaluation is based on the site ratings outlined in 2.6.22.4.1.
2.6.22.4.1 Site Ratings
A proposed boat facility site may receive a rating of Preferred, Moderate, or Protected based on
Water Depth, Native Marine Habitat and Manatee Use as specified in Table 2.6.22.4-1:
2.6.22.4.2 Ability to Modify Moderate and Protected Ratings for Sites Having High Manatee
Use
If a potential boat facility site is ranked as moderate or protected because of its proximity to a
high manatee use area, its ranking can be increased one level of rating (i.e., Moderate to
Preferred; Protected to Moderate) if new slow speed zones are established. The result of
establishing the new slow speed zones will be to receive a "Not High" value in the Manatee Use
Criteria contained in Table 2.6.22.4-1. The ranking would then depend on the values for water
depth and native marine habitat criteria with a "Not High" value for the manatee use criterion.
The new slow speed zones must be established for a five-mile on-water travel distance beginning
at the boating facility. All state and federal approvals must be granted prior to posting the new
slow speed zones. The new slow speed zones must be posted prior to the issuance of required
certificates of occupancy. The cost to post the new speed zones shall be borne by the applicant.
Page 7 of 9
March 21, 2003
2.6.22.4.3 Application of the Rating System for Evaluating a Potential Site
1. Adequate water depth in Collier County is considered to be greater than four (4) feet at Mean
Low Water (MLW). This depth requirement shall apply to the waters located at the proposed
facility and waters located between the proposed boat facility and any natural or other
navigation channel, inlet, pass or deep water for five contiguous miles. If adequate water
depth will be achieved by dredging, all necessary permits for dredging must be obtained prior
to SDP approval and the dredging must be completed prior to issuance of required certificates
of occupancy.
2. High manatee use areas are those areas where more than 20% of all the watercraft-caused
manatee deaths in Collier County have been found within an on-water travel distance of five
miles from the proposed boat facility. The DEP's manatee carcass recovery data shall be
used to apply this criteria to a proposed boat facility.
3. Native marine habitats include seagrass beds, salt marshes, mangroves or other biologically
productive submerged and shoreline habitats, which may be adversely affected or destroyed
by dredging and filling activities. For shoreline vegetation such as mangroves, no impact
means that no greater than five percent of the native marine habitat is disturbed. For sea grass
beds, no impact means that no more than 100 square feet of sea grasses can be impacted.
2.6.22.4.4 Facility Restrictions for Rating Categories
Facility restrictions for the Preferred Site, Moderate Site and Protected Site categories are
provided below. New or expanded facilities are considered as those that were not in existence on
May 23, 1995, the date of the County's adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan.
1. Preferred Sites
a. Allowable Wet Slip Densities: New or expanded facilities shall be allowed at a
density of up to 18 boat slips for every 100 feet of shoreline.
b. Dry Storage Facilities: Expansion of existing and construction of new facilities shall
be allowed.
c. Boat Ramps: Expansion of existing and construction of new ramps shall be allowed.
2. Moderate Sites
a. Allowable Wet Slip Densities: New or expanded facilities shall be allowed at a
density of up to 10 boat slips for every 100 feet of shoreline.
b. Dry Storage Facilities: Expansion of existing facilities shall be allowed, construction
of new facilities shall be prohibited.
c. Boat Ramps: Expansion of existing ramps shall be allowed, construction of new
ramps shall be prohibited.
3. Protected Sites
a. Allowable Wet Slip Densities: New or expanded facilities shall be allowed at a
density of up to 1 boat slips for every 100 feet of shoreline.
b. Dry Storage Facilities: Expansion of existing and construction of new facilities shall
be prohibited.
c. Boat Ramps: Expansion of existing and construction of new ramps shall be
prohibited.
Page 8 of 9
• March 21,2003
'-•\ Table 2.6.22.4-1 Boat Facility Siting Criteria
Water Depth Native Marine Manatee Use
Habitat
Greater Less Than No Impact Impact Not High High
Than 4'4'MLW
MLW
Preferred X X X
Moderate X X X
Moderate X X X
Moderate X X X
Protected X X X
Protected X X X
Protected X X X
Protected X X X
2.6.22.5 Manatee Awareness and Protection Plan
Prior to final development order approval for all boat facilities, a Manatee Awareness and
Protection Plan shall be submitted and address the following:
1. Education and public awareness.
2. Posting and maintaining Manatee awareness signs.
3. Information on type and destination of boat traffic that will be generated from the facility.
4. Monitoring and maintenance of water quality to comply with state standards.
2.6.22.6 Site Development Plan Requirements
The following shall be provided on the site plan:
1. Manatee Awareness and Protection Plan.
2. Proposed boat facility rating as determined by Table 2.6.22.4-1.
3. Environmental data used to support proposed boat facility rating (native marine habitat
impacts, manatee use areas, water depths).
4. Site rating calculations showing allowance for the proposed number of boat slips.
5. Details of the manatee awareness signs, slow speed signs, or other signage proposed.
Page 9 of 9
•
0N poj,
.03
YOUNG,
YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE & ANDERSON, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
REPLY To:
R. BRUCE ANDERSON GALLIE'S HALL
CLAY C. BROOKER 225 SOUTH ADAMS STREET
TASHA O. BUFORD SUITE 200
DANIEL H. Cox Naples PosT OFFICE Box 1833 (ZIP 32302-1833)
DAVID P. HOPSTETTER• TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
C. LAURENCE KEESEY TELEPHONE (850) 222-7206
KENZA VAN ASSENDERP TELECOPIER (850) 561-6834
GEORGE L. VARNADOE
ROY C. YOUNG SUNTRUST BUILDING
801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE
•BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE LAWYER SUITE 300
POST OFFICE Box 7907 (ZIP 34101-7907)
OF COUNSEL NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108
DAVID B. ERWIN TELEPHONE (239) 597-2814
A.J. JIM SPALLA February 28, 2003 TELECOPIER (239) 597-1060
Via Hand Delivery
Bill Lorenz, Director
Collier County Natural Resources Department
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
RE: Proposed LDC amendments to incorporate the Manatee Protection Plan
Dear Bill:
As you know, this firm has reviewed the LDC amendment proposals to incorporate and
clarify the provisions of the County's Manatee Protection Plan("MPP"). Per your request,
we offer our comments and, in an attachment hereto,we suggest revisions to the proposals.
The purpose of this letter is to ensure that there are no unintended consequences as a result
of incorporating the MPP into the LDC.
Our suggested revisions affect only three of the proposals. The first is LDC section 2.6.22.1.
We have simply added the word"commercial" in a couple places and the phrase "with ten
slips or more" in a couple places. These qualifiers are based on section 3.2.1 of the MPP
(pages 68-69). According to that section,the MPP applies only to commercial marinas and
residential docking facilities with 10 slips or more. We also suggest adding the phrase"can
legally obtain"to that portion of the sentence dealing with a dry storage facility's capability
of launching vessels. This suggestion is based on section 3.2.4.1 of the MPP.
Our second and third suggested revisions should be reviewed together. They affect the
proposals for LDC sections 2.6.22.3.1 and 2.6.22.3.3. In our opinion,the existing language
of LDC section 2.6.22.3.1 and the proposed amendment thereto attempt to set out, in a
confusing and verbose way, the standards for Preferred, Moderate and Protected rankings.
We would suggest to eliminate all the subsection language and simply rely on Table
2.6.22.3-1 which clearly sets forth the ranking standards (combined with an explanation of
the criteria in LDC section 2.6.22.3.3,explained below). By eliminating the subsections,we
also suggest eliminating the proposal regarding the requirement to obtain any necessary
dredging permits prior to SDP submittal. We address this issue in the following paragraphs.
This leads us to LDC section 2.6.22.3.3. Rather than one long paragraph, as has been
proposed, we suggest breaking up the section into three subsections, separately addressing
the criteria of adequate water depth, manatee abundance and native marine habitat.
1. Adequate water depth:
• We have eliminated the"5-mile on-water travel distance"requirement
from the proposal as it relates to the criteria of adequate water depth.
We realize that the last full paragraph of section 3.2.4 of the MPP(page
73)creates a five-mile sphere of influence. However, a reading of this
language in context (particularly with the immediately preceding
paragraph)suggests that the five-mile sphere of influence is considered
only with regard to the manatee abundance criteria. In fact,the second
paragraph of section 3.2.4 of the MPP(page 72)specifically states that
the"depth requirement may also apply to the area between the proposed
facility and any natural or other navigation channel, inlet,pass or deep
water." This specific language of the MPP conflicts with the proposed
language. Frankly, we contend that no existing or proposed marina
facility anywhere in the County enjoys greater than 4-foot water depths
in all waters within five miles of the facility. The language proposed
would simply render a"Preferred"ranking impossible to obtain. Our
suggested revision mirrors the specific language found in the second
paragraph of section 3.2.4 of the MPP.
• We have eliminated from the proposal the requirement that all
necessary dredging permits be obtained prior to SDP submittal. Section
3.2.4.3 of the MPP (page 81) states that the "criteria will be applied at
the appropriate time of receiving a County permit." This language does
not authorize the County to require that all necessary dredging permits
be obtained prior to SDP submittal. Instead, as indicated by our
suggested revision,we believe the language requires that the dredging
permits be obtained prior to building permit issuance. Our suggested
revision would permit SDP approval conditioned upon obtaining all
necessary dredging permits.
2. Manatee abundance: Other than placing this topic in its own subsection, we
do not suggest any substantive revisions to the proposal.
3. Native marine habitat: The only suggested, substantive revision to the
proposal is the elimination of the phrase "and proposed development
activities." (See fourth line from bottom of the proposal.) This phrase does
not appear in the MPP. In fact, our suggested revision mirrors section 3.2.4 of
the MPP (page 72). We have also changed "sea grasses" to "seagrass beds"
in the last sentence to achieve consistency with the language in the first
sentence.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss our suggested revisions,please do not hesitate
to call me. Would you please notify me of all public hearings scheduled to consider these
LDC amendment proposals? Thank you.
Sincerely,
4
Clay C. rooker
Enclosure as noted
cc: George L.Varnadoe,Esq.
F:\users\Clay\Collier Enterprises\Hamilton Harbor—49527.004\Lorenz It 2-28-03.wpd
/"\
SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO MR. SUITOR'S LDC AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
2.6.22.1 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this section is to specify regulations that provide for Manatee Protection
consistent with the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan, as adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners on May 23, 1995, and the County's current Growth Management Plan. In
addition to other development criteria, this section provides for boat facility siting criteria and a
rating system to determine maximum wet slip densities for regulated boat facilities. Boat
facilities regulated by this section include commercial wet slip marinas, commercial boat yards
with water access, and multi-slip residential facilities with 10 slips or more. Dry storage
facilities are only considered if they have water frontage and can legally obtain the capability of
launching vessels into those waters. Multi-slip residential facilities (with 10 slips or more)
include condominiums, mobile home park facilities, and neighborhood facilities where boat
mooring is concentrated in a common area,rather than individual docks located behind
individual residences. Single-family docks are not considered a regulated boat facility for this
section, except where otherwise noted,but shall conform to the requirements found elsewhere
within the Land Development Code.
* * *
2.6.22.3.1 Site Ratings
A proposed boat facility site may receive a rating of Preferred, Moderate or Protected based on
water depth,native marine habitat and manatee use as specified in Table 2.6.22.3-1.
[Eliminate subsections 1,2 and 3 because they are wordy, confusing and simply duplicate_
what is clearly displayed in Table 2.6.22.3-1.]
* * *
2.6.22.3.3 Application of the Rating System for Evaluating a Potential Site
1. Adequate water depth is considered to be greater than four(4) feet at Mean Low Water
(MLW). This depth requirement shall apply to the waters located at the proposed boat
facility and may apply to those waters located between the proposed boat facility and any
natural or other navigation channel, inlet,pass or deep water. Adequate water depth can
either exist currently or be legally created. If adequate water depth will be achieved by
dredging, all necessary permits must be obtained prior to building permit issuance.
2. High manatee use areas are those where more than 20% of all the watercraft-caused
manatee deaths in Collier County have been found within an on-water travel distance of
ti
five miles from the proposed boat facility. The DEP's manatee carcass recovery data
shall be used to apply this criteria to a proposed boat facility.
3. Native marine habitats include seagrass beds, salt marshes, mangroves or other
biologically productive submerged and shoreline habitats,which may be adversely
affected or destroyed by dredging and filling activities. For shoreline vegetation such as
mangroves, no impact means that no greater than five percent of the native marine habitat
is disturbed. For seagrass beds,no impact means that no more than 100 square feet of sea
grasses can be impacted.
March 21,2003
ORIGIN: Community Development &Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist; Bill Lorenz,
Environmental Services Director.
DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services
LDC PAGE(S): 3:101 —3:104.8
LDC SECTION: 3.5.7. Construction requirements for the construction of
excavations; and 3.5.10. Performance Guarantee requirements; Add section 3.5.11.
Littoral Shelf Planting area.
CHANGE: The proposed amendment increases the required littoral plantings from 2
percent to 10 percent. The change also revises the current definition of the littoral zone
to that of a Littoral Shelf Planting Area (LSPA) and provides more detailed criteria
addressing the LSPA's location, elevations, configuration and plant selection. Signs
posting the boundary of the area are now required and specific information must be
included in the required plans. Native plants that recruit into the LSPA will now count
towards the long-term coverage requirement. Criteria are also provided to address out of
compliance conditions for existing lakes and for reviewing amended plans. The current
performance guarantee for the plantings has been eliminated as well as the requirement
for compensating littoral areas for bulkheads. The LSPA for multiple lake systems is
encouraged to be consolidated at a single location without increasing the required area as
is now required.
REASON: Many littoral zone planted areas are not surviving. The current definition of
Littoral Zone is very restrictive and in some areas with altered ground water conditions
may not support wetland plants. The proposed changes include a better definition of a
littoral shelf and are intended to provide better design and operational standards to
increase the success rate of required littoral zone planted areas in excavated lakes. Also,
the LDC must require a planted littoral shelf equal to at least 2.5 percent of the pond's
area to be consistent with the recently adopted Conservation and Costal Management
Element (CCME)Policy 6.1.6.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The cost of planting the LSPA is directly
proportional to the required size of the LSPA. The average planting cost is approximately
$10,000 per planted acre. A 100-acre residential development will typically require 15
acres of stormwater lakes that in turn will now require a 1.5-acre LSPA at a cost of
$15,000. This compares to $3,800 using the CCME Policy requirements of 2.5 percent of
the lake area. Setting aside additional area site may require additional area around an
excavation to be set aside or may reduce the amount of fill material that is used from the
excavation thus requiring additional material to be hauled from off-site. The
amendments will not increase staff review time or administrative costs.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None
Page 1 of 9
•
March 21,2003
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: CCME Policy 6.1.6 requires wet
detention ponds to have a littoral shelf with an area equal to 2.5 percent of the pond's
surface area. Therefore, the proposed LDC requirements shall be at least 2.5 percent.
The adopted requirement for the Rural Fringe area is 30 percent, but is not yet in effect.
Amend the LDC as follows:
2.4.6.5. Littoral zone planting. All developments that create lake areas shall provide
- • - •- - • • -: - --- :- • , aquatic vegetation in accordance with section
3.5.7.2.5. a littoral shelf planting area in accordance with section 3.5.11.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
3.5.7.2.4. Exceptions to the side slope requirements that may be justified by such
alternatives as artificial slope protection or vertical bulkheads shall be approved in
advance by the site development review director, where justification shall be documented
in a design analysis prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida.
Bulkheads may be allowed for no more than 40 percent of the shoreline length,but
3.5.7.2.5. For purposes of this section, the littoral zone of a lake in Collier County is
defined as the area of the lake lying in the zone between two feet below WSWT (wet
season water table) to one foot above WSWT. An area of littoral zone equivalent to two
vegetation. This littoral planting zone will be at an eight to one minimum side slope.
Littoral planting zones should be adjacent to and waterward of control structures
structure or pipe intake so as not to impede or break flow. The following criteria
shall be the minimum standards in the creation of the littoral zone.
1. Eighty percent vegetative coverage of the planted littoral shelf is required
over a three year period to ensure establishment. Beyond three years the
littoral shelf shall be maintained as functional component of the lake
system. The function shall be defined as mimicking a natural system to
improve water quality, biologically cleanse runoff prior to discharge into
water, buffer against shoreline erosion, naturally control exotics and/or to
mimic other natural functions such as the utilization by wildlife.
2. The littoral zone shall be planted with at least three different species of
account for greater than 50 percent of coverage. Copies of receipts for
Page 2 of 9
March 21,2003
/'1 vegetation purchase shall be provided upon request by the site
3. Littoral zones may be moved or consolidated to areas within any lake in
an interconnected lake system at a rate of one and one fourth greater than
the a, nt
4. All Collier County listed prohibited exotics shall be removed as they
ten percent coverage.
5. At the time of planting: minimum tree height shall be eight feet; minimum
Ghrub height shall be 24 inches; minimum herbaceous height shall be 12
inches.
6. An annual monitoring report shall be forwarded to compliance services
environmental staff, until such time as criteria set forth in section
3.5.7.2.5.(1) have been satisfied.
original installed littoral zone plants. The guarantee must be submitted in a format
that at least 80 percent coverage has been obtained.
3.5.7.2.65. No building construction permits will be issued for any proposed construction
around the perimeter of any excavation where the minimum clearance
between the excavation top-of-bank and the proposed building foundation is
less than 30 feet, unless and until all side slopes adjacent to the proposed
construction have been completed and approved by the development services
director. Exceptions to this requirement will be made in those instances
where the perimeter of the excavation will be bulkheaded in accordance with
the provisions of section 3.5.7.2.4.
Page 3 of 9
•
March 21,2003
3.5.7.3.2. Minimum. In order to assure that unsightly conditions or undesirable aquatic
growth will not occur in wet retention areas during the dry season of the year, the bottom
elevation of these excavations shall be at least six feet below • - _. • . . . . -
level dry season water table.
3.5.7.8. Non-water management system lakes. Non-water management system lakes of a
surface area of one acre or less, may be riprapped along their entire shoreline under the
following conditions:
a. Side slopes shall be at a minimum ratio of two to one.
b. - - - - - - . . _ - . -- - -
created at the lake discharge facility. Littoral shelf areas must conform to
section 3.5.11.
c. Riprapping must extend down to the slope breakpoint required by section
3.5.7.2, LDC.
d. The lake shall have protective barriers to prevent vehicular access where
necessary.
e. The lake shall meet all of the design requirements of section 3.5, LDC.
3.5.7.9. Amendments to approved excavations. Substantial changes to any approved
excavation permit, (i.e. changes resulting in an increase of 20 percent or more in
excavated volume resulting in less than 50,000 additional cubic yards), must be submitted
to project plan review for review and approval, with such approval granted in writing
prior to commencement of any proposed change. Littoral shelf areas must conform to
section 3.5.11.3. Failure to comply with the permit requirements shall be cause for the
development services director to issue stop work orders on all excavation related
activities taking place or planned for the subject property. Insubstantial changes shall not
require prior written approval and shall include reductions in surface area not affecting
water management design quantities of material to be removed. A written description of
proposed insubstantial change, including an illustrated as-built as per the excavation
permit, to any approved excavation shall be submitted in writing to project plan review
and to the development compliance department.
* * * * * *
3.5.7.10.11. Littoral zone plantings must conform to subsection 3.5.7.2.5.11.
Page 4 of 9
• March 21,2003
e"\
Sec. 3.5.10. Performance guarantee requirements.
3.5.10.2. The performance guarantee shall be executed by a person or entity with a legal
or financial interest in the property and shall remain in effect until the excavation and the
requirements of section 3.5.11 is are completed in accordance with this division.
Performance guarantees may be recorded in the official records of the county and title to
the property shall not be transferred until the performance guarantee is released by the
development services director.
* * * * * *
Sec. 3.5.11 Littoral Shelf Planting Area (LSPA).
The purpose and intent of a littoral shelf planting area (LSPA) is to establish a planted
area within an excavated lake that will support wetland plants, improves the water quality
within the lake and provides habitat for a variety of aquatic species including wading
birds and other waterfowl. Contained within an excavated lake, this area will typically
function as a freshwater marsh. Accordingly, the following requirements have been
established in order for the LSPA to be designed and maintained to accomplish this stated
purpose and function.
3.5.11.1 Design Requirements.
3.5.11.1.1 Area Requirements. The total area of the LSPA shall be calculated as a
percentage of the total area of the lake at control elevation. Area requirements vary
within the County and are as follows:
a. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District—Reserved;
b. All other areas—10 percent.
3.5.11.1.2 Location Criteria. Unless otherwise allowed for, the LSPA shall be
concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area, in order
to maximize its habitat value and minimize maintenance efforts. Multiple locations for
meeting the LSPA area requirement within a single lake shall be allowed as long as a
single LSPA is no smaller than 1,000 square feet. Whenever possible, the LSPA should
be located away from residential lots in order to avoid maintenance and aesthetic
conflicts with residential users, and the LSPA should be located adjacent to control
structures or pipe outlets or inlets in order to maximize water quality benefits. However,
the LSPA shall be located no closer than 20 feet from any discharge structure or pipe
intake so as to not impede flow. If the LSPA is located around a discharge structure, the
20-foot setback shall extend waterward of the discharge structure to a point in the center
of the lake. For interconnected lake systems, the total required area of the LSPA for all
lakes may be configured within a single lake and at one location.
Page 5 of 9
. March 21,2003
n
3.5.11.1.3 Shelf Elevation. The design elevation(s) of the LSPA shall be determined
based on the ability of the LSPA to function as a marsh community and on the ability of
selected plants to tolerate the expected range of water level fluctuations. Generally,
marsh communities in this area have a hydroperiod of between 6 and 10 months. Wet
seasonal water levels range from 12 to 24 inches above ground elevation. Dry seasonal
water levels are 6 inches below ground elevation for an average year and 46 inches below
ground elevation for a 1 in 10 year drought. The design of the shelf may deviate from
these reference values if site-specific data and information is presented that supports the
proposed elevations.
3.5.11.1.4 Shelf Configuration. The LSPA shall be designed so that the slope of the shelf
is as flat as possible. An undulating bottom allowing for shallow pooling during the dry
season is encouraged. Shelves may be terraced to provide for varying elevations for
different plant species. The area requirements specified in 3.5.11.1.1 shall only be
satisfied by those areas planted on a shelf that has an average slope of 8:lor flatter.
Shelves having undulating bottoms and terraced configurations shall be deemed to meet
the slope requirements if the average slope across the shelf is 8:1 or flatter.
3.5.11.1.5 Plant Selection and Specifications. Plants shall be selected based on the
expected flooding durations and maximum water depths for which the selected plants can
survive. The LSPA shall be initially planted with at least three different species of
native, nursery grown or otherwise legally obtained vegetation. No species shall
constitute more than 50 percent of coverage, and at least one species shall be herbaceous.
Spacing shall be no more than: 20 feet for trees; 5 feet for shrubs; and 36 inches on
center for herbaceous plants. At the time of planting, minimum size shall be: 3 gallon
(minimum 4 feet high) for trees; 1 gallon for shrubs and 12 inches for herbaceous plants.
Clustering of plants shall be allowed to provide for scattered open areas as long as the
open areas do not constitute more than 20 percent of the required shelf area and the
elevations of the open areas are at least a foot deeper than the surrounding planted area.
3.5.11.1.6 Posted area. The boundary of the LSPA shall be posted with appropriate
signage denoting the area as a LSPA. Sign(s) should note that the posted area is a
Littoral Shelf Planting Area that provides ecological benefits to the area and contains
specific instructions to ensure that the planted area will not be subjected to herbicidal
treatments or other activities that will kill the vegetation. The signs shall be no closer
than ten feet from residential property lines; be limited to a maximum height of four feet
and a maximum size of two square feet; and, otherwise comply with Section 2.5.6. A
minimum of two signs shall be provided to mark the extent of the LSPA. Maximum sign
spacing shall be 150 feet.
3.5.11.1.7 Required Information. The Planting Plan for the LSPA shall provide the
following information:
1. Calculation table showing the required area (square feet) for the LSPA and its
percentage of the total area at control elevation (NGVD);
Page 6 of 9
March 21,2003
2. Control Elevation (NGVD) and Dry Season Water Table (NVGD);
3. Maximum water depth (feet) and estimated number of months of flooding for the range
of planted elevations within the LSPA;
4. A plant list to include the appropriate range of elevations for each specified plant
species, spacing requirements, and plant size;
5. Planting locations of selected plants.
3.5.11.2 Operational Requirements: Littoral Shelf Planting Areas shall be
maintained according to the following requirements:
3.5.11.2.1 Eighty percent vegetative coverage of the LSPA is required within a two-year
period following the initial planting and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Native plants
that recruit within the LSPA will be counted towards this coverage requirement except as
required per section 3.5.11.2.2. The LSPA must be kept free of refuse and debris.
3.5.11.2.2 Prohibited exotics and nuisance species shall be removed as they occur,
manually or with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicides. Prohibited
exotics are those species as listed in Section 2.4.4.12. For the purpose of this section,
nuisance species include those species listed as Class I and Class II Prohibited Aquatic
Plants specified in Chapter 62C-52.011, Florida Administrative Code. Cattails shall be
removed manually or with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicides
when they exceed ten percent coverage of the required LSPA area.
3.5.11.3 Application to existing lakes. All previously approved projects shall meet
the Operational requirements required in 3.5.11.2.
3.5.11.3.1 Projects approved and constructed according to previous standards may have
to meet the new standards if the littoral shelves are no longer functioning, subject to the
following criteria:
a. The amount of planted area shall be the same as that required in the original approval;
b. The property owner shall assess the existing slopes and elevations in order to
determine the appropriate location of the plantings subject to the criteria found in
3.5.11.1.3. The planted area shall be consolidated as much as possible subject to the
criteria found in 3.5.11.1.2.
c. Subject to the assessment described in b., the existing planting slopes should be as flat
as possible but the 8:1 requirement of 3.5.11.1.4 shall not be required.
d. Plant selection and specifications shall conform to 3.5.11.1.5;
Page7of9
March 21,2003
e. Signage of the planted littoral areas shall be required subject to 3.5.11.1.6.
3.5.11.3.2 For amendments to approved excavations where the proposed amendments
will modify the previously approved lake shoreline or increase the previously approved
lake area, signage of the planted littoral areas shall be required subject to 3.5.11.1.6.
a. For amendments that modify less than 20 percent of the previously approved
shoreline but increase the previously approved lake area, only the additional portion
of the lake shall be used to calculate the additional LSPA area using the percentage
requirements of 3.5.11.1.1. (See figure 3.5.11.3.2.) This additional LSPA shall
conform to the design requirements of 3.5.11.1.
b. For amendments that modify 20 percent or more of the previously approved
shoreline, the total lake area shall be used to calculate the LSPA area using the
percentage requirements of 3.5.11.1.1. (See figure 3.5.11.3.2.) The LSPA shall
conform to the design requirements of 3.5.11.1.
3.5.11.4 Exemptions. Lake excavations used for aquaculture shall be exempt from the
LSPA requirements.
Page 8 of 9
March 21,2003
Figure 3.5.11.3.2
i :i1D
existing lake
— — — — lake addition
For amendments that modify the existing lake area
by adding an addition,only the new portion of the lake
shall be used to calculate the L5PA area using the
percentage requirements of 3.5.11.1.1.
1
I 1
1 1
i
existing shoreline
— — — — modified lake shoreline
For amendments that modify the existing shoreline
by greater than 20 percent,the total lake area
shall be used to calculate the L5PA area using the
percentage requirements of 3.5.11.1.1.
Renumber remaining sections.
Page 9 of 9
Littoral LDC Amendments
Summary of Comments March 21,2003
1. Aquagenix - George Bowling. Says one large shelve will be much easier to maintain than
hundreds or thousands of feet of planted shelve line. Feels that most people living on lakes
will like these changes as well. The survivability of these new areas will be directly
related to the proper elevation, and if met, these areas should stay wet all year long.
Suggested keeping in mind aquatic plants that are very hard to establish such as water
lilies. Additional comments: Suggests creating a berm or the like to control water levels on
the shelf; has concerns of shelves being graded correctly in the field, if not done just right,
they will fail; Suggests 24" spacing is too tight. AS—written response
2. Aquatic Systems - Jeff Moding. Jeff is concerned that his clients will not like it because
it requires more plants, although he acknowledges it will provide more business for him.
He is also concerned about the 8:1 shelf, as he says he almost never sees lake banks that
are built correctly for planting and is skeptical that our inspectors will be able to measure
8:1 on a shelf sticking out in the lake during a field inspection. He also says that clients
always ask him to camouflage control structures with plants and is concerned about any
regulation that will require plants to be planted away from control structures - even though
he acknowledges that many of these become choked with plants and do not function
correctly. He has concerns about the sign requirement expense to the property owner. AS-
verbal response
3. EarthBalance - Shannon Ruby. Called for a reference for the cost of an acre of plants at
2' center. Shannon said that it would range between $8,000 and $11,000 per acre at
2' centers. MH- verbal response
4. Earthguard Lake Management - Bob Luther. - Bob likes the ordinance, calling it,
"Right on the money." He likes the sign requirement to help educate residents, who he
says are always asking him to do things that are not practical, prudent or permitted. AS-
verbal response
S. The Wetlands Company — Mike Reilly. Called for a reference for the cost of an acre of
plants at 2' center. Mike estimated $9,000/acre at 2' centers. Felt the amendment was a
"detailed, careful approach to the current problems." Mike likes the 8:1 or flatter slope.
He feels the 10-gal minimum tree size is too large due to the difficulty in planting such a
large root ball in wet substrate. He feels 3-gal trees would be more appropriate and
manageable and inline with other counties such as Orlando and Lakeland. KH — verbal
response
6. Southern Biomes, Inc. — Geza Wass de Czege. Has the following suggestions for the
plant selection and specifications: "No species shall constitute more than 50 33 percent of
coverage, and at least one species shall be herbaceous. Spacing shall be no more than 4-0
15 feet for trees; 5 feet for shrubs; 21 inches 3 feet on center for herbaceous plants. At the
time of plating, minimum size shall be: 10 gallon 3 gal. (min 4' high) for trees; ....." He
also suggests adding language that would allow clustering of plants, with scattered open
areas to mimic real life habitats. KH—written response
Page 1 of 2
Littoral LDC Amendments
Summary of Comments March 21,2003
J'\
7. Wilson-Miller— Stuart Miller. Likes the flexibility to consolidate littorals into less lakes
and the 8:1 slope for better survivability and "higher ecological functional value." He is
concerned about the additional cost of increasing the 2.5% requirement to 10%. Stuart
suggests 5% as a compromise. Would like the loss of fill that will now be required to
remain to create the 8:1 slope to be calculated in the fiscal impacts. Suggests slight
amendment to Stormwater suggestion regarding littoral placement to the sides of control
structures: plant littorals 5' away from the side of structures, with nothing planted in front.
Suggests the following language be used on the LSPA signs: "the littoral shelf planting
area provides ecological benefit to the watershed and the community." KH — written
response
8. Passarella and Associates, Inc. - Ken Passarella—no response to date. MH
9. O'Donnell Landscapes - Al O'Donnell—no response to date. MH
10.Dr. Daniel F. Jackson - Former Director of Institute for Environmental Studies at
Louisiana State University, and associated with Florida's aquatic ecosystems for 30 years.
- no response to date. MH
11. Collier County Stormwater Management Department — Robert Wiley, Jerry Kurtz,
July Minor, Peter Hayden, Shane Cox, Steve Preston.
a. Robert Wiley: Has concerns with placing the LSPA between the outfall structure
and the lake's main water body flow path with regards to reduction of flow
conveyance capacity through the vegetation before the water can leave the lake.
Does not see any conflicts with SFWMD requirements. KH — written response
b. Steve Preston: Has alternative ideas of water quality methods that go beyond the
scope of this amendment. Suggested LSPA should be at least 20' from the side of
the control structure projected to the center of the stormwater detention pond. KH—
written response
Page 2 of 2
March 21,2003
ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services
LDC PAGE: LDC3: 132.1, supplement 11
LDC SECTION: Sec. 3.9.5.5.6
CHANGE: Incorporate some of our native vegetation preservation requirements, that
currently exist in the LDC and GMP's or have been policy and procedures for the past
five years or greater, into one easily accessible section regarding Preserves. This
amendment also clarifies language to better reflect how staff currently applies existing
code provisions and provides details that have been requested by the development
community to provide needed guidance. The intent of the proposed amendments is to
provide minimum criteria for on site Preserves.
REASON: These amendments allow the community to easily locate the criteria for
protecting preserves, which has been located in several different sections of the LDC.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The proposed amendments should have no
fiscal impact, as it does not require any additional preservation than the current Code and
Policies.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: LDC Sections 3.9.5.5.3, 3.9.5.5.4,
3.9.6.6.5, 3.9.6.6.4.2, 3.2.8.4.7.3, Collier County GMP - Conservation and Coastal
Management Element
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The proposed amendments are
consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy
3.9.5.5.6 Native Preserve criteria
Identification. Native vegetation that is required to be preserved pursuant to
3.9.5.5 shall be set-aside in a Preserve. Areas set aside as preserves shall be
labeled as "Preserve" on all site plans.
Minimum dimensions. The minimum allowable width of the preserve shall be
twenty feet for parcels less than five acres; thirty feet for parcels of five acres
and less than ten acres, and shall be fifty feet for parcels of ten acres and
greater.
Page 1 of 3
March 21,2003
n
Created Preserves. Where created preserves are approved, the landscape plan
shall re-create a native plant community in accordance with the vegetation
sizes and standards set forth in 3.9.5.5. The spacing of the plants shall be as
follows: twenty to thirty foot on center for trees with a small canopy (less than
30 ft mature spread) and forty foot on center for trees with a large canopy
(greater than 30 ft mature spread), five foot on center for shrubs and three foot
on center for ground covers. Plant material shall be planted in a manner that
mimics a natural plant community and shall not be maintained as landscaping.
Minimum sizes for plant material may be reduced for scrub and other xeric
habitats where smaller size plants material are better suited for re-
establishment of the native plant community. The minimum width of the
created preserve may be twenty feet for parcels less than five acres; thirty feet
for parcels of five acres and less than ten acres, and shall be fifty feet for
parcels of ten acres and greater. Approved created preserves, identified in
3.9.5.5 as mitigated native preservation, may be used to recreate: not more
than 50% of the required preserves if the site is greater than 5 acres and less
than 20 acres in size and not more than 25% of the required preserves on sites
between 20 acres and 40 acres in size. Created preserves shall not be
permitted on parcels greater than 40 acres.
Required Setbacks to Preserves. All principal structures shall have a
minimum 25-foot setback from the boundary of any preserve. Accessory
structures and all other site alterations shall have a minimum 10- foot setback
from the boundary of any preserve. There shall be no site alterations within
the first 10 feet adjacent to any preserve unless it can be demonstrated that it
will not adversely impact the integrity of that preserve. (ie. Fill may be
approved to be placed within 10 feet on the upland preserve but may not be
placed within 10 feet of a wetland preserve.)
Invasive Exotic Vegetation Removal and Maintenance Plans. Exotic
vegetation removal and maintenance plans shall require that category I exotics
be removed from all preserves. All exotics within the first 75 feet of the outer
edge of every preserve shall be physically removed, or the tree cut down to
grade and the stump treated with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
approved herbicide and a visual trace dye applied. Exotics within the interior
of the preserve may be approved to be treated in place, if it is determined that
physical removal might cause more damage to the native vegetation in the
preserve. When prohibited exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the
vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with an U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied.
A maintenance plan shall be implemented on a yearly basis at a minimum, or
more frequently when required to effectively control exotics, and shall
describe specific techniques to prevent reinvasion by prohibited exotic
Page 2 of 3
March 21,2003
vegetation of the site in perpetuity. The plan shall be approved prior to the
issuance of any final local development order
Page3of3
Page 1 of 4
lorenz_w
From: Robert J. Mulhere [rjm@consult-rwa.com]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:02 PM
To: 'AnaDiaz@colliergov.net
Cc: 'barbaraburgeson@colliergov.net'; 'williamlorenz@colliergov.net'
Subject: Proposed LDC Amendment to add a new Section 3.9.7. to LDC
Ana, can you please forward this email to all DSAC members (and have a copy placed in next Wednesday's
Agenda Package) Thank You.
Fellow DSAC Members: Although I attended most of the Land Code Subcommittee meetings dealing with the
proposed LDC amendments, I missed some of the meeting on this past Tuesday. One of the amendments
discussed after I left was the proposed addition of a new Section 3.9.7. I was informed that the subcommittee
recommended approval of this amendment. In my view, there are some very significant implications that will result
from this proposed amendment which should be considered. I offer the following observations for consideration
by the full DSAC committee when reviewing this proposed amendment.
The proposed amendment purports to (in staffs words): "Incorporate all of the native vegetation preservation
requirements, that currently exist in the LDC and GMP's or have been policy and procedures for the past five
years or greater, into one easily accessible section regarding Preserves. This amendment also clarifies
language to better reflect how staff currently applies existing code provisions and provides details that have been
requested by the development community to provide needed guidance. The intent of the proposed amendments
are[sic]to provide minimum criteria and guidelines for identifying and protecting on site Preserves."
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to "allow the community to easily locate the criteria for protecting
preserves, which has been located in several different sections of the LDC."
The fiscal & operational impacts are identified as follows: "The proposed amendments should have no fiscal
impact as it does not require any additional preservation than the current Code and Policies."
In actuality, the proposed amendments have significant impacts and may in fact, although not requiring additional
preservation area, require more of the site to be utilized for preservation and/or buffering. Let me explain:
Currently, LDC section 3.9.5.5. Preservation Standards sets forth the required preservation standards for various
types of developments. Section 3.9.5.5.2 specifically reads as follows:
All new developments shall retain existing native vegetation to the maximum extent
possible; especially where said native vegetation exists within required buffer areas.
When protected species are identified on site, priority shall be given to preserving these
habitats first, as a part of the retained native vegetation requirement (see section 3.11.3
for the management of these areas). Where the required minimum retained vegetation
percentage has been met pursuant to section 3.9.5.5.3 and 3.9.5.5.4 additional native
vegetation shall be retained unless necessary grade changes, required infrastructure,
stormwater management system design or approved construction footprints necessitate
its removal. The need to remove additional existing native trees shall be demonstrated by
the applicant as part of the vegetation removal review process. When required to be
removed, existing viable native trees shall be transplanted into site landscaping unless
the applicant can demonstrate that transplanting is not feasible or appropriate. Retained
areas of vegetation shall be preserved in their entirety with all trees, understory, and
ground covers left intact and undisturbed, except for prohibited exotic species removal,
enhancement with native plant material and pruning and maintenance.
Section 3.9.5.5.3. reads in part:
Areas of landscaping and open space which are planted with native species shall be
included in the 25 percent requirement considering canopy understory and ground cover,
3/21/2003
Page 2 of 4
providing that in such areas of credit, ground cover constitutes no more than 20 percent
of the landscaped area. Where a project has included open space, recreational amenities
or preserved wetlands that meet or exceed the minimum open space criteria of Collier
County, this policy shall not be construed to require a larger percentage of open space
set aside to meet the 25 percent native vegetation policy. This policy shall not be
interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands alone constitute more
than 25 percent of the site. Exceptions, by means of mitigation in the form of increased
landscape requirements, shall be granted for parcels, which cannot reasonably
accommodate both the preservation area and the proposed activity. Where native
preservation requirements are not accommodated, the landscape plan shall re-create a
native plant community in all three strata (ground cover, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger
plant materials so as to more quickly re-create the lost mature vegetation. Such re-
vegetation shall apply the standards of section 2.4.4. of this Code, and include a quantity
of plantings matching the amount of required preserved native vegetation that was
removed. The following minimum sizes shall apply: One gallon ground cover; five gallon
shrubs; 14 foot high trees with a seven foot crown spread and a dbh (diameter at breast
height) of three inches. Previously cleared parcels, void of native vegetation, shall be
exempt from this requirement.
Clearly, the highlighted portions of the existing code references anticipate the allowance of utilizing both required
buffer areas with existing native vegetation and,
in the case of developments "which cannot reasonably accommodate both the preservation area and the
proposed activity, increased native vegetation plantings within required buffer area may be used to meet the
native preservation requirement. Clearly this provision is intended to allow for flexibility (at a price)when the
native preservation requirements of the code cannot be met (in total). For example, on a 25 acre shopping center
site in the Urban area with 10 acres of native vegetation, 2.5 acres or 25% must be preserved. Let's say in this
case, as a result of site design and the need to fill a majority ff the site, only 2.25 acres of the native vegetation
can "reasonably" be preserved. The code, under 3.9.5.5.3 would allow the deficient .25 acres of native vegetation
preservation to be met by planting native vegetation (in larger sizes and in all three strata) with the required
n landscape buffer areas.
My concerns with the proposed language are as follows:
1. Under the proposed amendment, which purports to have no "fiscal impact as it does not require any
additional preservation than the current Code and Policies,"the following language is proposed:
3.9.7.2 ....For Planned Unit Development documents, 100% of the preserves should be identified on the
PUD Master Plan. If this is not possible, a minimum of 75% of the preserves shall be set-aside on the
PUD master plan with the remaining 25% identified at the time of the next development order submittal ...
These two sentence are mutually exclusive... either you show 100% or you show 75%. I favor striking
through the first sentence and revising the second sentence to read: A minimum of 75%of the required
native vegetation preserve areas shall be depicted on the PUD Master Plan. All required preserve areas
shall be identified at the time of any subsequent preliminary subdivision plat (PSP) or Site Development
Plan (SDP) submittal.
2. Section 3.9.7.4 requires the submission of a "Preserve Management Plan." Since many of these
preserve areas are not very large in size, it is, in my opinion, a ridiculous additional expense to have to
prepare a management plan for relatively small preserves surrounded by urban developmental the urban
area. Especially when the code already allows a property owner to meet a portion of the required native
vegetation preservation by replanting landscape buffers with identified native vegetation in all three
strata. I would recommend establishing a size limitation, say for any identified Preservation area which
incorporates habitat for listed species, or which exceeds 20 acres in size, a Preserve management plan
shall be required. For all other preserve areas, the following standards shall apply: (and then list some
standard requirements such as those referenced in 3.9.7.4.)
3. Section 3.9.7.5 Required Setbacks to Preserves states: All principal structures shall have a minimum
25-foot setback from the boundary of any preserve. Accessory structures shall have a minimum 10-foot
setback from the boundary of any preserve. There shall be no site alterations within the first 10 feet
adjacent to any preserve unless it can be demonstrated that it will not adversely impact the integrity 01
3/21/2003
Page 3 of 4
` that preserve.
While I can generally live with the above language, I believe the last sentence is a new regulation. It
should be identified as such under the Fiscal Impact and Changes headings of the amendment document
as this could have a fiscal impact on various developments. For example, a development that provides for
a portion of its required native vegetation preservation requirement within a required landscape buffer by
either retaining existing native vegetation or by replanting native vegetation in accordance with the LDC
requirements, under the last sentence of proposed Section 3.9.7.5 would not be permitted to have any
site alterations within ten feet of that landscape buffer. This requirement is a defacto increase in the buffer
width by 10 feet. There is a fiscal impact associate with this requirement and it may be quite significant on
a case-by case basis. IF a landowner wishes to retain native vegetation in a 20 foot landscape buffer
along a roadway, under this provision he cannot place his parking area with 10 feet of that buffer unless
he demonstrates that there is not adverse impact to the buffer area. Who and how will it be determined
whether or not there is an adverse impact form an improvement with the 10 foot area. This requirement
is not necessary and is overly complicated in terms of implementation and enforcement.
4. Section 3.9.7.6.2 establishes several new conditions related to recreate preserves. These new condition
should be clearly identified in the fiscal and operation and change headings of the LDC amendment
sheet. They are as follows:
(a) Approved created preserves may be used to recreate: not more than 50% of the required preserves if
the site is greater than 5 acres and less than 20 acres in size and not more than 25% of the required
preserves on sites between 20 acres and 40 acres in size. Created preserves shall not be permitted
on parcels greater than 40 acres.
(b) Where created preserves are approved, the landscape plan shall re-create a native plant community
in all three strata (ground cover, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant materials so as to more
quickly re-create the lost mature vegetation. Such re-vegetation shall apply the standards of section
2.4.4. of this Code, and include the following minimum sizes: one gallon ground cover; five gallon
shrubs; 14 foot high trees with a seven foot crown spread and a dbh (diameter at breast height) of
three inches. The spacing of the plants shall be as follows: twenty foot on center for trees, five foot
on center for shrubs and two foot on center for ground covers. Plant material shall be planted in a
manner that mimics a natural plant community and shall not be maintained as landscaping. Minimum
sizes for plant material may be reduced for scrub and other xeric habitats where smaller size plants
material are better suited for re-establishment of the native plant community. The minimum width of
the created preserve may be twenty feet for parcels less than five acres; thirty feet for parcels of five
acres and less than ten acres, and shall be fifty feet for parcels of ten acres and greater.
Paragraph (a) above, limits the ability of a property owner to "replant" native vegetation to meet the
preservation requirements, this is a new requirement and one which may, on a case-by-case basis, have
a significant fiscal impact on the project as it may require preservation of native vegetation in an area on
the site that falls within a proposed development area. A new requirement with such potential
ramifications such as these should have been fully identified and the potential impacts (especially on
smaller infill parcels) explored in greater detail.
The requirements set forth in Paragraph (a) as well as the new minimum buffer widths established last
sentence in Paragraph (b), contrary to the statement that "The proposed amendments should have no
fiscal impact as it[sic]does not require any additional preservation than the current Code and Policies,''
could (and in my opinion, in may cases, will) have the effect of increasing the amount of land on-site
dedicated to preserves and buffers, by increasing the size of the buffer areas that are to be used for such
native preservation and by establish maximum amounts of the required preservation that may be met
through replanting or re-creating native vegetation preservation areas. At the very least, this regulation
should not be applied to any project which as submitted and application (as significant dollars will have
been expended designing these projects), nor should these requirements be applied to any project
retroactively that was approved under the existing code (even in a site plan amendment redevelopment
scenario). These exclusions should be expressly stated in the new Section under a new subsection
entitled: Exceptions.
5. Some minor issues... this Section is new and is number 3.9.7. When I reviewed the LDC, I found an
existing 3.9.7. Also, much of the language in the new proposed 3.9.7. is taken from various other parts of
the Division 3.9. Either these other parts should be struck-through or cross-references should be added to
clarify the new regulations. Otherwise these do not clarify, but further confuse the LDC user
3/21/2003
Page4of4
I am sending this email to Ana Diaz and asking that she forward it to each member of the DSAC for their
consideration prior to the DSAC LDC Meting on March 19th. I am also sending this to Barbara Burgeson
and Bill Lorenz, so that they can be informed as to my opinions on the matter, and also, so that they can
consider, if they deem it appropriate, revisions to the proposed amendment in light of these comments.
3/21/2003
March 21,2003
ORIGIN: Community Development &Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Maura C. Kraus, Principal Environmental Specialist, and Kim Hadley,
Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services Department
LDC PAGE (S): LDC 3:160 to LDC 3:162.5
LDC SECTION: 3.14 Vehicle on the Beach Regulations
CHANGE: LDC format to consolidate redundant sections. Wording added to beach
raking and mechanical beach cleaning sections to clarify intent (Divisions 3.14.3.6.).
Incorporate an additional sections allowing heavy equipment to be used on the beach in
conjunction with beach nourishment and inlet maintenance and mitigation for impacts
(3.14.3.7). The proposed amendments require a setback of 15 feet to dune vegetation
and turtle nests for raking and mechanical equipment but reduces this distance to 10 feet
for surface grooming equipment that does not penetrate the beach surface. The
requirement of "tire tread identification" was proven impractical and therefore omitted.
(Section 3.14.3.7 and 3.14.7.5.1(a)). Variance conditions currently included in vehicle on
the beach permits were incorporated into the LDC (Section 3.14.3.6).
REASON: LDC amendments relative to vehicle on the beach permits issued in
conjunction with special or annual beach events (Sections 3.14.3.4), concession facilities
(Section 3.14.3.5) and routine functions associated with permitted uses of commercial
hotel property (Section 3.14.3.6) created during 2002 Cycle 2 were redundant. Staff have
consolidated these into one section (Section 3.14.3.4) to remove unnecessary wording
and confusion. Section 3.14.3.7 was added because the current LDC does not allow the
use of heavy equipment associated with beach nourishment and inlet maintenance.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Fiscal impacts to the County will be reduced
due less frequent use of current equipment minimizing operational and maintenance
costs.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: These amendments support
Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 10.5.5: Prohibit motorize vehicles
on the beaches and dunes except for emergency and maintenance purposes. The County
shall enforce this requirement with the existing Vehicle On The Beach Ordinance.
Amend the LDC as follows:
Page 1 of 9
March 21,2003
n
Sec.3.14.3.Exceptions; permit.
All permits to allow operation of vehicles on county beaches shall expire on April 30, of
each year, to coincide with the beginning of sea turtle nesting season. During sea turtle
nesting season, May 1 through October 31, of each year, all permits shall be subject to
section 3.14.6.4. of this division.
3.14.3.1. Sheriff, city, state and federal police and game and fish commission the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission vehicles operated or authorized by
officers of these departments operating under orders in the normal course of their duties
shall be exempt from the provisions of this division.
3.14.3.2. Vehicles which must travel on the beaches in connection with environmental
maintenance, conservation, environmental work, and/or for purposes allowed by Collier
County Ordinance No. 89-16, providing that the vehicle(s) associated with the permitted
uses of Collier County Ordinance No. 89-16 remain stationary, except to access and
egress the beach, shall be exempt from the provisions of this division if a permit has been
obtained from the Environmental Services Department director
or his designee, and said [permit] is prominently displayed on the windshield of such
vehicle and kept with the vehicle and available for inspection. The procedure for
obtaining such a permit shall be by application to the site development review
Environmental Services Department director in writing stating the reason or reasons why
it is necessary for such vehicle or vehicles to be operated on the beaches in connection
with an environmental maintenance, conservation, environmental purpose and/or for
purposes allowed by Collier County Ordinance No. 89-16, taking into consideration the
vehicular use restriction previously stated as a criterion for an exception, and permit for
such vehicle or vehicles shall be issued by the Environmental
Services Department director if the site development review Environmental Services
Department director is satisfied that a lawful and proper environmental maintenance,
conservation, environmental purpose and/or purpose as described above and allowed by
Collier County Ordinance No. 89-16 will be served thereby.
3.14.3.3. Baby buggies (perambulators), toy vehicles, toy wagons, wheelchairs or similar
devices to aid disabled or non-ambulatory persons shall be exempt from the provisions of
this division.
3.14.3.4. Vehicle-on-the-beach permits issued in conjunction with special or annual
beach events, in conjunction with permanent concession facilities, or for other routine
functions associated with permitted uses of commercial hotel property. Vehicles which
are used in conjunction with functions on the beach, us permitted by an approved special
- - • .. ., . _ . - . , . . .. . - - • - . , are exempt from the
provisions of this division if a vehicle-on the-beach permit has been granted by the
Environmental Services director or his designee. All permits issued are
subject to the following conditions and limitations:
Page 2 of 9
March 21,2003
* * * * * *
3.14.3.4.5.Permits shall only be issued for ATVs when staff has determined that: 1)
evidence has been provided that there is a need to move equipment, which, due to the
excessive weigh and distance of equal to or greater than 200 feet, would be prohibitive in
nature to move with, push carts or dollies. due to the distance and the excessive weight of
the equipment to be moved that it would be prohibitive in nature to use push carts or
dallies or 2) a limited designated work area has been established at the foot of the dune
walkover for loading and unloading and the ATV use is restricted to that limited
identified area.
3.14.3.4.7. During sea turtle nesting season, the following shall apply: 1) no vehicle may
be used on the beach until after completion of daily sea turtle monitoring conducted by
personnel with prior experience and training in nest surveys procedures and possessing a
valid Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Marine Turtle Permit; 2) consistent
commercial beach equipment, etc. until after the beach has been monitored; 32) one
ingress/egress corridor onto and over the beach, perpendicular to the shoreline from the
owner's property, shall be designated by the Collier County Natural Resources
Department (CCNRD) Collier County Environmental Services Department (ESD) ;
additional corridors may be approved when appropriate and necessary; a staging area
may be approved for large events and 3) except for designated corridors, all motorized
vehicles shall be operated below the Mean High Water line (MHW), as generally
evidenced by the previous high tide mark. If at anytime CCNRD ESD determines that the
designated corridor may cause adverse impacts to the beach, nesting sea turtles, or the
ability of hatchlings to traverse the beach to the water, an alternative corridor shall be
designated. If no alternative is available, the vehicle-on-the-beach permit may be
suspended for the remaining period of the sea turtle season.
3.14.3.5. Vehicle on the beach permits issued in conjunction with permanent concession
facilities: Shall be exempt from the provisions of this division if a vehicle on the beach
permit has been granted by the planning services director or his designee. Vehicles which
are used in conjunction with approved permitted beach concession activities may be used
and return it to the approved storage area, subject to the following conditions and
limaat•
3.14.3.5.1. The types of vehicles permitted for this use may include ATVs, non
ATVs.
3.14.3.5.2. Said permit shall be prominently displayed on the vehicle and kept with the
Page 3 of 9
March 21,2003
3.14.3.5.3. All vehicles shad be equipped with-1 . . ' ' - -_ . - .. •-- . -
included with each permit application.
(1) Evidence has been provided that there is a need to move equipment,
which, due to the excessive weight and distance, of equal to or greater
than 200 feet, would be prohibitive in nature to move with, push carts or
dollies-
dune walkover for loading and unloading and the ATV use is restricted to
3.14.3.5.5. When not in use all vehicles shall be stored off the beach.
3.14.34A 4.8 These vehicles may not be used for transportation of people or equipment
throughout the day. The permit shall designate a limited time for equipment set up and
for the removal of the equipment at the end of the day.
3.14.3.5.7. During sea turtle nesting season, the following shall apply: 1) no vehicle may
valid Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Marine Turtle Permit; 2) consistent
with section 3.13.7.3., there shall be no use of vehicles for set up of chairs or hotel or
commercial beach equipment until after the beach has been monitored; 3) one
owner's property, shall be designated by; additional corridors may be approved when
appropriate and necessary and 1) except for designated corridors, all motorized vehicle&
shall be operated below MHW, as generally evidenced by the previous high tide mark. If
at anytime determines that the designated corridor may cause adverse impacts to the
beach, nesting sea turtles, or the ability of hatchlings to traverse the beach to the water, an
alternative corridor shall be designated. If no alternative is available, the vehicle on the
3.14.3.6. Vehicle on the beach permits for other routine functions associated with
permitted uses of commercial hotel property. Vehicles which are used in conjunction
with tasks such as routine equipment set up that cannot reasonably be accomplished
without the use of such vehicle due to size, weight, volume and such, shall be exempt
from the provisions of this division if a vehicle on the beach permit has been granted by
the planning services director or his designee, subject to the following conditions and
limitations:
Page 4of9
March 21,2003
3.14.3.6.1. Use of the vehicle shall be limited to a one time set up and a one time
3.14.3.6.2. Said permit shall be prominently displayed on the vehicle and kept with the
3.14.3.6.3. The types of vehicles permitted for this use may include ATVs, non
motorized handcarts or dollies.
. •. ...•. .- •• .• - . . • - . . _ . • .. • . - - - . . •_ - -
been me
(1) Evidence has been provided that there is a need to move equipment,
which, due to the excessive weigh and distance of equal to or greater than
200 feet, would be prohibitive in nature to move with, push carts or
dollies.
(2) A limited designated work area has been established at the foot of the
that limited identified area.
n
- - • - - -
3.14.3.6.6. When not in use all vehicles shall be stored off the beach.
3.14.3.6.7. During sea turtle nesting season, the following shall apply: 1) no vehicle may
be used on the beach until after completion of daily sea turtle monitoring conducted by
personnel with prior experience and training in nest surveys procedures and possessing a
valid Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Marine Turtle Permit; 2) consistent 1
commercial beach equipment until after the b uch has been monitored; 3) one
ingress/egress corridor onto and over the beach, perpendicular to the shoreline from the
' - • - -
_
shall be operated below MHW, as generally evidenced by the previous high tide mark. If
at anytime determines that the designated corridor may cause adverse impacts to the
beach, nesting sea turtles, or the ability of hatchlings to traverse the beach to the water, an
3.14.3.7. Tire tread identifications. All rear tires shall be marked with raised metal
Page 5of9
March 21,2003
vehicles using the beach during sea turtle season.
(Ord. No. 93 37, § 3; Ord. No. 93 89, § 3; Ord. No. 00 92, § 3.N.; Ord. No. 01 34, §
3.K.)
Sec. 3.14..3.5 Permit for construction (excluding beach renourishment and
maintenance activities) .
Prior to beginning construction in proximity to a sand dune for any purpose whatsoever,
including conservation, a temporary protective fence shall be installed a minimum of ten
feet landward of the dune. It shall be unlawful to cause or allow construction and related
activity seaward of such fence. Each permit for work shall clearly indicate the provisions
of this Code and the protective measures to be taken and shall be subject to the provisions
of section 3.14.6.4. of this division.
(Ord. No. 93-37, § 3)
Sec.3.14.5.3.6. Beach raking and mechanical beach cleaning.
3.14.M-.3.6.1 Beach raking and mechanical beach cleaning shall be prohibited on
undeveloped coastal barriers unless a state permit is obtained.
3.14.5.2.3.6.2 Beach raking and mechanical beach cleaning must comply with the
provisions of section 3.14.6.4. of this division.
3.14.5-3.-3.6.3 Beach raking and mechanical beach cleaning shall not interfere with sea
turtle nesting, shall preserve or replace any native vegetation on the site, and shall
maintain the natural existing beach profile and minimize interference with the natural
beach dynamics and function; which includes the natural wrack-line.
3.14.3.6.4 Beach raking and mechanical cleaning shall not occur below MHW on the wet
sand area of beach which is covered by high tide and which remains wet during low tide.
Beach raking and mechanical beach cleaning shall not operate or drive within 15 feet of
dune vegetation and endangered plant and animal communities, including sea turtle nests.
Surface grooming equipment that does not penetrate the sand may operate or drive to
within 10 feet of dune vegetation and endangered plant and animal communities,
including sea turtle nests.
3.14.5.4 3.6.5. Beach raking and mechanical beach cleaning devices shall not disturb or
penetrate beach sediments by more than the minimum depth necessary, not to exceed ene
two inches, in order to avoid a potential increase in the rate of erosion. In-eases-where-the
one inch depth is not sufficient, a maximum depth of two inches, as allowed by tho
department of natural resources will be permitted where approved in writing by tho
development services director.
Page6of9
March 21,2003
3.14.53 3.6.6 Vehicles with greater than 10 psi ground to tire
pressure, shall not be used to conduct beach raking and mechanical beach cleaning.
Lightweight Vehicles with wide, low profile, low pressure tires less than 10 psi ground
to tire pressure, in conjunction with the attachment of a screen, harrow drag or other
similar device used for smoothing may be used to conduct beach raking and mechanical
beach clean ng upon approval of the ESD or designee.
3.14.3.6.7 Mechanical beach cleaning involving sand screening or a combination of
raking and screening shall only be conducted on an "as needed" basis as determined by
the Public Utilities Engineering Department and the Environmental Services Department.
Necessity will include when large accumulations of dead and dying sea-life or other
debris remains concentrated on the wrack-line for a minimum of two tidal cycles
following a storm event, red tide or other materials which represent a hazard to public
health.
(Ord. No. 93-37, § 3; Ord. No. 93-89, § 3; Ord. No. 01-34, § 3.K.)
Sec.3.14.3.7 Vehicles associated with Beach Nourishment and Inlet Maintenance
3.14.3.7.1 Heavy equipment used in conjunction with beach nourishment, inlet
maintenance, to accomplish FDEP permit requirements, or other unusual circumstance as
determined by the CDES Administrator, which cannot meet the standard PSI, will require
compaction mitigation. Mitigation shall be accomplished by tilling to a depth of 36
inches or other FDEP approved methods of decreasing compaction. Beach tilling shall be
accomplished prior to April 15 following construction and for the next 2 years should
compaction evaluations exceed state requirements.
3.14.3.7.2 Utilization of equipment for the removal of scarps, as required by FDEP, shall
be limited to an ingress/egress corridor and a zone parallel to the MHW. Scarp removal
during sea turtle season shall have prior FDEP approval and coordinated through the
FDEP, FWCC, CCESD and the person possessing a valid Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission Marine Turtle Permit for the area.
3.14.3.7.3 No tilling of the beaches shall occur during sea turtle nesting season.
Sec. 3.14.6.4. Operation of vehicles on the beach during marine turtle nesting
season.
The operation of motorized vehicles, including but not limited to self-propelled, wheeled,
tracked, or belted conveyances, is prohibited on coastal beaches above mean high water
during sea turtle nesting season, May 1 to October 31, of each year, except for purposes
of law enforcement, emergency, or conservation of sea turtles, unless such vehicles have
a valid permit issued pursuant to this division. Permits issued pursuant to this division are
not intended to authorize any violation of F.S. § 370.12, or any of the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as it may be amended.
Page 7 of 9
March 21,2003
.-� 3.14.6.4.1. All . - . . : . : •-- . . - . •-: vehicle use on the beach
during sea turtle nesting season, May 1 to October 31, of each year must not begin before
completion of monitoring conducted by personnel with prior experience and training in
nest surveys procedures and possessing a valid Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission Marine Turtle Permit.
Sec.3.14.7.5. Penalties.
Notwithstanding the penalties set forth elsewhere in this Code, violations of this division
are subject to the following penalties:
3.14.7.5.1. Violations of section 3.14.5.3.6. which do not occur during sea turtle nesting
season, i.e., occur outside of sea turtle nesting season, are subject to up to a $500.00 fine
per violation.
3.14.4.5. 2. Minor infractions of section 3.14.5.3.6, which occur during sea turtle nesting
season are subject to up to a $500.00 fine per violation. Minor infractions are defined as
any activity that will not cause immediate harm to sea turtles or their nesting activity; and
include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) use of an unpermitted vehicle; 2)
vehicles being operated: a) without required tire tread identification; b ) without permit
being available for inspection; or e b) with improper tire pressure.
3.14.5.3. Major infractions of section 3.14.5.3.6, which occur during sea turtle nesting
season, are subject to the following penalties. Major infractions are defined as any
activity that may cause immediate harm to sea turtles or their nesting activities; and
include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) use of a vehicle prior to daily sea turtle
monitoring, 2) use of a vehicle after 9:30 pm, or 3) use of a vehicle outside of a
designated corridor.
First violation: $1000.00 fine and a suspension of permitted activities, including
but not limited to: Beach raking or mechanical cleaning activities, for 70 days or
the balance of sea turtle nesting season, whichever is less.
Second violation: $2,500.00 fine and a suspension of permitted activities,
including but not limited to: Beach raking or mechanical cleaning activities, for
70 days or the balance of sea turtle nesting season, whichever is less.
Third or more violation: $5,000.00 fine and a suspension of permitted activities,
including but not limited to: Beach raking or mechanical cleaning activities, for
70 days or the balance of sea turtle nesting season, whichever is less.
3.14.4.5.4. Violations of sections 3.14.3.2.; 3.14.3.1.; 3:1'1.3.5.; or 3.11.3.6 , which do
not occur during sea turtle nesting season, i.e., occur outside of sea turtle nesting season,
are subject to up to a$500.00 fine per violation.
Page 8 of 9
March 21,2003
* t
3.14.4.5_5. Violations of sections 3.14.3.2.; 3.14.3.1.; 3.11.3.5.; or 3.11.3.6., which
occur during sea turtle nesting season are subject to the following penalties:
1. Minor infractions are subject to up to a $500.00 fine per violation. Minor
infractions are defined as any activity that will not cause an immediate
harm to sea turtles or their nesting activity; and include, but are not limited
to, the following: 1) use of an unpermitted vehicle; 2) vehicles being
operated: . . .' . ' . . • ' ' . •.-; . with permit not
available for inspection; or e with improper tire pressure.
Page 9 of 9
TIE CONSERVANCY
Of Southwest Florida
1450 Merrihue Drive•Naples, FL 34102
239.403.4213•Fax 239.262.0672
www.conservancy.org
March 19,2003
Mr.Ken Abernathy
Chair,Collier County Planning Commission
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples FL 34112
RE: Proposed Changes to the Collier County Land Development Code Section 3.14.
Dear Chairman Abernathy:
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida asks that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend the retention of language
currently in the LDC Section 3.14.3.4.7(2),which is proposed for deletion. We understand the intent of the language
modifications to the Vehicle on the Beach section is to consolidate and avoid redundancy. However,we believe that the
language that is being removed provides necessary clarification for businesses and property owners as to when they can operate
vehicles on the beach during sea turtle nesting season.
The intent of Section 3.14.3.4.7 is to establish the specific guidelines for when vehicles will be allowed on the beach during turtle
season. Section 3.14.3.4.7(1)states
No vehicle may be used on the beach until after completion of daily sea turtle monitoring conducted by personnel with
prior experience and training in nest surveys procedures and possessing a valid Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission Marine Turtle Permit.
Section 3.14.3.4.7(2)goes on to further clarify
Consistent with section 3.13.7.3.,there shall be no use of vehicles for set up of chairs or hotel or commercial beach
equipment,etc.until after the beach has been monitored.
County staff is proposing to eliminate the language in Section 3.14.3.4.7(2). While technically Section 3.13.3.4.7(1)does cover
the use of vehicles for set up,its repetition in Subsection(2)helps to reinforce and add clarification to what activities are not
allowed on the beach prior to sea turtle monitors checking for new nests. The Conservancy asks that this language be kept in the
LDC.
If you have any questions,please contact me at(239)403-4220.
Sincerely,
Nicole Ryan
Environmental Policy Manager
CC: Collier County Planning Commission
Susan Murray
Maura Kraus
Kim Hadley
ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Susan Murray, AICP, Current Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT: Planning Services
LDC PAGE: LDC 6:18
LDC SECTION: Division 6.3 definitions -Density
CHANGE: Clarify the intent of the method to calculate residential density.
REASON: Clarification of applicability.
FISCAL& OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None
6.3 definitions:
Density, residential: The number of residential dwelling units permitted per gross acre of
land and allowed under the Comprehensive Plan's Density Rating System subject to
limitations of the corresponding zoning district determined by dividing the development's
total number of dwelling units by the total area of residential land within the legally
described boundaries of the residential development's a lot(s) or parcel (s). Total
residential land area does not include existing platted land area for vehicular rights-of-
way, whether public or private, nor and exclusive of land within a planned unit
development district that is to be used for commercial or industrial uses. Total residential
land area may include land submerged beneath an existing freshwater body (e.g., ponds
or lakes) so long as evidence of fee ownership of the submerged lands is provided at the
time of development application but may not include tidal water bodies and marine
wetlands. For purposes of calculating density the total number of dwelling units may be
rounded up to the next whole number if the dwelling unit total yields a fraction of a unit
.5 or greater.
.cam