Loading...
EAC Agenda 07/02/2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA July 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 June 4,2003 Meeting Minutes IV. Solid Waste Program Overview V. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development Amendment No.PUDZ-2002-AR-2944 "Royal Palm Academy" Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East B. Planned Unit Development Amendment No.PUDZ-2003-AR-3605 "Botanical Place" Section 14,Township 50 South,Range 25 East C. Planned Unit Development Amendment No.PUDZ-2002-AR-3158 "Coconilla" Section 17,Township 48 South,Range 25 East D. Conditional Use No.CU-2002-AR-3537 "Steward Earthmining" Section 19,Township 46 South,Range 29 East VI. Old Business: VII. New Business: A. Consideration to schedule a separate meeting date in October to hear the Cycle 3 LDC amendments VIII. Council Member Comments IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment ********************************************************************************* Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m.on June 27,2003 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. June 4, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Board Meeting Room, 3rd Floor,Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples,Florida 34112 9:00 AM June 4, 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 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,with the following members present: Members: Tom Sansbury Michael Sorrell n Alexandra Santoro Ken Humiston Bill Hughes Alfred Gal Michael Coe Ed Carlson Erica Lynne Collier County Staff: Patrick White Bill Lorenz Barb Burgeson Stan Chrzanowski n Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL c. AGENDA June 4,2003 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building(Building"F")—Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of May 7,2003 Meeting Minutes IV. Solid Waste Program Overview V. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2002-AR-2357 Development Order Amendment No.DOA-2002-AR-2358 "Parklands PUD/DRI"Section 9,Township 48 South,Range 26 East B. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3011 "Tuscany Cove PUD"- Section 26, Township n 48 South, Range 26 East C. Planned Unit Development No. PUD-2002-AR-2475 "Falling Waters PUD"- Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East VI. Old Business: A. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Land Development Code Amendment(2.2.27) - I VII. New Business: VIII. Council Member Comments IX. Public Comments • X. Adjournment ************************************************************************************ Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 •.m. on May 30 2003 if ou cannot attend this meetin. or if ou 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. June 4, 2003 I. Roll Call -The meeting was called to order at 9:08 AM. A quorum was established. Members: Michael Sorrel, Alexandra Santoro, Tom Sansbury, Ken Humiston, Bill Hughes, Alfred Gal, Michael Coe, Ed Carlson, Erica Lynne Collier County Staff: Patrick White, Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, II. Approval of Agenda -Item IV of the agenda, Solid Waste Program Overview, was continued until the July meeting of the EAC. During the Solid Waste Program Overview the county as well as an additional outside committee will provide the presentation. III. Approval of May 7,2003 meeting minutes -Mr. Hughes moved to approve the minutes of May 7, 2003 as written. It was seconded by Alexandra Santoro. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 9-0. IV. Land Use Petitions A) Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-AR-2357 Development Order Amendment No. DOA-2002-AR-2358 "Parklands PUD/DRI" Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 26 East -Mr. Carlson disclosed the fact that he previously had a meeting with the petitioner. -The court reporter swore in all those who would be testifying. -Bob Mulhere,RWA, represented the petitioner. Mr. Mulhere introduced his staff and stated that Ricardo Valera, the Water Management District,was in the audience if needed. The Parklands DRI was approved in 1985 and has been amended a few times to push back the commencement date. The site was shown on a map and is located in both Collier and Lee County. The property is within the urban area. The site permits multi-family and single family units. The petitioner is asking for a conversion from the multi-family units to single family units; for every single family dwelling unit, 1.66 multi-family units will be reduced from the total number. This calculation has i"t been developed to minimize traffic. The petitioner is also seeking to add an Page 2 June 4, 2003 additional 9 holes of golf. The document language and information is being revised to meet the current standards and facts. There was a fire on the site, during which a lot of the native vegetation was destroyed and exotics have begun to grow. The preserved wetland will be restored by removing the exotic vegetation. Mitigation will be done for impacts. The petitioner has been meeting with several environmental groups over the past few months. The design suggestions of these groups were taken into consideration and some were used. The group met with Mr. Carlson to discuss how to increase the wading bird habitat in the native preserves and the reconstructed wetlands. The site will result in the permanent protection of—477 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, incorporate habitat restoration for wading birds, and it furthers the conservation goals, objectives, &policies and the FLUE. The petitioner agrees to abide by the conditions of staff, listed in the staff report. -Ian Butler, Butler Environmental,represented the petitioner. There are 291.03acres of existing water management district wetlands on the site. In 1998 there was less than 10 acres claimed by the water management district. The site has a history of drastic changes in hydrology; dry in the winter, wet in the summer. Since the pumping activities in the agricultural fields to the north have ceased,the duration of the standing water in the wet season has decreased. The largest vegetation on-site is uniform; Hydra-pine Flatwood with Malucca coverage. In 1999 a fire burned —180acres of the wetlands on the east side of the site. The burned lands have re- vegetated with Malucca, wetland grasses, and Saw Palmetto. The burned areas will have exotic removals and supplemental enhancement planning. The petitioner is proposing 148.99 acres of wetland impacts,impact areas where located on a map. 155.4 acres of wetland and uplands will be preserved as mitigation for these impacts and exotic vegetation will also be eradicated. A monitoring schedule will be required as part of the Water Management District requirements. The petitioner also purchased 329.89 acres of off-site mitigation. Through the meetings with Mr. Carlson to mitigate for the potential impacts to Wood Storks, the petitioner will create 6 shallow water pond areas within the wetland preserve. The petitioner is waiting for a response about their most recent submittal from Fish and Wildlife. The /'•N environmental portion of the environmental resources permit has been completed. Page 3 June 4, 2003 -Mr. Hughes asked if the standing water was representative of a naturally occurring standing water area. Mr. Mulhere noted that although the flow-way does not go through the property, they are participating in the flow-way as requested by the Water Management District. Mr. Mulhere always informed the EAC that the DRI requires the developer to construct a roadway, (the only N-S collector in the region), which they have been working with staff on. The petitioner is paying for the roadway, which will be of no cost to the county, and is not asking for road-fee credits. Dave Underhill, Banks Engineering, stated that the increase in standing water has occurred due to area development. Mr. Hughes asked if the preserve area would continue as a water collection infiltration area. Mr. Underhill stated that it will. -Mr. Carlson asked if they anticipated that the elevation of the water would be above control elevation levels for long periods of time. Mr. Underhill stated that they would anticipate standing water after significant rain events. -Mr. Sansbury asked where the agricultural run-off would go. Mr. Underhill informed him that the Water Management District determined that the projects in Lee n County will discharge to the ditches along Bonita Beach Rd and ultimately to the Imperial River. This will reduce the amount of artificial flows to the system. -Mr. Humiston asked what would happen after the five year mitigation plan. Mr. Butler informed him that they believed the site should be self-sustaining after five years. If it is not, then the monitoring period will be extended until it is determined to be self-sustaining. Mr. Mulhere added that exotic vegetation removal and maintenance in perpetuity was a standard requirement for PUDs. -Mr. Coe was concerned that the roadway would be 2 lanes when it should be 4-6 lanes. Mr. Mulhere stated that they do not have the opportunity, land, to build more than a 2 lane road. Mr. Coe noted an alternative location for a wider road. Mr. Mulhere stated that some of the locations are not possible because they do not know the future of 951. Mr. Mulhere stated that if more Right Of Way was available, then 4 lanes may have been considered, but 2 lanes would be sufficient. -Mr. Carlson stated that he felt there was an overall benefit being provided from this project and he was in favor of approval. Page 4 June 4, 2003 -Mr. Hughes asked if the future road would impede any hydrology. Mr. Mulhere informed him that the road has been designed to enhance the flow. -Mr. Carlson made a motion for approval. It was seconded by Alfred Gal. Erica Lynne asked that the motion be amended to include the staff recommendations as a stipulation of approval. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Gal amended their motion to include the staff recommendations. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously; 9-0. B) Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3011 "Tuscany Cove PUD" Section 26, Township 48 South,Range 26 East -There were no ex parte disclosures. -The court reporter swore in all those who would be testifying. -Dwight Nadoo, RWA, represented the petitioner. The site is 78 acres. The proposed development is for a moderate intensity single family attached/detached villas of 500 ?"-`` dwelling units. 7.28 acres is encumbered with wetlands; 67% are Malucca, 6% disturbed lands, and 27% are mixed Pine Cypress/Malucca. 50% of the wetland area is intended to be impacted, with areas identified and suggested by the Water Management District. The project has been in the planning stages for 1 Y2 years. The pre-application meeting has already occurred and they are currently responding to their first RAI. Only 29.88 acres of the site is native vegetation; 7.74 acres will be retained and replanted; 5 acres are native preservation and—2.94 acres are native preserves. There will be more native preserves on the property then what is required by code, but some of the areas will not meet the dimensional standards of the June 16, 2003 LDC. Late development on this PUD masterplan are the result of comments made by the Water Management District; native preserve#6 has been added and native preserve #7 will be renamed. The site is flat with elevations ranging from 12.68 NGBD to 12.89 NGBD, the control elevation is 12,the 25 year flood minimum road elevation will be 15.01 NGBD, and the 100 year minimum flood elevation is 15.85 NGBD. —13% of the site will be in lakes. Mr. Nadoo introduced the project n team that was available for questions. Page 5 June 4, 2003 /""\ -Mr. Carlson asked if the plan was to avoid the preserve areas while clearing the rest of the property. Mr. Nadoo informed him that the plan was to avoid the preserve areas as well as the native preserve areas, attain as much native vegetation that would exist after the Malucca removal, and retain this on the lot. -Mr. Sansbury asked if the entrance would line up with the neighboring entrance across the street. Mr. Nadoo stated that it would and it will be a controlled access. -Mr. Hughes asked where the water would go if there was a 12 year or 50 year storm. Emilio Robero stated that site has good outfall facilities and is berm-ed to the 20 year level. If it goes above 25 years, then the water will go onto adjacent properties, but this is the same situation for the entire area. This was designed in accordance by the minimum county standards. -Mr. Hughes asked if it was correct to say that they have increased the ability of this property to absorb and contain water, so it will reduce outfall in most cases. Mr. Nadoo stated that this was correct. -Mr. Hughes made a motion for approval with the staff recommendations. Mr. Coe n seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion;the motion passed unanimously, 9-0. C) Planned Unit Development No. PUD-2002-AR-2475 "Falling Waters PUD" Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East -There were no ex parte disclosures. -The court reporter swore in all those would be testifying. -Gary Butler, Butler Engineering, represented the petitioner and introduced the project team. The petitioner originally requested a waiver for this application because they are only adding 5 acres of development while adding 22 acres of preserve area. Staff denied the waiver. No units will be added. The five acre addition will be developed. There will be a circular road system rather than the original cul-de-sac system. Page 6 June 4, 2003 -Mr. Carlson asked if the original, smaller preserves would disappear. Mr. Butler stated that they were removed from the preserve requirements, but they will remain on site. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion for approval with the staff recommendations. It was seconded by Mr. Carlson. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 9-0. V. Old Business A) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Land Development Code Amendment (2.2.27) -Barbara Burgeson noted that there was a current, middle LDC cycle; the items being discussed are not environmental or water management issues,but there are a number of landscaping issues. She stated that the board could look at the amendments independently and email any comments to staff. The EAC will not see amendment cycles again until the fall of 2003. Staff will mail copies of the amendments to the board. -Bill Lorenz stated that the packet contains the draft of 2.2.27 that went before the board for their first public hearing. Some minor changes have been made; mostly language changes and changes in response to board comments. The BCC will meet on this item on June 16, 2003. -Mr. Carlson asked,page 20 under item D,what the link was to required stewardship. Mr. Lorenz informed him that the person would be required to strip the rights off the land and not use them in the future. Mr. Carlson stated that there was no direct connection to land stewardship. Mr. Mulhere informed him that it is a stewardship plan for environmental protection,but also for protection of existing agricultural uses. As the uses are stripped and the sending designation is achieved, an agreement document will be recorded that spells out maintenance and other environmental management aspects. Mr. Lorenz stated that the stewardship credit agreement is outlined on Page 18 under number 5. Mr. Mulhere added that there is a requirement to review the program in 5 years. -Mr. Carlson asked when the standards for 5F would be developed. Mr. Mulhere ^ stated that there is no plan for specific standards; each plan was to be viewed on a Pagel June 4, 2003 case to case basis. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Coe felt that it was important to have the specifics standards be listed in the amendment. Mr. Mulhere agreed that they could place specific standards in the amendment. -Mr. Coe felt that the consequences of not following the standards should also be listed in the amendment. Mr. Mulhere agreed,but added that traditional forms of legal enforcement and code enforcement would take place. Mr. White noted that this is part of the LDC and therefore enforceable as any other part of the LDC is. Mr. White stated that the board could suggest ways to modify or strengthen the enforcement of the LDC, but that would be a separate item from this. Mr. Mulhere added that there will be enough oversight to identify non-compliance with the plan and when a sending area is created easements over the property are created, which places specific identities to oversee the easement. Mr. Mulhere referred to item H on page 18,which stated that the credit agreement must include items regarding the assurance and enforceability of the credit agreement. Erica Lynne stated that the difference between violation of this agreement and code .''*\ violations is that environmental lands cannot be replaced once they have been destroyed. Mr. Mulhere stated that this is the same impact as when a PUD preserve is destroyed. He noted that if this type of enforcement is to be changed or strengthened then it is not in this plan,but in provision 1.9. -Erica Lynne recommended that the other environmental groups, (Florida Wildlife, Conservancy, Audubon Society, etc...),be included in the process for a stewardship agreement plan. Mr. Mulhere stated that he doesn't see a problem with it,but he did not think that it needed to be a provision of the plan since the agreement was between the landowner, county, and possible other government organization. Mr. Lorenz stated that the stewardship agreements will be adopted by the BCC in a public hearing,which will allow opportunity for public comments. Mr. Mulhere added that some of the agreements will come before the EAC, which will allow additional public comments. -Mr. Carlson recommended that in item F -Page 18, they specify that if you establish a sending area, then you will achieve, at least,no more than a 5% exotic vegetation cover on those sending areas. Page 8 June 4, 2003 /'•\ -Mr. Coe recommended more specific wording under Item H—Page 18 to cover ensuring enforceability of the credit agreement. Mr. Mulhere asked if the intent was to have more accountability for stewardship. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Coe stated that this was the intent. -Mr. Carlson made a motion to add the specified criteria to 5F and strengthen& clarifying provisions for enforceability in 5H. Mr. Coe seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 9-0. -Mr. Carlson stated that on Page 43 —Item 4, they should add#5 that discusses a special taxing district called LSTU; land stewardship taxing unit. Mr. Carlson went on to explain that an LSTU would generate a fund that would be administered by the county and that grants from the fund could be dispensed to land management projects within the sending area. Mr. Carlson made a motion to add item#5 as he discussed. Public Comment -Mimi Wallac, founder and director of The Greater Everglades Land Trust, stated that the land trust she worked for was a new land trust. Their mission is to work with private landowners and government to preserve lands in the greater Everglades eco-region. They are looking for creative partnerships with government and private landowners. Mimi Wallac had no comment on LSTUs. -Mr. White noted that in Item#4—Page 43, "other special taxing districts"was listed. Mr. Carlson stated that item#4 encouraged this, but did not require it. Mr. White added that it would be difficult to require a special taxing district without a vote being made on the matter. . Mr. White suggested that a definition be created for LSTU and added in the plan. -The motion was recalled. Mr. Carlson amended his motion to recommend LSTU be added under Item#4 Page 43. It was seconded by Mr. Coe. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 9-0 Page 9 June 4,2003 VI.New Business -There was no new business to discuss. VII. Council Member Comments of how the county -Mr. Coe stated that the"Parklands PUD/DRI"was a prime example should take a good look at the roads. He was concerned that the road would be built with 2 lanes and then widened in years to come,rather than making the road wider to begin with. He suggested Mr. Lorenz or staff talk to someone about how the county projects relate to these PUD roads. -Mr. Sansbury agreed that this was a valid concern,but suggested that Mr. Coe speak to the commissioners. Mr. Coe felt that this could be discussed on a staff level first. -Mr. Mulhere noted that in the"Parklands PUD/DRI"the transportation did reviewthe road and the road that will be developed is accommodating what the county was asking for. He corrected an earlier statement, saying that this road will accommodate 4 lanes, but not 6 lanes. -Alexandra Santoro referred to the morning paper, stating that since the county would be coming up with new enforcement policies on PUDs,she would like the chance fort e EAC to review them. -Alexandra Santoro asked about the newsletters she had been writing. Barbara Burgeson stated that she still needed to work out where they would go and how it would ber and that handled. She asked Alexandra Santoro to continue sending the newsletter her Patrick White would review them to see if staff needed to consider funds or other legal issues. VIII. Public Comments -There were no additional public comments. IX. Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:03AM. Collier County Environmental Advisory Committee Chairman Tom Sansbury Page10 Item V.A. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JULY 2, 2003 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: PUDZ-2002-AR-2944 Petition Name: Royal Palm Academy PUD Applicant/Developer: Naples Education, Inc. Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor& Associates, P.A. Environmental Consultant: Phoenix Environmental Group, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located north of Immokalee Road and west of I-75, bisected by Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. n III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are mostly developed with the following zoning classifications: ZONING DESCRIPTION N - A Undeveloped; future site of North Naples Middle School (west of Livingston Road) S - A &A-ST Undeveloped RSF-3 Imperial Golf Estates Phase 5; developed with single-family homes PUD Madiera; undeveloped, currently under review E - PUD &PUD-ST The Strand(Pelican Strand PUD); developed with golf course and residential uses W - RSF-3 &RSF-3-ST Imperial Golf Estates Phase 4; developed with single-family homes /-• IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EAC Meeting Page 2 of 8 The subject site consists of 162.7 acres. The site is divided into two parcels by Livingston Road. The western parcel is the proposed location of the school campus, residential uses, and preserves. The eastern parcel is the location of the existing school's modular classrooms and is proposed for residential uses. The PUD proposes roadway interconnection with North Naples Middle School and the Agricultural parcel to the north. The PUD also provides a right-of-way easement along part of the southern boundary, which would provide access to the undeveloped Agricultural parcel and provide access to Livingston Road for the residents of Imperial Golf Estates. The eastern and western parcels of Royal Palm Academy PUD will be connected across Livingston Road at a full median opening, which may meet the warrants for signalization. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is currently designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This Subdistrict permits residential development at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre and non-residential uses that are compatible with, and/or support, the residential character of the residential designation, such as, churches,private schools, and day care centers. Review of the Density Rating System yields the site is eligible for a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre. The PUD is not eligible for additional bonus density. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses and density for the subject site may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by treating stormwater onsite prior to discharge into the onsite wetlands. The proposed project is consistent with Policy 6.1.1 in that 25% of the existing native vegetation will be retained on-site and set aside as preserve areas with EAC Meeting Page 3 of 8 conservation easements prohibiting further development. These preserve areas are adjoining off-site preservation areas and emphasize the protection of wetlands in a large contiguous area, in accordance with this Policy. The project is consistent with Policy 6.1.4 in that an invasive exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plan will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. A stipulation has been placed in the PUD document. The requirement in Policy 6.1.7 to provide an Environmental Impact Statement has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Per the PUD document, agency permits will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4,where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas have been identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses have been identified in the PUD document. A wildlife survey for listed species has been conducted on the site and included in the Environmental Impact Statement. In accordance with policy 7.1.2, wildlife habitat management plans will be required prior to Site Development Plan/Construction Plan approval. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The site is located in the Cocohatchee River Basin. The northern portion of the site is located in the Imperial Drainage sub basin; the southern portion of the site is located in the Palm River Canal sub basin. Within the school campus site, three wet detention ponds are proposed to provide storm water quality treatment and attenuation. A dry detention area is proposed to pre-treat runoff from the school's main parking lot. A series of catch basins, throat inlets, and storm sewer pipe will collect runoff and discharge to the wet detention ponds. The ponds are interconnected within the school campus site. A control structure located in the southern most wet detention pond will then discharge into the Preserve III area to the east. Two wet detention ponds are proposed in residential Parcel C to provide • EAC Meeting Page 4 of 8 applicable water quality treatment and attenuation for Parcel B and C. The wetlands within Parcels B and C are preserved and stormwater will be directed to these wetlands to maintain hydro periods, following water quality pretreatment. A series of catch basins, throat inlets, and storm sewer pipe will collect runoff from the residential areas and discharge to the wet detention ponds. The ponds in Parcel C are interconnected to each other and discharge to Preserve III. A control structure at the southeast corner of the school campus site will discharge into a proposed drainage structure within the adjacent DeLaSol (Villages of Madeira) residential project (existing SFWMD permit). The proposed control structure is sized for water quality treatment and quantity attenuation for Parcels B and C, Preserve III and the school campus site. Offsite flows from the adjacent Livingston Road Right of Way will be routed around the residential portion(Parcels B and C) of the project. There is a proposed preserve area (Preserve I) west of the school campus that will remain intact and be enhanced (i.e. exotics removal). Offsite flows from the multiple cross drain culverts under Livingston Road at the northeast corner of the school campus will be routed to this preserve area wetland system via an interceptor flow way between the south right of way of the Collier County Public School's access roadway and the north limit of the site development for the RPA PUD school campus. A spreader swale/wet detention pond at the preserve area and flow way interface is proposed. The flow way for pass through flows will be connected to the preserve area, but not to the developed site areas. There is also a preserve (Preserve V) area at the southeast corner of the project. This preserve will remain intact and be enhanced (i.e. exotics removal). Off-site flows from Livingston Road will continue to flow into this preserve. Parcels A and D on the east side of the property will be interconnected. A series of catch basins, throat inlets, and storm sewer pipe will collect runoff from the residential areas and discharge to the detention pond. The wet detention pond in Parcel A will provide the water quality and attenuation for both parcels. A control structure at the southwest side of the wet detention pond will discharge into the adjacent cross drain culverts that run under the Livingston Road right of way. There are no proposed offsite flows to, around, or through Parcels A and D. Environmental: Site Description: n The subject property is vegetated with a mixture of upland and wetland habitats. Vegetative communities consist of palmetto prairies, pine flatwoods, Cypress, • EAC Meeting Page 5 of 8 Melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. The site contains 4 Special Treatment Overlay areas, mostly impacted by Brazilian pepper and melaleuca. Seasonal high water levels were determined using onsite biological indicators such as lichen and water lines. Elevations were marked in the field throughout the sight ranging from 11.5' to 12.9' NGVD. The Livingston Road elevation is at 16.7' NGVD. There are 4 soil types on site. They are Hallandale fine sand; Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum; Riviera fine sand limestone substratum; and Boca, Riviera, limestone substratum and Copeland fine sands. For the full description of the soil types see page 6 of the EIS. Wetlands: Of the 162.7-acre site, 83.67 acres (51.4 percent) have been determined to be South Florida Water Management District/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. These wetlands are made up of cypress and pine flatwoods impacted by Brazilian pepper and melaleuca. The project, as proposed, will impact 39.97 acres (47.8 percent) of the jurisdictional wetlands on site. Preserving and enhancing 41.7 acres of wetlands and the creation of a 5.31-acre herbaceous marsh onsite will compensate impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. No offsite mitigation is expected to be required. Of the four ST areas onsite, the western most area is completely retained within the western preserve. Two other ST areas are only partially contained within the proposed conservation areas due to their degradation due to exotic impacts. And the fourth ST area will be impacted completely due to the degradation of the wetlands within the ST area. Preservation Requirements: As required in Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Land Development Code, twenty-five percent of the existing native vegetation is required to be retained onsite. The minimum preservation requirement for the 162.7-acre site, excluding the FPL easement (11.68 acres) and the Marquis Road easement (2.49 acres), is 37.13 acres. The applicant is proposing to retain 39 acres of wetlands and re-create a 5.31-acre herbaceous marsh. Listed Species: Environmental Scientists from the Phoenix Environmental Group, Inc. conducted field investigations of the site to document State and Federally listed species from . EAC Meeting Page 6 of 8 February 20 through February 22, 2002. Two inactive gopher tortoise burrows were located along the northern property line. Fox squirrels were documented in a field investigation in 1999, but were not observed during the 2002 investigation. Two species of Tillandsia (Balbisiana and fasciculate) were observed on the subject property. Royal fern and butterfly orchid, listed as commercially exploited by the FFWCC, were also observed on the site. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2002-AR-2944, "Royal Palm Academy"with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. Planned drainage system is to conform to North Livingston Road Basin Master plan, as prepared by Camp, Dresser&McKee. 2. Section 6.6.A of the PUD document shall be revised to read "...of the applicable permits and plans which have been approved by SFWMD will be provided..." 3. Add the following language to Section 6.6 of the PUD Document: "Final construction plans will be reviewed and approved by Collier County Stormwater Management Section Staff to ensure system integrity with regard to Collier County controlled drainage facilities. 4. Off-site flows coming from north side of Livingston Road and passing in a westerly direction in the northerly property line, need to be evaluated for compliance with the North Livingston Road Basin Master plan at the time of SDP review. Environmental: No additional stipulations. , . EAC Meeting Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: U /6,30,03 STAN CHRZANOW j , P.E. DATE ENGINEERING SER ICES MANAGER ,!g ��/� -4 -03 ROBERT C. WILF P.E. DATE PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER 47, KIM M. HADLEY DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST • 111V-4.' -//•03 F' 9 ' ISCHL, AICP DATE P' 1 CIPAL PLANNER EAC Meeting Page 8 of 8 REVIEWED BY: - /' -0 BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST 066/4.603 /1"LIAM D. LO NZ, Jr., P.E. DATE E IRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR cl - MARG WUERSTLE, AICP DATE PLANNIN ERVICES DIRECTOR APPROVED BY: JO:EPH K. MITT AT C IIMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • I MINISTRATOR -� C: SUSAN MURRAY, AICP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER Item V.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JULY 2,2003 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: PUDZ-2003-AR-3605 Petition Name: Botanical Place PUD Applicant/Developer: Philip McCabe Engineering Consultant: Davidson Engineering, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the eastern side of Bayshore Drive, approximately 800 feet north of Thomasson Drive, in Section 14, Township 50 r•-• South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONING DESCRIPTION N- C-4/VR Vacant Commercial/Mobile Home Park S - PUD Pinebrook Lakes PUD and apartments E - RMF-6/PUD Residential and Lake Avalon PUD/Park W - RMF-6 Bayshore Drive and Canta Mar Condos IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner proposes to rezone 19.83 acres from "RMF-6" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development allowing 218 multi-family dwelling units subject to the approval of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. Page 2 EAC Meeting V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, the Urban Coastal Fringe Sub-district permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments; parks, open space and recreational uses. Review of the Density Rating System yields the site is eligible for a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre. However, the project is located within a Traffic Congestion Area, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and described in the FLUE, so is subject to a 1 DU/A reduction from the base density of 4 DU/A. The applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement concurrent with this rezone petition. The provision of affordable housing units may add up to 8 units per gross acre to the base density of the 3 residential units per gross acre, for a total of 11 dwelling units per acre. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses for the subject site can be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge)to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. With regards to native vegetation preservation and wetland issues, the following Objectives and Policies apply: Page 3 EAC Meeting The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation&Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: At least 25 % of the existing native vegetation on-site is being retained and set aside as preserve areas with conservation easements prohibiting further development. Preserve areas are interconnected within the project. Preserve management plans for habitat management and exotic vegetation removal will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)pursuant to policy 6.1.7 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required by Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas have been identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the PUD document, with changes to the language in the PUD stipulated in this staff report. This petition is consistent with staff's policy, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners to allow for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands when State and Federal agency permits are issued. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: According to the Drainage Atlas of Collier County, Botanical Place PUD is located in the Haldeman Creek Drainage Basin, and flow from the site is to the north through a swale designated HCB-01 which discharges to Haldeman Creek. The site contains wetlands and all surface water permitting falls within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District. The water management system proposed by the developer consists of two small lakes and a large, central wetland preserve having an outfall to the east into an existing drainage easement. This Drainage Easement will be maintained free of any encroachments or improvements. This system provides the water quality t•-••, retention and peak flow attenuation required by code. Page 4 EAC Meeting Environmental: Site Description: The subject property is approximately half uplands and half jurisdictional wetlands. There are two wetland communities in the western and central portions of the property. A 4.4-acre melaleuca forest is located in the southwestern portion of the property partially surrounded by a 5.2-acre cypress-pine-cabbage palm wetland with saw palmetto in the mid story and some invasive java plum. There are three upland communities on site. The majority of the site is comprised of a 9.8-acre slash pine-cabbage palm-saw palmetto forest with some java plum. The remaining upland areas are Brazilian pepper disturbed and a spoil area. Wetlands: The site consists of a total of 9.6 acres of wetlands, of which 5.4 acres are proposed to be impacted. The majority of the impacts will be to the wetland areas with greater than 75% melaleuca. The remaining 4.2 acres will be preserved and enhanced and restored by exotic removal, replanting where needed and implementing a preserve management and maintenance plan. To summarize, a total of 3.94 acres of wetlands and .42 acres of uplands will be enhanced and 3.97 credits will be purchased from a mitigation bank to compensate for wetland impacts onsite. See the EIS information for a complete discussion of the wetland impacts and mitigation. Preservation Requirements: A minimum of 3.85 acres of existing native vegetation is required to fulfill the County's native vegetation preservation requirement, including all three strata, emphasizing the largest most contiguous area possible. Up to one acre of preserve may be created on site to fulfill a portion of the native vegetation preservation requirement. Any area identified to be a created preserve shall be in the larger plant material size as required by the LDC. The petitioner is required to set aside a total of 4.36 acres of on site preserves through their State permitting process. Listed Species: An endangered species survey was conducted on August 8, 2002, using transects covering greater than 90% of the site. No protected species were observed on site or utilizing the site. Page 5 EAC Meeting VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of "Botanical Place PUD" with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. At the time of construction plans review, petitioner shall verify that peak stages do not cause adverse off-site impacts to neighboring developments. A topographic survey of the site, including 50' of adjacent properties, shall be part of this verification. 2. All historical off-site flows shall be routed through the project master system in accordance with provisions as required by South Florida Water Management District, Collier County, and as directed by the Collier County Stormwater Management Section. Environmental: 1. Amend the PUD document as follows: A. Separate Open Space and Preserve requirements into two separate sections of the PUD. Paragraph 1 shall apply to the Open Space requirements and can remain as 3.4 C. Delete 3.4 C 2. B. Title a new section, 3.4 G, Preserve Requirements, and add the following language, "A minimum of 3.85 acres of existing native vegetation is required to fulfill the County's native vegetation preservation requirement, including all three strata, emphasizing the largest most contiguous area possible. Up to one acre of preserve may be created on site to fulfill a portion of the native vegetation preservation requirement. Any area identified to be a created preserve shall be in the larger plant material size as required by the LDC. A total of 4.36 acres of preserves shall be provided on site as required by the State permitting process. The on site preserve shall comply with all regulations in the Preserve section of the Land Development Code. A Preserve Management Plan shall be provided at the time of the next development order submittal." C. Delete Section IV, Preserve Areas Plan, 4.2 A 5. Replace it with the following language, "Any other use which is consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP's and the Preserve sections of the LDC." Page 6 EAC Meeting D. Add the following language to Section 4.2 A 6, "All requests for proposed uses within the preserve shall be reviewed by the CDES Environmental review staff to determine its compatibility and to assure that any requested clearing does not impact the requirement for a total preserve area of 4.36 acres." E. Amend the PUD master plan to correct the preservation acreages. Amend the"total native preserve" acreage to 4.36 to be consistent with the PUD document and EIS. Amend the"native preserve" acreage to state that a minimum of 3.85 acres is required to fulfill the County's requirement. Page 7 EAC Meeting PREPARED BY: ACL Surge (7 03 RAY B OWS, AICP DATE CHIEF PLANNER STAN CHRZANOWSKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING SERVICES MANAGER ‘A9/0 3 JULY C. ADARMES MINOR. P.E. DATE ENGINEER, SENIOR (30A-/avta_ 6- /6-6(3 BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST Page 8 EAC Meeting REVIEWED BY: MARGARE WUERSTLE, AICP DATE PLANNIN RVICES DIRECTOR !/ / ' , / o6- t7o3 % ILLIAM D. LORENZ, Jr., P.E. DA IE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIRECTOR APPROVED BY: JOS PH K. SCHMITT DATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR c: Botanical Place PUD File Item V.D. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JULY 2, 2003 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: CU-2002-AR-3537 Petition Name: Stewart Earthmining Applicant/Developer: Stewart Mining Industries Engineering Consultant: Davidson Engineering, Inc. Environmental Consultant: N/A II. LOCATION: The subject site is located approximately 1.25 miles southwest of intersection SR29 and SR82, northwest of Immokalee in Section 18 &19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. n III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are mostly developed with the following zoning classifications: ZONING DESCRIPTION N - A-MHO Citrus Grove E- A-MHO Farm building &Vacant S - A-MHO Vacant& Citrus Grove W - A-MHO Citrus Grove IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner seeks a Conditional Use for earthmining. The proposed operation is large. The petitioner intends to extract over 24 million cubic yards of material, resulting in a 203-acre lake on a 220-acre parcel of existing citrus grove. The excavated volume of fill per year is estimated at EAC Meeting Page 2 of 6 930,000 cubic yards. At this rate, the operation will continue for approximately 25 to 30 years. The Traffic Analysis submitted by the petitioner estimates that there would be 217 two-way trips per day (207 truck trips and 10 employee/service trips). Access is proposed from SR 82 via an existing farm access road. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan, and it is in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO); the site could potentially be designated as Stewardship Receiving Area(SRA). Policy 1.5 of the RLSAO provides that the baseline standards (i.e. pre-Final Order uses, densities and intensities) remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as provided in Group 5 policies. The baseline standards (Agricultural/Rural designation) include earthmining. The Stewardship Credit System has not yet been established and there is no indication the petitioner intends to participate in that system at this time. The Group 5 Policies (Policy 5.1) eliminate certain uses for properties designated as Flowway Stewardship Area and not participating in the Stewardship Credit System- but not agricultural uses; and, the Group 5 Policies (Policies 5.1 - 5.3) impose certain restrictions (e.g. site alteration limitations) and requirements (e.g. submittal of wildlife habitat management plan for listed species) upon properties designated as Flowway Stewardship Area, Habitat Stewardship Area, or Water Retention Area and not participating in the Stewardship Credit System - but they are not applicable to agricultural uses. The petitioner should be aware that the proposed development activity may, or may not, lessen the environmental value of the property. As such, it may, or may not, lessen the number of Stewardship Credits the site is eligible for at some future date should the property owner wish to participate in the Stewardship Credit System. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed CU petition to allow earthmining may be deemed consistent with the FLUE, as amended October 22, 2002 and now in effect. II EAC Meeting Page 3 of 6 Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the County's Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable Federal, State, or local water quality standards." Upon completion, the lake will provide additional water quality retention well above that existing on the site currently. During construction, the only discharge will be from dewatering, which will be subject to the rules of NPDES and the SFWMD since the project is within the limits of an existing agricultural surface water management permit. Objective 5.1 states "Allow the extraction or use of mineral resources in the County provided such activities comply with applicable industry and government standards regarding health, safety and environmental protection." This conditional use will allow the simple extraction of earth (sand and/or rock) and the creation of a lake. Such activities are easily done in compliance with accepted standards of health, safety, and environmental protection. Objective 5.2 states "Continue to reclaim the total disturbed area of extraction sites in order to ensure adequate assessment and mitigation of site specific and cumulative impacts resulting from mineral extraction activities." Excavations such as these, when properly finished, with shallow side slopes and smooth banks can provide opportunities for recreation and wildlife habitat. The project is consistent with Policy 6.1.4 in that an invasive exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plan will be required as part of the excavation permit. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The site lies within the Corkscrew Slough Basin, abutting a county-maintained canal that must remain undisturbed by any excavation activities. Lakes retain more water than is discharged from the original ground prior to the excavation of the lake. That is why lakes are usually used for surface water management. In this case the whole site will become a lake, so staff has no water management concerns. Staff's only concern with this petition is the requested depth of the excavation. The excavation is proposed to go to a depth of 85 ft. Section 3.5 of the LDC EAC Meeting Page 4 of 6 limits the depth of any excavation in Collier County to that allowed by the "fetch formula", which takes lake geometry into account when allowing for wind overturn. In this case the fetch formula (D = 5' + (0.015 x Avg. Fetch)) yields an allowable depth of approximately 50 ft. The petitioner intends to prove, during the EAC meeting, that a depth of 85 ft will not result in any environmental degradation or future problems. Staff has had meetings with the petitioner on the issue but has not received the full presentation on the issue. Staff has no objection to receiving the presentation during the meeting. Environmental: Site Description: This subject site is an existing citrus grove. Wetlands: There are no wetlands on the property. Preservation Requirements: The subject site has been impacted by the current agricultural use, citrus groves. There is not a preservation requirement. Listed Species: There are no suspected listed species on the site. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use No. CU-2002-AR-3537, "Stewart Earthmining"with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. Petitioner will modify the existing Agricultural Surface Water Management Permit for this site. 2. The Excavation permit for this site, when applied for, will not require review by the EAC. This public hearing for the Commercial excavation Conditional Use will be deemed sufficient review to satisfy the LDC requirement for a public hearing. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 6 3. The Excavation Permit shall be reviewed and approved by the County Stormwater Management Section, its successors and/or assigns Environmental: 1. Conditional Use approval will require the site to be cleared of all exotics and maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. Planning: 1. The petitioner shall pave the access road from SR 82 to the subject property line prior to commencement of operations. The pavement shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width and 1.5 inch of asphalt. 2. Turn lanes on SR 82 (westbound left-in, eastbound right-in) shall be provided prior to commencement of operations. PREP_ ! D BY. STAN CHRZANOWS , P.E. DATE ENGINEERING SER V ICES MANAGER 1 P J ADARMES MINOR. P.E. DATE ENGINEER SENIOR ik:A7/ //74 ''',X6///;-/73 HADLEY DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST OF F,'F 'R ISCHL, AICP DATE P` !i i'AL PLANNER EAC Meeting Page of , REVIEWED BY: 6(#44994C-- A /3 ,% c0 - ,F-03 BARBARA S. BURGESOw DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST A 1 Z- / 06 ,1e C)3 /41I LIAM D. LI ENZ, J ., P.E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR jit-ut-c-e- --- (0-/r- ..3 1 MARGARET UERSTLE, A CP DATE PLANNING ERVICES DIRECTOR APPROVED BY: il ; 441 -/// rEPH K. S f HMITT DATE MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR C: SUSAN MURRAY, AICP '"-. CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER zQ vermeilliel Pc H-75 i____.s...____„.._Thr ,''... . //� —0 i S.R. 951 � \ g �... (. cI z �� C.R. 951 4 � O `� n` ! 0 4� ` . oa P J C. A O �Do N \j agoco otc* Z o 400 91P G04 OP o D � QK T O C T \ S.R. 29 \ 7A _ � g 4 E N a mp m 0 Z n CN0T TO SCNF 0 N T7 W O W O CO cri V — m O z VJ m D 13 IIIII .r. Map Output Page 1 of 1 CCPA GIS - HTML Ma• 1 ' i.; ' ' 4 E i F `. 1 i C TF. i1 i 5 , - - ,,A''Iag,r4 it,' e, I _ N 1 t '- , i,',,',Zii-, ,'1;...J..iyil , r , l• 1 psi 14 i" { I . 4it'tkr k 114, '41:I,t ' . '.. a PP1' W. 1 ' 1 ` M ''''ti, 4 , In J, 1 1 f - Ef � a. 111 a�) gra i4 ttn" i -Al':� ! SLa � 'r . s FI �i .fa lilt I r ' 1 i i • ,I , , .. ..f Lpl�. z PPO t -At, �- • ,C 11 i 1 t i •. , .,baa 4.; .. - 'Ilt ,r i �` `l �a `i �:� S 51 � '' I IS e moi ``-�I+a�' 11 • i { a ,t- i xir ,. '4it s.i - °''a I1 ' A , .,1 .9 ¢ `,' ,°'t t ISid l 1 M �4 "''C •, -,J it Tt M. -16 ,-- • . ' .4.' ' ...4farlilki. I''' .... . ' ' .VI t -• 'II r, ., .. , _ , it, , ,.., . ,4c. Co r hi C 2002CollierCoun{ Prorl A raiser-Na lmE ' http://gis.collierappraiser•com/servlet/com.esri.esrimap•Esrimap?ServiceName=ccpa_desig••• 6/17/2003 Map Output Page 1 of 1 CCPR GIS - HTML Ma• a �s - 1 i ii 0 4 Ii , it ... ' .4 t: : ,.t t 2 k " _ - - i 1: f 1, , r i,. .„-,,,f 1 iigi t ' 0, -Rural , 4 . 1‘ lii - . Y 4 I lit )4k lir 7 I1 ' -.: ;..14:. ''. ,. L • . , ..,.:-, ,,_ ffYY1 ll 1.-.4,i1 0, . � ixi��- ti F I 1 i( 9 -. .r 4.�, yam.'-: ' - ", ri 'it! I 1:. . I4----' -- ''-:"`" - "'-----,--';;' '- Aiitil W. . -, Iti,i,% . ' I ifik' i f,'-ti' , t ' ,-----_ ,-----'-.1r;.,':,.,- %, '' -fr- • 4t' ''-,:':-''' - Copy;h-;"CJ20d2CollierCouniyProPertya�PPra�er�Naplg P�. ( �{] ' e°.'\ http://gis.collierappraiser.com/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ccpa_desig... 6/17/2003 Item V.C. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JULY 2, 2003 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: PUDZ-2002-AR-3158 Petition Name: Coconilla PUD Applicant/Developer: Eco Venture Wiggins Pass, LTD. Engineering Consultant: RWA Consulting, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject site is located on Vanderbilt Drive (CR 901) at the western terminus of Wiggins Pass Road (CR 888) in Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. n III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are mostly developed with the following zoning classifications: ZONING DESCRIPTION N - PUD Cocohatchee Bay PUD; currently undeveloped, permitted for residential high-rise structures E- Vanderbilt Drive ROW Across Vanderbilt Drive is the Cocohatchee Bay golf course, zoned PUD S - P Cocohatchee River Park (Collier County Parks and Recreation) and open water SE- PUD Undeveloped commercial tract of Wiggins Bay PUD (uses are similar to those in the C-2 commercial district) W - PUD Cocohatchee Bay PUD; currently undeveloped, permitted for residential high-rise structures and preserve EAC Meeting Page 2 of 9 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site is 10.45 acres in size. It is currently zoned General Commercial (C-4) and is the former site of the Wiggins Pass Marina. The petitioner proposes to rezone the site to PUD. The Coconilla PUD is primarily residential (5.65 acres) with a maximum of 112 dwelling units. 102 dwelling units are proposed for high- rise multifamily buildings and 10 townhouses are also proposed. The maximum density that could be requested for this PUD is 16 dwelling units per acre. The petitioner requests a density of 11.6 dwelling units per acre. Four acres of the site will contain boat slips and other water-related uses which are accessory to the residential units. In addition, 0.8 acre is being dedicated to public use, adjacent to the Cocohatchee River Park. The high-rise building is proposed to be constructed in three tiers. The northern tier is limited to 21 stories over parking with a maximum of 225 feet in height above the required flood elevation. The middle tier is limited to 18 stories over parking with a maximum of 200 feet in height above the required flood elevation. The southern tier is limited to 15 stories over parking with a maximum of 175 feet in height above the required flood elevation. The petitioner states that the highest point on site today is 9.48 feet NGVD. The flood elevation for the site is currently 12 feet NGVD. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed - Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The Urban Mixed — Use District permits a variety of residential and non- residential land uses including mixed use developments, such as Planned Unit Developments, including water-dependant and water-related uses and other recreational uses such as parks, marinas (public or private), yacht clubs, and related accessory and recreational uses, such as boat storage, boat launching facilities, boat fueling facilities, and restaurants. The Density Rating System indicates that the site is eligible for a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre, but the site is within the Traffic Congestion Area, resulting in a 1 dwelling unit per acre reduction. However, the petitioner's request to rezone the property from C-4 to PUD meets the criteria of the Density Rating System "Conversion of Commercial Zoning"provision which states: if the project includes conversion of commercial zoning which is not within a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center and is not consistent with the EAC Meeting Page 3 of 9 Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units may be added for every acre of commercial zoning which is converted. Since the property is proposed for a combination of residential and water-dependent, water- related uses, Staff believes it appropriate to allow a double-counting of the acreage; that is, the entire site acreage is used in calculating residential density, though a portion of the site is used for a water-dependent, water-related use (marina). The FLUE is silent to this issue. Base density= 4 dwelling units per acre Traffic Congestion Area= -1 dwelling unit per acre Conversion of Commercial = +16 dwelling units per acre Total Maximum Density= 19, however, 16 dwelling units per acre is the maximum density permitted by the Density Rating System The Urban-Mixed Use District sets forth any water-dependant and/or water- related land use shall encourage the use of the PUD technique and other innovative approaches to conserve environmentally sensitive features and to assure compatibility with surrounding land uses. In addition to the criteria of compatibility with surrounding land uses and consistency with the siting policy of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (Policy11.1.4), the following land use criteria shall be used for prioritizing the siting of water-dependant and water-related uses: a) Presently developed sites; b) Sites where water-dependant or water-related uses have been previously established; c) Sites where shoreline improvements are in place; d) Sites where damage to viable, naturally functioning wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive features could be minimized. The subject site is presently developed with a marina, a water-dependent and water-related use. Based upon the above analysis, Staff concludes the proposed use and density for the site can be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality EAC Meeting Page 4 of 9 standards. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by the collection of surface water runoff in concrete drainage structures, transportation of the flow in a subsurface conveyance system, and directing the runoff to above ground dry detention in four detention areas and drainage swales. A 25-year storm will discharge through the water management system and not directly to the marina from the uplands. The project is consistent with Policy 6.1.4 in that an invasive exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plan will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. A stipulation has been placed in the PUD document. The requirement in Policy 6.1.7 to provide an Environmental Impact Statement has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Per the PUD document, agency permits will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. The SFWMD FLUCCS identifies Code 540 (Bay) onsite as "other surface waters" and COE identifies "Waters of the U.S." The proposed marina is for 52 slips. Policy 6.3.1 requires the amount of permitted wet slips for marinas be no more than 18 boat slips per 100 feet of shoreline where impacts to sea grass beds are less than 100 square feet. The proposed marina will not impact any sea grass beds for construction. The existing shoreline is 326 feet, which would allow 58 slips; the applicant is proposing only 52 slips, in accordance with the policy. A wildlife survey for listed species has been conducted on the site and included in the Environmental Impact Statement. In accordance with Policy 7.1.2, wildlife habitat management plans have been submitted for the bald eagle. The relevant reference to this project that is required by Policy 7.1.2 to be used in preparing the management plan is the "Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region", USFWS, 1987. Policy 7.1.2(2)(d) states, "For the bald eagle, the required habitat management plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities during the nesting season." Per the USFWS Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, restrictions are recommended on new commercial and industrial development, construction of multi-story buildings or EAC Meeting Page 5 of 9 high-density housing developments, construction of roads that increase access to nest sites, and use of chemicals toxic to wildlife. Most other sources of disturbance are allowed within the secondary zone during the non-nesting season. The subject site, located within the secondary zone, is proposing a multi-story residential tower. Consistent with this policy, the bald eagle management plan for the project provides the appropriate restrictions on building height and prohibits construction during nesting season. Policy 7.1.2(3), states, "The County shall consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the FFWCC and the USFWS in issuing development orders on property containing listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may change the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plans." The USFWS is working on a biological opinion that is expected to be completed sometime in October. The FFWCC does not typically provide technical assistance once a Section 7 consultation (Incidental Take permit application) has been started. If at such time that the USFWS provides their written biological opinion and their recommendation allows for the multi-story building within the secondary zone and/or allows construction during the non-nesting season, the eagle management plan will be consistent with the GMP. The project is consistent with Policy 7.1.4 in that applicable federal and state permits regarding protected species will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. A stipulation has been placed in the PUD document. Per Policy 7.2.1, the marina siting criteria was used to determine the appropriate number of docks allowed in order to direct increased boat traffic away from sensitive manatee habitats. Policy 10.1.1 sets priorities for water-dependant uses in order to protect shorelines where activities will damage or destroy coastal resources. The proposed private marina use falls in the middle of the priorities list. However, the shoreline along the property has already been impacted. Similarly, Policy 10.1.3 lists priorities for water-related uses: Recreational facilities, marine supply/repair facility and residential development, respectively. Consistent with the policy, the proposed plan is providing a marina, a marine supply facility as well as a residential development, the first, second and third priorities. Per Policy 10.1.6 regarding new marinas, the applicant has provided vehicular parking, fueling facilities designed to contain spills from on-land and in the water, and accessibility to all public services. Per this policy, a hurricane plan will be stipulated in the PUD document. Sewage pump-out facilities will be required at EAC Meeting Page 6 of 9 the time of site development plan submittal. This policy also states that dry storage should be encouraged over wet storage. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The subject site lies in an area referred to in the County Drainage Atlas as "Miscellaneous Coastal Basins" because it discharges directly into the Gulf. Since there are no downstream properties, water quantity(discharge) requirements are not a consideration. There are no County stormwater facilities in the vicinity of the project. Water quality retention must be accounted for in compliance with the requirements and standards of the FDEP and the SFWMD. Environmental: Site Description: The subject site is a 10.45-acre existing commercial marina. No native habitat is present. Wetlands: The subject site contains 0.43 acres of open water, the shoreline composed of sea wall and boat ramps. The submerged bottom of the bay is composed of soft sediment lacking sea grasses within or immediately adjacent to the project boundary. The applicant proposes to excavate a 3.65-acre marina basin and establish a 1,772 linear foot vertical retaining wall for a reconfiguration of the existing 52-slip marina. Preservation Requirements: There is no preservation requirement for the subject property, however the applicant is proposing to enhance the reconfigured marina basin for flushing by planting the terminal ends of the bay with 0.82 acres of mangroves. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 9 Listed Species: The project site is developed and does not contain listed species. The West Indian Manatee may occur within waters near the project site. The majority of the site is located within the secondary protection zone of bald eagle nest CO-019. This nest is located approximately 830 feet northwest of the project site occupied by a pair of eagles that have successfully fledged two young during each of the last four consecutive nesting seasons. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3158, "Coconilla"with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. A Surface Water Management Permit or an Environmental Resource Permit must be obtained from SFWMD for this site. SFWMD may defer to FDEP because of the location. Environmental: 1. The bald eagle management plan shall be amended to include the following language: "Construction in the secondary protection zone shall be prohibited during nesting season, unless written authorization is provided by the USFWS." 2. Add the following language to Section 6.9 of the PUD document: a. "Construction within the bald eagle secondary protection zone shall be limited to a maximum height, not to exceed the height of eagle nest CO- 019. However, any construction greater than the height of the nest shall require written approval from the USFWS and that shall become the maximum building height allowed." b. "Any amendment to the Bald Eagle Management Plan shall require review by the Environmental Advisory Council or any successor body." 3. The bald eagle management plan shall be added as an exhibit in the PUD document.