Loading...
EAC Agenda 11/06/2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA November 6, 2002 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") —Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of October 16, 2002 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDA-2002-AR-2702 "Lands End Preserve PUD" Section 4 & 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East V. Old Business: VI. New Business: A. Brief discussion about proposed interagency agreement for wildlife protection. 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 October 30, 2002 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. October 16, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NAPLES FL OCTOBER 16, 2002 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:OOAM in regular session in the Auditorium of The Golden Gate Community Center,Naples FL,with the following members present: Members: Thomas Sansbury Michael G. Coe Ken Humiston Alfred Gal Alexandra Santoro Ed Carlson John Dowd Erica Lynne Michael V. Sorrel Barb Bur eson,Ray Bellows, Smith, Stan Chrzanowski, Collier County: B►ll Lorenz, g ., Ray Patrick White. Majorie Student, Kim Hadley. Page 11. 1 y ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGEND. October.7,1 002 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F")-Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of September 4, 2002 Meeting Minutes IV. Election of new Chairman and Vice Chairman V. LDC Amendments-continued from 9-4-02 meeting VI. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-1749 "Mission hills PUD" �-� Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East VII. Old Business: A. NG ALA - staff update VIII. New Business: A. Adoption of the Growth Management Plan Amendments for the Eastern Lands (Rural Agricultural Area Assessment) B. Reorganization of the Natural Resources Department and Environmental Review staff IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment ********************************************************************************* Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 25. 2002 if you cannot attend this meeting or :t you have a conflict and will abstain from voting in a petition (403-2400). 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 ,o ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made. which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. October 16, 2002 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Auditorium of the Golden Gate Community Center Naples,FL 34104 9:00AM Minutes October 16, 2002 Chairman Thomas Sansbury called the meeting to order at 9:00am. 1. Attendance: Thomas Sansbury, Michael G. Coe, Ken Humiston, Alfred Gal, Alexandra Santoro, Ed Carlson,John Dowd,Erica Lynne, Michael V. Sorrel Collier County: Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Ray Bellows. Ray Smith, Stan Chrzanowski, Patrick White,Majorie Student, Kim Hadley. 11. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Coe moved to approve the agenda, it was then seconded by Alexandra Santoro, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. 1(I. Approval of Minutes for September 4, 2002: Mr. Coe moved to approve the minutes of September 4, 2002, it was seconded by Alexandra Santoro, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. IV. Nomination of Chairman and Vice Chairman: -Mr. Coe made a motion that Thomas Sansbury remain the Chairman of the EAC:. it was seconded by Mr. Gal, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion that Michael Cue remain the Vice Chairman of the EAC, it was seconded by Erica Lynne, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. -‘. LDC Amendments: Page 2 •t y October 16. 2002 -Ray Smith, Director of Pollution Control Department, stated that he had previously sent the EAC members a memo with the answers to the questions they had posed on September 4, 2002. He asked the board if they had any more questions about the proposed LDC amendment change. -The board had no questions. -Mr. Coe made a motion to approve the amendment as written, it was seconded by Alexandra Santoro, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. VI. Mission Hills PUB petition: -Ray Bellows, gave a general overview of the PUD. He showed a masterplan of the petition and explained that the petitioner was requesting a rezone from Agricultural to Mission Hills PUD. The Mission Hills PUD is intended to be an employment center for neighboring residential areas. He added that it will provide access to two arterial roads and internal connections to adjacent projects: this will help to reduce area traffic congestion. -Barbara Burgeson, Environmental Services, discussed the statistics of environmental issues associated with the Mission Hills PUD. She stated that language had been created to protect the wetlands in the SW corner of the PUD. She explained that the site plan must show wetland and upland buffers until the GMP is amended. Therefore, 2.25 acres of buffer zones would be placed around the wetlands unless the GMP is amended. She then informed the EAC that staff was recommending approval of this petition. -Bob Mulhere, RWA Consultant Inc., stated that the only issue was that the board had previously adopted the urban area wetlands standards,but this is currently being challenged. He explained that they are agreeing to the staff stipulation that will allow amending of the masterplan, based on the outcome of the GMP challenge. He added that they had no other objections and were agreeing to all other staff stipulations. -Mr. Coe stated he believed all those testifying should be sworn in. Mr. Coe then swore in all those who had testified. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion to approve the Mission Hills PUD with the recommendations of staff, it was seconded by Mr. Coe, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. VII. Update on NGALA Page October 16, 2002 -Barb Burgeson reminded the EAC of a fax that had been sent on 8/20/02 to the EAC that included an update on NGALA and staff's opinion of the current situation and the violations. She informed the committee that NGALA had hired a planner and currently had three NOV's. She explained that NGALA had until October 26, 2002 to submit an update on their situation and to come into compliance. She added that staff is considering the first three violations and what type of action they will take if NGALA does not come into compliance,but this will not affect the EAC,the fourth violation will be the one concerning environmental issues. -Mr. Coe asked how long the tent had been up. Barbara Burgeson informed him that it had been up for almost two years and that the county became aware of it in July of 2002. A County Planner was sent to review the situation in July and issue the NOV's. -Mr. Coe stated that last month he had spoken with Joe Schmitt about the situation at NGALA, and he was then under the impression that it would come before the Code Enforcement this month. Barbara Burgeson replied that they are currently looking at the issues that would go to Code Enforcement. -Mr. Coe asked if it was true that there was a wedding scheduled in the near future at NGALA and if so. when. Mr. Sansbury stated that he believes Code Enforcement should take over this situation and get the situation under control. -Nancy Patton stated that she believed the bigger issue here is that NGALA is not consistent with the GMP. -Barbara Burgeson stated that they are having a meeting to discuss the issues, she added that if the Rural Fringe is adopted, then they will have to reassess the situation. The county will be making a decision based on the application they are to be given by October 26. 2002. -At 9:24 Mr. Carlson and Mr. White joined the meeting. -Mr. White added that the concern of the County Attorney's Office is that they do not want to see factual matters brought before the CAC prior to the EIS being heard. He stated that he believes NGALA has given even effort to comply and that,by law, they have to be given the chance to come into compliance. Viii. Adoption of GMP Amendments for The Eastern Lands -Nancy Lanlin. County GMP Consultant. stated that they are currently on the final stretch of the Eastern Lands Assessment. the RLSA, (Rural Lands Stewardship Area). Pine 4 October 16, 2002 She then explained that the East Collier County Property Association and the Florida Wildlife federation had reached an agreement. which added significant property to the Habitat Stewardship Area. The additional property was about 5000 acres. She used a map to indicate the additional areas (HSA's), she also reviewed the FSA's and the WRA's. -Mr. Sansbury stated that his employer owned some of the lands in question, therefore he would be participating in the discussion but would not vote on the matter. -Nancy Lanlin referred the EAC to the package which they had previously been provided and explained that she would be presenting an overview of what they have done in response to the DCA objections, recommendations, and comments. She informed the committee that one of the reasons the changes are occurring quickly and often is because nothing like this has ever been done before. Unlike other comprehensive plan amendments, they are doing this with constant contact with the community; The Wildlife Federation, DCA, ECC Property Owner's Association, and The Conservancy. She stated that they have created an NRI, (Natural Resource Index), for each acre and they were able to do so because they currently have the data available from the research done by Wilson Miller. She explained that if the area was noted 1.2 or less it would indicate the capability for development because they had little or no natural resource value. She added that the property owner would choose to take part in this program voluntarily and in return for their participation they would receive credits. She informed the committee what the value of the credits were and that each category would have strict requirements. She then continued to describe credits, buyers. and the process that one would go through in order to build and how the regulations would protect the environment. She added that if the property owner did not choose to participate in the program. they would then have baseline rights, they would not be allowed to cluster, and they also would have a much greater regulatory floor, which is very strict. She then explained the steps one must go through for the regulatory floor,how this is more difficult than the Stewardship program, and how this provides an incentive for the property owner to take part in the program. The basis of this plan versus the Fringe, is this plan has detail, data, and analysis that is not in the Fringe. She then went on to discuss some of the concerns voiced by the DCA about the program and the solutions they have arrived at. Concerns and Solutions: ' > what is to protect against sprawl? Page 5 October 16, 2002 A) It directs growth to the non-environmentally sensitive areas through detailed in the incentive program,and the regulatory floor. mapping, p � B) This process requires compact functionally self sufficient communities. C) Proportionality requirements were put in the program as well,to protect against sprawl. -Mr. Coe asked if the assumption was that all open lands are developable? Nancy Lanlin stated that No they are not; each acre is mapped and scored, 2% are not developable but potentially you could have receiving areas. -Mr. Coe then stated that Hogan Island and Big Hammock would have the po tential horrible for building village in the middle of a floway and environment, he believes thplaces for a village. He added that they want more information becauses uo these are h o e receiving areas with the possibility for development and yet they where. -Nancy Lanlin stated that if you start to designate, you are taking the lands out of Agriculture prematurely and causing it to be definitely built up. -Alan Reynolds,C.E.O. Wilson Miller,stated that first they established The secondary criteria habitats, floways, and retention areas were and mapped them out. was then established that stated if you were not in one of those areas, one would have to go back to the natural resources of the land and if there were high values, they are precluded from siting a receiving area. -Mr. Coe asked if that was what the key stated: "open and not receiving". Mr. Reynolds answered yes. Nancy Lanlin stated the policy being referred to was Policy 4.9. -Erica Lynne asked if Big Hammock and Mogan Island were scored above 1.2. Mr. Reynolds stated that Big Hammock is 1.2 or less and Hogan Island was 1.3 or greater. Erica Lynne added that she had concerns that someone might develop in a ruined area that was surrounded by a naturally sound area and in the end destroy the sound ecosystem. -Nancy Lanlin stated that she knew of some areas that Erica Lynne was referring to and that they are habitat stewardship areas. -Erica Lynne then asked what would happen someone wanted to make a tourist area out of some more of the Corkscrew swamp. Mr. Reynolds informed her that they would still have to go through all the regulations. Erica Lynne stated that she believes these areas should just be removed. Page October 16, 2002 2) There is no form to the form; there are no rules to building a town, more detail is needed. A) 99% of this is now required for these categories. 3) Policy 4.6 is too open. A) They took out the objectionable language. 4) Multiple Density of 4 units per acre. A) This was not the intent,clarifying language was put in. She added that multi- family dwellings will actually be encouraged. 5) 20 acre minimum in a SRA without sure functional mix, it will not inhibit sprawl. A) They raised the minimum threshold to 40 acres, they set up a list of criteria, and they set it up proportionally to the numbers. 6) No percentage of your uses. A) They established a list of minimum requirements. 7) No testing standards for receiving areas. A) This is why there are floor area ratios. 8) Concerns about the location of the receiving areas. A) The data generated by Wilson Miller, concerning scoring, was provided. It showed that these areas will cover 90% of the uplands and wetlands. She added that areas of critical state concern retain existing regulations, they put additional regulations on the transfer of credits into the area of critical state concern, and the panther telemetry points and habitat areas were reviewed. 9) There was a lack of info-structure planning. A) They provided data on the info-structure planning with the current submission. B) They put in"stoppers" in the plan language. The county then could not approve a receiving area unless the applicant can show there is applicable capacity. 10) There are incompatible uses in the HSA's. A) Intention of the original language was clarified. B) The language was modified with new regulations; no golf courses. no conditional uses, and no mining if the value is over i.2. C) In the areas that are 1.2 or less, in HSA's, you must follow the traditional conditional use test,this is a contingent right. Secondly, you have to prepare an EIF, which is acceptable to the county. Page t r October 16, 2002 D) Golf courses, in HSA's,were given buffer requirements and it must follow the requirements of the Audubon Gold requirements. E) They added a condition that one cannot clear native vegetation more than 15% in a HSA, if they participate in the overlay program. One must use previously cleared areas first. -Mr. Carlson asked,in the open lands,why one would need golf courses in the HSA's. Nancy Lanlin informed him that they had no legal way of telling someone they could not have these there,but they know what is on every acre and it has been scored, which means the landowner must meet all requirements in order to build. -Erica Lynne asked if there was weight given to land in close proximity to various panther and wetland habitats, in regards to a numerical value. Nancy Lanlin stated there was. Erica Lynne then asked if this was so, why is Corkscrew Swamp 1.2 or less. Mr. Reynolds explained the index scores and how they were applied to the land: there is a proximity index as well that takes these concerns into account. He then addressed the question, why in these HSA's should the property owner have retained uses other than conservation and agriculture. Mr. Reynolds stated that the premise is to accomplish natural resource protection through the incentive of credits, which will discourage these objectionable uses. The hope is to have a natural stewardship of the lands by the people rather than through regulatory means. -Erica Lynne asked him how they decide numeric value and what its relevance is to protection. Mr. Reynolds stated there are three steps. First they gathered data and created a database. Then they came up with an index, which is where the scoring came in, to make use of the data. Third,after the scoring has been reviewed, the policy forces you to review the land again to get the most accurate and detailed information "to date". 11) The incentives for protection of an HSA needs to be reviewed. A) They created an early entry bonus credits program. They limited this to the HSA's. B1 There are to be no concrete batch or asphalt plants within the IISA's, whether one participates in the program or not. -Mr. Coe asked what the relative values were to someone selling credits versus mining. Mr. Reynolds stated he would speak in terms of earth mining, (sand and lime rock). In order to earth mine. someone would have to do sub-surface investigations and permitting. Pa2e 4 October 16, 2002 Mr. Reynolds believes that it may not be as marketable as transferring credits out. He added that you must consider this in scale,the"footprint of this kind of use"would be small. If it is considered in a compact form, you see that one would be using less fill per unit than you would under the baseline regulations. 12) HSA's should have a higher index value than WRA's. A) They stuck to the original existing natural resource value in order to keep objectivity. The department then agreed with this. 13) Switch the layers of use. A) They explained that conditional uses are more organized and impactive uses. The department then agreed with this. 14) Establish details and criteria for the early bonus credits and restoration credits. A)-Now bonus credits are only given when one sets aside development rights in HSA's. B) The timeframe was changed from three to five years in a HSA, and you can now -bank- credits. C) Additional credits are given for restoration done by the property owner. D) Nancy Lanlin further discussed established criteria and detail given to the two items. 15) An explanation of density blending is needed. A) They made an amendment only to the Immokalee Future Use Master Plan. 16) What about the wetlands and the protection that was set out in the fringe and urban areas, if one does not participate in the program! A) They took the Fringe standards for habitat and wetland policies and applied them to the HSA's, FSA's, and WRA's, for baseline regulations. Therefore policy 5 only applies to those who do not participate in the overlay program. B) They asked the board to re-adopt the Rural Fringe policies that were challenged, "in the urban areas only". The hearing on the Rural Fringe is scheduled for sometime in December. -Mr. Gal asked what a landowner could do with the credits if he chose to participate in the program. Nancy Lanlin stated they could sell the credits in a public process that would go into the county records, they could also bank them, or if they had eight or more Page d � October 16, 2002 they could develop. She explained that everyone wanting to take part in the program,has to go before the BCC as part of this public process. If credits are sold, it will be recorded to prevent surprise buyers. She added that if a landowner chose to sell his credits, he would not receive cash for them until someone bought the credits. Erica Lynne then pointed out that there would be no particular incentive until someone was ready to develop. Nancy Lanlin replied that the incentive in this case would be the early bonus credits in the HSA's. A fifteen minute recess was taken at 10:40am. Marty Chummier, Nancy Lanlin's partner, stated this was still a work in progress. She explained that the committee was reviewing the sixth version of this document and they are now up to it's tenth version. She reviewed some of the substantive changes: 1) Policy 1.21: The early bonus credits are now limited to the HSA's only. The timeframe was extended from three to five years. Maximum credits were increased .�� from 22.000 to 27,000. 2) Policy 3.7: It is prohibited to build asphalt or concrete batch making plants in the HSA's, regardless of the index value. 3) Policy 4.3: It was clarified that there will be prior public notice made of any decision being made by the board that gives any consideration to a resolution in an SRA. 4) Policy 4.7: It was clarified that it was reversed mathematically and since been corrected. 5) Policy 4.73 &4.74: There is now a restriction of no more than five hamlets, a ratio of 5/1, (hamlets/villages or towns). 6) Policy 4.9: Essential services cannot be included in an area greater than 1.2. -Nancy Patton. stated that she only received the updated version on Monday and has had little time to review it. She explained that they had some questions and concerns regarding the amendments made to the non-rural lands area,but she chose not to comment because she had so little time to review. She added that overall they supported the plan. She urged the board to take the time and review the changes. Page October 16, 2002 -Gary Davis. Policy Director of The Conservancy, asked if the staff or committee had a response to Nancy's comments about the additional elements added to the booklet. -Bill Lorenz stated the intention of the changes was to ensure that they adopt this process, those policy changes that were previously adopted as they went through the Rural Fringe amendment, with the exception that these changes do not address the Rural Fringe. -Bob Mulhere,consultant to the county, added that there was the same rational behind the changes to the Future Land Use Element. He explained that.the language had to be adjusted due to the challenge. He explained that there are amendments made to the Immokalee Master Plan in regards to the Sewer and Water sub-element, that spells out how it will be provided in the RLSA. -Gary Davis stated that they have recently received the materials. He was pleased to see that there was a lot done in response to the ORC report. He then highlighted some of the areas of the ORC report were they felt more needed to be done to address the issues: 1) The form of development in receiving areas. 2) With attachment C he stated they had questions. A) Concerns about compact development form: They are concerned they are creating more golf courses and urban sprawl in the rural areas. B) Rural Towns: They are concerned the golf courses in towns, villages, and hamlets are only creating gated golfing communities. C) In Policy 4.10,open space not included in the total acreage of development, in terms of towns.villages,and hamlets: They are concerned golf courses would be considered open space and not count toward the total acreage and credits. In general they feel the response to the ORC report, in terms of the form of development in the receiving areas. was good and the previous statements were more in the form of questions&concerns. 3) They are still concerned about the development in the ACSC. They believe it has been improved, but they would like a comprehensive plan amendment required or some higher procedure than just the designation of the receiving areas. 4) They do not believe they have the full information on panther telemetry in the WRA's and they do not want a form of development in this area if it would be a detriment to the panthers. He suggested that this could be a neutral area used for baseline uses, but not larger detrimental communities. He urged the EAC to review this before they"put it to rest". Page 11 .a A X, October 16, 2002 5) They are still concerned about incompatible uses in the HSA's. They feel there are other conditional uses, (other than the two removed), in the HSA's that should be removed. For example he stated the essential services list was broad, including electrical generating plants and sewage treatment plants that could be detrimental in a HSA. Golf courses were also a concern. -Mr. Coe asked if this was presented to the people who prepared the document. Mr. Davis stated they have had little time to do this. He added that they have discussed these issues in two meetings, but they have not had time to fully resolve this in the time provided. Mr. Coe asked what the solution was. Mr.Davis replied that it was in the hands of the EAC, he feels if they had more time they may be able to come to an agreement. Mr. Coe stated it was hard to do a thorough comparison without a written document to go along with Mr. Davis's presentation. Mr. Davis stated that the timeframe was the main problem. He explained that there concerns were essentially the same as in the ORC report and he urges the committee to take these concerns seriously. -Mr. Carlson asked Nancy Lanlin if her presentation was showing that the county had objected to the DCA's objections and that this was worked out and everyone had come to agreement. Nancy Lanlin stated that in many of the areas they have come to agreement with the Department. She added that after the meeting she could meet with Mr. Davis and answer his questions. 6) Mr. Davis stated they are asking for specific restrictions of conditional uses in the HSA's. 7) They would also like assurance that there will be a procedure allowing public input and participation in the designation of the receiving area -(they want the EAC, the staff, &the CCPC involved), and the would like this spelled out in the GOP& the LDC. 8) They have a question concerning policy 4.19, wanting to know what its actual intentions were. 9) On Policy 5.3 they do not understand why the language was taken out that stated "listed species shall be protected in accordance with the endangered species act and applicable to all Florida laws". Page 12 October 16, 2002 -He added that there have been dramatic improvements and urged the EAC to consider the issues they raised today. -Nancy Lanlin addressed some of the issues and concerns discussed. 1) Compact Rural Development: Gated golf courses could be a possibility but gated towns and villages will not be allowed. 2) Open space does not have to be included when applying credits: This is only if one chooses to set aside more than 35% and it is so they are not penalizing someone for setting aside more land. 3) Development in Critical State Concern areas: They expect a lot of staff and public input when there is an attempt to get an SRA. She believes there will be LDC requirements for additional buffers when one moves closer to environmentally sensitive areas, similar to the PUD's. 4) Panther Use: If you create and SRA in any town or village, one will always have to show how they are not going to have a detrimental impact. .-tom 5) HSA's incompatible uses: She stated that this was a good point and they would review the essential services list. 6) Mining and conditional uses not going in environmental sensitive areas: One must provide and EIS, (environmental impact statement). 7) Procedure including the EAC, the staff, & the CCPC: She stated they had no problem with this, she feels the best place to do this is when they come up with the LDC and that it is not ordinarily in the GOP's. 8) Policy 1.9: They were not meant to stand alone and if clarification is needed in the language, they will provide it. 9) Policy 5.3 why the language was removed: Nancy Lanlin referred to Bill Lorenz to answer this question. Bill Lorenz stated that Policy 5.5 addresses this and states that all regular standards must be followed. He added if there is an inconsistency then they will address it. -Erica Lynne asked if someone would have to eco to the hearing examiner if they wanted to do mining in an area of critical concern. Nancy Lanlin stated she assumed that if they wanted a quasi-judicial hearing that it could potentially go to the hearing examiner for factual evidence so the board may make its determination. The requirements for a quasi- judicial hearing will be outlined in the county's LDC. Page October 16, 2002 -Marty Chummier read the language added to Policy 4.3 into the record. -Mr. Sansbury asked if it was correct that these LDC amendments would come before the EAC. Mr. Lorenz stated this was correct. -Mr. Davis asked if golf courses could be considered"open space". Nancy Lanlin informed him that they could. Mr.Reynolds further explained. -Mr. Carlson stated he was uncomfortable with the discussion on page 20& 21 about the attractiveness of golf courses and earth mining to panthers. He would like to know where the information came from and who wrote this portion of the document. Nancy Lanlin stated that this may be true but they determined it may not have been necessary in the response and it may be deleted in the future. -Erica Lynne stated she had concerns if golf courses were aren't counted as open space, then there could be a rural village with a string of golf courses attached. Mr. Sansbury stated he believed the reality is that the size of the village would limit the amount of golf courses by limiting the amount of people around to use the golf course. Erica Lynne stated she still had concerns about multiple golf courses being the trend. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion to send the document forward with their recommendation for approval with consideration given on the topics discussed in the meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Coe. -Barbara Burgeson asked for clarification on the topics the EAC would like to see considered,because the quality of the tapes may be poor. -The EAC outlined the topics to be addressed and considered: 1) delineation of receiving areas, 2) uses incompatible with areas of critical state concern, 3)a mechanism to evaluate areas identified as open and potentially receiving to better identify their environmental values and appropriateness for those 4)the DCA's concerns about the level of detail in identifying info-structures in receiving areas, 5)the amendments on the Rural Lands need to be properly addressed in more detail before any decisions are made, 6) address golf courses in compact rural development, and 7) further define conditional uses in HSA's. Page 14 • October 16, 2002 -Alexandra Santoro amended her motion to include these specifications. Mr. Coe amended his second as well. All were in favor of the motion; it passed -(Mr. Sansbury abstained from the vote). IX. UPDATE Mr. Lorenz informed the committee that Natural Resources Department and the Environmental Review staff have been combined and are now called Environmental Services. X. ADJOURNMENT—the meeting was adjourned at 12pm. Page 15 Item V. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6,2002 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDA-2002-AR-2702 Petition Name: Lands End Preserve PUD Applicant/Developer: Westbury Properties, Inc. Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor&Associates, P.A. Environmental Consultant: Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 262.9 acre parcel located immediately west of Barefoot Williams Road & immediately north of Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, in Sections 4 & 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The subject property is located immediately north of the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve. All of the adjoining properties to the south and west are undeveloped. Properties to the north are in agricultural use or developed as single-family home sites. The land to the east is mostly developed and within the Eagle Creek subdivision. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - PUD (Lely Golf Resort) Undeveloped Agricultural Single-family homes and agricultural uses. S - Conservation Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve Agricultural Undeveloped E - R.O.W. Barefoot Williams Road EAC Meeting Page 2 of 9 PUD (Eagle Creek) Developed W- PUD (Lely Golf Resort) Undeveloped Agricultural Undeveloped IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner is proposing a rezone the subject 262.9-acre site from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to PUD for the purpose of amending the Lands End Preserve PUD to allow for the revision to the PUD Master Plan to reflect current wetland jurisdictional determinations and refinements to the residential tracts. They are also proposing to decrease the total number of dwelling units from 786 units to a maximum of 725 units and increasing the maximum height limit of the multi- family structures to allow 20 stories over two levels of parking. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject PUD is designated Urban Coastal Fringe Sub-district on the Future Land Use Map and Element(FLUE) of the Growth Management(GMP). This district permits the proposed mix of residential dwelling types and land uses. This designation will also allow residential density up to 4 units per acre minus 1 unit per acre since the subject site is within the Traffic Congestion Boundary for a total of 3 units per acre. Because the proposed density of 2.7 units per acre is less than the maximum of 3 units per acre,the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the Density Rating System of the GMP. Based on staff review of the approved land uses on the adjacent and nearby properties, the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states"All canals,rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that,policy 2.2.2 states"In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge)to the estuarine system. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 9 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,wetland and wildlife issues,the following Objectives and Policies apply: Objective 6.2 states, "There shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally functioning marine and fresh water wetlands, excluding transitional zone wetlands which are addressed in Objective 6.3". The project is consistent with Objective 6.2 in that the majority of wetlands on-site(91%) are being retained. Policy 6.2.10 states, "Any development activity within a viable naturally functioning fresh-water wetland not part of a contiguous flow way shall be mitigated in accordance with current SFWMD mitigation rules. Mitigation may also include restoration of previously disturbed wetlands or acquisition for public preservation of similar habitat". The project is consistent with Policy 6.2.10 in that mitigation will be provided through preservation and enhancement of remaining wetlands and uplands on-site. If necessary, additional mitigation will be provided within Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve,through the state Environmental Resource Permit(ERP)process. Policy 6.2.13 states, "Proposed development on parcels containing viable naturally functioning freshwater wetlands shall cluster development to maintain the largest contiguous wetland area practicable and shall be designed to disturb the least amount of native wetland vegetation practicable and to preserve the pre- development hydroperiod". The project is consistent with Policy 6.2.13 by preserving the majority of the wetlands on-site, in large tracts, and impacting only the margins of wetlands on-site. Objective 6.3 states, "A portion of the viable, naturally functioning transitional zone wetlands shall be preserved in any new non-agricultural development unless otherwise mitigated through the DEP and the COE permitting process and approved by the County". The project is consistent with Objective 6.3 in that a portion of each type of wetland will be retained on-site. Objective 6.4 states, "A portion of each viable, naturally functioning non-wetland native habitat shall be preserved or retained as appropriate". Policy 6.4.6 states, "All new residential developments greater than 2.5 acres in the Coastal Area and greater than 20 acres in the Coastal Urban Area shall retain 25% of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site, including both the understory and the ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 9 When several different native plant communities exist on site, the development plans will reasonably attempt to preserve examples of all of them if possible. Areas of landscaping and open space which are planted with native plant species shall be included in the 25%requirement considering both understory and groundcover. 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%native vegetation policy. This policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands alone constitute more than 25%of the site. Exceptions shall be granted for parcels that cannot reasonably accommodate both the native vegetation and the proposed activity". The project is consistent with Objective 6.4 and Policy 6.4.6 in preserving approximately 63 %of the existing native vegetation on-site. The majority of wetlands on-site(91%)will also be retained. Policy 7.3.4 states, "Until management guidelines are prepared, the County will evaluate and apply applicable recommendations of technical assistance to local government and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service federal guidelines regarding the protection of species of special status as stipulations to development orders". No listed species have been identified on the subject property. The project will conform to the guidelines of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as stipulated in the PUD document. Policy 7.3.6 states, "A species survey to include at a minimum, species of special status that are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site and conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] shall be required for developments greater than 10 acres as part of the County's EIS review process." A protected species survey was completed and included as part of the EIS for the project. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The Lands End Preserve is a proposed PUD Amendment project located in the East Naples area, along the west side of Barefoot Williams Road in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Barefoot Williams Road and Tower Road approximately one-half mile west of SR-951. The site is located within the Miscellaneous Coastal Basin. The total area of the site consists of approximately 263 acres. Much of the area is fallow cropland with various stages of exotic vegetation infestation. There are several existing borrow excavation sites on the property. • EAC Meeting Page 5 of 9 The Conceptual Surface Water Management Report describes a stormwater management system which will provide water quality treatment at 1.5 times the normal rate to account for discharge into an OFW (Rookery Bay). Location of bleeder discharges into preserve areas in the southwest quadrant of the project will help keep wetlands hydrated. The primary discharge is to a wetland preserve in the northwest quadrant. The discharge rate is designed to meet the 0.15 cfs/acre allowable discharge rate as per Ordinance 01-27. Conveyance of offsite flow from properties to the north of the proposed development is provided by inclusion of a perimeter swale outside of and adjacent to the developments perimeter berm. Environmental: Site Description: A majority of the project site has been altered in the past by agricultural activities, and now heavily overgrown with Brazilian pepper. Native plant communities found on-site include pine flatwoods (hydric and non-hydric), cypress, wax myrtle/willow, salt marsh, pine/mesic oak and mesic oak with palmetto understory. Several large borrow pits also occur on the property. n Two seasonal high water elevations were marked in the field using biological indicators such as lichen lines, tree staining, etc. One was located in the cypress wetland in the northeast corner of the site and the other was located in an agricultural ditch in the central portion of the property. The elevations were 3.77 feet NGVD and 3.55 feet NGVD respectively. Taking into account high water levels, it is anticipated that the 3.77 mark is more representative of previous high water levels. Natural ground elevations on-site vary from around 2.54 feet NGVD in the southwest corner of the property to approximately 5.00 feet NGVD in the pine flatwoods. Six soil types occur on the parcel, as mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. These are Holopaw Fine Sand, limestone substratum (Unit 2), Immokalee Fine Sand (Unit 7), Oldsmar Fine Sand (Unit 16), Basinger Fine Sand (Unit 17), Chobee, Winder and Gator Soils, depressional (Unit 22), and Estero & Peckisk Soils, frequently flooded (Unit 53). Hydric soils occur where existing native plant communities are located. The disturbed portion of the site consists mainly of non-hydric soils. Wetlands: There are approximately 35.86 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands on-site, of which approximately 3.34 acres (9 %) are proposed for impact. Impacts to wetlands will occur along the margins of wetlands on-site. Borrow ponds (Other Surface Waters) may be EAC Meeting Page 6 of 9 excavated further or reshaped according to SFWMD and Collier County guidelines. Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be through preservation and enhancement of the remaining wetlands and uplands on-site. Enhancement will consist of exotic vegetation removal. If necessary, additional mitigation will be provided within Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve. The details of the plan will be worked out during the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) process with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and will be coordinated closely with staff at Rookery Bay for their mitigation needs. Preservation Requirements: The subject property contains 59.91 acres of native vegetation (31.19 acres wetlands & 28.72 acres uplands). As proposed, approximately 38 acres (63 %) of the existing native vegetation on-site will be retained and placed in a conservation easement. This exceeds the 25 % minimum native vegetation retention requirement in section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Land Development Code. Listed Species: n Where possible, a listed species survey was conducted using meandering and belt transects and 10 x 50 binoculars as a means of searching for plants and animals. Due to the extreme density and monoculture of Brazilian pepper throughout much of the site, only remaining indigenous areas and shorelines of borrow areas were intensively searched. For this survey,particular attention was paid for the presence of Big Cypress fox squirrels and listed wading birds. Survey times varied from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with approximately 30 man-hours logged on the property during the survey. The only sign of protected species on the parcel was one nest-like structure near the margin of the cypress area in the northeast corner of the site. This entire area is proposed for preserve.No other signs of protected species were observed on-site. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDA-2002-AR- 2702 "Lands End Preserve PUD"with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. This project shall be reviewed and approved by the Collier County Stormwater Management Section prior to construction plans approval. Lake EAC Meeting Page 7 of 9 sideslopes must conform to the requirements of section 3.5 of the Land Development Code. 2. This project must obtain an Environmental Resource Permit from the South Florida Water Management District prior to Site Development Plan approval. 3. The project shall evaluate offsite flows coming onto the property from adjacent properties and analyze them to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the proposed perimeter bypass swale system without causing flooding or causing adverse surface water conditions to the adjacent property owners. This information shall be provided at the time of construction plan review. 4. The PUD Amendment, if approved, shall contain a statement to the effect that the perimeter bypass swale system shall be placed within a drainage easement dedicated to Collier County, with no responsibility for maintenance, and that the responsible entity for the Lands End Preserve shall maintain the perimeter bypass swale system free of buildings, fences, trees, shrubs, and any other obstructions to free flow discharge, including dense vegetation. The bypass perimeter swale shall be inspected monthly, between the months of June and November, to ensure the system is capable of working and a permanent record maintained showing, at a minimum, the name of the person performing the inspection, their position of authority for the Lands End Preserve, and the conditions observed. Environmental: 1. Add the following stipulation to section 6.6 of the PUD document. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the state of Florida Environmental Resource Permit rules and be subject to review and approval by Planning Services staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be the sole means of mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. EAC Meeting Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: `S0CT`Oz- S A CHRZANOW , P.E. DATE ENGINEER SENIOR Xle0C-- /0-/S-0 z ROBERT C. WILE , P.E. DATE PROJECT MANAGER PRINCIPAL ...//4,// )04/S.4 cl?.? STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST /6 • 1S•�2 RA4OWS DATE CHLANNER REVIEWED BY: _. THOMAS E. KUCK,P.E. DA"FE ', ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR EAC Meeting Page 9 of 9 AP i LIAM D. L I ' NZ, ., P.E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR C-79)5. (b �/'aci- /(A)/thi2e MARC WUERS LE,AICP DATE PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROVED BY: 'OS' PH K. SC ITT DATE C• TY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4,1 C: SUSAN MURRAY,AICP CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER