The URL can be used to link to this page

EAC Agenda 02/07/2001ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA February 7, 2001 9:00 a.m. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") — Third Floor I. Roll Call H. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of January 3, 2001 Meeting Minutes IV. Growth Management Update V. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUD-99-10 "Mirasol PUD" Sections 10,15, & 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East VI. Old Business A. Continued discussion on Wetlands Policy VII. New Business VIII. Subcommittee Report A. Growth Management Subcommittee IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment Council Members: Notify the Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrative staff no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 2, 2001 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (403-2370). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. January 31 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, January 3, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Sansbury Ed Carlson Michael G. Coe William Hill Erica Lynne Alexandra "Allie" Santoro NOT PRESENT: Alfred F. Gal, Jr. ALSO PRESENT:Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Specialist, Development Services Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We call the January 3rd meeting of the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council to order. And could I ask you to call the roll, please? MS. BURGESON: Sansbury? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe? MR. COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal? (No response.) MS. BURGESON: Santoro? MS. SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Here. Page 1 January 3, 2001 MS. BURGESON: Hill? MR. HILL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Lynne? MS. LYNNE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right, we have one, two, three, four, five. We have a quorum. Okay, we have the minutes from the last meeting, which is the December 6th meeting -- oh, excuse me, approval of the agenda. Is there any additions, deletions to the agenda? Changes, anything of that sort? MS. BURGESON: No, there is not. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, thank you. Now the minutes. What's the pleasure? MR. HILL: Move for approval, as presented. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Hill. MS. SANTORO: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second. All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none opposed, it passes unanimously. Okay, update on the Growth Management Plan. MS. BURGESON: Since Bill Lorenz is not here at this moment, can we move that to be heard immediately after the land use petitions? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Shall we go ahead with the land use petition, White Lake Corporate Park. Why don't we swear -- anyone that is going to be testifying on any petitions today, would you please stand and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, council members. My name is Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This White Lakes PUD was approved in 1992. Consists of 144.4 acres. What they are proposing to do is to increase the amount of usable land from 67.4 acres to 86.3 acres, and reduce the conservation areas from 13.3 acres to 8.1 acres. Basically let me show you a map of what they are planning to do. When this project was originally approved in 1992, it showed the wetland area in here. And the road came this way and dead ended here and came and dead ended here. What they are proposing to do is basically remove the wetland designation of this area and connect it to roads and create industrial lots. Steve Lenberger, from our environmental staff, is here. He can explain to you in detail what they are proposing to do. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, development services. On the wall I have a few exhibits. One is an aerial, pretty recent aerial, of the subject property. As you can see, the property has a very large lake, roughly 37 acres, which was dug during the construction of the I-75 interstate. Presently there's infrastructure in place to develop about two-thirds of the project. As you can see, most of it has been cleared in the past. There are some wooded areas. They consist of three wetlands: One in this area, a very small one, roughly .8 acres, one in the center, which is roughly 16 and a half, and one in the corner here, in Page 2 January 3, 2001 n the southeast corner, roughly about 2.7 acres. The aerial also shows a wooded area on top here, but this property here has since been developed, so it's not wooded at this point. Native habitats on -site pretty much are wetlands. This is wetland area here, is pine and cypress mix, as well as this area and of -- this area here. There's pine and cypress in this area, as well as shrubs, such as wax myrtle. The original PUD for the project identified a conservation area roughly in this central portion of this wooded area here. And what the petitioner wishes to do is relocate that preserve to the northern portion of this wooded area, basically on the south shore of the lake. I have a site plan on the wall here, and in green I highlighted the area the petitioner wishes to designate as conservation area. I just want to make you aware that portions of this project are platted. Much of the project is platted at this point. And the portion in green here and here is already platted as conservation area. And some restoration activity has occurred in the portion on the southeast corner of the site. The petitioner basically will be removing all the melaleuca in this area. There is substantial amounts of melaleuca. They will be replanting. And the total area within this conservation area -- I had the engineers look at it at RWA, and they tell me it's roughly about 9.3 acres total conservation area in green on the site plan. The remaining of the preserve area, they wish to have a littoral zone, which I requested that they have a littoral zone along the entire edge of the wetland preserve, roughly about .3 acres. And they're also going to have native landscaping, roughly about two and a half acres along the entire perimeter of the project. Yes? MR. CARLSON: While you're there, it looks to me, I'm looking at the black -and -white aerial photo, to the north of the preserve area -- or to the north of the wooded area, between the north of the wooded area and the lake. MR. LENBERGER: This area here? MR. CARLSON: No, move your hand north. Between the lake -- yeah. Is that -- what is that zone that looks different all around that -- MR. LENBERGER: Okay. Well, roughly the pine and cypress/melaleuca mix ends right about here. This area has been pretty much cleared, pretty much consisting of a scrape -down area. MR. CARLSON: So they're proposing to plant that and create the conservation area on that cleared area? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, they're proposing to recreate and to plant things. There is a planting plan in the Environmental Impact Statement, identifying the plants and the densities they wish to put in those areas. MR. CARLSON: So how much of the proposed conservation area, when it's all said and done, will be that new -- the new planted area on the -- what is now scraped down? MR. LENBERGER: The original PUD identified roughly 11 acres of conservation. The current PUD will have 9.3 acres of conservation. That would be the areas indicated in green on the map. The balance n would be made up in a littoral shelf, the .3 acres, and native landscaping along the perimeter of the project. Page 3 January 3, 2001 MR. CARLSON: Okay, would I be wrong in looking at those maps and estimating that the majority of the future conservation area, when it's all done, will be created on the scraped over presently cleared area? MR. LENBERGER: Roughly about half of this area is natural vegetation. Maybe a little less. Looks like about a third of this area is natural vegetation. The remainder will be planted. MR. CARLSON: So the majority of the conservation area is proposed to be created then. MR. LENBERGER: I would say a little more than half, yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions for Mr. Lenberger? MR. HILL: I have one -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir, Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: -- Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. MS. LYNNE: The environmental impact survey says that you found the -- that impact statement says that encyclia tampensis? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me? MS. LYNNE: The Environmental survey says that -- Impact Statement says that encyclia -- butterfly orchid was found. And I was wondering if you could you tell me where that was found. MR. LENBERGER: They were found in the conservation area, Wetland No. 3, which is this area here. MS. LYNNE: Were they in bloom at the time? MR. LENBERGER: I don't know. I'd have to ask the petitioner's consultant. I didn't do the survey, obviously the petitioner did. They usually bloom in spring, usually around May, June. MS. LYNNE: Just the reason I'm asking is that unless somebody's really an expert, they're not likely to be able to distinguish between various species of encyclia or even other orchids, so that there could in fact be some additional listed species there. That would be my concern. Is there anyplace where there are -- native orchids have been seen that's going to be bulldozed? MR. LENBERGER: On other projects you're referring to, or -- MS. LYNNE: Right here. Just this project. Were the orchids found anywhere where they are planning to bulldoze and build roads or buildings, or -- MR. LENBERGER: I can't speak historically what happened on -site because it was done a long time ago. Much of it was scraped down and excavated when the lake was dug. But the northern portion of the property that was cleared during the time I've been here is mostly pine flatwoods. I did not observe any butterfly orchids there. Most likely they would occur in the wetland areas. I don't think so much on the wetland on the west portion, but maybe in the central portion. And we know they're in this area of the property. MS. LYNNE: Okay, so there could be some in the wetlands area No. 2 that they are going to be building on. MR. LENBERGER: The petitioner has identified that they only saw butterfly orchids in Wetland No. 3, which is the one on the eastern portion. They have not identified any in the central portion. MS. LYNNE: Okay, but you don't know -- what I read, it looked like they just walked through it a couple of times. You don't really know Page 4 January 3, 2001 if there's other orchids there or not? n MR. LENBERGER: We probably should ask the petitioner's environmental consultant. They are here. MS. LYNNE: Are they going to be here to -- MR. LENBERGER: They're here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah, they're here. Why don't we have them come up. MR. WOODRUFF: Good morning. I'm Andy Woodruff. I'm the petitioner's consultant, environmental consultant from Passarella & Associates. Also with me here today is Emilio Robau from RWA, and Bryan Milk from RWA, and the applicant, Matt Loiacano. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you spell that, please? MR. LOIACANO: L-O-I-A-C-A-N-O. MR. WOODRUFF: With regard to the butterfly orchid that was identified on the property, that was identified in Wetland No. 3. That's in the corner of the project site, which is being proposed for conservation area. There isn't any development proposed for that area. There were no other butterfly orchids identified on the project site during the surveys. And that would include the surveys that had been done previously by the original consultant on the project site, as well as the surveys that we had done on the project site as a follow-up to this amendment to this PUD. MS. LYNNE: How well do you people know orchids and bromeliads and ferns? MR. WOODRUFF: I would say that with the time that we spend in the woods, that 95, 98 percent of the time butterfly orchid is what we --� come across. Now, like you -- Stephen was saying, you will not see them blooming at all times, so identification can't be an absolute unless you want to take it back with you, which we don't do, we leave it in the woods as it is. I will say that the areas that are being proposed to be cleared, a lot of those areas are infested with pepper, Brazilian pepper and melaleuca. And habitat -wise, it did not appear to me to be a significant habitat for orchids. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. Any other questions for the petitioner? Any other questions for Mr. Lenberger? MR. HILL: I have one, Mr. Chairman. This probably bears on Mr. Carlson's question. If you look in the staff report -- and I'm confused about the numbers. On Page 2 at the top, in paragraph four, there's a statement of reducing the conservation areas from 11.3 to 8.1. Back on Page 6, under preservation requirements, the proposed amendment will change the location of the 11.3 acres, as identified in the original PUD. Then you go on to say 12.1 of native vegetation to be preserved and replanted. It looks like you are keeping the 11.3, but moving it around; is that correct? MR. LENBERGER: We're identifying -- actually, hold on. What the petitioner is doing is actually planting and preserving more vegetation than is required on the original PUD. The original PUD identifies about 11 acres. What the petitioner is proposing to do is identify in the green area, conservation area, 9.3 acres, the littoral Page 5 January 3, 2001 planting of .3 and 100 percent native landscaping along the perimeter of the project, totaling about two and a half. That comes out to 12.1 acres. MR. HILL: So the conservation area in total is not being reduced. MR. LENBERGER: The original PUD identifies 11 some odd acres as conservation area. The actual conservation area designation for the property on this site will be 9.3 acres. So yes, it is -- MR. HILL: Where does the 12.1 fall into that? MR. LENBERGER: The 12.1 is the total of the perimeter buffer, preserve areas and the littoral planting along the edge of the wetland preserve in the center of the property. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: You get the same credit for planting native vegetation in a cleared area as preserving existing native vegetation. MR. LENBERGER: Land Development Code allows you to supplement the native vegetation preservation requirement with 100 percent native landscaping. Yes, you would get the same credit, according to the Land Development Code. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: I'm a little confused, too, but that's not surprising for a lawyer. I note that some of the areas for conservation are quote, unquote, platted. Is that used in the strict statutory sense of the word that they're recorded in a plat book and page? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. Conservation areas identified in green on the exhibit behind me are platted. MR. WHITE: And some of those platted areas are going to be changed in their dimension, or removed, if you will? MR. LENBERGER: They will be restored. MR. WHITE: Okay, the question I guess comes down to has any consideration been given to the need to either vacate or amend the plat itself? MR. LENBERGER: When we did the plat, we placed language on a dedication section that allows for restoration activities. MR. WHITE: But that's not the same as a specified area for conservation being moved or removed. And what I believe would be required under the statute is an amendment to the plat. That's my only point. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can we let the petitioner address that? I think he has -- MR. WHITE: Sure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- an answer for it. MR. ROBAU: Yes. Good morning. For the record, my name is Emilio Robau. I'm with RWA Engineering Firm, professional engineer. I think I can address that to a certain extent. A couple of things that I wanted to just touch on that I think are relevant. We have what -- we've been working on this really for quite some time, and we have our Water Management District permits and state water quality certifications for the plan that you see up there. A significant -- a portion of the wetlands that we impacted have already been mitigated, I think in the Panther Island Mitigation Bank. So we come to you essentially almost complete with the federal Page 6 January 3, 2001 process and complete with the state process with the plan that you '"N have up there. And I think that's consistent with some -of your prior discussions. And we've done some homework on this. That area that's shown as platted conservation area on the prior PUD has never been platted, because over the past three years, really, we've been looking at condition of the wetlands and so on, so forth, and trying to remold this site, and so it hasn't been platted. There will not be a replat required, because they simply haven't been platted yet. I believe the green area has been platted, as Stephen has said. And again, that's because we've been working on this for quite some time. And there's a certain amount of risk in getting all these other permits, because you could deny us, but we decided to go ahead and do the homework and diligence to pursue this. And we've set it up so that if you, you know, approve this and we go forward to County Commission, we should be in good shape. We won't have to do any other replats, et cetera. So hopefully that would answer your questions regarding that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The physical dimensions as described on the plat of the conservation area did not change? MR. ROBAU: That -- to my understanding, that's correct. Now, I'm not a professional land surveyor, but I am the project manager/civil engineer for this, and that's my understanding, correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions for the petitioner? For staff? Anyone from the public that would like to address the petitioner? Hearing none, what's the pleasure? MR. CARLSON: I have another question. Can"I have a question? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You certainly may. MR. CARLSON: What's the mitigation deal? MR. WOODRUFF: The mitigation, we have both on -site and off -site mitigation. I think the on -site mitigation we've talked about with the restoration areas, and also the additional plantings that we are proposing, removal of the exotics on the property. The off -site mitigation, we purchased 7.2 credits at the Panther Island Mitigation Bank, and we have receipt of that purchase in the application material. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: For the record, again, whenever Panther Island is brought up, I want to the clarify things. A disclosure that the ownership of Panther Island Mitigation Bank is shared by some of the individuals who own the property that I work for. I in no way in any manner am involved with Panther Island Mitigation Bank, nor do any of the things involved with Grey Oaks have any tie-in with that. But some of the ownership of Grey Oaks is involved with the ownership of Panther Island Mitigation Bank, and again, I just would like to put that in the record. MR. WOODRUFF: I'd also like to mention that in addition to the Panther Island Mitigation Bank that we've already purchased as credits, there was also a purchase of -- the applicant has made funds available to the Fish and Game for purchase of red -cockaded woodpecker habitat. There was some red -cockaded woodpeckers, not on this ,,,.,particular site but in the area to the north, as part of the Seagate DRI, and the applicant has made a significant purchase for Page 7 January 3, 2001 red -cockaded woodpecker habitat. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further question, Mr. Carlson? Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: I'm a little confused. The mitigation that you've already purchased was with respect to the original plat, or the new one? MR. WOODRUFF: The new one. MR. HILL: That seems to get the cart before the horse in the whole process. You come to us with a request for approval of reduction of conservation in wetlands and you've already gone through the mitigation process. That bothers me a little bit that that can go on. MR. WOODRUFF: Well, this was all done in conjunction with South Florida Water Management District permitting that we've been (sic) for the property. MR. HILL: Well, that's a little bit different than the environmental aspect of it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Are there further questions? Okay, what's the pleasure now? MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve as it's written. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion to approve by Mr. Coe. Is there a second? MR. HILL: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Mr. Hill. All in favor, aye. Opposed? MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, I believe it passes unanimously -- oh, you're opposed, excuse me, I'm sorry. Mr. Hill opposed. Mr. Carlson, what did you vote on it? Deny? MR. CARLSON: No, I voted for it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, so then the vote is one, two, three, four, five to one; is that correct? Okay. Thank you very much. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's going to take us a couple of minutes to set up for the next presentation. In the meantime, I'd like to introduce Julia Darmas -- Darmas-Minor, I'm sorry. I've forgotten that for the last two or three years. She is with the Collier County Water Management Department, working under John Boldt. And she will be attending these meetings from now on. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Nice to have you with us. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: In case she has any concerns about any of our projects. Thank you, sir. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a conditional use from earth mining activity. The property is located approximately two miles east of -- two miles south of I-75 and one mile east of Everglades Boulevard, in an area commonly known as the Hole -in -the -Donut. The parcel consists of 160 acres. The applicant is proposing to dig fertile eggs with the combined area of 80.7 acres. And basically what they are proposing is to dig fertile eggs and use them for fish ponds. Page 8 January 3, 2001 They are proposing to have a fish farm. The area is located in NRPA, Natural Resource Protection Area overlay, and it's within the Southern Golden Gate Estates area. Earth minings are not permitted in that area unless it's an integral part of the bona fide agricultural use, which fish farming is. Therefore, our county attorney's office opined that they can go forward with this petition. What they are proposing is to remove 1. -- around 1.8 million cubic yards of fill, which they will sell as fill material for construction. And this activity will take approximately 30 years, 25 to 30 years to complete. We have received a letter from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida opposing this and we also have received a letter from the South Florida Water Management District opposing this. Since this is a bona fide agricultural use and the property is zoned agricultural, staff recommends conditional approval of this project for a period of three years. After three years we visit the site and make sure that they are using the land for the intended agricultural activity. And if so, they can apply for a conditional use to continue. If not, the conditional use dies and activities stop. I think that concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, otherwise, Steve is here to answer all your questions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: If the three-year conditional use is granted, and it's determined at the end of the three years that there is no fish farming going on, what is the plan to restore the area to its original state? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There are no plans to restore -- there are no wetlands on -site. The entire site is a plan. And in three years what they can do, because of the condition of the roads that cannot be improved and the distance that they have to drive the fill to construction sites, we don't believe that they are going to be able to dig a real large lake. We are expecting them to have a small lake. And basically we want to monitor every three years or every five years after the first three years, to make sure that they are really using the land for agricultural uses. Otherwise, there are no plans to restore the land. Once the fill is hauled away and the lake is there, it's hard to restore it to the original state. MS. LYNNE: So the environmental damage would be done, and would not be re -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm not an environmentalist, but upland and a lake next to a canal, I don't think it's going to have much environmental impact. Steve is more qualified than me to answer that question. MR. LENBERGER: If I may, I'd just like to give a brief rundown on the project environmentally and bring ourselves up to speed here. The property that Chahram mentioned is located within the Southern Golden Gate Estates, south of I-75. Stan brought an exhibit here showing the Golden Gate Estates lots and it identifies a white area in the center here, also known as the Hole -in -the -Donut. The pink highlighted area is the property, southern property, roughly about a quarter section of land. The petitioner is wishing to dig four ponds for aquaculture. The proposed plan is up on the wall here. And as you can see, the four ponds, three on the lower portion of the property and one on the Page 9 January 3, 2001 northeast corner. There is an existing homesite presently there, and it's located roughly in the northwest portion of the property. What the petitioner's proposing to do is to dig the ponds and to preserve native habitat in a conservation area, roughly around the existing homesite. And that will satisfy the preservation requirement for the county, as specified in the Land Development Code. The existing homestead area also has native vegetation and is roughly about 35 acres. The aerial on the wall here pretty much shows that the general area is wooded. There are some farming operations, as you can see, in the Hole -in -the -Donut area, and they show up as lighter areas on the aerial. The subject property is in the northwest corner, and most of the property is vegetated with cabbage palm. It occupies pretty much the whole eastern and southern portion of the property. In the northwest portion of the property it's mostly pine/cabbage palm mix. Many of the pine trees have died, due to some of the wildfires they had in the area. Petitioner did do some surveying for protected species. The only listed species they found was not actually on the site but in the Fakaunion Canal, which runs along the western boundary of the project. Due to the scope of this project and its location and natural resource protection area, staff put limitations on the time frame, basically a three-year time period, to excavate the first pond and to put it into aquaculture use. Clearing also will coincide with phases, and we've identified the phase lines on the plan, on the wall here. Roughly each phase will be ^, a lake and a half, which will be cleared, allowing for excavation of the lake and staging area to place the stockpiling with stockpile material prior to hauling it off -site. I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. The petitioner is here, as well as their team, environmental consultant, the engineer, they're all here to answer any questions you may have regarding this project. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions for Mr. Lenberger? Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Are you satisfied with Mr. Espinar's response to your letter of December 1? MR. LENBERGER: The letter that Mr. Hill is referring to is I asked numerous questions about the operation, about general aquaculture operations to see if it would have a negative impact on the surrounding area. And yes, I am satisfied with those responses. I since then looked into the website Department of Agriculture to see what they recommend regarding aquaculture, and many of the information there was in Marco's letter. MR. HILL: One thing that bothers me a little bit, he assures you that there's adequate water supply for this. Now, I'm not sure that everywhere in Collier County you can assure sufficient water supply for something. And the worst thing that could happen to aquaculture would be it will dry. MR. LENBERGER: Yeah. MR. HILL: Are you convinced that he can produce sufficient water supply year round for this? MR. LENBERGER: The lakes were excavated, or proposed to be excavated, Page 10 January 3, 2001 a are roughly about 18 feet deep. This is to ensure that there's water on -site at all times. Obviously the health of the fish and maintaining the fish in the pond will depend on aeration and also density of fish being reared, so there's a lot of variables there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: This question may not be for you again, Steve, but I'm concerned about the tillandsia species that are on there again. Many tillandsias are not common, they are extremely rare. And I don't see any evidence in the reports here that the people who were -- they aren't even going to tell us the species of tillandsia. How do I know that there aren't some extremely rare tillandsias there? MR. LENBERGER: I should best leave that question to Marco Espinar, the environmental consultant here today. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I need you to clarify one other thing now. The requirement of the approval -- the requirement of the approval is that Phase I, which is the lake and a half, be dug first and that lake be placed into operation as an agriculture -- aquaculture prior to the time of starting excavation clearing on Phase II? MR. LENBERGER: That's right. And the petitioner would have to reapply for another conditional use to excavate the next pond. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill, you have a question? MR. HILL: I should know this, but where in the mora -- where is this property located with respect to the moratorium area and the NRPA's? I know it's in the NRPA overlay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is in the moratorium area. Moratorium area has exceptions. And this would fall within one of the exceptions. Earth mining is a permitted -- MR. HILL: An exception in the moratorium area? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. MR. HILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. ESPINAR: For the record, Marco Espinar, Collier Environmental Consultants, if you've got any questions. Your tillandsia one, the only thing I found was giant stiff tillandsias out there. I'm familiar with other tillandsias such as fuzzy-wuzzies and all that. And I in fact did not see much out there. Actually, about two years ago we had a raging fire go through there and the whole area is kind of scorched. And basically you got a cabbage palm hammock with a pioneer species of grasses coming in due to the fire. Most of the pine trees have pretty much burnt down. MS. LYNNE: Thank you. MR. ESPINAR: Any other -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions? Anyone from the public who would like to address the petition? Yes, ma'am. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. First I'd like to address the issue of disclosures. This is a quasi judicial proceeding. I had to get up and swear that I would tell the truth as I gave my testimony, which of course I will do. It also requires that you disclose who you talked to about this particular and any project that comes before you." CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Payton, you're absolutely right, and I did not do that. Page 11 January 3, 2001 MS. PAYTON: Shame, shame. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Sorry about that. I forgot to do that. Has anyone talked -- had any correspondence with the petitioner regarding this particular petition? MS. LYNNE: No. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, okay. And I apologize. I missed had. I forgot that. MS. PAYTON: Well, you also have to disclose if you had discussions with anybody, and I'll admit that I had a discussion in the parking lot this morning as I walked in with Ed Carlson. But disclosures are who you talked to, not just the applicant but anybody -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, I'll ask that question then. MS. PAYTON: -- or among yourselves. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I have not talked to anyone. Has anyone talked to anyone about this? MR. CARLSON: I had a short conversation with Nancy Payton on the way into the building this morning. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, Mr. Carlson. Okay. MR. WHITE: In the interest, Mr. Chairman, of a complete disclosure for the record, if Mr. Carlson would care to add anything with regards to the substance or scope of his conversation, I believe that would be appropriate. Thank you. MR. CARLSON: It was about the assurance, based on the design, that this was actually an aquacultural operation. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MS. PAYTON: And everything that I spoke to Ed about, I'm going to talk about right now to everybody. n Thank you for that. First and foremost, earth mining is not allowed in a Natural Resource Protection Area. That's under our final order, and it's also under our comprehensive plan. You cannot do earth mining in Southern Golden Gate Estates or in Hole -in -the -Donut. Therefore, in order to do earth mining, you've got to cloak it as aquaculture, or some other agricultural activity, because ag. activities are allowed in natural resource protection areas. Anyplace else, this would be straightforward earth mining operation, and they wouldn't have to go through this aquaculture charade. In mid December I contacted Mark Berrigan, who is with the Department of Agriculture's division of aquaculture, and asked him first of all, had there been any contact from Mr. Hardy or his representatives for certification for an aquaculture operation, or had they contacted seeking information on how to properly design these ponds and undertake this operation. And at that time, no, they had not had any contact, according to Mr. Berrigan, from Mr. Hardy or his representatives. I also asked Mr. Berrigan to look at the documentation that I had received from the county on this proposal, to provide comments as to whether this was a bona fide aquaculture operation. He's currently reviewing that. I also understand that the county has sent information to him as well. He did tell me yesterday they still had not received any formal request from Mr. Hardy or his representatives for assistance in designing this aquaculture ,..� operation. He did tell me that he had assigned at my request to his Page 12 January 3, 2001 field staff, who would be making a site visit sometime in the next week or two, to assess this proposed aquaculture operation. I also asked him if he was aware of any other aquaculture operations in the State of Florida that had 20-foot deep ponds, and he couldn't immediately refer me to any. I also called NRCS and IFAS and asked, and they were not aware of any 20-foot deep ponds for aquaculture. Also, as of early December, they had not received any request from Mr. Hardy. Now this is a month ago, for assistance in designing these aquaculture ponds. Objective 6.8 of our comprehensive plan says the county shall protect natural reservations from the impact of surrounding development. Public lands, which you were not told, are on four sides of this parcel. Not totally enclosing it, but there are public parcels on each side of this site. And these were parcels that were purchased by the state for their environmental values; one being their wetland values. This is in an area -- this is the state's Save our Everglades acquisition area, being purchased for its environmental values. Not just wetlands but also their important uplands and wildlife species that are in there. There is a letter in your packet from the Water Management District saying that this is going to create some problems for wetland restoration on public lands that are currently owned. Listed species. On Page 10 of -- 10 of 14 of the background information, it says several species of plants listed by government agencies were found on the property during transect surveys. None are considered rare. Each is listed by the State of Florida, primarily due to commercial operations. Well, I'm not quite sure what that means, but I'll tell you about an experience I had with a similar development in Southern Golden Gate Estates in listed plants. This was Fakahatchee single-family resort, and they had a section that they were proposing to do their "restoration" for their resort complex. And I asked if -- they said there were no listed plants. But yet this is very near Fakahatchee in an area where it's famous for its rare orchids and other plants. They did agree, to their credit, to allow Mike Owen from the Fakahatchee State Preserve to go on there and look for listed plants. And guess where he found the listed plants? Right where they said all the plants had to be removed and they were going to do a restoration effort. And he found 62 hand ferns, probably one of the most intense colonies in this locale for hand ferns. But there were two different environmental consultants that did an evaluation of that property, and they didn't see those plants. So I'm saying that yes, I think you're right, that there are plants that are probably there that most environmental consultants don't know how to identify. Also, I wanted to make the point about uplands, that they are very important. That the University of Florida says we have lost in our Everglades system 90 percent of our uplands, and we should be as equally aggressive about protecting important uplands as we are about wetlands, and not be this wetland centric, because there's an interaction between the two. The report goes on to say that there are no panthers that have been Page 13 January 3, 2001 documented on the subject property. The project will not prevent Florida panthers from traversing the site. Well, the data doesn't support that. If you look at the telemetry data, panthers avoid earth mining activities. And Sunny Land Mine is the one that I can point to most immediately and that's over in the Okaloacoochee Slough. So the documentation does not support the fact that this is not going to have an impact on the Florida panther and other listed species that are out there. This is a conditional use permit which allows you to address the issues of compatibility. And it gives you flexibility as to whether this is a good idea there or if it's a bad idea. There are also issues of road impacts. How are you going to get this 30-year operation? This is something like 1.8 million cubic yards of fill, I forget how many. This is a 30-year aquaculture operation. I probably won't live to see and many of us in this room won't live to see this in full operation. That's 30 years from now, if not further. In 1997 -- this was in the packet as well, or at least the information I got -- that Mr. Hardy did do a catfish pond out there. But the information that I received from county staff is that there are no catfish there yet. And it never was certified as an aquaculture catfish farm. Yet he's already got one pond out there, and how about he make good on that pond and get his catfish going in that pond before he comes and wants to do a more intensive aquaculture operation. Words -- actions speak a lot louder than words. There are a variety of other questions I have, but those are basically the ones that come to mind, that I question that this is a bona fide aquaculture operation. I think it's an earth mining operation because of the depth and the intensity of the operation. And I'm not privy to the latest letter from Mr. Hardy's consultant maybe that address those concerns, but I'm still uncomfortable on the fact that they haven't consulted with the appropriate representatives from the state that deal with aquaculture and would assist them in properly designing these ponds. Thank you very much. I urge you to either deny this application or to continue it until these questions can be properly addressed. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, Ms. Payton. MS. PAYTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Would the petitioner like to address Ms. Payton's comments? MR. ESPINAR: For the record, Marco Espinar, with Collier Environmental. I'd like just to touch upon some of the points that Nancy's made. For starters about aquacultural use, we've contacted even DCA before this even started. We had staff meetings with the county staff -- like I say, we had contact with DCA to make sure that this was compatible with the moratorium. And in fact, DCA came back and said it is. I'd like to also point out that the applicant of this project has lived out there for like 30 years. His homestead is out there. The area is on a -- is zoned for agricultural use. Okay? If we really wanted to do a commercial operation, why would we do four separate cells? Why would we preserve over half of the project site? If we really wanted to do a commercial operation, we could have just done one big cell. Page 14 January 3, 2001 If you notice, that site -- if I may -- we're doing over 100 percent littoral shelves for all these lakes. 100 percent over what is required. The littoral shelf is there for the fish and the fish fry, okay? We're going above and beyond minimum standards. If this was a commercial excavation, we could save a lot of money by just doing one major pond out there. As an agricultural operation, I can start my ponds right now. The only reason we're here is I want to haul off my by-product, which is my fill, off the site. Right now this is agriculturally zoned. I can go right now to Collier County, get a fence permit, come out here, start clearing this. But the difference is I'll have to stockpile the fill out here. And the fill is my by-product. We're here before you today to ask you permission to let us haul the fill off -site. If I may just touch on some other points here. There was a comment made that we didn't contact the appropriate people. I have for the past two months been in contact with the University of Florida, as the applicant, Mr. Hardy has, studying documents after documents after documents about fish cultivation. I have responded to specific questions. Those questions were researched, okay? So to sit there and say that we haven't contacted anybody, that's erroneous. Because we haven't contacted a specific person, that does not mean that we have not been in contact with numerous individuals. We have right now an application for the Department of Agriculture there for aquaculture operation. The thing is, is let's not get the -- what is it, the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart there? One step at a time. We're here for a conditional use. Once we get our approvals, we'll take the next steps, you know, but we're not going to sit there and start bringing everybody into the picture immediately. But yes, we have been in contact with the University of Florida. As for the depth of these lakes, the depth of these lakes are dictated by law, basically. The Land Development Code stipulates minimum depth, 12 feet. Water Management District, on the basis of review, okay, Section 3.2.4.4.1 states 25 or 50 percent of the area deeper than 12 feet is desirable. That is their designed criteria. So for us to pick an arbitrary number, say we're going to dig it to this depth, no, we had to look at overlapping ordinances, state and local, but we also had to look at the water table in the surrounding vicinity to maintain adequate water in those lakes. So this was not done arbitrarily. The project Ms. Payton was talking about, I'm familiar with the project in the Fakaunion area. That was a beautiful, beautiful swamp. I've been on it numerous times. We're talking about a cabbage palm area with a homestead out there that had fire raging through it. Okay, apples and oranges. Apples and oranges here. As for my report, I documented and I included in my endangered species survey radio telemetry report of panthers. We can't control large mammals. They transverse properties all over the place. What we're doing in here in essence is benefitting the area. We're going to have a huge littoral shelf with fish in there. We're not going to prevent wading birds or panther from getting a drink of water or anything out there. This project is also phased. We have put in -- or the county has Page 15 January 3, 2001 requested mechanisms to protect themselves. We've agreed to them. This thing of this project's 30 years, no, it's not. We have this in phases, three separate phases. And if in three years this is not a bona fide agricultural use, we lose our conditional use. We've agreed to these stipulations. As for the pond on -site, that's a test hole. We've told everybody. We took staff out there. It was a test hole to see what depth the water was at, how long the water will sit there during dry season. It was a test hole. You know, we had to start from somewhere, a baseline. And that's what that test hole was. And like I said, the applicant has lived out there for 30 years and will continue to live out there. We have done -- over 50 percent of that site is going to be preserved. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If I could, just one question. MR. ESPINAR: Sure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The numbers that are concerning me is we're talking a 30-year project and we're talking a review after three years. And there has to be an ongoing aquaculture operation going after the three-year period, no? I don't see how that works, or how Possibly that could be dug in three years. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They don't have to complete one full lake, they can have half a lake if they cannot complete one lake in three years. We want to make sure that they are going to do what they are telling us they are -- they intend to do. At first we were thinking about five years, but then we decided that five years probably is way too much time, and they can show us the proof that they are really intending to raise fish there in three years. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I guess what my question is, you certainly are not going to put fish in there while you're still out there excavating a lake. MR. ESPINAR: We've got three years to do one pond. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah, that's -- MR. ESPINAR: And then once the pond is finished, you know, then we have to document the fact that we're going to put that pond in aquacultural use before we move on to the next cell. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I guess that's the same, we're talking 30 years, we're talking three years. I don't see how something like this could be done in three years. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, Stan Chrzanowski with development staff. If you look at the number, the 1.8 million over 30 years, it will work out to about 60,000 cubic yards a year. If you divide that by four, You'll get 450,000 cubic yards per lake. They could do that by doing 150,000 cubic yards a year, which is a lot, but when you look at Willow Run Quarry, they average about 750,000 cubic yards a year. So it's an order of magnitude that could be accomplished. Maybe the three years is a little tight. I don't see how they can get the aquaculture going and have it done in three years. Maybe five years might be a little better time frame. The numbers do work out, though. You could do that. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman? Page 16 January 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill. r'\ MR. HILL: That's what I've heard Mr. Espinar -- what is the condition we're looking for again in three years? I understood you to say, Marco, that the pond be done and proof that you are going to produce an aquacultural theme, not that it has to be in full operation. Is that the county's understanding? We don't have to have a viable fish farm in three years. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That would be hard to have a viable fish farm in three years. We just wanted to after three years go there and make sure that the lakes, the way they are designed in here, are dug. And they are -- they intend to have a fish farm. And they may not have fish that you can go and fish, but they have to show us that they are -- they really intend on doing what they tell us that they want to do. MR. HILL: How do you establish intent at the end of three years? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If the lake is dug and designed the way it is. As you have noticed, the lakes are not 20 feet deep all over it. It has a littoral area, then it goes down. And the way it is designed, if it is done that way, that shows the intent. And they should get their license -- I believe the state licensed them to have fish farm, and they should show us some documentation that they are actively pursuing that. They may not have fish at the time we go over there to visit, but they can prove to us that they intend to do that. And then we can give them another three years and go back after three years and make sure that, you know, the activity is there. MR. HILL: If that first Phase I lake is finished to proper dimensions and you approve it with supposedly the intent to provide a viable fish farm -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Then we come back -- MR. HILL: -- will you give them permission to dig the second phase? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We'll come back in here and recommend another three years to make sure that after the second period we go there and at that time if they don't have a fish farm, then we put a stop to that. MR. HILL: So there's two phases that they can dig without producing a viable fish farm, theoretically. MR. WHITE: No, I don't believe that's correct. Mr. Chairman, assistant County Attorney Patrick White. The fifth condition that staff's recommending is specific and precise as to the fact that the conditional use expires in three years from the date of approval, or upon completion of Phase I, whichever occurs first. So they have to finish Phase I, assuming that was within three years. There would be no way to move on to the second phase without getting another conditional use approval. MR. HILL: Right. But at the end of Phase I, that may simply be one lake dug with no fish farm. MR. WHITE: If it's before three years and there's no evidence of moving forward to achieve an approved aquaculture activity, I believe that it might be possible, if you would, to revoke the conditional use. But certainly that's nothing that's been contemplated at this point in time. Given the time frame it would take to excavate, it seems unlikely that they'd be completing the first leg within the three ,,,,years and have an ongoing aquaculture. But that's all facts that are not yet in evidence. Page 17 January 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further? Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: I'm still not clear as to the definition of Phase I. When I read the proposal, I thought that the end of Phase I meant that there was ongoing aquaculture going on in the first lake by the end of three years. Is that not true? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically what they are going to do, they have to design it, design the lake, and build the lake as a fish farm, which is more than just digging a hole. And if they do that and there is water and they have what's called finger laying and they have their licenses and everything, then that shows that they are serious about fish farming. But if we go there and there's just the lake, and it's not the way shown on the plan, that will show us that they don't really seriously intend on doing the fish farm. Either way we're going to come back in three years here to show you the product, what they have done, and you'll be the judge. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: If these fish ponds can be dug without a permit, or without coming before us, and that the only problem is involved in removing the fill, and we're only doing one pond at a time, why don't they dig -- why doesn't the petitioner dig his first pond and get it all set up and going and leave the fill in the other acreage that he has? MR. ESPINAR: If I may answer that, that's more ecologically damaging than what we're proposing here. Because you're going to have that fill stocked up. That silt is going to go everywhere. So ecologically this is a little bit more sound than of fill out there. just the stockpiling MR. CHRZANOWSKI: To dig a 20-acre lake -- Stan Chrzanowski, development services. To dig a 20-acre lake 20 feet deep, you're going to create a 20-acre fill pile 20 feet high. Like Marco says, it's going to be difficult to contain the fill. You won't be able to plant anything on it because it will just be too dry. You won't be able to stop the soil erosion by any method that would be practical. It will be a disaster. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Marco, how do you address Mr. Tears' concerns about altering the hydrology in the area? MR. ESPINAR: Well, I kind of differ with Mr. Tears, because in essence we're attenuating a lot more water. Right now that is just a cabbage palm upland. We are in essence creating four huge holding cells of water. So in essence, I kind of differ with him in saying that we're attenuating water. What we're doing is actually bringing the water table up in that area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: Can I ask Mrs. Payton to come back, or at least respond? You made a statement that you talked to an individual, and I don't recall the name, concerning the 20-foot depth with respect to aquaculture. MS. PAYTON: Mark Berrigan -- MR. HILL: In Mr. Espinar's letter, he responded to that by saying -- correct me, Marco, if I'm wrong -- you are sloping the bottom for to maintain a proper oxygen content, is that correct, to 12 feet? Page 18 January 3, 2001 MR. ESPINAR: There's varying things going on in here. The first one is we're dropping it to 16 feet. Because when you start to go to harvest the fish, we want to pump the water and drain it and then have a deep end so the fish can swim, too. The levels that we are utilizing, like I said, are based on the Land Development Code which stipulates that it has to be 12 inch -- or 12 feet. Even, like I said, Volume IV -- excuse me, Volume V of the Water Management District even stipulates that they prefer 12 feet or deeper. And once you go into deeper water, okay, what I discussed in my letter there, the fetch formula, you're gaining the circulation of water maintaining proper oxygen levels. If you do it very shallow, you won't have that mixing and oxygen levels. MS. PAYTON: I spoke to several people. Foremost is Mark Berrigan, who is the contact person at the Division of Aquaculture. And I can provide you with his telephone number, if you'd like to call him. Also, I had an E-mail communication with Tony Paluzo (phonetic), who's with the NRCS, and I asked him about aquaculture and ponds, et cetera. And this is his response to me. In order for a pond to produce fish for food and recreation, it must meet certain criteria or it will fail. We, meaning NRCS, design fish ponds and most of them are excavated to no more than 12 to 15 feet in depth from the natural ground line. Also, the side slope should be no steeper than one and a half to one, and one slope four to one. Kind of stuff I don't understand. Most borrow pits would not meet these standards. I also spoke with Dana Rice at IFAS about ponds and whether there had been any communication for assistance in designing these ponds. And I also wanted to clarify a point. On November 25th, 1997, there was a letter about this particular parcel. And the catfish pond that I referenced in 1997, the purpose of that permit was, and I quote, for fracturing rock for a catfish pond. It was not a test, it was to be a catfish pond, or it was presented as a catfish pond, which doesn't yet have catfish. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Payton, just for my knowledge, NRCS? MS. PAYTON: Natural Resource Conservation Service. Used to be the Soil and Water Conser -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And the other, IFAS? MS. PAYTON: Oh, Institute -- MS. WOLOK: Institute of Food and Agriculture Services. MS. PAYTON: They have a field office here in Florida. And they're connected with the University -- here near Immokalee, and they're connected with the University of Florida. Sorry, I use those short terms all the time and don't always know. But it is an official -- it's connected with the extension service. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Most of us are connected with the University of Florida; not very proud of it today, unfortunately. MS. PAYTON: I wouldn't know. MR. CARLSON: I had another question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir -- oh, another question. Go ahead, Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: I'll wait. MR. DAVIDSON: I'm Jeff Davidson, the engineer for the project. And I've done a lot of commercial excavations in Collier County, 20 or 30, Page 19 January 3, 2001 probably. And this is not a typical commercial excavation. The way it was designed was in conjunction with material we got from University of Florida and other agencies. Marco Espinar studied that very thoroughly. And the way this lake -- these lakes are designed, we have a slope on the bottom. And on the shallow end, which is about 12 feet deep, there's a ten -to -one slope littoral shelf, which is typically not the case in an excavation. It's usually four -to -one. And then it slopes down to three feet below the low water table and then it slopes two -to -one to the bottom. In this case it's a ten -to -one littoral shelf. And the reason for that would be for the reproductive cycle of the fish that Mr. Hardy would like to raise in these ponds. And the reason for the slope, it's slopes from 12 feet on the shallow end to 20 feet on the deep end. And it's a little bit deceiving when we talk about depths here, because this property is on a mound. We estimate that the low season water table in this area is going to be probably seven to eight feet below natural ground, which leaves only four feet of water in the shallow end of the pond. Then it will have -- you know, would be deeper in the deeper end. And the 20 feet on the deep end is required by the Land Development Code in the fetch formula as a maximum depth, so we couldn't go any deeper than 20 feet if we wanted to. So we're sloping from a shallow of 12 to a maximum of 20 feet on the deep end. And what we intend to do when this operation is complete is to be able to draw the pond down and net the fish in the deep end, so that they would come out of the littoral shelf end down at the deeper end and be available for netting. And the lakes are interconnected for that purpose, when the operation's put into full operation. MR. HILL: You mentioned a depth of the lake -- the water table in that area, the low water table. Did you give eight feet? MR. DAVIDSON: The low water table is estimated to be seven to eight feet below natural grade. MR. HILL: Natural grade of the mound? MR. DAVIDSON: Of the natural ground. I said the -- what I meant there was the elevation of Mr. Hardy's property is essentially a mound. It's probably a foot and a half higher than some of the property, you know, a mile away from there. If you look at the water table elevation in that canal, it's -- the top of the bank there, and that's how we measured it, was about six or seven feet. His property six or seven feet above the water table and the canal. And when you go downstream about two miles, there's probably a four -foot difference. So his property is essentially a mound, so the water table elevation difference is a lot more drastic there than it is in other areas. MR. HILL: Do you think you can maintain that depth of water on that MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. I don't think the water table would decrease at all. I think, actually like Marco said, that what would happen there during the rainy season, that would actually recharge the aquifer, because the water would go into those cells and not be able to get out. There's no outfall for these ponds, like a typical project where you have an outfall stretcher for the water to stage up and then discharge Page 20 January 3, 2001 out. The water would stay in these ponds and recharge the groundwater. MR. HILL: What kind of evaporation rate, Marco -- or Mr. Edwards (sic) -- would you have in a pond like that, if you're not charging it from surface water? MR. DAVIDSON: What kind of evaporation? I think there is evaporation, and they estimate about an eighth of an inch to a quarter of an inch per day during the -- you know, during the dry season. But I think the recharge rate happens a lot -- more than compensates for the evaporation rate. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further? Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: I have a question for Marco. I know you -- in your letter you addressed predation. And I think you -- I hope you have an appreciation for -- your comment is that loss to predation will occur periodically. That's a given. And you mention wading birds. But in an area'that's surrounded by natural habitats for all kinds of creatures and that is slated for preservation, I wonder if you really appreciate how predation could come into play in this in the future. Because it's not just wading birds. You also have predatory birds like cormorants which will find this place and love it. You will also have alligators, otters and fish -eating turtles. And I could see this just -- you know, in an area where the recruitment for those kinds of animals is basically unlimited, that if you ever did try predator control, you would never be successful, they would just simply be replaced. And I could see this really being the killer for this project. MR. ESPINAR: I agree, Ed, I mean, in a sense. There's no way we can prevent predation. I even referenced in my threatened and endangered species survey that I actually -- you know, there's an alligator out there in the canal. And alligators, especially otters, will probably be going in here, and there's no way for us to prevent, you know, predation. That's just -- we have to just factor that in and -- MR. CARLSON: But the literature is replete with scientific papers on how predation has tremendous negative effect on fish farming and that fish farmers do ultimately resort to predator control. I mean, there's paper after paper on that. MR. ESPINAR: I realize that. But I'm not going to stip -- you know, I'm not going to assume that the situation is going to happen. I know that predation is going to occur. We're willing to accept that consequence. And my -- and the applicant has shown no intention to do anything to prevent predation. And that's just -- we're just going to factor that into our loss. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further questions for council? Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: Did I hear it that the South Florida Water Management urged that this be denied? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have a letter from them. MS. LYNNE: I didn't get that. MR. ESPINAR: It wasn't that -- not that they recommend denial. They were saying that the project is not conducive to the restoration efforts, or something like that. Not flat-out denial. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically they are saying the proposed land use /—" change to aquaculture ponds isn't compatible with the hydrologic Page 21 January 3, 2001 restoration plan for the area. MS. LYNNE: Right, isn't that -- thanks. Isn't this the whole big area now that the state is trying very hard to restore? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, it's one of those Willing Seller Program. And Mr. Hardy is not willing to sell. So either the state condemns the property or the property owner should be able to use the land. MR. ESPINAR: Here again, I'd like to remind you, the applicant's been living out there for over 30 years. That's his home. And he has no intention of going anywhere. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, do we have any other questions? Do we have anybody from the public that would like to address the item? Okay. MS. WOLOK: Mimi Wolok. I'm staff attorney with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak this morning. First of all, I'd like to say thank you for getting the Conservancy's letter on the record. And I assume all of you have a copy of that letter? Okay, thank you. First of all, I'd like to say that Big Cypress Basin's recommendation should be taken very seriously, because they are based on science. The recommendations of the petitioner are not based on any studies or any prior knowledge of the water table in this area. If you are so inclined to grant this three-year probationary period based on the county's recommendations, The Conservancy would request that the county be allowed to monitor the digging of this pit over this three-year period, at least monthly or bimonthly, and that The Conservancy be able to accompany the county to see that progress is made toward an aquaculture facility and not a borrow pit. I'd like to address just a couple of points that Mr. Espinar had made previously about the depth of these ponds. He had stated that the depth is dictated by the LDC and that the Water Management District also recommends greater depth than might be expected in an aquaculture pond. These recommendations in the LDC code applies only to lakes, not to aquaculture facilities, which we all know require a lot more active management than simply lakes as a result of earth mining operations. And the recommendations for aquaculture facilities throughout Florida are less than 20 feet, 18 feet. And so you have to ask yourself why bother with these 20-foot deep pits if the primary use is going to be the aquaculture facility. So again, I'd like to reiterate that if you do grant this three-year probationary period, that The Conservancy be allowed to accompany the county in the monitoring expeditions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any questions? Another speaker? MR. HILL: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, excuse me, go ahead. MR. HILL: You mentioned a letter from The Conservancy. Did we receive that in our package? MS. WOLOK: I don't have it. MR. HILL: You said we put it on record. Did we get it? MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, development services. I believe Chahram referenced a letter. I just received a faxed copy of it, and the letter is actually addressed to me. Chahram has a copy. Page 22 January 3, 2001 And no, you have not received it. r1 MS. WOLOK: Okay. Well, maybe I should reiterate what's in the letter, if you don't have it. All right? We say that The Conservancy has actively participated in the protection of South Golden Gate Estates, including the Hole -in -the -Donut area, since prior to its listing as a CARL project -- Conservation and Recreation Lands project -- which is the Willing Seller State Program. The Conservancy has campaigned for its inclusion and its high ranking on the CARL list. It also was and is instrumental in increasing the number of willing sellers within the CARL boundaries to the state. And we were also an integral part of fighting for the landowners to get a higher appraised value for the land out there. The Conservancy recommends that this petition be denied. The staff report states that the only way this petition for an excavation could be deemed consistent with the FLUE is if the intended and primary use is a bona fide agricultural use and the excavation is directly related -- is a directly related use necessary in order to achieve the end use. And we think that the excavation of over 1.78 million cubic yards of fill cannot be interpreted as anything but the primary use of this property. And as I stated previously, the recommended depths of lakes in Southwest Florida may be 18 to 20 feet, but not for aquaculture facilities. And further, the NRPA overlay allows only uses that are directly �..� related to agriculture. Later conversion of earth mining businesses into aquaculture businesses is not directly related to agriculture. And we believe that the subject 80-acre property.has already been deemed important for conservation by both the state and the county, because it is in a NRPA and a CARL boundary. And the Everglades cannot be fully restored if mining operations occur in the midst of the western Everglades ecosystem. So that's the gist of my letter. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill, any questions? MR. HILL: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Council members, if I may, on the subject of lakes and water tables -- Stan Chrzanowski with development services. Two years in a row we went out and did dry season water tables on the lakes in Collier County. I'll go into my usual spiel here on how all the lakes in Collier County are penetrations of the water table. The only ones that I know of that are not manmade are the ones that -- and even they have been altered. One's at the headwaters of the Gordon River, both smaller than an acre, and I think Deep Lake, way out in the Everglades, and there are some small lakes that show in the early 1940's aerials, and the old soils map that's down in the middle of the mangroves around Marco Island. The rest of these lakes fluctuate with the water table. Two Aprils in a row we went out, May, April, and throughout the county that fluctuation -- Lakeside project, near Vanderbilt and Airport Road, near Pelican Marsh, that fluctuation's about two feet from wet n season to dry season. Carlton Lakes, up north of there, and Santa Page 23 January 3, 2001 Barbara Landings to the -- you know, Radio and Santa Barbara area, that fluctuation is six to seven feet. I have seen fluctuations of seven to eight feet in the groun� tables in much of Eastern Collier County. It's not unusual. Aster 20-foot deep lake with an eight -foot fluctuation would only give you 12 feet of water at the deep end. And the shallow end, the 12 foot end, is going to end up being four feet deep. I would think that this would almost be necessary for the health of catfish. If I remember right, they're bottom feeders. They -- if we get -- and I don't know whether catfish are affected by cold water. They probably grow less and feed less. But if your water is too shallow, I would assume that you get some kind of thinning of the population just from freeze and frost and whatever. So you need a certain amount of depth. A couple of years ago there was a gentleman came in here with a catfish pond that he wanted to dig, and we all just assumed that he wanted a commercial operation. He went and dug a pond and was using another pond on a piece of property that he had to raise the fry before he put them in a larger pond. Last year that water table dropped down and he lost all his fry. So as far as the depth goes, I would tend to agree that they do need 12 to 20 feet. And Ms. Payton herself said that 12 to 15 feet is what I think IFAS recommends, and you're barely going to have that in the dry season. If you have any questions about it, I'll be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for council? MR. HILL: I appreciate that. Because that was my question. Because the draw down there during dry season is going to destroy that 20 and 12. ,.� MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right, but they'll have enough water -- MR. HILL: You think that may be enough for the -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: All the lakes in Collier County follow the water table as it rises and falls. They don't rise because of the rain going into them. It has some effect, but when the water table comes up, even if it hasn't rained in that area, the lakes will rise in that area because the water table is rising elsewhere. It just follows the water table. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Petitioner have a comment? MR. ESPINAR: I just wanted to make a comment back to the depth of the lakes. They're saying, you know, an aquaculture operations it's should be -- it's not a one -size -fits -all. It's species specific. You know, Tampa Bay is the largest producer of tropical fish in the world. Those criterias over there for tropical fish are totally different for catfish, as it would be for shrimp, as it would be -- it's species specific. It's not a one -size -fits -all oh, this is you know, this aquaculture pond's deep. No, it's specific, and there's a lot of parameters that go into it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. MS. AVALONE: My name is Kathleen Avalone, and I'm co-founder of the Citizens For the Protection of Animals of Southwest Florida. If you grant approval for these so-called aquaculture ponds, in reality what you will be approving is earth mining, which is not allowed in this area under the final order. Page 24 January 3, 2001 In addition, this project is in prime panther habitat, and it's about r1 time that that fact be given the priority it deserves. The public depends on you to safeguard these precious lands which are the home of the Florida panther. Since the Florida panther is an endangered species, it is not only a moral obligation but a legal one as well. Several groups are presently involved in legal action against those agencies which have failed to meet their responsibilities concerning the preservation of panther habitat. Will you, to whom our precious environment and wildlife are entrusted, meet your responsibilities and vote to deny this petition? Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am? MS. POPLOCK: Good morning. My name is Ronnie Poplock, representing the Collier County Audubon Society. I -- we strongly oppose this project. I don't really need to go into the objections that were stated this morning by the Florida Wildlife Federation, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida and Citizens For the Protection of Animals. I'd just like to say that no matter how you dance around this issue or what semantics you use, it appears to me that it's definitely an earth mining operation disguised as an aquaculture operation. And certainly this is not appropriate in this prime panther habitat. So I would like to strongly suggest that you deny this petition. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. Okay, let's move forward. Do we have any other comments, questions from any other members of the council for -- staff, yes, ma'am -- or the petitioner? MS. LYNNE: I think this is probably for our attorney. It seems to me that this question revolves around primary use? In other words, is the primary use of this going to be aquaculture, or is the primary use earth mining? And how do you legally determine primary use? Is it the amount of time spent, is it the amount of money made? Do we have information on how much money is going to be made from -- and how much time and so forth is going to be involved in the earth moving versus the aquaculture? MR. WHITE: Thank you. Patrick White, assistant county attorney. I agree with you that one of the central issues here is, as you've stated, kind of what is the use. And I believe that we've received an opinion from the Department of Community Affairs that indicates that aquaculture is a permitted use within the agriculture that's allowed under the final order. And that the quote, unquote, earth mining or excavation activities would be directly related to that use, and as such, would be permissible under the final order. So I believe that that is something that has been, from the regulatory agency that has the jurisdiction, the final jurisdiction, decided by them. Looking at the county's code, I think you've gotten a recommendation from staff that it's their opinion as well that within the agriculture rural district this is a permissible use as well for the aquaculture. The whole point and purpose of the conditional use today is for the commercial excavation. And that's why we're here. "-NMS. LYNNE: Right. But clearly staff has some reservations, because Page 25 January 3, 2001 otherwise they wouldn't have put the three-year conditional limit on it. Otherwise it would have been a 30-year proposal. And so there is some question as to whether the primary -- and I don't -- you know, I -- whether the primary -- who's going -- sorry about this to the transcriber. What is the main economic investment here? Is the economic return going to be on the earth filling, or is the economic return going to be on aquaculture? Especially when we see that there's no -- going to be no controls on predation. And that's going to be very hard to make money on that, based on what I know about the local ecosystems. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Petitioner would like to address that? MR. KARL: Yes. My name is James Karl, and I'm the attorney representing the petitioner. And I'll address two things briefly. First of all, the question on No. 5, Page 12, the condition that we're talking about here, which is the three years. The law requires that there be -- the excavation be an incident to or necessary condition for the aquaculture activity. And the condition that staff put on, which is that we -- and it's quite specific and clear, that we commence a bona fide aquaculture activity. In addition, staff's gone further and required that after three years -- and I think the three years is somewhat of an arbitrary amount, because it could have just as well have been five years or four. But the point is that the petitioner will come back here after three years and basically present evidence that a bona fide aquaculture activity is taking place. And that's what the law requires. And I think you've heard here today the steps that have been taken already in terms of design that are consistent with that as well. So we are comfortable with that condition because we know that in the three years we will come back here and be able to meet that condition to your satisfaction. The second point, and this is just a small technical point, and I haven't had a chance to talk with staff, but under Condition 5 on Page 11, under water management, I believe maybe just a technical point, but it's important, it says a 20-foot easement dedicated to Collier County. And I believe that that would be a different -- maybe Stan, can you respond to that so that I can -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, that 20-foot easement is a standard county stipulation, based on us having to come in and maintain it at some point, if the owner decides he doesn't want to maintain. I would think in this case we might be able to waive the fact that it be dedicated to the county. MR. KARL: I was going to -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Because I don't think we have any intention of ever going in and maintaining those lakes. MR. KARL: Thank you. That's the point I wanted to clarify. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We've discussed this for a bit. Anybody have any comments before we make a decision on this? Okay, what's the pleasure of the council? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, before you entertain a motion, I'd just like to clarify whether you're going to go with the Condition No. 5, either in or out. If you'd just make that clear in any of the motions. For the water management. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Isn't that maintenance easement a requirement of Page 26 January 3, 2001 -- Stan, isn't that a requirement of South Florida for the permit? Somebody have it? MR. LENBERGER: Excuse me? I wasn't listening. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The 20-foot maintenance easement around the lake, doesn't South Florida require that that be dedicated to somebody? MR. LENBERGER: I'd have to read through the ordinances again. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't know. MR. KARL: Again, I don't believe that -- I believe that is for a -- in this particular type of a project where it is a homestead and it's one parcel and it's not a PUD, I believe that what staff is looking for is that we maintain the -- provide a maintenance area and maintain that area. We're certainly willing to do that. And again, under this supervision that will come into place automatically at the end of three years, that will be taking place. And I was going to suggest we simply make it a condition that we maintain a 20-foot maintenance area provided around the perimeter of the lake. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Julie just reminded me that that 20-foot maintenance easement is for lakes that are part of water management's systems of the county. We don't require it in a backyard pond in Golden Gate, if somebody wants to dig a little pond. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: To clarify Mr. White's question then, what we're talking about then is voting on the petition with No. 5 out, okay. Okay, what's the pleasure? MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to muddy the waters, but after all our discussion, I come up with more questions than I have answers, ,•� and more concerns than I had when I first went through the project. With all due respect to time for the petitioner, I recommend that we -- I don't know if the proper word is postpone or table this until some of these rather important questions get resolved in the future. That we delay, table, postpone the decision until at least I have some opportunity to look further into some of the questions that have been raised. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Question for staff -- MR. HILL: I move that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The question for staff, though. If we delay, that does not delay the process of going before the Planning Commission and County Commission, does it? MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, there's a Planning Commission meeting tomorrow and it's on the agenda. MR. HILL: At any rate, I move that as a statement from this council. Whether it has any impact on the process or not, I don't know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do I hear a second? Okay, motion fails for lack of second. Entertain another motion. Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: I'd like to move that we deny this petition. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion to deny. Do I hear a second? MS. LYNNE: I second it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion to deny. It's been made and seconded. All in favor of the motion, say aye -- n MR. HILL: A question, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oh, excuse me, question. Page 27 January 3, 2001 MR. HILL: -- I've been told on the past that you can't abstain on any of this, on any vote. A council member cannot abstain from the vote. Let me go on record to say I oppose denying it at this point, but I have to vote yes or not; is that correct? MR. WHITE: The abstention pertains to matters involving conflicts -- MR. HILL: So the only time I -- MR. WHITE: -- and if you don't have one, then there's a statutory requirement, yes. MR. HILL: So on a motion before the council, I have to vote affirmative or negative; is that correct? MR. WHITE: Consistent with the motion, yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, again, everyone in favor of the motion to deny the petition, say aye. MS. SANTORO: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion to deny carries 5 -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Chairman, I need the reason for denial. MR. WHITE: And if we could be clear on the vote. MR. CARLSON: There are, to my mind, are three overwhelming factors here that don't require a delay. And first of all, this area is a NRPA. And, you know, the primary purpose of a NRPA is to maintain native habitat, waterway flows. And I know this is an upland, and I know you can clear it for tomatoes if it's ag. But anyway, that's the spirit of a NRPA, and it is in the NRPA, and I think that has a bearing on the, you know, degree of confidence we have in this plan. Also, there's no past history of fish farming here. There's no past history that aquaculture will work here, and that you don't see the conflicts of predation, and you don't see that probably what you'll wind up with is alligator culture. And that's sort of a culture in an area -- in a wild area like this that's not urban, it's not surrounded by other ag., this is, quote, an area surrounded by wild public lands, slated for restoration to increase wildlife populations. If you don't see that predation is going to be a major, major problem to cut into the bottom line of this, then you just haven't done your homework. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: To answer the question, I think, though, basically what we're saying is we do not believe this use is compatible with the uses of the surrounding land. Is that what we're saying? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I'm maybe a little dense this morning, but what was the final vote? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 5-1. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. HILL: If it's proper, Mr. Chairman, I don't -- my vote not to deny I don't want to be misconstrued by the council. If I -- if I had to make a vote, I would be against this project, but I don't think I have enough information on some of the technical questions and the NRPA questions and Water Management District to give a vote. So r Page 28 January 3, 2001 please take my negative to deny not as an approval of the project at n this point in time. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So noted, Mr. Hill. Thank you. Should we go back up and let Mr. Lorenz -- or do you want to take a break? Okay, five minutes. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Shall we reconvene? One thing that Mr. White didn't bring up -- everybody back? Okay -- is that I did not ask for disclosure on the first item, which was White Lake Corporate Park PUD. Has anyone on the council had any discussion with anyone, the petitioner or anyone else, regarding the White Lake PUD prior to the time that we discussed the matter? MS. LYNNE: No. MR. HILL: Well, you made a statement concerning your association, so I assume that was an opportunity. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: With the Panther Island. MR. HILL: Yes. MR. WHITE: But that -- I took that to be unrelated to any kind of a discussion, it was just a -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: General statement. MR. WHITE: -- for the purpose of any potential conflict of interest disclosure, not a contact. MR. CARLSON: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. CARLSON: I could understand with the Sunshine laws that we on the n board can't discuss these things and that we should disclose if we discuss them with interested parties like the applicant. But, I mean, if my cousin from out of state calls me about one of these projects because he read about it in the paper, do I disclose that? MR. WHITE: I believe it's in the nature of a discussion that pertains to a lobbying effort, if you will, on the part of either a proponent or opponent to the project. Someone who has a conversation with you about the procedural aspects of it or a nonsubstantive matter certainly isn't something that requires disclosure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. No one had any contact with anyone regarding the White Lake project; is that correct? Okay, Mr. Lorenz. MR. COE: I got -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oh, excuse me, Mr. Coe. MR. COE: -- one question. If someone tries to make an attempt to lobby and you refuse that, is that reportable? Let me give you an example. MR. HILL: Under the new County Commission it is. MR. COE: Someone from Mr. Hardy's group, via a friend, family, tried to get me to meet with them to explain the project, and I refused. And for obvious reasons, because I want to have it presented to me like every other member of the board, without having something extra known. I felt, you know, it's necessary to have it in an open forum, rather than doing it otherwise. I come from the old school, when in doubt, you just don't do it. MR. WHITE: Under the current guidelines and regulations we have for i"%I these types of ex parte communications, I believe it's only those that Page 29 January 3, 2001 actually transmit some information that are required to be disclosed. There's nothing that prohibits you from making a disclosure of those attempted contacts. There may be a point in time in this county where an actual contact may be something that's logged, and in that sense disclosed, but it's only now when there is a substantive discussion in an effort to, if You will, lobby a member that that ex parte contact and communication, more specifically, is required to be disclosed. MR. COE: Okay. MR. HILL: Isn't -- aren't the County Commissioners moving toward a more restricted regulation on that, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: My sense of it is that that's a correct observation. We're going to have to await what happens as we move further in the hearing examiner approval process. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. The item before you today is the -- a public hearing for the EAC to consider the proposed wetland policies that staff have developed as part of the Growth Management planning process whereby you must amend the plan to get it into compliance with the final order that the Governor and Cabinet put us under back in June of 1999. The package -- quite frankly, the package that you have in front of you that I -- Bob Mulhere and I sent to you with a memo dated November 7th contains not only wetland policies but also contains habitat or native vegetation communities' policies that also address wildlife. All of those issues eventually needs to be amended into the plan. And we -- we're soliciting the input from the EAC for the total package. I believe the way we've looked at it today is in terms of advertising, we advertise the wetlands section of it. We -- staff envisions that the policies that you have in front of you, what we are calling county -wide minimum standards, upon which there may be more restrictive standards that will occur in the rural fringe area and the eastern lands area, subject to the recommendations and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners' recommendations over -- or adoption of Growth Management Plan amendments within those areas. The -- effectively the way we anticipate these policies will probably work out is that these policies would certainly be applied within the urban designated areas on the Future Land Use Map. Again, serve as a foundation for the rest of the county on which there may be some more restrictive standards as we go through those assessments. What we would like to be able for the EAC to do as well is this meeting focus on the wetlands policies, and then set aside some additional meetings to look at the rest of the policies that are in your packet. We would recommend, at least I certainly recommend, that you may consider to have a couple of special meetings that are outside your public petition meeting to address these issues. These are the what I consider very important issues for the EAC to provide input on and to shape and fashion. Because as these get adopted into our Growth Management Plan, these will be applied to future petitions that come to you. Page 30 January 3, 2001 And we know that in the past year, year and a half, certainly for some of the members that have been on the council for awhile, there are many times many questions that are asked, well, why can't we do this or why don't we do this. This is your opportunity to make recommendations at the policy level to get it incorporated into the plan and ultimately Land Development Code. So I would really, really suggest that you really take the time to provide input on these policies. And obviously also that allows for the public to have a greater degree of input into it as well. And you may want to discuss that later on at the end of the meeting here as to how you want to approach the rest of the effort. Let me get in just very briefly in terms of the wetlands policies how we've tried to address things. First of all, the final order. We need to make sure that we're in compliance with the final order. And the final order basically says to direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands in order to protect water quality, quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as well as to protect listed species. That's the language that comes out of the final order. Not only are we going to be bound by the language of the final order, but the criteria for growth management plans that exist in 9J5, which is the regulations that deal with -- that deal with Growth Management Plan requirements, we've used this language also to help develop the framework for the policies. We need to protect the wetlands and natural functions of wetlands. And it specifically talks about a comprehensive planning process to look at the types of wetlands, their function, sizes, conditions and locations of the wetlands. I think that's a key phrase in that first paragraph for which we develop the framework, which I'll talk to you about as I go through the framework. It also -- the last paragraph here does allow for mitigation, recognizes that mitigation in some cases may be necessary, so it is a means that very specifically allow for -- in the 9J5 criteria that guides the development of Growth Management Plan policies and objectives. If you look at very specifically the policies for wetlands, and just by shorthand we have a -- wetlands protection is I. I'll just refer to the policies as 1.1 and dispense with the Roman numerals. So I speak to Policy 1.1, which is the first policy for wetlands protection. This is where we're really putting on the record within the comp. plan that idea of a comprehensive planning process. Because we do have -- within the county we do have a variety of land use designations that currently exist that because of the standards that are applied within those areas, do help to direct incompatible land uses away from wetland systems. Our conservation land use designation, the area of critical state concern within the Natural Resource Protection Areas, the NRPA's that we have just adopted and are refining through this process that we're currently engaged in, they also help direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands. So at the comprehensive planning process, at the landscape scale, that big picture scale, these are the items in Policy 1.1 that do help us Page 31 January 3, 2001 to direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands. And as I said, as the rural assessment moves forward, we will be proposing -- staff is already proposing some more additional standards that will help that process as well. The next area where we're focusing on of course is at the project site review. Which of course this is -- every time a petition comes to the EAC, that's what you're looking at. Why does staff recommend a project to be -- to go through the process the way staff recommends it? You may have some differences or rather see some more wetlands set aside, but currently the county has a very small amount of specific measurable standards for wetland protection in its comp. plan and in its code. And that's of course why we're here is because the final order found that we did lack the appropriate wetland protection. So what -- the rest of the policies that we propose within this wetland protection set deals basically with the project site reviews. And let me just kind of outline the structure. Policy 1.2 and 1.3 and 1.4 basically defined the wetlands. Remember the DCA talked about defined the wetland systems as to type, category, functionality. The purpose of these policies is to provide a wetland definition, which we're adopting the state's definition. There is no additional definition of wetlands. So when we -- when Collier County says this is a wetland, it's the same definition that the state uses. Note that for some that is a different definition, from the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency, but we're simply adopting state definition. Also in Policy 1.4, this is the scheme from which we classify wetlands. And we're classifying wetlands based upon the wetland type, which is in that table, and their functionality. We know in Collier County, because of past development, the wetland systems in the county are on a variety of degrees of alteration and impairment. So we are recognizing that in this classification scheme. And we're recognizing the alteration, based upon the amount of melaleuca that's on -site, the absence or presence of a hydrologic connection, and then we're talking about a surface hydrologic connection to a surface water body, and also looking at the amount of upland vegetation that would be within a particular wetland. MR. CARLSON: Bill, I did go through this very carefully, and I do have some notes. Would this -- in your presentation, would this be a good time for me to ask questions, seeing as the whole board is here and I think they may have some of the same questions? Or what do you think? MR. LORENZ: However you'd like to do it. If that works for you, that's fine. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Well, one of the things you didn't mention in this 1.1.4 paragraph was that really you use size to really define, if you look down at your table, the size of the wetland, whether it's above five acres or between 5.5 or .5 or less -- MR. LORENZ: That's correct. MR. CARLSON: -- I mean, size is really a major factor in your -- MR. LORENZ: Yes, that's correct. That's why I said, maybe, Ed, maybe -- what I'm trying to do is just set the general framework, so my remarks at the moment don't cover everything 100 percent. But yes, Page 32 January 3, 2001 you're correct, size is another way of classifying wetlands. Again, that is envisioned with regard to DCA's requirements, classifying wetlands. So size is a way of classifying the wetland systems. MS. SANTORO: You're going to go over this generally, but is there a misprint under wetland types, down where it says wetlands connected to flowway wetlands? Mine says Class III, unless any one of the following functional descriptions are present, then Class III. Should it be Class I, or -- MR. CARLSON: That was going to be my next question. MS. SANTORO: Yeah, I didn't quite understand that. MR. LORENZ: Which box? MS. SANTORO: It's the third down under wetland type. It would be wetlands connected to flowway wetlands. And then you go over to the next box where it says wetland classification, and I think you mean either Class I -- it says Class III, but that doesn't make sense to me. MR. LORENZ: Yeah, I'll have to check that. Barbara, do you have that? MR. CARLSON: It must be a typo. MR. LORENZ: Let me have Barbara check it. Because as staff, we came together, brain stormed it and reviewed it. So my first thought is to say that, yeah, it looks like it must be a typo. I'd have to go back to see my original. MS. SANTORO: Yeah, okay. MR. LORENZ: Yeah, I think it's just simply a typo. It should be r� Class I. MS. SANTORO: I. MR. CARLSON: Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. MR. LORENZ: The -- when you get into Policy 1.5, that's where we then take the classification scheme and provide for specific standards that we're saying these are the standards that will meet the 9J5 requirements, that direct incompatible land uses away from the wetlands, when we consider their type, location, size and condition, their functionality. And we've looked at basically an impacting standard. On Class I's, Class I wetlands, no greater than five percent. Class II, no greater than 25 percent, and Class III can go anywhere between 50 to 100 percent impact, depending upon certain other conditions and the ability to preserve some additional upland habitat. I know that one question was asked last time by Ed Carlson that is okay, how did we arrive at those numbers? Quite frankly, those numbers are consensus of staff that we felt that these would work well within -- certainly within federal and state permitting requirements. Remember, we are not proposing this as a permitting program, so your requirement is still going to have -- petitioner's project is going to have to get federal and state permits. Staff is not going to negotiate mitigation ratios with a permitter. The way we envision the process happening is that when a permitter gets a federal or state permit, that if they're in Class I wetlands, the county's requirement, they can't impact any greater than five percent. And that's how we n will review the projects. But it's not -- we will not be granting a very specific wetland permit. Page 33 January 3, 2001 So we've oriented the impacts within that five, 25 and 50 to 100 percent requirement. We've also provided for buffering requirements .� within Policy 1.5 as well. Policy 1.6 deals with mitigation standards, very specific details for mitigation standards. And I think a couple of things to note is one, is on an area per area basis, we want to have at least one area, it can be no more than one area, mitigated -- no less than one area mitigated for every area of wetland that is impacted. And also, because Collier County has separate requirements for exotics removal, that would have -- we would not be -- we would not consider removal of exotics on another -- in the wetland to count for mitigation. So that is something that's different from the federal and state requirements. But if you have other mitigation that still goes beyond the one -acre -- mitigated per one -acre impacted, that would fit Collier County's requirement, as proposed here. I think the only other thing I want to point out generally in the policies is that policies 1.9 and 1.10, Policy 1.9 addresses residential properties within South Golden Gate Estates in the area of critical state concern. We are proposing that before the county issues the building permit that you have to have in -- provide evidence that you have a federal and state wetland permit for those residential properties within South Golden Gate Estates and area of critical state concern. The platted subdivision in North Golden Gate Estates is addressed in Policy 1.10, and we're simply recommending that the county notify the owner, typically it's the contractor, that a federal and state -- and/or state wetland permit may be needed, but we do not condition the �..� permit upon them furnishing us with a permit for North Golden Gate Estates. So with that, any questions? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MR. CARLSON: Well, I had specific questions, but I'm wondering, it's the task of this board then to come up with our comments on this as a board? MR. LORENZ: I think you would definitely want to -- ultimately you need to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The way I see the process occurring is we've got two other advisory committees as well. I want to solicit the comment from the advisory committees and the Environmental Advisory Council, hear the public input. Staff will then take that information and we will then process a second draft. And in.that second draft, we will come back to the advisory committees and get a vote up or down or with the conditions that we would then take to the Board of County Commissioners. So ultimately the answer is yes, you will -- we will take the EAC's recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners when we go to a -- to a -- ultimately to a -- the initial step to the board will be a transmittal hearing. MR. CARLSON: When do you need to have our comments? MR. LORENZ: Well, seems like our schedules are continuing to slip. My time table initially was January, February. At the moment it looks like the time frame would be ultimately March or April that I'd like to have all the advisory committees' comments through a second draft, to then present to the Board of County Commissioners, together with Page 34 January 31 2001 the recommendations of the rural fringe for their conceptual plan. MR. CARLSON: How do we do this? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, we've all got the documents. Do we agenda this for the February meeting, at the time that we come back and have some specific comments, put them on the table to be discussed and moved on by the council? Everyone try to come back with their written comments -- MR. CARLSON: Can we circulate those -- our individual comments amongst the board before the meeting? MS. SANTORO: I was wondering if we couldn't each submit them in writing and then they just put comments under each number, and then get them to us with our minutes so we could look at each others' comments before we come to the meeting. MR. LORENZ: If you want to circulate -- I'm not sure of the term, and Patrick needs to be listening to this -- circulate comments, you can certainly send your individual comments to county staff. We will then copy them. We'll have them in our file and we will copy them back out to the whole EAC. That would be the preferable way of doing that. MR. CARLSON: But at some point, I mean, we have to agree on what that final language will be from this committee. MR. COE: Why don't we sit down and actually go through it individually, separately. And I would suggest that we have another meeting this month, if possible, one that would be short, any time, you know, 9:00, it could be nighttime, whatever, to just briefly discuss and put it all into a master copy so that we can give it to the staff and they can get their second draft done by the February meeting, or maybe even prior to the February meeting. So then we can sit down and kind of give it a finger wave over the top and a blessing so they can get on with their job. This is -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe, remember, any time we do a special meeting, now, they've got to go through the whole thing, a notification and a place to sit and -- MR. COE: Well, not if it's a workshop, though, do we? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah, I believe you have to do a notification. MR. CARLSON: How long does that take? MR. COE: Do we have to do that for a workshop, notifications and all that, if we just meet together? MR. WHITE: The whole idea -- the same notice that's done for your agendas would be sufficient. MR. LORENZ: But remember, for you to take a formal action, you'd have to be in a formal meeting, not a, quote, workshop meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What do we do -- MR. WHITE: My understanding is that a workshop occurs within the scope of a formal meeting. MR. LORENZ: Okay. MR. WHITE: Of an advertised duly noticed public meeting. MR. HILL: We could do what Micky's suggesting prior to the February meeting and then come back at the formal February meeting with the results of the -- MR. COE: Well, see, that's what I'm asking is why couldn't we meet, say, at developmental services, East Naples Fire Department, wherever, to go over this and work on this, put it together and then let you guys type it up and then we come back during the formal meeting and Page 35 January 3, 2001 have any final comments, waive it, and then you guys can get on with your job. MR. LORENZ: That's possible. As long as when you get together, obviously it's been notified and the public has the ability to provide or at least be in the room with you. Bob Mulhere just noted, too, remember also that we've got two other advisory committees that we're working with. So to the degree that you come up with a product and you feel comfortable with that product, we will then be pushing -- putting that product out to the other committees. The other committees may be making some recommendations. At some point later on the process, we may -- will probably be showing you all of the recommended comments. And then later on you may want to take some additional actions after you see some of the other advisory committees' input. So I guess what I'm saying is that it would be good to move on it quicker, you know, sooner than later. But recognize as you do it sooner we still have to coordinate with the other comments from the other committees, too. MS. BURGESON: Just for the record, Barbara Burgeson. I just spoke with the county manager's office, and this room is completely available for a meeting on Friday, the 19th at any time of the day. So if you decide that you want to have a meeting, that's approximately two weeks from right now. And you can schedule that for the morning or afternoon, any time certain that you want. MR. LORENZ: Another option -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me, go ahead. MR. LORENZ: Another option would be if you want to establish a small subcommittee, two or three individuals, like a drafting committee, and then research the issues with staff, come back to the full EAC. That's another option. MR. HILL: Bill, at one time I think we discussed the possibility of a public forum. Is that -- are the other committees and advisory groups holding public forums? MR. LORENZ: Well, as they meet and discuss, they are in a public forum. They have yet to discuss formally these policies. It's been on the rural fringe's agenda for the past three or four meetings. However, they're also working on their conceptual plan, and they've been spending more time on that. So the answer is yes, the other advisory committees will provide a public forum for additional input. MR. HILL: But is it a published meeting where the public is particularly invited to address those issues, or is it just the public is there at their meeting? MR. LORENZ: Well, it's just the way -- it's the same -- it's the same, the way we do the EAC. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, let's get on. I'd like to avoid having them have to go to all the problems of putting together a special meeting. If we could do a February or March situation at our regular meetings, it would avoid a lot of things. Would that be -- everybody get their comments back in, we're prepared to workshop it with those comments in hand at the February meeting, and the March meeting we're prepared to take action. Is that throwing it too far in the future? MR. HILL: Does staff have any indication of what the agenda is for Page 36 January 39 2001 n March -- or February? MS. BURGESON: We don't yet. And it may actually be to your benefit if you can have a meeting on the 19th. Because it would not -- for instance, if we end up with two or three large projects, then you're talking about maybe a lengthy discussion after land use petitions. So it would be easy for us to schedule that meeting on the 19th. The only concern that we might have is scheduling, for instance, the court reporter. The rest of the agenda items or the rest of the -- whatever we need to do to get that meeting in place is very simple. MR. LORENZ: My observation is, is as you go through this material, it's going to take you a lot of time. MS. LYNNE: I would be real interested in hearing public comment on this policy. MR. COE: Set aside a couple of days. MS. LYNNE: It's a pretty important policy. MR. COE: I realize that. We've got to do our part, first. MS. LYNNE: Agreed. No, no, no, I wasn't -- MR. HILL: I would suggest we have a meeting on the 19th. MR. COE: I suggest we have a subcommittee put together, and those that aren't on the subcommittee, submit their information to the subcommittee to have them put it together and do the discussing and all that sort of business. And then it could be either presented in February or later on in the month, 19th, whenever it may be. But get a lot of this discussion out of the way and some of the county staff questions out of the way so that if we meet on the 19th or we meet in n February, it's done, it's over with, and we can kind of buzz through the thing. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, let's establish something here. Are we agreeable, do we want to have a meeting for -- a single purpose meeting on the 19th? Does everybody agree with that? MR. CARLSON: I agree with it. I think everyone should do their homework and read this line by line, have their comments ready, and we come in and we discuss it and go through point by point. And if we possibly can, reach a consensus, some sort of consensus at that meeting and then we'll maybe have a document to present to you at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: February meeting. Okay? Agreeable? MS. LYNNE: Agreed. MR. COE: Actually, we ought to have this document presented on the 19th. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, I think we all have our own comments on the 19th. MR. CARLSON: Yeah, we're going to discuss this. You're going to have your ideas and I'm going to have mine. MR. LORENZ: We would also recommend that you look at the total document of wetlands, vegetated communities and wildlife policies. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. Do we need a formal action to do that, to say -- MR. HILL: 9:00 in the morning, Mr. Chairman? MR. COE: Earlier the better for me. MS. BURGESON: Patrick, do we need a formal motion to meet on the 19th as a board? Page 37 January 3, 2001 R MR. WHITE: I'd appreciate one. That way it kind of makes staff's job a little easier. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Somebody want to move it? Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: I make a motion that we have a special meeting regarding the wetlands -- what did we call this thing? MR. LORENZ: County -wide minimum standard policies. MR. CARLSON: Wetlands policies on January 19th. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do I hear a second? MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, it's approved unanimously. MR. HILL: 9:00 a.m.? MS. LYNNE: What time? MR. COE: The earlier the better, as far as I'm concerned. MS. LYNNE: What time? MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman? MR. CARLSON: I don't care, do you have a conflict with -- MS. LYNNE: 9:00 is fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 9:00. 9:00. Barbara? MS. BURGESON: 9:00 is fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right, what's next? MS. BURGESON: I'll make sure that a memo gets sent out to everyone, reminding them of that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. BURGESON: And if anybody needs extra copies of the language, please let me know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. LYNNE: Is this a public document? Is this available to the public now? MR. LORENZ: Yes. It's been distributed to the other advisory committees, and it's been distributed to the public that have attended the advisory committees. I've got extra copies. We may even have it posted on our website. I've got to check for that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. What are we doing next, Barbara? MS. BURGESON: The next item would be growth management subcommittee report. I don't know if the subcommittee has met. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have one? MR. LORENZ: I don't believe the subcommittee has met. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, I don't think we have. Council member comments? Anybody have any comments? MR. HILL: Does the council feel that we ought to revive the growth management subcommittee? MR. CARLSON: Yes. MR. HILL: It got off to a good start, then it kind of -- I'd like -- personally like to see it revised. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I concur. MR. CARLSON: I will attempt to attend the meeting -- you want to have separate meetings for -- MR. HILL: I think so. MR. CARLSON: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Who are the members of the growth management Page 38 January 3, 2001 r� subcommittee? MR. CARLSON: Well, I was on, then I was off. I'd like to go back on again. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: I was originally, and Richard Smith and Ed. I think that was it, wasn't it? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Well, what I'm hearing is that we want to reestablish that committee with Mr. Hill, Mr. Carlson and -- MS. SANTORO: I'd like to, depending what time you meet. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What time do we meet -- what time do you guys meet - do you folks meet? MS. SANTORO: We were doing it after work before, the one time we met at your office. MR. LORENZ: Yeah, we were meeting -- MS. SANTORO: 5:00. MR. LORENZ: -- I want to say Wednesdays at 5:00 at the development services. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Well, why don't we reestablish the committee with Mr. Hill, Mr. Carlson, Ms. Santoro, and they amongst themselves work out when they would like to meet. Everybody in favor of that? Yes? MR. CARLSON: Yes. MR. HILL: Yes. MS. SANTORO: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Good. All right, we've decided that. MR. LORENZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay? MR. HILL: Ed, why don't you kind of take charge and tell us -- help us decide when. MR. LORENZ: Then what staff will do, we'll then put notice out and advise the rest of the EAC as to when the subcommittee meeting is. MR. HILL: And staff was always present -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. MR. HILL: -- at our meetings. MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Comments from members of the council? MR. CARLSON: Yeah, just for those of us who are going to be on that committee, we need to continue to receive notices of the fringe and the rural lands meeting so we can try to attend those also. MR. LORENZ: You have been receiving those. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, we have. MR. HILL: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Barbara, do we have an updated roster of the councils, with e-mails and everything on it? MS. BURGESON: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We do? Could you give me a copy of it somehow? I don't have one. MS. BURGESON: I'll mail that out when I mail out the reminder for the meeting on the 19th. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And how many members do we have now, eight or nine? MS. BURGESON: Kim also reminds me that it's on the website as well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's on the website, okay. Page 39 1 January 3, 2001 MS. BURGESON: Right now we have seven, and Sue Filson has advertised for the remaining two. I don't know, I have not been informed whether or not we have any applications for that, but I will check on that as well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. Yes, sir? MR. HILL: Very brief for the attorney, Mr. White. How careful do we have to be as council members in discussing some of these things outside of a formal meeting? Such as -- I'm not talking about projects or petitions, I'm talking about wetland policies. Can we do that? MR. WHITE: The nature of the prohibitions against, I guess, non-public meeting disclosures tend to largely apply to things that are quasi judicial in nature. As to legislation itself, I think that the roles are a little more flexible. And anything involving policy -making, if you will, I think generally, so long as you're not attempting to lobby a position amongst yourselves, that there really are no prohibitions that you need to be concerned about. The whole idea is having a public meeting to discuss and decide something, if you will, that's not public, and in the Sunshine. I think having discussions about policy matters is something that, for example, as a subcommittee is appropriate. I think having said that, however, generally it's preferred that you have those discussions in the Sunshine. MR. HILL: The reason I asked, a couple of years ago I asked Marco Espinar, who was then on the council, to go out with me to a site somewhere and show me some of these exotics which I couldn't recognize. And I was told that that was to be -- had to be announced as a formal meeting. I couldn't believe it, but I was informed that we couldn't go on a site to educate me about exotics. Now -- MR. WHITE: I think you always have the option to go -- MR. HILL: -- that's way off to the left. MR. WHITE: -- as an individual citizen rather than an individual of this council. MS. BURGESON: And you can also give staff a call if you need -- if you're interested in doing a site visit, we can -- MR. WHITE: Right. MS. BURGESON: -- schedule to take you out there on the visit. MR. HILL: I didn't care whether it was the site under question or not, but take me out and show me what all of these exotics area MR. WHITE: I think it pertains to decision -making rather than -- MR. HILL: Common sense didn't seem to be a part of -- MR. WHITE: Well, we live in a time when -- MR. HILL: I'm sorry. MR. WHITE: We live in a time when -- MR. CARLSON: Yes, I was going to offer, Bill, come on out and one of my staff can take you around our area and identify -exotics for you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anything else? Mr. Mulhere, do you have something? Nothing. See you all the 19th. MR. HILL: In this room? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We're adjourned. In this room, Barb? Page 40 11 January 3, 2001 ""*N MS. BURGESON: Yes. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:25 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 41 I. II. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2001 NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Petition Name: Applicant/Developer: Engineering Consultant: Environmental Consultant: LOCATION: Item IV.A Planned Unit Development Petition No. PUD-99-10 Mirasol PUD Mirasol Development, LLCmmunities, Inc. Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. Turrell & Associates, Inc. The subject property is located to the north side of Immokalee Road; bordered on the east by Broken Back Road, future Collier Boulevard extension. The Collier County/Lee County line is the northern property line and the western property borders agricultural lands and the Ole/Cypress PUD. This project is located within Sections 10,15, and 22 Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONING N - Collier/ Lee County line S - Immokalee Road E - Broken Back Rd. Future Collier Boulevard Ext. W - Agriculture Woodlands PUD DESCRIPTION Residential Road right of way Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Golf course/residential EAC STAFF REPORT Page 2of9 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: November 1, 2000 The development strategy called for by the PUD regulatory document and its Master Plan is that of a residential golf course community that will consist of up to 799 mixed residential dwelling units. Because of the particular environmental sensitivity of the property, a major portion of the land will be preserved as a flow way and other preserve buffer area. Essentially the northern half of the property will constitute a perpetual preserve with some exception in the most northerly portion of the property where additional golf course development is anticipated. All of the housing tracts lie south of the preserve area or flow -way. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: A portion of the site (i.e. 320.7 acres) is designated Urban -Mixed Use -Urban Residential, the remainder of the property is designated Agricultural/Rural (i.e. 1206.3 acres). Because the application was filed prior to June 22,1999 the owner is entitled to apply for rezoning and is therefore not required to comply with Final Order No. AC 99-002 issued June 22, n 1999 by the Administrative Commission (Florida Governor and Cabinet). Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict permits residential development of various housing structure types at a base density of 4 DU/A, and recreation and open space uses. The Agricultural/Residential Subdistrict permits 1/D.U/5 Acres, and, recreation and open space uses. The Board of County Commissioners have ruled that the clustering of allowable dwelling units is consistent with the FLUE based on their decision in the Twin Eagles rezoning case. Based on the application of the Density Rating formula considerably more dwelling units could have been requested. The number of Dwelling units and land uses requested by this petition is determined to be consistent with provisions of the FLUE. 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 EAC STAFF REPORT November 1, 2000 Page 3 of 9 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: 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". 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". 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". 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". 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. 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 r EAC STAFF REPORT November 1, 2000 Page 4 of 9 than 25% of the site. Exceptions shall be granted for parcels that cannot reasonably accommodate both the native vegetation and the proposed activity". This petition is consistent with staff policy, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners; to allow for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands when State and Federal agency permits are issued. Policy 7.3.3 states, "The County will continue to prepare management guidelines to be incorporated as stipulations and development orders and to inform land owners and the general public of proper practices to reduce disturbances to eagle nests, red -cockaded woodpeckers, Florida Panther, wood stork habitat and other species of special concern". 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". VI. MAJOR ISSUES• Water Manaeement: The Water Management System is standard for projects of this type and size with a series of interconnected lakes (approximate fifty) varying in size from an acre to almost 12 acres. The lake system handles water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. The watershed (drainage basin) that flows through Mirasol covers approximately 300 miles according to a study done for SFWMD by the petitioner's engineer independent of this petition. The watershed has multiple outfalls to the west and southwest from the Imperial River down to the Mirasol area. From the 1940's on, the watershed has been altered by roads, canals, culverts, and weirs to the point where it is impossible to determine what proportion of the original flow went out which outfall. The petitioner's Engineer has done an excellent job of identifying and quantifying these flows. This offsite flow will be routed through a wide, shallow (200' wide, 4' deep) swale (man- made slough) running East to West through the Northern section of the site, and then into a slough running south through the Old Cypress Project that outfalls to the Cocohatchee Canal. EAC STAFF REPORT Page 5 of 9 Site Description: November 1, 2000 The subject property is an undeveloped parcel totaling 1555 acres in size. The South Florida Water Management District has claimed about 1298 acres as jurisdictional wetlands. The remaining 257 acres is comprised mainly of pine flatwoods, with about 8 acres being heavily invaded by Brazilian pepper. The project proposes to impact 208 acres of uplands and the overall impacts map states that 65 acres of uplands will be preserved. These numbers are inconsistent with the total acres of uplands on site. There is a difference of 15 acres of upland preserves between the numbers in section 5 of the EIS and the site plans, which are attachments to the EIS The soils data was provided in the EIS and shows that the majority of this site has wetland soils of several types. These soils are typically found in sloughs and drainage ways, cypress swamps and marshes and hydric flatwoods. Wetlands: South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) reviewed the wetland delineation for the project, as seen by their attachment in the EIS. They determined that 1298 acres of the total 1555 acres of the site are jurisdictional to SFWMD. The EIS states that 729 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved onsite. However the Site plan legend identifies only 608 acres of preserved wetlands. Approximately 165 acres of cypress wetlands, 24 acres of cypress/slash pine wetlands and 933 acres of hydric pine flatwoods exist onsite. The remaining wetlands have some degree of exotic invasion and are characterized as 36 acres of disturbed prairie with cypress and as identified by the consultant, monocultures of melaleuca or Brazilian pepper. The high water levels for this site were determined by water and lichen lines on various trees. The levels varied from between 4 and 12 inches above ground, in and around the cypress wetlands. This level represented the average high water levels currently being experienced on this parcel. The level can be elevated as much as a foot and a half higher during heavy storm events. Historic high water levels, based on the SFWMD vegetation maps were more likely 4 to 6 inches lower. The petitioner proposes to mitgate for the loss of 582 acres of wetlands by preserving and restoring the remaining 729 acres. They propose exotic vegetation removal as part of the mitigation and creation of a flow -way through the preserve as an enhancement to the wetland characteristics within the preserve. A brief statement is made to the possibility of off site purchase and preservation should on site proposals prove insufficient to offset impacts. The mitigation plan will be coordinated with the SFWMD and reviewed by Collier County Planning for consistency with the Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Management Element. n EAC STAFF REPORT November 1, 2000 Page 6 of 9 Staff does not believe that this project is in compliance with the GNP without additional on site preservation and/or extensive off site mitigation for the loss to 582 acres of wetlands on site. Staff recommends that a diminimus amount (less than 5%) of the cypress wetlands be allowed to be impacted. Considering that there are 189 acres of cypress wetlands on site and the developer is proposing to preserve 170 acres, staff recommends the petitioner protect an additional 9.7 acres of on site cypress wetlands. Preservation Requirements: The PUD as proposed greatly exceeds the 25% native vegetation requirement by providing for this site. Approximately 170 acres of the most functional cypress or cypress/pine wetlands will be preserved on site along with an additional 530 acres of other wetlands and 50 acres of upland preserves. Providing these areas are set aside, about 42% of the site would be preserved. Listed Species: During the surveys for protected species, the consultant observed Wood storks perching on trees near the southern access as well as feeding along the canal south of the property. Big Cypress fox squirrels were observed on two occasions in trees adjacent to the higher quality cypress wetlands on site. Bear tracts were observed on a dirt road to the east of Section 10, so it would be likely that bear would be using this site, possibly as foraging habitat. The following are excerpts from the consultant's Threatened and Endangered Species Report, which is an attachment to the EIS. The report lists the potential species within the different vegetative communities on site. Of those potential species that might occur within the pine flatwoods communities, "the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel, Florida Panther and Black Bear were highlighted by the US Fish and Wildlife service (FWS —Andy Eller) as potentially occurring on this site or utilizing portions for range or feeding grounds. A Red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) study was required by FWS on the adjacent Parklands property. No RCW's were observed during the adjacent property survey or during the Threatened and Endangered species survey of this site. Due to the nature of the vegetation and dense melaleuca mid - story vegetation, none are expected. Wood Storks (FE) were also highlighted as potentially utilizing the site because of the wet nature of the existing conditions. Typical habitat required by the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel consists of mature open slash pine adjacent to cypress forests. The majority of the property does consist of pine flatwoods, however the melaleuca infestation is heavy." "Special interest in the property as Florida panther habitat was brought up in initial conversations with agency personnel. Investigation of the site in the course of this study 101N, MIRASOL I.1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING MIRASOL A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: n Mirasol Development, L.L.C. 6025 Carlton Lakes Boulevard Naples, FL 34110 PREPARED BY: PMS, Inc. of Naples 2335 Tamiami Trail North Suite 408 Naples, FL. 34103 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER n AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL DOCUMENT DATE 12/ 11 /00 INDEX PAGE List of Exhibits and Tables ii Statement of Compliance iii SECTION I Property Ownership, Legal General Description and Short Title 1-1 SECTION II Project Development 2-1 SECTION III Residential Development Areas 3-1 SECTION IV Golf Course/Open Space 4-1 SECTION V Preserve District 5-1 SECTION VI General Development Commitments 6-1 n LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT "A" Planned Unit Development Master Plan EXHIBIT `B" Legal Descriptions TABLE I Land Use Summary TABLE II Development Standards n n ii STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development consists of 1527+/- acres of property in Collier County as a Planned Unit Development to be known as The Mirasol PUD which will be in compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The Mirasol PUD is a single and multi- family residential community with associated recreational uses and will be consistent with the applicable elements of the Collier Growth Management Plan for the following reasons: 1. The total acreage of the Mirasol PUD is 1527 +/- acres. The maximum number of dwelling units to be built on the total acreage is 799. The number of dwelling units per gross acre is approximately 0.52 units. The density on individual parcels of land throughout the project may vary according to the type of housing placed on each parcel of land. The projected density of 0.52 dwelling units per acre is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan which allows 4.0 units per acre as a base density with 1 unit per acre adjustment due to the project interconnection from Immokalee Road as well as Broken Back Road, for a maximum of 5.0 units per acre at the project lands located within the urban boundary, Section 22 for 320.7 acres. Section 15 & Section 10 are outside the urban boundary, designated as Agriculture/Residential on the Future Land Use Map with density assigned as 1 unit per 5 acres, with 1206 acres the density would yield 241.2 units. The master plan has been arranged to utilize clustering of development tracts to provide for significant land conservation. 2. The subject property has property outside and within the Urban Residential Mixed Use District Land Use Designation as identified on the Future Land Use Map. 3. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's residential density as described in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element. 4. The Project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. 5. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. 6. The Project development will result in an efficient and economical allocation of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3. LH and 3. LL of the Future Land Use Element. 7. The Project development is planned to protect the functioning of natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as described in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub -Element of the Public Facilities Element. 8. All final local development orders for this project are subject to Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities, of the Collier County Land Development Code. n iii SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of MIRASOL PUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Exhibit B 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is owned by Mirasol Development, L.L.C. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA n n A. The project site is located to the North Side of Immokalee Road; bordered on the east by Broken Back Road, future 951; the Collier / Lee County line is the north property line; a portion of the western property borders along Agricultural/Olde Cypress (Woodlands PUD). B. The zoning classification of the project prior to approval of this PUD document was "Agricultural". 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION A. The project lies within South Florida Water Management District No. 7. B. Water management facilities for the project will be designed and constructed serving 1527+/- acres of residential lands discharging via the Immokalee Road canal. C. Elevations within the site vicinity are flat. The elevation of the subject site is approximately thirteen and 1/2 feet (13.5') above mean sea level. The entirety of the site lies within Flood Zone "X" according to Firm Map #120067 0215 D, map revised June 3, 1986. D. Sur cial sediments on, and in the vicinity of the project are primarily fine quartz sands, and organic loams over shallow limestone bedrock. Specific soil types found on the project include: Malabar fine sand, Basinger fine sand and Boca fine sand, Holopaw fine sand, Oldsmar fine sand, Pineda find sand, limestone substratum, Boca, Riviera, Limestone substratum, and Copeland find sands, depressional. 1.2 ^1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Mirasol PUD is a residential single family and multi -family community with a maximum of 799 dwelling units. Recreational facilities may be provided in conjunction with the dwelling units. Residential land uses, recreational uses, and signage are designed to be harmonious with one another in a natural setting by using common architecture, appropriate screening/buffering, and native vegetation, whenever feasible. 1.7 SHORT TITLE v n This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "MIRASOL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE". 1.3 n SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Development of the Mirasol PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of the Planned Unit Development document and applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as but not limited to Final Subdivision Plat, Final Site Development Plan, Excavation Permit, and Preliminary Work Authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. n B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. n C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Mirasol PUD shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD, the provisions of the LDC, where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this PUD. E. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities, of the LDC at the earliest or next to occur of either final SDP approval, final plat approval, or building permit issuance applicable to this Development. 2.1 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The project Master Plan, including layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts, is illustrated by Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan. The nature and extent of land uses within the project are indicated on Table I. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of dwelling units thereto shall be determined at the time of detailed site development planning or platting. B. The final size of the recreation and open space lands will depend on the actual requirements for water management, roadway pattern, and dwelling unit size and configuration. MIRASOL LAND USE SUMMARY TABLE I MAXIMUM LAND USE INTENSITY SUMMARY USE MAX. D.U.'s ACRES Residential 799 1527 +/- Open Space @ 60% N/A 916 +/- (Lakes, Preserves, Landscape Buffers, Golf Course, Open Areas & Recreational Areas) 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, and/or Condominium Plat for all or part of the PUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan, the Collier County Subdivision Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, if applicable, shall be submitted for the entire area covered by the PUD Master Plan. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. 2.2 C. The provisions of Division 3.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all platted tracts or parcels of land as provided in said Division prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order. D. The developer of any tract or parcel approved for residential development contemplating fee simple ownership of land for each dwelling unit shall be required to submit and receive approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat in conformance with requirements of Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code prior to the submittal of construction plans and a final plat for any portion of the tract or parcel. E. Utility, road, public and private easements shall be established as required during the SDP and/or plat approval process. F. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructure improvements regarding dedications and the method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. 2.5 MODEL HOMES / SALES OFFICES Model homes, sales centers and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, viewing platforms, gazebos, parking areas, tents, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout Mirasol PUD subject to the requirements of Section 2.6.33.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.6 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.7.3.5. 2.7 ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Common area maintenance will be provided by the Master Property Owners' Association. The Association is a legitimate alternative for the timely and sustained provision of quality common area infrastructure and maintenance under the terms and conditions of a County development approval. For those areas not maintained by the Master Association, the Developer will create a property owners association(s), or condominium association(s), whose functions shall include provision for the perpetual maintenance of common facilities and open spaces. The Master or the property owners' association, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems, and reserves serving the Mirasol PUD, together with any applicable permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and South Florida Water Management District. 2.3 �2.8 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS The Collier County planned unit development districts are intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control, as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.2.20.1. The applicant has not set "stages" for the development of the property. Since the property is to be developed over an estimated ten -(I 0) year time period, any projection of project development can be no more that an estimate based on current marketing knowledge. The estimate may, of course, change depending upon future economic factors. 2.9 GENERAL PERMITTED USES Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Mirasol PUD except in the Preserve District. General permitted uses are those uses which generally serve the Developer and residents of the Mirasol PUD and are typically part of the common infrastructure or are considered community facilities. A. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.6.9.1. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Temporary sewage treatment facilities. 4. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 5. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 6. Community and neighborhood parks, recreational facilities, community centers. 7. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer, builders, and their authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time permits are requested unless otherwise specified herein. 8. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls shall be in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time permits are requested unless otherwise specified herein. 9. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible. 2.4 B. Development Standards: Unless otherwise set forth in this document, the following development stanc structures: 1. Setback from back of curb or edge of pavement of any road - Fifteen feet (15'). Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures shall have no required setback, however such structures shall be located such that they do not cause vehicular stacking into the Immokalee Road right-of-way. 2. Setback from exterior property lines - one half (1/2) the height of the structure. 3. Minimum distance between structures which are part of an architecturally unified grouping - Five feet (5'). 4. Minimum distance between unrelated structures - Ten feet (10'). 5. Minimum floor area - None required. 6. Minimum lot or parcel area - None required. 7. Sidewalks, bikepaths, and cartpaths may occur within County required buffers; however /11 the width of the required buffer shall be increased proportionately to the width of the paved surface of the sidewalk, bikepath, or cartpath. n 8. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein, are to be in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan Approval. 2.10 OPEN SPACES REQUIREMENTS The PUD Master Plan identifies approximately 916+/- acres included in the Recreation, Landscape/Open Space, Golf Course, Lakes and Preserve District designations. These areas fully satisfy the open space requirements of Section 2.6.32 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.11 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS Twenty Five Percent (25%) of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site shall be preserved. 2.5 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL "R" DEVELOPMENT AREAS 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to establish land use regulations and development standards for the residential development tracts designated on Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan as "R". 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of dwelling units permitted within the PUD is 799. The property contains a gross acreage of 1527+/- acres and base density of 0.52 dwelling units per gross acre. 33 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "R" on the PUD Master Plan are designed to accommodate a full range of residential dwelling unit types, a full range of recreational facilities, essential services, and customary accessory uses. The approximate acreage of the "R" district is indicated on the PUD Master Plan. This acreage is based 110� on conceptual designs and is approximate. Actual acreages of all development tracts will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with Division 3.3 and Division 3.2, respectively, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Residential tracts are designed to accommodate internal roadways, open spaces, parks and amenity areas, lakes and water management facilities, and other similar uses found in residential areas. 3.4 USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses 1. Single-family detached dwelling units. 2. Single-family and zero lot line dwellings. 3. Single-family attached and townhouse dwellings. 4. Two-family and duplex dwellings. 5. Multiple -family dwellings. 6. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which n the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible in the "R" District. 3.1 B. Accessory Uses 1. Uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted. 2. Guest houses, pursuant to Section 2.6.14 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 3. Common area recreational and utilitarian facilities. 4. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible in the "R" District. 3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table II sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District. B. Site development standards for categories 1-5 apply to platted parcel boundaries. C. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within the Mirasol PUD, are to be in accordance with Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan Approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. D. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in Table II shall be established during the Site Development Plan Approval phase as set forth in Division 3.3 of the Land Development Code in accordance with those standards of the zoning district which is most similar to the proposed use. E. Off-street parking required for multi -family uses shall be accessed by parking aisles or driveways which are separate from any roads which serve more than one development. A green space area of not less than ten feet (10') in width as measured from pavement edge to pavement edge shall separate any parking aisle or driveway from any abutting road. F. Single-family patio and zero lot line dwellings are identified separately from single-family detached dwellings with conventional side yard requirements to distinguish these types of residences for the purpose of applying the development standards under Table II. G. Housing structure types including lot orientation for single-family detached housing such as zero lot line versus non -zero lot line orientations may not be mixed within the same development tract. 3.2 n TABLE H MIRASOL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSFOR "R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line Two Family and Duplex Single Family Attached and Townhouse Multi - Family Dwellings Category 1 2 3 4 5 Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500*4 3,500 SF 9,000 SF Minimum Lot Width *5 50, 40' 35' 35' 90, Minimum Lot Depth 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, Front Yard 20' *3 20' *3 20' *3 20' *3 20'*3 Side Yard 5 0 or 5' *6 0 or 5' 0 or 5' 15' Rear Yard 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' Rear Yard *1 5' S' S' S' S' Rear Yard Accessory 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, Maximum Building Height *2 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 50 feet Distance Between Principal Structures 10, 10, 10, 10, 20' *7 Floor Area Min. (S.F.) 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 750 SF All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *I - Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lake, open space, or preserve areas. Setback from lake for all principal and accessory uses may be 0' providing architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design and subject to written approval from Engineering Review Section. Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed). C. If the parcel has frontage on two sides, setback is measured from the side with the shortest frontage with the other frontage designated as a side yard. *2 - Building height shall be the vertical distance measured from the fast habitable finished floor elevation to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure. *3 - Single-family and multi -family dwellings which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking other than in private driveways may reduce the front yard requirement to 15' for the garage. *4 - Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 SF for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 S.F. *5 - Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. *6 - Zero feet (0') or a minimum of five feet (5') on either side except that where the zero foot (0') yard option is utilized, the opposite side of the structure shall have a ,ten foot (10') yard. Zero foot (0') yards may be used on both sides of a structure provided that the opposite ten foot (10') yard is provided. *7 - Building distance may be reduced at garages. 3.3 SECTION IV GOLF COURSE, OPEN SPACE 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the uses permitted and development standards for the Golf Course Open Space tracts. The primary function and purpose of these tracts will be to provide aesthetically pleasing open areas, golf course and recreational facilities. Except in areas authorized for development, all good quality native trees and shrubs shall be protected and preserved wherever practicable. 4.2 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures Golf courses and golf club facilities, including temporary golf clubhouses. n 2. Tennis clubs, health spas, equestrian clubs, and other recreational clubs. n 3. Project information and sales centers. 4. Community and golf course maintenance areas, maintenance buildings, essential services, irrigation water and effluent storage tanks and ponds, water and wastewater treatment plants, utility pumping facilties and pump buildings, utility and maintenance. staff offices. 5. Public administrative facilities. 6. Telecommunications Facilities 7. Communications Tower 8. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, landscape nurseries, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters. 9. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible. 4.1 1101\B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this District. 2. Pro -shops, practice areas and ranges, golf cart barns, rest rooms, shelters, snack bars and golf course maintenance yards. 3. Retail establishments accessory to the permitted uses in the District such as, but not limited to, golf, tennis, and recreational related sales. 4. Restaurants, cocktail lounges, and similar uses intended to serve club members and club guests. 5. Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and all other types of accessory facilities intended for outdoor recreation. 6. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible. 4.3 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS A. Principal structures shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet (20') from Golf Course / Open Space District boundaries and private roads, and twenty-five feet (25') from all PUD boundaries and residential tracts. B. Accessory structures shall be set back a minimum of ten feet (10') from Golf Course / Open Space District boundaries and private roads, and twenty feet (20') from all PUD boundaries and residential tracts. C. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and residential properties from direct glare or unreasonable interference. D. Maximum height of structures 1. Principal Structures - 2 stories or thirty feet (30'). 2. Accessory Structures - 1 story or fifteen feet (15'). E. Minimum distance between principal structures - Ten feet (10'). F. Minimum floor area - None required. r1 G. Minimum lot or parcel area - None required. 4.2 �•� H. Parking for the community center/clubhouse shall be three spaces per every one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area, which shall be considered inclusive of the required golf course parking. I. Standards for parking, landscape, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein, are to be in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. 4.3 SECTION V PRESERVE DISTRICT 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the Mirasol PUD community designated on the Master Plan as the Preserve District. 5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as Preserve on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate a full range of conservation and limited water management uses and functions. The primary purpose of the Preserve District is to retain viable naturally functioning wetland and upland systems, to allow for restoration and enhancement of impacted or degraded wetland systems, and to provide an open space amenity for the enjoyment of the Mirasol PUD residents. 5.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, subject to Regional, State and Federal permits when required; A. Principal Uses 1. Parks, passive recreational areas, boardwalks. 2. Biking, hiking, and nature trails. 3. Equestrian paths. 4. Wildlife sanctuary. 6. Recreational shelters and restrooms, in Preserve upland areas. 7. Drainage, water management, n aci 1 ies, subject to all needed permits. 8. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible in the "Preserve" District. 5.1 � 5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Setback requirements for all structures shall be in accordance with Secti Collier County Land Development Code. `lots and tracts -which"abuta—ake,non unsc -area's may xzero feet .(a4except=that-an architoetWITMh btament;shall-be-incorporated= in to B. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and residential properties from direct glare or unreasonable interference. C. Maximum height of structures - Twenty-five feet (25'). D. Minimum distance between principal structures - Ten feet (10'). E. Minimum distance between accessory structures - Five feet (5') F. Minimum floor area - None required. G. Minimum lot or parcel area - None required. H. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein or within adopted Mirasol Community Design Guidelines and Standards, are'to be in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan Approval. Unless otherwise indicated, required yards, heights, and floor area standards apply to principal structures. 5.5 PRESERVE DISTRICT CONSERVATION EASEMENT A non-exclusive conservation easement or tract is required by the Collier County Land Development Code Section 3.2.8.4.7.3 for lands included in the Preserve District. In addition to Collier County, a non-exclusive conservation easement may also be required by other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over Preserve District lands. In addition to complying with the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, said easement shall be provided in accordance with the terms set forth in any applicable permit granted by other agencies: The developer, its successor(s) or assigns, master property owners' association shall be responsible for control and maintenance of lands within the Preserve District. 5.2 SECTION VI GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 6.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the Project. 6.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plats, and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulation applicable to this PUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the Land Development Code, Division 3.2 shall apply to this Project even if the land within the PUD is not to be platted. The Developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. The Developer, his successor or assignee, shall agree to follow the Master Plan and the regulations of the PUD as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor or assignee in title, is bound by the commitments within this document. 6.3 PUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries, shall not be construed to be specific and may be adjusted during the platting or site development plan approval process. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 of the Land Development Code, PUD amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. C. The following shall be considered minor changes and refinements, subject to the limitations of PUD Section 5.3A of this PUD. 1. Reconfiguration of preserve areas, jurisdictional wetlandlimits, and mitigation features as a result of regulatory agency review. GC 7 2. Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, canals, or other water management facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District e*-11N and Collier County, and where there is no further encroachment into preserve areas. 6.1 3. Reconfiguration of design features. 4. Internal realignment of rights -of -way other than a relocation of access points to the PUD. 5. Reconfiguration of residential parcels when there is no encroachment into preserve areas. 6.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION A. Initiation of construction on the Mirasol PUD project is contemplated in the calendar year 2000 with completion of the project infrastructure anticipated to occur in stages. B. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code. C. The Project is subject to the sunsetting provisions of Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. 6.5 POLLING PLACES Pursuant to Section 2.6.30 of the Land Development Code, provision shall be made for the future use of space within a common building for the purpose of accommodating the function of an electoral polling place. An agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, which shall be binding upon any and all successors in interest to the Developer that acquire ownership of such common areas including, but not limited to, condominium associations, homeowners associations, or community recreation / public buildings / public rooms or similar common facilities to be used for a polling place if determined to be necessary by the Supervisor of Elections. 6.6 SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD DESIGN SUBSTITUTIONS A. A perimeter berm if required shall be in conformance with Section 2.4.4.8 of the Land Development Code. 1. Trees and shrubs shall be planted along the base of the berm so as to visually soften the appearance of the side of the berm. 2. Trees shall be a minimum of 75% native species. 3. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 35 % native species. n B. Sidewalks / bike paths shall conform with subsection 3.2.8.3.17 of the Land Development Code. C'� C. Private streets shall conform with the right-of-way width requirements of Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.5 of the LDC except as follows: Cul-de-sacs and local streets less than one thousand feet (1,000') in length are required to have a minimum forty foot (40') right-of-way width and two ten foot (10') wide travel lanes as required by Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.5. 2. All other cul-de-sacs are required to have a minimum forty foot (40') right-of-way width and two ten foot (10') wide travel lanes as required by Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.5. 3. All other local streets are required to have a minimum forty foot (40') right-of-way and two ten foot (10') wide travel lanes as required by Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.5. 4. Cul-de-sacs may exceed a the one thousand foot (1,000') length maximum of Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.6 of the Land Development Code. 5. Tangents between reverse curves shall not be required as per Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.10 of the Land Development Code. 6. Street grades may exceed four percent (4%) maximum of Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.14 of the Land Development Code provided that applicable Florida Department of Transportation, Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (FDOT MUMS) and AASHTO criteria are met. 7. Land Development Code, Subsection 3.2.8.3.19: The standard that street name markers shall be approved by the County Engineer and conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A.M.U.T.C.D. is waived. Street pavement painting, striping and reflective edging of main road system will be waived. Traffic circulation signage shall be in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A.M.U.T.C.D. standards. 8. Land Development Code, Subsection 3.2.8.4.10: The standard that PRMs be installed in a typical water valve cover shall be waived subject to monumentation being installed in accordance with Chapter 177, Florida Statutes. 9. Land Development Code, Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.8: The minimum back of curb radii for internal roads shall be 30 feet. with the exception that both entrance road intersections shall have curb radii of 40 feet. 10. Land Development Code, Subsection 3.2.8.4.16.9: The minimum 100 foot. tangent standard at intersections may be reduced subject to a certified traffic study based upon design speed, site distance and adequate recovery zone. This requirement shall not be waived at both project access points. 11. Land Development Code, Subsection 3.2.8.4.21: The standard for blank utility casings n shall be waived. 6.3 ^6.7 TRANSPORTATION The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. The applicant shall install arterial level street lighting at the project entrance prior to the granting of any Certifications of Occupancy for the Project. B. The applicant shall be responsible for a fair share contribution toward a traffic signal system at the Project entrance, should such signal system be found to be warranted. Any such signal system shall be subject to approval by Collier County. C. Work within Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County Right -of -Way Ordinance No. 93-64. D. The Project access shall be located and designed in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Plan applicable to this Project. E. Access to Immokalee Road shall be in conformance to the Collier County Access Management Plan, as it may be amended from time to time. F. Access to Broken Back Road, or to the future extension of CR951 shall be encouraged to promote adequate traffic circulation for the development. Likewise, the access to the Parklands should be provided as shown. G. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all project entrances, unless already in place or planned by the county. H. The county may require more than the proposed 75' right of way reservation. Public works engineering department should be consulted to determine the adequacy of this reservation. I. Due to capacity constraints on CR 951 south of Immokalee Road, the project may need to be phased. J. The county reserves the right to modify, including closure, any median opening Immokalee Road, if in the sole opinion of the county, any operational or safety consideration makes such modification necessary or desirable. 6.8 UTILITIES The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission lines to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, and/or owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. 6.4 r B. All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. C. The on -site water distribution system serving the project must be connected to the District's water main and must be consistent with the main sizing requirements specified in the County's Water Master Plan and extended throughout the project. During design of these facilities, the following features shall be incorporated into the distribution system: 1. Dead-end mains shall include dead-end flushing hydrants. 2. Stubs for future system interconnection with adjacent properties shall be provided to the property lines of the project at locations to be mutually agreed to by the County and the Developer during the design phase of the project. 6.5 6.9 ENVIRONMENTAL The development of this PUD Master Plan shall be subject to and governed by A. Environmental permitting sh in acc dance with the State of Florida Resource Permit Rules and be subjec review and approval by Current l Environmental Staff. Removal of otic getation shall not be the sole mitigation method for impacts to Collier County juris ' tional wetlands. B. All conservation areas shall be designated as conservation/preservation tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. Buffers and setbacks shall be in accordance with Section 3.2.8.4.7.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. C. Buffers around preserved jurisdictional wetlands shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules. Preserved jurisdictional wetlands and surrounding buffers shall be incorporated in Conservation Areas which shall be platted. D. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic -free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservations areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. (--F-wC r-� E. Petitioner shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of them rgsh W-Fish Coecies. 6.10 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submittal for development approval. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, Division 3.2. C. Prior to Final Site Development Plan approval a Right -of -Way Permit will be required. 6.11 WATER MANAGEMENT A. A copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Surface Water Permit shall be submitted prior to Final Site Development Plan Approval. B. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance with Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code and SFWMD Rules. n 6.12 PLANNING A. Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if during th clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeologi development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery snail V-- stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 6.13 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures shall be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure except that temporary sales buildings, trailers, marketing facilities, contractors' and builders' storage and office facilities and the like, may be erected and utilized during the period of project development and marketing consistent with applicable requirements of the Land Development Code. Such temporary buildings shall be removed upon completion of the marketing or construction activity which they are accessory to. 6.14 SIGNS All signs shall comply with Division 2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. .r 6.15 LANDSCAPING FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS n All landscaping for off-street parking areas shall be in accordance with the Division 2.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. 6.16 PROVISION FOR OFF -SITE REMOVAL OF EARTHEN MATERIAL The excavation of earthen material and its stockpiling in preparation of water management facilities or other water bodies is hereby permitted. If it is demonstrated that fill activities on those buildable portions of the Project site are such that there is a surplus of earthen material, then its off -site disposal is also hereby permitted subject to the following conditions: A. Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a "development excavation" pursuant to Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code whereby off -site removal shall be limited to ten percent (to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards) of the total volume excavated unless a commercial excavation permit is received. B. All other provisions of said Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code are applicable. 6.7 li ®0 00® i Environmental LDC Amendments Cycle 2 2000 or his designee and an environmental arofessional opinion is rende_ red that the requirement to provide the required on site gopher tortoise habitat preservation area will not be conducive to the long term health of the on site population of tortoises. If an off site relocation plan is authorized under one or more of the above conditions, approval of such a plan and associated State permit, shall be obtained from the Florida fish and wildlife conservation commission. Where appropriate, a combination of on -site preservation and off -site relocation may be considered. (9) Exemptions. Single family platted lots, 7.5 acres or less in size, shall be exempt from the requirements set forth in subsection 3.11.3.4 (4), when these lots are not a art of a revious develo ment which has been re uired to comply with subsection 3.11.3.4 (4). However, gopher tee+ises tortoises shall be protected pursuant to paragraphs 1, a" 2 and 3 of this section. Sec. 3.11.4. Penalties for violation: resort to other remedies. Violation of the provisions of this division or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person or firm who violates this division or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction thereof be fined, or imprisoned, or both, as provided by law. Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense. Each taking of a gopher tortoise shall constitute a separate violation. It is not the intent to include tortoises that may be accidentally injured or killed during an approved relocation procedure that is done by a qualified consultant, in accordance with their protection/management plan. Any other person, who commits, participates in, assists in, or maintains such violation may each be found guilty of a separate offense and suffer the penalties herein provided. The county, in addition to the criminal sanctions contained herein, may take any other appropriate legal action, including but not limited to injunctive action, to enforce the provisions of this division. ENTS TO VEHICLE ON THE BEACH REGULATIONS DIVISIOI• SUBSECTION 3.N. AMENDM Division 3.14., Vehicle On The Beach Regulations, of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collie County Land Development Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 3.14. VEHICLE ON THE BEACH REGULATIONS Sec. 3.14.3. Exceptions; permit. 3.14.3.4 Vehicle-on-me-veacn cr. •��- events: Vehicles which are used in coniunction with functions on the beach as Knitted b an a roved s)ecial event tem ra use i or annual beach events oerrnit. are exem t from the rovisions of this division if a vehicle -on the - beach rmit has been ranted b the plannin3, services director or his designee. All permits issued are sub'ect to the following conditions and limitations: 3.14.3.4.1. The use of vehicles shall be limited to set-u and removal of a ui ment for the *+�rmitted function. Words %ese are deleted, words underlined are added. 3 14 3 4 2 Said ,rmits shall be prominently displayed on the vehicle and ko with the vehicle and available for instiection: 3 14 3 4 3 The tRgs of vehicles permitted for this use may include ATVs, non -motorized handcarts or dollies and small utility wagons which may be pulled behind the ATVs. 3 14 3 4 4 All vehicles shall be equipped with large pneumatic tires inflated to no more than 10 (PSI) pounds per square inch. 3 14 3 4 5 Permits shall only be issued for ATVs when current planning section staff has determined that 1) due to the distance and the excessive weight of the eoiupment to be moved that it would be prohibitive in nature to use push carts or dollies. or 2) a limited .signated work area has been established at the foot of the der tie walkover for loading and unloading and the ATV use is restricted to that limited a.: 3 14 3 4 6 When not in use all vehicles shall be stored off the beach: 3 14 3 4 7 Use of such vehicles on the beach shall be prohibited during sea turtle nesting season. 3 14 3 5 Vehicle on the beach permits issued in coniunction withPennamnent concession facilities: Vehicle on the beach permits issued in conjunction with permanent concession facilities shall be exempt from the provisions of this division if a vehicle -on the beach permit has been granted by the planning ssrvic es director. or s designee Vehicles which are used in conjunction with approved permitted may beach concession activities may be used to set up concession equipment the approved and be used to remove the equipment from the beach and return it to storage area subiect to the following conditions and im bons. 3 14 3 5 I this ay t is I� -motorized be ATVs. snmtaleldfor behind The ty s of vehicdo the handcars �r lies and uulit wa waggons w a ATVs. 3 14 3 5 2 Said permit hall be prominently displayed on the vehicle and kept with.the vehic�na aavailable for mstxction. s all bee ui d with lar neumatic tin i flated o no re thin 4.3..3. All vehicles 10 PSi. Permits shall only be issued for ATVs when one of the followina has been 3.14.3.5.4. met: 1 Evidence has been provided that there is A n2 d to move equipment which. due to the excessive eight and distance of equal to or greater than 200 ee would be pro 'bitive in nature to move with push carts or doollies. 2i A limited desi nated work area has bcen estab is a is restricted to dune walkover for loadng and unloadng and the ATV - — %�. I;mitr� idmtifCd area. 3,14.3.15.5. When not in use sl1 veh:a Ica shall be stored off the beach Th v hi les may not be u�d for transpodatiA^ ^f Rims or ggWgMsnt L ti.,..t tit• day The permit shall designate a li ed Ioa SQUIRMInt u f th removal of the ejuigme t at the end of the day. 3.14.3.5.7. U f uch vehicles on the beach shall be Rrohibited duging sea turtle nestin season. • t..nrl. • grmits for other routine fitn ioa associated with t a 3 6 Ve ` • r t..nh are used to rmitt d uses o commercial h tel r er vet �� Words rtwek4hFe*O are deleted, words and r 'ned are added. c_oniunction with tasks such as routine equipment set-up that cannot reasonably be accomplished without the use of such vehicle due to size. weight and volume, shall be exempt from the provisions of this division if a vehicle -on -the -beach Wrmit has been granted by the planning services director. or his designee. subject to the followine conditions and limitations: 3.14.3 6 I Use of the vehicle shall be limited to a one-time set up and a one-time removal of equipment each day. 3 14 3 6 2 Said permit shall be prominently displayed on the vehicle and kept with the vehicle and available for inspection. 3 14 3 6 3 The types of vehicles Qermitted for this use may include ATVs, non -motorized handcarts or dollies. 3 14 3 6 4 Permits shall only be issued for ATVs when one of the following criteria has been met: I) Evidence has been pMvided that there is a need to move equipment which. due to the excessive weight and distance of equal to or greater than 200 feet would be prohibitive in nature to move with Rush carts or dollies. that limited, identified area. 3 14 3 6 5 All vehicles shall be equipped with large Rneumatic tires inflated to no more than 10 PSI. 3 14 3 6 6 When not in use all vehicles shall be stored off the beach. 3 14 3 6 7 Use of such vehicles on the beach shall be prohibited during sea turtle nesting season. SUBSECTION 3.0: AMENDMENTS TO APPENDICES SECTION Appendix B, Typical Street Sections And Right -Of -Way Design Standards, is hereby amended by replacing the existing Appendix B, Typical Street Sections And Right -Of --Way Design Standards, illustrations with revised Appendix B, Typical Street Sections And Right-0f- Way Design Standards illustrations attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as . Exhibit "B". SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ATLAS MAPS The Zoning Atlas Maps numbered [0633N, 0633S,GGE22, 8517S, 6931N, 6933S, 7904N, 482930, 8529N, 7904S, 9621N. 9622S, 0629N, 0501S, 9523S, 9621S] attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are hereby amended as depicted upon such maps and attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The effect of the amendment is to rezone the -sixteen park sites to the "P" Public Use District. SECTION FIVE: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY Words etreek4kreu0 are deleted, words unde ined are added. 40 ll� SUBSECTION 3.K. AMENDMENTS TO VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION DIVISION Division 3.9., Vegetation Removal, Protection And Preservation, of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 3.9:' VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION Sec. 3.9.6. Review procedures. * * * * * * * * * * * Sec. 3.9.6.6.6. In addition to the other requirements of this division, the applicant shall be required to remove on single-family and two-family lots for all new dwelling units principal or accessory structures and major additions to any arincinal or accessory structures, all prohibited exotic vegetation before a certificate of occupancy is granted. The removal of prohibited exotic vegetation shall be required in perpetuity. Upon issuance of a vegetation removal permit, prohibited exotic vegetation may be removed from lots which are zoned residential single- family (RSF), estates (E), village residential (VR), and mobile home (MH), prior to issuance of a building permit. * * * * * * * * * * * --IBSECTION 3.L. AMENDMENTS TO SEA TURTLE PROTECTION DIVISION Division 3.10., Sea Turtle Protection, of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Lanc Development Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 3.10. SEA TURTLE PROTECTION Sec. 3.10.9. Permits and fees. * * * * * * * * * * * SUBSECTION 3.M. AMENDMENTS TO ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR LISTED SPECIE! PROTECTION DIVISION Division 3.11., Endangered, Threatened, Or Listed Species Protection, of Ordinance 91-102, amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: Words SIM& ihrFO+gh are deleled, words underlined are added. A DIVISION 3.11. ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR LISTED SPECIES PROTECTION Sec. 3.11.3. New and existing development. For new and existing development and construction pursuant to divisions 3.2, 3.3 and 3.9 of this code, and the building code of Collier County, until permanent guidelines and standards are adopted by Collier County, the following shall apply as interim guidelines or standards for the protection of endangered species, threatened species and species of special concern m prescribed by Goal 7 and associated objectives and policies, as amended, of the conservation and coastal management element of the Collier County growth management plan: 3.11.3.1. Plans shall be submitted for review and subject to approval by the planning services -department of the community development and environmental services division, for the management of habitat and wildlife, including measures for protection and/or relocation of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. The county shall consider and may utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance of the FFWCC, and recommendations and guidelines of the USFWS, in issuing development orders on property containing endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. Such plans shall comply with current federal, state and local ordinances and policies. 3.11.3.2. The USFWS South Florida Multi -Species Recovery Plan (dated May 1999. and as amended) shall be adopted as the minimum guideline or standard to preserve or improve the environmental conditions required for the protection and recovery of the West Indian manatee (Trit-heclurs mantis). Florida panther (Puma concolor c_orvi) Audubon's crested caracara (Polvbonrs glances audubonirl. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocenhalus) Florida scrub nay (Apheloeoma coerukscens). Piping Mover (Charadrius melodusl Wood stork (Mviceteria americana). Roseate tern (Sterna dougalli dourallrl Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). Eastern indigo snake (Drvmarchon c•orais couperi)Green sea turtle (Chelonia mwlas). Kemp's ridlev sea turtle (Le idochelvs kemphl Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelvs coriacea). and Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Until the adoption of federal guidelines for any of the above listed species. the developer shall be responsible for the development of a protection plan for conservation and management of these species. 3.11.3.3.Until the adoption of State of Florida guidelines for the protection of all State listed sMies as listed in "Florida's Endangered Species Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern" authored by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission the developgr shall be responsible for the development of a protection plan for conservation and management of these species. 11-N 3.11.3.4 Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) (1) All gopher tortoises, their habitats and the associated comensals are . hereby protected: , Words srraeh-rhreugh are deleted, words underlined an: addexl. AA seetien: It is expressly prohibited to take, which means to harass. harm. hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture. collect. or attempt to enea a in n any such conduct any gopher tortoise and to alter, destroy or degrade the functions and values of their natural habitat, unless otherwise provided for in this section. (2) All gopher tortoise burrows are protected and it is prohibited to intentionally destroy or melest take em any such burrow by any means, unless otherwise provided for in this section. (3) Provision is hereby made to allow personnel authorized by !he United Statefi Fish ofid Wildlife , Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and or Collier County to house and relocate tortoises as necessary and provided for in this section. (4) When gopher tortoises are identified on a site, a protection/management plan or off site relocation plan shall be submitted to the planning services department of the community development and environmental services division, for review and approval. This shall apply to all new development and site improvements. It shall also apply to substantial amendments to existing development and site improvements, where gopher tortoise protection/management plans have not been previously approved by Collier County planning services staff. The protection/management plan shall include, but not be limited to the following items: 1) a current gopher tortoise survey, which shall be field - verified by planning services staff, 2) a proposal for either maintaining the population in place or relocating it; 3) a site plan identifying the boundaries of the gopher tortoise preserve; 4) the method of relocation if necessary; 5) the proposed supplemental plantings if needed; 6) a detail of the gopher tortoise preserve fencing; 7) an annual maintenance plan describing exotic removal and possible additional plantings in the future and 8) identification of persons responsible for the initial and annual protection/management of the tortoises and the preserve area. Suitable gopher tortoise habitat shall be designated on the site plan at the time of the first development order submittal. Suitable habitat preserved on site shall be credited to the preservation requirement as specified in section 3.9.5. of this code. (5) Suitable habitat shall be defined as having the following characteristics: 1) the presence of well -drained, sandy soils, which allow easy burrowing for gopher tortoises, 2) appropriate herbaceous ground cover (if not present, supplemental food sources shall be planted), 3) generally open canopy and sparse shrub cover which allow sufficient sunlight to reach the ground, and 4) typically, includes the presence of an existing gopher tortoise population. Off site relocation plans may be permitted to meet all or part of the on -site gopher tortoise habitat preservation requirements under the following circumstances: a.) Where suitable habitat eannet-be-PFe3►ided does not exist on -site. or, b.) Where a property owner meets the minimum on -site native vegetation preservations requirements of this code with jurisdictional wetlands and this does not provide appropriate habitat for gopher tortoises as described above; or, d) gj Where scientific data has been presented to tw4he-epmten-ef the community development and environmental services administrator, Words risFusla 1hFOUgh are deleted, words undhvlincd an: aJded. 45 or his designee, and an environmental professional opinion is rendered that the requirement to provide the required on -site gopher tortoise habitat preservation area will not be conducive to the long term health of the on site population of tortoises. if an off site relocation plan is authorized under one or more of the above conditions, approval of such a plan and associated State permit, shall be obtained from the Florida fish and wildlife conservation commission. Where appropriate, a combination of on -site preservation and off -site relocation may be considered. (9) Exemptions. Single family platted lots, 7.5 acres or less in size, shall be exempt from the requirements set forth in subsection 3.11.3.4 (4), when these lots are not a part of a previous development which has been required to comply with subsection 3.11.3.4 (4). However, gopher teunises tortoises shall be protected pursuant to paragraphs 1, and 2 and 3 of this section. See. 3.11A. Penalties for violation: resort to other remedies. Violation of the provisions of this division or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person or firm who violates this division or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction thereof be fined, or imprisoned, or both, as provided by law. Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense. Each taking of a gopher tortoise shall constitute a separate violation. It is not the intent to include tortoises that may be accidentally injured or killed during an approved relocation procedure that is done by a qualified consultant, in accordance with their protection/management plan. Any other person, who commits, participates in, assists in, or maintains such violation may each be found guilty of a separate offense and suffer the penalties herein provided. The county, in addition to the criminal sanctions contained herein, may take any other appropriate legal action, including but not limited to injunctive action, to enforce the provisions of this division. SUBSECTION 3.N. AMENDMENTS TO VEHICLE ON THE BEACH REGULATIONS DIVISIOr Division 3.14., Vehicle On The Beach Regulations, of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collie County Land Development Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 3.14. VEHICLE ON THE BEACH REGULATIONS Sec. 3.14.3. Exceptions; permit. * * * * * * * * * * 3.14.3.4 Vehicle -on -the -beach permits issued in conjunction with special or annual beach events, • Vehicles which are used in conjunction with functions on the beach. as Rgrmitted by an approved special event tempgraEy use permit or annual beach events permit are exempt from the provisions of this division if a vehicle -on the - each RSrm.t has been granted by the planning services director or his designee. All permits issued are subject to the following conditions and limitations: 3 14 3 4 1 The use of vehicles shall be limited to set-up and removal of equipment for the Rgrmitted function. Words 6w ek4weoo are deleted, words underlined are added. A< 2.2.34.3 Applicability: These regulations apply to the above -described geographic area. These regulations are intended to supplement the existing land development regulations found in this code. In the event of a conflict between other provisions of this Code and these regulations, these regulations contained in this overlay shall control. 2.2.34.4 Development criteria. The development criteria and standards for each zoning district in Goodland as provided for in this code shall apply for all uses and structures in this overlay district unless specifically superseded below. 2.2.34.4.1 Maximum building height. As provided for in the Village Residential Zoning District for each permitted accessory, and conditional use provided that no residential building may contain more than two (2) levels of habitable space. 2.2.34.4.2 Minimum lot requirements As provided for in the Village Residential Zoning District for each permitted accessory, and conditional use except for the following: a Single family/Mobile Home: Minimum Lot area: 4,275 square feet. Minimum Lot width: 45 feet. * * * * * * * * * * * SUBSECTION 3.B. AMENDMENTS TO LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING DIVISION Division 2.4., Landscaping and Buffering, of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County nd Development Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 2.4. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING Sec. 2.4.4. Plant material standards and installation standards. * * * * * * * * * * * 2.4.4.12 Prohibited Exotic Species. In addition to the prohibitions outlined in section 2.4.4.11, the following species or seeds thereof shall not be grown, offered for sale, or transported inter -county or intra-county. 2.4.4.12.1 Melaleuca spp. (punk tree). 2.4.4.12.2 Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper). 2.4.4.12.3 Any member of the family Casuarinaceae (Australian pine). 2.4.4.12.4 Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (downy rosemyrtle). 2.4.4.12.5 Dioscorea bulbifera (air potato) 2.4.4.12.6 Colubrina asiatica (lather leaf). 2.4.4.12.7 Lygodium spp. (climbing fern). 2.4.4.12.8 Syzygium cumini (Java plum). 2.4.4.12.9 Mimosa pigra (catclaw mimosa). 2.4.4.12.10 Acacia auriculiforrnis (earleaf acacia). 2.4.4.12.11 Albizia lebbeck (Women's tongue). 2.4.4.12.12 Cul2aniopsis anacardioides (Carrotwood) Sec. 2.4.6. Minimum Landscaping requirements. Words SAFHA-Bx++Ugh are deieled, words underlined are added. O*I-N 2.6.33.8.4. Indemnification. The applicant shall be required to indemnify and hold harmless Collier County, its officers, agents and employees from and against all claims, suits, actions, damages, liabilities, expenditures or causes of action arising out of or occurring during the activities of applicant under a permit issued hereupon in the form and manner provided by the zetfii}g planning services director. 2.6.33.8.5. Permit fee. No permit fee shall be required. Any additional license or user fees which have been established for county -owned land or facilities shall be in effect. 2.6.33.8.6. Issuance of permit. Upon presentation of the completed application, proof of insurance, payment of permit fee, surety bond or cash payment in lieu of the bond and review by the zer�*g planning services director, the permit may be issued. If the zenif+g planning services director determines that the use of public or private property could affect the public's use of the property, or have potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties, then he may require that the permit application be scheduled for a public hearing before the board of county commissioners. The special circumstances could include, but are not limited to, closure of a public street or accessway; use of special effects, including incendiary or explosive devices; a large production crew or crowd control; and increased liability insurance required. The notice for the public hearing shall be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least one time 15 days prior to the hearing. 2.6.33.8.7. Suspension of permit. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the temporary use permit once issued shall be grounds for immediate suspension of the permitted activity until such time as the noncompliance is remedied. The suspension shall be initially communicated eral4y verbally, followed by a written suspension order; and continued failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit may result in revocation of the permit. 2.6.33.8.8. Costs for extraordinary services. The county shall recover direct costs for extraordinary services rendered in connection with a production. Such costs shall include, but not limited to, charges for personnel and/or equipment committed in support of the production, which are outside the normal scope of government services. Based on the information contained in the permit application, an estimate of these costs will be provided to the applicant prior to issuance of this permit. The county may require prepayment of all or a portion of these estimated costs prior to issuance of the permit. At the conclusion of the production, actual costs below or in excess of the estimates will be refunded by the county or paid by the applicant, respectively. 2.6.33.8.9. Surety bond. A surety bond in the an amount to be determined by Collier County and issued by a company authorized to issue bonds in Florida or cash payment in lieu of the bond -evil} may be required by the planning services director aeempan to provide for cleanup and/or restoration of the subject site(s). Sec 2 6 34 Annual beach events permit. 2 6 34 1 1 The owner of beach -front commercial hotel -resort property shall apply for an annual beach events permit The planning services director, or his designee, may grant the permit following review of an application for such permit. The application shall be submitted on the form prescribed by Collier County together with the applicable fee for the number of planned annual beach events as indicated on the permit form and exhibits thereto. Words are delcied, words underlined are added. 2 6 34 2 For purposes of this section a "beach event" shall mean and refer to any social. recreational or entertainment event whether public or private. conducted on the beach and satisfying one or more of the following criteria: I The event involves the use of dining/picnic tables and chairs. serving tables. or other ancillary equipment typically used to serve an on -site meal: or 2 The event involves the use of staging equipment amplified music. or the use of other types of electrical equipment for purposes of enhanced light and/or sound: or 3. The event: (a) is attended by 25 or more people and is organized by or with the help of the beach -front property owner. and (b) is of a nature not commonly associated with the day-to-day use of the h�ach by the general public. 6 34 3 Notice of scheduled events: 2.6.34.3.1. On or before the 25'" day.of eachcalendar month the holder of suchits al cause Collier County to be furnished with written notice of all beach events scheduled for the following month inthe form and content made a part of the annual beach events rmit a lication. The nonce shall Indicate a da a tt e and duration of each event. Collier punt planning services department. 2 6.34.4, Event Cancellations and Postponements: If a scheduled beach event is cuu—u—: • -__ion furnish Collier Count with written notification of suchv ¢auase laor .. _._ .._ae..•�.,..�t tn�r weather conut..� roR vied. scheduled for the date o t e can been notified of such cancellai-0 nt wa s the or Mn_a axitmu n number of beach author a erm k. sub'ect to the following co dition : or to he ti a of the scheduled event. uRdl MUM— Cou atural resources de artme t staff. ...__�.. �,�y -„- ► arc dcicted, wonis und�� are adder• code . All a ui merit laced on [ne peaUn IV�. ---_ -hall be removed from the beach b no later than 9:00 .m. of the date of the event. All 11 n[5 uw► arc •.-... --- turned-off b no later than 9:00 .m. of the date of the event. Ide tification of a turtle nesw UII ►lf� w••-•- relocated or to have Col additional o limitation ' l rent unt sources de altmersuant to the commen�a Pole li tin and an otner oo ec� v� --FDEP - surface b more th n h e inches shall be sub* loth a royal of the and Collier County. deya� rt=nent• 2.6.35. Communication towers. 2.6.35.6.3. Essential dinetllonal uses. Except in the through RSF- 6, and R�F�zoningsttsowersma be allowed to ny height as a conditional use on sites approved for a conditional use essential service for any of the following conditional uses: safety service facilities including, but not necessarily limited to, fire stations, sheriffs substation or facility, emergency medical services facility, and all other similar uses where a communications tower could be considered an accessory or logically associated use with the safety service conditional use on the site. In addition communications towers can be gnproved as a conditional use for a stand alo a es ntial service facility provided the tower is to be owned by or to be leased to a governmental entity, and the �rimary uses of the toy. er are for governmental purooses. 2.6.35.6.21. Refer to section 2 4 6 4 for minimum landscaping requirements. A-}endseaPO(l This lied leyel-M 2.6.35.6.22. Any existing Knative vegetation on the site shall be preserved and used to tmeet the minimum landscape requirements ired by subsections 2.4.6.4. (a) and (bb). The site plan shall show existing significant vegetation to be removed and vegetation to be replanted to replace that lost. Native vegetation may constitute part or all of the required buffer area if its opacity exceeds 80 percent. * * * * * * * IN Section 2.6.35.7. Alligator Alley Communication Towers (1) Notwithstanding other provisions of Section 2.6.35, and irrespective of the zoning classification(s) of the underlying fee at each respective tower site, Wcxds +k4hro%-h are deleted, wixds underlined an: added. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT January 24, 2001 Mirasol Development, L.L.C. 6025 Carlton Lakes Boulevard Naples, FL 34110 RE: Planned Unit Development Petition No. PUD-99-10 "Mirasol PUD" Dear Sirs: PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 The referenced matter will be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council during its forthcoming meeting scheduled for February 7, 2001. The Public Hearing to consider this item and other matters will begin at 9:00 a.m. at the Collier County Government Complex, Administration Building, Third Floor, Commissioners' Board Room. It is recommended that you or your appointed representative be present at this meeting to answer any questions the Environmental Advisory Council may have regarding your request. Attached for your information is a copy of the Environmental Advisory Council's Agenda and Staff Report for this meeting. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (941) 403-2400. Very truly yours, / 2�i /JQ�IQ- " .td Barbara B. Burgeson Senior Environmental Specialist BBB/lao/h:\EAC letters Attachments cc: EAC File Karen Bishop, PMS, Inc. of Naples PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www co.collienfl.us