The URL can be used to link to this page

EAC Agenda 08/07/2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA August 7, 2001 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F")—Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of July 3, 2001 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions A. Special Treatment Permit No. ST-1045 "Henry John McVicker" Section 23 & 24, Township 51 South, Range 25 East B. Planned Unit Development No. PDI-2001-AR-471 "Silver Lakes PUD" Sections 10 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East C. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-986 "Walnut Lakes PUD" Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East D. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-432 "Indigo Lakes PUD" Sections 27 & 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East V. Old Business A. Wetland policy review and public comment B. Update on Beach events and sea turtles VI. New Business VII. Growth Management Update VIII. Subcommittee Report A. Growth Management Subcommittee IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment ********************************************************************************* Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 27, 2001 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (659-5741). 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. July 3, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL NAPLES, FLORIDA, JULY 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 Michael G. Coe Ed Carlson William Hill Alexandra "Ali" Santoro Barry Stone Alfred Gal NOT PRESENT: Erica Lynne Chester Soling ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Page 1 July 3, 2001 (Proceedings commenced, Mr. Hill not present.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Barbara, is anyone else coming, or is this it? MS. BURGESON: Mr. Hill should be here. Probably we can get started if you want. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One, two -- we've got enough for a quorum. Why don't -- why don't we get started. Okay? Okay. Shall we call the roll to determine if we have a quorum this morning? MS. BURGESON: Sansbury. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe. MR. COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Hill. (No response.) MS. BURGESON: Erica Lynne has an excused absence. Santoro. MS. SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Stone. MR. STONE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal. MR. GAL: Here. MS. BURGESON: And Soling also has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Very good. All right. Approval of the agenda. Do we have any additions, revisions, corrections? Yes, sir. MR. COE: One thing I would like to put on old business. I'd like to see if we can get a report from either Barb or Stan or one of the staffers on anything that may have come up since we met on the ATVs on the beach and the Ritz-Carlton and all that sort of business. Page 2 July 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All righty. We have the minutes of the June 6th meeting. We have any addition, revisions? Would someone like to approve them? I move to approve them, excuse me. MR. COE: I'll move to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is there a second? MS. SANTORO: I second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second. In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Passed unanimously. Okay. Land use petitions. Why don't we do a swear-in right now. Anyone that's going to testify on this particular land use petition regarding Park Central North, please rise, and we will be sworn in. (Oath administered.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right, sir. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, counsel members. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request to rezone property that's currently zoned C-1 and C-1-ST that's office commercial and rezone it to the PUD district, and it's located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road. The existing Park Central Development is here and this is the property immediately adjacent to the north (indicating). The proposed uses and the PUD are generally consistent with C-1 office commercial uses. The purpose of the rezone is to allow the buildings to go to 45 feet in some locations as opposed to the 35 feet that's currently permitted in C-1 in order to allow a smaller building footprint because of the shape and size of the wetland on site. And that's the conceptual master plan you see in green, the size of the wetland, and there was some encroachment -- there is proposed encroachment into the wetland here to allow access to that upland tract in the northwest corner. Page 3 July 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hold on for a second. Just for the record just note that Mr. Hill has joined us. Okay. MR. HILL: My apologies, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Go ahead. MR. REISCHL: And to orient you further, down here at the bottom of the visualizer is YMCA Road which is going to be the access for the project. This is the exiting Park Central, and the access will be from an easement across the Park Central property into the proposed Park -- Park Central North. The project will have no access from Airport Road and no access from Cougar Drive, the entrance to Barron Collier which is not a public road. It's a school board easement and the school board did not see fit to grant access to the petitioner. The site is located in Activity Center No. 13 and, therefore, the commercial rezone is consistent with the future land use element of the Growth Management Plan, and Stephen Lenberger is here with the environmental issues. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Lenberger. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Development Services. As Fred mentioned the subject property is located in the northeast quadrant off Pine Ridge Road and Airport-Pulling Road immediately south of Cougar Drive. The property is right here on the aerial I have on the wall. The site is vegetated with a mixture of-- with pine cypress. It also has pine flowerets which occupy most of the eastern portion of the site. And there's about a one-acre cypress stand in the southwest portion of the property. Wetlands on-site, there's about 1 .6 acres of wetlands, and the petitioner will impact about 25 percent of that, about .4 acres. The subject property borders the existing Park Central Development. The Park Central Development also has a special treatment overlay, and it is located here in this green area (indicating), and as you can see the -- the ST area on the Park Central Page 4 July 3, 2001 North property is just an extension of that preserve area and that cypress slough. Petitioner will preserve about 1 .2 acres of wetlands on site, about .09 acres of uplands totaling about 1.29 acres of preserve. That's roughly about 32 percent preservation onsite which exceeds the Land Development Code requirement. There was a protected species survey done. There are no protected species on site, at least none that were observed. Most the property in the area is all developed, so the likelihood of protected species is pretty low, perhaps wading birds and alligators that would visit the canal occasionally. Do you have any questions? I'll be glad to answer them. The petitioner's consultants are here, engineering and environmental staff, and staff is also here to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions of staff? MR. HILL: I have one, Mr. Chairman. On page 2 of the staff report, first paragraph, I'm not sure of the implication there. It says -- it reads (as read): "Because of the size and configuration of the wetland, the footprints of the building are limited." It says, "Therefore," apparently they will be allowed to increase the building height. What's the rational between those two statements? Is that an automatic? MR. REISCHL: No, it's not automatic, and that's why they are requesting the rezone. A rule of thumb, which is not in code but it generally works out that way with parking and stormwater, is that for every acre of land that you have, generally 10,000 square feet of commercial space is developed. So here you have -- there is 3.78 acres and they are developing approximately 36,000 square feet. So it -- with the increase in height they are keeping basically the same rule-of-thumb amount of commercial that they would if there were no wetlands on site. MR. HILL: Okay. Is -- is part of this based on the school Page 5 July 3, 2001 board's petition for 45 feet out there? MR. REISCHL: Actually, the petitioner had asked for 45 feet across the whole site. We asked them to change that so that adjacent to the north portion where they are closer to the residential tract to the north, we asked them to limit that to 35 feet, which is the height that a residential structure could go, so it steps up as you go closer to the Sports Authority. MR. HILL: Thank you. It wasn't an environmental question, Mr. Chairman, but I wasn't sure about the relationship between those statements. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: I have a nonenvironmental question. What's the maximum height allowed in a PUD? MR. REISCHL: In a PUD there is no maximum height. It's whatever the board would approve in that PUD. Maximum height in C-1 -- which is the current zoning of this property would be 35 -- but, for example, the First Baptist, I think, allows some of their structures to go -- just from memory, I think it's 80 -- 80 feet, something like. So it can be unlimited. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further questions? MR. HILL: Does this have to -- the adjoining or adjacent or property owners within, what, 600 feet? MR. REISCHL: Three hundred. MR. HILL: Three hundred, have they been notified and are aware of the variance? MR. REISCHL: They are about to be for the Planning Commission hearing. There's no public notification for EAC. MR. HILL: They will be notified about the request for the building height extension? MR. REISCHL: Yes. MR. HILL: Okay. Page 6 July 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Petitioner like to comment? No. Anyone from the public like to comment? Okay. Discussion, Council. MR. CARLSON: Let's go to 80 feet and save all the wetlands. No. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. That failed for lack of second. What's the pleasure? MR. COE: Motion to approve as written. MR. CARLSON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion to approve by Mr. Coe, second by Mr. Carlson. Discussion. Hearing none, all in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Passed unanimously. Okay. All right. Old business. Mr. Coe had requested an update on what happened before the county commission regarding the ATVs on the beach. Is that what you -- MR. COE: No. I want to ask either Barb or Stan to give us an update on what's happened since the board made their approvals and everything. And I want to see if the Ritz-Carlton has been in compliance with what was passed. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. Staff went out and did a site visit a week ago this past Monday to the Ritz. It was brought to my attention by my supervisor that she had gone out there and seen turtle nests adjacent to stacked chairs and wanted to know if that was appropriate. So I went out with Alex Sulecki with code enforcement. These pictures show two nests that are adjacent to the area that they have been storing their beach furniture. One is approximately three inches from the stack of chairs and the other one is Page 7 July 3, 2001 approximately three feet from the stack of chairs. We brought it to the Ritz's attention that that was not an appropriate storage area. The area that we approved through their variance identified a different location for storage of beach furniture, so they are in the process of bringing that into compliance and readdressing where the furniture should be stored. Just to let you know where that location is, if you happen to go out to the Ritz, on the left here (indicating), this is just the edge of the -- the towel area where they have a table there where they hand out towels. We've asked that the storage box in the back, which they had said was dilapidated and was in need of being rebuilt, that's going to be built or is, I guess, in the process of being rebuilt right now up flush and adjacent to this other structure. And then all of the beach chairs that they're going to be storing on the beach have to be stored back behind that. And that storage box is going to be built flat down to the ground so that turtles cannot get stuck underneath that. And then this is just a picture of the one nest that was closest to the stack of chairs so that they will be carefully removing all of that furniture and should have done already by now and storing that behind the rebuilt storage box area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Questions. MR. HILL: Barb, are you saying that the area they stored the chairs is not in compliance with the directive or as far as specific location for storage, or is it in violation of the area around the nest? MS. BURGESON: Well, it's in violation of a CCSL variance that was issued about six months to a year prior to this nesting season beginning. It should have been rebuilt at that time, and as far as any other violations from the new ordinance, they would have been required since they were having an event that evening, they were -- were required to have put fencing up around that an additional 30 feet out since the state hasn't given us written language for a lesser Page 8 July 3, 2001 distance yet. And when we brought that to their attention they did go ahead and do that, put that taping out so that that nest was buffered with that additional 30 feet. MR. HILL: The chairs were stored prior to the establishment of those nests? MS. BURGESON: Right. Right. MR. HILL: But that still was in violation? MS. BURGESON: Of their variance, right. We have also put together a letter -- just yesterday Kim was working on that for me -- and created a proactive letter that will go out to everyone that we've issued vehicle-on-beach permits to stating that they will need to get to us the calculations for the PSI as well as a photo once they've gotten -- we're giving them -- I'm sure what the time frame is -- maybe it'll be ten days or maybe it'll be 30 days -- to get the aluminum lettering attached to the back wheels of the vehicles that they're using during nesting season so that we have that tire tread identification, and then they need to provide that photo to us for our files. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe. MR. COE: I don't have any other comments. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No other comments? Okay. Growth Management update. I understand we have a report from the Growth Management Subcommittee. Do these go hand in hand or -- we don't have a separate Growth Management update? If we don't, I will turn it over to Ali. MS. SANTORO: I'm coming down here to see what you look like from this angle. We had -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The last time -- the last time, I think Mr. Hill will tell you, that a member of the council went down before and made a presentation he got in trouble, didn't you? MS. SANTORO: Too late. I'm down here. Page 9 July 3, 2001 MR. HILL: Now that you've seen us you might want to come back up here. MS. SANTORO: We had a Growth Management Subcommittee meeting on June 27th attended by Bill Hill, Ed Carlson, Bill Lorenz, and myself, and what we'd like to propose is a wetland policy. Now we have incorporated some of the EAC's recommendations such as including all the jurisdictional wetlands as set by the Southwest Water Management. Considering wetland classifications, you use Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3. But actually those were -- we said that all wetlands are Class 1, and then they were classified otherwise by the degree of loss of functionality of the wetlands, so we are using that premise. We're also incorporating the percentages that were discussed, Class 1 being the best using 0 to 5 percent of impact. Class 2, 6 percent to 25 percent of impact, and Class 3, 26 percent to 50 percent impact. So I'm kind of reviewing what we discussed at other meetings and what you've approved. From there the committee looked at factors that affected the functionality of the wetlands, and actually you also looked at functionality with the categories across the top of the chart that we had looked at before. We agreed to use, absent of hydrological value, lack of wetland plants including percentages of invasion by exotics and lack of wildlife. Now, I think the committee had talked about not using the exotics, but our committee was influenced by Ed Carlson and his biology and Bill Lorenz, the hydrological function. So we are using three more premises. Ed said that based on research 0 to 10 percent invasion of exotics would not affect the functionality of the wetland. He also mentioned, which was interesting, that if you have a very, very great degree of invasion, you can actually get a wetland desert, so to speak, with no wetland plants and no wildlife. And with Bill's influence, we also said that no matter what, if the wetland has -- shows a lack of wildlife, lack of Page 10 July 3, 2001 function, a lack of plants, we still don't want it disturbed or impacted more than 50 percent. So those were three premises -- additional ones that the committee came up with. We then used the wetland rapid assessment procedure, better known as WRAP, and selected similar categories to the ones we just said, the wetland hydrology matrix -- and these are attached -- the wetland plant matrix, which may be a combination of the one that you have, the wetland over-story shrub canopy, and also the wetland plant matrix for ground cover. But basically the difference is if you look at that second one, the plant matrix, we've added percentages of exotic invasion. And also as you look at these three, the WRAP uses three as being the best of that category and zero being the least functioning in those categories. So if you look at the three sheets, each of which go from a zero to a three, we've said that if you add these points using the WRAP, the best wetland would be a 9.9 and the worst wetland, using these three valuation factors, would be a zero. Now, the staff on my chart -- I gave you kind of an outline -- but staff has given you an actual final better-looking graph. You'll notice that on the left side you have percentages of allowable impacts with 50 percent being maximum and along the bottom has got the WRAP scores. Now, there's two things to consider. Staff has used 5 percent. In other words, if it's a 9, it's a very, very good functioning wetland. They're saying that up to 5 percent can be impacted. The committee can decide if they want that at zero, but by using this graph and coming up with a WRAP score, it will indicate to developers the percentage of the amount that we would allow to be impacted. Some of the advantages -- we asked Bill Lorenz -- and this really was a committee without -- with all our input trying to take what the EAC has discussed and some other ideas and putting it together. Bill Lorenz felt that a quantitative method is workable and supportable Page 11 July 3, 2001 and that EAC would only be involved if they felt that the data and scores were invalid or faulty. Also local developers and local engineers often have used the WRAP in their environmental assessment, so they're familiar with it. The other thing is that recently the State of Florida has started proposing a similar WRAP method for determining the percentage of wetlands that can be mitigated. So all and all we felt we were on the right track with coming up with this proposal. If you approve it, the recommendation is then that the EAC would allow a month for public comment and then consider adopting this plan or this plan with modifications at the next meeting. I don't know if staff wants to add anything. MR. HATCHER: For the record, Mac Hatcher with the Natural Resources Department. Bill Lorenz just wanted to make sure that, I guess, you-all add this to the agenda for the August meeting so that we can get public input as well as the committee's input, and the schedule that he would like to shoot for is to propose policy language then for the September meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. So noted. I have one question on the 50 percent. If you have a wetland that completely lacks in plants, completely invaded by exotics and has no wildlife, what's the value of 50 percent? MR. REISCHL: It still serves a function for wetland -- I mean, for groundwater recharge and for stormwater storage and treatment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's assume, then, it has full -- full invasion by exotics, it has no wildlife and the hydrology has been altered. We still save 50 percent of it? MR. REISCHL: It's still going to provide for groundwater recharge. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm just quite -- I mean, what -- what do we do in that case, I mean, to encourage someone to go in Page 12 July 3, 2001 there and clean out the exotics and redo it and things of that sort if-- in a condition like that. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Well, we've included in the handout that Ali gave out is scoring for hydrology wildlife and vegetative alteration, and our logic is what -- practically when we review projects what comes before us are these jurisdictional wetlands. They come before us, and they've been delineated as a jurisdictional wetland, and we're saying that even under the worst of circumstances, if you're a jurisdictional wetland, you're 50 percent protected anyway. That jurisdictional wetland designation gets you somewhere, and then the restoration would come from allowable impacts to the other -- other wetlands on site. MS. BURGESON: Just as a matter of record, on your question regarding the quality of the wetland and why it should be protected, aside from the stormwater protection and the flood control issues, we've done a little bit of study over the years in areas that have been as high as 80 percent exotic invaded that have retained those areas, for instance, down at Lely Resort. They have retained those areas, taken the exotics out, and five years later you could not tell that that area had not been a healthy pine flatwoods all along. So I would imagine we would see similar reestablishment of the wetland species in that area because it would be a requirement to remove all of the exotics. In that case, the hydrology may be the only thing that may be slightly limited or altered, but during the process of the permitting that probably would be something we would address to try to improve that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I think my point I think Ed answered is that, basically, we don't just leave the 50 percent; we use that 50 percent for as -- as mitigation and affect for destruction of other parts of it to come back and rehab. Just sitting there like it is probably is not good use, but if you come in and rehab it, I'm sure it Page 13 July 3, 2001 would be very useful. Okay. Any other discussion? MR. HILL: One thing. The committee, you remember back in our discussions we had that three by six matrix. If this was impacted, it went from one to three, a rather complicated quantitative assessment of the wetland. So in our discussions we felt it's very difficult to rate the impact of the hydrology of the wildlife or the other species, and for simplicity combining the functionality of all three into a single evaluative or quantitative measure seemed to be the best way to go about evaluating the impact, rather than getting caught up in that three by six matrix which we had discussed before and -- pardon the expression -- the committee sort of in terms of entertainment industry, this is a wrap. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's a wrap. MR. COE: I would like to make a motion to approve the committee's report as written. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Now, what we were saying what we wanted to do is to agenda it for the next meeting, ask for public comment, and then move on it at that time? MR. HATCHER: Correct. Actually, we want to -- we want to -- right. Make recommendations in August, and then Bill will come back with policy language in September. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: That's what I was trying to say is approve -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you, sir. I won't let it happen again. MR. COE: -- approve as it is and then open for presentation to the public at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Great. Okay. The motion is that we agenda this for the next meeting and do the public notice and be prepared to discuss it and hear public comment at the next meeting. Hear a second? Page 14 July 3, 2001 MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Mr. Carlson. Favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, passed unanimously. MR. HATCHER: If you could, I was a little slow on getting up on the growth management issue, and I have a little report for you on that. We presented the Rural Fringe Conceptual Plan to the Board of County Commissioners in early June and got their direction to work with the Rural Fringe Committee to develop policy language based on that conceptual plan and work out -- try and work out differences with the Rural Fringe Committee over the summer, and where we can't work out differences, then we will present both sides of the issues to the board in September. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any questions on that? Hearing none, thank you very much. Okay. We have any individual comments from the council members? MR. GAL: I have two comments. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. GAL: First, I think the meeting for August is scheduled the 7th. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's correct, sir. MR. GAL: Is there a way to have it rescheduled to the 1st, for the first Wednesday? MS. BURGESON: The first Wednesday is when it was rescheduled from because the Board of County Commissioners is using that room for a workshop that day. MR. GAL: Okay. So it's impossible. Page 15 July 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I was just going to note Barbara's memo that it is the 7th, which is what day of the week? MS. BURGESON: That's a Tuesday. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Tuesday. MR. WHITE: Isn't it possible, Mr. Chairman -- Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney -- that rather than have the meeting in these chambers, there may be an alternative location that you could have the meeting to accommodate Council Member Gal's request? MS. BURGESON: The only concern we have with that is it does need to be videoed or should be videoed. We've asked about doing other meeting rooms, and they really suggested that this be -- MR. GAL: Might want to try the telephone experiment again. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That was a -- it sounded like a great meeting when it broke, I tell you. MR. CARLSON: Does the -- can it just be videotaped without -- I think -- are we being broadcast live as we speak? MS. BURGESON: Yes, we are. MR. CARLSON: So it can be just videotaped with a camera? MS. BURGESON: I can ask. MR. CARLSON: Because if it can, I have a meeting room at The Sanctuary, if you want to meet there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That would be interesting. Can we -- can we investigate that? MS. BURGESON: Yes, I will. MR. GAL: I appreciate that. MR. WHITE: And, Mr. Chairman, just the mechanics of it -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead, Patrick. MR. WHITE: Mechanics of it would be that we'd need some direction that if it's possible to set it up for the 1st, even if it's at an alternate location, we would need direction from the council to do so. Otherwise it would have to stay on the 7th. I'm interested personally Page 16 July 3, 2001 because I plan on being vacationing after August 1st so if I can make the meeting that would be great; otherwise, that's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson, why don't you articulate on what your thought is. MR. CARLSON: If we want to maintain the meeting date as the first Wednesday in August and have it on the 1st, I have a meeting room available at the Blair Audubon Center for the meeting if technically it can be held there because of the videotaping requirement. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anybody have any objection to having it at Blair Audubon Center? MR. HILL: What's the seating capacity just in case we had a public? MR. CARLSON: Eighty to a hundred people. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't think that will be a problem. MR. HILL: I move we consider and approve that based on the videotaping problem being solved. MR. COE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Hill, second by Mr. Coe. Yes, ma'am. MS. BURGESON: I'll just make sure that if that's available, if we can do that, and we may need to have staff come out for that taping. I'll get back to everybody as soon as I can, probably the beginning of next week. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If the 1st is not available, we will fall back to the 7th. Okay? Everybody agreeable? MR. HILL: Council gets mileage out to the -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Absolutely. And a guided tour by Mr. Carlson. Okay. MR. GAL: And I have one other -- one other issue. I think about a month and a half back I saw an article in the Naples Daily Page 17 July 3, 2001 News about a resolution passed by the Collier County Commission that adopted a Marco Island City Council resolution asking, I think it was, the Fish and Wildlife -- maybe it was the DEP -- to reconsider their -- their plans to protect manatees in the area, and that's all I know about the issue. But I do know that I didn't discuss it, and it didn't go before this board that I'm aware of, and I would like to know if it should have. MS. BURGESON: I don't know much more about it than you do. I actually happened to have caught a part of that discussion over the TV from my office. I understand from the presentations that I saw that they were asking the board to not support something that had already been approved, so it was a moot point. If you'd like, I can try to research that a little bit and bring that back to you at the next meeting. MR. GAL: If you could, yeah, because I think it's something that we should have some input on, and that would be nice. MS. BURGESON: I agree. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. HILL: Could we also ask for a report on the Ritz and Registry situation at the August meeting. MS. BURGESON: Yes. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to point out for the record that although today may be the day, we have yet to receive any notification from the Secretary of State with respect to the filing of the ordinance that contained those vehicle-on-the-beach and related provisions from this round of amendments, so just for the record we have yet to establish what the effective date of those regulations is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. Any other comments? Yes, Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Just on behalf of Ed and myself, I don't want to put Page 18 July 3, 2001 words in your mouth, Ed, but I would like to thank Ali for her work on the Growth Management subcommittee. She's kind of held us together. We appreciate that. MR. COE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Santoro, thank you very much. Any comments from the public? Hearing none, I believe we're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:36 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD, COURT REPORTER Page 19 Item V. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF AUGUST 1,2001 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development Amendment (Insubstantial) No. PDI-2001-AR-471 Petition Name: Silver Lakes PUD Applicant/Developer: Conquest Development U.S.A., L.C. Engineering Consultant: McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Butler Environmental, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 1.5 miles south of the intersection of U.S. 41 and Collier Boulevard in Sections 10 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The western boundary of the property is immediately adjacent to Collier Boulevard. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties include both developed and undeveloped parcels. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Agricultural Undeveloped Estates Undeveloped S - PUD (Champion Lakes RV Resort) Undeveloped PUD (Pelican Lake) Developed E - MH (Quails Roost Mobile Home Park) Developed PUD (Champion Lakes RV Resort) Undeveloped W - Agricultural Partially Developed C-5 Developed IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EAC Meeting Page 2 of 9 C The petitioner seeks approval of an insubstantial amendment to the Silver Lakes PUD Master Plan from the design that was approved via PUD-89-15, when the PUD was approved in 1991. This amendment will increase the area of the Conservation tract from 3 acres to 26 acres, reduce the park/TTRV area from 26 acres to 24 acres, reduce the Buffer areas from 5 acres to 3 acres and reduce the Commons/Recreation areas from 97 acres to 78 acres. These changes will allow the applicant to comply with the requirements of the State and Federal permitting. In order to achieve the above-mentioned changes, it is necessary to relocate some of the Park/TTRV lots on the site. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. With regards to native vegetation preservation and wetland issues, the following Objectives and Policies apply: 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". EAC Meeting Page 3 of 9 r 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 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's policy, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners, to allow for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands when State and Federal agency permits are issued. The petition is consistent with Objective 6.4 in that it provides for 25% on-site native vegetation preservation pursuant to Policy 6.4.6. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: The existing surface water management system consists of interconnected lakes and swales that provide for water quality retention and peak flow retention. The EAC Meeting Page 4 of 9 proposed changes will be required to demonstrate compliance with SFWMD rules and regulations. Environmental: Site Description: An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was performed on the 37.3 acre undeveloped portion of the PUD, immediately north of the Deltona Settlement Agreement line. Native vegetation in this portion of the PUD consists of pine flatwoods, wetland forested mix, mixed wetland hardwoods and wax myrtle/scattered cabbage palm, all of which have been determined to be jurisdiction wetlands by the State and Federal permitting agencies. The remainder of the PUD is within the Deltona Settlement Agreement and currently developed as a mobile home park. f `P£ C + wti'. FLUCFCS Code 617 Mixed Wetland Hardwood J .. ,: : ' s illi 'r: I EAC Meeting • Page 5 of 9 C FLUCFCS Code 4119M1 Pine Flatwoods with Exotics, Hydric According to the Collier County Soil Survey prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), two soil types are found on the project site, Oldsmar Fine Sand (Unit 16) and Holopaw Fine Sand (Unit 27). The approximate boundaries of the soils as mapped out by the NRCS are shown as Exhibit E of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Holopaw Fine Sand (Unit 27) is listed as a hydric soil by the NRCS. Seasonal high water levels for the project were determined using piezometers that were installed throughout the Silver Lakes property in 1990. Throughout the monitoring period the recorded water levels ranged from 1.03 to 3.61 feet NGVD with an average ground elevation of 3.50 feet NGVD. The permitted control elevation for the site is 3.00 ft NGVD. The piezometer readings are included in Exhibit L of the EIS. Wetlands: The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) have exerted jurisdiction over the entire northern 37.3 acres of the PUD. The project as proposed will result in approximately 11.7 acres of direct impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Compensation for wetland impacts will include the preservation and enhancement of the remaining 25.9 acres of wetland habitat on site. Enhancement will include removal of any agricultural berms and ditches within the preserve, and removal of nuisance and exotic species such as Brazilian pepper, Melaleuca and earleaf Acacia. Additionally, in a recent submittal to the SFWMD, it has been proposed that mitigation credits for 4.89 acres be purchased from Panther Island Mitigation Bank, or similar type bank. Preservation Requirements: The project will preserve approximately 25.9 acres (69.5%) of the native vegetation within the portion of the PUD outside the boundary of the Deltona Settlement Agreement. This exceeds the 25% native vegetation preservation requirement in section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Land Development Code. The remaining (southern portion) of the PUD is identified as an area to be developed within the Deltona Settlement Agreement. No preservation on native vegetation is required in this portion of the PUD. EAC Meeting • Page 6 of 9 THE DrLTONA CORPORATION 4 f- rell01‘ i1.� "` __ I' _. • y 1 ewnan uv,unua, ¢�(, 4Y.y ,w«eec.wea�. rMe�rru.r. _Al ' f \/ .b„�. t t `..• 1104, -11" * • .2E10" • t` ° .,,- -4 Listed Species: A listed species survey was conducted during the months of August and November 2000, with pedestrian transects performed in all habitat types found on site. No listed species or evidence of listed species, were observed on site during the survey or during other field investigations on site. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development Amendment (Insubstantial) No. PDI-2001-AR-471 "Silver Lakes PUD" with the following stipulations: Water Management: C EAC Meeting Page 7 of 9 No stipulations. Environmental: No stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: (al/ / STAN CHRZANOW' , P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINE 7/Y/w/ STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: 743460/ CHAHRAM BADAMTCHIAN, Ph. ., AI DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER l3 boo USAN MURRAY, AICPDATE INTERIM CURRENT PLANNING MANAG Al" Sd;1/tilnal' tiaria 70a/ THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE INTERIM PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR EAC Meeting Page 9 of 9 APPROVED BY: ‘ ----)i,�� .kmw,\.ve 713/1(9 j JO ` M. DUNNUCK, III DATE INT'RIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENT• 41 VISORY CO ' CIL THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CH A 01'AN SL/gdh/c: StaffReport _ . Item V. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2001 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-986 Petition Name: Walnut Lakes PUD Applicant/Developer: Kenneth P. Saundry, Jr. Trustee Engineering Consultant: Vanasse &Daylor, LLP Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 204 acre parcel located on the north side of U.S. 41, approximately 2 1/2 miles east of Collier Boulevard, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties include both developed and undeveloped parcels with the following zoning classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - PUD (Naples Reserve Golf Club) Undeveloped S - R.O.W. U.S. 41 A Undeveloped TTRVC (Imperial Wilderness) Developed PUD (Paradise Point) Developed E - A Undeveloped MH (West Wind MHP) Developed C-2 Developed W - A Undeveloped ,, IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: wrr✓ • EAC Meeting Page 2 of 10 The proposed 240-acre PUD is a mixed-use development consisting of single family and multi-family residential, ALF, golf course, and a Neighborhood Village Center. The residential dwellings are designed around the golf course and preserve areas. The residential/recreation lands are comprised of 125.5-acres while the Neighborhood Village Center is on 4.5 acres. The site is north of the Naples Reserve Golf Club, which is also approved for a golf course and residential development. To the east is the Westwind Mobile Home Park and properties zoned C-2. The petitioner has indicated that the primary objective is to develop a maximum of 612 dwelling units while the PUD Master Plan also provides 14-acres for the ALF and 21-acres for the preserve areas. Lastly, the subject site is accessed from US-41 and from a proposed north/south public road along the west side of the project. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject site is located within the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-district that is intended to provide locations for the development of higher densities. This district permits a base density of four(4) dwelling units per acre pursuant to the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). A consistency analysis with applicable elements of the GMP is as follows: FLUE and Density: The FLUE permits residential dwellings such as those units proposed for Walnut Lakes PUD. The project density is also consistent with the Density Rating System contained in the FLUE and is based on a Base Density of 4 units per acre and subtracting one unit per acre for a total of 3 units per acre. The PUD document and Master Plan indicate that the project is intended for 612 dwelling units at a density of approximately 3 units per acre. As a result, staff is of the opinion that the requested density is consistent with the Density Rating System of the Growth Management Plan. 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 .r in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an EAC Meeting Page 3 of 10 attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. With regards to native vegetation preservation and wetland issues, the following Objectives and Policies apply: 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 r..r groundcover. Where a project has included open space, recreational amenities, or EAC Meeting Page 4 of 10 preserved wetlands that meet or exceed the minimum open space criteria of Collier County, this policy shall not be construed to require a larger percentage of open space set aside to meet the 25% native vegetation policy. This policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands alone constitute more than 25% of the site. Exceptions shall be granted for parcels that cannot reasonably accommodate both the native vegetation and the proposed activity". This petition is consistent with staff's policy, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners, to allow for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands when State and Federal agency permits are issued. The petition is consistent with Objective 6.4 in that it provides for 25% on-site native vegetation preservation pursuant to Policy 6.4.6. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: The proposed surface water management system utilizes a series of interconnected lakes and swales to achieve water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. Discharge will be into the US 41 north side canal at the rate of 0.15 cfs per county ordinance 90-10. Permits from SFWMD and FDOT will be necessary for the surface water management and for discharging into the canal Environmental: Site Description: Most of the subject property is within the Deltona Settlement Agreement and farmed historically and later partially developed as the Naples Isle project. A lake was excavated in the center of the property and fill material deposited in the adjacent farm field. Most of the property is now overgrown with weedy and exotic vegetation. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 10 C , ':' —. Open borrow pit on subject property with disturbed land (FLUCFCS Code 740) in background. Native habitats on site are mostly found in the north-east portion of the property, in the area not within the Deltona Settlement Agreement. Native habitats in this area include pine flatwoods, pine-cypress and palmetto prairie. Also within the confines of the PUD are areas of cypress, wax myrtle/willow and live oak. C , „4. .‘,..'', ,..:071 ;0,.... }4 � t i'i� • r"Z� a f. 4, 4 ,4., .., ir,..‘ , .•,:.... „......,„., FLUCFCS Code 4151 Pine, Hydric EAC Meeting Page 6 of 10 ii,,e4 ,:0 y jl�� 16 , r '*,-11 : ,.I ;>'.1*. I:2- -,, • . 1 \ 'f l �J x v 8s pF ave- , FLUCFCS Code 6249 Pine-Cypress, Disturbed According to the Collier County Soils Map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), four soil types occur on the project site. These are Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 2), Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 14), Oldsmar fine sand (Unit 16), and Ft. Drum and Malabar, High, fine sand (Unit 20). The majority of the soils on site are Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 2), which is listed as a hydric soil by the NRCS. A C, description of each of the soil types found on site is provided in Exhibit D of the environmental impact statement (EIS). Nails marking biological indicators (i.e., lichen lines, adventitious rooting, buttress on cypress trees, etc.) of were set in the field on January 15, 2001 and subsequently surveyed to determine wetland seasonal water levels. Based on these nail elevations, it is estimated that the seasonal high water elevation on the north part of the property is 5.9 feet NGVD and that on the south is 5.1 feet NGVD. The control elevation for the project is proposed as 4.0 feet NGVD. Wetlands: Approximately 71.46 acres of SFWMD/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the property. These include hydric pine flatwoods (11.85 acres), disturbed land (46.89 acres), pine-cypress (6.41 acres), wax myrtle/willow (4.75 acres) and cypress (1.56 acres). Development of the project will result in impacts to approximately 60.05 acres (84%) of the wetlands on site. With respect to wetland impacts, it should be noted that the property (excluding the 21 acres in the north-east portion of the site) is located within the boundaries of the Deltona Settlement Agreement. Per discussions with SFWMD staff, impacts to jurisdiction wetlands on that portion of the property within the vie Settlement Agreement were previously mitigated as part of the Deltona EAC Meeting Page 7 of 10 Settlement. However, to incorporate wetlands into the site plan and to provide additional compensation for wetland impacts, the petitioner is proposing to create 11.52 acres of wetlands, enhance and preserve 11.41 acres of wetlands, and preserve 0.11 acre of uplands. The northern preserved wetlands will be located adjacent to the larger wetland preserve within the Naples Reserve PUD immediately north of the project. Wetland creation will involve grading the historic farm fields to appropriate wetland elevations and planting with native wetland vegetation. Preserved wetlands will be enhanced by hand removal of exotic plant species. yy " 3, $ FLUCFCS Codes 740/7401 Looking north at disturbed land on the subject property. The forested area in the background is the future preserve within Naples Reserve Golf Club. The petitioner is proposing to create forested wetlands. Planting in the wetland enhancement and creation areas will include all three strata (trees, shrubs and ground covers). Tree plantings will include slash pine, cypress, and red maple. Shrub and ground cover plantings will include wax myrtle, sand cord grass (Spartina bakeri), saw grass (Cladium iamaicense), gulfdune paspalum (Paspalum monostachyum, and wiregrass (Aristida stricta). Preservation Requirements: Approximately 21 acres of native vegetation are found on the project site, outside the limits of the Deltona Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Land Development Code, a minimum of 25% (5.25 acres) of native vegetation shall be retained on site. This requirement is fully satisfied by the 21 acres identified for preservation on the PUD master plan. Listed Species: EAC Meeting Page 8 of 10 A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted on May 31 and November 6, 2000 to determine whether the site was being utilized by state and federal listed species. Additional listed species observations were made during vegetative mapping and wetland flagging conducted July 24 and 25, 2000. The survey methodology and results are found in Exhibit E of the EIS. No listed wildlife species were observed on the property during the survey or during other on-site visits. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR- 986 "Walnut Lakes PUD" with the following stipulations: Water Management: The petition must obtain permits from SFWMD and FDOT prior to SDP Approval. Environmental: No additional stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 9 of 10 PREPARED BY: 4-7AWF /D.7ULO/ STAN CHRZANOWSKI, ` . DATE SENIOR ENGINEER 74Q/11261 S EPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: 734 -7//0/2,e0 RAYM(#4: I V. BELLOWS DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER 7 -- 1 ( -0 / SAN MURRAY, MCP DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER (i44 ;z a-a/ THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE INTERIM PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR EAC Meeting Page 10 of 10 APPROVED BY: J S i M. DUNNUCK, III DATE INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL T 0 AS '. SANSBURY, AIRMAN SL/gdh/c: StaffReport Item V. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2001 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-432 Petition Name: Indigo Lakes PUD Applicant/Developer: Kenco Development, Inc. Engineering Consultant: Banks Engineering, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 0.6 of a mile south of Immokalee Road in Sections 27 & 34, CTownship 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties include both developed and undeveloped parcels. Properties to the north and west are either developed or under construction, while those to the south are undeveloped. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - PUD (Ibis Cove) Under Construction PUD (Laurelwood) Under Construction A (Oakridge Middle School) Developed S - A Undeveloped E - R.O.W. Collier Boulevard W - PUD (Ibis Cove) Under Construction PUD (Heritage Greens) Partially Developed PUD (Islandwalk) Developed IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EAC Meeting Page 2 of 9 The approved Indigo Lakes PUD presently allows a mixture of single family and multiple family residential development. The maximum permitted number of dwelling units is 442, which computes to a gross density of 3.14 dwelling units per acre. The replacement PUD adds forty acres of land to the south side of the existing project and to reduces the density from 3.14 to 2.43 Odwelling units per acre. This petition does not propose to add additional dwelling units above the 442 which were approved at the original adoption of the project. There will be no decrease in the size of the previously approved preserve areas. There will be no change in the location and numbers of access points originally approved under the original PUD. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The site is located in the Urban Mixed Use Residential Land Use classification as designated area on the County's Future Land Use Map. Urban Residential Mixed Use is inclusive of a variety of residential land uses including single family, multi- family, duplex, mobile home and mixed use (Planned Unit Development). The subject petition is for a mixed use residential PUD, for single family and multifamily land uses, which are authorized uses of land in the urban residentially NI Mir designated area of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), therefore, it is consistent with the FLUE. The projected density of 2.43 dwelling units per acre and is consistent with the density rating system contained in 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 EAC Meeting Page 3 of 9 lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. With regards to native vegetation preservation and wetland issues, the following Objectives and Policies apply: 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 than 25% of the site. Exceptions shall be granted for parcels that EAC Meeting Page 4 of 9 cannot reasonably accommodate both the native vegetation and the proposed activity". This petition is consistent with staff's policy, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners, to allow for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands when State and Federal agency permits are issued. The petition is consistent with Objective 6.4 in that it provides for 25% on-site native vegetation preservation pursuant to Policy 6.4.6. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: Indigo Lakes is within the Harvey Basin, and has an allowable discharge rate of 0.055 cfs/acre. The project water management consists of a series of interconnected lakes to provide for water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. Discharge is to the southwest through ditches and into the Islandwalk P.U.D. Environmental: Site Description: The purpose of the PUD amendment is to add two parcels, each approximately 20 acres in size, to the existing PUD. Native plant associations on the two parcels include pine flatwoods, pine/cypress and shrub wetland. Also on site are approximately 8.96 acres of fallow farmland. Much of the site is heavily invaded with Melaleuca. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 9 • ' ''; ':.� ' p •' .. r 4, ''-7.;''/ 't,-;''' i t a x ilf:. F f x 4: ,4 y{t V-41 l '' ' ..; it }ly . ' h [T.I 1' a V/ # �} .11 -.--.-_7 FLUCFCS Code 6249 Pine/Cypress,Wetland CAccording to the Collier County Soils Map prepared by the Natural Resources „r Conservation Service (NRCS), the following three soil types are found on the property: Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 2); Basinger fine sand (Unit 17); and Holopaw fine sand (Unit 27). All soil types on the subject property are listed as hydric by the NRCS. Wetlands: Approximately 25.11 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the parcels to be added to the PUD. Jurisdictional wetlands consist of pine/cypress (23.58 acres), shrub wetland (1.38 acres) and disturbed land (0.15 acres). A total of 17.81 acres of impacts to SFWMD/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands are proposed with the PUD amendment. Compensation for wetland impacts will include off-site purchase of 1.46 credits from Panther Island Mitigation Bank or Big Cypress Mitigation Bank, depending on credit availability. In addition the petitioner is proposing to create 0.09 acre of wetland and enhance 0.93 acre of upland on-site within the parcels to be added to the PUD. Enhancement will include removal of exotic vegetation and supplemental planting with native species. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 9 The PUD upon completion will encompass three wetlands. The first, located at the easterly limit of the project, is platted as a preserve area with a conservation easement granted to the Water Management District. The second is also platted with a conservation easement, to which 4 acres will be added. A third preserve, approximately 4 acres in size, will be located along the southern most boundary of the PUD. Seasonal high water elevation for the first wetland is expected to be 12.5 feet NGVD, which is its average ground elevation and is influenced both by the permitted control elevation of Indigo Lake's lake #1, also 12.5 feet NGVD, and the elevation of the Water Management District's County Road 951 ditch which, being connected to the Cocohatchee Canal, is controlled at elevation 12.0 feet NGVD by Big Cypress's Coco 3 structure. The seasonal high water elevation for wetland #2 is expected to be 12.0 feet NGVD, which is slightly below its ground elevation of 12.5 feet NGVD and is influenced by the permitted control elevation of Indigo Lake's lake#2, also 12.0 feet NGVD. The seasonal high water elevation for wetland#3 is expected to average 11.0 feet NGVD, which is below its average ground elevation but is influenced both by the control elevation of the abutting project, Island Walk, which is 10.0 feet NGVD. Physical evidence of pool elevations within the wetlands, such as stain lines and rooting, are not a true representation of seasonal high water levels but rather evidence of flooding caused by permitted agricultural discharges which occurred prior to the transition of the area from agricultural to housing. These permitted discharges caused localized flooding since Wolf Road, located between the southerly border of Indigo Lakes and the ditch along side Vanderbilt Beach Road, was constructed with out equalizer culverts and therefore acted like a dike. Preservation Requirements: Approximately 25 acres of native vegetation are found on the parcels to be added to the PUD. Pursuant to section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Land Development Code, a minimum of 5.25 acres (25%) of native vegetation shall be retained on site. The acreage is reflected in the Land Use Summary on the PUD Master Plan. Listed Species: A survey of the property was conducted on August 29, 2000 to identify species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as Endangered, Threatened, Species of Special Concern, or Commercially Exploited. The survey included walking meandering transects across the property for coverage of approximately 50 percent of the site. No listed plant or animal species were observed during the survey period. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 9 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR- 432 "Indigo Lakes PUD" with the following stipulations: Water Management: A modification of the SFWMD Surface Water Management Permit will be required. Environmental: No additional stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: iA. STAN CHRZANOW+ , P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEE' 7//�/co/ STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II 7// a/o/ SUSAN MURRAY, AICP DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER REVIEWED BY: 4finags tei THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE INTERIM PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR C EAC Meeting Page 9 of 9 C APPROVED BY: .c • 7/,3/a, JOH M. DUNNUCK, III DATE INTE IM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN SL/gdh/c: StaffReport COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 July 23, 2001 Special Treatment Permit# ST-1045 Jack McVicker 4100 Cutlass Lane Naples, FL 34102 RE: Special Treatment Permit No. ST-1045 Dear Mr. McVicker: The referenced matter will be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council during its forthcoming meeting scheduled for August 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,Stephen LenbergerU USr. Environmental Specialist SL/DD/h:\EAC letters Attachments cc: EAC File PHONE(941)403-2400 FAX(941)643-6968 www.co.collier.fl.us COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 July 23, 2001 Silver Lakes PUD Dwight Nadeau RWA 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive Suite 270 Naples, FL 34104 RE: Special Treatment Permit No. ST-1045 Dear Mr.Nadeau: The referenced matter will be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council during its forthcoming meeting scheduled for August 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, (A Stephen Lenberger Sr. Environmental Specialist SL/DD/h:\EAC letters Attachments cc: EAC File PHONE(941)403-2400 FAX(941)643-6968 www.co.collier.fl.us "A COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 July 23, 2001 Cindy Penny PMS Inc. of Naples 2335 N. Tamiami Trail Suite 408 Naples,FL 34103 RE: Planned Unit Development Petition No. PUDZ-2001-AR-432 "Indigo Lakes PUD" Dear Ms. Penny: The referenced matter will be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council during its forthcoming meeting scheduled for August 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, r)0A 6au6-- R-tuai,40Z1---- 1 Stephen Lenberger Sr. Environmental Specialist SL/DD/h:\EAC letters Attachments cc: EAC File Kenneth P. Saundry, Jr., Trustee ,/ PHONE(941)403-2400 FAX(941)643-6968 www.co.collier.fl.us COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION July 23, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Cindy Penny 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE PMS Inc. of Naples NAPLES, FL 34104 2335 N. Tamiami Trail Suite408 Naples, FL 34103 RE: Planned Unit Development Petition No. PUDZ-2001-AR-986 "Walnut Lakes PUD" Dear Ms. Penny: The referenced matter will be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council during its forthcoming meeting scheduled for August 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)659-5741. Very truly yours, Stephen Lenberger Sr. Environmental Specialist SL/DD/h:\EAC letters Attachments cc: EAC File Kenneth P. Saundry, Jr., Trustee v/ PHONE(941)403-2400 FAX(941)643-6968 www.co.collier.fl.us