Loading...
EAC Agenda 11/07/2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA November 7, 2001 9:00 A.M. (Back half of) Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F")—Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of October 3, 2001 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2001-AR-1404 "Silver Lakes PUD" Section 10 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East B. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-1464 "Rookery Bay Towers PUD" Section 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East V. Old Business A. Wetlands Policy discussion • VI. New Business LDC AMENDMENTS VII. Growth Management Update VIII. Subcommittee Report A. Growth Management Subcommittee B. Rural Fringe Advisory Committee Liaison 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 October 26, 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. phillips_s From: phillips_s Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:30 PM To: phillips_s Subject: FW: EAC meeting-11/7/01 Original Message From: burgeson_b Sent: Tuesday,October 30, 2001 11:50 AM To: phillips_s Subject: RE: EAC meeting Thanks Original Message From: phillips_s Sent: Tuesday,October 30, 2001 11:50 AM To: burgesonb Subject: EAC meeting Erica Lynne called this morning to notify us that she will not be able to attend the Nov. EAC meeting. Sharon Phillips Planning Secretary 4te a/c—klt, io/2. -11 o 1 AD C 1 October 3, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, October 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 8:58 a.m. IN REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas W. Sansbury Michael G. Coe William W. Hill Erica Lynne Alexandra "Allie" Santoro Alfred F. Gal, Jr. Larry Stone Chester Soling Ed Carlson ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney William D. Lorenz, Jr., Natural Resources Stan Chrzanowski, P.E., Senior Engineer Page 1 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Before we start I would like to say if we can just have one short moment of silence for all the folks in the planes and Pentagon and WTC that we lost. If we can have a moment of silence. Thanks. I was going to ask Colonel to lead the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, but only one problem. MR. COE: No flag. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's call roll. MRS. BURGESON: William Hill is on an excused absence. He will hopefully be in in the next half hour. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal. MR. GAL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Sansbury. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe. MR. COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Santoro. MS. SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Soling. MR. SOLING: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Stone. MR. STONE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. The agenda for today, do we have any additions? Deletions? Revisions? MS. BURGESON: I would like to suggest we do the Land Development Code amendment first, since Bill Lorenz is on his way over and the rest of the agenda is basically Bill's. Page 2 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: LDC first. Okay. Mr. Chrzanowski is going to address us today. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I will stand back a little further so I can see everybody. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A month ago at the meeting I handed out the revised Section 3.5 of the Land Development Code dealing with excavations. I don't know how detailed you want to get into today's conversation about excavations. The excavation ordinance -- I started engineering in this town in '83, and it was in place then, the excavation ordinance, as pretty near as it existed until this last rewrite with a few minor changes. They track excavations in this town -- and it was never in the ordinance -- the -- you had to go to the -- it was never in Section 3.5 of the ordinance, which deals with excavations. You had to go to the definition's portion of the ordinance to find out that an excavation is when you dig earth over any area greater than 3 feet deep or if you dig greater than a foot deep over 10, 000 square foot. So a lot of retention areas where -- where they had the real shallow ones that were engineered yet -- were over a quarter of an acre for, say, a shopping center qualify as an excavation, and we got a little confusion about that. So we have incorporated that definition into the ordinance right now straight out of the -- into the Section 3.5 straight out of the back of the definition's portion. The one reason -- the big reason the ordinance was rewritten this time so extensively is that maybe 5 or 6 years ago the Board of County Commissioners received a request from Al McCall, who was a Vietnam veteran, handicap -- gentleman died a couple of years afterwards -- talked in front of the Board of Commissioners, why he couldn't build a fish pond in his backyard. And he lived on maybe 5 areas in the Estates and wanted to dig him a fish pond. Page 3 October 3, 2001 Well, the one thing we have about our excavations is that we try to make them at least 12 feet deep. And the reason for that is -- there was quite a scare in the late '80s about hydrilla, a weed that was taking over everywhere. They figured if the bottom of the lake was so deep that acquatic vegetation couldn't see light that the lake would stay relatively acquatic vegetation free except for the perimeter of the lake -- because they had few lakes in town where the acquatic vegetation was pretty near taking over the lake -- they wanted a certain depth of lake as a minimum. McCall could dig a 2-acre pond 12 foot deep would have created a 2-acre pile 12 feet high. Simple math. To do that on a 5-acre parcel, you have got 3 acres left. He had to haul fill off site. Well, the way the excavation ordinance handled fill hauled off of site -- if you were a Better Roads digging the Willow Run quarry 30 million acre -- 30 million cubic yards over 30 years, you were a commercial excavation. If you were Al McCall digging a 2-acre pond and hauling -- on 100, 000 acre -- 100, 000 cubic yards of fill off site, you were the same class of commercial excavation. So they weren't allowed in the Estates. The board listened to McCall's logic as to why he could not dig a fish pond in his own backyard, and somebody from the attorney's office made the opinion that this was no different than having -- selling a car off of your front yard with a for sale sign, that you had a pile of dirt and you were selling it -- it was so short. It was basically a one-hot deal. It was not an ongoing commercial excavation. So for a long time we issued these excavations in Golden Gate Estates for smaller one- to two-acre excavations. The largest one we ever issued was to Jolley Trucking. He was fortunate enough to have put in -- to have accumulated four parcels, which gave him, like, 20 acres. And we have -- we had a formula if you were 5 acres, you could do, like -- it's in there right now. I think by the time you were Page 4 October 3, 2001 20 acres, you were up to 50 percent. So he has a fairly large lake on these 20 acres of land. He's the only one in there that has that. All the rest of them are fairly small. They are done on 5 or 10 acres. Some are done on two and a half. You can dig a decent one-acre lake on two and half acres of land. Most of the excavations in the Estates were done in the northeast corner of the Estates. Up near Corkscrew Swamp it is a high piece of land called Big Corkscrew Island, which the northeast Estates -- if you look at the old U.S.G.S. Geological Survey maps, they call the whole Big Corkscrew Island. You can see that the land there is a lot higher than the other land, and it's -- there is a different type of vegetation. A lot was cleared for farms. And it was cleared because it's a very deep sand. It drains well, and it's also excellent for excavating. So all pretty -- since we don't allow blasting in the Estates, pretty near all the requests that we got for excavation have been in that northeast corner. A lot of you have been there through this history before. I have given this speech a few times. A few of you are new and have not heard it before. The board -- Commissioner Coletta when he came on was getting some questions and pressure from some of the Estates' residents about these excavations. There were a lot of questions. We -- over the years we have gotten questions, like, we had one person called up -- the guy that digging -- excavation on a lot next to her, and it was in the dry season, and the wet season came, and the water level started rising, and she swore to me that the lake was going to keep coming up and flooding Golden Gate Estates because it had been coming up for a month. We get a lot of concern from neighbors up there that we don't see as a problem from an engineering point of view. There were concerns about evaporation, transpiration. The lake might be draining the water table faster than the trees were. There were Page 5 October 3, 2001 concerns that the lake could contaminate the ground water table. Well, there is a canal -- there is an extensive canal system going through Golden Gate Estates. Parts of it dry out and people drive swamp buggies in the bottom of it. And we have oil fields right next to us, and that has never contaminated the ground water table. If you change your oil in your backyard and spill it on the ground, you are going to contaminate the ground water table in a way that you can't see because if you do it in a lake, you have a skim of oil on the top. So there are some concerns, and I will admit some are legitimate. But I see scenarios where the exact same thing could happen, and we will never know about it. So Commissioner Coletta had us take another look at the excavation ordinance. And we rewrote the ordinance based on a couple of public hearings that we had. We had a meeting with the Golden Gate Civic Association, a nighttime meeting. They looked at the rewrite of the ordinance, and they expressed all their fears about a couple of areas that looked like one giant war zone with craters in it. We showed them that most of the areas that we have had the lakes shaped such that there is a buildable house on the lake itself. These house lots with the lakes on them, generally the price goes up. There was some concern that the lots would be so high priced that people could not afford them. And I guess when that happens, the price goes down. It's a remarkable economy, whatever. But the rewrite of the ordinance was for that purpose. It's a long time since it had been looked at. When you look at the ordinance, you will see a lot of housekeeping in there; capitalization of letters, punctuation. We got comments from the Collier County Planning Commission -- one member only -- Joyceanne Rautio who sent me, like, seven or eight items. Most of them were -- all of them were housekeeping items. The last one I agreed with. The other -- I think Page 6 October 3, 2001 when we meet with them tonight -- I responded to her -- but, you know, if she wants us to do it, we will. I'm not sure whether it's a good idea. It's that kind of items. They are all housekeeping. I handed you all copies -- except I think we mailed two out to members at the last meeting -- and asked you to read them and see if you had any additions, deletions, or any real serious questions about what we are doing. The one thing you might notice is that we have added a lot of classes of excavation. And that -- when we were in this, people kept sending us copies of the excavation ordinances -- Sarasota and Martin County and a couple of other places -- we noticed -- like I talked about Willow Run -- that they treated the large excavation pretty near the same as the small ones. It ended up to where when we charged a road impact fee for hauling of the fill off site on commercial, that the large excavation -- when you did it by a per-cubic-yard cost of this impact fee -- it was fractions of a penny per cubic yards. The small guys -- the guys digging in the Estates was picking up. The brunt of it, you know, 15 to 20 cents a cubic yard. The reason that is is the formula we're giving -- it's a computer formula done by a consultant quite a while ago -- we were given it by transportation -- when you plug in a long term, 30 years, the formula knocks down the cost because it's based on long-term excavation. To our way of thinking, you know, the road isn't looking up at the truck and feeling the weight, doesn't care that it's a long-term excavation or not. We kept saying it ought to be based on a per truck per cubic yard. And we have talked to transportation. And we are -- we have a formula for a new fee that we are going to try and incorporate into this for the next go-around that is going to be based on the amount of damage done by hauling so much fill across our roads per year. We Page 7 October 3, 2001 think that would be a lot more equitable. The other changes we are going to make more equitable; that's the reason you get the classes on excavation. That's why we have done what we have done. And if anybody has any questions or doesn't like something that we have done, we will be glad to entertain and forward whatever is it to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for Stan? MR. CARLSON: I don't want to be a troublemaker or sound flippant, but by this definition the removal of any materials of depth greater than three feet below existing rate of a four foot posthole or -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. If you read in there, there is something about foundations and pipes farther in the excavation. You can dig for a pipe in the ground as long as you back fill it or put a foundation or something like that in the ground; that's not flippant. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anything else? MS. SANTORO: As I had comments as I went through it, you mentioned 12 foot. You know, the framework. Now this is increased to 20 feet. Why? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. MS. SANTORO: That was one of my questions. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, we have found that a lot of areas in the county that water table drops a lot deeper than 6 feet. We have been doing research. The 12 foot -- I went to a seminar up in Orlando a couple of weeks ago and learned a little about lakes. You know, our lakes are based -- our lake depth is based on the veg formula. The veg formula is from a study done in 1973 by a black fellow Eisman for the old water management advisory board. Lakes in the North -- anybody that knows water chemistry knows that water is densest at 4 degrees centigrade. So when a lake in the North freezes, it passes through a cycle where the top of the lake turns Page 8 October 3, 2001 denser just before it freezes and the lake overturns, and then it starts getting less dense which is why ice floats. It does not float because of its own oxygen or the oxygen that comes out of it. Up North you get this cycle where a lake overturn. In the South you don't get a similar lake overturn circle, and they decided that a lake should be -- it should have a geometry such that it does overturn. And they figure the mechanism is the wind, so the fetch is to find this distance across the surface of the lake, and the wind can pick up friction below the water against one shore of the lake, and the lake starts to spin and overturn. They found on a really deep lake that only the surface -- 10, 20 feet overturns. And the formula, which is, like, 5 feet plus .015 times the average fetch -- if you have got a lake that is a mile by a mile, it can be, like, 80 feet. You have to be a thousand by thousand to be 20 feet deep. But a 20-foot deep lake still overturns because, I guess, there is still some -- if you have a lake that is just smaller, it has that depth -- it starts not to overturn. But up to 20 feet it overturns. And the water table does drop to where 20-feet deep lake is really only 12 feet deep in a lot of the areas of the county. So you're probably thinking, well, there's not too many counties -- a lot of them I found out -- no limit on lake excavation by ordinance. A lot of them are limited to 12, and a lot are limited to 20. We think 20 is a proper number for our conditions down here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And further questions? MS. SANTORO: Go ahead. He did want to comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MS. SANTORO: Under this section you had an excerpt -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can you give me a number? MS. SANTORO: 3.5.5. 1 .2. And I was concerned about the exception. The exception to being a commercial excavation is up to Page 9 October 3, 2001 4, 000 cubic yards. Now, I asked my husband -- he has more experience with it. He said depending on the size of the truck, we are talking, like, a large truck, there are still 100 to 200 trip loads to take it out? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. MS. SANTORO: When you say an exception, is it still going to come under guidelines in some other section, or are you -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. We don't thing that is a whole lot. MS. SANTORO: It seems like a lot to me. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A truck holds 16 cubic yards -- so 16 hundred cubic yards would be 100 trucks, 4, 000 thousand would be 2,500 trucks or something like that -- 250 trucks, something like that. We don't consider that a lot. The 4, 000 number there was -- one of the things that was taught awhile back was there was something in the ordinance that said if you. Were a legitimate agricultural use, you could haul any amount of fill off site as the result of digging whatever you needed to dig to do your agricultural use. And it was based on the fact that a farmer would have to dig a retention pond and dig all of these ditches on his property, and a lot of them had fill left over. And there was no amount of limit to the fill. Somebody came in from agricultural -- which is a permitted agricultural use -- and according to the ordinance we had to let them haul all of it off site because it was all excess fill. We closed that loophole, but we left the 4, 000 cubic yards in for the farms that might need to haul off fill without -- you know, they still have to tell us. We will charge them an impact fee, but they don't have to go through the -- the mechanism of going through a public hearing and getting board permission to do it. It's administrative. They still pay. MS. SANTORO: We did have one here that we felt pretty -- as Page 10 October 3, 2001 an agricultural fishing pond farm when we thought it was really for excavation. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There have been a few. But Jim Weeks has ponds full of catfish out there, and he was the first one. And it was assumed that he was doing it for the fill, but he has actually got agriculture going. Jessie Hardy, he's trying to start an agriculture operation. I assume. I hope. It would be nice. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Just to give you an idea of scale 4, 000 yards, to build a golf course it takes 500, 000 yards. 400, 000 (sic) yards is really not a lot of material. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: One of the Golden Gate Estate homes that is built out there on a pile with a drain field, septic tank field to build up for that is 2 or 3 cubic yards. Some of the bigger ones are 4, 000 cubic yards. It's not a lot of fill. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. Anything more for Stan? A tie would be politically correct if it were orange and blue. Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Manhattan College of Jasper's, we don't have a -- our mascot was a brother -- one of-- they don't make a tie with him on it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Thanks. Okay. Do we have anyone here that is going to address -- we don't have any land- use petitions, so we don't have to swear anybody in, do we, Pat? MR. WHITE: No. No. It's not -- as far as judicial, no. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Where are we going, Barb? MS. BURGESON: Under old business, wetlands policy -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wait a minute. Minutes from September 5. Mr. Coe, have you read those minutes line by line? MR. COE: I will check. I will -- COURT REPORTER: Wait a minute. Everyone is going to Page 11 October 3, 2001 have to speak up. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe makes a motion to approve the minutes. Do I hear a second? MS. SANTORO: I second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second is by Ms. Santoro. Favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No opposed. Passes unanimously. Okay. Land Use Petitions, we have none. Old business, here we go. MS. BURGESON: Wetlands policy discussion was just placed on this agenda in case there was anyone from the public that wanted to make a statement regarding that or if anyone from the EAC wanted to add additional comments to our previous discussion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anybody from the public who would like to speak to that today? MR. CORNELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. Make sure you identify yourself for the recorder. MR. CORNELL: Yes. Brad Cornell representing Collier County Audubon Society. We have had a number of comments on the formulation of county-wide wetlands policy. One of the main points that I think I would like to bring to your attention is that there is a problem with wetland assessment when we look at wetland policies, and that has to do with subjectivity of assessment methods that are currently employed. The -- the wetlands rapid assessment procedure that the district uses is an improvement in that it looks at more facets of wetlands function; however, it is still a very quick assessment procedure, and there has been a lot of discussion and criticism for methods of assessment that are subjective where it's a best professional judgment in the field that determines the jurisdictional lines, wetland functions, the quality of the wetland, these sorts of things. Page 12 October 3, 2001 So I would suggest that we in Collier County -- this isn't my suggestion -- this is just in reading some of the materials that have come in front of me -- that we look at a method that the Corps was -- and is establishing where there is a wetland type set up for a variety of types. You know, not just one sort of generic wetland that everything is sort of judged against. But we -- we can judge against the perfect wetland in all of these different varieties and that the assessment be more comprehensive. We take more time with it and that we sort of-- we try to eliminate some of the subjectivity. If I can point to the National Academy of Sciences report that is out that makes these recommendations, and it points towards something like -- it's called a -- I believe, it's a hydro-geomorphis modeling system for wetland assessments. The Corps is currently testing this. Is it very comprehensive. It provides for very definite objective values for wetland function, and I think it's something that we need to look at. We also need to advocate for such objectivity with the state legislature and in the formulation of the uniform assessments methodology, which is coming from the state and is being referenced in our wetland policy that you are going to be looking at. Those policies currently from the state's uniform wetland assessment still point to best professional judgment in the field, and that is something that is going to be a problem. Best professional judgment is always going to be suspect. So we would like to advocate the best objective method possible on hydo-geomorphic modeling would be an accepted policy. If you would like to see a copy of this, I'm sure that staff can get you a copy or summary recommendations. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. MS. SANTORO: Can I address? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Page 13 October 3, 2001 MS. SANTORO: I wanted to address that, and I'm sure it can be fine-tuned. But I think the overall we went through the Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3, and so the method we came up with is that if, say, Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 is looking at a combination of using hydrology, the plants, the overcover, undercover, and wildlife. That may not be a perfect point system, but I think the concept is still valid. And it could be fine-tuned. And worst-case scenario was the limit on the amendment was 5 percent that can be touched and maximum was 50 percent of jurisdictional wetland. In our eyes it was, at least, better than some of the things that we had seen previously. I'm not sure if I'm -- if it can be addressed, but I think what you are saying is fine-tuning the categories from what I have been hearing, which is possible. MR. CORNELL: Right. MS. SANTORO: I think the overall concept is correct, and it may have to be fine-tuned. MR. CORNELL: Right. The problem with the current -- I mean, looking at all the different functions is great and that going to the WRAP assessment is the right direction. The problem with it is it's still very subjective. And we are going to run into problems. You know, in theory it will work on paper, but in practice in the field it's too short a time and relies too much on potential inexperience of the person going out to do the assessment, and we loose a lot of actual valuable wetlands because of that misassessment. So, right, in theory we are moving in the right direction. Let's go -- since we have the opportunity to do comprehensive county-wide policy, let's go all the way and do it the right way for at least Collier County and advocate that the state do the same. The Corps is kind of hunting down that trail. I think we should too. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Page 14 October 3, 2001 Director. Let me just provide a staff comment on that. The functional assessment, the state unified assessment of methodology that the State has been working with the Corps is going -- as I understand it, is going to come up for adoption in January. And it has some pre-emption language within that document in terms of pre-empting county governments from using some additional methodology. So from staffs perspective we are going to rely very heavily upon what the state eventually adopts. They are going through their workshop, their public hearing requirements, and at the moment we are certainly not -- the staff will not be proposing to provide an additional methodology or doing any work refining that methodology -- that certainly would not be our recommendation. I think it's just important for me to make that comment on the record. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. LYNNE: Excuse me. I'm confused. We are putting together a wetlands policy now; right? It's based on the three classifications and the things that we have discussed here before. Now does that pertain to what Mr. Cornell is suggesting? MR. LORENZ: We are using the functional assessment as being a methodology -- as an input to our definition of classifications. So we are using that methodology to help us assess what the classifications are. That's -- if you will, that's going to be off-the- shelf methodology from the standpoint when the state adopts it. That's what I'm saying, I'm not recommending we modify that methodology, but we will try and utilize it within our local policies. MS. LYNNE: I still don't understand, but that's okay. I guess the comment that I want to make -- if I understand you correctly, Mr. Cornell, what you are proposing or what that Corps procedures are proposing is that there be a typed specimen, so to speak, of each wetland kind. In other words, a cypress hole, a mangrove swamp, a wet prairie, and that specific criteria be developed for each of those Page 15 October 3, 2001 different types of wetlands. Is that what you are saying? MR. CORNELL: Right. It's sort of a comparative method. As I understand it, not being a wetlands scientist, but the principle being that you have these perfect models for each of the types, and you go out into the field and you look at what you see and compare it to the model that has various criteria that is associated with that and say, "Well, how does it rate? 100 percent as functional as what the model is, or is it 50 percent functional, or how -- what shape is this wetland that I'm looking at in the field? " And it tries to cut down on some of the subjective assessments that goes on currently. And was intended to be objectified in the uniform assessment or unified assessments methodology from the state, but as it stands, it is still relying on best professional judgment. MS. LYNNE: But what you are suggesting what would solve the problem that was brought up before about size because originally we were talking a wetlands needed to be so large to be valuable, and it was pointed out you could have a small perfect wetland. It seems like what he is suggesting solves that problem because you have got a type -- ideal type of wetland, and each wetland is compared to that and not just some arbitrary characteristic that covers all wetlands. I guess I think it's a good idea. I don't know if that's too late to get that into the plan or not. But I think that is a really good idea. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. LORENZ: As I said, theoretically and ideally, yes, that would be a good enhancement. The problem is is that we have -- at this particular point we have to adopt policies -- and I will give you the schedule -- that you are going to come to you with the policies in January. You won't know what the state adopts. When the state adopts a uniform assessment, as I understand the pre-emption language, we're not going to have too much opportunity to modify that, and certainly, we don't have the ability between now and at that Page 16 October 3, 2001 particular point to do the scientific analyses to propose what those benchmark conditions would be. Because really what we are talking about, we are talking about developing some benchmarks for each individual type of wetland to make your comparisons to. In an ideal world, absolutely. But at the moment we are going to be working with a tool that the state is giving us, and we will incorporate that tool into our policies as best as we can. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What Mr. Cornell is saying, though, the Corps is developing this particular procedure, and the Corps will be utilizing this procedure in their review. MR. CORNELL: They are testing it currently is my understanding, and I would suggest that the State -- that folks in local government advocate to the state that, you know, this would be a better way to protect their wetlands by including such an assessments method in the uniform methodology that is being devised now by the State. In other words, reference the Corps testing of this model and also the National Academy of Science's recommendation, we really ought to adhere to these recommendations. It's a recognition that the assessments methodology that has been used up to now has not been effective. We have seen wetland losses every year since President Bush Senior had declared there would be no more losses in wetlands. And we have seen them to unfortunate degrees. And so the National Academy of Science tried to figure out how can we, you know, improve that situation. Part of our problem is the way we assess them, the way we value or define our wetlands. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: Can I ask another question? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. MS. LYNNE: Is what you are saying that the state is eventually going to make a decision on how wetlands must be assessed, and we Page 17 October 3, 2001 are going to have to comply with that regardless of what you guys have worked on so far; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: Utilizing the functional assessment is what we will have to be using. That is for purposes of developing mitigation ratios. That's what the development community will be using. So to that degree, yes, we will be using the state's methodology. Is it an input into our own policies. But, I guess, what I'm saying is that from a -- from -- that's the tool that the state has adopted to give to the local governments. For us to go out and try to redesign that tool or add those enhancements, like Brad is talking about, I'm telling you right now from staffs perspective and schedule and degree of competence that we would have to be able to apply to it, we will just not be able to do that. You will utilize the functional assessment as what the state adopts. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: You are saying, Bill, if we adopt something more stringent and more rudiment -- better regulation that we have to downgrade to the state standing? We can't have something better than the state? MR. LORENZ: It depends on the specific topic that you are talking about. There are state statutes or rules that expressly state that local governments are preempted from doing anything different, and where that is explicitly stated then there is a pre-emption. Everyplace else we would have the local discretion to adopt something different or more stringent. That would be a policy decision from the county commission. CHAIRMAN STANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. BAUER: Mike Bauer, Audubon of Florida and Collier County citizen. I would respectfully request that this board take a look at that uniform statute, that Florida statute for a couple of reasons. One is the Estero Bay Management, a group of many Page 18 October 3, 2001 professional biologists, have already examined it and is making comments on it, because they found it to be less helpful than the existing rapid assessments procedure. They see a lot of problems with it, and, in fact, Professor Winterham of Florida Gulf Coast University has experimented with, giving it to his wetland class and having them to apply the standards. And he found the variation coming back from within his class was so great to make the thing useless. I would make a recommendation that you take a look at it. If it is a tool that is going to be used by the county, that you know what is in there and have some idea of how effective you think it is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I -- MS. LYNNE: I'm sorry. I have a question. Which tool is it that isn't working? MR. BAUER: The one that the -- Agency of Bay Management and the professor at Florida Gulf Coast University think is going to be ineffective is the new statute that is being proposed, the Uniform Wetlands Assessment Act. I think that is the language. I'm not positive what it is. It's proposed to replace the rapid assessment procedures. And, in fact, it's more vague. MS. LYNNE: Is this something that is being proposed at the state level or county? MR. BAUER: At the state level. MS. LYNNE: At the state level. MR. BAUER: And they are taking input right now on the language at the state level. MS. LYNNE: So you are asking that this board review that information and possibly make recommendations? MS. LYNNE: I would respectfully request that you do that. Take a look at it so you know what kind of tool is being proposed to look at wetlands and used to identify wetlands. Page 19 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill, can we do that? Just get something back to us so we can all review what the state is proposing? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We will do that and take a look at it and agenda it for next week. Okay. We have a fairly tight time frame here, so let's move forward. Barbara, what are we doing next? MS. BURGESON: The next is growth management updates. And Bill is going to the presentation. MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the growth management update, as I noted last time, is that we are at the moment working with the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee with very specific policy language that is going to be the amendment to the Growth Management Plan. So that's the effort that we are pretty much within. Let me give you a schedule because I think this is key to understand what our -- plans are. We will be having a Board of County Commission transmittal hearing. At the moment the date we are looking at is February 20th. The Collier County Planning Commission, we need to have their review by February 13th. And we have tentatively scheduled an EAC review by no later than January 23rd. I believe that's a fourth Wednesday. Now, Staff, we are recommending that you have at least one meeting outside of your regularly scheduled meeting to cover this material. It's going to be quite extensive. I will be giving you further updates as we move along as we see these dates are coming about. We are trying to keep it to this schedule as much as we can. It puts, basically, the EAC in the mode that in the month of January by the 23rd you are going to have to make recommendations to the county commission on the amendments that the -- will amend the Growth Management Plan dealing with rural fringe area. Page 20 October 3, 2001 These amendments will deal with county-wide policies, such as wetlands -- wetlands policies will be part of that -- and other wildlife policies, so we are working on the detailed language of that information. You have already gone through the wildlife policies initially and given me some input. I'm coming up with the second draft of the wildlife policies that you and the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee will see again. Kind of getting back to transition with the wetlands, quite frankly, the wetlands policies have been very, very difficult. I have been working with my staff, with some representatives from the development industry. We have been working with Audubon and some other enviromental organizations to try and come up with some language so at least we can develop some consensus for the framework and the concept. We are not there yet at all. Nancy Lenanne, who is our attorney, with Carlton Fields out of Tallahassee for growth management has set up a meeting with some DCA officials to get a little bit more clarification for the wetlands policies -- or how we can maybe craft some wetlands policies. At the moment what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to create a framework by which I can at least identify what I'm going to call a status quo type of alternative. But however we structure it, then I can at least have the analytical analyses to say, "This -- our -- our best estimate is that if we apply these policies, this will translate into what we have seen in Collier County in the past several years" -- at least that's a benchmark. And then from that framework -- certainly from a staff perspective, we certainly don't recommend anything less than that. But how much further you go up or would be more restrictive in what we have to tweak in the policies to do that, then I will try and identify that as well. So that's the framework that I'm trying to work on to at least be able to provide the analytical work for the language. Page 21 October 3, 2001 But this is -- this is an issue, quite frankly, that is going to be coming to you later rather than sooner. So just -- the kind of discussion we had earlier, that is all good potter for the discussion. There is possibilities that we can develop policies that we can ultimately we can fine-tune it, you know. It's not pre-empted -- that it will be a year or two out. So, I mean, there is still some ideas that I think what we just discussed can be incorporated, but I guess what I'm also saying is that our time frame to get the transmittal hearing to the board in February, eventually their adoption is in May, for us to have these amendments to meet the final requirements of June of 2002 -- this is for just the rural fringe. This is not the rural land. They are on a schedule that has been pushed back a little bit farther. So that's kind of where we are in terms of the overall picture for the growth management update. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can we take a break for just one second? I would like to recognize Commissioner Mac'Kie. I believe I read something in the paper this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys have very important work to do. Don't drop it. Do it. Especially policy decisions; those are the ones. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Good luck in your endeavors. Enjoy West Palm Beach. I lived there for 52 years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I won't enjoy the drive back and forth. MR. LORENZ: The next item on the agenda is proposed amendments. We have provided you -- I believe you have the buffers minimum clearing allowance and density blending packages. Those were mailed out to you. These are -- these are working drafts. In fact, the rural -- since the mailout, the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee has already met on all three of these items. The minimum clearing allowance, for instance, let me cover that because I can Page 22 October 3, 2001 cover -- I can cover what the fringe committee has proposed and what we just resent out -- and it was last night. It was yesterday evening that Bob Mulhere was working on it. Patrick White has all the drafts, and he was just asking me which one is the most current draft. So it's a -- it is really a work in progress. To the degree we are trying to get the information to the EAC, again, to facility your ultimate review and recommendations in January is why we are trying to do this. So if you can bear with us in terms of drafts. But what I will try and do is try to cover the issues as best as I can from what the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee has requested and what staff will be making changes, so I can kind of incorporate that in my discussion on these items with you today. But for the clearing allowance, I think the biggest thing is that we are taking the word "minimum" off because that was somewhat confusing to everybody, and that clearing allowance package is also going up to -- I believe the final figure was about 25, 000 square feet that we would allow any property owner -- that's their -- that's their clearing allowance. Any property owner can clear up to 25, 000 square feet, if you will, with no questions asked. That recognizes the kind of information that you have in your packet of the house pad and some other uses. Now, the language that has also been developed along those lines, that does not include a fire buffer. So somebody can come back to us and say, "We want 25, 000 square feet for clearing, plus the fire buffer," and we are going to allow them to specify the fire buffer in terms of some -- there is some criteria that Bob Mulhere is looking at from the fire district because we don't want to be able to specify a minimum standard. Remember, too, when we start talking about a fire buffer, it's not -- the fire buffer will not be the complete clearing. That will be the ability to clear out the underbrush and the fuel load for the property. Page 23 October 3, 2001 There is going to be some language that is going to tie to that. The other thing is that from a -- we will give them a certain allowance for the driveway, but we are also going to allow some additional clearing for the driveway as well. That language, as I said, was just held last night. I don't have it to be able to hand out to you. Those were the issues the Fringe Advisory Committee brought up at their past review, and those were the -- generally the changes that staff is sending back to the advisory committee for their final review. In your next mail-out packet, I will mail out the most recent draft that we come up with. MR. COE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MR. COE: You keep talking about the minimum clearing application. It seems to me this is the maximum allowable to clear. MR. LORENZ: That's -- it's not. For instance, roughly the 22, 000 square feet -- this is where the staff is revising the language -- if that approximates -- if you have for a 5-acre lot -- that for a 5-acre lot that is 5 percent of clearing. MR. COE: Is this maximum or minimum? MR. LORENZ: Excuse me. It's 50 percent. The -- if you have -- if you are under -- if you are in a restricted preservation standard, such as a NRPA area where we are proposing a 90 percent preservation or 10 percent clearing area, we are going to allow you for very small acres to allow -- for a greater than 10 percent clearing. When you get to about that 5-acre lot, that's where you kind of-- the numbers become equal, and then for larger properties a 10 percent -- 10 percent allowance on a 40-acre property tract allows you to clear 4 acres. So it's not a maximum. It's an idea of minimum. It was confusing with people. So we are just going to call it -- you are guaranteed clearing up to -- of 25, 000 acres. Then to the degree that preservation of-- 25, 000 square feet -- then to the degree Page 24 October 3, 2001 that a preservation standards allows you to clear even more, then you will be allowed to clear up to the preservation standards. MR. COE: Why not just use a percentage? That covers it clear and simple. MR. LORENZ: Well, because when you come down to a percent of a very small lot, you are talking about a small -- a very small clearing standard for a homeowner. It's somewhat -- think of it being a sliding scale giving a greater amount of percentage for smaller lots for more reasonable use of property. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: All right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is there any thought -- any thought on it regarding -- we are saying a house pad is 5, 000 square feet; that means a house is, say, 3,500 square feet liveable area, that pretty much limits someone who wants to build a big house out there. Or does that slide also? MR. LORENZ: Well, like I said, when we developed this one particular table, we are talking about a 5,000-square-foot house. I mean, we are not saying that you can only build a 5,000-square-foot house -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Okay. MR. LORENZ: I think the new number is now 25, 000 square feet guaranteed. You can clear -- take away all the trees in 25, 000 square feet. It's your choice what you want to put on your lot to do that. But what we use these numbers for, like, the excavation ordinance, just to give you an idea, okay, if you had a 5,000-square- foot house and if you have this much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Ms. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: In theory if you have got 25, 000 square feet, you could put -- make that all in house and have no fire buffer? MR. LARENZ: Well, for the fire buffer -- for the new Page 25 October 3, 2001 language, we are going to allow you to still have some degree of clearing for a fire buffer over and above the 25, 000 square feet. We certainly don't want to get into a position where we are forcing homeowners to put themselves in some jeopardy with regard to fire protection. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. Mr. Soling. MR. SOLING: I brought this up at the subcommittee meeting. If I was a developer and bought very, very, very, very large parcels and found that the county's restriction were horrendous, I could subdivide the parcels into individual lots and then homeowners would be exempt from the restriction that I would have because I'm an individual homeowner. MR. LORENZ: The -- at the moment -- everything moving forward, if you have a very large property and you are going to subdivide it, that's going to come under -- that's going to start to come under our requirements for your subdivision. MR. SOLING: What supposed -- MR. LORENZ: So you are going to have to preserve -- you are going to set aside some preserve area within that subdivision -- within your subdividing the preservation of vegetation that we are specifying. MR. SOLING: So I'm looking at a lot of land here in North Belle Meade or Golden Gate -- MR. LORENZ: Right. MR. SOLING: -- all of these people don't have to comply with our standards for a very big piece. MR. LORENZ: Well, that's -- that's true in terms of the subdivision. But when they come in for -- when they come in to get a permit to clear their lot, they are going to be subject to these new amendments, these new requirements. MS. SANTORO: Isn't this around a half a acre? Page 26 October 3, 2001 MR. CARLSON: Yes. MS. SANTORO: Right around -- MR. CARLSON: Most of them are going to be 5 acres. MR. WHITE: Even in the Estates there are plenty of 2 3/4 parcels of that size that are kind of half, half, half splits. So, I think what Bill is trying to communicate here is that the sense of minimum applies only in terms of thinking about it from the end of the telescope that gets you to the idea you can clear up to this amount no matter how small, and in that sense we are talking minimum, not that you're not entitled to clear more. Either in under a fire buffer or under some preservation standard that would get you up to the full 10 percent on a very large parcel that getting greater than 10 acres. MR. LORENZ: There again is where you break even -- I will call it breakeven point. It's hard without seeing a graph. When you get to a 5-acre lot, that's a 10 percent -- that's 10 percent. Well, we are not proposing anything more restrictive than 10 percent in terms of over preservation standards. So when you start -- even when you start -- when you start getting higher than a 5-acre lot, even with the most restricted preservation standards, you are going to be able to clear greater than 25, 000 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: About 10 percent. Right. Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: What I was trying to find out is, if somebody is given this 25, 000 square feet, can they build something and not have a fire buffer? I don't want people to be able to use up their fire buffer and then end up being a fire hazard; that's what I'm asking. MR. LORENZ: Do you have Bob's -- MR. WHITE: I don't have it. Maybe we will just try coming at it from a different angle. As far as the 25, 000 square feet goes, that is exclusive of fire buffers for single-family residences. MS. LYNNE: Except -- MR. WHITE: I know that has changed. Page 27 October 3, 2001 MR. LORENZ: Right. MS. LYNNE: Okay. All right. MR. WHITE: Got it? MS. LYNNE: All right. Got it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Everybody -- anybody have any more questions regarding the minimum clearing standards? Okay. Bill, what is the next one? MR. LORENZ: The next one would be -- let me go to density blending. Bob Mulhere is right here to be able to handle density blending. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bob. MR. MULHERE: I was waiting to be called in. MR. LORENZ: Just -- Bob was not a speaker. The EAC just has the older draft for density blending. I know that you just sent out revisions from the fringe committee. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. LORENZ: At least that's what they have in their hands. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere with RWA and consultant for the county on the rural fringe assessment. The committee is reviewing this, and I guess you probably know already, and all the other draft amendments that we are preparing including at this point buffering standards, the enfringment in subdistricts for the rural fringe, golf course provisions. With respect to the density blending, it is intended to only apply to the two subdistricts that directly abut the urban area. There are four subdistricts proposed, and only two actually abut the urban area. The revision between the drafts that you have and the final draft of the committee endorsed are relatively minor. Let me see if I can off the top of my head remember those. I think one was to restrict just to the two subdistricts that abut the urban area, but originally it was proposed, I think, to apply to all four subdistricts, but there is no Page 28 October 3, 2001 reason to when the other two don't abut the urban area. The second was that the density blending -- there is a little more clarification in the language where it ties the provision of density blending to retaining or preserving the highest quality of natural vegetation and habitat on site. So, remember, the concept here is that if you have a project that exceeds 80 acres in size and has -- includes land that is both in the urban area or the urban fringe and rural area, you can locate your approved density no higher than you would otherwise be permitted. But you can take your urban density and relocate that to the rural portion of your project, or you can take your rural fringe portion -- or you can take your rural fringe portion and relocate that to the urban area of the project. But the premise -- what you have to demonstrate in doing so, you are retaining the highest quality of vegetation on the site and habitat. One example that has been shown to illustrate this is -- I think it's the Naples Grande project down in Area D, which is the one along Tamiami Trail -- there was a project there that is exempt from the assessments because it was submitted prior to the final order deadline, but still demonstrates in which the best natural area in that project was located in the urban area. And the rural portion is cleared farm fields. Under the provision as they were today or are today, the applicant would not be able to relocate his density from the urban portion to the cleared farm fields and then would be able to clear most of the urban portions to put its density in there. And so it makes sense to be able to shift that in exchange for preserving that higher quality native vegetation; that's the concept behind it. And the revisions were relatively minor that the committee made in accepting it. There was one other thing that escapes my mind. MR. WHITE: Do you want to look at it? MR. MULHERE: There was one other. Maybe if I take a quick Page 29 October 3, 2001 peek at it. There was one other minor revision. There is a requirement that that if they are going to avail themselves of the density blending they have to come in the form of a PUD. And the rationale behind that we would at least be able to have several public hearings in which we could examine the staff, and then elected officials advisory board could examine how they are going about saving that best natural area. And -- oh, I remember what the other point is. The other point is there will be higher -- as proposed -- we don't know exactly what yet, but there will be higher preservation standards in the rural fringe subdistricts than we currently have -- preservation and open standards than we currently have in the urban area. The idea this is a continuum from urban, which has lesser preservation -- native vegetation preservation standards and open space standards to the rural fringe, which will have higher than -- hopefully to the eastern rural ends which will have higher preservation standards. So if you prevail yourself of this option of density blending, you must meet the higher -- whatever the higher preservation standards are for the entire project. So even on your urban lands, if you are going to blend your density, you have got to meet the preservation standards that we adopt for the rural fringe, which will be -- although we don't know what they are right now -- I can safely say they will be higher than we have in the urban area. And I think that is a summary of that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Mulhere? Just reading in the paper about urban and blending, the lawsuit that went down, the judgment was made in Martin County where they said the county violated the blending of two particular products and had an apartment against the other and said tear the thing down. Page 30 October 3, 2001 MS. LYNNE: That's not blending. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: They used blending in the description of it. MR. MULHERE: I'm not familiar with that. My guess is -- I'm not familiar with it -- but just on face, my guess would be there was some violation of their comp plan. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Violation of comp plan. MR. MULHERE: By amending our comp plan, we wouldn't have that problem. We would be able to do this. Really, all along it's something that makes sense. If we are getting to the objective of protecting habitat and vegetation in that area, that is really the principle behind it. That makes sense. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any questions on the blending concept? Okay. Mr. Lorenz. MR. LORENZ: The other items is on buffers. Again, that was mailed out last night, as well. So the committee did have some discussions. And let me work you through the discussion of the committee at least and tell you how staff handled it. I will kind of work off both of my notes here. If you -- on page 2, it would be page 2 of 11. Policy 6.8.2 at the very bottom, you will see where Policy -- yes -- 6.8.2 talks about a -- okay. Wait a minute. It's page 2 of 10 now off of your draft, excuse me 6.8.2 where it talks about a 1,000-foot distance. There was some -- some confusion as to whether we have a 1,000-foot buffer or as policies -- as objective -- excuse me -- as policies 6.8.1 says this is a review distance in terms of where we would subject a development to review and then provide these criteria. I simply made -- made the language change to just clarify that this is not a 1,000-foot buffer. It's simply a review distance; so that's the language that -- that the committee or the discussion that the committee had said there. So that would have changed. Page 31 October 3, 2001 The next substantive change of discussion that the committee had, if you go to page 3 of 10 and you come down to 1(B) where it starts off to say "Where woodstork," et cetera, et cetera, there is some concern that these standards may be too restricted or may be -- may be able to be modified through a review of other jurisdictional agencies. This would be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Fresh Water -- the Florida Fresh Water -- the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. I keep stumbling over their whole new name. Because the development still has to work with these agencies and develop some type of Wildlife management plan. So what we -- what staff is proposing back to the committee would basically be under -- under B where we have a parenthesis 1, 2, 3, we will add a parenthesis 4. And this would say, "These requirements shall be modified on a case-by-case basis if such. Modifications are based upon the review and recommendation from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation." We put a little bit of -- I like to call it upset language that if those agencies determine that -- that these distances as strictly applied within this policy do not work as well as something else for a particular site project, then we get those recommendations from those agencies, and then we can relax these distances. It's what I call upset language. It provides some flexibility. One of the difficulties -- this is a little bit of a side note here or editorial comment on my part -- our dilemma from the state is that we have to draft policies that are specific and measurable. And there can't be a lot of weasel words in them. They have to be fairly definitive, and many times if you specify a 10 percent requirement, we are going to have to follow that 10 percent requirement if we don't have any other -- if you call it upset or exception language. We know in the real world that many times that if you apply it just the way it's drafted without consideration for very site specific Page 32 October 3, 2001 requirements or something else that is going on, that that application of that number is not going to give you a better project than if you do it differently. Certainly as a staff member, I don't want to be in a position we want to vigorously adhere to some number that we have established -- essentially the way we have been developing these policies. To the degree that we can build some flexiblity into it and allow for some exceptions to the number with proper valid criteria to make those exceptions, then I'm trying to craft the language to allow that; so that's the spirit and the intent of this language within this section. MS. LYNNE: So does that mean if for some reason these regulatory agencies in developing a plan thought more than 1, 000 feet or 300 feet or 1,500 feet were necessary in order to protect them, that that would follow through as well? MR. LORENZ: I think it cuts both ways. MS. LYNNE: Just makes sure that the language makes that clear. MR. LORENZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What is 1,500 feet as relates to storage and so forth. Are you dealing with that? MR. CARLSON: I don't. U.S. Fish and Wildlife doesn't. There are some results of some studies in North Florida by the Florida Wildlife Commission. MR. LORENZ: The buffer for woodstorks? MS. SANTORO: 322. MR. LORENZ: If you go through the data and analysis of the table -- MS SANTORO: It was 322 was what the actual figure. 322 was, I believe, was the actual figure? MR. LORENZ: No. For woodstorks they came up 1,500 feet was based upon Bald Eagle requirements. Page 33 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bald Eagle? MR. LORENZ: They did not have in the report that I read, which was the -- it's a 1994 buffers -- it's for East Central Florida buffers, the data they summarize, they could not find any specific number for woodstorks. I have just -- just -- I have researched the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Multispecies Recovery Plan; they do not have a specific number. MS. LYNNE: So the point would be that if later a specific number did come up and it was greater than this, you would have a basis for enforcing a larger buffer area. Or if you had a particular use that was so intrusive that the ordinary buffer set up is not adequate, that you would be able to enforce a larger buffer range to protect the species. MR. LORENZ: That can certainly be accommodated in the language revision that I read to you because it says, "Shall modify on a case-by-case basis." The constraint, though, upon the recommendation by one of those two agencies. The other alternative if somebody does come up with an appropriate number or set up a number for woodstorks that we can latch on to, we can create a policy amendment later on or management plan and incorporate that new information with the new standard later on and put it in the plan. I would still, however, recommend that we continue to have this upset language in it. MS. LYNNE: Yeah. I just think if we can upset it one way, we need to make sure it goes both ways. MR. LORENZ: Right. We are not saying on the lower end; we are saying modify. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: We are saying on both ends. Also realize that the committee has not yet seen this, so I'm getting ahead of the committee with this language. Page 34 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: I wanted to reiterate -- you have not had a chance -- I gave a copy of the minutes -- a couple of things the committee would hopefully go back to work on in this area unless it's already been done or referred to. But one of the things was the wording taking out the word "wetland" where it said "Proposed development shall demonstrate the ground water table drawdowns will not adversely function to allow upland functions as well as wetlands functions." And Mr. Cornell was asked to bring in some research to our next committee meeting or help to advise staff. We are trying to take a look at what is an allowable water drawdown or, you know, looking at distance or devices. If we come up with a measurable figure of allowable or not allowable water drawdown, we can go back to either it has to be -- nobody can be within this distance or else there might be some mechanical devices can be done to protect the water from being drawn down past a certain amount. I thought that would be of something of interest to you-all. The other thing is the conservation designation was allowing current agricultural uses and that I think is going to be revisited to see if some of the agriculture uses such as schools and towers and mining and excavations might be rethought so that the conservation might have some different criteria and does not have a permissible land use. So I just wanted to mention those three areas. MR. LORENZ: Let me cover those in a little more detail. I will walk through. Those come up at the end of this document, and I can ask some additional for you. If you turn to -- let's see -- your page 6. MR. SOLING: One. MR. LORENZ: Your page -- I have some other stuff. Let me get some other information -- your page 4. Actually, it's the end of page 3 and the beginning of page 4. There was some concern about when we talked about wildlife corridors from the committee that was Page 35 October 3, 2001 wildlife for unlisted species or listed species. We have redrafted language in here that will contrain the language for listed species. When we speak of listed species, of course, those would be the federal, state lists of threatened, endangered, or species of special concern in the case of the state lists. So that was -- we have constrained that a little bit with wording that way. We also added under the D provision where it says, "The county shall consider the recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in delineation of the corridors." Again, the idea of utilizing the recommendations from these agencies is in the review process. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: We add another parenthesis, parenthesis No. 4 to add to the use of where it says, "Use of appropriate roadways, crosses and signage, " again, we added, "Any other techniques recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Agency." Again, we are trying to build into these ideas that there may be some other techniques that would be appropriate, that if we don't have this language somebody can say, "No. You are inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan." But I think it works both ways too. And then we added, I think, No. F, where right now that ends at E and F. It says, "The county shall consider the recommendations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida -- when considering the placement of open space to natural reservations." The whole idea of the concept behind this buffering policy is not to say, "Thou shall have a 100-foot buffer" or "Thou shall have a 200-foot buffer." We are saying that you need to put your less intensive uses up against the natural reservation. It's hard to be able to determine how much area that is going to be. That depends upon the border, if you will, with the natural Page 36 October 3, 2001 reservation. Where the appropriate open space is depends upon what is in that natural reservation or what is going to be the more intensive land use. So there is a lot of-- a lot of site specific conditions that are difficult to draft in the policies. Again, the point here is, again, to utilize those agencies to help with the location because those agencies may say, "You know what? Forget about buffering this reservation up here in the northeast corner. You know, we would rather see you put all of your open space down here in the -- in the southern portion of your project." And that recommendation then can be utilized by the county to -- to accept the development and still be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I will have to apologize. I will have to leave. I'm going to turn the chair over to Mr. Coe. (Chairman Sansbury exits.) MR. COE: Any other comments? MR. LORENZ: Let's see. I have to go through my notes. To pick up on what Allie had mentioned earlier in terms of the conservation uses, if you go to -- the reference here of the page reference in your draft is, I guess, it's page 6. Bob has gone, but Bob has also been working on a set of policies that will modify these conservation uses. And I'm not sure whether those were mailed out as well. We have been doing an awful lot of drafting in the past week. I can tell you in his discussion with mine -- for instance, under the conservation designation section, currently we allow earth mining. We are proposing that be struck out. I also know that community facilities, we are not recommending those to be allowed appropriate uses of conservation land. So just to speak to -- to the point that you made earlier, you will see the proposed changes of this conservation designation in your Page 37 October 3, 2001 next mailout, and we are limiting the uses in the conservation lands to a much greater degree than what we have here. A little bit as a related note -- and you probably all have not been involved with the details of this part of-- part of what we got in the hot water, as well, with regard to the Growth Management Plan back in '97 was school siteing. And we will have language in the plan regard -- we have already proposed -- we will limit school siteing to receiving areas. So we have already talked with a representative from the school board, and he's aware of generally the receiving areas that we are looking at and feels very comfortable with that language. CHAIRMAN COE: Didn't the school board buy some land in a questionable area like in the rural fringe? MR. LORENZ: Yes, just a couple of months ago. It was up in the southeast corner of B-2, B-3 in the rural fringe. At the moment we are looking at that. Quite frankly, staff has hedged a little bit. We are just calling that as a neutral area -- that was before we knew about the school board stuff. We might have to figure out where we are going to have receiving and sending area. If we have a third designation. That is another analysis that is ongoing, as well. We don't have final word from our consultant that is looking at the transfer and development rights program because that is what sending and receiving is related to transferring the development rights. MR. CARLSON: I'm wondering about the definition of school. If, say, an entity like the CREW Trust or Audubon wanted to have some small educational facility or conservation land or near conservation land, what is a school? MS. LYNNE: Related to that, the same kind of thing. Suppose you had a conservation group or even a church or socially minded group that wanted to build -- preserve the entire area but have an educational facility there. Page 38 October 3, 2001 MR. LORENZ: Yes. MS. LYNNE: Preserve the whole area in perpetuity that you are going to have a center and nature trails and something like that. MR. LORENZ: Ed, I'm not sure. I see a way of addressing that. We do have -- we do maintain Item B where it says, "Dormitory, duplexes, and other staff houses" that may be provided in some sort of conservation uses. We might be able to put dormitory, duplexes, and other staff housing, educational facilities, you know that are -- somewhat adjunct to -- to that and that's -- that's -- make a note of that myself to talk to Bob about that. MR. COE: Any other comments? MS. LYNNE: Are we still -- have you finished? MR. LORENZ: No. I wanted to cover -- well, actually, the -- Allie had mentioned the conservation uses. You will see some revisions to those. The Rural Fringe Advisory Committee did not get to discussing Items 2, 3, and 4, which is the wildlife protection criteria, stormwater management systems, and then Item No. 4, which is the language that tries to deal with the impact of drawdowns or more broadly speaking changing the hydro period at the boundary of the natural reservation. So the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee has not addressed those yet. Those -- that will be the point where the committee needs to continue its review of this -- this effort. And there is a note in the committee's draft that, like, for Item No. 4, I note that the end of the last meeting a member of the public comment was identification of wetlands and wetland functions regarding the potential impact, so I kind of picked up comment, Brad, just to make sure that we have continuity with the review of the rural fringe advisory committee. Beyond that that's all the information that I wanted to bring the EAC up to speed with in terms of these policies. And I do agree with the comment that Allie made and maybe Brad will speak to. I think Page 39 October 3, 2001 there is room for improvement in the language of Item No. 4 in a couple of different ways. And I have been struggling with how to come up with a quantifiable way of doing it. I have talked to Ed, with Brad. And I have to get in contact with Mike Doover. There are some techniques that Water Management District does specify some specific quantative criteria that can be used, if we were to utilize what they have in their basis of review that I'm sure would pass muster with DCA for something measurable and specific. I know Ed is leaving there and wants to weight in terms of that criteria, but that is an alternative for us to look at. With that, that's everything that I had that I want to cover. MR. CARLSON: Just for the record, for the benefit of my subcommittee members, when I recollected that a study that was done a long time ago that -- that I was trying to remember the results, and it seemed to me my recollection was that -- that the impact of canals, basically, the drainage impact, the rule of thumb extended about a mile from the canal, that study was done by a woman known as Flora Wang in conjunction with Center of Wetlands, the University of Florida, and the Corps of Engineers. She was looking at the impact of the canals in Southern Golden Gate Estates and surrounding property. I believe the Fackahatchee Strand preserve and found the drainage influence, the ground water influence of those canals extended 12, 000 feet from the canal. So it was twice as far as I remembered it. It was over two miles. MR. COE: Any other comments? MS. LYNNE: I have got a question. Seems to me that when you are talking about the ground water system that it often says that an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the activity will not change the hydro period. And I don't think reasonable assured is good enough. I think that ends up being one of the subjective professional judgments that depends on which professional you have Page 40 October 3, 2001 got talk up talking to you. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Let me -- let me cover something. As I said, the Water Management District does have some specific criteria and the references of Section 6. 12 out of their basis of review for when they issue an environmental resource permit, and that specifies very specific numerical standards to ensure that your water control elevation that you set is properly separated far enough from the wetland -- the wetland edge so it would be, quote, no adverse impact to the wetland. This gets really complicated. The language would be -- would allow for a separation distance producing a grading of less than or equal to 0.005. That would be the language that I would drop into this policy, and it will be very specific and measurable. And there is some additional information in the basis of review -- and if you want to refer to it, that's why I gave you the site. We can get -- pass muster with 9J35 for specific criteria. There is some -- perhaps, some concern that that does not adequately protect the -- the -- let's say, the wetlands in terms of what that separation distance would do and what the drawdown at the wetland edge would be, because it does not specify a specific drawdown. The -- some more background. The Mark Brown -- we had ground water buffer in developing the standards for East Central Florida utilized a performance -- what I will call a performance standard of one inch, so that he developed some buffer distances that would work in certain habitats in east central Florida that would translate into the order of 100 to 550 feet separation distance. That -- that assumed that those numbers would protect the wetland from anything greater than an inch drawdown -- an inch drawn down is .08 feet. That was the standard that he utilized for proposing the methodology that he proposed for East Central Florida. I have done some -- I have done some analysis myself on utilizing his methodology in applying the .08 feet standard to Collier Page 41 October 3, 2001 County, and you can certainly utilize -- we can certainly consider utilizing that standard as well. Now -- this is part of the other thing that Allie mentioned that we talk of wetland functions. At the boundary of the natural reservation, we are not simply talking about wetlands because the boundry that we have defined in that reservation may be an upland system. What we are really talking about is not so much the wetland function but maintaining the appropriate hydro period as measured at the moment of ground water withdrawal at the boundary. And I would certainly be proposing language that takes out the wetland function that makes it more generic, such that we are talking about a ground water level that does not impact the natural reservation boundary whether it's a wetlands or upland. Because we know we can drain certain upland type or transitional type communities to the point where we have adverse impacts as well. So I think the language can be broadened, and I would be proposing some of that as basis of discussion. And the next question is -- is what methodology do we utilize whether we look at the Water Management District's number of a gradient of .005 and some other attendant language, or do we pick from Mark Brown's recommendation of a drawndown of no greater than an inch. Or do we have some local knowledge data analyses that suggest another number or another approach. That's why I need to be talking with Mike Doover. He's going to be the guy to -- to inquire on that. MS. SANTORO: That's the area that the subcommittee is going to be looking at at the next meeting. So if you like, perhaps we can come back with the review of it -- the information at that time. MR. CARLSON: I would -- since we do have quite a bit of data on ground water and the impacts of drainage for Collier County, I would be real cautious about using Mark Brown's studies for Central Page 42 October 3, 2001 Florida. The geology and everything would be very different. MR. LORENZ: I used his methodology -- from a ground water methodology is an appropriate methodology to use and then utilized Collier County conditions, average conditions, coming up with some numbers that I have calculated, which I really haven't shared with anybody but -- but I'm using for myself to get some general feel for what we are talking about. But, yes, when I input the slopes in Collier County for its ground water table, we are talking about much greater distances than would be available to Mark Brown's. I would not be using those hundred at all. But -- but what he did with the modeling methodology that, if appropriate, to Collier County, which generally is, he specified an end result of no more than one inch. Now, one can argue that, you know, it should be less than that or it can tolerate something greater than that; that's what I don't know. MR. COE: Any other comments before we get to the subcommittee report? MR. CORNELL: Do you want public comment now? MR. COE: Go ahead. I'm just trying to get through the day. MR. CORNELL: Only if you want it right now. MR. COE: Go ahead. COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. You need to restate your name. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell for Collier County Audubon Society. On buffering, there was one particular buffering issue that would -- because of its sort of keystone nature and only umbrella situation that you need to pay particular attention to, I think all of us in Collier County do, and that's a panther habitat. If a project -- I would suggest if a project is in a panther habitat then all of your available and required preservation land and open-space mitigation -- everything in a project is potentially buffer, I believe -- buffering Page 43 October 3, 2001 quality. Put all of that against your natural reservation conservation act just automatically. So you don't have any of this sort of to and fro. If it's panther habitat, primary or secondary, then you automatically -- the project has to put all of its buffering lands against the conservation lands. I think that will be a reasonable way to approach that a second sort of large issue that you are going to have to deal with -- and I think Erica Lynne brought this up on ag policy. You are going to have to deal with, you know, if you want to talk about what allowable uses there are on conservation lands, like NRPAs, you are going to have to deal with the issue of concluding agricultural uses in those policies. And as currently stated in county policy, county growth management plan, ag is exempt from many of the standards and policies that govern protection of natural resources. So for this whole scenario to work, you are going to have -- I will suggest to you -- that you need to consider ways to include agriculture, you know, in the language. And, third, in that same vein, I think there are lots of problems with the allowable uses of conservation designation lands. We do need to take a look at that and adjust some -- make some major adjustments. And that's all that I have. MR. COE: The subcommittee report. MS. LYNNE: I just have some questions for Mr. Cornell. When you are talking about the panther habitant, I mean, that sounds good, suppose you were balancing habitant -- panther habitat up against this area when over here we have a pristine wetlands. I would have a hard time saying we have to move all of that area down there and dredge and fill the wetlands. MR. CORNELL: I grant you that. I think that a lot of the pristine wetlands are probably have been taken care of and the large system boundaries and where they are isolated pristine wetlands and maybe that -- that is something to consider, although I think it's going Page 44 October 3, 2001 to be a big juggle with panther habitat. It's one of the most endangered species. The more buffering you can provide for panther corridor, wildlife corridor, the better off we are going to be. But that should figure into the equation, I agree. MS. LYNNE: The other thing I wanted to add, when you are talking about agriculture policies, when you said you wanted to find ways to include agriculture in here, did you mean make these restrictions apply to agriculture? MR. CORNELL: I would say in this entire rural assessment and attempt to satisfy the governor and cabinets final order, what we are doing is trying to adopt policies in Growth Management Plan amendments that will protect natural resources. If you do not include agriculture in those policies and procedures or GOPs, then that's going to undermine your efforts. So, yes. MS. LYNNE: So you want something in the language that says "These policies -- agriculture has no exemption from these policies, " is that what you are saying? MR. CORNELL: Either that or specifically name -- name the standards that you are going to apply, perhaps, intensity standards. Ag can be permitted in these areas but only in such and such intensity. In other words, apply some agriculture as well, yes. MR. COE: Any other comments? MS. SANTORO: I have given you a proposal. I just want you to amend one of the statements. The second "whereas" the letters SWCD standing for Collier County Soil and Water Conservation District. Basically, what I'm hoping the council will do is endorse the concept of promoting a corridor for the panthers between the C-2, the study area, and the panther habitat lands that the State has designated and is preserving. I have given you some of the support out of the Growth Page 45 October 3, 2001 Management Plan or the growth -- yeah, Growth Management Plan. (Mr. Hill present.) MS. SANTORO: Some of the group are even rural conceptual strategy report. It is very timely. What I'm hoping is that you will endorse these so you will allow the subcommittee and EAC to communicate this to the Golden Gate Study Group and the Eastern Lands Committee is timely also, because this area is very sparsely inhabited. It is a time for incorporating this concept and working with it. What you are doing is allowing us the flexibility to go forward and try and come up with a corridor which may occur through many different devices. It may be conservation easements, or it may be the government taking land; it may be some other land. There are other various techniques. MR. COE: Who is going to pay for it? MS. SANTORO: If it's conservation it can be a credit to the current owners. There are also a couple of government plans that have monies for conservation easement. It depends what techniques it takes. MR. COE: Any comments? MS. SANTORO: Or maybe a combinations thereof. MR. SOLING: I just add, Allie's note, there was two major areas and that there was a little strip of land that isolated these two areas. Her -- our desire is to connect these two areas, so if the panther was in one they can easily move to the other area. Right now, I guess, they are doing it if they are living there, but this area can be developed without consideration for panthers. MR. COE: Anybody want to make a motion? MR. SOLING: Well, I will move Allie's request to allow the committee to move further on this matter. MS. LYNNE: I second it. MR. COE: We have a second over here. All for? Page 46 October 3, 2001 (Unanimous response.) MR. COE: All opposed? (No response.) MR. COE: Passes unanimously. MS. SANTORO: That's it. MR. COE: Anybody have any other comments? Very well, we are adjourned. (Proceedings adjourned at 10:40 a.m.) ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned of the Chair at 10:40 a.m.) ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR,;,BOARD C AIMAN THOMA' W. SANSBURY TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON ti , ALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY EMILY C. UNDERWOOD, RPR Page 47 Item V. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7,2001 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDA-2001-AR-1404 Petition Name: Silver Lakes PUD Applicant/Developer: Conquest Development U.S.A., L.C. Engineering Consultant: RWA, 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 The petitioner seeks approval of a PUD amendment to the Silver Lakes PUD from the original PUD approved in 1991 via PUD-89-15. 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". C EAC Meeting Page 3 of 9 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 isirommumimmo 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. • C FLUCFCS Code 617 �+Mixed Wetland Hardwood ek A s�to *1� 3 • I t` 1 EAC Meeting Page 5 of 9 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 D'LTONA CORPORATION r z 411000.11 , w.our.unr. •• V�•s� 'iJ Ja«ertrrsa� ,i rOnn au. - 114 �. ■ 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 No. PUDA-2001-AR-1404 "Silver Lakes PUD" with the following stipulations: Water Management: err✓ No stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 9 C Environmental: No stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: i,; 12.01 STAN CHRZANOWS P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER /0%/400/ STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: l&Lr 10 , / /( d I CHAHRAM BADAMTCHIAN, Ph.D., AICP DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER A/LitY /0 /t /0/ SUSAN MURRAY, AICP DA E CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER kOkagi • r r0r�2 /. THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE INTERIM PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR EAC Meeting Page 9 of 9 APPROVED BY: JOH J M. DUNNUCK, III DATE INT "IM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONME TAL ADVISORY IUNCIL THOMAS W. SANSBURY HAIRMAN SL/gdh/c: StaffReport INCPUDA-2001-AR-1404 PTT � PROJECT #19990287 Development& DATE: 8/31/01 L V 11 ..L AL-Environmental Consultants CHAHRAM BADAMTCHIAN August 27, 2001 Chahram Badamtchian,PhD,AICP Principal Planner Collier County Planning Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,Florida 34104 Subject: Silver Lakes PUD Amendment Dear Chahram, Please find 15 copies of the attached Silver Lakes Minor PUD Amendment Application intended to replace the Insubstantial PUD Amendment currently in process (PDI-2001-AR-471). Further, you will find check #13100 in the amount of $500.00 to supplement the fees previously submitted, with the understanding that those previously submitted fees will be refunded, and a new disbursement forwarded to you in the amount of$1015.00. The reason for this replacement petition application is that during the County Attorney's Office review of the "Insubstantial" PUD Amendment application, it was found that a conflict would arise between the land use acreages shown of the PUD Master Plan, and those acreages identified on Page 2-2 of the Silver Lakes PUD Document (Ordinance No. 91-90). Therefore, the County Attorney's Office found that a "Minor" PUD amendment application was necessary. This conflict was entirely an omission on my part, with my understanding from the Petitioner that a "Major" PUD Amendment application would be submitted to open the Silver Lakes PUD Document to make other textural changes, and to bring it into conformance with the current citations and references to County regulations. This "Minor" PUD Amendment Petition is identical to the "Insubstantial"PUD Amendment Petition,with review completed, except for the application form, and the change to Page 2-2 of the PUD Document. As has been stated previously, the purpose for this amendment is merely to depict the current development pattern as it has been permitted through its 7 platted phases, and to reflect the intended last phase of development as it has been permitted with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District. The approval of this Petition will allow the construction of the final phase for marketing this coming season. Should you have any questions, or require further information, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Dwight T�Tarlaart Planning Manager Enclosures (if applicable) cc: Client File H:\2001 Projects\01-0091 Silver La1:esUnsubstantial PUD Amendment#3735\chahram-silver-minor-pda-app-let.doc 3050 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 270, Naples, Florida 34104 • (941) 649-1509, fax: (941) 649-7056 • www.consult-rwa.com PUDA-2001-AR-1404 PROJECT #19990287 PETITION NUMBER DATE: 8/31/01 CHAHRAM BADAMTCHIAN DATE APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD AMENDMENT/DO AMENDMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION CURRENT PLANNING 1 . Name of Applicant (s) Conquest Development U. S .A. , L.C. Applicant ' s Mailing Address 1001 Silver Lakes Blvd. City Naples State Florida Zip 34114 Applicant ' s Telephone Number: Res . : Bus . : 775-2575 Is the applicant the owner of the subject property? X Yes No ---- (a) If applicant is a land trust, so indicate and name beneficiaries below. (b) If applicant is corporation other than a public corporation, so indicate and name officers and major stockholders below. (c) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, so indicate and name principals below. (d) If applicant is an owner, indicate exactly as recorded, and list all other owners, if any. (e) If applicant is a lessee, attach copy of lease, and indicate actual owners if not indicated on the lease. (f) If applicant is a contract purchaser, attach copy of contract, and indicate actual owner (s) name and address below. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page . ) 1 Name of Agent Dwight Nadeau Firm RWA, Inc. Agents Mailing Address 3050 N. Horseshoe Dr. , Ste. 270 City Naples State Florida Zip 34104 Telephone Number: Res . : N/A Bus . : 649-1509 3 . PUD ORDINANCE NAME AND NUMBER: Silver Lakes, Ord. No. 91-90 4 . Provide Legal (if PUD Recorded) or Graphic Description Of Area Of Amendment (this may be graphically illustrated on Amended PUD Master Plan) . If portion of PUD, provide legal for subject portion. The subject property being approximately 146 acres is described as the South 1,2 of the Southeast 1% of Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, lying East of State Road 951, Collier County, Florida, and the South M of the Southwest 1% of Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, lying East of State Road 951, Collier County, Florida, and the North 220 . 00 feet of the North M of the North M of Section 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, lying East of State Road 951, Collier County, Florida 5 . Address or location of subject property 1001 Silver Lakes Blvd. Naples, FL 34114 6 . Does property owner own contiguous property to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page) . No 7 . TYPE OF AMENDMENT: X A. PUD Document Language Amendment X B. PUD Master Plan Amendment C. Development Order Language Amendment 8 . DOES AMENDMENT COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Yes No If no, explain: 2 9 . HAS A PUBLIC HEARING BEEN HELD ON THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE LAST YEAR? IF SO, IN WHOSE NAME? No 10 . HAS ANY PORTION OF THE PUD BEEN Yes SOLD AND/OR Yes DEVELOPED? ARE ANY CHANGES PROPOSED FOR THE AREA SOLD AND/OR DEVELOPED? X Yes . No. IF YES, DESCRIBE: (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) . Infrastructure to support 374 park/travel trailer lots, and 149 recreational residence lots has been constructed in the following manner: Phase One (Plat Book 20, Pages 91 and 92) ; Phase Two-A (Plat Book 24, Pages 54 and 55) ; Phase Two-B (Plat Book 25, Pages 69 and 70) ; Phase Two-C (Plat Book 27, Pages 74 and 75) ; Phase Two-D (Plat Book 29, Pages 34 and 35; Phase Two-E (Plat Book 31, Pages 45-47) ; Phase Two-F (Plat Book 33, Pages 37 and 38) . Phases One, Two-A, and Two-C have received Final Acceptance, and Phases Two-B, Two-D, Two-E, and Two-F have received Preliminary Acceptance. As of February 22 , 2001, 331 park/travel trailer lots have been sold, and 130 recreational residence lots have been sold. 3 AFFIDAVIT I, William E. Bridgett being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am an owner of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, and all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of my knowledge and belief . I understand this application must be completed and accurate before a hearing can be advertised. I further permit the undersigned to act as our representative in any matters regarding this Petition. NOTE: SIGNATURES OF ALL OWNERS ARE MANDATORY. William E. B ndge, SIGNATURE OF OWNER Co-Owner INATURE OF AGENT Dwight Nadeau, RWA. Inc . ( .iv State of F for i , County of C �l `V — The foregoi g Application was acknowledged of re1me this ;!:77 day of 4 U .� , 2001 by \Oo _ ' 1Q _ , who i ronp ally knot to me or who has produced �( 1 r,U''5 ' ceule_ as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. 4,1e94 10,4' DANA OA L.O(NQ lilt i/A 70',, r---� �hCommillion6PiesJINL31,2005 NOTARY PUBLIC Commission # c4 a i l-bdb My Commission Expires : PUD\DO APPLICATION/md/4128 workneighborhood/File-server-1/00-01/2001Proj ects/01-0091Si 1verLakes/Insubs tent ialPUDAmendment#3735/si lvlakpdaapp.do 4 AFFIDAVIT I, Wayne H. Henuset being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am an owner of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, and all sketches , data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of my knowledge and belief . I understand this application must be completed and accurate before a hearing can be advertised. I further permit the undersigned to act as our representative in any matters regarding this Petition. NOTE : SIGNATURES OF ALL OWNERS ARE MANDATORY. Wayne H. Henus` SIGNATURE OF OWNER Co-Owner — MATURE iF AGENT Dwight Nadeau, RWA. Inc . State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Alpplication was acknoledged beifpire me this ogT /4 day of '4,47/$1' , 204h by 44/4/4 X /Yi ' Fp , who is personally known to me `Sr who has produced .- and w•- . ' d ` did not)`4 take an oath. 7 -..A,. � " 4z, , c s 'y MORRIS H. SMELTZ, ,4 4_1, Iicitffr 6 NOTARY PUBLIC 1 MORRIS H. SMELTZ .s ,- __, ommission # �J — i4atary Public in aid to:the . MyCommission Expires :` ,t P Province of Alberts Chi,? nei PUD\DO A 'liFIY :N ILLON/md/4128 ¢ orkneighborhood/File-server-1/00-01/2001Projects/01-0091Si1verLakes/InsubstantialPUDAmendment#3735/silvlakpdaapp.doc 4 • C 0 16Z3t+ 9 1992 •SEP. -8 PR 3: 16' This instrument prepared byCOLLIER COUNTY RECORDED R!O /I DAVID C. BOURGEAU .R� FORSYTH, BRUGGER, REINA & BOURGEAU, P.A. MC ¢,p0 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 210 �N1 I.siples, Florida 33940 0911 Property Appraiser's Parcel Identification Number: • 0074200009 and 0072640000 • Grantee(s) S.S. #: THIS INSTRUMENT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF LEGAL OPINION OR TITLE EXAMINATION WARRANTY DEED CD THIS WARRANTY DEED made this 20th day o•f. Augusto 1992, by GEORGE T. DOWNEY and SANDRA G. DOWNEY, husband and wife, m - hereinafter called the Grantors, to CONQUEST DEVELOPMENT U.S.A. , p c L.C. , a Florida Limited Liability Com any, whose•,.:post office �c c address is Post Office Box 758, Marco Island, Florida - 33969 hereinafter called the Grantee: WITNESSETH: That the Grantors, for and'in consideration of the sum of $10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grant, bargain, sell, a7i'en, remise, release, convey and confirm unto the Grantee all that••fcertain land situate in Collier County, State .of Florida, viz: • See Exhibit "A" 'attached hereto and incorporated herein. -0 c c SUBJECT to zoning, building code and othcr•.restrictions :' imposed by governmental authority, reservation of oil, rncr E - a gas and mineral interests, restrictions and easements of • F ;�•oc record, and ad valorem real property taxers accruing , � r-v• subsequent to December ,,31, 1991. u*88 SUBJECT ALSO to the following mortgages which the Grantee hereby assumes and agrees to pay:. 1. Mortgage from R. Elliot Aronheim, •arid. Doran . L. Bouchard to Dr. A.• E. Rhoden, dated August 8, 1988, and recorded August 17, •1988 in O.R. BOOk 1373, Page ` 971, Public Records of Collier County; Florida. ,� 2. Mortgage from George T. Downey and Sanc>;ra G. Downey to William E. Bridgett, Sandra L. Bridgett and Wayne F. Henuset, dated: December 8, 1988, and recorded December 14 , 1988::, in O.R. Book l4Q;0,, Page 118, • '" Public Records of :Collier County, Florida. • • TOGETHER, with all tenements; hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise. appertaining. • TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. A;E Tx.rA 1(Y IIMQTHY 0.HAINS.k2O. yl»E.TAMIAMI1f1AIL fGiTl:Cfi N,9�D62 I • • AND the Grantors hereby covenant with said Grantee that the Grantors are lawfully seized of said land in tee simple; that the Grantors have good right and lawful authority to sa..l and convey said land, and hereby warrant .the title to said :'•land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of''- all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 1991, • • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantors have signed and sealed -these presents the day and year first above written:.. • Witnesr�es: V/ Witness #1 Signature Signat e - Susan T. Roy O GEORGE T, DOWNEy: CD C Witness #1 Printed Name • Printed Name 7 C (CI, ', s7 ..s.' .' re P, Box 367 7-s #2 S gnatuWells, ME 04090 : :: Post Office Address.. i • •lir Witness • •rinted Name Wit ess #1 Signature Si nAature • '•` Susan T. Roy • SANDRA G, DOWNEY'. � — Witness #1 Printed lame Printed Name • G-) tn1 a — c, P.O. Box 367' Witpe•ss 12 sign ture Wells, ME 04090,••. . /% Post Office Address John R,°Kugler /• Witness 2 P -rated Name STATE OF MA„ COUNTY OF YORK . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2Oth day of Aust ,1992, by George T. Downey and Sandra G. Downey, who are personally known to me or.who have produced driver's license as identification and did take an;'oath. . /41./C/Jca /.. C Notary Public Signature • Susan T. Roy • • UU 9" Notary Public Printed Name • J C� • ., • (All; i • State of MAINE at Large j: 5; _ My commission expires: .'• C� • &itSJ+diAC7V• •,.:,.J., .. .. . ---: .. •= I........... .„: „.:.,„. ...: " I 10 . . , ®® % I t0 - I , •:I .,,,,,..„,..... , ..,.. r=7 iN n a. (41,,61.....7 ...;4..6....1.1.sc..1... 4 - .2m • xW . 11 ®: : . ;®.: •_ .®• • 1 Q .cg E 1 • b 14 V7 ►: !: ca g es m;,...f..f.1:1 -Lei,/46, z ,,, , ......, .., .., „„,„ .„ i fr.,,,..1,44. -f.:3 At,t.4 Cr) cl_i k ,,, 0:‘4" 0 No,t Ci3140 : :0;43.&,:.44,....I C; ..-1— W CV = c ,� Q •.5 •;"„ ..1)....1.. .....,, vi,• ;•: ' i~i .`. ,{ —.,3 in 4. ►i.•.••, O.:- ® ••i: / 1.•/,W ® •• 2 �I d� �' c: 0 ul 4 E a z *��� M• .74 ..:�L,: l T/1 it iri H aux �y a a F c .�,� ...•(��•: I •` �•;••• _ _ x a F0. y z T z zo • 1• � 'I V] 3e F• 14704 E P 1 `,� 0, ''' r;SA -.: :1 - •,.; • 4, ,..1. 7 I p . �� • ,,, . ,,..,.., . .p.„. .:., .. z U .:_(x,'1: s:tel.t.•:1i 1' :, .. - .:.:.:. ., H.:: -.-- *.,\,)- ... _\ 4 :ii14 . N444444„.N4WW".‘‘.** ,-.Iii: ::,7 0 •:, ' . . :"" " iill Sk4.Ntk !iiiHH4:.$4444:.ftii ii s.i.! — :-' "H " ihh iiHii*iiittoktliii ii 9,i! iiii: . .-rN 'i'"""'.\\ *'''' "i '" "ks 0 . .." ,,,„„ „ ,1,ii 1.1HiiHi. . ," ::,: i,ii. )17 '"\H!i . :!ii 'HA: iu �. � IIIIIIII . .: ::: :::" " Hik..vii„ Hiqxi\-4.1. i .„ : 4. s : . \ '. ''':\\*Ii :ri .:::: :4":: .i....:':: ' t I:L4 . . H :" " :"H ":N\J i.: 1:*!: .: :' . . \.4 iiHii:4*H �® \` i i i i i - o w OgN hil .. . ..:. """H Lt ,,,i ,ieh „ . . :'8 , + , ii . .. ::.:::.: ,11 44: : f \\.k,14:41.: ' .. ©::: • .i , i i i v:i :*•.- h 1 < w 4a pFppp O y 4 F,w i , , �\ \ H X coxo c'„at , , , -1'' ; i-' wr w wd z W : :: \ : i i i s H '^r)� <t�'� <aa.E� C,�{ :: ::iHilii ..,.\:\„::., ... ....\. :.:::iH1:.! .N.: :: . . w wa ' '' . ... .: ,," " iii ! iit,t H.\\**N.4, ‘',:,,,„ .„:ii - . -- . .. , " ,"" iikt,,, ,ii :„,", , ,„ g : i-i, „,„ .L.„ . . . . , " ,„,, ,.„,„,„.,,_ . "7"--77-77 7:7: 71. ..N. 1 : :, k. ss .i i': : „ r,...H . .:::„, ,, 1 iL :mi „,;,,k,: : „ „,„ , k . ;:: z , . r.3, -T— o . .. : : : i -,N::: i N.NN,..-4t. :::- - .. '::'; li*H.: Illt‘\N"::.::.:..•.:i k.,:„, ,, 11111 \--- . . „, „, , ,, :,,,,,, ..: ,.,,::::., ,,,„,,,,,„:„„.. . „ : ,. „: „ „ „„„.,; .„,,,,. :::-.iiigvHihb. i \-- • ' „ Hi'l: .i liiH6i : . ." " ::HSi x <-\:: ,:,,: :,E: hi,,!'[\I,...,411E11 !IIIIHHIiiIIIL,,,i,, I: .,i1h1,:1HIL:, li.l!i!.,.::: .: \ :121 ,18 - .• E <, . U U m (ase—as) 0'1°8 iaavo jo 31S1 / Z » 1 ma,..awav,Ke1«014 .1..,.,1...x...,......11 «Q NVId da15VW Cind ,...., sluersuOQ,eluewugAu3 T T A A %T amr- �x,�1 V luewdO,enea�I j rIZfl >1 G'�\Al ail S=AID c .J '"�w Vl J'""' l�" l'S ��tt X091�.,I TI 16�•pysu. I I•dSII 7712S. VV✓G0v1Z1.15 7O�7 9L K i1/01 01C -iJ L1YCW 'Ll.3 mar as -.ewe UV O.1111,14 ONLYAN•61 WO TWO/.4.000.1,11111 AMSEirtil CI W -= YJ..OA i SIMWM O IMMIX•i,.MtOdell1111 01041111M5 XL.Oda,led OL.ar.....wLL. MLA l /A Ala = LON NYfd=ISO(CM EIP :gel' 6 e IL ! ii )l 1 I 11! y id ( 1 ' II IF gY' IS 0 Seee eCV i` s 1 I � a® Glee b ,c 6 1 e CO 6e60 E a®e II0> 066 II \ s e e cess 11 �i 1 ag W :6 se z®e s III ��% 11 Rts:om Z eeaoe®a • II ; �/� i�L ,�y� g azaa�a ®ease® ®® ®` Ill �� g.a.l&i' <4 �1 \\\�\\ e B®seesV\ - I I o�o� r� F U m + + + < 06112 ®en^+e lava a®l II ..E31=m'3=!: a N-• h N CD Ito els®Bee1l IIii, xpP'4e1 0C� e� ®®®tHe� i 1 ---- I v gs � =1 ` a e e ee ----- E I wg&o s 4 -ee a ®e (' rlI _ o1ibaI va, coF-1 83 CC€� e :ti F--1,CIEECA Cd 2 Y> 4 al c4 > C:i 990 e esese ---' eiggispq I eaJFi�4 grq ® i !,e.e .®7®®B sews, 00 • Ise®e®a®®®-Iseesese es . n,--,-_____.— aaeee®eeR W lii� It ' I 6 l a, g x a .a I Lr LJ. / I — Ii AI 1 is li. g i Q e'. F i II •lf I '`' II# OW11 l 1 . Ng. !ifiIliIJjIJ It J J ➢ I { I 1. (.tr o ,o o a) 196 (WOE asdss i 'i i • . .�«.owae•xt+w(w ,oiK.•••,..x ut••• •.oe••.•xw.,ow z z slue�nsuoo Iquewuainu3 T T• ♦ '1 T ✓1 and �°� '°° luewdo ane4�iaaNION3 MID Sa)Idi,%1A-IIS ���� u IT.' Tao ilsmoi 1NaWd0"11/13�1s310N0) a9z SES SI. ' oxen �x as :a", naw W 4 _ „8„ 11811-1X3 CA7,771_,..,O OtOvai • ed iIiI •F Cn . • . • • W . ID ' • So < < , • • . . cv� wcom ar ,„z �.. 11. ' •ort CC i 1-3 cle x • • 14 C F.W ix / U\;.'4 W \ I—i w <6 U z a G /// \ ¢ z F_-.•„s'-` > CI 0 • • • • a ® •• •••• •••••• • • \ / 1 • ' `` II `<6 U U W CO • F •• . . .• \` / a F F FF F.] •• Q U U U U V 6 • • • • • • F [C Z CC CC LC O • / O F F F F F F F E1 k:1441. ,1*. ' / • • • • • •0 , _< F kx...N /*- :„ td It lq \\\\\\\\\`` kms- 3 ,// _ --------------- 4 0 4 ................................. Si 4 rrr 2.3 PROJECT PLAN AND LAND USE TRACTS: A. The project Master Plan, including layout of the streets and general depiction of land use is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD Master Development Plan. The project Tract Map identifies approximate acreage and land use of the various tracts, and is illustrated by Exhibit "B", PUD Tract Map. There shall be land use tracts, plus necessary water management lakes, street rights-of-way, the general configuration is which is also illustrated by Exhibit "A". TYPE UNITS ACREAGE -- TRACT "A" Park/T.T. 400 26 24 TRACT "AR" RESIDENTIAL 160 15 TRACT "CR" CR 0 97 78 TRACT "CO" CO 0 3 26 TRACT "B" BUFFER 0 5 3 B. Areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit "A" shall be constructed lakes or, upon approval, parts there of may be depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit "A", and Exhibit "B". C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "B", such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi- public, etc.) shall be established within or along the various tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY A maximum of 400 park/ttry lots, and 160 recreational residential lots shall be constructed in the total project area. The gross project area is approximately 146 acres. The gross project density, therefore, will be a maximum of 1.1 rec,eational residences per ael e and 2.73 park/ttry lots per acre. 2-2 Text struck through is to be deleted. Text underlined is to be added. Item V. C ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2001 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-1464 Petition Name: Rookery Bay Towers PUD Applicant/Developer: Robert C. Malt Engineering Consultant: Hole Montes, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 78.7 acre parcel located on the west side of Collier Boulevard, approximately two miles south of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and US 41 in Section 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are undeveloped with the following zoning classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Agricultural Undeveloped S - PUD (Marco Shores) Undeveloped E - R.O.W. Collier Blvd. Agricultural Undeveloped RSF-3 Undeveloped PUD (Marco Shores) Undeveloped W - CON-ST (Rookery Bay National Estuarine Undeveloped Research Reserve) IV. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: L EAC Meeting Page 2 of 8 The proposed 78.7-acre PUD is a residential development consisting of 315 multi- family dwelling units. The PUD Master plan limits the residential development to a 4-acre residential tract that is surrounded by a conservation area that is approximately 74.6 acres in size. As a result, this project provides 95 percent open space. In addition, the project density is restricted to 4 units per acre, which is consistent with the Future land Use Element to the Growth Management Plan. In order to achieve the maximum number of dwelling units on the residential tract, the petitioner proposes two residential buildings with a maximum height of 100 feet or 10 stories. This building height is less than the maximum building height of 200 feet that is approved in the Marco Shores PUD on the east side of Collier Boulevard. To the west near (Rookery Bay) are vacant lands that are zoned conservation while lands to the north are zoned Agricultural. Lastly, the subject site is accessed from Shell Island Road at the southern boundary of the project, which connects with the median opening on Collier Boulevard. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject site is located within the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Sub-district that is intended to provide locations for residential development. This district permits a base density of four (3) 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 Rookery Bay Towers PUD. The project density is also consistent with the Density Rating System contained in the FLUE and is based on a Base Density of 3 units per acre plus one unit per acre for an affordable housing density bonus allowing a total of 4 units per acre. The PUD document and Master Plan indicate that the project is intended for 315 dwelling units. As a result, staff is of the opinion that the subject petition 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 in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an EAC Meeting Page 3 of 8 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 of water leaving the site by utilizing retention areas to provide water quality retention. 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 EAC Meeting Page 4 of 8 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 exceeds the 25% on-site native vegetation preservation requirement pursuant to Policy 6.4.6. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: Rookery Bay Towers is a proposed residential project on the north side of Shell Island Road just west of Collier Boulevard. The site is located within a coastal basin and west of the salinity line. There are no County stormwater maintenance facilities in the vicinity of the project. The site is completely surrounded by wetlands. A dry retention area for water quality is being proposed, but since there are no downstream properties that can be adversely affected by the rapid shedding of water, no water quantity detention is required. Environmental: Site Description: The 78.7± acre property consists of a mosaic of wetland, open water, and upland habitats. Wetlands on site are tidal and brackish or saline in nature. A majority of the wetlands consist of saltwater marshes and mangrove swamp. A smaller amount of hydic pine flatwoods also occurs on site. Open water habitats are found at two locations and occupy about 11.4 acres. Uplands habitats on site are all man-made and consist of 1.77± acres of roadway (Shell Island Road) and abandoned railroad grade. Exotic vegetation is present on site. Brazilian pepper is located primarily along the edge of the roadway and the railroad grade, and in several areas of buttonwood. Melaleuca occupies a 0.7± acre patch in a slightly elevated area of saltwater marsh and as scattered seedling in the adjacent marsh. The Collier County Soils Atlas depicts two soils occurring on site. These are Durbin and Wulfert mucks, frequently flooded (Unit 40) and Estero and Peckish EAC Meeting Page 5 of 8 soils, frequently flooded (Unit 53) Both soil types are listed as hydric soils by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Wetlands: Approximately 65.6 acres of the site consist of jurisdictional wetlands and 11.4 acres consist of submerged lands. Vegetative types on the property include saltwater marsh, mangrove swamp, buttonwood/cabbage palm, hydic pine flatwoods and Brazilian pepper. Approximately 5.1 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted for development of the project. A site plan and wetland mitigation plan are included as Figure 7 of the EIS. The mitigation plan includes the restoration of 0.8 acres of wetland by removing the abandoned railroad grade and the enhancement and preservation of approximately 62 acres of wetland via removal of exotic vegetation and improved sheet flow. Approximately 11.4 acres of other waters will also be preserved. Wetland restoration and enhancement activities are discussed in detail in section 3.8.5.4.1.4(f) (page 16) of the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). Several alternative site development scenarios were considered during the preparation of the proposed site plan and these are discussed in section 3.8.5.4.1.4(e) (page 11) of the EIS. The proposed plan preserves more native vegetation on site than the previous plans. In order to obtain the required number of residential units and to minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, the units were consolidated into two (2) multi-story buildings on an envelope of ± 4.0 acres. The proposed location of the development envelope was selected to maximize the location of the buildings within the existing disturbed uplands, which include a portion of the old railroad grade. The buildings at this location allows the entrance of the development to take advantage of the existing road (Shell Island Road) across the property and to use the existing median cut on Collier Boulevard. This obviates the need to construct a second access road across the site. The height of the buildings were also increased to accommodate the same number of units on a smaller area of land. At-grade parking lots as originally proposed were also replaced by multi-story parking facilities with amenities placed on top of the parking structures to reduce impacts. The stormwater management system was redesigned to replace the proposed wet detention system with a dry detention system, thereby requiring less area for the same level of water quality treatment. Preservation Requirements: The project exceeds the 25% native vegetation requirement by preserving approximately 74 acres (94%) of the native vegetation on site. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 8 C Listed Species: A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted on April 23, 1997 to determine whether the site was being utilized by state of federal listed species. The survey consisted of two ecologists walking through the various habitats to ensure sufficient visual coverage was obtained. No listed wildlife or plant species were identified(sight, sound, or sign) within the site boundary during the wildlife survey. There was no reference in the "Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies" for any breeding wading bird colonies located within or adjacent to the project site. The most proximal wading bird colonies were approximately 3 and 9 miles from the project site. This includes colony numbers 620022 (East Marco Bay) and 620102 (Pumkin Bay), respectively. A thorough survey for listed wading bird nests was also conducted for wetlands on site by walking the entire interior and exterior of the mangrove wetlands. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR- 1464 "Rookery Bay Towers PUD"with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. This project must obtain a surface water management permit from the South Florida Water Management District. Environmental: No additional stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: API i 2ocr®l STAN CHRZANOWS P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER l0/ 7/o ." ADARMES MINOR. P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER ./rf.-Wftt 0//7/eC STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: /0 •/7.0) RAY/OND . BELLOWS DATE P1,07 IPAL PLANNER USAN MURRAY, MCP DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER EAC Meeting Page 8 of 8 / m/ THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DA E INTERIM PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR APPROVED BY: 01,Afiv 12-SIO JO J M. DUNNUCK, III DATE INTEI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY UNCIL TH 9 - S W. ANSBURY, CHA►' AN SL/gdh/c: StaffReport , ROOKERY BAY TOWERS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT A Prepared by: HOLE,MONTES INC. 950 Encore Way Naples, Florida 34110 June 1999 Revised February 2001 Revised August, 2001 HM File No. 1996005 Date Reviewed by CCPC: Date Approved by BCC: Ordinance No. Amendments &Repeals - 1 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I- Statement of Compliance 3 SECTION II -Property Ownership, Legal Description, Short Title, and Statement of Unified Control 5 SECTION III - Statement of Intent and Project Description 6 SECTION IV - General Development Regulations 7 SECTION V -Preserve Area Requirements 10 SECTION VI - Permitted Uses and Dimensional Standards 11 SECTION VII-Development Commitments 14 EXHIBITS Exhibit A-PUD Master Plan - 2 - SECTION I Statement of Compliance The development of approximately 78.7 acres of property in Collier County, as a Planned Unit Development,to be known as Rookery Bay Towers,will be in compliance with the goals,objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The residential component of the project and recreational facilities of Rookery Bay Towers will be consistent with growth policies,land development regulations,and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the Growth Management Plan for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use Residential Land Use Designation as identified on the Future Land Use Map as required in Objective 1,Policy 5.1 and 5.3 of the Future Land Use Element and is further located in the Urban Coastal Fringe. 2. The Urban Mixed Use Residential designation is intended to provide locations for the development of higher densities and intensities of land use and permits a maximum density of three (3) dwelling units per acre within the Urban Coastal Fringe pursuant to the Future Land Use Element or a maximum of two hundred and thirty-six (236) dwelling units. 3. To encourage the provision of affordable housing within the Urban Designated Area, the Future Land Use Element also provides that a maximum of up to 8 residential units per gross acre may be added to the base density for affordable housing. A density bonus of only one (1)dwelling unit per gross acre is provided in the Rookery Bay Towers PUD,which is filed in conjunction with an Affordable Housing Agreement submitted as part of the rezoning petition to permit sixty-three (63)moderately priced affordable housing units. The maximum density, therefore, for Rookery Bay Towers is four (4) dwelling units per gross acre based on a combination of density permitted within the Urban Coastal Fringe and one(1)per acre authorized for affordable housing,resulting in a maximum of three hundred fifteen (315) total dwelling units 4. The proposed PUD Master Plan includes extensive open space and natural areas which comprises about ninety-five percent(95%)of the gross project area in order to meet the goals of the Conservation Zone Management Element and Policy 5.6, which encourage the conservation of natural resources, environmentally sensitive areas and open space areas. 5. The subject property's location in relation to the existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's residential density as required in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element. 6. 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. 7. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations - 3 - as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. 8. The project development will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3.1.H and L of the Future Land Use Element. 9. All final Development Orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Concurrency Management System,as implemented by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,Division 3.15, of the Land Development Code. - 4 - SECTION II Property Ownership,Legal Description, Short Title and Statement of Unified Control 2.1 Property Ownership The subject property is currently owned by Robert C. Malt. 2.2 Legal Description The west %2 of the southwest V4 and the south%2 of the south V2 of the south 1/2 of the north 1/2 of Section 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, lying west of State Road 951, subject to an easement over the westerly 100' thereof, in favor of Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc. Parcel contains 78.7 acres, more or less. 2.3 General Description of Property The property is located on the west side of S.R. 951, approximately two (2)miles south of the intersection of S.R. 951 and U.S. 41. The zoning of the subject property prior to the application for PUD rezoning is "A" agriculture. The existing flood zone is AE-8. 2.4 Short Title This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Rookery Bay Towers Planned Unit Development Ordinance". 2.5 Statement of Unified Control This statement represents that the current property owner has lands under unified control for the purpose of obtaining PUD zoning on the subject property. Development of this Planned Unit Development will occur in accordance with the Planned Unit Development regulations contained herein and any conditions approved with the rezone petition as described and agreed to within the PUD Ordinance. - 5 - SECTION III Statement of Intent and Project Description 3.1 Introduction It is the intent of this Ordinance is to establish a Planned Unit Development meeting the requirements as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) that will permit three hundred and fifteen(315)dwelling units for the subject property. The purpose of this document is to set forth guidelines for the future development of the project that meets accepted planning principles and practices, and to implement the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 3.2 Project Description The project is comprised of 78.7 acres located within Section 15,Township 51 South,Range 26 East. Access to the subject property is provided from Shell Island which intersects with S.R. 951 and the project has the benefit of a full median opening for ingress and egress. The project will provide for three hundred and fifteen(315)multi-family units at a gross project density of four (4) dwelling units per acre together with amenities, required open space and water management facilities, all located within a residential development envelope of±4.06 acres within the total 78.7 acre project. 3.3 Land Use Plan and Project Phasing A. The PUD Master Plan contains a total of one (1) residential tract of±4.06 acres, which includes areas for recreational use and water management,as depicted on the PUD Master Plan. The Master Plan is designed to be flexible with regard to the placement of buildings, tracts and related utilities and water management facilities. More specific commitments will be made at the time of site development plan and permitting approval, based on compliance with all applicable requirements of this Ordinance, the LDC and Local, State and Federal permitting requirements. The residential tract may be subdivided into smaller tracts,subject to compliance with the applicable dimensional requirements contained within this document. B. The anticipated time of build-out of the project is approximately five(5)years from the time of issuance of the first building permit. - 6 - SECTION IV General Development Regulations The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development regulations that may be applied generally to the development of the Rookery Bay Towers Planned Unit Development and PUD Master Plan. 4.1 General The following are general provisions applicable to the PUD Master Plan: A. Regulations for development of the Rookery Bay Towers PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document,the PUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan. The developer, his successor or assignee, agree to follow the PUD Master Plan and the regulations of this PUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition,any successor in title or assignee is subject to the commitments within this agreement. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Rookery Bay Towers PUD shall become part of the regulations, which govern the manner in which this site may be developed. D. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Div. 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. E. Unless specifically waived through any variance or waiver provisions from any other applicable regulations,the provisions of those regulations not otherwise provided for in this PUD shall remain in full force and effect. 4.2 Site Clearing and Drainage Clearing,grading,earthwork,and site drainage work shall be performed in accordance with the Collier County LDC and the standards and commitments of this document in effect at the time of construction plan approval. - 7 - 4.3 Easements for Utilities Easements,where required,shall be provided for water management areas,utilities and other purposes as may be required by Collier County. All necessary easements, dedications or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all services and utilities. This will be in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time construction plans and plat approvals are requested. 4.4 Amendments to the Ordinance The proposed PUD Master Plan is conceptual in nature and subject to change within the context of the development standards contained in this Ordinance. Other amendments to this Ordinance and PUD Master Plan shall be made pursuant to Section 2.7.3.5 of the Collier County LDC, as revised, in effect at the time the amendment is requested. 4.5 Project Plan Approval Requirements Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to,or concurrent with PUD approval,a Preliminary Subdivision Plat(if required) shall be submitted for the entire area covered by the PUD Master Plan. All division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the subdivision regulations set forth in Section 3.2 of the LDC. Prior to the recording of the final subdivision plat, when required by the Subdivision Regulations set forth in Section 3.2 of the LDC, final plans for the required improvements shall receive the approval of all appropriate Collier County governmental agencies to ensure compliance with the PUD Master Plan,the County Subdivision Regulations and the platting laws of the State of Florida. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order, the provisions of Section 3.3 of the LDC,Site Development Plans shall be applied to all platted parcels,where applicable. Should no subdivision of land occur, Section 3.3 shall be applicable to the development of all tracts as shown on the PUD Master Plan. 4.6 Sunset and Monitoring Provisions Rookery Bay Towers PUD shall be subject to Section 2.7.3.4 of the LDC, Time Limits for Approved PUD Master Plans and Section 2.7.3.6 Monitoring Requirements. 4.7 Polling Places Any community recreation/public building/public room or similar common facility located within the Rookery Bay Towers PUD may be used for a polling place, if determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners upon recommendation of the Supervisor of Elections, in accordance with Section 2.6.30 of the LDC. - 8 - 4.8 Native Vegetation The project will meet the requirements of Division 3.9,Vegetation Removal,Protection and Preservation of the LDC for the subject property. 4.9 Open Space Open space may be in the form of landscaping,buffers,passive or active recreation areas and water management facilities. The total aggregate of such open space areas shall meet or exceed the open space requirements of Section 2.6.32 of the LDC, which requires a minimum of sixty (60)percent for residential developments. 4.10 Archaeological Resources The developer shall be subject to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the LDC pertaining to archaeological resources in the event they are contained on the property. 4.11 Common Area Maintenance Common area maintenance, including the maintenance of common facilities, open spaces, and water management facilities shall be the responsibility of a homeowners' association to be established by the developer. - 9 - SECTION V Preserve Area Requirements 5.1 Purpose The purpose of this Section is to identify development standards for the Preserve Areas as shown on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. 5.2 Permitted Uses Clearing for permitted uses is allowed provided that a minimum of±74(seventy-four)acres of native vegetation is retained within the PUD as depicted on the PUD Master Plan. No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land use, in whole or part, for other than the following structures: 1. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: A. Passive recreation areas. B. Biking, hiking, nature trails, and boardwalks C. Water management structures D. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries E. Supplemental landscape planting,screening and buffering within the Preserve Areas, after the appropriate environmental review. F. Any other use deemed comparable in nature by the Development Services Director. - 10 - SECTION VI Permitted Uses and Dimensional Standards 6.1 Purpose The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the Rookery Bay Towers PUD designated for residential development on the PUD Master Plan, Exhibit "A". 6.2 Maximum Dwelling Units Three hundred and fifteen (315) multi-family dwelling units are permitted within the Rookery Bay Towers PUD. 6.3 General Description The Rookery Bay Towers PUD includes the following uses which are depicted on the PUD Master Plan. A residential multi-family development envelope comprising±3.68 acres,with the balance of the property generally proposed to be in Conservation Areas. The table below depicts the land use summary for the project. Minor adjustments may be made to the land use tabulations based on permitting or final design considerations. DESCRIPTION ACRES ±PERCENT Residential Development Envelope 4.06 5% Conservation Area 74.64 94% Shell Island Road 0.41 1.0% Total Open Space 76.28 97% TOTAL AREA 78.7 100% The approximate acreage of the residential tract is depicted on the PUD Master Plan. Actual acreage of all development areas will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat approvals in accordance with Article 3, Division 3.3, and Division 3.2,respectively,of the Collier County Land Development Code. The residential area is designed to accommodate internal roadways,open spaces,recreational amenity areas, water management facilities, and other similar uses found in residential areas. 6.4 Permitted Uses and Structures No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: - 11 - 1. Principal Uses: (a) Multi-family dwellings within areas identified for such use on the PUD Master Plan. (b) Conservation Areas as depicted on the PUD Master Plan which may include passive recreational areas such as nature trails,boardwalks,and similar kinds of uses. (c) Any other housing type which is comparable in nature with the foregoing use and which the Development Services Director determines to be compatible with the proposed residential uses. 2. Accessory Uses and Structures (a) Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal residential uses permitted in this district, including recreational facilities as depicted on the PUD Master Plan which may include covered parking under swimming pools, tennis courts, and similar uses. 6.5 Development Standards 1. Dimensional standards for permitted uses: Minimum lot area: One (1) acre Minimum lot width: One hundred (100) feet Minimum yard requirements: Front yard: A minimum of one hundred(100)feet from the State Road 951 right-of- way. Rear yard: one half the building height as measured from each exterior wall with a minimum of thirty (30) feet. Side yard: one half the building height as measured from each exterior wall with a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. Maximum building height: one hundred(100)feet above the FEMA flood elevation or ten stories. Distance between structures: one half the sum of the building heights. Minimum floor area: 750 S.F. - 12 - 2. All landscaping shall be in accordance with Division 2.4,Landscaping and Buffering of the LDC. 3. All signage shall be in conformance with Division 2.5 of the LDC. 4. All parking shall be in conformance with Division 2.3, Off-Street Parking and Loading. 5. Setbacks shall be measured from the legal external boundary of the lot and are inclusive of easements with the exception of easements that comprise a road right-of- way. - 13 - SECTION VII Development Commitments 7.1 Environmental Standards The purpose of this Section is to set forth the environmental commitments of the Project Developer. All preservation areas shall be designated as 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. 1. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by Current Planning Section Staff. 2. Native vegetation preservation shall conform to the requirements of Subsection 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County LDC. For this PUD a Conservation Area comprising approximately seventy-four(74) acres is provided. Minor modifications of the size of the Conservation Area maybe made to satisfy the requirements of wetland permitting agencies including the South Florida Water Management District. 3. An exotic vegetation removal,monitoring and maintenance(exotic free)plan for the site, with emphasis on the Preservation Area, shall be submitted to the Current Planning Section Staff for review and approval prior to Final Site Plan/Construction Approval. A schedule for exotic removal within all Preservation Areas shall be submitted with the above-mentioned plan. 4. The petitioner shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to protected wildlife species. Where protected species are observed on site, a habitat management plan for these protected species shall be submitted to Current Planning Section Staff for review and approval prior to Final Site Plan/Construction Approval. 5. The applicant shall be subject to all environmental ordinances in effect at the time of development order approvals to which said regulations relate. 6. Portions of the old roadway bed running through central portions of the property and not included within the residential development envelope will be removed and the natural elevations re-established within these areas. - 14 - 7.2 Transportation Requirements The purpose of this Section is to set forth the transportation commitments of the project development. 1. The developer shall provide arterial level street lighting of the project entrance. Said lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Internal access improvements shall not be subject to impact fee credits and shall be in place before any certificates of occupancy are issued. 3. All traffic control devices used shall conform with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as required by Chapter 316.0745, Florida Statutes. 4. Access to the site will be provided from the entrance to Shell Island Road, which currently has a full directional median opening. 7.3 Utility and Engineering Requirements The purpose of this Section is to set forth the utilities and engineering commitments of the project developer. 1. Utility Requirements A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 88-76,as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. 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. Should the County not be in a position to provide sewer service to the project,the sewer customers shall be customers of the interim utility established to serve the project until the County's off-site sewer facilities are available to serve the project. C. Prior to approval of construction documents by the County, the developer must present verification,pursuant to Chapter 367,Florida Statutes,that the Florida Public Service Commission has granted territorial rights to the developer to provide sewer service to the project until the County can provide these services through its sewer facilities. - 15 - D. The utility construction documents for the project's sewerage system shall contain the design and construction of an on-site force main, which will ultimately connect the project to the future central sewerage facilities of Collier County. The force main must be interconnected to the pump station with appropriately located valves to permit for simple redirection of the project's sewage, when connection to the County's central sewer facilities becomes available. E. Prior to or at the time of submission of construction plans and the final plat for the project, the potable water supply from the Collier County Water- Sewer District to serve this project shall be installed adjacent to the property and be in service. 2. Engineering A. Detailed paving,grading,site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans are submitted to the Planning Services Department and until approval of the proposed construction, in accordance with the submitted plans, is granted by the Planning Services Department. B. Design and construction Of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County LDC. C. Subdivision of the site shall require platting in accordance with Section 3.2 of LDC to define the right-of-way and tracts shown on the PUD Master Plan, if applicable. D. The developer and all subsequent owners of this project shall be required to satisfy the requirements of all County ordinances or codes in effect prior to or concurrent with any subsequent development order relating to this site, including but not limited to Preliminary Subdivision Plats, Site Development Plans and any other applications that will result in the issuance of a final development order. 7.4 Water Management Requirements The purpose of this Section is to set forth the water management commitments of the project developer. 1. Detailed paving, grading and site drainage plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Department for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction,in accordance with the submitted plans, - 16 - is granted by the Development Services Department. 2. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County LDC, except that excavation for water management features shall be allowed within twenty (20) feet of the side, rear or abutting property lines with side, rear or abutting property lines fenced. 3. Landscaping may be placed within the water management area in compliance with the criteria established within Section 2.4.7.3 of the LDC. 4. The wet season water table elevation shall be established at the time of the South Florida Water Management District permitting, which is required for the subject property. 5. Culverts will be placed under Shell Island Road within the southern boundary of the property to enhance the movement of water now restricted by this roadway. (See Conceptual Water Management Plan submitted at the time of zoning. - 17 - Fj 1 A 1 : g 0 0 D o • ..-:-.'7,1 --." : 411 -9N:8 S LL, i 6 .....,........... II I 'D: •,t i) i 8 M 5 Z 8 g .......:q......................:::: ::::::::::::::::..................... I 1 F) 11 :::::::::::::::: :::::: ::::::::::::::::‘:::::::::: ::::I I 1;1 ' if Id ; 8 ?i :::11:: :::::::::::::::•.•:::::::::::":::'.•.: 1 i :: --1 d .127 ITJ > C2,W2 el 6 >"•;'-r3 .....,.. R' ' I :::: ,::::::::„_„;_.,:-:-:-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•-::::: 111 1 ,..:.t.:.4-4-.6-:-.6:7::::::::""•—:::::::::: : :::::-L ll _, ,..-.r..,. 7, :::::••••••••••.- •••••••••••••:::::::6 H ::::: :::::::::::: :••••••••••••••••.:: H flI::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: I LI , a°-.1 •_ It 1 1 9 z.5 2 LC° cc FL : :: ,.... Ill ::::::::: :::::::::::::: ::::: : : : :::: :::::: 'I 1 :: :11: :::::::::::: :::: : :::::: 1 I >.g : : ::::::: : :::::: : "‹ 21 i 5••, 0::::: :::::: It:::::::::::: : " :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::':•:•::':-::::•1 1 I i° • :,. ..,,...•• : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..' ..,„ ,.:... .."....::::::::::........::::::::"..6....: sx.::: ::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::: (.:::::: :::::::::' " .. ,..., :::::::: ::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: zo n.s., :::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: gi 1 8 :; ..,::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::r 1 . i < : 1 1 ) : :::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::) ° ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i::::::::::::::::::::::: i L7 i.• :•:*1 2; , ...:.,,:.,::.,,A.„,,.,„ : ::::::::: ::: : 4 i • "1 i -• • •I . 1 .,;:,,,_ •ii,i:: :::::: : - 1 1 i :: : : ::::::q::::::::::::N•\:%::::::::::::•::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 1 1 k' •,•,-; t z m ; a 7 ,,,....f.,L.: ::: ::::::::1 : :::::• - -.::::• .."\.::::::::::::::: ::: 11, 1 n ri 14::::::::::: :::::::• .. < k \-:'• i' ::I: '1.7 fii: : iv , ,..•.•••:::::::: i„, :::::4::::::::::::::::::::::::AV. , ‘. ''V••:::::::i l'" 1 CD CO CC ::::::p,::::7:::::::::::: ::':i:::':.:.•\**\,. •••• :.::::::::: 1' 1 >" ui NA 2 . :::::q:::::::::::::.:,:::::::::::::::::::::. * • -.::' ::::::: ..iiT.1 'La' :.:Li H I :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::iii :::::::::i:::7i:'i::..:i:*:%.,..\•,‘ '::ii -U 7" ::::::1:1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::.• .. ':111) i \it .... • ..t . I +II . .. • '1 1:1 .....,..:::...,........::::::::::::::::::::::::: "' ••'" 4Y j 1 ;.*::::::::1 1 4 \Ni l 1 II . :::: t:::::::::: :::::::.. :::::::::::::: ::: '-c' •••••••••1 a ......- ii I .o. M ., .6 .. •'.1 :: , .....,::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::.," '•••:::::•""" :::: 0 ..d ..:1, - ,_ 9 1 ::: : ::: ::::::: - ' 'n '-- ' . , . -A • " -. - .,.. , z ::::: :::::::::::::: ,i :....:.„,, :::--- . ,. .::::::::::::: :,----:,,, ....- ::::: .,:_ „_,..._-_, Pup UNIFORM WETLAND MITIGATION ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -PART I Chapter 62-345.500, F.A.C. Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Type of Natural Community(FLUCCS,level a) Hydrogeomorphic or SCS classification Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody(Class) Special Classification(i.e.OFW,AP,other local/state/federal designation of importance) Setting(i.e.urban,suburban,rural) Relationship between assessment area and contigous wetlands or surface waters Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the floral and faunal components in relation to the regional Expected Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Reviev(ust of species that are Expected Utilization by Listed Species(List species,their legal classification(E,T,SSG, representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found) type of use,and intensity of use of the assessment area) Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization(List species directly observed,or other signs of usage such as tracks,droppings,casings,nests,etc.) Functions Other relevant factors: Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): UNIFORM WETLAND MITIGATION ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET-PART II Chapter 62-345.600, F.A.C. Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number 0 0 Current condition or"with"scenario? Name of person conducting assessment Date of scoring Optimal Moderate I Minimal Not Present Location 3 2 1 0 Habitat support Adjacent lands support and provide Adjacent lands support and provide Adjacent lands support and provide Adjacent lands do not support and all resources necessary for moderate level of resources minimal level of resources provide resources necessary for identified function(s). necessary for identified function(s). necessary for identified function(s). identified function(s). Adjacent land uses fully buffer the Adjacent land uses provide a Adjacent land uses provide minimal Adjacent land uses do not buffer Adjacent Land Use moderate buffer to the assessment assessment area from buffer to the assessment area from the assessment area from anthropogenic disturbances. area from anthropogenic anthropogenic disturbances. anthropogenic disturbances. disturbances. Condition The hydrology of the assessment The hydrology of the assessment The hydrology of the assessement The hydrology of the assessment % Hydrology area fully supports the identified area provides less than 25 of area support most(50-75%)of the area support some(25-50%)of the functions or is within 25%deviation identified functions. identified functions. that necessary to fully support the from the optimal condition. identified functions. The water quality is optimal or The water quality of the The water quality of the The water quality of the within 25%deviation of optimal for assessment area provides less assessment area supports most assessment area supports some o Water Quality fish and wildlife habitat,on site and o than 25%of that necessary to downstream,and the growth and (50-75%)of the identified functions, (25-50%)of the identified functions, support the identified functions,on on site and downstream,as on site and dowstream,as propogation of submerged site and downstream,as communities,as appropriate appropriate. appropriate. appropriate Composition of Vegetation The vegetation and/or sessile The vegetation or sessile The vegetation or sessile The vegetation or sessile and Sessile Communities communites of the assessment communities of the assessment communities of the assessment communities provides less than area supports all -75%of the area supports most(50-75%)of area supports few(25-50%)of the 25%of that necessary to support identified functions. the identified functions. identified functions. the identified functions. The microtopography and abiotic The microtopography and abiotic The microtopography and abiotic The Structural Habitat strata provide appropriate habitat strata provide up to 75%of the strata provide 25-50%of the strataThemicrotopographyoie a than and abiotic%of the for spawning,nesting,or foraging habitat requirements for wildlife habitat features required by the identified habitat needs. to meet identified wildlife needs. requiring these features. identified wildlife. score #### Mitigation Determination Formulas 62-345.900(3), F.A.0 1. Mitigation Bank Credit Determination The total potential credits for a mitigation bank is the sum of the credits for each assessment area where assessment area credits equal the acres of the assessment area times the delta, as determined by subtracting the current condition score from the with-bank condition score Assessment Score Score Time lag Area With-Bank Current Delta factor Acres Credits • example 0.9 - 0.4 = 0.5 X 0.983 X 50.5 24.82 a.a.1 0 0.00 a.a.2 0 0.00 Total 24.82 2. Mitigation needed to offset impacts, when using a mitigation bank The number of mitigation bank credits needed is equal to the sum of impacts at each assessment area where assessment area impacts equal the acres of the assessment area times the delta, as determined by subtracting the with-impact score from the current condition score Assessment Score Score Area current with impacts Delta Acres Credits needed example 0.4 - 0 = 0.4 X 50.5 20.20 a.a.1 0 0.00 a.a.2 0 0.00 Total 20.20 3. Mitigation needed to offset impacts, when not using a bank The amount of mitigation need is determined by multiplying the impact delta times the impact acres, then dividing by the adjusted delta for the mitigation. Repeat for each assessment area. Assessment Score Score Area current with-impact Delta Acres impact 0.4 - 0 = 0.4 X 50.5 example Score Score Delta Time lag Adjusted with-mitigation current factor Delta mitigation example 0.9 - 0.4 = 0.5 X 0.935 0.47 Mitigation acres need = 43.21 1 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT 3 Chapter 62-345—UNIFORM WETLAND MITIGATION ASSESSMENT 4 METHOD 5 6 62-345.100 Intent and Scope 7 62-345.200 Definitions 8 62-345.300 Rules Incorporated by Reference 9 62-345.400 Assessment Method Overview and Guidance 10 62-345.500 Qualitative Characterization 11 62.345.600 Assessment and Scoring 12 62.345.700 Determining Appropriateness of Mitigation 13 62-345.800 Mitigation Time Lag Determination 14 62-345.900 Forms 15 16 62-345.100 Intent and Scope 17 18 (1) The intent of this rule is to fulfill the mandate of subsection 373.414(18), 19 F.S., which requires the establishment of a uniform wetland mitigation assessment 20 method to determine the amount of mitigation needed to offset adverse impacts of a 21 proposed activity to the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters 22 to fish, wildlife, and listed species. Pursuant to that subsection, the method established in 23 this rule is binding on the Department, the water management districts, local 24 governments, and all other governmental agencies, exclusive of federal agencies, and, 25 except as provided in subsection 62-345.100(4), F.A.C., of this rule, is the sole means to 26 determine the amount of mitigation needed to offset adverse impacts, including the 27 awarding and deducting of credits from mitigation banks and regional offsite mitigation 28 areas, for applications reviewed under sections 373.406-.429, F.S. When applying this 29 method, reasonable scientific judgment must be used. 30 (2) The methodology in this chapter provides a standardized procedure for 31 assessing the functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters to fish, wildlife, Page 1 8-31-01 draft 1 and listed species, the amount that those functions are reduced by a proposed impact, and 2 the amount of proposed mitigation necessary to offset that loss. It does not assess 3 whether the adverse impacts should occur, nor the extent that such impacts may be 4 approved. The extent to which the adverse impacts to wetland and other surface water 5 functions can be authorized must be based upon the criteria for permit issuance as set 6 forth in sections 373.406-.429, F.S., and the rules adopted or authorized thereunder. 7 Upon determination that the mitigation has the potential and is appropriate to offset the 8 adverse impacts, the methodology set forth in this rule must be used to quantify the 9 acreage of mitigation required or, as applicable, the number of mitigation bank credits 10 awarded or debited. 11 (3) This method is not intended to be utilized in the review of applications for 12 activities exempt from permitting under part IV of chapter 373, F.S., or activities that 13 qualify for general permits, noticed general permits, or no-noticed general permits under 14 that part, except when such general permit, noticed general permit, or no-noticed general 15 permit expressly requires mitigation for impacts to wetlands or other surface waters. 16 (4) Other existing rules adopted or authorized under Section 373.406-.429, F. 17 S., that do not determine the appropriateness of mitigation or the acres of mitigation 18 required or, as applicable, the number of mitigation bank credits awarded or debited, 19 remain in full force and effect unless amended or repealed. 20 (5) Pursuant to paragraph 373.414(18)(b), F.S., an entity that has received a 21 mitigation bank permit issued by the Department or a water management district under 22 sections 373.4135 and 373.4136, F.S., prior to the adoption of this rule must have impact 23 sites assessed for the purpose of deducting bank credits using the credit assessment 24 method, including any functional assessment methodology, that was in place when the 25 bank was permitted. A permitted mitigation bank has the option to modify the mitigation 26 bank permit to have its credits re-assessed under the method in this chapter, and 27 thereafter have its credits deducted using the method adopted in this chapter. In 28 accordance with sections 373.4136 and 373.414(18)(b), F.S., the number of credits 29 awarded must be based on the degree of improvement in ecological value expected to Page 2 8-31-01 draft 1 result from the establishment and operation of the mitigation bank, as determined using 2 the assessment methodology in this chapter. 3 (6) An application for a permit under part IV of chapter 373 that is pending 4 and complete on or before the effective date of this chapter shall be reviewed under the 5 applicable rules in effect before the effective date of this chapter, unless the applicant 6 elects to have the application reviewed under this chapter. 7 8 62-345.200 Definitions 9 (1) "Assessment area" means all or part of an impact site or a mitigation site 10 that is sufficiently homogeneous in character to be assessed as a single unit. 11 (2) "Current condition" means the existing capacity of an assessment area to 12 perform functions related to its ecological value and its predicted ability to maintain these 13 functions once the project is implemented. Where previous impacts are temporary in 14 nature, consideration will be given to the inherent functions of these areas relative to 15 seasonal hydrologic changes, and expected vegetation regeneration and projected habitat 16 functions if the use of the area were to remain unchanged. When evaluating impacts to a 17 mitigation site which has not achieved its intended function, the Department shall 18 consider the functions the mitigation site was intended to offset and any delay or 19 reduction in offsetting those functions that may be caused by the project. Previous 20 construction or alteration taken in violation of chapter 373, F.S. or rule, order or permit, 21 will not be considered as having diminished the condition and relative value of a wetland 22 or surface water. (x.2..3.7,AH) 23 (3) "Ecological value" means the value of functions performed by uplands, 24 wetlands, and other surface waters to the abundance, diversity, and habitats of fish, 25 wildlife, and listed species. These functions include, but are not limited to, providing 26 cover and refuge; breeding, nesting, denning, and nursery areas; corridors for wildlife 27 movement; food chain support; and natural water storage, natural flow attenuation, and 28 water quality improvement,which enhances fish, wildlife, and listed species utilization. Page 3 8-31-01 draft 1 (4) "Indicators" means physical, chemical, or biological indications of 2 wetland or other surface waters function. 3 (5) "Listed species" means those animal species which are endangered, 4 threatened or of special concern and are listed in rules 39-27.003, 39-27.004, and 39- 5 27.005, F.A.C., and those plant species listed in 50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.12, 6 when such plants are found to be located in a wetland or other surface water. 7 (6) "Mitigation Credit" or "credit" means a standard unit of measure which 8 represents the increase in ecological value resulting from restoration, enhancement, 9 preservation, or creation activities (373.4136,F.S.) 10 (7) "Mitigation risk" means the likelihood that the proposed conditions of the 11 mitigation assessment area will not be achieved, thereby reducing the ecological value of 12 the mitigation assessment area. 13 (8) "Project" means, for the purposes of this rule, an activity undertaken at a 14 site that requires a permit under part IV of chapter 373, F.S., whether for development or 15 mitigation purposes. 16 (9) "Time Lag" means the period of time required for a mitigation area to 17 reach its intended level of function. 18 (10) "With impact assessment" means the reasonably anticipated outcome at an 19 assessment area assuming the proposed impact is conducted. 20 (11) "With mitigation assessment" means the reasonably anticipated outcome 21 at an assessment area assuming the proposed mitigation is conducted. 22 23 62-345.300 Rules Incorporated by Reference 24 This rule incorporates by reference sections 12.1, 12.2.2.4, 12.3-12.3.1.8, and 25 12.3.3-12.3.8 of the Suwannee River Water Management District Environmental 26 Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook (January 31, 2002); sections 12.1, 12.2.2.4, 12.3- 27 12.3.1.8, and 12.3.3-12.3.8 of the St. Johns River Water Management District Applicant's 28 Handbook: Management And Storage Of Surface Waters--A Handbook To Assist 29 Environmental Resource Permit Applicants—August 21, 2000; sections 3.1, 33.2.2.4, 30 3.3-3.3.1.8, and 3.3.3-3.3.8 of the Southwest Florida Water Management District Basis of Page 4 8-31-01 draft 1 Review, Management and Storage of Surface Waters (Environmental Resource 2 Permitting Information Manual, Part B) June 2001; and sections 4.1, 4.3-2.2.4, 4.3- 3 4.3.1.8, and 4.3.3-4.3.8 of the South Florida Water Management District Basis of Review 4 for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (January 1, 1997); and sections 62- 5 310.300, 62-312.310, 62-312.320(1)-(3), 62-312.360, 62-312.370, 62-312.380, and 62- 6 312.390, F.A.C. 7 8 62-345.400 Assessment Method Overview and Guidance 9 (1) This method is used to determine whether a regulated activity will 10 adversely impact the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters to 11 fish and wildlife, considering mitigation proposed to offset those impacts. This method is 12 also used to determine the degree of improvement in ecological value of proposed 13 mitigation bank activities. 14 (2) To determine the value of functions provided by wetlands and other 15 surface waters, the method incorporates the following considerations: 16 (a) Current condition — whether the assessment area is in a high quality state 17 or has been the subject of past alterations in hydrology, water quality or 18 vegetation composition(see 62-345.600 (7), F.A.C.); 19 (b) Hydrologic connection — the nature and degree of off-site connections 20 which may provide benefits to water resources through detrital export, base flow 21 maintenance, water quality enhancement or the provision of nursery habitat (see 22 62-345.600 (6),F.A.C.); 23 (c) Uniqueness — the relative rarity of the assessment area and its floral and 24 faunal components in relation to the surrounding regional landscape (see 62- 25 345.500 (1)(g), F.A.C.); 26 (d) Location — the location of the assessment area in relation to its 27 surroundings (see 62-345.600 (6), F.A.C.); 28 (e) Fish and wildlife utilization— use of the assessment area for resting, 29 feeding, breeding, nesting or denning by fish and wildlife, particularly those 30 which are listed species (see 62-345.500 (1)(i), F.A.C.); Page 5 8-31-01 draft 1 (f) Time lag — the length of time expected to elapse before the functions of 2 the impact assessment area will be offset by the mitigation (see 62-345.800, 3 F.A.C); and, 4 (g) Mitigation risk — the likelihood that mitigation success will not be 5 achieved. (see 62-345.600 (2), F.A.C.) 6 7 (3) The assessment method is designed to be used in any type of wetland and 8 surface water regulated under chapter 373, part IV, F.S., in any geographic region of the 9 state. The inherent flexibility required for such a method is accomplished in a multi-part 10 approach that consists of the following: 11 (a) A qualitative characterization of the assessment area (Part I) that identifies 12 the functions provided by the area to fish and wildlife and their habitat and 13 establishes a framework for quantitative assessment. 14 (b) A quantitative assessment of the indicators of function (Part II) provided 15 by the assessment area for those functions identified in the qualitative 16 characterization. For mitigation assessments, the scoring reflects a consideration 17 of mitigation risk and is adjusted to account for time lag. 18 (c) A comparison of functions provided to fish and wildlife and their habitat 19 in the impact and mitigation assessment areas to determine whether the mitigation 20 project is appropriate to offset the proposed impacts. 21 (d) Given that a proposed mitigation project is determined to be appropriate to 22 offset the proposed impacts, the numerical scores from the quantitative 23 assessment are used to compare the reduction of ecological value due to proposed 24 impacts and the gain in ecological value due to proposed mitigation and to 25 determine whether a sufficient amount of mitigation is proposed. 26 (e) For determining the number of credits to be awarded for mitigation banks, 27 only parts (a) and(b) above are necessary. 28 (f) An impact or mitigation site may contain more than one assessment area, 29 each of which shall be evaluated under this method. 30 Page 6 8-31-01 draft 1 (4) Part I of this method provides a descriptive framework to characterize the 2 assessment area and the functions provided by that area. Part II of this method provides 3 indicators of wetland function, which are scored based on the framework developed in 4 Part I. Part I must be completed, fully understood, and referenced by the user of this 5 method when scoring the assessment area in Part II. 6 (5) As specified in Form 62-345.900(3), the degree of ecological change on a 7 site must be determined for both the impact and mitigation areas by the mathematical 8 difference in the Part II scores established pursuant to section 62-345.600 between the 9 current and "with-impact" conditions, and between the current and "with mitigation" 10 conditions. This difference is termed the "delta." This formula must be applied to all 11 assessment areas within both the proposed impact sites and mitigation sites (including 12 mitigation banks when applicable) . 13 14 62-345.500 Qualitative Characterization—Part I 15 16 (1) An impact or mitigation assessment area must be described with sufficient 17 detail to provide a frame of reference for the type of community being evaluated and to 18 identify the functions that will be evaluated. Information for each assessment area must 19 be sufficient to identify the functions beneficial to fish and wildlife and their habitat that 20 are characteristic of the assessment area, including field verification when needed in the 21 exercise of reasonable scientific judgement. The information for each assessment area 22 must include: 23 (a) Special classification, such as whether the area is in or adjacent to 24 an Outstanding Florida Water, an Aquatic Preserve, a Class II waters approved or 25 conditionally approved for shellfish harvesting, Area of Critical State Concern, or 26 mitigation for a previously issued permit; 27 (b) Significant nearby features, such as proximity to a state or federal 28 park, forest or preserve, Aquatic Preserve, major industry, or commercial airport; 29 (c) Setting, specifying the management activities and land use 30 designation surrounding the assessment area, such as urban, suburban, rural, or Page 7 8-31-01 draft 1 agricultural, and the nature and degree of hydrologic and landscape connection to 2 other habitats, including the location within a wildlife corridor; 3 (d) Assessment area size; 4 (e) Geographic relationship and hydrologic connection between the 5 assessment area and the larger contiguous wetland or other surface waters, if 6 applicable; 7 (f) Classification of assessment area, including description of past 8 alterations that affect the classification. Classifications used shall be based on 9 Florida Land Use Cover Classification (FLUCC) codes, which shall be further 10 described using one or more of: the following: Soils Conservation Service 26 11 Communities of Florida (in effect on [effective date of rule]); or A 12 Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands, Wetland Research Program 13 technical Report WRP-DE-4, Mark M. Brinson, (August 1993); or other sources 14 that, based on reasonable scientific judgment, describe the natural communities in 15 Florida; 16 (g) Uniqueness when considering the relative rarity of the wetland or 17 other surface water and its floral and faunal components on the assessment area in 18 relation to the surrounding regional landscape; 19 (h) Functions performed by the assessment area. Functions of 20 wetlands and other surface waters to be considered are providing cover and 21 refuge; breeding, nesting, denning, and nursery areas; corridors for wildlife 22 movement; food chain support; and natural water storage, natural flow 23 attenuation, and water quality improvement, which enhances fish, wildlife, and 24 listed species utilization; 25 (i) Anticipated wildlife utilization and type of use (feeding, breeding, 26 nesting, resting, or denning), and applicable listing classifications (threatened, 27 endangered, or species of special concern as defined by sections 39-27.003, 39- 28 27.004, and 39-27.005, F.A.C.). The list developed for the assessment area need 29 not include all species which use the area, but those that are characteristic of the 30 area and the functions provided by the area, considering the size and location of Page 8 8-31-01 draft the assessment area. Generally wildlife surveys will not be required. The need 2 for a wildlife survey will be determined by the likelihood that the site is used by 3 listed or other species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat 4 needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use; and 5 (j) Any additional factor relevant to the assessment area and functions 6 provided. 7 8 62-345.600 Assessment and Scoring—Part II 9 (1) Utilizing the frame of reference established in Part I, the information 10 obtained under this part must be used to determine the degree to which the assessment 11 area provides the functions identified in Part I and the amount of function lost or gained 12 by the project. Both the impact and mitigation assessment areas must be assessed under 13 two conditions: a current condition assessment and a "with mitigation" or "with impact" 14 assessment. The "with mitigation" or "with impact" assessments are based on the 15 reasonably expected outcome, which may represent an increase, decrease, or no change 16 in value relative to current conditions. 17 (2) When evaluating the "with mitigation" assessment, scenario, the scoring 18 shall reflect the reasonably anticipated condition based on reasonable scientific 19 judgement and the mitigation risk factors listed below, as applicable: 20 (a) The vulnerability of the mitigation area to different hydrologic 21 conditions, especially considering the degree of dependence on mechanical or 22 artificial means to achieve proposed hydrologic conditions, such as pumps or 23 adjustable weirs,• and the hydrologic complexity of the proposed wetland 24 community, such as seepage slopes or perched wetlands; 25 (b) The means by which desirable vegetation will be established in the 26 mitigation area and the suitability of the site for establishment by these species, 27 such as soil and hydroperiod compatibility with the proposed plant community, 28 planting plans, and track record for plant establishment method; Page 9 8-31-01 draft 1 (c) The vulnerability of the mitigation area to colonization by exotic 2 (non-native) or invasive species, considering the location of recruitment sources 3 and the suitability of the site for establishment of these species; 4 (d) The vulnerability of the mitigation area to changes in water quality 5 to the extent that ecological value is affected by these changes, such as adjacent 6 land or water uses of agriculture, industry, or development; and 7 (e) The vulnerability of the mitigation area to.changes in onsite or 8 offsite land or water use or land form to the extent that ecological value is 9 influenced by these changes, such as the potential for use by all-terrain vehicles, 10 incompatible recreational activities, or waste disposal. 11 (3) When preservation is the primary form of mitigation, the "with 12 mitigation" assessment shall be based on the potential of the land to provide benefits in 13 the long term compared to the assessment if it were not preserved, considering the 14 protection provided by existing rules and regulations. (x.3.2,AH) 15 (4) The evaluation must be based on currently available information, such as 16 aerial photographs, topographic maps, geographic information system data and map, site 17 visits, scientific journals,other professional reports, and reasonable scientific judgement. 18 (5) Indicators of wetland function listed in this part are scored on a relative 19 scale of zero to three, based on the level of performance of the function being evaluated. 20 Levels of performance are grouped into four categories: optimal (3), moderate (2), 21 minimal (1) and not present (0). When necessary to provide sufficient flexibility in 22 assessing a site, half increments between 0.5 and 2.5 are allowed for scoring indicators. 23 Additional guidance on scoring is provided in Form 62-345.900(2). For any indicator 24 that does not apply to the assessment area, the indicator is not scored and the designation 25 "Not Applicable" (N/A) must be used. 26 (6) Location: The opportunity of an assessment area to provide the functions 27 identified in Part I is influenced by its location in the landscape. Evaluation and scoring 28 must consider the nature and degree of hydrologic and landscape connection to other 29 habitats and proximity to other natural communities. 30 Page 10 8-31-01 draft 1 (a) Habitat Support- Rate the extent to which adjacent land covers, including 2 downstream communities, are capable of supporting or benefiting from the 3 functions identified in Part 1. To the extent that the ecological value of the 4 function(s) being evaluated is affected, the following shall be considered in 5 scoring this indicator: 6 1. Availability and accessibility of lands and aquatic resources that 7 provide habitat for the identified wildlife species; 8 2. Percentage of the assessment area perimeter that is blocked by 9 barriers and the effectiveness of each barrier (e.g. width of roads between 10 assessment area and other natural communities, dams and other water 11 control structures, etc.); 12 3. Percentage of the perimeter that is contiguous with natural 13 communities; 14 4. Extent of exotic or invasive species, adjacent to or upstream of the 15 assessment area; 16 5. Other site-specific relevant factors which, based on reasonable 17 scientific judgement, affect the function being assessed. 18 (b) Land and Water Use - Rate the extent to which the uses of the adjacent 19 land and water uses buffer the assessment area from anthropogenic disturbances. 20 To the extent that the ecological value of the function(s) being evaluated is 21 affected, the following shall be considered in scoring this indicator: 22 1. Setting (such as urban, agricultural, industrial, etc.) or zoning of 23 adjacent lands; 24 2. Comprehensive land use plans adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, 25 F.S.; 26 3. Applicable land use regulations including part IV of Chapter 373, 27 F.S.; and, 28 4. Other site-specific relevant factors, which based on reasonable 29 scientific judgement, affect the function being assessed. 30 Page 11 8-31-01 draft 1 (7) Condition - The capacity of an assessment area to perform the functions 2 identified in Part I is influenced by the current and reasonably expected conditions in the 3 assessment area. Evaluation must consider the assessment area's current state, past 4 alterations, and reasonably expected future conditions. 5 6 (a) Hydrology — Rate the extent to which the hydrology (e.g. hydroperiod, 7 hydro-frequency, water elevations and tidal regime) is capable of supporting the 8 identified functions. To the extent that ecological value of the function(s) being 9 evaluated is affected, the following shall be considered in scoring this indicator: 10 1. Seasonal water levels, considering signs of alteration such as soil 11 oxidation or subsidence, transition of vegetation types, changes to moss 12 collars, lichen lines, adventitious roots, rack lines; 13 2. Hydropattern of the site, considering evidence such as vegetation 14 change, soil erosion or deposition; 15 3. Reliance on mechanical or artificial structures (i.e. pumps, 16 adjustable weirs); 17 4. Adjacent diversion or drainage features (i.e. berms, ditches); 18 5. Long-term water level data, if available; 19 6. For surface waters and submerged communities, assess the water 20 depth, current, and circulation; and, 21 7. Other site-specific relevant factors, which based on reasonable 22 scientific judgement, affect the function being assessed. 23 (b) Water Quality - Rate the extent to which water quality will support the 24 identified functions. Suitability of the water quality for fish and wildlife habitat, 25 both on site and downstream, and changes in water quality associated with 26 adjacent land use factors shall be considered. To the extent that ecological value 27 of the function(s) being evaluated is affected, the following shall be considered in 28 scoring this indicator: 29 1. The ability of the site to assimilate the given level of nutrient 30 loading, considering signs of cultural eutrophication such as a shift in Page 12 8-31-01 draft 1 vegetation composition or algal communities, oil sheen, and any point and 2 non-point sources; 3 2. The ability to assimilate the given sediment load, considering 4 evidence of change in sedimentation and siltation; 5 3. The range of salinity in relation in that type of site, considering 6 evidence of change in vegetation and other submerged communities; 7 4. Long-term water quality data, if available; 8 5. Pollution attenuation and reduction, and organic and detrital export 9 downstream; and, 10 6. Other site-specific relevant factors, which based on reasonable 11 scientific judgement, affect the function being assessed. 12 (c) Composition of vegetation and sessile communities - Rate the extent to 13 which vegetation and sessile communities support the identified functions. To the 14 extent that ecological value of the function(s) being evaluated is affected, the 15 following shall be considered in scoring this indicator: 16 1. Relative degree of cover by the appropriate plant species in the 17 canopy, shrub, and/or ground stratum or appropriate sessile organisms. 18 2. Relative cover by native plants and sessile organisms versus 19 invasive nuisance or exotic species; 20 3. Overall health and vigor of the plant and sessile community, 21 considering natural recruitment, fire regime, changes in tidal influence or 22 water quality; 23 4. Land and water management applied to the site; 24 5. Proximity to recruitment sources of invasive, nuisance or exotic 25 species; 26 6. Other site-specific relevant factors, which based on reasonable 27 scientific judgement, affect the function being assessed. 28 (d) Structural Habitat---Rate the extent to which the topography, 29 microtopography, and other abiotic features support the identified functions. To Page 13 8-31-01 draft 1 the extent that ecological value of the function(s) being evaluated is affected, the 2 following shall be considered in scoring this indicator: 3 1. Microtopography, such as refugia ponds, hummocks, ephemeral 4 streams; 5 2. Spawning or nesting habitats, such as rocky or sandy bottoms; 6 3. Relief, stability, and interstitial spaces for hardbottom 7 communities; 8 4. Amount and availability of coarse woody debris, snags, dens, and 9 cavities; and, 10 5. Other site-specific relevant factors, which based on reasonable 11 scientific judgement, affect the function being assessed. 12 13 (8) The Part II score for an impact assessment area shall be determined by 14 summing the scores for each of the indicators and dividing that value by the maximum 15 potential score to yield a number between 0 and 1. 16 (9) The Part II score for a mitigation assessment area shall be determined by 17 summing the scores for each of the indicators and dividing that value by the maximum 18 potential score. The delta between the current condition and with-mitigation assessments 19 is adjusted to account for time lag, pursuant to section 62-345.800, F.A.C., to yield an 20 "adjusted delta." The potential improvement associated with mitigation banks must also 21 be modified by time lag in the determination of credits in accordance with section 62- 22 345.800, F.A.C. 23 (10) Functions that are scored in this part may be kept separate or combined for 24 assessment purposes, based on whether the indicators similarly represent each function. 25 26 62-345.700 Determining Appropriateness of Mitigation 27 The determination of whether proposed mitigation is appropriate to offset 28 proposed impacts shall be based on the information provided in Part I, and the criteria 29 listed below: • Page 14 8-31-01 draft 1 (1) An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that proposed impacts 2 and mitigation will not impact the values of wetland and other surface water functions so 3 as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife and listed 4 species and their habitats. (x.2.2.AH) 5 (2) In general, mitigation is best accomplished through creation, restoration, 6 enhancement, or preservation of ecological communities similar to those being impacted. 7 However, when the area proposed to be impacted is degraded, compared to its historic 8 condition, mitigation is best accomplished through creation, restoration, enhancement or 9 preservation of the ecological community which was historically present. Mitigation 10 involving other ecological communities is acceptable if impacts are offset and the 11 applicant demonstrates that greater improvement in ecological value will result. (x.3.1.1 AH) 12 (3) In general', mitigation is best accomplished when located on-site or in 13 close proximity to the area being impacted. Off-site mitigation will only be accepted if 14 adverse impacts are offset and the applicant demonstrates that: 15 (a) on-site mitigation opportunities are not expected to have comparable long- 16 term viability due to such factors as unsuitable hydrologic conditions or 17 ecologically incompatible existing adjacent land uses or future land uses 18 identified in a local comprehensive plan adopted according to Chapter 163, F.S.; 19 or 20 (b) off-site mitigation would provide greater improvement in ecological value 21 than on-site mitigation. (x.3.1.2 AH) 22 (4) Use of mitigation bank is appropriate, desirable, and a permittable 23 mitigation option when the mitigation bank will offset the adverse impacts of the project, 24 and 25 (a) on-site mitigation opportunities are not expected to have comparable long- 26 term viability due to such factors as unsuitable hydrologic conditions or 27 ecologically incompatible existing adjacent land uses or future land uses 28 identified in a local comprehensive plan adopted according to Chapter 163, F.S. ; 29 or Page 15 8-31-01 draft 1 (b) use of the mitigation bank would provide greater improvement in 2 ecological value than on-site mitigation. (62-342.300(1),FAC) 3 (5) In instances where an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards 4 because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards and the proposed project 5 will contribute to this existing condition, mitigation for water quality impacts can consist 6 of water quality enhancement. In these cases, the applicant must implement mitigation 7 measures that will cause net improvement of the water quality in the receiving waters for 8 those parameters that do not meet standards. (x.3.1.4.AH) 9 (6) Except as provided in subsection 373.414(6), F.S., mitigation or 10 reclamation required or approved by other agencies under part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., 11 for a specific project will be acceptable to the extent that such mitigation or reclamation 12 fulfills the requirements of Sections 373.406-.429, F.S., and the rules adopted or 13 authorized thereunder, and offsets adverse impacts of the same project in accordance with 14 the criteria in those same statutes and rules. (x.3.1.7 AH) 15 (7) Secondary impacts must be prevented or offset in compliance with 16 Sections 373.406-.429, F.S., and the rules adopted or authorized thereunder. 17 (8) Unacceptable cumulative impacts must be prevented or offset in 18 compliance with Sections 373.406-.429, F.S., and the rules adopted or authorized 19 thereunder. 20 (9) In certain cases, mitigation cannot offset impacts sufficiently to yield a 21 permittable project. Such cases often include activities which significantly degrade 22 Outstanding Florida Waters, adversely impact habitat for listed species, or adversely 23 impact those wetlands or other surface waters not likely to be successfully recreated. (x.3 24 AH) 25 (10) Innovative mitigation proposals by an applicant shall be considered using 26 reasonable scientific judgment. (x.3.1.8 AH) 27 28 62-345.800 Mitigation Time Lag Determination 29 (1) Mitigation time lag shall be incorporated into the potential improvement in 30 ecological value of proposed mitigation as follows: Page 16 • 8-31-01 draft • 1 (a) The time lag associated with mitigation means the period of time between 2 when the functions are lost at an impact site and when those functions are replaced by the 3 mitigation. In general, the time lag varies by the type and timing of mitigation in relation 4 to the impacts. Wetland creation generally has a greater time lag to establish certain 5 wetland functions than most restoration or enhancement activities. Forested systems 6 typically require more time to establish complex structure and function than most 7 herbaceous systems. 8 (b) For the purposes of this rule, the time lag, in years, is related to a factor 9 "T," as established in Table 1 below, to reflect the additional mitigation need to account 10 for the deferred replacement of wetland functions. If the mitigation has reached its 11 intended level of function prior to or concurrent with the time the impacts are proposed to 12 occur, the mitigation score shall be not be adjusted to account for time lag. 13 (c) The "Years" column in Table 1 represents the number of years between 14 the time the wetland impacts are anticipated to occur and the time when the mitigation is 15 anticipated to fully offset the impacts, based on reasonable scientific judgement of the 16 proposed mitigation activities and the site specific conditions. 17 18 TABLE 1. 19 Years T Factor 1 1.0000 2 0.9833 3 0.9670 4 0.9507 5 0.9350 6-10 0.8899 11-15 0.8199 16-20 0.7562 21-25 0.6983 Page 17 8-31-01 draft 26-30 0.6455 31-35 0.5973 36-40 0.5532 41-45 0.5106 46-50 0.4737 51+ 0.4421 2 (2) The wetland function gain proposed to be provided by the mitigation plan 3 must be adjusted by the time lag determined above using the following formulas: 4 (a) To determine the number of potential mitigation bank credits a bank can 5 provide, multiply the difference in Part II scores (delta) times the time lag factor, times 6 the acres of the mitigation bank scored. See Form 62-345.900(3), F.A.C., Mitigation 7 Determination Formula, #1. 8 (b) To determine the number of mitigation bank credits needed to offset 9 impacts, when the bank is assessed in accordance with this rule, multiply the delta in Part 10 II impact scores times the acres of impact. Time lag is not applied to determining the 11 number of mitigation bank credits necessary when the bank has been assessed under this 12 rule. See Form 62-345.900(3), F.A.C., Mitigation Determination Formula, #2. 13 (c) To determine the acres of mitigation needed to offset impacts when not 14 using a bank as mitigation, multiply the delta for the Part II impact scores times the acres 15 of impact. The number of acres of mitigation needed will be equal to the delta in Part II 16 impact scores times the acres of impact divided by the mitigation delta that is adjusted for 17 time lag. See Form 62-345.900(3) F.A.C., Mitigation Determination Formula, #3. 18 19 62-345.900 Forms 20 (1) Part I— Qualitative Description 21 (2) Part II—Quantification of Assessment Area(impact or mitigation) 22 (3) Mitigation Determination Formulas Page 18 8-31-01 draft • ORIGIN: PUBLIC APPLICATION RITZ-CARLETON HOTELS AUTHOR: Matt Grabinski,Attorney Representing Ritz Carleton Hotel DEPARTMENT: N/A LDC PAGE(S):LDC2: 217&LDC3. 160 LDC SECTION(S) 2.6.34&3. 14.3 CHANGE: (i)Amend sec.2.6.34.1 to allow annual beach event permit to any commercial beach front property.Currently limited to hotel resort property and to change requirement for a permit to one of a notice. (ii)Amend sec.2.6.34.2 to add language reflecting that the beach event extends to the owner of any commercial property fronting the waters of the Gulf.(iii)Amend Sec.2.6.34.3 Identifies need to submit monthly notice and non substantive changes.(iv)Amend Sec. 2.6.34.4. Non substantive changes however,cancelations allowed 4 hours in advance of scheduled event.(v)Amend Sec.2.6.35.5 Non-substantive revisions.(vi)Amend sec.2.6.35.6. Non-substantive revisions. Amend Sec.3.14.3.4 Vehicle on the beach regulations-Permit Exceptions.Non-substantive revision,except provision made for no revocation of permit/notice. With the exception of extending temporary beach event permits to all commercial Gulf waters fronting property the changes appear to be compositional as opposed to substantive with some exception as indicated above. REASON: One must assume that from a legal framework the applicant is of the opinion that the changes more accurately describe the regulations removing potential adverse interpretation.There is also a legal distinction between an annual permit versus notice in the sense that a notice is not subject to revocation.The applicant will speak more directly to the their case for making the changes described herein. FISCAL&OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS:None GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend the revisions proposed by Mr.Grabinski. Amend the LDC as follows: 2.6.34 ' :Notice of Commercial Beach Events: 2.6.34.1 The owner of commercial beach-front commercial hotel resort property shall property ("Owner") shall submit to the County, on an annual basis, 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 notice ("Annual Notice"). The Annual Notice shall be submitted on the form prescribed by Collier Count the planning services director or his designee, together with the applicable monitoring fee for the number of planned—annual beach events a;,anticipated Beach Events indicated on the permit form and exhibits thereto. Permits issued pursuant toAnnual Notice. Activities regulated by this section are not intended to authorize any violation of§ 370.12, F.S., orof the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as i-tthey may be amended. 2.6.34.2 For purposes of this section, a "beach event'Beach Event" shall mean and refer to any social, recreational or entertainment event (whether public or private), conducted on the beach by or at the direction of an Owner and satisfying one or more of the following criteria: 1. 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 commercial property ewner;at the direction of the Owner; and (b) is of a nature not commonly associated with the day-to-day use of the beach by the general public. 2.6.34.3. Notice of scheduled events:Scheduled Beach Events: 2.6.34.3.1On or before the 25th day of each calendar month, the holder of such permitOwner shall cause Collierthe County to be furnished with written notice of all beach event:,("Monthly Notice") of all Beach Events scheduled for the following month, in the form and content made a part of the annual beach events permit application. The netic-eAnnual Notice. The Monthly Notice shall indicate the date, time and duration of each event. 2.6.34.3.1 Beach Event. 2.6.34.3.2 If a beach eventBeach Event is scheduled after the -- . • . ' . •. - onthly Notice has been furnished to - -- - , • • .- - . - he County, then the Owner shall furnish the eountyCounty with a separate written notice at least 48-hours prior to such event. 2.6.34.3.3 All notices or documents furnished to Eellierthe County pursuant tothe permit or these regulations shall be sent to Collier County Planning Services Department and, for events that occur during sea turtle nesting season, to the Collier County Natural Resource Depaitiuent as well. 2.6.34.4. Event Cancellations and postpenements:Postponements: 2.6.34.4.1. If a scheduled beach eventBeach Event is canceled or postponed, ewnerthen the Owner shall furnish Gellierthe County with written notification of such cancellation or postponement. It is understood that weather conditions may cause last minute cancellations, however the property ewnercancellations. However, the Owner shall make every effort to notify the eeuntyCounty staff of any staff a minimum of 4cancellation not less than four (4) hours prior to the scheduled oventBeach Event time. If such event is rescheduled, notice of the date and time of the rescheduled event shall he provided also be submitted to the County. 2.6.34.4.2. If a beach eventBeach Event is canceled or postponed, and no other beach cventsno other Beach Events are scheduled for the date of the canceled/postponed event, and Gelliefthe County has been notified of such cancellation or postponement, then the canceled or postponed event shall not count towards the • . •- .. . . - . - • . - - -:number of Beach Events for which the Owner paid the by the permit.prescribed monitoring fee at the time the Annual Notice was submitted to the County. 2.6.34.5. Sea turtle nesting season. .•.. .-. • - -• • • :each Events that occur during Sea Turtle Nesting Season(May ls`through October 3lst of each year)are also subject to the following regulations: 2.6.34.5.1. All required Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Field Permits, shall be obtained and a copy furnished to Gel-lief-the County prior to the time of the scheduled event as set forth in section 2.6.34.3. 2.6.34.5.2. Consistent with section 3.13.7.3, and 3.14.6, no structure set up, or beach raking, or mechanical cleaning activity for any particular Beach Event shall not commence until aftersea turtle monitoring (conducted by personnel with prior experience and training in nest surveys procedures and possessing a valid Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Marine Turtle Permit) has been completed. 2.6.34.5.3. Prior to all scheduled . • - - , . . • • - - ••• - required toBeach Events, an Owner shall rope off(or otherwise identify with a physical barrier) an area with not less than a 15-foot radius out from each sea turtle nest that has been identified and marked on a beach-, unless a greater distance is required by an applicable State permit. 2.6.34.5.4. Use of vehicles on the beach is prohibited, except as may be permitted under Section 3.14.3, 3.14.5, or 3.14.6. 2.6.34.5.5. Consistent with section 3.13.7.3,Aa113.13.7.3, all materials placed on the beach for the purpose of conducting permitted beach events:Beach Events: 1) must be removed from the beach by no later than 9:30 p.m. of the date of the event; and 2) no structures may be set, placed, or stored on, or within ten (10) feet of any beach dune, except thatdune. Notwithstanding the foregoing, materials may remain in an identified on-site staging area until 10:00 p.m. The location and size of all staging areas will be as identified in the permit. 2.6.34.5.6. All lights that are visible from the beach and cast a shadow thereon shall be turned off by no later than 9:00 p.m. of the date of the event. 2.6.34.5.7. Identification of sea turtle nests on the beach may cause the Beach Event to be relocated from its planned location or to have additional reasonable limitations placed on the event pursuant to the recommendation of Eellierthe County staff in order to protectthe identified sea turtle nests in this permit; except that eauntyiests. However, County staff may relocate a staging area Las provided for in 2.6.34.5.5,2.6.34.5.5) as part of its daily sea turtle monitoring. 2.6.34.5.8. Pole lighting, and any other object or structure designed to penetrate the beach surface by more than three (3) inches,. shall be subject to the approval of the FDEP and Celliefthe County. 2.6.34.5.9. AThe Owner shall also provide a copy of all notices required by this any --.• - -- - -_ . •. . . --- . . section 2.6.34.5 to Collier County Natural Resources Department. Note: When a State permit is more restrictive than the code requirements, the State requirements shall supersede, and the County shall enforce these requirements. 2.6.34.6. Penalties. N„twithstandingln addition to the penalties set forth elsewhere in this Code, the following violations of this section are subject to the following penalties, except that the Annual Beach Events Permit may not be suspended or revoked: 1. Violations which do not occur during sea turtle nesting season,i.e., occur outside of sea turtle nesting season, are subject to up to a $500 fine per violation. 2. Violations which occur during sea turtle nesting season and are: a. any activity that may cause immediate harm to sea turtles or their nesting activities; which include,but are not limited to the following: 1)setting up abeam-eventBeach Event prior to daily sea turtle monitoring;2)failing to remove beachBeach Event materials from the beach by 9:30 p.m.;3)failing to have lights,so required,turned out by 9:00 p.m.;or 4)not placing additional barriers around nests as required by sec. 2.6.34.5.3;are subject to the following penalties: First violation: $1,000 fine Second violation: $2,500 fine Third or more violation: $5,000 fine b. any activity that would not cause immediate harm to sea turtles or their nesting activities; which include,but are not limited to the following: 1)failing to notify the County of a bei ch-evenrBeach Event;2)failing to provide the County with copies of Florida Department of Protection permits prior to each beach event;Beach Event;or 3)having beaBeach Event materials or related structures set,placed,stored on,or within ten feet of any beach dune;are subject to up to a$500 fine. 3. Notwithstanding any provision of this Code to the contrary,an Owner's right to conduct Beach Events shall not be suspended or revoked. 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 "b ` `s:events or Beach Events:Vehicles which are used in conjunction with Beach Events for which proper notice has been provided to the County pursuant to Section 2.6.34 hereof,or functions on the beaches permitted by an approved special event temporary use peffnit3- h .e:ts permit,are exempt from the provisions of this division if a vehicle-onthe the-beach permit has been granted by the planning services director or his designee. All permits issued are subject to the following conditions and limitations: ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services AUTHOR: Susan Murray,AICP DEPARTMENT: Planning Services LDC PAGE: LDC 3:40.2 LDC SECTION: 3. 2. 8. 3. 25 CHANGE: To amend the Subdivision regulations Section 3.2.8.3.25 Water systems to require the installation of dual water systems in all new subdivisions for the purposes of providing for both potable and used water for recycling purposes. REASON: To acknowledge that water conservation principals demand the recycling and reuse of potable water. This can only be accomplished requiring land developers to install dual water systems so that a separation of potable water from used water can occur and the used put to use for non-potable water uses such as irrigation FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no fiscal impacts to the county, however, developer costs will increase in direct proportion to the costs of the reuse water system. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None Amend the LDC as follows: Sec. 3.2.8.3.25 Water systems, central. A complete water distribution and transmission system to include provision for separate potable and reuse water lines, and interim water treatment or interim water treatment and supply facilities, if required, shall be provided or employed by the applicant, at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and developments. ( See remainder of Sect. 3.2.8.3.25) ORIGIN: Community Development & Environmental Services Division AUTHOR: Stan Chrzanowski, P.E. DEPARTMENT: Engineering Review Services LDC PAGE(S): LDC3.40.2 LDC SECTION: 3.2.8.3.26. CHANGE: Under certain conditions of proximity to adjacent properties, buildings shall be required to install roof gutters on gable roofs to direct storm water away from directly and adversely conveying water onto the adjacent property. REASON: Increased home sizes and decreasing and inadequate side yards relative to storm water requirements from large roofed structures causes water to shed runoff on to neighboring properties. Current methods of in- ground percolation systems and open retention have not effectively resolved this problem which is exacerbated when next to a building with gable roof. The requirement for gutters on a gable roof will diminish greatly the likelihood of storm water runoff onto adjacent properties FISCAL AND OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Ordinance 90-10 as amended, Storm Water management and Ordinance 98-76, Collier Building Construction Administrative Code. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACTS: None Sec. 3.2.8.3.26 Storm water management. Any structure which is closer than 10 feet from a structure with a gable roof line adjacent to said property line shall install properly sized (minimum 24 square inch cross section) gutters and downspouts to direct storm water away from neighboring properties and toward front and/or rear swales or retention/detention areas. In-ground percolation type retention systems such as rock trenches, exfiltration trenches or beds, infiltrator type systems, Gallery type systems, etc., shall not be used to achieve water quality retention for residential subdivisions. Rear yard open retention systems shall likewise not be designed to achieve water quality retention on projects submitted after January 1, 2002. All retention systems for projects designed after January 1, 2002 shall be on common property owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association or similar entity. ORIGIN: Community Development & Environmental Services AUTHOR: Kevin H. Dugan, Chief Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention LDC PAGE: LDC3:192 LDC SECTION: 3.16.2.6 CHANGE: Correct updated Florida Administrative Code Chapter from 17 to 62 REASON: per Final Order FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 3.16.2.6 Effect of setbacks and buffers from sanitary hazards as promulgated and adopted in the Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 44 62, Florida Administrative Code, establishes minimum setbacks and buffers between the placement of identified sanitary hazards and public potable water supply wells. The location of the following regulated development and associated activity shall be subject to the minimum setback and buffer requirements as promulgated and adopted by the Florida department of environmental regulation Department of Environmental Protection and incorporated herein by reference. For reference purposes only, the applicable setbacks from potable water wells on the effective date of this division[November 18, 1991] are as follows: 3.16.2.6.1 Domestic wastewater treatment plant outfall. as regulated under Rule 62- 600.510, Florida Administrative Code , shall discharge not less than 500 feet from an approved, but not yet constructed, potable water intake. 3.16.2.6.2 Application of sludge, as regulated under Rules 17-7.540(4), (5), (7), 17-7.570, and 17-7.580, Florida Administrative Code , shall be no closer than 500 feet from a shallow public water supply well as defined in Rule 17-7.020(46), Florida Administrative Code. 3.16.2.6.3 The edge of the wetted area used for the application and reuse of reclaimed water, as regulated under Rule 4-7 62-610.471, Florida Administrative Code, shall be no closer than 75 feet from an existing or HRS-approved potable water supply well; and reclaimed water transmission facilities shall be no closer than 75 feet from a potable water supply well. 1 3.16.2.6.4 The edge of the pond, basin or trench embankment used for a rapid rate land application system, as regulated under Rule -1-7 62-610.521, Florida Administrative Code, shall be no closer than 500 feet from an existing or HRS- approved potable water supply well, or 200 feet if conditions specified in the cited rule are met. 3.16.2.6.5 The edge of a reuse absorption field, as regulated under Rule 4-7 62-610.571, Florida Administrative Code, shall be no closer than 500 feet from an existing or HRS-approved potable water supply well, or 200 feet if conditions specified in the cited rule are met. 3.16.2.6.6 The edge of the wetted area used for effluent disposal by overland flow, as regulated under Rule 62-610.621, Florida Administrative Code, shall be no closer than 100 feet from an existing or HRS-approved potable water supply well; and a reclaimed wastewater transmission facility, as regulated under Rule 4-7 62- 610.621, Florida Administrative Code, shall be no closer than 100 feet from a public water supply well. 3.16.2.6.7 Domestic wastewater residuals land application, as regulated under Rule 4-7 62- 640.700(4) or Rule 62-640.800(1), Florida Administrative Code, shall be no closer than 500 feet from any shallow public water supply well. 3.16.2.6.8 Dairy farms, regulated under Rule 62-670.520, Florida Administrative Code, shall maintain the 300 feet separation between storage and treatment or high intensity areas and a drinking water supply well; and shall maintain a separation of 200 feet between land application of wastewater and a drinking water supply well. The land application of egg wash wastewater, as regulated under Rule 4-7 62-670.600(3), Florida Administrative Code, shall be no closer than 200 feet from a drinking water supply well. 3.16.2.6.9 Disposal of solid waste, as regulated under Rule 62-701.040(2), Florida Administrative Code, is prohibited within 500 feet of an existing or approved shallow water supply well unless the disposal meets the standards of Rule 62- 701.040, Florida Administrative Code. LDC AMENDMENT/ / 2 ORIGIN: AUTHOR: Kevin H. Dugan, Chief Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention LDC PAGE: LDC3:196 LDC SECTION: 3.16.4.1.1.1.1 CHANGE: REASON: per Final Order FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 3.16.4.1.2.1.1 In zones W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and GWP, future solid waste disposal facilities are prohibited = • ---• - - • - - - -- -• •••. •-- ::-•-• - •- LDC AMENDMENT/ / 1 ORIGIN: AUTHOR: Kevin H. Dugan, Chief Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention LDC PAGE: LDC3:197 LDC SECTION: 3.16.4.1.4.1.1 CHANGE: REASON: per Final Order FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 3.16.4.1.4.1.1 In zones W-1, W-2, W-3, future solid waste transfer stations are prohibited in the absence of a wellfield co LDC AMENDMENT/ / 1 ORIGIN: Community Development &Environmental Services AUTHOR: Kevin H. Dugan, Chief Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention LDC PAGE: LDC3:197 LDC SECTION: 3.16.4.1.6.1.2 CHANGE: REASON: per Final Order FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: none RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: none 3.16.4.1. 6.1.2 In zones W-1, W-2, W-3, future solid waste storage collection and recycling facilities • . • - - •. . . - .. - -- - - - - •• - - - .. -. -. shall be prohibited •• • - • ---• -= - . - - - -: •- - . .._ -_ .. . LDC AMENDMENT/ / 1 ORIGIN: Community Development & Environmental Services AUTHOR: Kevin H. Dugan, Chief Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention LDC PAGE: LDC3:203 LDC SECTION: 3.16.4.3.3.1.1 CHANGE: REASON: per Final Order FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: none RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 3.16.2.6 3.16.4.3.3.1.1 All future land disposal systems for application of domestic wastewater treatment plant effluent shall be constructed and permitted in accordance with applicable state law and regulations, and comply with the state-mandated setbacks and buffers as adopted in the Florid Administrative Code and as incorporated by reference in section 3.16.2.6 hereof; and must meet the high level disinfection standards as found in 40 CFR part 135. LDC AMENDMENT/ / 1 ORIGIN: Community Development & Environmental Services AUTHOR: Kevin H. Dugan, Chief Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention LDC PAGE: LDC3:205 LDC SECTION: 3.16.4.5.1.1.1 through 3.16.4.5.1.1.5 CHANGE: REASON: per Final Order FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 3.16.4.5.1.1.1 All existing legal nonconfor i and future domestic residual disposal sites shall have been constructed and permitted in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 87-79 [Code ch. 54, art. V], as may be amended or superseded, and all applicable state and federal law and regulations, and comply with the state- mandated setbacks and buffers as adopted in the Florida Administrative Code and incorporated by reference in section 3.16.2.6 hereof. • • •: - - -- - - .--.. _. . -- • _ •= - - - -- - .. 3.16.1.5.1.1.3 • e •: • , - - - .- - - - ... • - - -- •- -- - .. . . :: ::••••• :. •- accordance with the standards of section 3.16.1.5.1.1.5 hereof. 3.16.1.5.1.1.4 In zone W 1, land application of class B and class C domestic residuals is 3.16.4.5.1.1.52 In zones W-1, W-2, and W-3, land application of domestic residual shall comply with the following criteria: A. Metal concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc shall not exceed the thresholds set forth in Rule 62-640, Florida Administrative Code, as may be amended. For reference purposes only, the applicable metal 18, 1991] are as follows: 1 Metals MG/KG Dry Weight Cadmium 30 Copper 900 Lead 1,000 Nickel 100 Zinc 1,800 B. The total rate of domestic residuals applied to land shall not exceed the nitrogen uptake of the vegetation upon which the residuals are being applied, and shall be consistent with Collier County Ordinance No. 87-79 [Code ch. 54, art. V], as may be amended or superseded, and chapter -1-7 62-640, Florida Administrative Code, and 40 CFR parts 256 and 257, and as may be superseded. C. If domestic residuals are applied to a site that is receiving reclaimed water, the nitrogen uptake calculation shall include the combined effect of nitrogen loading from both domestic residuals and reclaimed water applied to the site as provided in Rule-1-7 62-640, Florida Administrative Code. D. Land application of domestic residuals is prohibited in the absence of a wellfield conditional use permit. LDC AMENDMENT/ / 2 ORIGIN: Community Development & Environmental Services AUTHOR: Kevin H. Dugan, Chief Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control & Prevention LDC PAGE: LDC3:206 LDC SECTION: 3.16.4.6.1.1.1 through 3.16.4.6.1.1.4 CHANGE: REASON: per Final Order FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 3.16.1.6.1.1.1 In zones W 1, W 2, W 3, W 4 and GWP, existing en site sewage disposal 3.16.4.6.1.1.2 1 Existing on-site sewage disposal systems as defined in Rule 10D 6.012, 64E-6 Florida Administrative Code, serving existing residential structures located in zones W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and GWP are not regulated under this division. •-- -- !! -- - • . _ .. .. - - . - - - -- - • e.4. - - ... -- - - - - . .. . !! from the well. 3.16.4.6.1.1:42 On site sewage disposal systems requiring a certificate of [to] operate under •__ _ • . :.4. • _ :5 . •: serving existing industrial uses located on zones W-1, W-2, or W-3, shall :: . -- - -- •• -: - - . . . - - --•• -. _ : : :_ . : • e •• -: •:• •e •-: meet all construction and operating standards contained in Rule 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, as may be amended. At a minimum the following conditions shall be incorporated: A. Reporting by the industrial user of all hazardous products stored or used at the subject location; B. Implementation of a groundwater monitoring system on the site, designed by a professional engineer or professional geologist licensed in the State of Florida, with monitoring required on a semiannual schedule for any hazardous wastes that 1 are used or stored on the industrial site, and reporting of monitoring data to the department; and C. Certification by a professional engineer that the on-site sewage disposal system meets construction and operating standards as contained in the most current version of Rule 10D 6.056 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, as may be amended. LDC AMENDMENT/ / 2 ORIGIN: Community Development& Environmental Services AUTHOR: Kevin H. Dugan, Chief Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention LDC PAGE: LDC3:209 LDC SECTION: 3.16.4.11.1.1.1 through 3.16.4.11.1.1.4 CHANGE: REASON: per Final Order FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 3.16.4.11.1.1.1 In zones W-1 and W-2, future petroleum exploration or production facilities, and expansion of existing petroleum exploration or production facilities shall be prohibited. 3.16.4.11.1.1.2 In zones W 1 and W 2, future petroleum and production facilities and the continued operation and use of existing legal nonconforming petroleum owner/operator obtaining a certificate to operate incorporating the following -- •.' - - - - •. - . - --- - ..4. .4 ...e .-- - - 3.16.1.11.1.1.5 hereof: A. Implementation of a detailed containment plan approved by the county manger, describing: 1. A primary and secondary containment system designed to ensure that • • - -- - - • -- - • - =• - • - .- - 7.. ..., -- - -• •• - -- - - , e• • o• ••! k .•e, - - • - • • t . - e•.-•. • - - . -- - = . - -• =- - •-• - - or off site stormwater management system, wetland, or surface waters or groundwaters of the state as defined in F.S. ch. 103. Secondary containment shall a. Containment structures open to rainfall or otherwise subject to infiltration by water, shall be designed to detain at least 150 percent of the total volume of the discharge or release; and 1 b. Containment structures which are impermeable to rainfall or • - - . - -- It.•• • - - - - • ! -- -- - - . •• : e 2. Emergency collection devices that have or will be employed to ensure that any discharge or accidental release of the petroleum, petroleum product, stormwater management system, wetland, or surface waters or groundwaters of the state; and 3. The maintenance that will be provided for the primary and secondary discharge or accidental release is cont. •:e - • - - - - - -: - •• B. Upen discovery of a discharge or accidental release to a pervious surface, describes: 1. Actions to be taken by the owner/operator in the event of a discharge, a. First response steps to control and prohibit the discharge or • -- - - . - :.-- - - •- - -- • - -- - - , .- - -• : • ' - - - ' water; b. Remedial actions consistent with applicable state and federal laws; and c. Proper disposal of the petroleum product. 2. Emergency telephone numbers of: a. Local and state response units; and b. Owner/operator's designated emergency response personnel. 3. compliance with the applicable state and federal regulations 3.16.4.11.1.1.3 In zones W 3, W 4 and GWP, the operation and use of future and existing petroleum exploration and production facilities are not regulated under this hereof. 2 3.16.4.11.1.14-2 In zones W 1, W 2, W-3 and W-4, the siting of future petroleum exploration and production facilities is prohibited in the absence of a wellfield conditional use permit. LDC AMENDMENT/ / 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA November 21, 2001 9:00 A.M.-11:00 PM Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building"P)-Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Introduction of Speaker, Mike Duever, Senior Environmental Scientist of the South Florida Water Management District. III. Presentation on Wetland Hydrology IV. Council Member Comments V. Adjournment ********************************************************************************* Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 19, 2001 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition(659-5741).