The URL can be used to link to this page

EAC Agenda 01/05/2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA January 5,2000 9:00 a.m. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building(Building"F")—Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of December 1, 1999 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions A. Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.720 "Panther Island Mitigation Bank" Sections 5,6,7,18 & 19, Township 47 South,Range 27 East B. Conditional Use No. CU-99-27 Special Treatment No. ST-99-3 "Little Palm Island" Section 23, Township 48 South,Range 25 East C. Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-16 "Whippoorwill Pines PUD" Section 18, Township 49 South,Range 26 East D. Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-26 "La Sienna Estates in Olde Cypress PUD" Section 21, Township 48 South,Range 26 East E. Conditional Use Petition No. CU-99-31 Special Treatment Permit No. ST-99-2 "Cocohatchee Nature Center" Section 21,Township 48 South,Range 25 East F. Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-9 Development Order No. DO-99-2 "Ronto Livingston PUD" Section 7, Township 48 South,Range 26 East and Section 12, Township 48 South,Range 25 East fr Environmental Advisory Council January 5,2000 G. Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUD-92-04(1) "Golden Gate Commerce Park PUD" Section 34,Township 49 South,Range 26 East V. Old Business VI. New Business A. Overview of the Effluent Distribution System VII. Council Member Comments VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment ************ **********************, ************************************ NOTES: A. Council Members: Notify the Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrative staff no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 29, 1999 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition(403-2385). B. 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. December 1, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, December 1, 1999 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 : 05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Collier County Government Center, Administration Building, Naples, Florida, with the following members present : CHAIRMAN: William W. Hill M. Keen Cornell Michael G. Coe Thomas W. Sansbury Ed Carlson John P. Di Nunzio James L. Mclvey ALSO PRESENT: Marni Scuderi, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Page 1 December 1, 1999 n CHAIRMAN HILL: Good morning. I would like to welcome you to the December meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council . I welcome the public, and you will be given a chance to address the Council at an appropriate time. I would like roll call, please. MS . BURGESON: Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Here . MS. BURGESON: Coe? MR. COE: Here . MS. BURGESON: Cornell? MR. CORNELL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Di Nunzio? MR. DI NUNZIO: Here. MS . BURGESON: Hill? CHAIRMAN HILL: Here. MS . BURGESON: McIvey? MR. McIVEY: Here. MS . BURGESON: Sansbury? MR. SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Smith? MR. SMITH: Here. CHAIRMAN HILL: At this time, I guess, for the record, I would like to acknowledge the fact that Dr. Jackson has resigned from the Council . Is there an ongoing attempt to replace him; if you know? MS . BURGESON: That resignation was sent down to Sue Filson and so that will be advertised, yes. CHAIRMAN HILL: Fine. Thank you. Any questions or comments on the agenda before you? (No response) I ' ll ask for approval from the Council . MR. CORNELL: I ' ll move we approve. MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? Those in favor, signify by saying aye? Opposed, the same? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN HILL: The agenda is approved. MS. BURGESON: We have one item I forgot to mention that was requested to be pulled from the agenda, and that is IV°, which is the Panther Island Mitigation Bank. That won't be heard today. CHAIRMAN HILL: That will be pulled from the -- MS . BURGESON: Pulled, right . CHAIRMAN HILL: Did the members of the public hear that? Item IV°, the mitigation bank, has been taken off the agenda. Questions or comments on the November minutes? I 'll ask for approval of the minutes, then. MR. CORNELL: Move we approve. MR. SANSBURY: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? Page 2 December 1, 1999 MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes. MR. SANSBURY: There is one item on Page 16 where the comment was Florida Gators seven to one. Unfortunately I think it ' s nine to two now. Never mind. Forget it . I 'm sorry. MR. SMITH: I move we amend the minutes. CHAIRMAN HILL: We ought to check with the hokeys there, or somebody up there in Virginia before -- strike that . I ' ll entertain a motion for approval as amended. MR. SMITH: I so move. CHAIRMAN HILL: Second? MR. SANSBURY: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN HILL: Passed 8-0 . Thank you. Land Use Petitions . We ' ll consider IV(A) , the Ibis Club Apartments . MR. MURRAY: Good morning. I 'm Don Murray, planner with the Planning Services Department . This project is a site development plan for Ibis Club. It ' s a 134 . 95 acre apartment project located about -- it ' s about a half mile from the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard, on the south ^ side of Radio, between Davis and Radio, with access off of Davis Boulevard. This project is in an urban mixed use, urban residential subdistrict of the future land use map which provides for higher density development where there are few natural constraints and where public existing and plant facilities are concentrated. It ' s also zoned and vested for RMF-12 zoning, residential multi-family with a cap of 8 . 9 units per acre, and this project, we looked at it, it is compatible with the growth management -- excuse me, with surrounding development and, because of these reasons; it is considered consistent with the growth management plan. Are there any questions? MR. CORNELL: I have one question. CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. CORNELL: Don, I should know the answer to this, but I don't . When we 're talking about the south county regional wastewater plant, primary and secondary treatment, is there water available from that plant for irrigation and so forth; is there recycling that goes on there or -- MR. MURRAY: You got me there. I believe there is . MR. CHRZANOWSKI : As far as I know the south county regional plant sends its wastewater out to a variety of golf courses all in south Naples . MR. CORNELL: Okay. All of it or most of it or who knows? MR. CHRZANOWSKI : I believe, as with everything, I think there ' s a shortfall in the middle of the dry season. MR. CORNELL: Right . Okay. Page 3 December 1, 1999 n MR. CHRZANOWSKI : The comment was that there is a shortfall in the dry season. As with all things, wastewater is generated a little heavier in the dry season because that ' s when all the people come down here. MR. CORNELL: Right . MR. CHRZANOWSKI : So it ' s a good thing that -- but in a wet season when it 's raining every day, they had some ponds just to the west of here that they used to store the water, because there was too much water being generated, and the golf courses can't take it in the wet season so -- MR. CORNELL: And where does the effluent from that plant end up? MR. CHRZANOWSKI : I don't know. MR. CORNELL: It must be one of the canals or something like that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : No. I think they try percolating it into the ground. I 'm not really sure. MR. CORNELL: Okay. . MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman? That issue has come up several times and I think it would behoove us to get a report from the utilities people and let the AC know what the issue of gray water is and its potential for serving developments. Would that be agreeable to you all, if we -- MR. CORNELL: I think it would be great . I mean, I think it ' s a very important environmental issue. MR. NINO: I think you're right . It 's come up several times and I think we have to find out what is the state of gray water in Collier County. Could you arrange to do that? MS. SCUDERI : Mr. Chairman, if I can ask a question? I believe the court reporter is having trouble hearing. Is there a way to raise the microphone? MR. CHRZANOWSKI : I looked at the volume. I don't know how that works . CHAIRMAN HILL: Are you all right, Mrs . Brooks? We ' ll try to speak louder. Mr. Lenberger? MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Development Services. As Don said, the property is about a fifteen acre site. It 's located approximately half mile west of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Radio Road. It ' s immediately west of the Gallman car dealership, which I 'm sure most of you are familiar with. The property, as you can see, is vegetated completely. It ' s vegetated primarily with pine flatwoods . There is an area of wetlands on the south side, pine/cypress mix, approximately 1.29 acres of wetlands. There is a palmetto prairie in this area and there are basically pine/cabbage palm mix in these areas here that are circled. The project ' s before you because it is straight zoning. It didn't require a PUD, so an EIS had to be done. It ' s over ten acres and therefore that ' s why it ' s coming to you, a site development plan. Normally we do not bring site development plans to the EAC. I have the site plan up on the wall . If you could just visualize this site just tilted on its side. North is to the left. Page 4 December 1, 1999 When we do site development plans we require a site clearing plan, and the site clearing plan is the exhibit here I have on the wall . The crosshatched areas are the areas of vegetation which will be retained, and these blocks here are the building pods, which would be cleared at the time the building permits are issued for those buildings. The site would be required to retain fifteen percent of native vegetation on site. The developer will be preserving over twenty percent, so they are exceeding the amount required to be preserved. Considering that some of the vegetation lies close to where asphalt will be and the future lake, they have also -- have a restoration legend which they've provided to restore those areas with supplemental plantings, if necessary. There was a wildlife survey done on the property. The only listed species found was a red-cockaded woodpecker. It was found crossing the property. The petitioner has consulted with Fish and Wildlife Service, and they have purchased fifteen acres off site mitigation in the Belle Meade. The consultant is here, and I am here, if you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them. MR. CORNELL: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes. MR. CORNELL: I have one question. Steve, I gather from the EIS that the county does not have a P-. recycling ordinance? MR. LENBERGER: We have a recycling program. I don't know how it 's written in an ordinance, but recycling is available to the residents . MR. CORNELL: Okay. But it ' s not in the form of an ordinance? MR. LENBERGER: I don't think it ' s mandatory, no. CHAIRMAN HILL: The area that they are going to purchase was stated to be in the Picayune Strand State Forest? MR. LENBERGER: That ' s correct . In the Belle Meade area, immediately west of where the Golden Gate estates lies, south of Alligator Alley. CHAIRMAN HILL: That is not currently state property? MR. LENBERGER: Right . It ' s fifteen acres . The developer did purchase it . CHAIRMAN HILL: And it will be turned over then to the Forestry? MR. LENBERGER: That ' s correct . CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. But it is privately owned at this point? MR. LENBERGER: I 'm not sure if it 's been purchased already. Perhaps the petitioner -- MR. HALL: The property site -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Identify yourself, please. MR. HALL: Tim Hall with Turrell & Associates. We are the environmental consultant for Mr. Rich for the property. The mitigation property is fifteen acres . It ' s currently privately owned. It ' s within the purchase boundaries for the state forest, the Bell Meade Acquisition program, underneath that . Page 5 December 1, 1999 Mr. Rich has the land under contract . There will be a little bit of enhancement, removal of some exotics and an old burned out trailer that will be removed before it 's turned over. It will be turned over to the state and managed by the Division of Forestry. MR. CARLSON: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HILL: Pardon me. Ed? MR. CARLSON: Now, this red-cockaded woodpecker was seen on the site but there are no nests and it was just, like, foraging on the site? MR. HALL: That ' s correct . It was transient across the site. The survey showed no nests or cavity trees on the site or within a half a mile of the site, all the way around. There is known colonies both north and south of the site, within probably three miles. And the reason -- if you see the site plan, the preserve areas or the native vegetation that ' s being retained will provide a corridor, a passage corridor, both north and south and east and west across the site. MR. CARLSON: There used to be a red-cockaded colony across the road to the southeast of the -- is that -- MR. HALL: Yes, sir. Those trees are all inactive right now. MR. CARLSON: They are all inactive? MR. HALL: They are not -- they are not -- there was no active nesting sites found during the survey. MR. CARLSON: Well, the point I was going to make is, you know, I volunteered to be on this board for four years, so I think I 'm going to ^ see a lot of projects in this area. And if the foraging area is continually reduced, the land in the Picayune Strand doesn't do those particular birds any good, I wouldn't think. How far away is the land in Picayune Strand? MR. HALL: It 's -- it ' s quite a ways . MR. CARLSON: Yes . MR. HALL: The same birds using this site would not be using that site. MR. CARLSON: Yeah. So, over time, as the foraging area is reduced, eventually there won't be enough habitat there to support whatever birds are using this site? MR. HALL: Right . I just -- MR. CARLSON: Thanks a lot . CHAIRMAN HILL: That ' s a good question, and I think we need to address it and several similar questions regarding the mitigation process at a later date. MR. HALL: Something else the board needs to keep in mind also, though, is that a lot of these properties are rapidly degrading through mostly exotic infestation, so the forage value of those areas is declining on its own, aside from just the development . MR. CARLSON: Do we know if there are red-cockaded woodpeckers that will use the mitigation site in the Picayune? MR. HALL: Yes, sir. I did the survey out there. There is a known colony adjacent to, not on that site but adjacent to it . We didn't do a full fledged survey of the site to see if there were birds actively using it, but the habitat is a prime habitat for them. Page 6 December 1, 1999 CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there an approved time of year to make these species surveys? I notice this is January. Is that a good time of the year for this study to be made? MR. HALL: It kind of depends on the species that you're surveying. The red-cockaded woodpecker's a year-round resident so they will be more active in the spring and the fall, but you should see them. If they are there, the cavity trees and all are there year-round and they are being utilized. For some of the transient species or if you have, like, eagles where they have a definite nesting season, then now would be the time that you would see them actually trying to build their nests . And also it depends on the species that you're surveying for. Some of the them are time dependent . You won't see them at certain times of the year, you will at others. CHAIRMAN HILL: All right . MR. HALL: For the ones that are residents -- MS . BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson. Often the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will require two surveys, two weeks of surveys through the year to make sure they have got two different times of the year for the surveying, and it ' s typically in the spring and the fall . CHAIRMAN HILL: It seems like mid-winter, my limited knowledge, would be an inopportune time to really study the nesting. But, as you say, this is the time for some of the transient species to nest, January and February? MR. HALL: No. Like, the eagles are building nests and all now, which -- they are full-time residents, but the active nesting season starts in October, October, November. CHAIRMAN HILL: I have one question. We don't see an STP very often. It ' s interesting to look at this. There was no fill identified in the report or any place in the documents, but it looked like there was going to be a significant amount of fill in order to get the elevations, the final elevations. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : Yes . There will be a significant amount of fill brought in to the site, above and beyond what they excavate out of the lake, I think. CHAIRMAN HILL: Does that need to be addressed under the -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI : No. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. MR. CARLSON: Is there an Ibis management plan; is that why this is the Ibis Club? MR. HALL: No, sir. MR. CARLSON: I thought I had something there. CHAIRMAN HILL: You' ll regret that . MR. DI NUNZIO: You're really stretching that . MR. COE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN HILL: Three out of eight is pretty poor. Any other questions? Any other petitioner who would like to address the Council? Any from the public? (No response. ) Page 7 December 1, 1999 Close the public forum and ask for comments from the Council. (No response. ) Any action from the Council? MR. CORNELL: I ' ll move we approve. MR. COE: Second. MR. CORNELL: Subject to the stips, I guess . CHAIRMAN HILL: Subject to what, Mr. Cornell? MR. CORNELL: They had some stipulations, I think. CHAIRMAN HILL: Right . MR. COE: I 'll second that . CHAIRMAN HILL: Any discussion? (No response. ) In the absence of discussion, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (All ayes . ) Opposed, the same. Let the record show it was 8-0, approval . MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes. MR. SANSBURY: One thing I noted during that petition, it 's obvious that Mr. Murray has surpassed Mr. Chrzanowski in the outrageous tie area. MR. CARLSON: That was my first observation this morning. MR. SMITH: Also I would like to make a comment that Mr. Coe 's shirt is very, very loud this morning. MR. MURRAY: It ' s a planning tie. CHAIRMAN HILL: Is that the new proposed Naples skyline on there? MR. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HILL: Does that satisfy all the environmental aspects of development? MR. SANSBURY: That ' s what that boat barn down by my house is really going to really look like. MR. MURRAY: If you' ll notice, the road network is very good. CHAIRMAN HILL: No traffic problems . MR. MURRAY: Traffic is moving along. CHAIRMAN HILL: To move on to Item IV(B) , PUD 90-17, the St . John the Evangelist Church. Mr. Murray? MR. MURRAY: Yes . Thank you. Once again, Dan Murray, Planning Services. St . John the Evangelist Church PUD was approved in 1990 for approximately 14 . 89 acres located at about three-quarters miles west of US 41, if you can see that . It ' s also located between the Naples Park Elementary School -- see if you can see that -- and the Naples Memorial Gardens Cemetery. There ' s also a residential development just to the north, northwest with a golf course being located -- sorry -- golf course development being located on the north side, and also a residential development to the northwest side. This is the cemetery and the school . And then across 111th Avenue is Naples Park and residential development . Page 8 December 1, 1999 This site also has an existing thousand seat house of worship -- see if I can get that on there so you can see it -- which is located in about the central portion of the fifteen-acre project, and it also has a life center and parish, all with library services and so forth. This project was originally approved to also have a school . What the applicants are proposing here is to expand the list of potential uses in the PUD document, which would also include a fitness center, a 125 unit ACLF, and the same school that was previously approved. And this will all be located here, whatever they develop, in the 5 . 7 acre portion of the site . I 've got a better drawing here, and this shows a little bit better. This is the development area that we 're talking about, the 5 . 7 acre portion, with parking, and, I guess, this is the school in here, and some of the other proposed facilities . It 's also -- they are also showing a preservation area buffering along the development area. MR. CARLSON: That area at the extreme north end? MR. MURRAY: Right here. MR. CARLSON: What is that; what is that proposed to be? MR. MURRAY: This is the -- this is the buffer here. MS. BURGESON: The -- they way that the remaining 5 . 7 acres will be developed is that the entire area will be completely cleared. The buildings will be constructed, the infrastructure put in place, and then they will be completely recreating the required 3 . 7 acres of native vegetation. So that area in the back and along the east side of the property has been recreated -- and I can get into that a little more detail -- MR. CARLSON: Okay. MS. BURGESON: -- But the recreated vegetation that they need to MR. CARLSON: Okay. That ' s all right . I ' ll wait . MR. MURRAY: Other than that, we reviewed it . It ' s consistent with the growth management plan and we are recommending approval. Are there any questions? MS . BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson. As Don said, the property currently has a sanctuary, parish hall, Gopher tortoise preserve on 5 . 74 acres of recreated wetland and parking. The 5 . 15 acre upland tortoise preserve is comprised mainly of scrub/xeric oak habitat, scrubby pine flatwoods adjacent to that, scrub oaks, sand live oak, rosemary, buckthorn, very little exotics in that area, and that ' s mainly due to the fact that the approval of this PUD required annual exotic removal, so we didn't expect to see the exotics on site. There is currently a 0 . 59 acre wetland on site which was required to be created at the time that the original PUD was approved as mitigation for 1. 7 acres of wetlands that they impacted at that time. Approximately two to three inches of standing water occurs within that wetland during the rainy time of the year, as indicated by water lines, sediment marks and stains on the vegetation in that area. The church proposes to clear the wetland area during construction and, as mitigation for that, they will be recreating 1. 6 acres of a Page 9 December 1, 1999 n wetland marsh on site and, in addition, purchasing lands off site in CREW at a three to one ratio for mitigation to the original 1. 7 acres of wetland impact . The PUD is required to maintain a minimum 3 . 73 acres of native vegetation on site. At the time the original PUD was approved 5 . 74 acres was what was determined to be an appropriate amount of native vegetation, largely due to the fact of the large population of Gopher tortoises on site, and that area was identified and set aside as a Gopher tortoise preserve. The church proposes to remove all of the existing native vegetation, recreate the 3 . 73 acres that 's required by the PUD at the completion of construction and infrastructure. And, in order to do that, all of the Gopher tortoises will be relocated off site. They will be obtaining a relocation permit from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission prior to any site improvements on site. They' ll relocate those tortoises. And staff is recommending approval of the petition, subject to the one water management recommendation stipulation and the environmental stipulations as listed. Do you have any questions -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Questions for staff? MS . BURGESON: -- That I can answer or maybe the consultant can answer? They're here. CHAIRMAN HILL: What is the density limitation for this property? MS . BURGESON: Are you talking about structural density? CHAIRMAN HILL: No. Residential density. MS . BURGESON: Okay. MS . MURRAY: This is a PUD based on the prior approval. The density would have to meet, basically, the land development code as it applies to the ACLF, or anything like that . As for the rest of the uses, they are pretty much approved, the life center and so forth. There aren't any other, I guess, residential type uses proposed, other than the ACLF. CHAIRMAN HILL: But the 125 residential units is new; that proposal is new, correct? MR. MURRAY: Yes . CHAIRMAN HILL: When that occurs on an existing PUD, is the entire acreage used as a basis for the density? MR. MURRAY: No. The existing proposed area -- you can't double dip, as some people call it . MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino. When we deal with ACLF facilities, the conventional density rules don't apply. The LDC establishes a four area ratio for a factor of 0 .45 times the area of the land that 's to be devoted to the ACLF. Under an earlier version of the code, it was twenty-six units per acre. That was eliminated several years ago, and, in lieu of that, a mathematical factor was applied to determine the number of units that one could achieve in an ACLF type of facility. So it ' s the 0 .45 times the area devoted to that purpose, produces the number of units that they could potentially get . The number of Page 10 December 1, 1999 units that they could potentially get, of course, is a relationship to the size of the units and the amount of common space, kitchen, therapeutic rooms, et cetera, that they devote to the -- to residents of the project . So, you know, there really isn't any conventional dwelling unit density relationship here because that 's not what they're building. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. Thank you. MS . BURGESON: For the record, just getting back to the Gopher tortoise just a moment, I did not discuss the list of the species survey. I forgot that as I was talking before. The consultant conducted about twenty-seven hours of surveys on the property and identified forty-nine active Gopher tortoise burrows, twenty-three inactive and a number of abandoned burrows . And it 's because of the limited habitat that would remain on the site that the consultant and that the church has proposed and committed to relocation of all of the tortoises off site. CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. Back to my other question. The term "congregate living facility" , that implies the assisted living facility. That wasn't clear in my mind. CHAIRMAN HILL: Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: I ' ll ask the obvious question. The original PUD was approved and a preserve area was a condition of that PUD? MS . BURGESON: Because the Gopher tortoises were -- because they identified a large enough preserve area, they were able to keep the tortoises on site. The way the land development code is written right now, they are allowed to increase the use of the property, as long as they maintain a minimum of 3 . 7 acres of vegetation. MR. CARLSON: So there ' s no language in the original PUD that says MS. BURGESON: Yes, that for perpetuity -- MR. CARLSON: -- they are required to maintain that as a preserve? MS. BURGESON: That ' s right . MR. CARLSON: So, really, any preserve area we've approved on any project that goes above the required minimum can come back to us in the future and be reduced to the minimum? MS . BURGESON: Yes . MR. SMITH: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HILL: Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: I noticed that the -- in addition to the plans to recreate wetlands on site to 1 . 6 acres, they are proposing to purchase lands in the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed on a three per one ratio. Is this something that is over and beyond what they would be required to do or is that -- MS . BURGESON: I 'm sure that that is just what they are required to do for the South Florida Water Management District to mitigate for the original loss of wetlands from the project that was proposed for the first PUD. But if you wanted more details on that, the consultant is here. MR. CARLSON: Where is the created -- there is going to be some wetland creation? Page 11 December 1, 1999 MS. BURGESON: Yes. I don't have any identification any more than the site plan that you see there as -- in terms of exactly where that acreage will be. Some of that will be accommodated in smaller areas in between buildings . The majority of it, of the 3 . 73, however, will be in the -- I don't know what the acreage is . The portion here in the back and along the side here will make up the majority of that 3 . 73 acres. The remainder will be made up in smaller portions along the outside, between buildings and in the areas -- the common areas on the property. MR. CARLSON: Kind of like those little patches of wetlands you see in the parking lot, middle of the parking lot at Wal-Mart? MS. BURGESON: You' ll need to ask -- if the consultants can discuss that in more detail? MR. McIVEY: I thought you meant the standing puddles on the asphalt itself. MS. NAGEON DE LESTANG: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes. MS. NAGEON DE LESTANG: My name is Marielle Nageon de Lestang and I 'm with Turrell & Associates. I 'm the consultant for the project. The wetlands that will be created are going to be wet detention areas in the back of the site there, and behind the building, which will be the adult congregate living facility, which is basically how it exists now, the wetlands are just kind of -- they are included -- incorporated into the water management system, just making more -- actually more acreage of wetlands . MR. SMITH: I 've noticed that there is a golf course being proposed immediately behind. And right now that 's not -- that 's not even a golf course right now, is it? MR. NAGEON DE LESTANG: No, it 's not . They are still in the beginnings of construction. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN HILL: Mr. Cornell? MR. CORNELL: Just for Barbara, following up on Ed Carlson' s interesting question, I thought if you had a preservation area, that it was accompanied by some kind of a conservation easement, or was that not the case here or -- MS . BURGESON: The preservation areas are often accommodated with -- if they are platted -- this particular PUD, I don't believe, was ever platted. If they are platted, they are platted with protective covenants. MR. CORNELL: I see. MS. BURGESON: But that does not mean that you cannot re-plat them and re-configure, and we have had that over the years, where a preserve area has been re-designated. If you're coming in and you're re-doing the PUD -- MR. CORNELL: Right . MS. BURGESON: -- in some cases we have had them completely relocate another -- in -- to other portions of the property for particular reasons . MR. CORNELL: May I ask you one other question? Page 12 December 1, 1999 The EIS notes that the church now uses a well for irrigation water and -- is something like that permitted and monitored by the Water Management District or something, or how does that work? MR. CHRZANOWSKI : Private irrigation wells are usually just permitted by Collier County. MR. CORNELL: I see. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : Unless it ' s for larger projects like developments, subdivisions, golf courses, and then they go through the Water Management District . I don't think that they would permit this one for the church. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They would need something from -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI : They would need something from you? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes. And please identify yourself . MS . BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. We are in the process right now of submitting our applications to South Florida for our water use permit as well as our water management permit . In this area, especially in the coastal areas, it ' s pretty typical that you would have to permit through the district for any kind of irrigation in this area. Things like the reuse lines which you were talking about earlier are not available for these kind of projects . So you're really kind of limited to either potable water or well -- or some sort of well . CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? MR. CARLSON: A question for somebody. There ' s also some proposed recreation of xeric scrub community? MS. BURGESON: You'll have to ask the consultant about that . MR. CARLSON: What 's -- MS. BURGESON: I can tell that you it will be required to be re-planted and recreated in larger plant material in accordance with the land development code which requires fourteen to sixteen foot trees, five gallon shrubs and one gallon ground cover. But, in terms of what that mix will be, we ' ll approve a plan at the time of site development plan approval . MR. CARLSON: Well, what 's the track record of being able to create that kind of habitat? MS. BURGESON: We don't see -- MR. CARLSON: This is all going to be re-contoured and re-planted? MS. NAGEON DE LESTANG: They are planning on recreating it based -- well, the grade is basically going to stay the same, so -- MR. CARLSON: I mean, are there lots of examples of this working? MS . NAGEON DE LESTANG: Unfortunately, I 'm not able to answer that . MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop again. I just -- actually, about four years ago we relocated 400 scrub trees in a habitat in Pelican Bay, and it still stands today, along North Point Drive, and it is in excellent condition. We were able even to relocate rosemary, which traditionally you can't relocate or propagate. So, it can be done. It ' s not done as easily because people consider it more expensive than just buying new trees. Page 13 December 1, 1999 MR. CARLSON: Is this a place I can drive to and look at? MS . BISHOP: Absolutely. MR. CARLSON: Where is it? MS . BISHOP: It is the road that goes to the Cortella shopping center on the north -- you go in North Point Drive. The northern entrance of Pelican Bay, your first right, it ' s on the left-hand side. And it 's 400 trees . We -- only five died out of 400 trees that we relocated. So, it can be done but it ' s just not traditionally done because it 's cheaper to buy those little lollipop trees and throw them in the ground. That ' s what most of the landscape guys will tell you, but, if you really want to do a good job, you can, in fact, do it . CHAIRMAN HILL: I was remiss earlier in not acknowledging the presence of the Water Management District representatives, and we certainly appreciate your being here. And, from time to time, we 're going to call on you for help. Are there questions from the Council? How effective is the Gopher tortoise removal and reconstitution of that habitat? MS. BURGESON: If you're talking about how effective is it to relocate tortoises off site? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes. MS. BURGESON: Or are you talking about how effective is it to recreate that parcel with native vegetation? CHAIRMAN HILL: No. To recreate their habitat off site. MS. BURGESON: They won't be recreating habitat off site for the tortoises. What they will be required to do through the state permit is, is obtain permission or purchase land of an adequate acreage to relocate all of those tortoises onto, and that land will probably have -- more than likely it will have to be purchased. That permit will require all of those tortoises to be relocated. MR. CARLSON: And what ' s the survivability (sic) of this? I mean are -- MS. BURGESON: It ' s discouraged. MR. CARLSON: Are they monitoring; are they monitored to see how they survive? MR. SANSBURY: I can address that directly, having just done that, and, that is, we have just in January of 1999 relocated twelve Gopher turtles that were located on the south of Golden Gate Boulevard where Naples Grand Golf Course is presently being -- we identified a six acre preserve site within the Grey Oaks Golf Course. We planted about 300 prickly pear cactus, probably three to four hundred -- I would say they are called Gopher apples, which is another plant to use, plus some additional spartina grasses and other grasses . They have been there a year, and, of the twelve -- we looked like -- about a month and a half ago -- and ten of them are still in residence within that area. So I think that -- we can't -- the other ones are -- we did have a fenced-in area. We think that the other ones probably, you know, didn't go someplace else, they probably expired for some reason or another. MS . BURGESON: Did you actually have to obtain a relocation permit to do that? Page 14 December 1, 1999 n ' MR. SANSBURY: Yes . That ' s a relocation permit that was by the -- MS . BURGESON: By the state. MR. SANSBURY: Yes, by the state. And they said that was a fairly good survival rate of -- MS. BURGESON: I understand from relocation permits that I 've reviewed in the past, that there is minimal monitoring after that and it ' s probably more up to -- MR. SANSBURY: We have to do it every year. We have to file a report every year. MR. CARLSON: You do the monitoring? MS . BURGESON: Is it just for the first three years? MR. SANSBURY: Our engineers do it, certified -- basically Wilson, Miller does it for us . MS . BURGESON: And is that for the first three years after? MR. SANSBURY: I 'm not sure if it ' s three or five. I know -- I know it ' s for three. I 'm not sure how many further it is. CHAIRMAN HILL: Anything else from the Council? MR. CARLSON: As far as relocating the tortoises, you identify different areas that may take some of these, the seven for the Division of -- wait . Seven for the Dunes development, eleven or twelve, Division of Forestry, and that leaves, by my math, like thirteen, and you state the Catholic church could have -- could have some receiving areas for these? MS. NAGEON DE LESTANG: Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: What is that; where is that; what ' s that all about? MS. NAGEON DE LESTANG: They have two sites in town currently that they are constructing or, I guess, they are in the permitting phase, and they have some habitat which is suitable. And I 've also, since then, been told by Bay Colony that they would be offering some area. I have not looked at their beach area yet to see what the density is, but they have offered to take some turtles also. MR. CARLSON: Would these be permanent preserve in perpetuity, forever, or will they be subject to future development? MS. NAGEON DE LESTANG: No. Well, Bay Colony is forever. The Dunes is also in perpetuity, and the Catholic church, if they had any preserve set aside to be used for those turtles, then that would also be in perpetuity. And then, of course, the Division of Forestry would be on state lands, so -- MR. SANSBURY: So that would be -- if they have -- excuse me. Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Go right ahead. MR. SANSBURY: You have to have the permit from -- MS. BURGESON: From the state. MR. SANSBURY: -- the Division of Fish, I believe. MS. BURGESON: Yes. MR. SANSBURY: One of their requirements is, the place you put it, you establish a preservation easement for the land. That ' s one of the things we have had to do in partial on the golf courses, we 've had to do that, so it can't be changed at all . CHAIRMAN HILL: Anything else for the petitioner? Page 15 December 1, 1999 (No response. ) Is there anybody from the public that would like to address the Council relative to this project? (No response. ) We'll close that portion and ask the Council for their pleasure. MR. SANSBURY: Move approval . MR. DI NUNZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: Any discussion? (No response. ) It 's been moved and approved -- move to approve PUD 90-17, subject to the recommendations by staff . Discussion? (No response. ) All those in favor signify by saying aye? (Ayes . ) Opposed, the same. MR. CARLSON: Nay. CHAIRMAN HILL: Show recommended for approval by a count of seven to one. CHAIRMAN HILL: Under Old Business we have an item and an update on the commissioners ' action on the final order. MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lawrence, Natural Resources Director. On last Tuesday, the 23rd, the board heard basically two items that dealt with the final order. One was the NRPAs, of which we had received an objection, recommendation, comments, on a work report from the state. The board voted to adopt an additional eight sections of land into NRPAs in the Okaloacoochee Slough, northern portion of the area. They also voted to add certain special study areas that would have a more specific attention during our assessment process that will go -- we're going forward in the next two to three years. These areas would be in the northern Okaloacoochee Slough that basically tracks the priority one panther boundaries . Another area, which is a special study area, would be between Camp Key -- Camp Key Strand and Okaloacoochee at the southern portion, throughout the top of the panther preserve. That was also a special study area, again, that matched up with the priority one panther habitat . And the third study area was the north Belle Meade, which you had seen previously as a proposed NRPA. That particular area that was proposed as the NRPA was also designated as a special study area. So the board adopted that as the NRPA boundaries, which they transmitted to DCA. They also adopted some additional language within the policy that addresses NRPAs to reflect the fact that these study areas would have some very specific attention. And there ' s actually some specific criteria that were different and unique for each study area that was listed in the language. We can -- this language isn't finalized. We are just in the process of getting it transmitted to DCA. Certainly we can make you copies of the final map and final language and we can put it in the mail to you. So that was basically the board' s action on the NRPAs. Page 16 December 1, 1999 On this next set of remedial amendments that we had taken to the, to the council previously, the board adopted all of that language that the EAC has seen, plus additional language in the drainage subelement that basically allows for some flexibility to apply some variants -- to apply variants to the numbers that we adopted. And this reflects our current ordinance 90-10 for -- that we apply to stormwater management, the run-off rates. So it gives -- it preserves the county's ability to provide the flexibility that it currently has. So that -- so that additional language was presented to the board and adopted by the board. At the moment, for the NRPAs, really, we 're -- we have -- I think the state has thirty days to issue a finding of either compliance or non-compliance, since we have passed the work process on it . If the state were to find us in non-compliance, I believe the next step is that we would go through a process of administrative hearing. If the state finds us in compliance, of course it still could be challenged by any outside group, in which case they could petition for a hearing that would go through the DOA process, and I -- at the moment I can't give you the name of the letters, the words for that acronym. So that would -- that 's where we are with the NRPAs. With the remedials, this is -- basically the board voted to transmit the remedials to DCA. DCA has, by the final order -- it 's either thirty or forty-five days to get back to the county with its work report for the remedials. And then we would go through the same ^ process. We would then respond to the board. The board would then have an adoption hearing, and that would be sometime early next year. As I said, we will -- we can make the -- when the maps are finished and the wording is finished, we can put that in the mail to you. MR. CORNELL: Great . CHAIRMAN HILL: When does the clock start on the three-year assessment period? MR. LORENZ : It basically already has. CHAIRMAN HILL: It has started? MR. LORENZ: The final deadline for that assessment, where the county has to have amendments in place, adopted, is June 22nd, 2002 . CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. So that was the beginning of it . MR. CORNELL: Bill, I wanted to thank you, or someone -- I guess it was your office -- for the minutes of the oversight committee meetings. Maybe it wasn't your office, but I wanted to thank somebody. MR. LORENZ: Bob may have arranged that . MR. CORNELL: They turned up on my computer, which was great. And I just -- I wondered if you had any comments. I see that that process for both the committees is underway and -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. MR. CORNELL: Any observations on how it ' s going or -- MR. LORENZ: Well, the -- the rural fringe committee has met twice. They have -- a third meeting is on the 15th, and basically they are in more of a fact-finding mode. We presented -- staff has presented that committee with resource data, land cover analysis data for the areas, basically a lot of the maps that you had seen previously Page 17 December 1, 1999 that we 've presented through the NRPA process, land cover, wetlands, listed species habitats. So we are presenting that information to them next week, or the next meeting on the 15th. They will hear a presentation from Jim Beaver from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission so that he can provide them that, that information as well. The rural lands committee, which is everything, if you will, east of the estates and north of the alley, the best way to explain that, they have had two meetings as well, but they are, at the moment, looking at finalizing a scope of services that the consultant for the eastern property owners ' group has been working with staff to present to the committee, and I believe they meet next Monday on the 6th, okay. And, hopefully, I guess, the objective there would be to finalize that scope and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that particular document as a scope of services. You mentioned the computer. We 've also -- on our website we do have two sections specifically, one for the -- one for the fringe committee, one for the rural lands committee. We are posting the minutes and agendas on those committees, posting related information, such as those maps that I 'm talking about, those resources, land cover, habitat, listed species maps, and also, I believe, the proposed scope of services . At least one of the drafts is on the website as well . So you can monitor the process by the website. You can always, you know, pick up the phone and give me a call, or certainly Bob Mulhere, I 'm sure, in his shop, if you have any questions . CHAIRMAN HILL: What 's the address of those two websites? MR. LORENZ: Well, it ' s the county website. I believe it 's WWW. Collier.FL.US. It ' s the regular Collier website. CHAIRMAN HILL: Not Collier government? Well, I ' ll get it later from you. MR. LORENZ: It ' s CO.Collier.FL.US. CHAIRMAN HILL: Any questions for Mr. Lorenz? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you, Bill . You' ll keep us abreast? MR. LORENZ : Yes . MR. COE: Comments? CHAIRMAN HILL: Anybody from the public that would like to address the matter of the NRPA or the final order? (No response. ) Any other old business from the Council? (No response. ) Move on to Item VI, New Business, discussion of workshop on permitting and development process . MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino. I understand that Vince Cautero and Commissioner Hill discussed the desirability of you scheduling a workshop at which we would more completely address how Collier County does business, basically. So, I guess, the only purpose of this item currently is to get a feeling from you-all as to when you would like that to happen. CHAIRMAN HILL: I believe this was discussed with other members of Page 18 December 1, 1999 the council, was it not? We had had some questions as a council concerning time frames and other steps in the permitting process . And MR. NINO: Let me -- I 'm thinking that the first meeting in January, following the Christmas season, is probably going to be difficult for staff to respond adequately, so can we think in terms of your meeting in February, perhaps. MR. COE: Fine with me. MR. CARLSON: Fine. CHAIRMAN HILL: I think that 's a suggestion. We ' ll tentatively put it on the agenda for February. MR. NINO: Let me tell you that our, our petition workload, it does not appear that you're going to be overburdened within the next couple of months. So it might be advisable to schedule that workshop. I think you'll have time to do it . CHAIRMAN HILL: Can we bank on that, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: I think so. MR. SANSBURY: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: That ' s always good news . MR. CHRZANOWSKI : Excuse me. I have a question about new business. CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : That presentation on effluent water reuse that you want me to set up, I assume you want it to be fairly thorough, how many golf courses are presently going under reuse, where the mains are, maps and all . Do you want it set up for next month or do you want it set up for the first month with a light agenda? CHAIRMAN HILL: What is your schedule, Stan? MR. CHRZANOWSKI : Well, it would probably be Utilities that I 'd contact, go down there and see what they have. Could probably do it for January, that way you would know what this area looks like before -- for effluent reuse. CHAIRMAN HILL: Barb, what 's the January agenda look like? MS. BURGESON: At this point we don't have anything scheduled on that . We expect to have probably three items. CHAIRMAN HILL: Would the wetland bank presumably come back in January or -- in January? MR. CHRZANOWSKI : Yes. MS . BURGESON: Stan said yes. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : It ' ll be here. CHAIRMAN HILL: Mr. Cornell, you raised that question earlier. Is that -- MR. CORNELL: I think it would be great . I mean, I would love to get into it any time. Whatever works for you, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : January. CHAIRMAN HILL: Put that on as an item then. MR. COE: Just of interest, Stan, I don't know how much you know about it, not that I know a lot, but Lakewood, where I live, we originally pumped for irrigation out of the lake. And I don't know if n it was somebody from Southwest Florida Water Management, but whoever Page 19 December 1, 1999 said, "Ah-ah. Not going to do that any more. " We 've been doing it for twenty years . So I guess the council, or whoever it is that sets this up, said, "Well, it ' s going to cost each homeowner X amount of money. " Of course, everybody screamed, "We 're not doing it . " I don't know who was involved in the negotiations, but somehow or another -- I don't know if it ' s the county that paid for it or what have you -- but we didn't end up paying for it as an assessment . But, as of cost versus us running the two pumps that we had been running, versus having the county run it through our system, the cost was negligible, so it was almost a wash deal, even though we 're now paying for the water. Next to us is King's Lake. Does anybody here live in King' s Lake? (No response. ) Well, in King's Lake, they are on city water for all of their irrigation. Their bill runs somewhere between 100 and $200 a month, where ours is like twenty-seven bucks a month. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : It 's sort of a symbiotic relationship. The county was getting not exactly fined a lot, but a lot of the percolation ponds that they were using for sewage treatment to get rid of the water, since they weren't allowed to discharge directly into water bodies, were not working efficiently, and the county needed someplace to put the effluent, and the golf courses were willing to accept it . As I said before, though, in the dry season is when the demand is the greatest . Fortunately, that ' s when the most people are down here using it, so you generate the most effluent . I guess we' ll go into all that on -- I 'm aware that -- the City of Naples was actually the first in 1983 . They had ten golf courses, ran that main up Goodlette Road, and I don't think those golf courses paid a cent for any of it because the City was under an order not to dump into the bay any more. So it has worked out good for a lot of golf courses. CHAIRMAN HILL: We'll tentatively put it on January, but if your schedule -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI : No. I ' ll put it on January. Won't be a problem. CHAIRMAN HILL: -- gets tight -- Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Yes, sir. MR. WARNER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I 'm Nelson Warner. I 'm a retiree and I can make no profit by being here. Occasionally I write letters on the subject of the shut-off of water during periods of prolonged electrical outages. It took from late August 1998 until March 1999 for the public works administrator to admit that all freshwater services will have to be shut off during periods of prolonged electrical outages due to hurricane, Y2K, terrorism or other failures. And Miss Gina Edwards was able to arrive at that conclusion in her article on March, 218t, 1999 . Do -- the core problem is, the county has in excess of 550, probably closer to 600, sewage lift stations without electrical back-up. The county meets standards that are currently under review in Tallahassee. The problem is increasing with each approval of a new Page 20 December 1, 1999 �� Illi development . By the way, I have met with Miss Burgeson and Mr. Chrzanowski, and they suggested I appear here as a public member. The state standard is obviously inadequate for a coastal county. A hospital is under construction that will not have guaranteed water and sewer services under prolonged negative conditions. This is to the best of my knowledge. The two upper levels of county government -- as of a month ago I wrote zero to minimal -- and, as I understood, it was brought up lately, a couple weeks ago, so I 'm using the word "minimal" -- action to address the problem. I was not informed of the action taken at a county commission meeting but somebody told me that it was brought up and a matter of transportable generators was mentioned. The county had two portable generators and some pump trucks under contract . I understand the county has recently approved one additional portable generator and one pump truck. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection cites the county meets the standard. The director of the State Department of Health, after citing a letter from the Department of Environmental Protection, has been challenged to ignore the low standards and truly address the issue. The Florida Department of Affairs has answered a letter indicating that a new mitigation study is under review. I have been in telephone contact and fax contact with Mr. Ken Pineau -- and I don't know personally, if Mr. Ken is here? He is aware . of the problem now and the new mitigation study, I understand, proposes that an electrical generator be provided for each new lift station. And that ' s under review at the state. On the 25th of June I wrote a letter to the editor raising the primary issue. And I will quote, "Such questions as coordinating the selection of hurricane shelters with guaranteed sewage service as well as drinking water are important . " And I really didn't get a direct answer on that because there are no answers. I have come to the conclusion that raw sewage being backed up in homes and in the street is a possible threat . The ramifications could be extremely serious from a public health point of view. The county has dodged the bullet three times just this year with large hurricanes. My recommendation is that the Council consider asking the environmental people to conduct appropriate studies in this area. Are there any questions, gentlemen? CHAIRMAN HILL: Questions or comments for Mr. Warner? MR. WARNER: I don't hear well, pardon me. If you'll raise your hand, I 'll be happy to -- it will tell me who is talking. MR. COE: We have no questions. CHAIRMAN HILL: You've raised a very valid point and this council may decide to pursue your recommendations, and we appreciate your participation in it . MR. WARNER: Thank you. MR. COE: Stan, who would do the study for this particular problem? MR. CHRZANOWSKI : I would suppose the Public Works -- it 's -- to sum up the problem, it 's easy to get water to the people with Page 21 December 1, 1999 generators if there is a massive power failure. You just turn on the pumps that -- the water supply -- the water treatment plants pump it out . It 's difficult to get the sewage back because there is hundreds of small lift stations throughout the county. You also could flush your toilet, conceivably, using lake water, a five gallon bucket, flush it down. So there would be no control of people going out to the canal or out to the lake and sending sewage. Even if you shut off the water, they could still flush. It ' s a Public Works issue. It 's their system. It 's not a Development Services issue. I suppose I could ask someone from Public Works to show up here. MR. COE: What ' s interesting to me is that we 've got 500 and some-odd pump stations, of which we don't have much power back-up, for all intents and purposes. I 've got kind of a unique background in that my brother-in-law runs a rental company up in Wilmington, North Carolina, which, if anyone reads the newspapers, realizes that that ' s a hurricane magnet, if you live in Wilmington. I mean, they have been hit like six times in three years . It was interesting, the last hurricane I just happened to be calling him, asking whether he was okay. He said, "I 'm working. " I said, "Why are you working?" He said, "Well, I 'm waiting for two" -- count this -- "200 generators to be shipped into Wilmington for pump stations . " And we have how many, two or three? MR. WARNER: In March we had about 550, so it ' s probably closer to 600 now. The Countryside has four. Countryside Country Club, I understand, has four, so that gives you an idea how many per -- unit area. MR. COE: Do we have the power to direct Public Works to do a study and present that study to us as to whether there is a problem and, if there is a problem, what is the solution? MR. CHRZANOWSKI : You could direct me to send a letter to Public Works requesting that they appear here and tell you whether there is a problem and a solution. MR. COE: Then I would like to make a motion to do so. And that motion would be -- you know, I don't want to be too specific because you're going to draft a letter, but, basically, tell us if there's a problem, what their plan is for the solution. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : Yes, sir. MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. SANSBURY: Being a little bit familiar with it and pretty well any areas where you're operating the lift stations -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Let me get a second first . MR. SANSBURY: Excuse me. I 'm sorry. Discussion. I 'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there a second to the motion? MR. SANSBURY: I ' ll second. MR. DI NUNZIO: I ' ll second. MR. SANSBURY: You know, generally, you have lift stations, you have two emergency ways that you get rid of them. Every lift station of a large scale, other than grinder pump stations, which are the Page 22 December 1, 1999 weakness in the program, which are the small stations that are in isolated areas of maybe a gatehouse, or something like that has a grinder pump station, but most residential units have to be hooked up to a full scale lift station. That lift station has two emergency ways to pump it out . It has a plug on it that 's a standardized plug the generator hooks into and it has a pick-up on it that the tanker truck comes up to. In times of emergency, and everywhere of this sort, there ' s no way the government could ever have enough lift -- have enough generators on hand to handle every lift station. There are some optimum number of owning them and renting them. Basically the ones you own are the ones you maintain for short-term problems, i .e. , a breakdown, or something of that sort, so you can pump one and run it . I think it 's asking the Public Works Department to spend a lot of time on something. They operate under some pretty strict controls from, you know, various agencies on how these things are put together, and I 'm sure they have an emergency preparedness program, as everyone else does . But to, you know, to do it, you rent generators, you rent trucks and you operate through the situation. It occurred in Wilmington, it ' s occurred in other cases, and, you know, there hasn't been any disasters on the thing, and I just -- I just question asking agencies to do study after study that, again, take up their time when they've got a full-time job anyhow, which is a situation, knowing that they are operating under regulations that require them to be as prepared as possible with the resources available for such instances. MR. COE: Well, this could be a real simple answer. The head of Public Works could stand up here in front of us and say, "There is no problem. " And, if there is no problem, then there ' s no problem. But if there is a problem, he ' s going to have to say, "Yeah, we got a problem and this is a plan that we didn't have to prepare for your board, we already have a plan. " All I want to know is what the evaluation is, that ' s it . It doesn't require any special study or anything like that. It requires him to come in here and tell us what the story is . Very simple. MR. CORNELL: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes. MR. CORNELL: I just have a concern about whether this is really what we 're here to do. I thought we were trying to advise the county commissioners on matters of natural resources. And this seems like it ' s more of a, you know -- not that it ' s not a very legitimate problem, but it seems like more of a kind of a health, public works kind of issue than it is down our alley. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would tend to agree with that . I think that, you know, our role might -- in an advisory capacity, if we could see that somehow or another the county commission was ignoring this and there was a big public outcry, we might at one point or another want to give our counsel to the county commission as to what to do, but I don't know that it would be in our prerogative to request perhaps an expensive study and a time-consuming study. CHAIRMAN HILL: Correct me if I 'm wrong, Mr. Coe, but I didn't interpret your motion to request a study. Page 23 December 1, 1999 MR. COE: Absolutely not . CHAIRMAN HILL: Simply an appearance from public works to give us an idea of the situation as it exists today. MR. COE: I mean, we're talking about public health. And, again, I go back to North Carolina. Look what happened with their flooding. And that 's what 's going to happen here. The wind, I mean, as long as it ' s under 120 miles an hour, we ' ll be fine. But the flooding is the thing that is the real fear, because we're so low here. We get flooding and then we can't run our sewage, and we can't get fresh water, what do we do? I think that 's an environmental question, a very serious one, potentially. But again, I don't know. They may already have a plan. If they do, then they'll come in here and they'll say, "Hey, here ' s our plan. We already have it . " They don't have to do a study. MR. McIVEY: Mr. Nino, can you respond as to whether or not this falls under our jurisdiction? MR. NINO: No. I wouldn't want to offer a comment on that . CHAIRMAN HILL: I ' ll comment . I think it borders on our responsibilities. When this type of situation is raised, I think we have a responsibility, not to solve it but at least to find out if, indeed, it is a problem. And, according to the motion, I think that ' s within our -- MR. NINO: I just wish I had -- CHAIRMAN HILL: -- purview to ask that this be done from public works . MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino, for the record. Only recently Ken Pineau put out a memorandum that ' s four pages long of things that need to be done to address hurricane issues. And I wish I had it with me because it wouldn't surprise me if that 's not on the list. I think this is really an issue that Ken Pineau needs to address rather than public utilities in the first place. Bill, do you remember; have you seen that list, Ken Pineau' s memorandum? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It ' s a long list . MR. NINO: I know there ' s forty-five or fifty items on it -- MR. CORNELL: Right . MR. NINO: -- that need to be addressed. I wish I had it with me. MR. COE: Ken Pineau, if he ' s got the answer, you know, I don't care who we go to. MR. NINO: Okay. MR. COE: It doesn't make any difference. I mean, I don't know the little -- where it goes, I just want to get an answer. MR. SMITH: Also, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we're going to be having a workshop with the utilities department . We might want to just explore that with them there, you know, and make it part of our inquiry at that time. MR. COE: That ' s fine. MR. NINO: I will get with Ken Pineau and ask him to address that question, and perhaps to appear at your next meeting in January. MR. COE: Either that or during the workshop. Whenever. Page 24 December 1, 1999 MR. NINO: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : So that means I don't write a letter to anybody requesting that they show up here? MR. NINO: I ' ll get ahold of them. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : Okay. MR. COE: If it ' s going to be done -- I don't see any reason -- CHAIRMAN HILL: There is a motion on the floor and discussion is over -- MR. COE: I would like to retract that motion, since it ' s already been solved. CHAIRMAN HILL: Seconder agree? MR. SANSBURY: Yes . CHAIRMAN HILL: That motion is removed from the table. But we will -- we thank you, Mr. Warner, for your interest and we will pursue it . As a matter of semantics, we use the term lift station. I assume in this topography a lot of them are forced pumping stations, force meaning as opposed to true lift stations. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : Yeah. Generally we use lift station when it lifts the sewage to the next gravity sewer and it goes down and you lift it and it goes down in a pump station and it ' s generally manifold into some type of forced main system. CHAIRMAN HILL: I agree. But we are talking about -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI : We 're talking the same thing. They all need -- like Mr. Sansbury said, they all empty out roughly the same, which you either mechanically pump them or you have some type of generator to get the pumps in the wet well going. And a lot of them you have to do it in sequence, you can't just pump -- CHAIRMAN HILL: That 's right . MR. CHRZANOWSKI : -- down. It gets very complicated. CHAIRMAN HILL: Any public comments? If there are none, I would ask for a -- wish you all a very Merry Christmas, if I don't see you, and seek a motion for adjournment . MR. DI NUNZIO: I motion we adjourn. MR. CARLSON: I ' ll second that . CHAIRMAN HILL: Unanimous 8-0 to adjourn. Thank you very much, everybody, for being here. Page 25 December 1, 1999 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 15 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL WILLIAM W. HILL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE BY: ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR Page 26 Item IV.A. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5,2000 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.720 Petition Name: Panther Island Mitigation Bank Applicant/Developer: Southwest Florida Wetlands Joint Venture Engineering Consultant: WilsonMiller,Inc. Environmental Consultant: WilsonMiller, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 2,778 acre parcel located in northern Collier County, north and west of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in Sections 5, 6, 7, 18 & 19,Township 47 South,Range 27 East, Collier County,Florida. Access is from Lee County via Carter Road or 6L's Road. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are undeveloped with some agricultural activity. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- AG-2 (Lee County) Undeveloped S - A-MHO Undeveloped E - A-MHO Undeveloped W- AG-2 (Lee County) Undeveloped IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner proposes to regrade land classified as FLUCCS code 210 (cropland and pastureland) and 212 (unimproved pasture) to restore their viability as wetlands. The regrading consists of removing 0.5 ft to 2.5 ft. of soil over an area EAC Meeting ..January 5,2000 Ex. 59.720 Page 2 of 9 of approximately 462.2 acres out of the 2778 acre site. The material (850,000 CY) will need to be removed from the site. Under provisions of the Land Development Code, that means the project is a "Commercial Excavation", requiring review and approval by the EAC. The regrading will then allow the land to be used as a "mitigation bank" which allows developers to clear wetland in prime commercial or residential areas by buying and contributing land within the "bank" to be preserved permanently. This is a permitted use in the Rural Agricultural district (Conservation Use). The ratio of clearing to "banking" varies dependent on the viability of the land to be cleared. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject parcel is designated as Agricultural/Rural on the Future Land Use map of the Growth Management Plan. The Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation is for those areas that are remote from the existing development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are environmentally sensitive or are in agricultural production. Urbanization is not promoted, therefore allowable land uses are of low intensity. A limited selection of land uses other than low density residential and agricultural is permitted. Among those are conservation uses. Therefore, the petition is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The completed application for the Panther Island Mitigation Bank was received after June 22, 1999. However, conservation uses are listed in the Land Development Code (Section 2.2.2) in effect on June 22, 1999 and are not among the prohibited uses. Therefore the petition is consistent with the Administration Commission's Final Order. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: There are no water management issues. The project is being reviewed by all concerned federal and state agencies. The material will be removed across roads that exit the site directly into Lee County. The County Transportation Director has stated that Road Impact Fees may not apply. The matter is still under discussion. There is a planting schedule for restoration of the areas being excavated. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 Ex.59.720 Page 3 of 9 Environmental: Site History and Existing Conditions: The Panther Island Mitigation Bank (PIMB) site is currently a mixture of agricultural fields, hydric and mesic pine flatwoods, cypress domes and sloughs. Exhibit 5 in the PIMB South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Individual ERP Application includes a breakdown map of the various vegetative communities on-site, classified per the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). A little less than half of the northernmost portions of section 5 and 6, of the PIMB site are agricultural fields (FLUCFCS 210). These fields were cleared between the 1960's and early 1980's. The site is currently used for pastureland and grazing for a beef/cow-calf operation, and the agricultural fields were in active vegetable production as recently as during the winter of 1995. All ditching and internal water control structures from the vegetable fields remain operational. There are four remnant cypress domes (FLUCFCS 621) within the agricultural fields isolated by rim-ditches that surround them. Historically, these domes were once connected to other wetlands by flow ways consisting of seasonal marshes (Exhibit 6). Several remnant cypress domes on the perimeter of the agricultural fields are also rim-ditched. The remnant cypress domes exhibit evidence of hydrologic stress and are infested with exotic vegetation, including Brazilian pepper, Lygodium, and Hymenachne. Portions of the agricultural fields have recently been allowed to go fallow and are generally dominated by thick stands of Brazilian pepper. Other parts of the bank site were once cleared as pasture but have not been maintained. These areas of unimproved pasture are dominated by varying amounts of slash pine, widely scattered saw palmetto, and Brazilian pepper. The remainder of sections 5 and 6 is a compromise of a mixture of pine flatwoods (FLUCFCS 411, 416) and cypress domes and sloughs (FLUCFCS 621, 624). A large slough in the southern portion of sections 5 and 6 also extends into Corkscrew Sanctuary. This slough stretches southwest through section 7 on the PIMB site and eventually meets Gordon Swamp at the corner of sections 7 and 18. Section 7 includes small portions of the agricultural fields that dominate section 6, but is otherwise a mosaic of pine flatwoods and cypress domes and sloughs. The actual "island" of Panther Island, an area of hydric pine flatwoods, dwarf cypress, and mixed pine and cypress, occupies the eastern portion of section 7. Its elevation is slightly higher than that of the adjoining cypress sloughs. This minor EAC Meeting January 5,2000 Ex.59.720 Page 4 of 9 geologic feature is named as Panther Island on historical drawings, providing the name for this mitigation bank (Exhibits 7 and 8). Panther Island extends to the south, occupying a portion of section 18 as well. South of Panther Island is a cypress slough connecting the Corkscrew Swamp to the east with Gordon Swamp to the west. Immediately south of this connection, a narrow "upland" island separates the cypress slough from the dwarf cypress and pine cypress areas to the south. Cypress domes are scattered among the sloughs, pine flatwoods, and pine- cypress areas. The Gordon Swamp also serves to provide a western connection and flow way between the Corkscrew Swamp and the Flint Pen Strand in Lee County. This area was a part of the large-scale fencing and deer eradication efforts of the 1920's and 1930's aimed at eliminating the ticks that caused Texas fever in cattle. This fence was cut through the deep cypress swamps in section 18 and the fenceline's footprint is still apparent in aerial photographs. Early roads in this area that predate the intense logging efforts may have resulted from these efforts. The PIMB property has a long history of logging and timber extraction. Much of the pine in the area of the bank site was extensively logged through the 1950's. Cypress logging occurred in the Corkscrew Swamp and in Big Cypress Swamp area to the south from 1930 to 1955 and some probably occurred on-site within the same time period. Aerial photographs indicate that logging tram grades were constructed in the Corkscrew Swamp immediately to the east of the site between 1953 and 1958. Heart pine was selectively logged from the mitigation bank site and used to construct the Corkscrew Sanctuary boardwalk in the 1960's and 1970's. PIMB is located 9 miles east of the Koreshan Unity site in Estero, an early site of Melaleuca introduction on Florida's west coast. Melaleuca has spread and continues to spread outward from the introduction site. There is notable evidence of heavy and progressive Melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and other exotic invasion to the north,west, and south of the Mitigation Bank site. Purpose of Bank and its relationship to CREW and other protected lands: The purpose of the PIMB is to provide mitigation for impacts primarily to freshwater wetland systems in Estero, East collier and West Collier Basins that comprise the mitigation service area (Exhibits 1, 2 & 3 in the PIMB SFWMD Individual ERP Application). In addition to its suitability as a mitigation project, this specific project site was chosen based on its regional significance to the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW). The PIMB has been designed to result in a potential 934.67 mitigation credits for the restoration, enhancement,preservation and perpetual management of the 2,778 acre bank site. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 Ex. 59.720 Page 5 of 9 PIMB is considered to be a viable alternative for compensatory mitigation for impacts to hydric pine flatwoods, freshwater herbaceous wetlands, and freshwater mixed forested wetlands within the Mitigation Bank Service Area (MBSA). Permit applications proposing PIMB will need to provide an analysis of the wetland impacts to demonstrate that off-site mitigation is either not practicable or use of a mitigation bank is environmentally preferable to on-site mitigation or compensation, and demonstrate that the proposed use of PIMB is the best practicable alternative. PIMB is located within two separate sub-ecoregions, the Southwestern Florida Flatwoods and Big Cypress, and is a vital link between several different watersheds including the Estero Bay and Big Cypress watersheds. The Bank site is bounded by Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary on the east and by state-owned CREW/SOR lands (Exhibit 2) on the south and portions of the west. The PIMB site itself is located within the CREW boundary and has been included as part of the CREW NRPA for Collier County. Mitigation Bank Review Team Process: The PIMB was introduced to the Mitigation Bank Review Team on June 4, 1997 to discuss the previously submitted prospectus. The SFWMD participated in the Mitigation Bank Review Team process as a non-signatory agency to promote inter-agency coordination and permit consistency, to the degree possible. The Federal Mitigation Banking Review Team (MBRT) is comprised of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). The overall goal of the MBRT, as taken from the "Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks, 60 Federal Register 58,605-58-614(November 28, 1995)", is to provide economically efficient and flexible mitigation opportunities, while fully compensating for wetland and other aquatic resources losses in a manner that contributes to the long-term ecological functioning of the watershed within which the bank is located. The specific goal of the PIMB is to provide compensatory mitigation in advance for unavoidable adverse impacts to similar aquatic resources, which may be authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program and the SFWMD ERP or Wetland Resource Permit Programs. The existing (Baseline) Conditions of the mitigation bank site were scored in the .-� field with the MBRT on January 14, 15, and February 5, 1998. The Without Bank and With Bank Conditions were scored with the MBRT in the office on March 3 EAC Meeting .January 5,2000 Ex. 59.720 Page 6 of 9 and May 13, 1998, respectively. The draft Federal Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI), D.A. No. 199705332, was submitted to the MBRT on June 3, 1998. The final MBI was submitted to the MBRT for signature in August, 1998. Project Description and Benefits: The proposed mitigation program has ten major components that are designed to improve the functional values of both the wetlands within PIMB and the wetlands on adjacent properties. These ten major components are: 1. Restoration(reconstruction)of agricultural fields; 2. Filling of drainage ditches; 3. Removal of cattle and grazing impacts; 4. Vegetative restoration of vehicle trails; 5. Re-routing of water to historic natural flow ways; 6. Enhancement of hydroperiods; 7. Eradication of exotic vegetation; 8. Management to prevent exotic vegetation invasion and re-infestation; 9. Mechanized and manual clearing of heavy brush to allow prescribed burning; 10. Reintroduction of appropriate fire regimes. Each component of the mitigation program is described according to the technique for implementation starting on page 10 in section 5 of the ERP Application. The primary mitigation activities, acreage and potential credits, by phase, are presented in Table 1 on page 9 in the same section. Each phase or sub-phase of the mitigation bank will be preserved by a conservation easement granted to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). All applicable real estate taxes,if any,will be paid by the landowner in perpetuity. The site will be perpetually managed to maintain the ecological quality of the site, as defined by the success criteria. The perpetual management plan is included in Exhibit 18 of the ERP Application. The site will be treated to control exotic vegetation in order to preserve the habitat and vegetation values of both the Bank property itself and its neighbors: Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and CREW program lands. Fencing, 48 inches in height and consisting of three rows of barbed wire attached to wood posts, will be installed along the south perimeter to complete fencing of the entire site. The site boundary will be posted to identify the site as a "No Trespassing/Conservation Area". It will also be gated, and patrolled to prevent unauthorized access to the site. EAC Meeting .January 5,2000 Ex. 59.720 Page 7 of 9 Hunting activities on the site shall be limited to only those activities that may be required for the proper management and control of nuisance or exotic wildlife. No recreational hunting activities will be allowed. Implementation of PIMB will result in identifiable ecological benefits to several watersheds, including the Estero Bay and Big Cypress watersheds. These benefits are as follows: A. Restore degraded areas to increase the total wetland functions and area within the CREW system. B. Provide a buffer of natural habitat between the interior wetland communities of the Corkscrew regional ecosystem and the developed and agricultural lands to the north. C. Enhance and preserve an important habitat and hydrologic link between the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary to the east and the Flint Pen Strand CREW lands to the west. D. Improve the general landscape mosaic by restoring pine flatwoods and seasonal marsh wetlands, the historic transition between the sharp topographic divide of the higher flatwoods to the north and the deep cypress sloughs to the south. E. Reconstruct the pine flatwoods and seasonal marsh mosaic thereby increasing the amount of this scarce habitat type. F. Increase, enhance and preserve vital habitat for several threatened or endangered species including the Florida panther, Florida black bear, wood stork, American swallow tailed kite, limpkin, short-tailed hawk, sandhill cranes, Big Cypress fox squirrels, red-cockaded woodpecker, snowy egret, black crowned night heron and glossy ibis. G. Enhance and protect areas with high potential for aquifer recharge. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.720 "Panther Island Mitigation Bank"with the following stipulations: Water Management: 1. The petitioner will obtain all necessary Local, State, and Federal permits prior to starting any excavation. EAC Meeting ..January 5,2000 Ex. 59.720 Page 8 of 9 Environmental: 1. Vegetation removal permits in accordance with 3.9.5.2.9 CCLDC shall be obtained from Current Planning Environmental Staff for those phases of the project requiring the removal of protected vegetation. Other: 1) All dump-truck traffic exiting the project will operate between the hours of 7:00AM and 6:00PM, Monday through Friday only. There will be no truck traffic on Saturday or Sunday. 2) All truck traffic shall be suspended during the time that school buses load in the morning and unload in the afternoon. 3) The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance, including but not limited to grading and watering, of Carter Road and Six L's Road during the period of time when those roads are being utilized for the removal of excess fill material. Once the fill-removal activities have been completed and the use of the road for that activity is no longer needed, then the applicant shall have no responsibility for the maintenance of the roads. 4) The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of intersection improvements consisting of the installation of an asphalt transition strip between the existing edge of Corkscrew Road and the existing dirt roads. These are the only intersection improvements that have been requested by Lee County. EAC Meeting .January 5,2000 Ex. 59.720 Page 9 of 9 PREPARED BY: ifI ' STAN CHRZANOWSKI, P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER imei/22 STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: • c-tee /a•/J . 99 F' "D •' ISCHL DATE SEN • ' PLANNER p THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE ►.GINEERING REVIEW MANAGER v ►, (Z . i9( G , 'ONALD F. NINO, AICP DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER SL/gdh/c:Panther Island Mitigation Bank StaffReport Item IV.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5,2000 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Conditional Use No. 99-27/ Special Treatment ST-99-2 Petition Name: Little Palm Island Applicant/Developer: Keystone Custom Homes Engineering Consultant: Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella&Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located between Colliers Reserve PUD and the Palm River Country Club subdivision;within Section 21, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The subject property is completely surrounded by residential/golf course communities. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - PUD—Imperial Golf Estates Residential and Golf Course Community S - RSF-3 Single Family E - RSF-3 Single Family W - PUD - Colliers Reserve Residential and Golf Course Community EAC Meeting ...January 5,2000 CU-99-27 Page 2 of 7 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Conditional Use in order to construct a residential subdivision under the Cluster Development regulations. These regulations allow reduced setbacks in order to provide a more usable pattern of open space. The proposed development consists of 157 home sites on 86.67 acres for a density of 1.8 units per acre, less than the maximum density of 3 units per acre permitted in the RSF-3 zoning district. The project retains the required 60% open space after the proposed clustering. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject parcel is designated as Urban—Mixed Use on the Future Land Use map of the Growth Management Plan. The Urban—Mixed Use Land Use Designation is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non- residential land uses. Therefore, if the Board of Zoning Appeals approves a Conditional Use for cluster development,the petition shall be consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: The existing site consists of mostly undeveloped lands with some existing development on the eastern fringe. The existing developed portion consists of two lakes adjacent to the Palm River community and golf course tracts. An existing 40-foot wide canal runs along the northern boundary. The canal functions as an outfall for the northern portion of the Palm River community. The two existing lakes and canal will not be incorporated into the proposed development's water management system. The completed project will consist of 157 residential lots and a common recreation area. The front portion of the lots will runoff to the road via sheet flow, which drains directly to the lake system using a catch basin and pipe network. The rear portion of the lakefront lots will drain directly to the lakes. The rear portion of all other lots will drain into a rear yard swale and catch basin network conveying runoff into the lake system. The lake system will be controlled at elevation 7.0' NGVD and will discharge to the existing canal near the northern boundary. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 CU-99-27 Page 3 of 7 Environmental: Site Description: The project area covers 86.67 acres, and includes 68.77acres of uplands, 10 acres of wetlands and 7.9 acres of previously created surface waters. The southwestern one half of the site is mostly uplands and consists of a combination of habitat types,which include pine flatwoods, scrub oak, scrubby flatwoods and previously disturbed lands. The uplands,particularly the oak scrub/scrubby flatwoods on site are high quality gopher tortoise habitat as evidenced by the large number of burrows surveyed by the consultant. A total of 165 active and inactive burrows were located within these areas. See the gopher tortoise survey in the EIS for a map showing the locations and classifications of all identified burrows. The listed plant species noted during the field visits, was wild pine, also identified within the oak scrub/scrubby flatwoods area. Wetlands: The subject property has a special treatment(ST) overlay identified on the zoning maps as ST Parcel 23A, covering 20.21 acres. The following language is directly form the Purpose and Intent section for ST overlays, in the Land Development Code. "Within Collier County there are certain areas,which because of their unique assemblages of flora and/or fauna, their aesthetic appeal, their historical or archaeological significance,rarity in Collier County, or their contribution to their own and adjacent ecosystems,make them worthy of special regulations. Such regulations are directed toward the conservation,protection, and preservation of ecological and recreational values for the greatest benefit to the people of Collier County. Such areas include,but are not necessarily limited to mangrove and freshwater swamps,barrier islands, hardwood hammocks, xeric scrubs, coastal beaches, estuaries, cypress domes, natural drainage ways, aquifer recharge areas and lands and structures of historical and archaeological significance. The purpose of this overlay district regulation is to assure the preservation and maintenance of these environmental and cultural resources and to encourage the preservation of the intricate ecological relationships within the systems and at the same time permit those types of development which will hold changes to levels determined acceptable by the Board of County Commissioners after public hearing." EAC Meeting January 5,2000 CU-99-27 Page 4 of 7 Exceptions may be granted for ST permit request where the proposed site alteration will not require any modification,with the exception of exotic vegetation removal, of the topography, drainage, flora or fauna on site. The application does not qualify for that administrative review and therefore must be presented to all three County Boards for review and approvals. The boundary of the ST parcel on this proposed Conditional Use application covers 20.21 acres. Typically the consultant redefines the wetland boundary that is identified as jurisdictional to Collier County and Staff recommends removing all development impacts from that area. The consultant and South Florida Water Management District modified the wetland line and the current jurisdictional boundary encompasses approximately 10 acres, instead of the originally identified 20 acres. A complete description of the wetland area is available in the wetland section of the EIS. Staff's recommendation is to remove all impacts, except those which are absolutely unavoidable, from the redefined ST boundary. It is Staffs recommendation that the developer remove lots 53 through 58 from the site plan. The petitioner has proposed compensation for the anticipated allowable impacts to the wetlands with enhancement to the remaining 9 acres and by supplemental plantings to the 4.56 acre gopher tortoise relocation area at the north end of the property. Preservation Requirements: Sixty-nine and a half(69.5) acres of existing native vegetation exists on site. As required by Collier County environmental ordinances,this project is required to retain a minimum of 25%or 17.4 acres of native vegetation or mitigate for that same area per Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the LDC. The EIS describes 9 acres of wetland preserves and 6.33 acres of upland preserves that will be designated for this project. That leaves 2.1 additional acres to be provided at the time of the next development order submittal. In consideration of Staffs recommendation to remove 6 lots from the ST wetland area, the amount of additional native vegetation to be provided would be less. Listed Species: Two listed species were observed on site. They are gopher tortoise and common wild pine. There were 165 active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows located and flagged within the scrub oak/scrubby flatwoods communities on site. The petitioner proposes to obtain an Incidental Take permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,which will provide funds to the State agency EAC Meeting January 5,2000 CU-99-27 Page 5 of 7 for the loss of gopher tortoise habitat. Collier County must protect the species in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code and Collier County Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Management Element. They will be required to provide a Relocation/Management plan for the tortoises and are proposing to relocate them into the 4.5 acre pine flatwoods at the north end of the project. It is their proposal to enhance that area with appropriate herbacious plant species to serve as additional food sources for the relocated gopher tortoise. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use No. 99-27/ Special Treatment No. 99-2 "Little Palm Island"with the following stipulations: Water Management: 1. Water Management concerns will be reviewed at time of Site Development Plan Submittal. This project will be permitted by South Florida Water Management District. Environmental: 1. This Conditional Use shall be consistent with the environmental sections of the Collier County Growth Management Plan conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Collier County Land Development Code at the time of final development order approvals. 2. Buffers shall be provided around wetlands, extending at least fifteen(15) feet landward from the edge of wetland preserves in all places and averaging twenty-five (25) feet from the landward edge of wetlands. Where natural buffers are not possible, structural buffers shall be provided in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resources Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by Current Planning Environmental Staff. 3. 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 Environmental Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be the sole mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. 4. Petitioner shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission(FGFWFC)regarding potential impacts to EAC Meeting January 5,2000 CU-99-27 Page 6 of 7 protected wildlife species. Where protected species are observed on site, a Habitat Management Plan for those protected species shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. 5. In accordance with Section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development code, a minimum of 25% of the existing native vegetation shall be retained on site. For this CU, that shall be no less than 17.4 acres, which shall be met by the designated preserve areas on the Master Plan and by committing to the balance at the time of the next development order submittal. 6. All conservation areas shall be designated as conservation/preservation tracts or easements on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. Buffers shall be provided in accordance with 3.2.8.4.7.3 CCLDC. 7. A Gopher tortoise relocation/management plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of SDP or construction plan submittal. The approved language shall be added to the Site Development Plan or Construction plan. Off-site relocation may be required if the applicant cannot provide adequate habitat for on-site relocation. 8 . An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic-free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. A schedule for exotic removal within all preservation areas, shall be submitted with the above mentioned plan. 9 . The petitioner shall remove lots 53 through 58 from the site plan, as they encroach into the redefined ST boundary. PREPARED BY: / STE'H` :/ , P , . DA'1 SENIOR ENGINEER EAC Meeting January 5,2000 CU-99-27 Page7of7 — /2- 17-q9 BARBARA S. BURGESO DATE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST REVIEWED BY: i7 /x '77 F' " r :ISCHL, AICP DATE SENT• ' PLANNER P. /U. THO► S E. KUCK, P.E. DATE EN IN, BRING ' VIEW MANAGER RONALD F. NINO, AICP DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER BSB/gdh/cLittlePalmislandStaffReport Item IV.C. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5,2000 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: PUD-99-16 Petition Name: Whippoorwill Pines PUD Applicant/Developer: Gulfsun Development Engineering Consultant: Phoenix Planning and Engineering, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: Whippoorwill Pines PUD is located in the south west quadrant of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Interstate I-75 and encompasses the area south of Night Hawk Drive between Whippoorwill Lane and Dog Ranch Road in Section 18, Township 49 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are mostly undeveloped with the following zoning classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Agricultural Undeveloped (Whippoorwill Lakes PUD currently under review) S - PUD (Whippoorwill Woods) Undeveloped Single Family Home E - Agricultural Undeveloped Single Family Home W- Agricultural Undeveloped EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-16 Page 2 of 5 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed PUD is located in an area that is part of several proposed PUDs located along Whippoorwill Lane. The PUD, if approved, will contain 180 residential units, which could be either single family, multi-family, or duplexes, all in a gated community setting. The project would also provide accessory facilities and recreational uses such as swimming pools, game courts, play areas, boat docks, walking paths and trails. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The PUD is also located within the Residential Density band of the Urban Residential Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use map, which extends for one mile from the center of the Pine Ridge Road — Interstate 75 Activity Center. The Residential Density Band permits a land use density of up to 3.0 dwelling units in addition to the base density which is 4.0 dwelling units. This would allow a total density of up to 7.0 units per acre. The applicant proposes only 6.0 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, the proposed use is consistent with the policies of the Growth Management Plan. The project itself will not cause any level of service to be exceeded. But, it should be noted that this project is part of an area wide study proposing that all development, including this project, share in the costs to construct Whippoorwill Lane to County Standards and to dedicate it to the County. This includes an east-west connector from the existing Whippoorwill Lane easement to the future Livingston Road. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: This project is in the "Whippoorwill" section, which is bounded on the east by I- 75, on the north by Pine Ridge Road, on the west by proposed Livingston Road, and on the south by Wyndemere. The section has been the focus of water management and utility concerns that have not yet been resolved. The proposed water management system is standard for projects of this type consisting of a series of interconnected retention/detention areas and lakes which provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. A South Florida Water Management Permit will be required. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-16 Page 3 of 5 Environmental: Site Description: Vegetation mapping of the property was conducted using 1' = 200' aerial photographs and groundtruthing in January 1999. Native habitats on-site consist entirely of pine flatwoods with disturbed areas along the roads and around the single family residence found on the property. An aerial photograph with FLUCFCS mapping is enclosed as Exhibit B in the environmental impact statement(EIS). According to the Collier County Soils Map, the following two soil types are found on the property: Hollowpaw fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 2) and Malabar fine sand (Unit 3). Both Soil Map Units are listed as hydric soils by the Natural Resource Conservation Service office. A detailed description of each of the soils types is provided in Exhibit E of the EIS. Wetlands: No South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands exist on the property. Preservation Requirements: In accordance with section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), a total of 7.23 acres (25 percent) of the native habitat will be retained on the project site. Listed Species: A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted on January 20, 1999 to determine whether the site was being utilized by state or federally listed species. Additional listed plant and animal species observations incidental to on-site activities were conducted in November and December 1998. No listed species were identified on the project site. The details of the survey can be found in Exhibit F in the EIS. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-16 "Whippoorwill Pines PUD"with the following stipulations: EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-16 Page 4 of 5 Water Management: 1. That the petitioner obtain a Surface Water Management from South Florida Water Management District. 2. That the petitioner agree to participate in any section-wide infrastructure improvement study and implementation. Environmental: 1. Amend section 4.2(A) of the PUD document as follows by deleting the and adding the underlined language. A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Passive recreational areas including recreational shelters. Clearing for recreational areas is allowed provided that a minimum of 7.23 acres of native vegetation is retained within the PUD. 2. Biking,hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks. 3. Water management structures. 4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. 5. Supplemental landscape planting, screening and buffering within the Natural Habitat Preserve Areas, after the appropriate environmental review. 6. Any other use deemed comparable in nature by the Development Services Director. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-16 Page 5 of 5 PREPARED BY: "Yib 11 i i DViC 95 STAN CHRZANOWSKI DATE SENIOR ENGINEER ,1(4.4.‘‘ 1,245/19 STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: /2-/s-,,2DONALD • ' Y, AIBP DATE PRINCIPAL 'LANNER -4,4,444. 2. 1L.a,,_ /2-/..5-- 99 THOM A * E. KUCK, P.E. DATE ENG 01 :RING REVIEW MANAGER r t . I RID F. NIN v '� 1 DATE ' A ATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER SL/gdh/c:Whipporwill Pines Staff Report Item IV.D. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5,2000 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. 99-26 Petition Name: La Sienna Estates in Olde Cypress Applicant/Developer: H.B. Holdings Engineering Consultant: Hole Montes &Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologists, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located completely within the Olde Cypress PUD. The property is approximately two mile east of I-75 on the north side of Immokalee Road, within Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The petitioner proposes to construct single family homes on a forty acre tract inside the boundaries of the Olde Cypress PUD. This project will have access through the Olde Cypress PUD. ZONING DESCRIPTION N—S-E-W PUD—Olde Cypress Residential and Golf Course PUD IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed La Sienna PUD lists residential as a permitted use and single family and multi-family as permitted structures. The petitioner is requesting 161 dwelling units at a density of 4 units per acre. The subject PUD encompasses a land area of approximately 40-acres, of which 18.23-acres is for the residential tracts while 5.92- acres have been designated for lakes and 6.97 acres is for the buffer and re- vegetated spaces. The right-of-way areas will encompass 6.20 acres along with 1.01-acres for recreation space. The Master Plan indicates that the only access to EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-26 Page 2 of 7 the residential development will be from Immokalee Road (an arterial road) via Olde Cypress Drive within the Olde Cypress PUD. No ingress/egress is proposed from any other road. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject residential site is located within the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-district as designated in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). A consistency analysis with applicable elements of the GMP is as follows: Future Land Use Element — This residential PUD consists of approximately 40- acres that is designated Urban Mixed Use. A description of Urban Mixed Use District in the FLUE advises that residential uses be permitted at a base density of 4 units per acre. This district also permits certain nonresidential uses including schools, churches, cemeteries and childcare facilities. Therefore, the proposed residential uses at 4 units per are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: This project completes the "Hole in the Donut" of Olde Cypress PUD (a.k.a. The Woodlands PUD). It will be served by the infrastructure of Olde Cypress PUD. The water management system is a standard configuration consisting of a series of interconnected lakes to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. The project will require a modification to the South Florida Water Management District Surface Water Management Permit for the Woodlands. Environmental: Site Description: The subject property is an undeveloped 40+ acres parcel with 100% of the site being claimed as jurisdictional wetlands. The entire site has been impacted by exotics varying from approximately 50% to greater than 90% coverage. The majority of the site (36.5 acres) is cypress/pine/cabbage palm canopy with melaleuca and cypress in the mid-story. There are two soil types found on site. They are "Basinger fine Sands" and "Boca, Riviera, Limestone substratum and Copeland Fine Sands Depressional". These two soil types are both classified as hydric, by the Collier Soil and Water EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-16 Page 5 of 5 PREPARED BY: I, / /.41 , STAN CHRZANOWSKI DATE SENIOR ENGINEER litVirjr-,_ 40,02 STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: ze /// DONALD ' ' • Y, AI II ' DATE PRINCIPAL 'LANNER ------c;,,,44i. 2• 1 z- - � �s 99 THOM• _ E. KUCK, P.E. DATE ENG 0 :RING REVIEW MANAGER i / 12. • 1(9 q RO 'ALD F. NIN O), •v ' + DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER SL/gdh/c:Whipporwill Pines Staff Report Item IV.D. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2000 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. 99-26 Petition Name: La Sienna Estates in Olde Cypress Applicant/Developer: H.B. Holdings Engineering Consultant: Hole Montes & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologists, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located completely within the Olde Cypress PUD. The property is approximately two mile east of I-75 on the north side of Immokalee Road, within Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The petitioner proposes to construct single family homes on a forty acre tract inside the boundaries of the Olde Cypress PUD. This project will have access through the Olde Cypress PUD. ZONING DESCRIPTION N—S-E-W PUD—Olde Cypress Residential and Golf Course PUD IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed La Sienna PUD lists residential as a permitted use and single family and multi-family as permitted structures. The petitioner is requesting 161 dwelling units at a density of 4 units per acre. The subject PUD encompasses a land area of approximately 40-acres, of which 18.23-acres is for the residential tracts while 5.92- acres have been designated for lakes and 6.97 acres is for the buffer and re- vegetated spaces. The right-of-way areas will encompass 6.20 acres along with 1.01-acres for recreation space. The Master Plan indicates that the only access to EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-26 Page 2 of 7 the residential development will be from Immokalee Road (an arterial road) via Olde Cypress Drive within the Olde Cypress PUD. No ingress/egress is proposed from any other road. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject residential site is located within the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-district as designated in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). A consistency analysis with applicable elements of the GMP is as follows: Future Land Use Element — This residential PUD consists of approximately 40- acres that is designated Urban Mixed Use. A description of Urban Mixed Use District in the FLUE advises that residential uses be permitted at a base density of 4 units per acre. This district also permits certain nonresidential uses including schools, churches, cemeteries and childcare facilities. Therefore, the proposed residential uses at 4 units per are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: This project completes the "Hole in the Donut" of Olde Cypress PUD (a.k.a. The Woodlands PUD). It will be served by the infrastructure of Olde Cypress PUD. The water management system is a standard configuration consisting of a series of interconnected lakes to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. The project will require a modification to the South Florida Water Management District Surface Water Management Permit for the Woodlands. Environmental: Site Description: The subject propertyis an undeveloped 40+ acres parcel with 100% of the site being claimed as jurisdictional wetlands. The entire site has been impacted by exotics varying from approximately 50% to greater than 90% coverage. The majority of the site (36.5 acres) is cypress/pine/cabbage palm canopy with melaleuca and cypress in the mid-story. There are two soil types found on site. They are `Basinger fine Sands" and "Boca, Riviera, Limestone substratum and Copeland Fine Sands Depressional". These two soil types are both classified as hydric, by the Collier Soil and Water EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-26 Page 3 of 7 Conservation District. A detailed description of both soils can be found as an exhibit to the EIS. Wetlands: The entire 40 acre parcel is jurisdictional wetlands. The FLUCCS map for this site identifies two categories. The majority, over 90% of the site or 36.5 acres, is cypress/pine/cabbage palm with and mid-story of cypress and melaleuca and swamp fern and melaleuca saplings as the ground cover. The remaining 4 acres is cypress with varying degrees of melaleuca coverage. The canopy and mid-story is dominated by cypress and melaleuca. Other species included wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. Swamp fern and smilax covered the ground as well as a thick layer of pine needles and leaf litter. The subject property is located in the western portion of the historic drainage patterns from the Corkscrew Swamp to the Gordon River. Historical flow ways, water depths and hyroperiods have been greatly altered by surrounding development and agriculture. The following discussion of the existing and proposed wetlands and the associated impacts are directly from the consultants EIS. "The hydrology of the 40.4 acre site has been permanently altered by the development of the surrounding residential development (Olde Cypress). When the project (a.k.a. The Woodlands) was first reviewed in the early 1980's, several wetland preserves were located in the western portion of the section. One preserve was the continuation of the 3.9 acre disturbed cypress in the west edge or the La Sienna property. In the early and mid 1990's, The Woodlands site plan was permitted by the federal, state and regional wetland permitting agencies. During the permitting process the applicant and agencies realized that due to off- site drainage influences the wetland preserves in the western portion of the Woodlands were not viable. All of the wetland preserves were relocated to the eastern third of the section. The developments (golf course, home sites, roads, and surface water management features)were relocated to the western two-thirds of the section. The fill associated with the Olde Cypress development has completely blocked the human-induced sheet flow from the north that has helped sustain the wetlands on the La Sienna property since the 1970's. These wetlands are now totally dependent on rainfall and ground water as the only source of water. The combined effects of the canal and surrounding developments maintain ground water below grade for a majority of the year. The site is currently inundated or saturated to the surface for brief periods following heavy rainfall events. The EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-26 Page 4 of 7 remnant hyrological indicators described above therefore do not accurately reflect current and future undeveloped site conditions." Ninety-two percent(92%) of the wetlands will be impacted, leaving the remaining 8% in perimeter edges and interior pieces. All wetlands will be mitigated for off site, through the SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit(ERP)process. It is anticipated that the mitigation will be accomplished through the purchase of credits from a permitted wetland mitigation bank in Collier County. If that is not approved then the owner will purchase and restore or enhance wetlands in the area or near publicly owned lands. Preservation Requirements: The proposed development is required to preserve 25% of the existing native vegetation on site. It may be mitigated for by recreating all three strata, using larger plant material in accordance with Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the CCLDC. Nearly all of the wetlands on site will be filled to facilitate the project. A small portion (3.4 acres) of the existing wetlands will be retained and possibly enhanced to provide for a part of the preservation requirement. The remaining vegetation will be replanted in small areas (20 foot wide strips) between lots and adjacent to lots or lake areas. A minimum of 8.2 acres of native vegetation shall be retained or recreated for this PUD. Listed Species: Craig Smith of Kevin Erwin's office conducted a thorough wildlife species survey. Thirteen squirrel nests were located on site. Based on the size of the nests, it was determined that the majority of them are likely to be eastern gray squirrel nests. A more complete survey will be conducted to establish how many of the remaining nests are Big Cypress fox squirrels. Staff observed Big Cypress fox squirrels on the edge of the property, during the site visit with the consultant. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. 99-26, "La Sienna Estates in Olde Cypress PUD",with the following stipulations: Water Management: 1. The project must obtain a South Florida Water Management District Surface Water Management Permit. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-26 Page 5 of 7 Environmental: 1. In Section 4.11 Native Vegetation, of the PUD document, replace "seventy- five (75)-percent"with"ninety(90)percent". 2. Under Section V, 5.3 in the PUD document, the "Buffer Space/ Re- vegetated Areas" shall be renamed"Native Vegetation Buffers/Re-vegetated Areas". The associated acres shall be amended to read 8.2, instead of 6.97. The percent shall be amended from 17.27%to 25%. 3. Replace Section VI Environmental Standards 6.2 in the PUD document with the following language, `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 Environmental Review Staff. Removal of exotics alone shall not be counted as mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands." 4. Replace Section VI Environmental Standards 6.3 in the PUD document with the following language, "This PUD shall be consistent with the environmental sections of the Collier County Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Collier County Land Development Code at the time of final development order approval." 5. Revise the acreage figure in Section VI Environmental Standards 6.4 in the PUD document, from "...7.0 (seven) acres of native vegetation..." to "...8.2 (eight point two) acres of native vegetation...". 6. Add the following stipulation to Section VI Environmental Standards in the PUD document, "A habitat management plan for Big Cypress fox squirrel, shall be submitted to Collier County Planning Services environmental staff for review and approval, at the time of the next development order submittal. Technical assistance will be requested of the appropriate State or Federal Agencies in reviewing this document." 7. The petitioner shall replace the PUD Master Plan with the revised plan which was submitted to staff, dated 11/99; showing 8.2 acres of Buffer and Native vegetation. Revise the language on the Master Plan. Buffer Space/ Re-vegetated Areas" shall be renamed "Native Vegetation Buffers/Re- vegetated Areas". EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-26 Page 6 of 7 PREPARED BY: STAN CHRZANOWS1 1,P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER u,� alp-- 12-q-q9 BARBARA S. BURGESON c DATE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST EWED BY: \k„, � 5 ALD F. 11 1r.-, AICP DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER - )11.411/41, Q. . c" /2- / -99 THOMAS E. KUCK,P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER BSB/gdh/c:LaSiennaStaffReport Item IV.E. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5,2000 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Conditional Use Petition No. CU-99-31 Special Treatment Permit No. ST-99-2 Petition Name: Cocohatchee Nature Center Applicant/Developer: Cocohatchee Nature Center Engineering Consultant: Johnson Engineering, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Johnson Engineering, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 2.19 acre parcel located on the west side of U.S. 41 immediately adjacent to the Cocohatchee River in Section 21, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are mostly undeveloped with the following zoning classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - A-ST Horse creek S - A-ST Cocohatchee River E - R.O.W. U.S. 41 C-4 Pewter Mug Steak House PUD (Collier Tract 22) Partially Developed W- A-ST Horse Creek IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Conditional Use in order to construct and operate a nature center in the Agricultural zoning district with a Special treatment overlay. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 CU-99-31 Page 2 of 6 The proposed facility consists of an amphitheater/instructional building, an administration building, a boardwalk, parking and docks. The operation will include educational presentations and boat tours V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject parcel is designated as Urban—Mixed Use on the Future Land Use map of the Growth Management Plan. The Urban—Mixed Use Land Use Designation is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non- residential land uses. Therefore, if the Board of Zoning Appeals approves a Conditional Use for a cultural, educational or recreational facility (nature center), the petition shall be consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The parcel is within the Urban designated area, therefore the Administration Commission's Final Order is not applicable VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: The water management system for the Cocohatchee Nature Center will consist of a single inlet, a small outfall pipe, and an underground chambered dry pretreatment system providing water quality for the project. The outfall from the underground system will be through the inlet into Horse Creek. Environmental: Site Description: The subject property is surrounded by water on three sides. Vegetation on-site consists primarily of mangroves with some Brazilian pepper and Melaleuca located adjacent to U.S. 41. According to the Collier County Soil Survey prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the only soil type present on the project site is Map Unit 40, Durbin and Wulfert mucks, frequently flooded. The approximate boundaries of the soil type as mapped by the NRCS are shown on Exhibit E in the environmental impact statement(EIS). EAC Meeting January 5,2000 1 CU-99-31 Page 3 of 6 Wetlands: On the 2.19 acre project site, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) have exerted jurisdiction over approximately 2.04 acres of wetlands. The wetlands are dominated by red and black mangroves with an understory of scattered leather fern. Attachment 1 in the EIS provides a summary of the habitats present on-site and a description of their vegetative composition and abundance. An aerial with FLUCFCS overlay is also included in the EIS. The proposed project will result in approximately 0.28 acres of direct impacts to USACOE and SFWMD/Collier County wetlands, necessary for the parking lot and portions of the boardwalk. The fill for the parking lot will be contained in a bulk head wall covering all four sides. Because an elevated boardwalk will be used instead of bringing in fill, only the land directly under the boardwalk leading to the boat dock will be directly impacted. The second branch of the boardwalk will be built above the existing mangroves and used as a scenic overlook. The boardwalk will be assembled by hand to minimize impacts to adjacent mangroves. Compensation for wetland impacts will include the preservation and enhancement of the remaining 1.76 acres of wetland habitat. Enhancement will include removal of exotics, such as Brazilian pepper and Melaleuca, through mechanical and hand- removal methods. Preservation Requirements: The majority of the subject parcel (81.7 percent) will be preserved upon completion of the project. This exceeds the minimum ten percent preservation requirement in section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Collier County land development code. Special treatment regulations also apply. Listed Species: Florida's official list of endangered species, threatened species, and species of special concern (FGFWFC, 1996) was consulted to identify listed species which may occur within the geographical region. In addition, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) was contacted to solicit available data and information regarding listed species which may occur on site. Table 2-1 in the environmental impact statement (EIS) lists the times and weather conditions during the protected species survey and other field work associated with the project. Pedestrian transects were performed in all vegetation associations (FLUCFCS) present on the property. Figure A in the EIS depicts the approximate EAC Meeting January 5,2000 CU-99-31 Page 4 of 6 survey locations. A summary of visibility, number, total length of transects performed, and percentage of each habitat covered is provided in Table 2-2 in the EIS. No listed fauna were encountered nor were any signs of use by listed species observed during the survey or during other field investigations. Leather fern (Acrostichum danaeifolium) is present on site. This plant is protected by the state as a commercially exploited species. Special Treatment Overlay District: "Purpose and intent: Within Collier County there are certain areas, which because of their unique assemblages of flora and/or fauna, their aesthetic appeal, historical or archaeological significance, rarity in Collier County, or their contribution to their own or adjacent ecosystems, make them worthy of special regulations. Such regulations are directed toward the conservation, protection, and preservation of ecological and recreational values for the greatest benefit to the people of Collier County. Such areas include, but are not necessarily limited to mangrove and freshwater swamps, barrier islands, hardwood hammocks, xeric scrubs, coastal beaches, estuaries, cypress domes, natural drainageways, aquifer recharge areas and lands and structures of historical and archaeological significance. The purpose of this overlay district regulation is to assure the preservation and maintenance of these environmental and cultural resources and to encourage the preservation of the intricate ecological relationships within the systems and at the same time permit those types of development which will hold changes to levels determined acceptable by the board of county commissioners after public hearings" (2.2.24.1 CCLDC). VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Petition No. CU-99-31/Special Treatment Permit No. ST-99-2 "Cocohatchee Nature Center" with the following stipulations: Water Management: Water management concerns will be reviewed at time of Site Development Plan submittal. This project will be permitted by South Florida Water Management District. Environmental: 1. Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the Florida Department of EAC Meeting January 5,2000 CU-99-31 Page 5 of 6 Environmental Protection (FDEP) shall be presented prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. 2. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring and maintenance plan for the site, with emphasis on the ST area, shall be submitted to Current Planning environmental staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 CU-99-31 Page 6 of 6 PREPARED BY: 0 ify .1/ `moi �� STEP / 'E. , '.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER ./ Id I, LaA5/21 STEPHE LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: c-P, ---- FRED ' `CHL DATE SENIOR PLANNER ,,l p i1,4, ,, • .ff T' 0 I AS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE G ERING REVIEW MANAGER (ANA\ III1 2. R40. 9,cr RS ALD F. NIN O, AI' ' DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER SL/gdh/c:Cocohatchee Nature Center Staff Report Item IV.F. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2000 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. Petition Name: Ronto Livingston PUD Applicant/Developer: Ronto Livingston, Inc. Engineering Consultant: Hole Montes &Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Turrell &Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: It is located within Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The project is located within the southwest quadrant of the intersection between I- 75 and Bonita Beach Road, about one mile south of Bonita Beach Road. It abutts I-75 along the east property boundary. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Lee County-Unknown Undeveloped S - PUD—The Strand Residential/Golf Course Community E - Interstate ROW I-75 Highway W - PUD -Mediterra Residential/Golf Course Community IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Ronto Livingston project will be a master planned community. The development site is located west of I-75, one mile south of Bonita Beach Road, EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 2 of 9 two miles north of Immokalee Road and one and three-quarter miles east of Old US 41. The site is bounded on the east by 1-75, on the west by the Livingston Road extension and Mediterra. On the south side is a future unnamed east-west collector road and Pelican Strand, and on the north by the Lee/County line and then a future Worthington project that is currently being planned. The Ronto Livingston property is considered part of the Bonita Springs/North Naples area. The most significant element of the community will be the residential development. The Ronto Livingston community is planned for a maximum of 1380 residential units, which will include both single-family and multi-family types of units. The single-family units are anticipated to be detached on fee simple lots. The multi-family units will include the typical two-story buildings with common ownership, however there may be some single-story attached units with other ownership plans. The overall gross density for the project is low, being less than 3.0 units per acre (1380/463=2.98). The project will include an 18-hole golf course that will primarily serve the residents of the community. This recreational amenity will include the typical accessory uses, such as a 25,000 square foot clubhouse with a pro shop and dining facilities, a driving range and a maintenance facility. The proposed community will have no associated commercial or marine related components. The remainder of the land area of the community will be dedicated to recreational uses, which will include passive, as well as active, recreational areas, open space, roadways, drainage features, and other infrastructure and ancillary facilities necessary to accommodate the master plan of development. Some of the passive recreational uses may include boardwalks through some of the wetlands and upland areas and other scenic views. The acreage shown on the Master Concept Plan are approximate, and the final boundaries of the various areas will not be established until the actual engineering and technical drawings are completed for the construction stage of the community. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: All of the property lies within the Urban Mixed-Use/Urban Residentially designated area illustrated on the Future Land Use Map of the FLUE to the GMP. Consistency with elements of the GMP are as follows: EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 3 of 9 � I Land Use: Land within the urban residentially designated area may be rezoned to allow the total range of dwelling unit types. This rezoning action is for a mixed-use residential development together with a golf course and related recreation amenities, all of which are allowed in the urban residentially designated area. The Ronto Livingston project is located in the Urban Mixed-Use District/Urban Residential Sub-district. The Urban Mixed-Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential land uses including single-family, multi- family, duplex, mobile home and mixed-use (Planned Unit Development). The Urban Residential Sub-District provides for higher densities in areas with relatively few natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Density: The Ronto Livingston PUD will consist of not more than 1,360 dwelling units on 463 acres for a gross density of 2.98 dwelling units per acre. The density rating system authorizes four units per acre. Because the proposed development is requesting single-family and multi-family residential units at a density of under 3 units per acre, the project is consistent with Goal 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan guides land use decision- making so as to achieve and maintain a high quality natural environment with a well planned mix of compatible land uses which promote the public's health, safety and welfare consistent with the State planning requirements and local desires. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with Objective 1 and Policy 1.1 of the plan. The property is being developed at a density level just below the maximum allowed in the land use category and is thereby consistent with the plan. Traffic Element: Based upon the information provided by the applicants relative to the distribution of housing structure types and the golf course use we find as follows: The ITE Trip Generation Manual (6th Edition) indicates that the proposed project will generate the following traffic in Phase One: EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page4of9 UNITS LAND USE TRIPS 740 DU Multi-Family 3,568 ADT 246 DU Single-Family 2,373 ADT 18 Holes Golf Course 643 ADT Total: 5,941 ADT* UNITS LAND USE TRIPS 1036 DU Multi-Family 4,749 ADT 344 DU Single-Family 3,230 ADT 18 Holes Golf Course 643 ADT Total: 8,622 ADT* • The site generated trips have been adjusted to account for seasonal occupancy and internal capture. This results in the following trip totals: Phase One: 4,768 ADT. Phase Two: 7,181 ADT. Based on the analysis in the TIS, the site generated trips exceed the significance test standard(5 percent of the LOS "C"design volume) on Livingston Road from • Bonita Beach Road to Immokalee Road. It is also projected to exceed 5 percent on the east/west side of Livingston Road when completed. However, these road segments are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service at the end of Phase One and at build-out. As a result, these trips will not lower the level of service below the adopted LO"D" standard. Therefore,the project is consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element(TCE). The TCE lists Immokalee Road(CR-846) as a 4-lane arterial road from CR-31 to I-75. The current traffic count for this segment is 37,900 PSDT and is operating at LOS "C". However,this segment is projected to be deficient by 2004 and is not funded for improvement to 6-lanes. As a result,this road will remain below its adopted LOS standard. Since the site-generated trips do not exceed 5 percent of the LOS "C"design capacity for this segment of CR-846,the project is not required to be phased. In addition, Airport-Pulling Road(CR-31) is currently a 4- lane arterial road with a traffic count of 38,514 LOS "D" and is projected to be deficient by 1999/2000. Since this road segment is scheduled to be improved to 6-lanes by 2001,this petition is consistent with Policy 1.3 and 1.4 of the TCE. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 5 of 9 The PUD provides for a contiguous road through the project from Livingston Road to an east/west road between this project and Pelican Strand to the south. The road is expected to be private and in all likelihood, gated and to this extent makes no contribution towards interconnectivity. When one analyzes the benefits of interconnectivity for the area of land lying between I-75 and Livingston Road, we conclude that interconnectivity does nothing to enhance the objective of diffusing impacts to the arterial road system. Therefore, staff concludes that approval of this project is not inconsistent with policy 7.2 and 7.3 regarding issues of safe and convenient access and circulation. Open Space/Conservation Element: More than sixty(60)percent of the land area will be set aside as qualifying open space which includes the golf course and water management facilities. In total 288.62 acres or 62% of the land area, exclusive of open space and landscaped areas,made a part of each residential development, as they will be developed in some form of open space. When landscaped areas attributable to housing developments are added, the total amount of open space lands should exceed substantially 60%of the threshold established by the GMP for this element. Similarly more than 25% of the viably functioning native preservation will be retained,the threshold requirement for consistency with the Conservation Element. Preserve areas constitute 59+acres. Development Commitments contained within the PUD give assurance that appropriate permits and procedures will be followed to regulate habitat and wildlife disturbances. Sewer and Water: Ronto Livingston will be connected to Collier County's sewer and water system. All of the land will be connected to a system of sewer and water utilities,which in turn will be connected to the County's system. These characteristics make the project consistent with the sewer and water element. Stormwater Management Element: The surface water management for Ronto Livingston will be reviewed by the South Florida Water Management District and is therefore exempt from local review and approval. In view of the above staff is of the opinion that approval of the PUD as structured by the PUD document and master plan is consistent with all appreciable elements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. II EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 6 of 9 Historic/Archaeological impact: Staffs analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is located outside an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, no Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment is required. Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historical or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: The petitioner proposes to divide the project into two drainage basins, a 76 acre basin in the northwest, and a 375 acre basin that is the whole east side. Both basins employ a standard configuration of a series of interconnected lakes to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. The petitioner proposes to discharge the east basin into the I-75 R.O.W. This will require the permission of the Federal Highway Authority and the SFWMD. The petitioner proposes to discharge the west basin into the future Livingston Road R.O.W. This will require permission of Collier County D.O.T. and the SFWMD. Environmental: Site Description: The subject property covers 460 acres; over 300 of those are farm fields being actively used for row crops or have recently been disked for planting. A series of ditches and berms surround the fields. Three isolated wetlands are located outside the farming area. No protected species were observed utilizing the site. Approximately 40 acres of uplands exist on site,the vast majority of which is Pine flatwoods, with slash pine, saw palmetto, wax myrtle, rusty lyonia and wire grass as the predominant species. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 7 of 9 Wetlands: The subject property has approximately 84 acres of Collier County jurisdictional wetlands identified in 4 separate areas, isolated between themselves,but two of which have the potential for some future connectivity to off site wetlands. The historic wet season high water levels for this site were obtained by using watermarks on the existing vegetation, sediment lines, lichen and adventitious roots. Elevations vary between 13.02 NGVD to 14.0 NGVD. The hydrological regime has been altered considerably by the associated farming and construction of I-75 immediately to the east. The petitioner proposes to impact 33.5 acres of the least viable wetlands,which represents 28%of the wetlands on site. The site plan was revised considerably, after the petition had been submitted for initial review, in order to accommodate the preservation of the best areas of wetlands within the northwest portion of the parcel. The original proposal requested an impact to 42.8 acres of wetlands, which is more than 50%. To offset the impacts to 33.5 acres of wetlands, the remaining 48 acres will be enhanced both hyrologically and vegetatively. A combination of on site and off site mitigation is proposed to ensure that there is no net loss of wetlands pursuant the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Off site mitigation will be provided by purchasing credits in the Panther Island mitigation bank adjacent to Corkscrew Swamp. Preservation Requirements: The environmental consultant identified 122.49 acres of native vegetation on site. To be in compliance with the native vegetation preservation requirement of 25% this site would need to commit to a minimum of 30.6 acres on site. They have provided 59+ acres or 49%of the existing native vegetation in conservation areas. Listed Species: A total of more than 40 hours were spent on site conducting the necessary protected species surveys. The fieldwork was done in May 1999, by three of the biologists working for the consultant. Although a fairly extensive list of species was provided as observed on site, there were no protected species seen on site or evidence that they were utilizing the site. A complete list of observed species is provided in the Threatened and Endangered Species Survey attachment to the EIS. In addition Geza Wass de Czege of Southern Biomes, Inc. completed a more comprehensive Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) survey. Geza's report EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 8 of 9 indicated that this property is north of an old RCW colony, with RCW activities last recorded for this area in 1988-1989. Recent surveys conducted by Southern Biomes on several adjacent PUD's for RCW's, indicated that they no longer are colonizing or utilizing these wooded areas. They were not observed on the subject property. The consultant provided a copy of a June 7, 1999 letter received from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. That letter stated, "The project has the potential to impact the occurrence of a number of listed species, including the Florida panther, Florida black bear, Big Cypress fox squirrel, wood stork, red- cockaded woodpecker, little blue heron, snowy egret, tri-colored heron,white ibis, gopher tortoise and American Alligator. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. 99-9 "Ronto Livingston"with the following stipulations: Water Management: 1. The petitioner obtain all necessary State, Federal and local water management related approvals,prior to final development order approval. Environmental: 1. Add the following language to Section 2.11 Native Vegetation Retention Requirements, of the PUD document, "For this PUD a minimum of 30.6 acres of native vegetation shall be preserved. This PUD Master Plan has committed, through the environmental permitting process, to identify and preserve 59 acres of existing native vegetation". 2. Add the following language to Section 4.3 Preserve District - Uses Permitted, of the PUD document, "Clearing of preserve areas shall not be permitted if doing so brings the remaining acreage below the minimum requirement of 30.6 acres" EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 9 of 9 PREPARED BY: dAk 'A Of STAN CHRZANOW , P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER .hair ,4 ` .ca.l5)--- /2 - /LP-49 BARBARA S. BURGESODATE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST REVIEWED BY: 44fTYYatt . /2- 99 THOMA, F. KUCK, P.E. DATE ENG E' G REVIEW MANAGER (4. 7/0 q 9 RON D F. NINO, AIC' DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER BSB/gdh/c:RontoLivingstonStaffReport Item IV.F. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2000 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: 9-9 Petition Name: Applicant/Developer: Engineering Consultant: r?r,U t Environmental Consultant: --1(.3 II. LOCATION: It is located within Section Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The project is located within the southwest quadrant of the intersection between I- 75 and Bonita Beach Road, about one mile south of Bonita Beach Road. It abutts I-75 along the east property boundary. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Lee County- Unknown Undeveloped S - PUD—The Strand Residential/Golf Course Community E - Interstate ROW I-75 Highway W - PUD - Mediterra Residential/Golf Course Community EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 3 of 9 Land Use: Land within the urban residentially designated area may be rezoned to allow the total range of dwelling unit types. This rezoning action is for a mixed-use residential development together with a golf course and related recreation amenities, all of which are allowed in the urban residentially designated area. The Ronto Livingston project is located in the Urban Mixed-Use District/Urban Residential Sub-district. The Urban Mixed-Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential land uses including single-family, multi- family, duplex, mobile home and mixed-use (Planned Unit Development). The Urban Residential Sub-District provides for higher densities in areas with relatively few natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Density: The Ronto Livingston PUD will consist of not more than 1,360 dwelling units on 463 acres for a gross density of 2.98 dwelling units per acre. The density rating system authorizes four units per acre. �-. Because the proposed development is requesting single-family and multi-family residential units at a density of under 3 units per acre, the project is consistent with Goal 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan guides land use decision- making so as to achieve and maintain a high quality natural environment with a well planned mix of compatible land uses which promote the public's health, safety and welfare consistent with the State planning requirements and local desires. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with Objective 1 and Policy 1.1 of the plan. The property is being developed at a density level just below the maximum allowed in the land use category and is thereby consistent with the plan. Traffic Element: Based upon the information provided by the applicants relative to the distribution of housing structure types and the golf course use we find as follows: The ITE Trip Generation Manual (6th Edition) indicates that the proposed project will generate the following traffic in Phase One: EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 2 of 11 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Ronto Livingston project will be a master planned community. The development site is located west of I-75, one mile south of Bonita Beach Road, two miles north of Immokalee Road and one and three-quarter miles east of Old US 41. The site is bounded on the east by I-75, on the west by the Livingston Road extension and Mediterra. On the south side is a future unnamed east-west collector road and Pelican Strand, and on the north by the Lee/County line and then a future Worthington project that is currently being planned. The Ronto Livingston property is considered part of the Bonita Springs/North Naples area. The most significant element of the community will be the residential development. The Ronto Livingston community is planned for a maximum of 1380 residential units, which will include both single-family and multi-family types of units. The single-family units are anticipated to be detached on fee simple lots. The multi-family units will include the typical two-story buildings with common ownership, however there may be some single-story attached units with other ownership plans. The overall gross density for the project is low, being less than 3.0 units per acre (1380/463=2.98). The project will include an 18-hole golf course that will primarily serve the residents of the community. This recreational amenity will include the typical accessory uses, such as a 25,000 square foot clubhouse with a pro shop and dining facilities, a driving range and a maintenance facility. The proposed community will have no associated commercial or marine related components. The remainder of the land area of the community will be dedicated to recreational uses, which will include passive, as well as active, recreational areas, open space, roadways, drainage features, and other infrastructure and ancillary facilities necessary to accommodate the master plan of development. Some of the passive recreational uses may include boardwalks through some of the wetlands and upland areas and other scenic views. The acreage shown on the Master Concept Plan are approximate, and the final boundaries of the various areas will not be established until the actual engineering and technical drawings are completed for the construction stage of the community. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 3 of 11 All of the property lies within the Urban Mixed-Use/Urban Residentially designated area illustrated on the Future Land Use Map of the FLUE to the GMP. Consistency with elements of the GMP are as follows: Land Use: Land within the urban residentially designated area may be rezoned to allow the total range of dwelling unit types. This rezoning action is for a mixed-use residential development together with a golf course and related recreation amenities, all of which are allowed in the urban residentially designated area. The Ronto Livingston project is located in the Urban Mixed-Use District/Urban Residential Sub-district. The Urban Mixed-Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential land uses including single-family, multi- family, duplex, mobile home and mixed-use (Planned Unit Development). The Urban Residential Sub-District provides for higher densities in areas with relatively few natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. — Density: The Ronto Livingston PUD will consist of not more than 1,360 dwelling units on 463 acres for a gross density of 2.98 dwelling units per acre. The density rating system authorizes four units per acre. Because the proposed development is requesting single-family and multi-family residential units at a density of under 3 units per acre, the project is consistent with Goal 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan guides land use decision- making so as to achieve and maintain a high quality natural environment with a well planned mix of compatible land uses which promote the public's health, safety and welfare consistent with the State planning requirements and local desires. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with Objective 1 and Policy 1.1 of the plan. The property is being developed at a density level just below the maximum allowed in the land use category and is thereby consistent with the plan. Traffic Element: Based upon the information provided by the applicants relative to the distribution of housing structure types and the golf course use we find as follows: The ITE Trip Generation Manual (6th Edition) indicates that the proposed project will generate the following traffic in Phase One: EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 4 of 11 UNITS LAND USE TRIPS 740 DU Multi-Family 3,568 ADT 246 DU Single-Family 2,373 ADT 18 Holes Golf Course 643 ADT Total: 5,941 ADT* UNITS LAND USE TRIPS 1036 DU Multi-Family 4,749 ADT 344 DU Single-Family 3,230 ADT 18 Holes Golf Course 643 ADT Total: 8,622 ADT* • The site generated trips have been adjusted to account for seasonal occupancy and internal capture. This results in the following trip totals: Phase One: 4,768 ADT. Phase Two: 7,181 ADT. Based on the analysis in the TIS,the site generated trips exceed the significance test standard(5 percent of the LOS "C"design volume) on Livingston Road from Bonita Beach Road to Immokalee Road. It is also projected to exceed 5 percent on the east/west side of Livingston Road when completed. However, these road segments are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service at the end of Phase One and at build-out. As a result, these trips will not lower the level of service below the adopted LO"D" standard. Therefore, the project is consistent with Policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element(TCE). The TCE lists Immokalee Road(CR-846) as a 4-lane arterial road from CR-31 to I-75. The current traffic count for this segment is 37,900 PSDT and is operating at LOS "C". However,this segment is projected to be deficient by 2004 and is not funded for improvement to 6-lanes. As a result, this road will remain below its adopted LOS standard. Since the site-generated trips do not exceed 5 percent of the LOS "C"design capacity for this segment of CR-846, the project is not required to be phased. In addition,Airport-Pulling Road(CR-31) is currently a 4- lane arterial road with a traffic count of 38,514 LOS "D"and is projected to be deficient by 1999/2000. Since this road segment is scheduled to be improved to 6-lanes by 2001,this petition is consistent with Policy 1.3 and 1.4 of the TCE. The PUD provides for a contiguous road through the project from Livingston Road to an east/west road between this project and Pelican Strand to the south. The road is expected to be private and in all likelihood, gated and to this extent makes no contribution towards interconnectivity. When one analyzes the benefits EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 5 of 11 of interconnectivity for the area of land lying between I-75 and Livingston Road, we conclude that interconnectivity does nothing to enhance the objective of diffusing impacts to the arterial road system. Therefore, staff concludes that approval of this project is not inconsistent with policy 7.2 and 7.3 regarding issues of safe and convenient access and circulation. Open Space/Conservation Element: More than sixty(60)percent of the land area will be set aside as qualifying open space which includes the golf course and water management facilities. In total 288.62 acres or 62%of the land area, exclusive of open space and landscaped areas,made a part of each residential development, as they will be developed in some form of open space. When landscaped areas attributable to housing developments are added, the total amount of open space lands should exceed substantially 60% of the threshold established by the GMP for this element. Similarly more than 25%of the viably functioning native preservation will be retained, the threshold requirement for consistency with the Conservation Element. Preserve areas constitute 59+acres. Development Commitments contained within the PUD give assurance that appropriate permits and procedures will be followed to regulate habitat and wildlife disturbances. Sewer and Water: Ronto Livingston will be connected to Collier County's sewer and water system. All of the land will be connected to a system of sewer and water utilities,which in turn will be connected to the County's system. These characteristics make the project consistent with the sewer and water element. Stormwater Management Element: The surface water management for Ronto Livingston will be reviewed by the South Florida Water Management District and is therefore exempt from local review and approval. In view of the above staff is of the opinion that approval of the PUD as structured by the PUD document and master plan is consistent with all appreciable elements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Historic/Archaeological impact: Staffs analysis indicates that the petitioner's property is located outside an area of historical and archaeological probability as referenced on the official Collier EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 6 of 11 County Probability Map. Therefore, no Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment is required. Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historical or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: The petitioner proposes to divide the project into two drainage basins, a 76 acre basin in the northwest, and a 375 acre basin that is the whole east side. Both basins employ a standard configuration of a series of interconnected lakes to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. The petitioner proposes to discharge the east basin into the I-75 R.O.W. This will require the permission of the Federal Highway Authority and the SFWMD. The petitioner proposes to discharge the west basin into the future Livingston Road R.O.W. This will require permission of Collier County D.O.T. and the SFWMD. Environmental: Staff has reviewed the EIS; the PUD document and all associated PUD exhibits. Staff did not have the DRI binder in time to do a thorough review of its contents. It has been provided to the EAC members for their review. However, the Regional Planning Council Staff Recommendations were reviewed completely as was the Ronto Livingston Development Order, and the stipulations at the end of this Staff Report reflect the review of those two documents. The DRI material submitted to the EAC members for review and approval does not accurately reflect the changes made by the petitioner in response to the SFWMD comments. The Master Site Plan, preservation areas, infrastructure layout, etc. as shown in the DRI package does not include these changes. The PUD document and associated plans are the most current Staff approved documents. Staff is requiring as a stipulation of approval of the Development EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 7 of 11 Order that The DRI package be revised to show all necessary changes, to be consistent with the PUD. Site Description: The subject property covers 460 acres; over 300 of those are farm fields being actively used for row crops or have recently been disked for planting. A series of ditches and berms surround the fields. Three isolated wetlands are located outside the farming area. No protected species were observed utilizing the site. Approximately 40 acres of uplands exist on site,the vast majority of which is Pine flatwoods, with slash pine, saw palmetto, wax myrtle, rusty lyonia and wire grass as the predominant species. Wetlands: The subject property has approximately 84 acres of Collier County jurisdictional wetlands identified in 4 separate areas, isolated between themselves,but two of which have the potential for some future connectivity to off site wetlands. The historic wet season high water levels for this site were obtained by using watermarks on the existing vegetation, sediment lines, lichen and adventitious roots. Elevations vary between 13.02 NGVD to 14.0 NGVD. The hydrological regime has been altered considerably by the associated farming and construction of I-75 immediately to the east. The petitioner proposes to impact 33.5 acres of the least viable wetlands,which represents 28% of the wetlands on site. The site plan was revised considerably, after the petition had been submitted for initial review, in order to accommodate the preservation of the best areas of wetlands within the northwest portion of the parcel. The original proposal requested an impact to 42.8 acres of wetlands,which is more than 50%. To offset the impacts to 33.5 acres of wetlands, the remaining 48 acres will be enhanced both hyrologically and vegetatively. A combination of on site and off site mitigation is proposed to ensure that there is no net loss of wetlands pursuant the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Off site mitigation will be provided by purchasing credits in the Panther Island mitigation bank adjacent to Corkscrew Swamp. Preservation Requirements: EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 8 of 11 n The environmental consultant identified 122.49 acres of native vegetation on site. To be in compliance with the native vegetation preservation requirement of 25% this site would need to commit to a minimum of 30.6 acres on site. They have provided 59+ acres or 49%of the existing native vegetation in conservation areas. Listed Species: A total of more than 40 hours were spent on site conducting the necessary protected species surveys. The fieldwork was done in May 1999, by three of the biologists working for the consultant. Although a fairly extensive list of species was provided as observed on site, there were no protected species seen on site or evidence that they were utilizing the site. A complete list of observed species is provided in the Threatened and Endangered Species Survey attachment to the EIS. In addition Geza Wass de Czege of Southern Biomes, Inc. completed a more comprehensive Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) survey. Geza's report indicated that this property is north of an old RCW colony, with RCW activities last recorded for this area in 1988-1989. Recent surveys conducted by Southern Biomes on several adjacent PUD's for RCW's, indicated that they no longer are colonizing or utilizing these wooded areas. They were not observed on the subject property. The consultant provided a copy of a June 7, 1999 letter received from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. That letter stated, "The project has the potential to impact the occurrence of a number of listed species, including the Florida panther, Florida black bear, Big Cypress fox squirrel, wood stork, red- cockaded woodpecker, little blue heron, snowy egret, tri-colored heron,white ibis, gopher tortoise and American Alligator. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. 99-9 and Development Order No. 99-2, "Ronto Livingston" with the following stipulations: Water Management: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary State, Federal and local water management related approvals,prior to final development order approval. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 9 of 11 2. The petitioner shall comply with the Regional Planning Council Staff Recommendations regarding water management related conditions, and shall comply with Collier County's Development Order No. DO-99-2. Environmental: 1. Add the following language to Section 2.11 Native Vegetation Retention Requirements, of the PUD document, "For this PUD a minimum of 44.96 acres of wetland and upland preserve/enhancement area shall be placed under a conservation easement as required by the Ronto Livingston Development Order. This PUD Master Plan has committed, through the environmental permitting process, to identify and preserve 59 acres of existing native vegetation". 2. Add the following language to Section 4.3 Preserve District - Uses Permitted, of the PUD document, "Clearing of preserve areas shall not be permitted if doing so brings the remaining acreage below the minimum requirement of 44.96 acres." 3. Add the following language to Section 5.9 Environmental, of the PUD document "As required by the Ronto Livingston Development Order, the petitioner shall follow the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo snake and shall prepare an Eastern Indigo Snake Protection Plan. The Plan shall be approved by the USFWS and shall include: (1) a protection/education plan; (2) a listing of environmental personnel charged with overseeing/coordinating protection measures, and (3) selection of a suitable relocation site prior to the initiation of clearing or construction activities. Only an individual who has previously qualified under a USFWS ESA section 10(a)(1)(A)permit, or who has been appropriately authorized by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) will be permitted to come into contact with or relocate an Eastern Indigo Snake." 4. The following is required in the Regional Planning Council (RPC) Staff Recommendations under Vegetation and Wildlife/Wetlands, Recommendation f. "All commitments made by the applicant within the ADA, and subsequent sufficiency round information, related to Question 10 (General Project Description), question 12 (Vegetation & Wildlife) and Question 13 (Wetlands), and not in conflict with the previous recommendations, shall be incorporated into the Collier County Development Order as conditions for approval." This recommendation of the RPC was included as a result of the "numerous unresolved issues concerning the site plan, wetland hydroperiod enhancement and overall EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 10 of 11 mitigation design" as the data was presented for review. The Ronto Livingston Development Order (DO) shall be amended as requested by the RPC,prior to the DO being submitted to the BCC for approval. 5. Wherever the word "will" is used in the Ronto Livingston Development Order, it shall be replaced with the word"shall". 6. The petitioner shall revise the DRI package to accurately reflect the Master Site Plan, preservation areas and all other environmental and water management sections that Staff has approved through the approval of the PUD document and associated plans. PREPARED BY: 23iC .39 STAN CHRZANOWSKI, P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER 1,03/99 /'f BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-99-9 Page 11 of 11 REVIEWED BY: P `zz THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER RONALD F. NINO, AICP DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER BSB/gdh/c:RontoLivingstonStaffReport Item IV.G. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5,2000 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUD-92-04(1) Petition Name: Golden Gate Commerce Park PUD Applicant/Developer: SWF Properties of Southwest Florida, LTD Engineering Consultant: WilsonMiller, Inc. Environmental Consultant: WilsonMiller, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 74 acre parcel located on the west side of County Road 951 immediately south of the Golden Gate Canal and approximately '/2 mile north of the Interstate I-75/County Road 951 intersection in Section 34, Township 49 South,Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are mostly undeveloped except for those located north of the project site within Golden Gate City. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - RSF-3 Golden Gate Canal Golden Gate City S - Agricultural Undeveloped E - R.O.W. County Road 951 PUD (Citygate) Undeveloped Agricultural Water Treatment Plant W - Agricultural Undeveloped PUD (Magnolia Pond) Undeveloped IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-92-04(1) Page 2 of 6 On October 27, 1992 the Board of County Commissioners approved this 74.2-acre PUD allowing 273 multi-family dwelling units (7 dwelling units per acre), 170,000 square feet of medical office uses, a 14,000 square feet medical center, and a 100-bed hospital. The subject property was subsequently added to Activity Center #9 through the EAR Growth Management Plan amendment process. The property owner is now proposing an amendment to the approved PUD in response to changing market conditions and the criteria adopted with the approval of Activity Center #9. As a result, this amendment proposes to change the PUD name from the Golden Gate Health Park to the Golden Gate Commerce Park and to eliminate the medical office, hospital, and medical center as permitted uses. They are also proposing to add commercial retail and motel uses as a permitted commercial use while increasing the maximum number of residential units from 273 units to 450 dwelling units. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject PUD is designated Urban Residential Sub-district on the Future Land Use Map and will be within Activity Center #9 when the EAR Growth Management Plan amendments are found to be in compliance by DCA. This new Interchange Activity Center will permit commercial and industrial land uses that serve regional markets, provided each such use is compatible with existing and approved land uses. This designation will also allow residential density up to 16 units per acre. Based on staff's review of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan, the proposed commercial uses and the residential density of 12 units per acre is consistent with the EAR Growth Management Plan amendment. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: Because of its size, this project is required to obtain a Surface Water Management Permit from the South Florida Water Management District. The proposed surface water management consists of a series of interconnected lakes and dry retention / detention areas that will provide for water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. The site will discharge into the main Golden Gate Canal. The Collier County Parks and Rec. Dept. wants a bikepath along the south bank of the main Golden Gate Canal that is coincident with the proposed South Florida EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-92-04(1) Page 3 of 6 Water Management District Canal maintenance easement and any perimeter landscape buffering facing the residential area to the north. As of this writing the matter has not yet been resolved. Environmental: Site Description: The subject property is currently undeveloped. Clearings for fence lines and dirt roads occur in limited portions of the site, primarily along the northern and southern property lines. Palmetto prairies dominate the eastern half of the site and are also found in the southwest corner. Most of the northwestern section of the site is dominated by herbaceous prairies. Pine flatwoods with a graminoid understory compose the central western portion of the site. Pine flatwoods with a palmetto understory are located along the eastern property boundary and in the southwest corner of the property. A small Melaleuca stand occurs in the southeastern portion of the site. According to the Collier County Soils Map, three soil types are found on the property, Hallandale fine sand (Soil Map Unit 11), Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (Soil Map Unit 14) and Boca fine sand (Soil Map Unit 21). Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (Soil Map Unit 14) is listed as hydric by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Wetlands: The entire 74 acre property is uplands. No South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands occur on site. The SFWMD has not yet performed a site visit for verification. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) determined in 1995 that no jurisdictional wetlands occur on the site (Jurisdictional Determination No. 199131834 JF-SB)). Preservation Requirements: The petitioner proposes the retain 25 percent of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site and/or to replant areas of landscaping and open space with 100 percent native species to satisfy the requirement in section 3.9.5.5.3 of the land development code. A portion of the native vegetation to be retained on site is illustrated on the PUD master plan. Listed Species: EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-92-04(1) Page 4 of 6 In August, 1999, the petitioner performed listed species meandering pedestrian transects on the subject property. The survey primarily utilized the meandering strip census method of pedestrian transects through the various habitats or vegetation associations. These transects resulted in a grid pattern of observations through the various habitats on site. Once the grid of meandering transects covered the whole site, additional transects were performed targeting those portions of the site with the greatest potential for listed species observations. The surveys were conducted at various times on any given day. Surveys were conducted such that observations included time periods ranging from sunrise to sunset. In excess of 85 man-hours have been spent on-site in conducting the survey. Barring seasonal considerations, the survey dates allowed for observations during likely times of probable occurrence for the majority of the listed wildlife species which could occur on-site. During the survey, temperatures ranged from the low 70s to the low 90s (degrees Fahrenheit), with showers occurring almost on a daily basis. When performing pedestrian transects through appropriate habitats, particular consideration was given to looking for signs of red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) and gopher tortoises. Special attention was paid to large and/or old slash pine trees with trunks relatively free of vines or high understory brush to locate signs made by RCWs. When large and/or old slash pine trees were encountered, biologists would typically circle the tree while visually scanning for start holes, cavities, resin, wells, and/or RCW individuals. A tape containing RCW vocalizations was played at various locations throughout the site. No RCWs, cavity trees or starter holes were observed on-site. During the survey, seven active and 36 inactive gopher tortoise burrows were identified. Most of the active burrows identified during the recent survey of the site are located in the southern portion of the property (Exhibit G). An incidental take permit (COL-5) was issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) on October 29, 1992, which allows for the displacement of the tortoises that will be affected by development on the site. In addition, the applicant has made a payment of approximately $37,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Trust Fund, to be used towards the purchase of suitable habitat for a gopher tortoise preserve. Suitable palmetto prairie and pine flatwoods habitat will be preserved on portions of the project site to which gopher tortoises can be relocated. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-92-04(1) Page 5 of 6 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUD- 92-04(1) "Golden Gate Commerce Park PUD"with the following stipulations: Water Management: 1. That the petitioner obtain a South Florida Water Management District Surface Water Management Permit. 2. That the configuration of the north side easement / bikepath / buffer be resolved prior to this project being sent to the Board of County Commissioners. Environmental: 1. Amend the language in section 6.3(A)(2) of the PUD document as follows by adding the underlined language and deleting the ot.uok thfe gh language Water management facilities structures. 2. Replace section 7.3(A) of the PUD document with the following language. In accordance with 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, twenty five percent (18 acres) of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site shall be retained. At the time of next development order submittal the petitioner shall identify, in its entirety, areas of native vegetation to be retained and/or areas of landscaping and open space to be planted with 100 percent native species,to satisfy this requirement. EAC Meeting January 5,2000 PUD-92-04(1) Page 6 of 6 PREPARED BY: /11 /Alf 7 STAN CHRZANOW KI, P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER / //y/9 STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: P-' 17' RAYM V. BELLOWS DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER • 1(oxi THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE EWERING REVIEW MANAGER .04 -t, e i F4, AICP DATE CURRENTNING MANAGER SL/gdh/c:Golden Gate Commerce Park Staff Report