EAC Agenda 09/06/2000 PLEASE NOTE THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD
OCTOBER 6, 2000 (FRIDAY)
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
AGENDA
September 6, 2000
9:00 a.m.
Commission Boardroom
W. Harmon Turner Building (Building"F")—Third Floor
I. Roll Call
H. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of July 12, 2000 and August 2,2000 Meeting Minutes
IV. Growth Management Update
V. Land Use Petitions
A. Preliminary Subdivision Plat PSP-2000-10/
Special Treatment Permit ST-99-3
"Little Palm Island" V
Section 23, Township 48 South,Range 25 East
B. Planned Unit Development,PUD-99-20
"Brynwood Preserve" /
Section 18, Township 49 South,Range 26 East
C. Planned Unit Develop'7rt PUD-2000-7
"Two Lakes Plaza" ,/
Section 9, Township 48 South,Range 25 East
D. Planned Unit Development PUD-97-18(1)
"The Dunes"
Section 20,Township 48 South,Range 25 East
VI. Old Business
VII. New Business
A. EIS
VIII. Subcommittee Report
A. Growth Management Subcommittee
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R-A-F-T(11-8-00)
I. Wetlands Protection
OBJECTIVE I.1:
The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands.
Policy I.1.1
Wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands shall be protected and conserved through
a comprehensive process that includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes,
conditions and locations of wetlands. Higher intensity land uses have greater adverse
impacts on wetlands and wetland functions than do lower intensity land uses and thus are
more incompatible with wetlands. Incompatible land uses are directed away from
wetlands by the following mechanisms:
(1) Conservation Designation(Future Land Use Element)
The overall purpose of the Conservation Designation is to conserve and maintain the
natural resources of Collier County and their associated environmental, and
recreational and economic benefits. The allowed land uses specified in the FLUE's
Conservation Designation will accommodate limited residential development and
future non-residential development. These limitations help direct many higher
intensity land uses from wetlands contained in this Future Land Use Designation.
(Reference FLUE)
(2) Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Overlay(ACSC)
The land development regulations contained in the ACSC Overlay District on the
Future Land Use Map provide standards that facilitate the goal of directing higher
intensity land uses away from wetland systems. (Reference FLUE.)
(3) Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs)
Major wetland systems and regional flow-ways were used as criteria to map Natural
Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) as shown on the Future Land Use Map. These
areas identify the highest functioning wetland systems in the County. Within these
areas, only agriculture and directly related uses and one single family dwelling unit
per parcel or lot created prior to June 22, 1999 shall be allowed. These limitations
have been adopted as interim development standards pursuant to Administration
Commission Final Order AC-99-002 dated June 22, 1999. These limitations also
direct higher intensity land uses away from these wetland systems. (Reference the
FLUE for the specific land use restrictions.)
(4) Vegetation preservation requirements specified in Policy 11.1.1
(5) All other policies supporting Objective I.1 and Objective I.2.
Policy I.1.2
Wetlands shall be defined pursuant to Section 373.019 Florida Statutes. The location of
jurisdictional wetland boundaries are further described by the delineation methodology in
Section 373.421 Florida Statutes, as the statutes exist on July 1,2000.
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 7.3 of the COME.
Page-2-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R A-F-T(11-8-00)
Policy I.1.3
As required by 9J5-5.006(1)(b), wetlands identified by the 1994-95 SFWMD land use
and cover inventory are mapped on the Future Land Use Map series. These areas shall be
verified by a jurisdictional field delineation, subject to Policy I.1.2, at the time of project
permitting to determine the exact location of wetland boundaries.
Policy I.1.4
Past development has altered Collier County wetlands causing wetland systems to lose
some degree of functionality. The County, therefore, has used type of wetland and
degree of functionality to classify County wetlands. Functional descriptions rely upon
measurements that indicate hydrologic impacts. Wetlands are classified as Class I, Class
II, or Class III. Class I wetlands are judged to have the highest value and thus receive the
highest degree of protection. Collier County wetlands are thus classified as follows:
Functional Descriptions
Greater
Absence of a than 10%
Greater than Hydrologic Upland
Wetland Type Wetland Classification 75%Melaleuca Connection Vegetation
Any natural surface Class I unless any one of the
water body and functional descriptions are
adjacent wetland present and then Class II Class II Class II Class II
Class I unless any one of the
functional descriptions are
Flow way wetlands present and then Class II Class II Class H Class H
Class III unless anyone of the
Wetlands connected functional descriptions are
to Flow way wetlands present then Class III Class III N.A. Class III
Class I unless anyone of the
functional descriptions are
Isolated wetlands 5 present and then the
acres or more in size Classification is as noted Class III N.A. Class II
Isolated wetlands
greater than 0.5 acres Class II unless any one of the
but less than 5 acres functional descriptions are
in size present and then Class III Class III N.A. Class III
Isolated wetlands less
than or equal to 0.5
acres in size Class III Class III N.A. Class III
1. Flow-way wetlands typically include slough wetlands as well as other wetland types when those
wetlands serve to provide both storage and conveyance of seasonal water flows.
2. The 10%Upland Vegetation criterion shall mean upland vegetation as defined by the State's wetland
delineation methodology present within the wetland jurisdictional boundary. This is not intended to
include areas of uplands within the delineation boundary.
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 7.3 of the CCME.
Page-3-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R-A-F-T(11-8-00)
Policy I.1.5
Collier County shall direct land uses away from wetlands by limiting direct impacts
within wetlands and by specifying buffering requirements of preserved wetlands to
separate them from higher intensity land uses.
(1) Collier County shall not permit development in wetlands or wetland buffers except as
follows. A direct impact is hereby defined as a dredging or filling of a wetland.
(a) Class I Wetlands - A de minimus impact, hereby defined as no more than 5% of
direct impact to Class I wetlands, is allowed under the following conditions:
1. Where the applicant demonstrates that the direct impact is necessary for the
minimal reasonable use of the property;
2. Where the applicant demonstrates that the direct impact is necessary for
access and no reasonable upland alternative exists;
3. Where an overriding public benefit is determined, this 5% direct impact may
be increased. An overriding public benefit is defined as those actions required
by local, state, or federal government necessary for the promotion of public
safety, health, or general welfare such as stormwater management activities,
or the provision of water and waste water facilities.
4. For single family lots, a direct impact of greater than 5% is allowed to provide
for no more than one boat dock, subject to the standards found in Policy I.2.1
and Policy I.2.2.
5. Direct impacts allowed pursuant to this policy shall be mitigated according to
the requirements of Policy I.1.6.
6. Approval for any direct impact to Class I wetlands shall require a variance
granted by the County Commission in a public hearing process.
(b) Class II Wetlands - Up to 25% of a Class II wetland is allowed to be directly
impacted if the applicant demonstrates that all reasonable effort was made to
avoid impacts and then to minimize impacts that are unavoidable. The following
criteria shall be used to make this determination:
1. Where the applicant demonstrates that the direct impact is necessary for the
minimal reasonable use of the property;
2. Where the applicant demonstrates that the direct impact is necessary for
access and no reasonable upland alternative exists;
3. Where an overriding public benefit is determined, this direct impact may be
increased. An overriding public benefit is defined as those actions required by
local, state, or federal government necessary for the promotion of public
safety, health, or general welfare such as stormwater management activities,
or the provision of water and waste water facilities.
4. Direct impacts allowed pursuant to this policy shall be mitigated according to
the requirements of Policy I.1.6
5. Approval for any direct impact to Class II wetlands shall require a variance
granted by the County Commission in a public hearing process.
(c) Class III Wetlands - Up to 50% of a Class III wetland is allowed to be directly
impacted if the applicant demonstrates that all reasonable effort was made to
avoid impacts and then to minimize impacts that are unavoidable. The following
.--� criteria shall be used to make this determination:
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 7.3 of the CCME.
Page-4-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues - D-R-A-F-T(11-8-00)
1. Where the applicant demonstrates that the direct impact is necessary for the ^
minimal reasonable use of the property;
2. Where the applicant demonstrates that the direct impact is necessary for
access and no reasonable upland alternative exists;
3. Where an overriding public benefit is determined, this impact may be
increased. An overriding public benefit is defined as those actions required by
local, state, or federal government necessary for the promotion of public
safety, health, or general welfare such as stormwater management activities,
or the provision of water and waste water facilities.
4. Up to 100% of Class III wetlands may be impacted if the property owner
preserves selected upland vegetative communities in an amount that is greater
than that specified as the required buffer in Policy I.1.5(2) and specified as
native vegetative communities in Policy 11.1.1. Upland vegetative
communities must be preserved on a 1:1 basis for each acre of Class III
wetlands impacted. The resulting upland preserves shall be placed in a
conservation easement subject to the requirements of Policy I.1.5(3). For the
purpose of this provision, selected native upland plant communities shall
mean those uplands having less than 50%exotic plant species.
5. Direct impacts of Class III wetlands allowed pursuant to this policy shall be
mitigated according to the requirements of Policy I.1.6, except for the selected
upland vegetation communities preserved pursuant to Policy I.5(1)(c)4 where
these areas shall serve as appropriate mitigation credits.
6. Approval for impacts of greater than 50% to Class III wetlands shall require a
variance granted by the County Commission in a public hearing process. This
requirement shall be waived if the applicant preserves native upland
vegetative communities subject to the provisions of I.5(1)(c)4.
(2) The County shall require a minimum 50 foot buffer between the unimpacted wetland
boundaries and new development. A structural buffer shall be required adjacent to
wetlands where direct impacts are allowed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the
following standards:
(a) The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line.
(b) The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native
vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and
expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted.
(c) The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as
defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council.
(d) The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions
and are allowed within the buffer:
1. Passive recreational areas,boardwalks and recreational shelters;
2. Nature trails, excluding asphalt paved surfaces;
3. Water management structures;
4. Mitigation areas;
5. Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 73 of the CCME.
Page- •
5-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R-A-F-T(11-8-00)
�-. (3) Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be dedicated as
conservation and common areas in the deed restrictions/conservation easements and
shall be platted. The conservation easement shall provide for maintaining these areas
free from trash and debris and of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in the conservation easements
shall be limited to those listed in Policy I.1.5(2)(d) and shall not include any other
activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion
control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation.
Policy I.1.6
Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts of Class I, Class II, or Class III wetlands
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Mitigation shall be provided for at a minimum of a one to one ratio for wetland
acreage directly impacted. Allowable mitigation includes purchase of wetlands for
preservation or the creation of wetlands either on or off site. The preservation of
upland vegetative communities may serve as mitigation to Class III wetlands subject
to the requirements of Policy I.1.5(1)(c)4. No credit shall be given for exotic removal
as mitigation for impacts to wetlands.
(2) Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting in a direct impact to flowway
wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of volume on site
and within or adjacent to the impacted flowway wetland.
(3) Protection shall be provided over wetlands or upland vegetative communities offered
as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the land in perpetuity,
providing for initial removal of Class I invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida
Exotic Pest Plant Council and continuing exotic plant maintenance.
(4) The County's NRPA areas are the preferred location for off-site and "out of the flow
way" mitigation.
(5) All mitigation shall occur in Collier County
Policy I.1.7
All property owners shall have the right to transfer density to the upland area of the site
subject to the requirements of other applicable Growth Management Plan policies.
Policy I.1.8
Collier County shall require identification of Class I, Class II, and Class III wetlands as
part of the County's EIS requirements. The EIS will identify any proposed impacts to
these wetlands, the proposed mitigation strategies and all buffering requirements.
Policy I.1.9
All non-agricultural development projects and individual single family residential
building permits in Southern Golden Gate Estates and the Area of Critical State Concern
shall obtain the appropriate federal and state wetland-related permits before Collier
County issues its building permit.
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 73 of the CCME.
Page-6-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R-A-F-T(11-8-00)
Policy 1.1.10
Collier County shall inform applicants for individual single family building permits
which are not part of an approved development project (e.g. North Golden Gate Estates)
that federal and state wetland permits may be required prior to construction. The County
shall notify the applicable federal and state agencies of single family building permits
applications in these areas.
Policy I.1.11
These policies shall not be construed to prevent timbering operations when timbering
operations utilize best management practices to minimize the effects on the wetlands.
Policy 1.1.12
This objective and its attendant policies are not intended to duplicate federal, state or
regional agency regulatory wetland permitting programs.
Policy 1.1.13
These policies are considered interim and may be modified as future Growth
Management Plan amendments are proposed during the completion of the Collier County
Rural and Agricultural Assessment, as allowed by the Administration Commission's
Final Order AC-99-002 dated June 22, 1999.
OBJECTIVE I.2
The County shall protect submerged marine habitats.
Policy I.2.1
The amount of permitted wet slips for marinas shall be no more than 18 boat slips for
every 100 feet of shoreline where seagrass impacts are less than 100 square feet. When
more than 100 square feet of sea grasses are impacted, then no more than 10 boatslips for
every 100 feet of shoreline are allowed.
Policy I.2.2
Impacts to sea grass beds shall be minimized by locating boatdocks more than 10 feet
from existing seagrass beds. Where this is not possible, boatdocks shall be sited to
impact the smallest areas of seagrasses possible,be no lower than 3.5 feet NGVD, have a
terminal platform no greater than 160 square feet, and have the access dock be no wider
than 4 feet.
Policy I.2.3
The protection of sea grass beds shall be a factor in establishing new or revising the
existing boundaries for speed zones to regulate boat traffic.
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 73 of the CCME.
Page-7-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R A-F-T(11-8-00)
II. Protection of Native Vegetative Communities
OBJECTIVE 11.1
The County shall protect native vegetative communities through the application of
minimum preservation requirements. The following policies provide criteria to make this
objective measurable.
Policy 11.1.
For the County's Urban Designated Area, the percentage of native vegetation preserved
on site shall be as follows unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State
concern where the standards referenced in the Future Land Use Element apply:
Coastal High Hazard Area Non-Coastal High Hazard Area
Residential and Less than 2.5 ac. 10% Less than 5 ac. 10%
Mixed Use Equal to or>than 2.5 ac. 25% 5 and 20 ac. 15%
Development Equal to or>than 20 ac. 25%
Golf Course 15% 15%
Development
Commercial and <than 5 ac. 10% <than 5 ac. 10%
Industrial Equal to or>than 5 ac. 15% Equal to or>than 5 ac. 15%
Development
The following criteria apply to the above preservation requirements:
(1) The preservation requirements are calculated on the amount of naturally functioning
native vegetation found on-site. Vegetative communities having less than 75% or
less canopy coverage of melalueca shall be defined as naturally functioning since
prohibited exotics can be removed to provide the vegetative community with a
sufficient degree of functionality for the purpose of these criteria.
(2) The preservation of the native vegetation shall include both the understory and the
ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible.
(3) When different native plant communities exist on site, the development plans will
reasonably attempt to preserve examples of all of them.
(4) When listed plant and animal species are identified on site, priority shall be given to
preserving these habitats first, as a part of the retained native vegetation requirement.
(5) For parcels containing gopher tortoises, priority shall be given to protecting the
largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with the greatest number of active
burrows, and for providing a connection to off site adjacent gopher tortoise
preserves.
(6) Where a project has included open space, recreational amenities, or preserved
wetlands that meet or exceed the minimum open space criteria of Collier County, this
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 73 of the CCME.
Page-8-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R A-F-T(11-8-00)
policy shall not be construed to require a larger percentage of open space set aside to
meet the native vegetation requirements.
(7) Exceptions, by means of mitigation in the form of increased landscape requirements
shall be granted for parcels that can not reasonably accommodate both the
preservation area and the proposed activity. Criteria for allowing these exceptions
include:
(a) Where site elevations or conditions requires placement of fill thereby harming or
reducing the survivability of the native vegetation in its existing locations;
(b) Where the existing vegetation required by this policy is located where proposed
site improvements are to be located and such improvements can not be relocated
as to protect the existing native vegetation;
(c) Where native preservation requirements are not accommodated, the landscape
plan shall re-create a native plant community in all three strata (ground covers,
shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant materials so as to more quickly re-create
the lost mature vegetation.
(8) Parcels that were cleared of native vegetation prior to January 1989 shall be exempt
from this requirement.
(9) This policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the
wetlands alone constitute more than the portion of the site required to be preserved.
(10)This Policy shall apply to the Urban Designated areas. The County anticipates that
this Policy will be modified for other Future Land Use Designations as future Growth
Management Plan amendments are proposed during the completion of the Collier
County Rural and Agricultural Assessment, as allowed by the Administration
Commission's Final Order AC-99-002 dated June 22, 1999.
Policy II.1.2
Prohibited invasive exotic vegetation shall be removed from all new non-agricultural
developments.
(1) Applicants for development permits_shall submit and implement plans for invasive
exotic plant removal and long-term control.
(2) Maintenance plans shall describe specific techniques to prevent re-invasion by
prohibited exotic vegetation of the site in perpetuity.
(3) The County shall maintain a list of prohibited invasive exotic vegetation in the Land
Development Code and update it as necessary.
Policy II.1.3
Agriculture shall be exempt from the above preservation requirements contained in
Policy 11.1.1 provided that any new clearing of land for agriculture shall not be converted
to non-agricultural development for at least ten years. For any such conversions in less
than ten years, the requirements of Policy 11.1.1 shall be applied to the site at the time of
the conversion. Within the Urban Designated Areas, the percentage of naturally
functioning native vegetation preserved shall be calculated on the amount of vegetation
occurring at the time of the agricultural clearing, and if found to be deficient, a native
plant community shall be restored as outlined in Policy 11.1.1 (8).
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 7.3 of the CCME.
Page A-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R-A-F-T(11-8-00)
OBJECTIVE 11.2
The County shall require native vegetation be incorporated into landscape designs in
order to promote the preservation of native plant communities and to encourage water
conservation through native vegetation.
Policy II.2.1:
At least 75% of landscaped trees and 50% of landscaped shrubs shall be native Southern
Floridian species, unless the site is north and east of Route 41 where the shrub
requirement is a minimum of 35%. For proposed projects on coastal shorelines and/or
undeveloped and developed coastal barrier islands, landscaping requirements shall be
comprised of 100%native Southern Floridian species. (Reference CCME Policy 10.6.1.)
Policy II.2.2:
For residential and commercial wet detention ponds,ten percent of the finished lake
banks shall be planted with native aquatic vegetation on a littoral shelf.
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 73 of the CCME.
Page-10-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R-A-F-T(11-8-00)
/'•
III. Wildlife Protection
OBJECTIVE III.1
The County shall direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their
habitats.
Policy III.1.1
Incompatible land uses are directed away from listed species and their habitats by the
following mechanisms:
(1) Conservation Designation on the Future Land Use Map
The overall purpose of the Conservation Designation is to conserve and maintain the
natural resources of Collier County and their associated environmental, and
recreational and economic benefits. The allowed land uses specified in the FLUE's
Conservation Designation will accommodate limited residential development and
future non-residential development. These limitations help direct many incompatible
land uses from listed species and their habitats contained in this Future Land Use
Designation. (Reference FLUE.)
(2) Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Overlay(ACSC)
The land development regulations contained in the ACSC Overlay district provide
standards that facilitate the goal of directing incompatible land uses away from listed
species and their habitats. (Reference FLUE.)
(3) Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs)
The purpose of Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) is to assist State and
Federal agencies' efforts to protect endangered or potentially endangered species and
their habitats (Reference CCME Objective 1.3). These areas describe large, intact and
relatively unfragmented habitats important for many listed species. Within these
areas, only agriculture and directly related uses and one single family dwelling unit
per parcel or lot created prior to June 22, 1999 shall be allowed. These limitations
have been adopted as interim development standards pursuant to Administration
Commission Final Order AC-99-002 dated June 22, 1999. (Reference the FLUE for
the specific requirements.) These restrictions also direct incompatible land uses from
listed species and their habitats.
(4) All other policies supporting Objective III.1.
Policy III.1.2
Non-agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be
directed away from listed species and their habitats by complying with the following
guidelines and standards:
(1) A species survey to include listed species that are known to inhabit biological
communities similar to those existing on site shall be required for developments
greater than 10 acres as part of the County's Environmental Impact Statement review
process. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The County shall notify the
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 7.3 of the CCME.
Page-11-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R-A-F-T(11-8-00)
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission of the existence of any listed
species that may be discovered. The EIS requirement may be waived subject to the
following criteria:
(a) A single family or duplex use on a single lot or parcel;
(b) Bona fide agricultural uses;
(c) Any land or parcel of land that after inspection by County staff and filing of a
written report exhibits the following characteristics:
1. The proposed use of the site will not further degrade the environmental quality
of the site or surrounding areas beyond the existing conditions;
2. The major flora and fauna have been altered or removed to such an extent as
to preclude their reasonable regeneration or useful ecological purpose;
3. The surface and/or natural drainage or recharge capacity of the site has been
altered such that it will not be further degraded by the proposed activity;
4. The use or development of the site will improve and correct existing
ecological deficiencies;
5. The use or development of the site will utilize existing buildings or structures
and will not require any major alteration of the existing landforms, drainage,
or flora and fauna elements of the property.
(2) Habitat and management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County
approval. These plans shall describe how the project design minimizes impacts on
listed species.
(a) Management plans shall incorporate the following guidelines to protect listed
species and their habitats:
1. Utilize required open space requirements to maintain buffer areas between
important wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities.
2. Facilitate wildlife movement along natural trails by preserving appropriate
areas and by utilizing fencing and walls that encourage wildlife to use natural
corridors.
3. Locate roads away from identified and potential natural travel corridors used
by wildlife.
4. Utilize appropriate roadway crossing and signage when it is unavoidable for
roadways to cross wildlife trails.
5. Provide for the appropriate use of fences, walls or other obstructions to
encourage wildlife to use natural corridors or to separate wildlife corridors
from areas of human activity.
6. The following references shall be used as appropriate to prepare the required
management plans;
a. South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan,USFWS, 1999.
b. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast
Region,USFWS, 1987.
c. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) Populations found on Lands Slated for Large Scale
Development in Florida, Technical Report No. 4, Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, 1987.
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 7.3 of the CCME.
Page-12-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R-A-F-T(11-8-00)
d. Ecology and Development-Related Habitat Requirements of the Florida
Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), Technical Report No. 8, Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991.
(b) When listed species are identified on site, priority shall be given to preserving the
listed species habitats first, as a part of the retained native vegetation requirement
contained in CCME Policy 11.1.
(c)In order to protect the West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) and its habitat,
a marina siting rating system shall be used to limit wet-slip densities for all multi-
slip docking facilities with ten(10) slips or more and for all marina facilities. The
rating system shall be applied as follows:
1. Sites shall be rated as Preferred, Moderate and Protected based on water
depth,native marine habitat and manatee abundance;
2. New or expanded wet slip marinas and multi-family facilities shall be allowed
at a density of up to:
a. 18 boat slips for every 100 feet of shoreline for preferred sites,
b. 10 boat slips for every 100 feet of shoreline for moderate sites, and
c. 1 boat slips for every 100 feet of shoreline for protected sites.
All multi-slip docking facilities with ten slips or more and all marina facilities
shall adopt and implement a Manatee Awareness and Protection Plan to include a
Education and Public awareness program and the posting and maintaining of
Manatee awareness signs.
(d) In order to protect loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and other listed sea turtles that
nest along Collier County beaches,projects within 300 feet of the MHW line shall
minimize outdoor lighting to that necessary for security and safety. Floodlights
and landscape or accent lighting shall be prohibited.
(e) For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), priority shall be
given to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with the
greatest number of active burrows, and for providing a connection to off site
adjacent gopher tortoise preserves. (Reference II.1.1 c.)
(f) Habitat preservation for the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) shall
conform to the guidelines contained in Technical Report No. 8. The required
management plan shall also provide for a maintenance program and specify an
appropriate fire or mechanical set of protocols to maintain the natural scrub
community. The plan shall also outline a public awareness program to educate
residents about the on-site preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation.
(g) For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the required habitat management
plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain
activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities during
the nesting season.
(h) For the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the required habitat
protection plan shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active clusters.
Where adverse effects can not be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize
on-site disturbance and compensate or mitigate for impacts that remain.
a. On-site minimization measures can include relocating portions of a project to
conserve the most suitable areas for red-cockaded woodpeckers, connecting
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 7.3 of the CCME.
Page-13-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R A-F-T(11-8-00)
portions of project areas to preserves, and establishing preserves similar in
size to the amount of suitable habitat affected by a particular project.
b. Habitat compensation results in the protection and management of suitable
red-cockaded habitat in another area. Areas used as habitat compensation
shall be located in the vicinity of the affected habitat, where appropriate, to
avoid further fragmentation and isolation of existing habitat.
(i) In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be
present, the management plans shall provide a system where garbage can be
placed in bear-proof containers,preferably at a central location. The management
plan shall also identify methods to inform local residents of the potential problems
of black bears what should be done to avoid attracting black bears into the project.
(j) For projects located in Priority I and Priority II Panther Habitat areas, the
management plan shall attempt to avoid the destruction of undisturbed, native
habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Fells concolorcoryi) by
directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats
include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be
buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity land
uses (e.g.,parks,passive recreational areas golf courses). The management plans
shall also address the opportunity to utilize prescribed fire to maintain fire-
adapted preserved vegetative communities and provide browse for white-tailed
deer.
(k) The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program and provide for
annual reports to the County.
(3) The County may consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical
assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and
recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development
orders on property containing listed species.
(4) Non-agricultural developments shall comply with all applicable federal and state
permitting requirements dealing with listed species protection.
OBJECTIVE I11.2
Historical data from 1990-1996 shows that the average number of manatee deaths in
Collier County due to incidents with watercraft is approximately 3.2 per year per 10,000
boats. Through the following policies, the County's objective is to minimize the number
of manatee deaths due to boat related incidents.
Policy III.2.1
The County shall apply the marina siting criteria contained in Policy III.1.2 (c)in order to
direct increased boat traffic away from sensitive manatee habitats.
Policy III.2.2
Seagrass beds shall be protected through the application of Policy I.2.2.
Policy 111.2.3
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 7.3 of the CCME.
Page-14-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R-A-F-T(11-8-00)
The County shall maintain the manatee protection speed zones that were adopted in the
Collier County Manatee Protection Plan and make revisions as needed.
Policy 111.2.4
The County shall continue to work with appropriate State and Federal agencies to
identify areas where propeller driven boats or speed zones may need to be restricted or
changed.
OBJECTIVE I11.3
Historical data from 1996-1999 shows that the average number of sea turtle
disorientations is 5% of total nests. Through the following policies, the County's
objective is to minimize the number sea turtle disorientations
Policy I11.3.1
The County shall apply the lighting criteria contained in Policy 111.1.2 (2)(d)in order to
protect sea turtle hatchlings from adverse lighting conditions.
Policy III.3.2:
County staff shall conduct nightly inspections to ensure coastal properties comply with
proper lighting conditions during sea turtle season(May 1 through October 30).
Policy 111.3.3:
The County shall update the public awareness materials designed to inform coastal
residents how they can protect sea turtles.
OBJECTIVE I11.4
The County shall improve marine fisheries productivity by building additional artificial
reefs.
Policy 111.4.1:
The County shall continue to apply for reef construction grants and annually place more
materials on the existing permitted sites.
Policy III.4.2:
The County will coordinate its activities with the Florida Department of, Environmental
Protection,the Marine Extension Office and other appropriate agencies.
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 7.3 of the CCME.
Page-15-
Proposed Countywide Policies
Wetlands,Habitat and Wildlife Issues D-R-A-F-T(11-8-00)
IV. Protection of Natural Reservations(*)
OBJECTIVE IV.1
The County shall protect existing natural reservations identified in the Recreation and
Open Space Element and ecological communities shared with or tangential to State and
Federal lands and other local governments.
Policy IV.1.1
The County shall coordinate with adjacent counties, State and Federal agencies, other
owners of lands held in the public trust, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council to protect unique ecological communities located along the County's border.
Policy IV.1.2
The County shall meet with the appropriate counties as necessary to discuss upcoming
land development projects that would have an impact on ecological communities in both
Counties.
Policy IV.1.3
All requests for land development within 1000 feet of natural reservations shall be
reviewed as part of the County's development review process. The projects shall buffer
the natural reservations by locating the least intensive land uses adjacent to the natural
reservation.
(*) means areas designated for conservation purposes, 9-J-5.003(77)
(Rural Fringe and Rural Land areas will likely have additional policies and objectives.)
These Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace the Objectives 6.1 through 6.8 and 7.1 through 7.3 of the CCME.
Page-16-
July 12, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, July 12, 2000
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ACTING CHAIRMAN: Thomas W. Sansbury
Jack Baxter
Ed Carlson
Michael G. Coe
Alexandra Santoro
J. Richard Smith
NOT PRESENT: M. Keen Cornell
ALSO PRESENT:
Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer
Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Specialist,
Development Services
Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director
Patrick G. White, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
July 12, 2000
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Good morning, everyone. Mr. Cornell could not be with
us this morning, so I would appreciate it if you all would bear with me; first time I have served as
chairman of this body. Determine if we have an agenda.
Steve, are you going to call the roll?
MR. LENBERGER: Yes.
Baxter?
MR. BAXTER: Here.
MR. LENBERGER: Cornell will not be here, as previously mentioned.
Carlson?
MR. CARLSON: Here.
MR. LENBERGER: Coe?
MR. COE: Here.
MR. LENBERGER: Sansbury?
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here.
MR. LENBERGER: Santoro?
MS. SANTORO: Here.
MR. LENBERGER: Smith?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, we have five members present. That declares a
quorum, correct?
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have any additions to the agenda at this point?
MR. LENBERGER: None.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good.
Minutes from the June 7 meeting. Do I see any additions, corrections, deletions, anything of that
sort?
MR. CARLSON: This is where you find out who read the minutes. I believe there's a correction
in order.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, sir.
MR. CARLSON: Bottom of Page 40.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bottom of Page 40. Well, that's true, I don't think Mr.
Constantine was here at this time, so I think that ought to be revised to Chairman Cornell. I don't think
Tim could be in two places at one time. I think he was probably on the radio at that time.
Okay, hearing any other changes, do I hear a motion to approve the minutes?
MR. COE: I make a motion to approve the minutes.
MR. CARLSON: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Favor? Opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moving right along. The growth management update.
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director.
The two committees are kind of still plugging along. I guess there's not too much of a difference
from the last time I gave you an update, other than the fringe committee has pretty much finalized the
evaluation methodology.
The lands committee has reviewed that matrix. We've proposed a few minimal changes that
they've requested. We will be meeting with them on the 17th.
The fringe committee meeting today that we will have, we will be covering one item that I know
Page 2
July 12, 2000
the EAC has been interested in, and that is Jean Merritt, our public information coordinator, will be
presenting the fringe committee with a public information strategy. So we can begin to formalize that
part of it. Because now we're coming down the road a little bit more in terms of substantive material.
They'll be able to start working with the public. So they'll get to hear that strategy.
(Mr. Smith enters the boardroom.)
MR. LORENZ: Once he finalizes that, I will transmit it to the EAC to you all so you can have
that when we finalize that, because you were interested in having a workshop yourselves at some point.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill, let the record show that Mr. Smith has arrived,
please.
MR. LORENZ: The other item that the fringe committee will be working on now is actually the
protection mechanisms. Staff will begin to brief the committee on the strategy that we'll propose, which
will include county-wide minimum standards that we have to adopt for the final order. That will address
wetlands, other natural habitats and listed species concerns. So we will be working on the county-wide
minimum standards.
Then we'll be getting the fringe committee to look at what additional standards will be needed,
given the special and unique situations in certain fringe areas.
So that will be the process that will be unfolding. And we'd like to be able to have some specific
set of protection mechanisms for the committee the latter part of this month and through August.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. Any questions for Mr. Lorenz? Hearing
none, thank you very much.
MR. LORENZ: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, we have two land use petitions; the first one being
,"' the Madeira PUD.
Why don't we swear everyone that is going to be speaking on this, if we could, please. Please
stand and--
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. MURRAY: I'm Susan Murray, chief planner with planning services department.
The subject site is an undeveloped 145.93 acre parcel, and it's located in Sections 13 and 24,
Township 48 south, and Range 25 east.
It's bounded on the south by Willoughby Acres, on the east by Palm River Estates and Imperial
Golf Course Estates- I'm sorry, that's on the west. And on the east, by the new section of Livingston
Road.
The petitioner is requesting a rezoning from RSF-3, an agricultural, to PUD in order to develop a
residential community at a density of three dwelling units per acre.
Development of the site generally will consist of up to 438 dwelling units upon completion. And
those dwelling units will consist mostly of single-family, duplex and zero lot line single-family dwelling
units.
The proposed density of three dwelling units per acre is consistent with the Collier County
Growth Management Plan in that this property is located in the urban residential subdistrict, which allows
for a base density of four. And the applicant is requesting three.
Access to the site will be provided from the future Livingston Road extension. I am told this will
be a gated community.
If you have any other questions with regard to land use and zoning, I'd be happy to answer them.
I know there's some --you probably have a lot of questions about the environmental issues, and Steve
^ and Stan are here to answer those.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions? Hearing none.
Page 3
July 12, 2000
"0. MR.LENBERGER: Morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, development services,
current planning section.
Madeira PUD, as just mentioned by Susan, lies just at the north end of Willoughby Acres. The
property is undeveloped. I have the FLUCS map aerial on the wall here. As you can see, there are a
couple of in-holdings, people who did not want to sell their property, so there are some properties within
the PUD which won't be zoned PUD.
The site is vegetated with a variety of different habitats; pine flatwoods, both hydric and
non-hydric. It also has an area of cypress runs through the center of the property, mixed in with
hardwood forest. Basically the Palm River Slough system. And there are smaller areas of hammock and
cabbage palm, things of this nature.
As you can see on the aerial, there is an FP&L easement; runs north and south and is on the east
side of the property. This aerial is a little older, but there also is a cleared area, and it roughly lies in this
portion here. And I mentioned in my staff report, that clear area shows up in the EIS --you know, where
the gopher tortoise survey is, there's an aerial in there.
As far as wetland issues, the subject property has about 82 acres of wetlands. The petitioner is
going to be impacting 62 percent of that, about 51 acres. And they're going to preserve the rest of it in
the slough system, the Palm River Slough, running this way. And you can see on the PUD master plan,
I've indicated the area to be preserved in green, which is basically the Palm River Slough.
Protected species on site were limited to gopher tortoises. Most of those occurred along this dirt
road area in this portion, but there are some in this area, too, as well as a few down here.
About 14 gopher tortoise burrows were found. They didn't get clear visibility on the whole site.
They estimated the maximum burrows of about 28.
Petitioner is proposing either-- during the time of STP either to preserve them, leave them on-site
and restore some of the upland habitat to be preserved within the slough system, or to relocate them
off-site. And that will be determined later during the time of the site development plan review.
As far as preservation requirement, preservation requirement is about 32 acres. Most of that is
met within the slough system, and the petitioner will make up the additional acreage at the time of SDP,
either in landscaping or buffers.
If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. The consultant is here, as well as their team
environmental specialist.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson.
MR. CARLSON: So what is the balance of the acreage that still needs to be established for the
preserve area?
MR. LENBERGER: The slough system, 30.78 acres. Preservation requirement's about 31.7. So
it's a little under an acre.
MR. COE: We just got a copy of this letter from a landowner in the area. Have you had the
opportunity to review it?
MR. LENBERGER: No, I have not received any correspondence from anyone. Written
correspondence. I've had a telephone conversation with one person, but no one's given me any
information.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You want to give Steve a couple of seconds to take a
look at that?
Shall we hear from the petitioner at this time?
MR. HEDRICH: I am Brad Hedrich, with Hedrich Engineering, representing the developer on
this project, Meridian Land Company.
Basically I think the background information on the project has already been done by Susan.
Page 4
• July 12, 2000
We did receive-a-copy of Art-Staple's letter, and that's the letter I believe Steve-is reviewing right
now. And we did have some responses to that, if you would like us to read those.
Art had a question about the drainage on the project. He is in the Majestic Pines subdivision,
which is directly to the south of our project. Their overflow weir is at elevation 12.4, roughly 2.4 feet
above their wet season water table of 10.
He had a question whether our site would be impacting it at all, and also whether we accounted
for his project in our drainage design. And we did account for his project in the drainage design. And
our 25-year, three-day storm elevation is at 12.47, I believe, so our 25-year level is right where their
overflow is. So we do not believe that there's going to be any adverse impact on his property whatsoever
from a drainage standpoint.
He had a question also about the Euclid Avenue extension, which goes past their project through
the slough. And the plan is to remove this to restore the historic flow of the slough. And the existing
road that goes through there was not permitted, and so it is going to be removed.
And it's acting as a barrier to the historic flow right now, which could potentially cause some
drainage problems to the landowners, so hopefully by removing this, which we've accounted for in our
drainage design, it will improve the drainage of surrounding areas.
The county has requested that we account for a second access point to the site. And at this point
we just have the one coming off of Livingston Road to avoid wetland impacts. We had not planned a
second access point. If we did have to -- if we were forced into doing a second access point, we would
prefer to do it off of Lakeland Avenue, rather than Euclid, to avoid the main slough.
And we would probably propose it to be an emergency access only where it would be a gated
access that only the fire department and ambulance services could get through. So --because one of his
other questions was about traffic going through the subdivision. And apparently it is pretty over-taxed
right now, and we do not plan on adding to that.
So just so he knows, it is--would only be for emergency only, and that's if we have to do it.
He also had a question about exotic vegetation removal. And obviously the exotics will be
removed. And if there are any exotics that are too close to any of the residences, he was concerned that
if it was going to be done as a kill in place method, that the trees could eventually fall over and damage
some of the property. And any of the trees that are too close to any existing homes or existing properties
would be removed and replanted with cypress and whatever type of species that we're showing in there.
MR. COE: My definition of removal means pick it up, remove it, put it in the trash can, the
dump, whatever it may be. Your definition is different?
MR. HEDRICH: Well, there's several types that you can do that are allowed. When you're doing
a removal and replanting, that is what happens. There's some other cases where the trees are cut and put
with an herbicide that kills the tree and they basically let it decay in place.
And in this case, because of the proximity of homes, that that would not be the method that's used
on this particular--
MR. COE: So no place on your property is anything to be left; they're actually going to be
removed from the property?
MR. HEDRICH: If it's too dense of an area, yes. If there's an area where there's maybe one
melaleuca tree in the middle of a large cypress strand, rather than going in there and trying to drag that
out and potentially harming other cypress trees, and it was not in close proximity to existing homes, there
might be some cases where that is done.
MR. COE: And who makes that determination?
MR. HEDRICH: The environmental scientist and Collier County would make that decision.
MR. COE: So Collier County would be able to go in there and say you can leave that tree?
Page 5
•
July 12, 2000
�-. MR. HEDRIGH: -Yes. Through the site development plan, we would have to give them our
methods of exotic removal, and we would recommend that, like we said, anywhere where it would be
close proximity to existing homes, or if machinery is able to get in there to get it out, that that would be
the method.
If there was a case where it would do harm-- do more harm than good, where we could not get
to it because of cypress trees or some other kind of protected species in the way, we would probably
prefer to do the least harmful method.
And I think his last question-- I guess he was under the impression that we hadn't taken into
account his project in our drainage design. I'm not sure where he got that, who he talked to that gave
him that information. But we have accounted for it in his design. We have looked at the Majestic Pines
drainage plans and have concluded that there will not be any adverse drainage impacts to his plans.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Which of these two out-parcels is Mr. Staples'property?
MR. HEDRICH: He's actually not in an out-parcel. If you look the map over there, the
southwest and lower left-hand corner, he is directly underneath that to the south of that. So he is east of
Euclid Avenue in one of the homes that is backing up to one of the preserves. Which we do intend to
maintain and enhance. There's a lot of melaleuca trees down in his area, which would be removed and
replanted with cypress and other appropriate species.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In looking at the exhibit, the two out-parcels, especially
the lower left out-parcel, looks to me would be critical to the flow of the --what is it, Palm River
Slough?
MR. HEDRICH: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Steve, do we have any control over what happens in that
,-� one, in a small piece of property, what will have to happen when somebody tries to do something with
that?
MR. HEDRICH: That is actually the lowest, elevation-wise, portion of the slough. And
unfortunately our client has tried to purchase that and was not able to receive any response whatsoever
from the property owner.
So what we're doing from a water management design, we're concerned that we don't want to
raise their water levels, so we've done an existing analysis of where the water levels are. And we're
maintaining those levels in a proposed situation.
Basically the rule that the Water Management District gives us is any existing water that goes
through that area, you're allowed to maintain that same water flow. And consequently, you're also not
allowed to block off any flow from somebody else. So if he did come in there later and wanted to
develop it, it would be very difficult because it is primarily wetlands, so --but if he did do it, he would
have to account for the existing flow going through his property.
MR. LENBERGER: Regardless of what -- I don't know what the zoning is on that particular
parcel, but he still has to get permits from the county and we would still send him through the District.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do we have any other questions for the petitioner?
MS. SANTORO: On the gopher tortoises, who would you be working with at the time when
you're developing the site, so that --who will you --who will make the determination that it should be
moved or left or--
MR. HEDRICH: The plan right now-- Steve had mentioned that there was 28 burrows. And I
don't want to misspeak, but I believe it's --they estimate at 50 percent. I guess gopher tortoises like to
dig multiple burrows, so we're estimating somewhere around 14 gopher tortoises.
And as part of the slough, there is over an acre of uplands in there where we would like to keep
them on-site and where that area would be fenced in during construction so that they don't get harmed,
Page 6
• July 12, 2000
^ but that in the future we'd prefer to keep-them where they are. -
And from talking to our environmental scientist, Jack Abney, and his speakings with some of the
permitting agencies, that we do believe that we have another area on-site to keep them.
MS. SANTORO: There's been some controversy about that. Will you be working with the
Florida Fish and Wildlife group as well?
MR. HEDRICH: Yes, yes. That's who we would need to go through for permitting on that.
And I do understand that there's some issues about if there's enough of them to maintain
long-term survivability, I think is some of the concerns. And obviously we'll have to work with them on
that. But I know there's also other concerns where they don't -- sometimes they don't like relocating
gopher tortoises because of the potential hazard; if they had some kind of disease, they could be moved
to a larger area and actually kill off the population where they're moved.
So in this case, we would prefer to keep them on-site, if possible.
MR. COE: When you say keep them on-site, you're talking about moving them from one place
on the site to another place on the site; is that correct?
MR. HEDRICH: Correct.
MR. COE: So In other words, they could be moved to Egypt as well as on your site; is that
correct?
MR. HEDRICH: Yes. Right now where they're living, Stephen had mentioned, is there's a--
there was the non-permitted road that was built, and gopher tortoises tend to go towards the highest
areas. And the road base is--you know, it sits higher than the existing ground around it. So they tend to
gravitate towards that. Now, historically they probably were not in those areas until that road was built.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe, I doubt if we could find very much suitable
habitat in Egypt.
MR. COE: That's true.
So what you're saying, you're going to put them on this old road?
MR. HEDRICH: No, no, no. There's about -- in the very middle of the slough, between the
northeast and the central slough there, there's about an acre or so of upland piece that we would target to
fence them in during construction. And once construction is complete, we would allow them to move
where they wanted to go.
But obviously, you know, we would have to clear that through the Fish and Wildlife, if they
determine --that they've done studies that they would prefer to move them somewhere else, we would
obviously comply with that.
MR. CARLSON: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. CARLSON: Okay, on this project we have over 81 acres of uncontested jurisdictional
wetland.
MR. HEDRICH: The number sounds right.
MR. CARLSON: Well, staff report says 81.7. You propose to impact 62 percent of those.
MR. HEDRICH: Yes, only--
MR. CARLSON: And this enables you to meet the requirement for a preserve area, as per county
regulations. But would you please walk through how you would justify this when you go through the
sequencing of minimizing and avoiding impacts to wetlands?
MR. HEDRICH: Sure.
MR. CARLSON: How you can justify encroaching on the existing flowway.
MR. HEDRICH: Okay. It's a very complicated process. Part of it is-- comes from the engineers'
creed where we're set to protect the self--the health, safety and welfare of the public. And obviously the
Page 7
July 12, 2000
• main slough, the Palm River Slough going through the site, is very important. And that area was targeted
as an area that had to be saved, that we wanted to save. There's very large cypress trees in there that the
client wanted to save.
It actually becomes an amenity. People don't want to live in a development that doesn't have--
that is not environmentally friendly anymore. So that was our first target there.
The other target that we looked at was there's several gradations of wetlands, and they range from
extremely poor, which are 100 percent melaleuca infested and Brazilian pepper infested. And from there
you go up to several gradations of the percent infested, as with exotic species. So we targeted the areas
that are extremely infested, and there's about 45 to 50 percent of those wetlands that were impact-- or of
the total wetlands that are very, very poor quality.
There's another maybe 20 to 25 percent of wetlands that are low to medium quality, which means
that they're 10 percent to 50 percent exotics.
So basically all the wetlands that we're impacting are not the highest quality wetlands that you've
seen. And I know that people like to use the broad label of wetlands to describe everything from the
most pristine cypress slough that you've ever seen to a 100 percent melaleuca area. They're used with the
same label. And I think sometimes to the developer, that can be unfair.
So that --but that was our basic approach on how we come up with what to target for how to
minimize our impacts.
The next step is geometrics. The county requires a certain width of roadway; they require certain
lot dimensions that are their minimum standards. And that's how we came up with how much of a slough
we're able to save. The District and the Corps, they like for a wetlands system to be 2 to 300 feet wide as
a minimum to be a long-term viable survivability. We have some sections of our slough that are 800 feet
• wide. So we've really gone to extra efforts to try to save as much as we possibly can.
Another issue is -- comes down to mitigation banking. And we do have the--part of our
mitigation design is to use the Panther Island Mitigation Bank. And we do have the developer and some
people that work for them here today.
But just a real quick issue is mitigation banking. It's a federally mandated type of mitigation that
basically says that it's better to save 2 to 3,000 acres of wetland habitat that is not surrounded by existing
development, it has much higher rates of long-term survivability. The Panther Island Bank is out near the
Corkscrew Preserve, which is a very vital area that should be saved on a state level and a national level.
So rather than look at saving 20 or 30 or 40 acres of on-site wetlands that are very poor quality
or medium quality or low quality, we've targeted the important areas and we're going to turn them into
very pristine areas through hydrologic enhancements and removal of exotics. And the rest of it we're
going to -- our client is spending upwards of a million dollars to help ensure the survivability of lands
adjacent to Corkscrew and the Panther Island Mitigation Bank, which is something that is very important
for the public in the long-term viability.
If we save plants in these areas here, it's going to be completely surrounded by high-speed
roadways, existing development. Besides our development, there's a school slated to the north of us. I
believe Ronto is doing a development up there also. Mediterra is another development. Livingston Road
is going to be a two-lane road now, but it's going to eventually be a future six-lane road. It's going to be
a very high-speed road.
And our wetland slough historically, I-75 and FP&L about 40 years ago or 50 years ago basically
cut off the historic flow that used to go through this wetland. So even though we know it's a very
important area that we'd like to save, we are saving the most important part for the -- as it relates to
• public health, safety and welfare.
But we also understand that we have to be realistic. And this is an area that I would rather see
Page 8
•
July 12, 2000
�-. -developed and-come in an area where there already is development, rather than having a project like this
not be possible, and then it would force people to go out into all the ag. fields out by Corkscrew and
people would be forced to be doing development out there, which I think is probably not good.
MR. CARLSON: I have the floor.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You got it.
MR. CARLSON: I don't think this project's going to slow down the development of the ag. fields
around Corkscrew. And we have a big problem in this county and that is, you know, if you sit up here
and you have permit application after permit application coming at you with really very significant losses
of wetland, each project, one after the other, we see it every time we meet up here. We're losing
wetlands. Even if they're infested with some exotics, they still attenuate flooding. Even if they have
exotics in them, don't they? They still attenuate flooding, they still improve water quality and they still
have very useful functions.
And I just don't see how you can, you know, take out 62 percent of the wetlands in a project,
especially since it has a historic flowway, without looking at --I mean, aren't there options like stacking
people up, you know, having multi-story dwellings so you impact less area?
MR. HEDRICH: There are. This target -- or this project is targeting single-family development
families that don't want to live in high-rises. So on this particular project, we didn't look at that.
But one thing we did look at was like we said before, the geometrics of what would fit with a lot,
a road and a lot. And we also had to have lakes to --there's a lot of drainage problems in the area
downstream of us, and the Water Management District has asked us to further reduce the allowable
discharge rate to a .03 CFS, or cubic feet per second per acre, which is an extremely low rate. And in
order to do that, we had to dig a significant number of lakes on the project in order to meet those
�-. discharge rates and also to improve the drainage of the surrounding properties.
If we did high-rise development and discharged directly into the slough without digging lakes, it
would raise the water elevations in the slough, and then people like Art Staples would have drainage
problems on his property.
What we've done is we've used the slough as a storage area. It's the lowest wetlands on the site.
They're down around elevation 10, 10 and a half. The other wetlands on the site, they're very poor
quality, because they're up at around elevation 13, 14 even. And there's some small ponding going on.
And the regulatory agencies have, in the last 10 years, really changed their rules on what is
considered a wetland. There's some areas here that I believe we have some pictures. I won't bring them
out at this point. There's some pine tree areas that have some little wetland ground covers on them that
10 years ago were not a wetland. And now because of the ground covers, they are considered a wetland.
And that's why I was talking before about the gradation of wetlands. It's really gotten very
difficult in Southwest Florida to have areas that are not considered wetland. There's some definitions of
wetlands about how close the water surface is -- or the water levels are to the surface for more than 21
days in a year. And I think everybody knows that during the wet season the water tables are extremely
high. And you could just about classify entire Southwest Florida as a wetland. So --
MR. CARLSON: Well, I really--you lost me on that one.
MR. HEDRICH: Okay.
MR. CARLSON: You're saying that I-75 cut off the flow to this area but the wetlands have
increased?
MR. HEDRICH: Because the rules have changed on what is considered a wetland. If you look
at the U.S. quadrangle maps that show--that were done by federal agencies, only the main wetland
slough shows on there as a wetland. And that's a federal agency. Back when those were done, no other
areas were considered wetlands.
Page 9
July 12, 2000
MR. CARLSON:—Well;those things have to be field checked. That's the spirit of that sort of
map.
MR. HEDRICH: I agree. And I'm not disputing that they are or are not wetlands. We all agree
that they are. What I'm disputing is the label of wetland being used broadly, where there's many
gradations of wetlands.
And they actually --we've spent many months rating each wetland based on--there's several
criteria, and I would probably have to have my environmental consultant explain it, but basically there's --
it relates to hydrology, it relates to what type of vegetation is there, and it rates each classification in
there. And they actually do what's called a Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure, a WRAP analysis, and
it comes up with a rating system of these wetlands.
So we've used very scientific ways to rate these wetlands and try to select the least amount
possible to impact. But, you know, as Collier County continues to grow, certain areas have to be targeted
for potential growth. And I think it's better to have growth west of I-75 than to allow it to go east before
you look at the alternatives to the west here.
MR. CARLSON: I'd also like to comment on your comments about mitigation banking.
MR. HEDRICH: Okay.
MR. CARLSON: My understanding is that the spirit behind mitigation banking is not simply to
look at big functional wetlands where we can, you know, flippantly compensate for wetlands that should
be developed in the urban area. The spirit behind mitigation banking is that you still go through the same
sequencing of avoiding and -- minimizing and avoiding wetlands. And when you can no longer avoid and
you have these inevitable impacts, which happens when you build roads and things like that and you have
to put a road through somewhere, that then you resort to a mitigation bank. And I would caution
everyone on this board to think that the Panther Island Mitigation Bank is out there so that we can simply
develop more wetland in the urban zone. That's not the spirit behind the bank. That's not the way it
works. It's supposed to be for unavoidable wetland impacts, you can resort to a bank.
MR. HEDRICH: Let me respond to that with one other comment, and it's probably something I
should have mentioned earlier. Our client on this project --this project actually comprises about 20
pieces of property that are all either two and a half acre or five-acre pieces. And there are actually areas
that were supposed to be part of Willoughby Acres, and they were supposed to be developed as such, and
they were all individually owned. And our client spent over a year grouping them all together.
And we had pre-application meetings with the Water Management District, Army Corps of
Engineers and Collier County where they--the first thing they said was they voiced their concern about
saving this Palm River Slough, which by grouping all these 20 pieces of property together, we've done
that. We've been able to ensure that we're going to make the drainage an area much better than it has
been in the past.
So, you know, I want to save as much as possible, but at some point it comes down to a public
health and safety issue with drainage in the area. There's a couple of landowners that live in there now
that their roads are significantly below even the 25-year elevation. And if there ever was any kind of
flooding, they would have trouble getting out of there.
But back to the number of properties, it was very difficult to group all these together. If this
project didn't happen the way it is--the way we've shown it, you would be getting 20 applications from
individual landowners wanting to put five, 10 homes on each of these.
And, you know, it's probably going to cause more a fragmented wetlands slough if that did
happen. The areas especially to the southwest there, it's almost entirely melaleuca. And because of that,
you know, you have to allow for the drainage to flow through. But because it is almost entirely
melaleuca, it would be very difficult for regulatory agencies to prevent somebody from developing it.
Page 10
July 12, 2000
They could-put-large culverts going through,-letting the water flow go through, but they could still put
homes on it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: A question, if I could. The portion of the Palm River
Slough or flowway here that we are preserving in here, how does this project protect the viability of that?
Does it increase it, decrease it? What are you going to actually be doing to the slough itself and, you
know, how is it going to affect the hydro period in the slough and what have you?
MR. HEDRICH: Right now what happens is the only limiting--the only thing that limits water
from leaving the slough right now is the unpermitted roads that were put across there. They're acting as
diking effects, which for the wetlands, it helps the wetlands. But the problem is, is hydrology-wise it
adversely impacts the surrounding landowners.
We've done an existing and a proposed analysis of the wetland slough and the entire surrounding
areas. While we would not be greatly increasing the water elevations within the slough, due to the
surrounding landowners, we don't want to flood them out, we will be significantly increasing the hydro
—period, as you call it, how long the water stays in there.
Right now it stays in there for maybe a day or two. You get a very hard rain storm, you go in
there and it's almost bone dry a couple of days later.
What we're doing now is, what the Water Management District likes us to do is to target a 14 or
21-day period where that water remains in there for that long. So basically that's what environmentalists
have determined makes a wetland system viable in the long term is to have that long of a hydro period.
And that's where our water modeling is done. We've actually put a control structure and a berm
on the western side of the slough to allow us to reduce our discharge rate to what they wanted, and also
to improve the wetland slough. And we've also done a large overflow weir to ensure that no one gets
flooded out.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And you're removing exotics and --
MR. HEDRICH: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- doing some replanting also?
MR. HEDRICH: Correct.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir, Mr. Coe.
MR. COE: Have you received any comments from South Florida Water Management?
MR. HEDRICH: Yes, we have. We submitted our initial application roughly five weeks ago.
The Water Management District has 30 days to review a submittal. Unfortunately, they're very
understaffed.
And what typically happens on the first go-around is they don't have adequate time to review the
project, they spend maybe two or three days. And I don't know what they spent in this case, but they
came up with a lot of comments that had already been addressed in the submittal.
And for those that aren't familiar with the permitting process, there's -- it's not a
we-submit-one-time. They approve or deny. It's a we submit, they say well, can you explain this, can
you give us a little more information here, and it's a back and forth process. And we're at the very
beginning stages of that.
So I'm sure you've read all those comments. And there are some in there that have already been
addressed. We are providing them with more information.
M.R. COE: Is it in this package that we have here, all the comments from South Florida Water
Management?
MR. HEDRICH: I'm not sure if-- it wouldn't have been something that we submitted, but I know
^ that they did copy Collier County on that. So I was under the impression that everybody would have a
copy of that.
Page 11
July 12, 2000
MR. CHRZANOWSKI:--I sent-copies out-of-the comments that I got. If-you mean are there
responses to the comment in the packet or is the information that they say answers these questions in the
packet, I don't know that.
MR. HEDRICH: We have not responded to those yet. We just got them maybe a week or two
ago. So we're under the process of responding to those. And we've set up a meeting with the Water
Management District to go over our responses.
In addition, I would like to preface it by saying that we intend to and have to follow all the Water
Management District criteria about not adversely affecting surrounding properties, about making sure
that our wetland impacts are acceptable by state and federal agencies, as well as protected species and all
that stuff.
So even though we are here today talking about this, this is not the end. If you approve it today,
it doesn't necessarily mean that we can do the project at all. We have to go through the environmental
resource permitting process with the Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers, as
well as submit to the Environmental Protection Agency. So we have to follow their rules.
And for any homeowners that are here, I would like to say that we are not allowed to flood you
out. We don't intend to flood you out. You know, in addition, we should be improving your drainage
that is there right now. We're adding a significant amount of lakes to help the potential flooding problems
in the area.
Our developer-- or our client, the developer, wants to be as environmentally friendly a developer
as he can. He wants to try to help the surrounding landowners with their drainage problems, as well as
the downstream areas. We've been held to this reduced discharge rate in essence because of all the
development going on with Mediterra and Ronto. And we're a relatively small development compared to
theirs, and yet we're trying to do our best to help out the drainage problems that are in Palm River.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have any other questions for the petitioner?
One thing we need to do, and the county attorney reminded me, and I noted the other day
watching the Planning Commission-- as my boring life, I sit home and watch Channel 54 -- is we need to
just poll the commission here very quickly regarding any contact any of us may have had or any conflict
we may have seen with this particular petition. And I just ask, have we had any contact with the
petitioner prior to the time of the meeting?
MR. BAXTER: None.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm hearing no.
I would like to disclose that I'm employed by Grey Oaks Development Company. It's owned by
Halstead Partnership. Some of the principals of Halstead Partnership are also principals of Barron Collier
Companies, Barron Collier Partnership. And Barron Collier Partnership is one of the partners in Panther
Island Mitigation Bank. I don't believe there's a conflict, I will proceed with this, but I want to make that
of record. I've been involved in mitigation serving with the original committee put together by the
Department of Environmental Regulations in 1981, '82 with mitigation banking.
I concur completely with Mr. Carlson's approach, what mitigation banking should be for. But I
do not believe that that relationship creates a conflict, and that's why I will continue discussions.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Acting Chairman, I also potentially was concerned about a potential conflict,
and I've come to the conclusion I don't have one. I happen to own some land about-- in Section 13
about a quarter mile to the north of this project. But I thought it through and I just don't see any conflict,
although I am concerned about it. But unless the attorney thinks that there's a potential for conflict, I will
proceed accordingly.
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White.
I believe there is the need for development of some more facts with regards to the size of your
Page 12
July 12, 2000
holdings.
MR. SMITH: It's a five-acre parcel, of which approximately two acres -- less than two acres was
taken for Livingston Road.
MR. WHITE: The best I can give you, Mr. Smith, at this juncture is that there is some
appearance of a conflict, given that approval or denial --
MR. SMITH: That's enough for me. I'm not going to vote on this or participate.
MR. WHITE: You're free to participate, but you cannot vote, if you're going to declare a
conflict. And if you do so, then I'd ask that you meet with me after--
MR. SMITH: I do declare a conflict. If you're concerned about an appearance, that's enough for
me.
MR. WHITE: The ethics opinions indicate where there's some possibility it may enure to your
benefit or loss.
MR. SMITH: Correct.
MR. CARLSON: Since we're bearing our souls, Mr. Legal Counsel Person, I work for the
National Audubon Society and I'm the executive director of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. And there has
been some discussion about the National Audubon Society some day, upon the completion of the Panther
Island Mitigation Bank, perhaps annexing that onto Corkscrew. Although we have, as far as I know, no
agreements on paper and have only spoken of such, a possibility.
MR. WHITE: Based upon the facts you've given me, it sounds too remote and speculative to
even create the appearance of a conflict. It's a different circumstance where there's a potential for some
economic loss or gain, even if that is only an appearance. As Mr. Smith has circumstance.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, do we have any other comments?
�-. MR. WHITE: If I --
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me.
MR. WHITE: -- might, Mr. Chairman?
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes.
MR. WHITE: If in the future any of the commission members have-- or committee members
have concerns and would like to discuss them with our office ahead of time, in order to review these
matters, I'd certainly make myself available to do so.
Generally it's probably preferable for the applicants to kind of hear that at the beginning of a
presentation. And given what the ethics statutes require as far as filling out a memorandum and matters
such as that, my practice is to -- preferred practice is to have those conflict forms filled out ahead of time
and have the disclosure made then.
There's nothing that the statute says is wrong with the manner in which we're proceeding today.
It is certainly appropriate. But I think it just kind of helps avoid any further difficulties that might arise in
this process. Thanks.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir.
Any other questions for the petitioner? Is there anyone in the public that would like to address
this petition? Yes, ma'am, come on up.
MS. NELSON: My name is Beth Nelson. N-E-L-S-O-N. And I am here on behalf of several of
the homeowners in my area. However, fortunately or unfortunately they work, so they could not attend
this morning.
We have several concerns that were just raised. And I'm sorry if I'm not all in order, because I
wrote down notes as they came up.
I guess the landscaping the gentleman mentioned to replace protected wetlands, I would wonder
what kind of landscaping would replace wetlands.
Page 13
July 12, 2000
He mentioned a broad-term wetlands. In the area they're referring to, cypress heads is what the
wetland refers to. Melaleuca, unfortunately being a faster growing plant, has taken over faster and has
taken over the cypress heads. I bet if Corkscrew was able to annex that property, they could remove,
destroy, whatever, some of the melaleuca and let the cypress heads thrive. Just a thought.
The survey that was conducted on this property identifying gopher tortoise holes was conducted
by the Meridian Corporation. People who live in that area, potentially we believe there are more than
that, and there are other species of concern. And I have contacted The Conservancy and they would like
to send an independent naturalist out to review the site. And pending the outcome of today's meeting,
that would be our next step. But we would need the time to get someone out there, like I said,
depending on what the outcome is today.
He mentioned Art Staples' concern. I have a similar concern. However, there is no weir involved
in my water flow, and those of the neighbors around me. And in the letter from Richard Thompson, he
mentions the existing slough, and I'm not sure if that refers to the sheet flow that moves through our
yards, but it says please revise and reroute or provide a solution to this issue. I would like the
opportunity to review a revision or rerouting of this water.
And like I said, as a-- as an existing homeowner, I know they have their preserve, but my slough
contributes to the Palm River Water Basin, Palm River Slough, and I'd like to see how that's not going to
be blocked off, that that water will be allowed to continue its natural course.
He mentioned possible access through Lakeland Avenue. Lakeland Avenue does not have access
to public road, that dead end extension. They don't have public access. The property owners own to the
center of the road. The property was quick claim deeded back to the homeowners in 1995. So that's a
whole'nuther issue to open that roadway up.
And I suspect some of these wetlands -- he talked about new wetlands developing that were
possibly of a lesser quality. Well, I would maybe consider the fact that these wetlands are developing in
other areas because of new development in surrounding areas with higher codes, higher elevations. The
water has to go somewhere, so new wetlands form.
He also mentioned that some of the lots in Willoughby were going to have been developed
anyway. And as I mentioned, those lots -- that's a whole separate issue. Those lots did not have access
to a public road, so they were not going to be developed like that. I mean, there were other things that
had to ensue prior to development of those lands.
Let's see, I just don't want to miss anything, and I think that's --the independent naturalist we'd
like to have out come survey the site. I mentioned that. And I guess that's what I would like to say.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any members of the council have any questions for Ms.
Nelson?
Would the petitioner like to address Ms. Nelson's comments?
MS. NELSON: Do I take a seat then?
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Uh-huh. Thank you.
MR. ABNEY: I'm Jack Abney. I'm a biologist, consultant. I've been in Collier County 14 years;
spent 10 years of that working with Wilson-Miller, another consulting firm.
She asked a question about the gopher tortoise survey. I've been doing gopher tortoise surveys a
long time, and have gotten some permits to relocate them.
This site is one with a very dense vegetation.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If you could speak a little bit louder.
MR. ABNEY: Okay. This site has very dense vegetation, probably because it's been protected
^ from fire for so long. And I think that's why we didn't find very many gopher tortoises. I found some old
remains of tortoises that had died and older burrows that had been abandoned a long time, but just not
Page 14
July 12, 2000
very many active burrows or even inactive burrows, as defined by the Game and Fish Commission.
We do have scheduled to do a more intensive survey before we apply for a permit with the state
to relocate these tortoises. And in that effort, we will go in very close transects through the potential
habitat, where it was difficult to see. Possibly every 20 or 30 feet I'll have to push my way through the
palmetto and make sure that we haven't missed any burrows.
Of course, when I'm out there, I don't just look for any burrows, I look for the signs of the
tortoises, the little paths they leave when they have been occupying an area for a long time. And so I
follow those to find the burrows. And that's the way I came up with the number I have.
I don't think there are very many more burrows than we have estimated, but there could be.
However many we find, they will be accounted for and they will be handled in the permitting process with
the state.
I think the second question she had is what kind of plantings we were going to propose. I've
designed several enhancement mitigation areas on other projects, and normally what we like to do is in
areas that are dense melaleuca, is remove the melaleuca entirely, get it out of the way. Because if you cut
it down, it makes it difficult to replant. And so in the real dense areas, we have to get those out of the
way.
And then we will plant shrubs and trees, native species. Usually the agencies want us to use at
least three-gallon pots of plants. Sometimes they want seven-gallon. And it's a very expensive process.
But it will look nice after things take hold and start growing. It will look much better than it does now.
That's all the questions I think she asked that I can answer. The rest of them-- as far as someone
coming out and looking at the site, if they want to do that, I suppose the client would be willing to allow
me to cooperate with that. I don't have any objections to it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions for Mr.
Abney? Hearing none.
Is there anyone else from the public that would like to address this matter? Yes, sir. One behind
you. He beat you with the hand behind you. Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I just ask if the gentleman has been sworn. I'm not sure.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Have you been sworn, sir?
MR. MURPHY: No.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your full name and spell your last name, please.
MR. MURPHY: My name is Henry Murphy. M-U-R-P-H-Y.
Good morning. My name is Henry Murphy and I live in the center of this development on two
and a half acres. And I'm very concerned about this development, about my access, the water flow, the
environmental issues, the animal life.
This area is a pristine area. It has many, many, many varieties of animal life in it. It has many
gopher turtles in it. There are gopher turtle holes on every piece of highland in this area. I have walked
over this land, I have looked at them. I can take you to many gopher turtle holes. I don't know how
that's going to affect this development. But there are a lot. Like I said, it's a pristine area.
We do have water in the rainy season. Water does lay into the sloughs. The melaleuca trees have
overgrown the cypress slough, which is in the south. The southeast part is also a big wetland area.
I feel that the lakes, once the lakes are put in, of course that's going to detract from the wetlands
and probably even affect -- may even destroy the wetlands, because you won't have the water in the
^ cypress slough like it would be.
And later, probably if it's not cared for, then the melaleuca trees will certainly come back, the
Page 15
July 12, 2000
Brazilian pepper heads will come back and it will be infested even worse than it is now. So I do have
concerns about it, living in the center of it.
MR. CARLSON: I have a question--
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. CARLSON: -- if you're ready for questions.
MR. MURPHY: Yes.
MR. CARLSON: Is this your property?
MR. MURPHY: Yes, sir.
MR. CARLSON: Can you comment to me on the hydrology or the hydraulics how deep the
water gets, how long it stands in this wetlands in the southeast region of this proposed development?
MR. MURPHY: Well, I can tell you that in that lower section there, that that's all wetlands. The
cypress slough actually curves around. It comes around and curves around and then it goes across the
road that we access. And the times of the rainy season, it actually flows over the road.
I access my properties from Lakeland Avenue, and it's like a little single lane that's been there for
30 years. And the water actually flows over it about two or three inches whenever it's a--we have a nice
rain, seasonal rain. So it does stay in there. I've seen it lay in there for possibly oh, a week or two in the
lower areas of the slough.
MR. CARLSON: Were you there in 1995?
MR. MURPHY: Yes, sir.
MR. CARLSON: How long did the water lay in there then?
MR. MURPHY: I would say several weeks; two to three weeks. I didn't actually, you know,
notice the time. But it was there quite a while, because as I said, the rain, the waters had went over.
There's a little small culvert in our access, and the water had actually went over the culvert, over the road
about two or three inches. And I noticed it laying into the culvert and in the slough area, because the
slough is right there beside the road, and laying into the cypress. And I had actually went into the cypress
and saw the water laying in the cypress slough.
MR. CARLSON: Does it -- does it tend to have standing water after most any major rainfall
event in the summer and the fall?
MR. MURPHY: I have seen standing water in it. There's not standing water in it right at this
time. I walked through it yesterday and there's no standing water in it now. It's dry right now.
MR. CARLSON: Okay, thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Are there any control structures at all on that road? The
road I assume is the north-south road I see coming from the south of the property going north. Is that
the location of your-- how you access the property?
MR. MURPHY: I'm not sure I understand which--
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, Steve, could you point to where the--yeah, that
road right there. Is that how your property is accessed?
MR. MURPHY: Yes, that's the access to my property.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right, sir. Thanks.
Do we have any other questions for Mr. Murphy?
Would the petitioner like to address any of Mr. Murphy's concerns?
MR. HEDRICH: The first thing I would like to --Brad Hedrich again. First thing I would like to
address is the public safety issue of if he does have water going over his road it is a potentially dangerous
situation. And he was concerned about his access. And I would consider his access at this time
^ substandard and potentially dangerous.
As part of our development, our roads would be designed based on our water management
Page 16
July 12,-2000
system and would not flood below the 25-year-elevation. So his access that we're providing for him
through our site would be a greatly improved access.
We've set up to keep his existing driveway location so he would not have to spend any additional
monies relocating his driveway or anything like that. We've basically taken out a lot, provided
landscaping on both sides for his access point.
As far as any of the other concerns, about exotics he mentioned that he thought that exotics might
re-infest the area. As part of the Water Management District requirements, the homeowners' association
is required to maintain the site exotic free in perpetuity forever. So that is not the case.
As far as the potential for the lakes to adversely impact the wetland slough, that is also not a--
should not be a concern. The lakes are being controlled at the same exact elevation as the wetland
slough, and actually discharge into the slough once water quality requirements are met.
So what happens is for the large storm events, the lakes will stage up, up to a foot higher than the
wetland slough to help prevent any adverse impacts on people that currently drain into the slough.
So the developer, it's probably costing him an additional million dollars of fill to stage his areas a
foot higher to make sure that those lakes can hold more water.
An additional thing that it does do, it keeps the hydro period longer, because the lakes that are
staged up a foot higher drain into the slough at a slower rate and basically keep the wetlands hydrated for
a longer period, in addition to providing water management -- additional water management protection.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Do any members of the council have any
further questions for petitioner or for staff on this item?
Oh, excuse me, we had one more speaker. I'm sorry. I apologize. I'm new at this. This is the
first time. I've got to remember that.
�-� MR. LAUTIN: Mr. Chairman, Lou Lautin, CEO of Panther Island Mitigation Bank. I'll make it
brief.
Mitigation banking came about in 1994, 1995 with the federal government and the State of
Florida through guidances and regulations. Panther Island Mitigation Bank is contiguous to Mr.
Carlson's Corkscrew Sanctuary. And if we proceed as a business and sell credits, we will eventually be
2,775 acres of the most pristine, regulated, protected wetlands in the State of Florida.
Mitigation is done in advance of impacts. The proponent I think has an exceptionally good
solution to his mitigation problems in taking the best mitigation on-site, the best quality wetlands on-site
and preserving it, while taking his melaleuca dominated wetlands and exchanging that for mitigation done
at Panther Island Mitigation Bank.
Perfect example of taking areas that in some cases are 100 percent melaleuca dominated wetlands
that have almost no functions in values, and transferring that to an area where we have improved the
quality of wetlands at Panther Island Mitigation Bank.
Mr. Carlson is correct, the 404 standards of the Corps of Engineers requires avoid, minimize and
then mitigate. We think that the client has demonstrated this in preserving the best mitigation areas on
site, the best wetlands on site. He will improve those wetlands on site and exchange his obligation for the
other dredge and fill activities on-site with purchasing credits at a permitted mitigation bank that took 21
months to permit through seven different agencies, including Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, taking wetlands that have almost no functional values, the melaleuca dominated wetlands,
exchanging them and having us build these wetlands at Panther Island Mitigation Bank.
Mr. Carlson is also correct in terms of the avoidance and minimization. The process is that once
it gets approved here, the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District are also
empowered to make sure that they are complying with all federal and state regulations. So once it passes
this hurdle, there's two other levels of improvements and approvals that the process has to go through.
Page 17
July 12, 2000
So we think that the process of mitigation-banking is not to allow for additional development in
areas that shouldn't be developed. We think this is a perfect use of mitigation banking. We were
permitted in a 21-month process. We think that --we would strongly suggest and hope that you would
approve the proposal as it pertains to the mitigation as presented. I'd be happy to answer any questions
for you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any questions for Mr. Lautin? Thank you, sir.
All right, now. Does council have any more questions of petitioner or for staff? Hearing none,
what's the pleasure of the council?
MR. CARLSON: Okay. I go through this exercise with every project. You've seen the map
before. The yellow on here is the jurisdictional wetland that's impacted by this project. And be it
degraded or not, or melaleuca infested or not, I think it's a bad deal for the county. I think it's getting too
easy to write off wetlands. I don't think there's enough avoidance. It doesn't scare me a bit that 20
individual landowners could build homes on this project. That doesn't scare me at all.
There's a gentleman back there who loves the land, and-I don't --you know, they jump through
the same wetland protection hurdles as you folks. We wouldn't have giant lakes on the property, we
wouldn't have as many roads, we wouldn't have as much hard surface. Doesn't scare me a bit.
And I'll make a motion that we not approve this project on the basis that it does not avoid
sufficient wetlands.
We have approved --we have had projects come to us with substantial amount of wetland with
80 percent of that wetland protected on those sites. The one site I remember was Winding Cypress. I
voted for that project because I thought I was looking at a plan that showed sensitivity to preserve and
protect as much wetland on that site as possible. So that's my motion, to not approve.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do I hear a second?
MR. BAXTER: Second.
MR. COE: I'd like to make a comment.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MR. COE: I think the thing that concerns me most of all, because I live in Lakewood, and I
didn't realize where the heck I was living until all of a sudden in '95 we got some rain and people started
explaining that this was all these cypress trees that were around me there in Lakewood, that we were
living in a swamp. That's a slough area over there.
I remember driving my Pathfinder down the road there on Lakewood Boulevard. It was up
almost to the windows. And I got to see firsthand what it really is. And granted, it was like the 100-year
flood, or whatever it may be. But since then, I've seen the interconnecting of lakes that, God, it goes way
up by Rattlesnake Hammock, and it comes through us and it ends up in a creek down there by Wal-Mart
where they got a weir that controls all that stuff.
So I'm real sensitive to what a wetland is and what it means to us. And to put a house in the
middle of that sucker or to otherwise develop it takes away from everybody. Not just in the community
that's being built by the developer, but everybody around it.
I just don't have a warm feeling about this project, that all of that has been taken into
consideration. Specifically the comments that were made by the South Florida Water Management
District, some of the things that we haven't had the opportunity to see yet, as far as your comments back
with them. And I realize you're still in the negotiation stage. At this point I'm not comfortable that I
could vote on this project at all.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other discussion with the council? Call questions on
the motion of Mr. Carlson, that the council recommend to the County Commission and Planning
Commission the project be denied.
Page 18
July 12, 2000
All in favor of Mr: Carlson's motion?
MR. COE: (Indicates.)
MR. CARLSON: (Indicates.)
MR. BAXTER: (Indicates.)
MS. SANTORO: (Indicates.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed?
(Indicates.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 4-1. Mr. Carlson's motion passes. Thank you very much.
MR. WHITE: And the record will reflect that --
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wait, no action. It's got to be five to have an access?
MR. WHITE: No, I'm pointing out that if the record will reflect that Committee Member Smith
did not vote.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Smith did not vote.
Mr. Carlson just raised a question that was brought up by county attorney previously, and that is
we need a minimum of five affirmative votes to approve or disapprove an item? What was that on? That
was on something we had.
MR. WHITE: Yes, there's a provision in Land Development Code 5.13.5.2. Says that an
affirmative vote of five or more members are necessary to take official action, regardless of whether five
or more members are present for the meeting.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I guess what I'm hearing is that we have to move this
forward with no action? What do we do?
MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere, planning services director.
To my knowledge, a petition that is not approved, you would need five affirmative votes to
approve it. And Mr. White is correct, then therefore the petition is automatically denied. Which was the
motion anyway.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MR. WHITE: I believe that's the legal--
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So be it.
Okay, Item 5-B, Arlington Lakes.
MR. MURRAY: Good morning. For the record, I'm Don Murray, principal planner with
planning services department.
This planned unit development, Arlington Lakes --
MR. WHITE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Just as we did in the last case, if we could, before we
begin, have all those individuals who will be speaking, both staff and the applicant and the public sworn.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Sony about that.
Anyone's going to speak on this item, please be sworn.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Additionally,just to poll the council, do any members of
the council have any conflict, any discussions regarding this item?
Hearing none, let's proceed.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you. Once again, Don Murray, principal planner.
This project is located approximately 1,850 feet south of Pine Ridge Road. Lies between_the
future Livingston Road and Whippoorwill Lane. It's approximately 98 acres in size. It also lies within a
residential density band of the Pine Ridge/I-75 activity center, which allows a bonus of three units per
^ acre in addition to the four units per acre base density.
This project proposes 6.2 units per acre, for a total of 610 units. It also is surrounded by an area
Page 19
July 12, 2000
that is -- it's vacant or undeveloped with some large lot residential to the north. We have mostly
agricultural, large lots, some residential large lot development here. And then the same thing right at this
corner. We have some proposed planned unit developments to the south. And we have three approved
planned unit developments to the east.
This project also proposes a-- excuse me, if it's approved, would have approximately a 19-acre
flowway which bisects it from north to the south, providing drainage for properties from the north, this
property, and also to the south, where it exits into Kensington Lake. It would also have approximately a
10.8-acre lake on the south side and would have typical recreational uses.
The staff comprehensive planning and current planning has reviewed this for consistency with
Growth Management Plan, and also for compatibility with surrounding development, and we found that it
is both consistent and compatible. Therefore, we are recommending approval.
Are there any questions?
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any questions for staff?
M.R. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, development services, current planning
section.
The subject property is located in the southwest quadrant, as Don said, of I-75 and Pine Ridge
Road. I have an aerial on the wall here that identifies the parcel boundary.
The property is vegetated with pine flatwoods. Pine flatwoods occupy this area and primarily this
portion of the property. There's a cypress area in the center. There are also areas of palmetto with a
significant number of pines in this area and also on this side of the property.
The property itself is a total of 98 acres. We took a look at it to see how much native vegetation
would be required. Staff came out with 20.51 acres.
The petitioner is proposing to preserve the central area, the cypress area, in a flowway. The
cypress area that exists there now pretty much runs through the center of the property and forms kind of
a natural corridor.
Protected species survey was done on the property. There were no protected species to identify.
Although from past projects in this area, we know there are some fox squirrels in the•area, so they may
become an issue when they go on permitting with the Water Management District.
Anyway, if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. The petitioner is here, as well as
their environmental staff
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for Mr. Lenberger?Petitioner?
MR. NADEAU: Acting Chairman Sansbury, members of the council, pleasure to be before you
this morning representing Arlington Lakes PUD.
The PUD, as described by Mr. Lenberger, is 98.37 acres. Approximately 33 -- excuse me,
approximately 44.86 acres of the property is in wetlands. It generally follows this line right in here.
The wetland impacts total 33.43 acres. I will identify that there's 32 acres of the jurisdictional
wetlands that are infested; anywhere between 50 to 90 percent of areal coverage of melaleuca and other
exotics.
After several years of discussion and working on this project, we approached the Army Corps of
Engineers, as well as South Florida Water Management District, as to how they'd like to look at this
project. And it was their suggestion that a flowway be provided to take care of regional drainage issues.
And this flowway is approximately 19.5 acres.
We are in the permit process with the district. We have made our submittal. We have not
received our first 30-day letter yet.
The flowway will -- at its widest point is approximately 300 feet wide. It will come across the
existing FPL easement through an existing borrow pit and go underneath the proposed Whippoorwill
Page 20
July 12, 2000
Lane through a very large culvert system to interconnect to the Whippoorwill Woods PUD, which lies to
the east of us. Though that--those waters in that flowway will discharge into the I-75 ditch, ultimately
going through a four by five box culvert under I-75 to the I-75 canal and into the Golden Gate Canal.
As was identified by Mr. Lenberger, there is 19.5 acres of flowway, of which approximately 10.4
acres is vegetated. The balance of the required 20.51 acres will easily be satisfied during the next
development order, or development order submitted to the county.
Our average site grade is approximately 10.7. Our anticipated control elevation is 10. We are
separated into two basins based on the flowway structure that will go through. This will be Basin 1,
which is 19.5 acres, and then Basin 2, which lies completely north of the FPL easement, is approximately
59.3 acres.
The 25-year flood elevation for Basin 1, which is the small basin to the east, is 12.63 feet NGVD,
and our finished floor or 100 year will be 13.33.
Basin 2, 59.3 acres, 25-year roads and parking at 12.05, and your finished floor at 12.66.
A-- as stated by Mr. Lenberger, a protected species survey was done on the property and no
listed species were found.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
MR. CARLSON: I missed something.
MR. NADEAU: Yes, Mr. Carlson.
MR. CARLSON: Why is there still 10 acres in reserve for the as preserved? It's not shown on
your plan.
MR. NADEAU: Okay. The reason is that we have an FPL easement, which is in the flowway,
where we will have to cross that. That's not vegetated. We also have the existing borrow pit. A portion
'"'• of it will be in the flowway. That is not vegetated, so it doesn't count towards the retained native
vegetated requirement pursuant to Land Development Code.
MR. CARLSON: Why can't you identify that at this point, where that preserve area--
MR. NADEAU: Well, we're not in the next development order stage. Presently our permitting
with the district is a multi-family development. It will easily satisfy that 10 acres. We will come up with
the initial 10 acres. It will be--
MR. CARLSON: But it makes a difference whether it's part of the flowway or whether it's a
buffer or it's on the extreme west end of the property or not connected to the flowway. That makes a--
MR. NADEAU: Of course. And there will be a 25-foot buffer along the perimeter of the
flowways. We will have our buffering around the project, which is required. We have also substantial
perimeter setbacks set forth by planning staff. Those areas would also be naturally vegetated, as well as
having naturally vegetated areas that separate the development areas.
MR. CARLSON: But you understand my problem is this is the Environmental Advisory Council
MR. NADEAU: Sure.
MR. CARLSON: -- and that 10 acres can make a huge difference in the environmental attributes
of this project. And I can't see them.
MR. NADEAU: Well, they're generally depicted --they actually are generally depicted. They're
depicted in these areas where we have the residential development pods around here, vegetated areas in
here, they're-- it's not obvious, but there's a road that comes through here with the units around. And this
naturally vegetated area in here, as well as in here and up against the Livingston Road corridor.
MR. CARLSON: Oh, I got it. Okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Any other questions for the petitioner? Yes,
ma'am.
Page 21
July 12, 2000
MS. SANTORO:-mould you-describe the flowway? I don't know whether you're submitting that
it's going to be faster or whether its natural vegetation is moving slowly, or--
MR. NADEAU: Sure. The flowway is -- other than the removal of exotic material in the
flowway and the replanting of native vegetation inside there, pursuant to Land Development Code, it's
not necessarily going to be channelized, although there will be the detritus layer removed in some areas,
which will allow a sheet flow type of action through the flowway, across the FPL easement and into the
existing borrow pit, where it will -- of course, all of the water going into this flowway will have been
pretreated. The flowway is not a part of our drainage basin, although we do discharge into it after
pretreatment. So the character of the flowway is really going to be in its natural state.
MR. CARLSON: I hate to beat this horse again, but--
MR. NADEAU: Mr. Carlson.
MR. CARLSON: --the 10 acres still outstanding, those will not be wetland?
MR. NADEAU: Some components of the jurisdictional wetland areas, outside-- see, we've got a
palmetto mat in this area right here. It will be upland vegetation here, as well as some ecotone on the
east and west sides of any of that buffering. However, all of this area surrounding would be wetland
preserve.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, further questions for the petitioner?
Hearing none, do we have anyone from the audience who would like to address this one?
MR. NADEAU: I'm sorry, Dwight Nadeau for the record.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No one from the audience would like to address this
matter?
Council have any further questions for staff or the petitioner?
Any discussion? What's the pleasure?
MR. CARLSON: Well, the discussion from me is that boy, you'll never guess this, but I don't like
this project for the same reason I didn't like the other one. Very little protection of what is an arguably
jurisdictional wetland.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The silence is deafening here.
MR. BAXTER: In reference to the amount of wetlands there are, what is the percentage that
you're depleting?
MR. NADEAU: I believe it's approximately 70 percent.
MS. SANTORO: 74 percent.
MR. NADEAU: 74 percent.
Now, understand, if I may, you know, explain a little bit more of how this flowway came about.
The agencies, Corps and South Florida, recommended to us that we put in this flowway in lieu of
preserving the lower quality wetlands. They're finding that the regional benefit for the drainage in this
area is more significant to the agencies than it is to preserve and enhance the wetland areas. This was
also the case with the Whippoorwill Woods PUD, which is also currently in permit process with the
district.
So it was the agencies that told us how--they didn't tell us, they recommended to us how to
design this project so it would be acceptable and address the regional drainage issues, which will be
ameliorated or mitigated for through this flowway system.
MR. CARLSON: Did they specify the width of the flowway?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, they did.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If I could comment, you know, I understand the
^ jurisdictional wetlands, I understand how they're determined and so forth. But I think the thing we have
to remember is the functionality of the things we have out there. And as in the other project, we had a
Page 22
July 12, 2000
^ situation where yes, we have areas that are wetlands. Are those areas functional, why aren't they
functional. They're not functional because of alterations in the natural hydro period, they're not functional
because of invasion of exotics.
How do we get them back functionally? We don't have, from the public standpoint, from
government's standpoint, the ability to go in there nor the money to go in there and restore all those
wetlands, restore all the hydro periods. And I look at something like this. If you have the high quality
area, if you've got the opportunity to restore a high quality area, get it back into condition, get rid of
exotics, get some water back into it, and you have to sacrifice some of the lower quality wetland areas.
And I agree with Mr. Carlson, they're lower quality, they do still have some function.
But if you don't take a look at these in this manner, we're going to lose all of them. The
melaleucas and the peppers and what have you, the primrose, whatever it is, is going to take everything
over, and we're not going to have any functional wetlands in areas, infill areas such as this.
So I think the approach, do I like to see that percentage of wetlands gone? No, I don't like to see
that. But the alternative is gaining this flowway, gaining a functioning area in perpetuity. Again, this area
I'm sure will have to be dedicated to the homeowners' association, if it's -- a bond has to be put up to
assure maintenance, and, you know, I would support this approach.
MR. NADEAU: And again, as far as the functionality of the wetlands in this area, there's been
historically through the creation of Pine Ridge Road, Whippoorwill Lane, the FPL easement that runs
north/south along the Livingston Road corridor, because of this impoundment, that the agencies were
very desirous to have this flowway concept.
MR. CARLSON: I think there's a dilemma here. And I think the dilemma is that the amount of
preserve area required by Land Development Code, be it 15 percent or 25 percent, in no way relates to
^ the amount of wetland on the site that we review. I mean, you shoot for this arbitrary target that was
established, and it in no way relates to the amount of wetland on these sites.
And, you know, my concept of a good project is a project you look at it and the applicant has
bent over backwards to avoid wetlands and not just shoot for the required preservation area. And that's
--that's --those are the projects I vote for, that go above and beyond the 15 or 25 percent requirement
and do everything possible to avoid wetlands and design around it and incorporate them in the project.
And I voted for those projects.
MR. SMITH: If I might comment. The thought always occurs to me that, you know, we as a
member of this council are bound by certain parameters. I don't suspect that any of us believes that we
have the authority or the power to approve or disapprove projects just based on our own fancy, but
rather, we have to look at what our role is and how it fits into the overall legislation ordinances that
create us.
The kinds of concerns that Mr. Carlson has I believe would best be addressed in terms of
promoting or some changes in ordinances, if he feels that it isn't sufficient to meet what he considers to be
important environmental concerns.
But the truth of the matter is, is that people have gone ahead long before we were here and have
taken into account many of the things that have been discussed here. For example, the mitigation for
panther mitigation and using a large area for preservation, as opposed to smaller ones, these are all
legislative decisions that have already been made. And I for one feel that it's a violation of someone's
property rights to -- for a board, without proper authority, to violate the parameters that have been given
to us as a board.
So for that reason and the reason I think this particular project appears to me to have done a very
good job of complying with what government agencies are actually looking to have done, I would move
approval of this project.
Page 23
July 12, 2000
Question for-staff--When we pass this-on and it says no--decision, what-do-we-say,-Bob,-when we
pass it on? Do we say by a vote,we fail for this reason, or what have you?
MR. MULHERE: Well, for the record again, Bob Mulhere.
I think the last petition was a little bit different. The motion was to deny. And I believe that
motion carried 4-1.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's correct.
MR. MULHERE: I believe the LDC doesn't say you need to have a minimum of five votes to
deny a petition, it says you need to have a minimum of five votes to approve a petition.
MR. WHITE: I believe it says --
MR. MULHERE: Or to take action. See, that's the question.
MR. WHITE: -- an affirmative vote of five or more to take official action.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, so you're correct. So then both of these petitions then, there would be
no official action. We will carry forward your vote. And it would indicate exactly what the motion was.
So if the motion was to deny, and the vote was 4-1 in the previous petition, since you didn't have five
affirmative votes, will indicate to the board that no official action could be taken, no official
recommendation. However, the board will be aware of what your intent was --
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good.
MR. MULHERE: -- on both of them.
MR. COE: I've got a question. This would have been-- both of these decisions would have been
a lot easier for me had I had the 30-day letter from South Florida Water Management. Particularly in your
case. Just to see where we were on this.
You pick up some of these South Florida Water Management District things and it goes oh, no
i-. way. You know, you've got to have 80 percent flow, et cetera, et cetera. You know, eventually this
thing gets negotiated out. But I'd at least like to have that 30-day letter. I think you all are bringing these
to us too early. And that's just a personal opinion. That just would sure would help me, rather than get it
so early that nobody's looked at it except for us.
MR. WHITE: And I don't wish to speak out of turn, but perhaps being new suggests that I'm
going to make-- may or may not be helpful, I don't know.
But to respond to that, it seems to me that there's no procedural preclusion from an applicant
bringing back their request at some future date when such information or additional information may be
available. Since there's no official action, quote/unquote, taken, I would think that petitioners have some
ability to reschedule, based upon additional information that may be brought into the record for your
future consideration.
MR. MULHERE: Right. This actually gets a little bit fairly interesting at this point in time.
Since this is an advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners, petitioner has the ability to
carry this petition forward, even if you were to recommend denial, obviously, as well as a no action. So
this petition can be carried forward to the board, regardless of-- obviously with whatever your
recommendation is, including one of no action.
It would be then a question of whether the petitioner wished to defer carrying this forward to the
board until they could acquire some additional information, bring it back to you and acquire an
affirmative vote, or chose to bring it forward to the board, despite the no action vote or a negative vote.
Either way, they can carry it forward to the Board of County Commissioners.
And I guess that --with respect to your suggestion, Mr. Coe, I would have to defer--I think
we'd have to take a look at it a little bit. I'm not sure what the process is in terms of requiring that 30 --
obviously it's within 30 days, but I'm not sure how far along an applicant might be in the process.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We don't require-- Stan Chrzanowski, with development services.
Page 25
July'12, 2000
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANS-BURY: Motion on the board -- on the floor. Do I hear a second?
MR. NADEAU: May I interject another point, Acting Chairman?
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. NADEAU: In discussion with my clients, and to try and ameliorate some of the concerns of
Mr. Carlson regarding the wetlands, we're going to agree to preserve an additional eight acres of wetland
--jurisdictional wetland area to satisfy the 25 percent requirement. The balance --the two acres would
be in the upland side, more likely, along Whippoorwill Lane.
We have substantial buffering-- substantial setback requirements required by planning staff for
this project. Therefore, there would be a-- 35-foot, Don? -- 35 foot on the Whippoorwill side, and I
believe it's 40 feet on the Livingston side, all of which on the west side, the Livingston side, is
jurisdictional wetlands, other than the palmetto mat in the middle.
Therefore, the perimeters and any additional expansion of the flowway, which is all jurisdictional
wetlands, we're committing to an additional eight acres of that required 25 percent to be wetland
preserve.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. White, I'm not up on my Roberts Rule of Orders.
Can the chairman second the motion?
MR. WHITE: Certainly.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'd like to go ahead and second the motion then for
approval.
Any discussion on the motion?
MR. LENBERGER: May I interject a second?
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir.
MR. LENBERGER: Since the petitioner is committing to preserve an additional eight acres of
wetlands, did you want to include in your motion some sort of stipulation in the PUD --
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Smith?
MR. LENBERGER: -- regarding that?
MR. SMITH: Yes, I would so agree to that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, seconder agrees.
Okay, all those in favor of approval of Mr. Smith's motion, with the stipulation of the additional
eight acres, signify by saying aye.
MR. COE: (Indicates.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: (Indicates.)
MR. SMITH: (Indicates.)
MR. BAXTER: (Indicates.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed?
MR. CARLSON: Aye.
MS. SANTORO: (Indicates.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What did we get, 4-2?
MR. NADEAU: 4-2.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Same result as the last one, unfortunately.
MR. BAXTER: No action.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No decision, right?
MR. WHITE: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, you're able to take any additional motions, if any of the
council members want to make --
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Are there any additional motions anyone would
like to take on this matter?Hearing none.
Page 24
•
July 12, 2000
We don't require their district submittal or anything for the rezone process. We require that
strictly for the SDP approvals after the property is rezoned. Now, we could change our requirements to
make sure that we got at least a 30-day letter.
MR. MULHERE: I think we can look at that. The issue that I'm not sure about and that I'd like
to bring back once we explore it a little bit is what the investment in fees is for an applicant. In other
words, there may be some issue with respect to whether or not an applicant chooses to try to achieve a
rezone -- I'm not suggesting they don't have to deliver as much information as possible for this board to
make a decision-- prior to submitting the jurisdictional agencies as a result of whatever other costs or
fees might be, you know, incurred during that process.
So they want to know, you know, can I go forward or can I not go forward, based on the local
government's decision first. And maybe, Dwight, you might have a comment on that.
But in any case, I mean, I can look into that and bring back probably at your next meeting some
information as to whether or not there are any issues related to requiring some greater level of review by
the jurisdictional agencies before you make a decision.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I distributed that letter on the Madeira project at the request of the
Water Management District, because they couldn't be here this week. They sent us the letter a day before
last week's meeting.
MR. MULHERE: I have no objection to distributing anything that we have on hand. I just -- I
want to take a look at requiring it, and I'll bring back, you know, whatever our findings are.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The only thing I see a 30-day letter--what was it, 30 --
experiencing with 30-day letters. 30-day letters are usually put out to meet the statute. They haven't
really looked at it. They go through and put everything in the world in that. And you really don't get to
the nitty-gritty of what you're talking about until the second 30-day response, of which they've had
further time to look at it, you've had time to come back.
And both with the Corps and with the District, usually those 30-day letters, you read them
sometimes and you say my God, they didn't even look at my application. And it just -- they have to
respond in 30 days or they default on 30 days; I don't know what happens in that case. But I found them
to not really be that informational for you. The second response is usually where you start getting back
some good factual stuff on which way they're going to go.
MR. NADEAU: And just for the record, Dwight Nadeau again, McAnly Engineering&Design.
The 30-day letters, as we've stated, are not a requirement for zoning. And in order to-- actually,
this is the first or second time that we've actually made a submittal to the Water Management District
prior to zoning approval. Every other project that I've worked on in the past 13 years in this community
goes for zoning first. And then once they're sure that they have the zoning, they go for the expense of
putting a South Florida permit application together.
It's quite costly, quite costly. And it's a risk, if you don't get the intensity or density that you're
requesting through the zoning process. So that may be an onerous requirement.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right, sir, thank you very much.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, old business. Where do we stand on obtaining so
that we don't have these lack of fives on getting two additional people on? Do we know where the
County Commission is on that? Does anybody have any idea?Don't we have --we have two vacancies.
MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, we have two vacancies. I don't know where we stand. I talked to
Vince and Connie yesterday about it. They were going to look into it. Sue Filson's actually the person
who handles it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
Page 26
July 12, 2000
MR.. MULHERE: Again, Bob Mulhere: I know that those vacancies have been posted. I think
the posting period hasn't closed yet. And because the board is in recesses and will not meet until August
1st, I'm not sure if appointments will be made-- in fact, I don't think they will be made at the August 1st
meeting, so it would have to be the subsequent meeting after that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do we have any new business to discuss?
Do we have a growth management subcommittee report?
MS. SANTORO: Could I ask under new -- maybe it's old business.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay.
MS. SANTORO: Are we going to have some type of workshop meeting in August, working
toward wetland legislation?
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't know where we left that. I know we set up a
meeting.
MR. CARLSON: I made --
MS. SANTORO: We talked about August.
MR. CARLSON: --that request in June. Barbara Burgeson requested that we delay it till she's
back. And I believe --
MS. SANTORO: I thought it was August.
MR. CARLSON: I thought it was August.
MR. LENBERGER: This was regarding--what was that again?
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The wetlands.
MR. LENBERGER: The wetland discussion?
MR. CARLSON: The Martin County--
MR. LENBERGER: Martin County.
MR. CARLSON: -- ordinance that was submitted to us that we never had a discussion on.
MR. LENBERGER: All right, I'll mention it to her that you would like to have that discussion.
MR. CARLSON: And ideally someone from Martin County.
MR. LENBERGER: Okay, I'll make your desires known to her.
MR. COE: Yeah, I think she was going to ask somebody to come over from Martin County.
ACTING CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Are there any public comments?
Any further comments from the council?. Thank you very much for your perseverance of the
chairman today, and we stand adjourned.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order
of the Chair at 10:45 a.m.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
TOM SANSBURY, ACTING CHAIRMAN
Page 27
July 12, 2000
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,
INC., BY CHERIE'R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 28
}6 4ryyµ�
F4
V 4 a Y tt -
August 2, 2000 •
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, August 2, 2000
LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of ¢'
Collier,having conducted business herein,met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,Florida,with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: M. Keen Cornell
Thomas Sansbury
Jack Baxter
Ed Carlson
Michael G. Coe
Alexandra Santoro
NOT PRESENT: J. Richard Smith
ALSO PRESENT:
Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer
Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist
Patrick White,Assistant County Attorney
Donald Murray,Principal Planner
Ronald Nino, Senior Project Planner
Page 1
August 2, 200.0.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Welcome to the advisory council meeting of August 2nd. rt'
Can we have a roll call?
MS. BURGESON: Carlson?
MR. CARLSON: Here.
MS. BURGESON: Sansbury?
MR. SANSBURY: Here. v'
MS. BURGESON: Cornell?
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Here.
MS. BURGESON: Coe?
MR. COE: Here.
MS. BURGESON: Smith?
Santoro?
MS. SANTORO: Here. '?
MS. BURGESON: And Baxter?
MR. BAXTER: Here.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. So we still have, what,two vacancies?
MS. BURGESON: Yes,we do.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Progress or--
MS. BURGESON: I'll check with Sue Filson right after we're done with the first public land use
petition, and I can get back to you before the meeting's over.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. Just a couple of short questions that I had,I guess,on the agenda.
I'd like to catch up on--or make sure we're moving along with the golfer tortoise protection, but I guess
that would come under old business. Yes, Ms. Burgeson?
MS. BURGESON: It can come under old business.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: And new business, I suppose, would include the wetlands workshop.
MS. BURGESON: The wetlands workshop will be at--after or following the September meeting.
We've got a commitment from the young lady from Martin County to come down and make a
presentation and an offer from St. Lucie County to attend.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Great.
MS. BURGESON: And we probably will have someone else all in from somewhere on the west
coast, either Sarasota or from Hillsborough County.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. Are we gonna talk about that at all today, as to what it might
consist of or how we're going to approach this?
MS. BURGESON: If you'd like to,we can certainly do that. You can--if you want to give us some
direction and things that you'd like to see happen at that workshop,I'd be happy to take that information. Y"
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Well,I know Bill has some ideas also about--
MS. BURGESON: Bill had a few things that he wanted to make a-presentation about in-regards to
how the final order affects what we might need to do about wetland protection.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. And then I wanted to mention, I don't know, maybe we all know,
thanks to --Marjorie set up a private property rights workshop for December 6th, whenever our meeting
is in December, so that was good news.
Any other agenda items that-- do we need a motion approving the agenda?
MS. BURGESON: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Do we have action on the agenda?
MR. SANSBURY: So moved.
MR. COE: Second.
Page 2
• Yip
August 2, 2000 , ;w
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: All in favor?
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Great.
Regarding the minutes of the--we don't care about July 5th,we do care about July 12th.
MS. BURGESON: Right.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: May we have a motion regarding the minutes of July 12th?
MR. SANSBURY: Haven't read them.
MR. COE: I'll second.
MR. SANSBURY: You second? I haven't read them.
MR. COE: I read them, I speed read.
MS. BURGESON: We can approve those at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Growth management update?
MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher for the natural resources department. Bill Lorenz is unable to make
it.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Morning, Mac.
MR. HATCHER: Morning. I don't have an update for you-all. We're plodding along with our
analysis and Bill asked me to come and try and answer any questions, if you might have any questions.
MR. SANSBURY: I don't have any questions.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Do we have any questions?
MR. COE: No.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Thank you.
And we have a land use petition.
MR. MURRAY: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Morning.
MS. BURGESON: We need him sworn in.
(All speakers on this issue were sworn.)
MR. MURRAY: Once again,good morning. This is--this petition, CU-2000-07, also known as
Lake Trafford Christian Church. I can't pronounce the name very well, it's a Spanish name,but it's --
this petition is located approximately two and a half miles west of State Road 29 in Immokalee,on Lake
Trafford Road, approximately 15 acres that is undeveloped with access directly onto Lake Trafford Road
at two points.
You should have the site map in your--in your petition packet.
The traditional use forthechurch-will also-include a private school with up to 360 students and a
church-run day care center. The initial phase of the development will allow for a worship a worship
service of up to 150 members and eventually, if the need calls for it,a phase two,that could go up to 500
members.
The property itself is surrounded mostly by agricultural zoning, with mobile home overlay. With the
exception of to the west of the property, it's RSF-3, I believe, and that's single family development.
There are mobile homes on most of the property surrounding, with some agricultural use,just to the
north-northwest.
Staff has looked at this for consistency with the comprehensive plan and has deemed it consistent and
compatibility is all right with the surrounding development. The actual church and school will also
serve the neighborhoods surrounding it.
Staff is recommending approval of this petition, and if you have any questions at this time, I'll be
happy to answer them.
Page 3
•
August 2, 2000 5t
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Questions for Don.
MS. SANTORO: I have one question. '
One of the letters stated that there was an archaeological site --was one previously recorded site and
one field survey,and yet in another place, it says there are no archaeological sites on there. Has
someone determined that professionally?
MR. MURRAY: They're having a survey done and I don't know the status of that. I was looking for
Ray Bellows this morning to ask him if they had submitted--I imagine Fisher can answer that question
better.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Other questions for Don?
Would the petitioner like to --would like to --
MR. SCHOENAUR: Hi. For the record, I'm Peter Schoenaur with Davidson Engineering. We're the
civil engineers involved with this project.
The environmental expert,Michael Ramsey,he's not here today, I was expecting him to help with
answering any of the environmental issues.
Addressing your question regarding the archaeological survey, I'm not aware of the status of that
survey right now. I'll mention that it's --one was being conducted.
MR. MURRAY: I will say it's in an area of archaeological probability,but what I was told,and the
information I have, was that there's no evidence of any archaeological artifact or anything on the
property, so we're awaiting that survey.
MS. BURGESON: On the environmental issues, as Don had mentioned, it's approximately a 19 acre
site,with greater than five acres of that either in pasture or an improved pasture. Remaining land is in
pine flatwoods,hardwood forest, and mixed wetland forest.
Two wetlands on site are identified on the map behind me in yellow. The largest,about 4.3 acres, _
will be just minimally impacted for access on the southern edge of that, and the small wetland at the
northwest corner will be preserved in its entirety.
Inspections on the site made it difficult to determine what the seasonal high water table was for the
property, but they estimated it to be one to one and a half feet above ground elevation during heavy
storm or rain events and the environmental consultant expected that that was only going to be for short
periods of time and that that rain would or that water would succeed down rather quickly after that.
The preservation requirements for this site would be 15 percent of the native vegetation existing on
site, which would be 1.9 acres. However,they're preserving 4.3 acres of that existing native vegetation,
which gives them 34 percent of the on site vegetation being preserved. So that exceeds considerably
what we would normally request, and staff is recommending approval.
No listed species were observed on site or utilizing the property adjacent to it.
We just have two environmental stipulations,which are fairly standard.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Any—questions for--
MR. CARLSON: The hardwood forest is, what, oak, oak Sorest?
MS. BURGESON: The hardwood forest is red maple, oak, oak-- I have a report on that. Let me just
give you-- EIS, this is Steve's project, so I apologize, I haven't been out on site. He's on vacation, but
let me --
MR. CARLSON: Well, it's an upland hardwood forest?
MS. BURGESON: Yes, but I can give you a quick--
MR. CARLSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Any other questions for staff?
MR. SANSBURY: I've never seen the term possible retention area. Why is that labeled possible
retention area?
Page 4
•
August 2, 2000 t44'''
MR. SCHOENAUR: It's just as a preliminary site plan, and what our intention right now, or since
the site is split up into those two obvious areas of development,that we would achieve a flow in both
directions on either side of that wetland. So when we say possible, it's just--you know,that's our first
go of the site plans,what it looked like,but we will definitely split the flow for the quality treatments to
put those back into the system.
MS. BURGESON: Getting back to the hardwood forest,that's primarily oak, sabal palm, slash pine
and some maple around the parameter of that.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Other questions for staff or the petitioner?
MR. MURRAY: I'd like to just clarify about what I was saying earlier about the historical
probability. That survey will be reviewed by the historical and archaeological preservation board and
they'll make a decision on that. There shouldn't be a problem.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. Do we have any questions for--from anyone else in the room?
MR. CARLSON: I do.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay.
MR. CARLSON: Question and comment.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Sure.
MR. CARLSON: Obviously this project's saving virtually almost 100 percent of the wetlands on the
site; is that correct?
MS. BURGESON: That's correct.
MR. CARLSON: Yes, and that's a lot more than the required preservation of native habitat.
MS. BURGESON: Right.
MR. CARLSON: And now is that--we've had other projects come before us--which is great, I
think it's fantastic--where the future development of the land comes in and those areas are encroached
upon by future development. Does this preserve area have any sort of in perpetuity kind of status for
preservation?
MS. BURGESON: We might check with the environmental consultant and find out if--Mike, I'm
not sure whether that wetland is going to be required through your ERP permitting process to have a
conservation easement over it. Are you aware?
MR. RAMSEY: At this point, I'm not sure that--at this point, I'm not sure it's going to require any
conservation easement. That's still up for question.
MS. BURGESON: Okay.
MR. RAMSEY: Ifitgoes through the typical permitting process, it may not.
MR. WHITE: Just two points of order; one, I prefer that he be sworn and that he identify himself
after that, and if you would be so kind as to do so.
(Mr. Ramsey was so sworn.)
MR. RAMSEY: My name is Michael R. Ramsey, environmental consultant,P.O. Box 1261,
Immokalee.
MS. BURGESON: Typically,on a piece of property like this, if it comes in as a PUD, we would
require that that wetland have a conservation easement or protective language over it during the platting
process.
Since it's a conditional use,and I am assuming that this is gonna go through just a site development
plan, it normally doesn't go through the platting process, but we can ask that they put protective
covenants on it through a separate instrument, if you would like to do that.
MR. CARLSON: I think for our future discussions on saving wetlands that if there's something we
can do to offer as an incentive to lock this in now, it looks like you're gonna develop this thing the way
you want to and still be able to preserve wetlands. If there's some incentive in the future that we can
Page 5
fw
August 2, 2000 ,m ` .
develop that would put a permanent conservation easement over this wetland area, I think that would be '40
beneficial to the county's future.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Great point, good question.
Any other questions? We invite questions from anyone in attendance on this project. <<
MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve.
MR. CARLSON: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: All in favor?
Any opposed?
(No response.) }'
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Thank you,gentlemen.
So you were going to add that as a request or a stipulation or--
MS. BURGESON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Great.
Old business, I just wanted to ask--I wanted to make sure that we are keeping the golfer tortoise
protection ordinance rolling.
Do I understand the commissioners approved it as far as we've gone or--
MS. BURGESON: Yes, it was approved in very similar language to what you saw last.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Uh-huh.
MS. BURGESON: We had actually added a little bit more protection and definition to that before it
got to the board,and we are working now for the next process to add some additional language and
working with the agencies on that.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Great,terrific. Glad to hear it.
New business.
My only question was regarding the wetlands workshop. I had a brief conversation with Bill Lorenz
and our thoughts were simply that it--we should probably begin with reviewing where we are now and
what is established that we're starting with.
Does anybody expect not to be able to make the September 6th meeting? That's when we're going to
tackle this. We all think we're going to be here? Great.
Do you have any thoughts about it, Barb, or anything you would like to add or, Mac, for that matter
asto --
MS. BURGESON: No,just what we've kind of foreseen is that we would present how our current
wetland review is being handled,how Bill foresees the final order input into future wetland ordinance
writing. I understand that we have to put some protection over wetlands to meet that final order and then
presentations from the other counties in how they handle their wetland protection.
MR. CARLSON: We have no information from St. Lucie County. Should we have something from
them also?
MS. BURGESON: That will be mailed out as soon_as-we get the packages ready. We're going to try
to get them out a couple weeks before the meeting, and if we're running a little bit late on the regular
package,we'll make sure that we get those ordinances out to you even earlier than that.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: I wanted to ask us also if we wanted to promote this a little bit as a public
workshop. I know that's something we talked about earlier in our career.
MR. COE: I think the initial workshop with St. Lucie and the rest of them, I think that should be just
us. Then if we want to open it up once we come out with something or once we as a county have kind of
got-- got some -- yes?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm having a problem with my machine. It's shutting on and off, so I
have to either get a replacement or something. I don't know what else I can do, or if you--
Page 6
August 2, 200():
+}na.{tir
MR. COE: So we should stop talking?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: These meetings are triply redundant. They usually have the TV going and x
they're taping that and this --and the tape machine. Of the three,the tape machine is still going so--
THE COURT REPORTER: But I cannot identify who's speaking.
MR. SANSBURY: Should we identify for you who's speaking? Would that assist you? ``;
MR. COE: If we'd slow down.
THE COURT REPORTER: My machine's just not writing at all, so if you want to identify
yourselves,who's speaking,then I'll have to just take it from there.
MR. COE: That's fine,that will work.
My name is Mickey Coe. I think the initial meeting with St. Lucie and the rest of them should be,
you know,board only, so we don't run this into a three-day event, because it's for informational purposes
first,and then based on that, we as a board can begin to discuss what direction we think we should take to
and then discuss it with the county, and then move from there with some sort of direction and ask for
input.
In other words,we need to have something first as a county board and as county staff members and
then kind of maybe even publish it in the newspaper, if necessary, so we can kind of give them a
heads-up of what we're thinking about, and then ask for public input and it may be --we may even want
to break it down,where we have the developers come in to make their presentation and then the next
time have the community come in,and I --you know, I'm just kind of talking off the top of my head.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Uh-huh.
MR. COE: But I think that during the St. Lucie, Martin County and Marion County, or whoever(sic)
county's doing the presentation, if we're having the public in here at the same time, it's going to be a zoo.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we can do that.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: This is Tom--
MR. SANSBURY: Sansbury, Tom Sansbury.
I mean, if we have a meeting, it's got to be advertised,number one, I don't believe we can restrict
public input at a public meeting. I'll look to counsel --
MS. BURGESON: Actually the workshops,the way we've held them in the past over the years, you
have a public portion of the meeting and you can--I'm sorry,Barbara Burgeson with planning services
-- you can have that public portion of the meeting, adjourn the public portion and then just have a
workshop, and that's how we used to do that.
That way the workshop is a presentation to the board, but you're not making any motions on it and
there's no other public input.
The only problem with that is you can't as a board make a motion on that until the next meeting. So
it can be held either way.
It can be held after you adjourn it, as just a public workshop, or it can be held during your meeting, so
that you can make motions if you wish to.
MR. COE: Mickey Coe.
You know, again, we may want to have the public here. I don't care if they're here and listening.
What would bother me is having to sit here and listen to the various counties make their presentation
that could be lengthy and at the same time having the public comment on that, pro or con, while we're
trying to just learn what the other counties did, but if they attend, I don't have any problem with that at
all.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Keen Cornell.
Yeah, I think it will work out. I understand what you're saying and I think unless we really
aggressively promote it, I don't think we're probably going to have a tremendous turnout.
Page 7
August 2, 2000
MS. BURGESON: I'm--
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: It's a public meeting, anyway, but I don't think we'll be overwhelmed or
bogged down or anything like that. K.
Are you back in business?
THE COURT REPORTER: No, I'm just trying to do what I can.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: So I don't know-- it doesn't seem -- I don't think we'll be busy, do you,
Barb?
MS. BURGESON: Yeah, Barbara Burgeson.
I have heard from quite a few consulting firms and they're interested in getting all the information
they can--
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Oh.
MS. BURGESON: --to be present for that meeting.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Oh.
MS. BURGESON: But what you can do is what the other boards do, and that is, limit the amount of
time for everyone making -- if you have somebody that wants to make a presentation, you can limit them
to five minutes. That's one way to control the amount of public input in terms of the length of the
meeting.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: So you really need to set that up and if we have preference --
MS. BURGESON: We need to know where you want that on the agenda; whether you want that as a
part of your public meeting or whether you want that as a workshop after you've adjourned.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: In other words, these are groups that--Keen Cornell again--these are
groups that would like to make testimony or statements for--
MS. BURGESON: They're clearly interested in hearing what's going to be presented to the board.
I'm not sure whether they want to make any statements, as much as they're interested in getting
information,particularly Wilson, Miller is most interested.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Well, I don't know, got any good ideas on how to set it up or just set it up
and let it run?
MS. BURGESON: Why don't I check with Bob and with Bill Lorenz and find out how we've
normally done it in the past? I believe it's been done after the adjournment as just a workshop --
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Uh-huh.
MS. BURGESON: -- but if they feel that it should be done as a part of the public meeting, then we'll
schedule it that way. If you have no problem, we'll let them make that decision.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. Does that sit all right or--
MR. COE: Mickey Coe.
I still would like to go back to what I said. I think that if we're going to do a workshop, a workshop
is exactly what it is, ties off, sleeves rolled up and sit down in an informal setting and just--and learn
from one side.
Then when the -- when Wilson, Miller and the rest of them, when they -- and I don't -- I really think
they probably should attend, so they know what's been presented to us, and then they have the
opportunity to go back to their drawing board to write up their rebuttal or whatever they want to do so
that they can present their side to us also. Otherwise, they're not going to be prepared for Marion (sic)
County or whoever it is that presents anything to us.
So we should -- I strongly believe we should listen first. Let the developers and public be here. Let
them observe it. We don't need any input from them, because they shouldn't be prepared for anything
that's been presented to us.
Then the next meeting have them give us their input in a workshop format, public format, I don't care
Page 8
August 2,2000
^ how it's done, but I'm afraid if you bring these other county presentations in here,and Wilson, Miller
gets up to talk, what kind of preparation have they been able to go through in order to maybe even rebut
what's being done in the other counties.
I know if I was with an engineering firm, I wouldn't be prepared. That's why I would just like to limit
it. Otherwise,we're looking at a marathon session.
MR. CARLSON: Ed Carlson.
Does the host regular meeting workshop then work for you to --
MR. COE: Yeah, sure. <<
In other words, we would adjourn the meeting in September,then we'd go right to a workshop
setting, but it's not something--I mean, although it's public, it's not something that we're voting on
anything. I mean, we aren't going to do anything, other than learn just what the other counties have done
and how they put together their wetlands program, if any, and they can discuss about some of the battles
they may have gone through or some of the good things or bad things about it, and let the developers and
the public be here so they can also learn, because this is not something we're going to make a decision
on in the next meeting.
This is going to be a long-term thing, and it may take us six months to a year to come down to the
finite writing of the law or the plan or whatever it may be for our county. I think it's so big we need to
take it in pieces,rather than taking it in big chunks.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Uh-huh. Ron?
MR.NINO: Ron Nino, for the record.
I think Mr. Coe is right on target. You know, a workshop is a learning experience and if your
learning parameters extend beyond the public sector,then the workshop would be structured to invite
somebody from the private sector to give you their experience about the subject matter of the workshop.
In this environment,I think currently all that you're interested in learning about,is the experience of
other counties and then perhaps you should limit that agenda to that--to the public sector.
However,I do want to remind you that you have the opportunity,under the workshop format,to
invite a representative or somebody from the private sector that you have some confidence in to explain
to you their experience in terms of dealing with the issue of wetland preservation.
MS. BURGESON: One other thing I wanted to find out--Barbara Burgeson-- is whether you were
interested. We've got someone from South Florida Water Management District. We could have
someone from the Army Corps here to make a presentation or we can just ask that they be available if
you have any questions. Any preference?
MR. SANSBURY: Mr.Chairman--Tom Sansbury-- if we're going to discuss a wetlands ordinance
with somebody like Martin County or somebody like St. Lucie County,to not have South Florida
involved,to not have the Corps involved, I think we're wasting our time,because South Florida and the
Corps are the two governing agencies on both of these areas. They're the ones that have the most
expertise in regard to both of these-- of this situation, and I think they need to be here if we're going to
talk about it.
MR. COE: Mickey Coe. I concur with that.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Keen Cornell. I think the commissioners were eager that we not overlook
the Big Cypress or what is the local --of the South Florida Water Management,their local?
MS. BURGESON: Big Cypress Basin?
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Yeah.
MR. SANSBURY: They're a division of South Florida.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Well -- Keen-- I'm a little confused as to how you want to structure this.
I think for-- Bill's thoughts I think were that he wanted to make sure that we started slowly and caught
Page 9
•
August 2, 20004',:::,
^ up with where we were and what was going on and all the different things that were happening before
we jump into considerations of, you know, new wetland protection ordinances and things like that. So
may we leave it to you to structure this--
•
MS. BURGESON: Sure,I'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: -- so that it's open, legal and yet reasonably concise or workable or
whatever?
MS. BURGESON: We'll try to keep it under two hours.
MR. NINO: I think we'll limitit to the public sector position--public sector regulation,water
management,where are we in the field of wetland protection from the district's point of view and from
the Big Cypress'point of view and then the experiences of those counties.
MR. CARLSON: Ed Carlson. This board member recommends the workshop method and I will be
prepared to spend the entire day here. Break for lunch, come back, break for dinner and come back,and
get all the representatives here and talk about this in depth.
MS. BURGESON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Well, I think--yeah, Keen--I think that is a—I think that is a fair °tv
question as to how --you know, how much time do we want to commit, you know, what would make a
reasonable workshop experience.
MS. BURGESON: I think you'll found that these counties can probably make their presentation in
15 or 20 minutes each and it may be that it's the questions after those presentations that will take the
longest amount of time.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Uh-huh. Okay. So we're looking at something like two to three hours?
MS. BURGESON: I expect that we can probably do a workshop in a couple of hours and then it
,*< really depends on how many questions you have for each of those groups following that. .We can
certainly run that as long as you wish to.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Keen.
Any other questions or concerns?
MR. BAXTER: Jack Baxter.
I'd like to get a copy of the wetlands ordinance or anyupdates to it that we have.
MS. BURGESON: Well, they'll be mailed out as soon as we get those from the counties.
MR. BAXTER: Okay.
MS. BURGESON: They may come out with your next EAC package or they may be mailed out
sooner than that.
MR. BAXTER: And this meeting will --with the wetlands presentation will happen on this next
meeting, right?
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Yes.
MR. BAXTER: So we'll have it before then?
MS. BURGESON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Yes,that's a good point. Keen, again.
Any homework that you might offer or great websites or anything like that, would be --you know,
would be helpful.
Anything else on this?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There's a hand being raised from the office.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: I'm sorry, sure.
MR. WHITE: Ma'am, in order to be heard, you have to come up here and identify yourself, thank
you.
MS. AVALONE: I'm Kathleen Avalone and I'm from the Audubon Society and the citizens for
Page 10
August 2, 2000
^ protection of animals, and I just have a question on this workshop.
Would it be possible to have a representative from the Audubon Society there in its initial
presentation?
MR. COE: I don't understand the question.
MR. CARLSON: For what purpose?
MR. COE: To be present or--
MS. AVALONE: Yes,to be present there and offer input at the workshop.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: I believe that's a given, isn't it? I mean, it's a public meeting and--
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman,if we're going to do that,then we have everybody from the
development community and we're going --that's exactly what Mr. Coe --
MR. WHITE: There's two things that I believe need to be clearly stated.
One is she indicated a desire to be present and then added to offer input, and I think you need to
separate those two and talk about them individually.
MR. COE: Mickey Coe.
Again, I have no problem as far as your attendance. Bring as many people as you want, as long as
they'll fit in the room, but as far as testimony,we're not at that position to have testimony from the
public. This is a learning process. It's going to be an open--I assume, I'm speaking for the board
members here, council members, in that it's going to be a working workshop for us,this board,to learn
from other counties what they have done with their wetland preservation.
The second and third steps are going to be input from the county;private citizens, organizations and
developers.
So at this meeting,the one in September,there's not going to be time set aside for people to make
' testimony, other than from the other counties.
Now, in subsequent meetings there will be time provided for people to make presentations.
So,yes, you can attend,and I'm recommending that we don't receive testimony at that time from the
county-- I mean, from other people,other than Marion County and other counties.
MR. SANSBURY: And the regulatory agencies?
MR. COE: And the regulatory agencies.
MS. AVALONE: Okay. So--
MR. COE: I mean, you'll have the opportunity, it's just you're not going to have the opportunity in
the September meeting.
MS. AVALONE: Okay.
MR. COE: We just don't want to run it for a week long marathon.
MS. AVALONE: I understand. Thanks.
MR. COE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Other questions about this meeting?
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Sure.
MR. SANSBURY: Tom Sansbury.
Mr. Coe gets a little bit geographically mixed up, from the standpoint he's formerly from the west
coast. Marion County is right outside of San Francisco. This is Martin County.
MR. COE: Yeah, Martin,whatever. I'm close. It's close enough for the governing board.
MR. SANSBURY: The other west coast.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Do we have any report on growth-- from growth management? I guess
^ Richard would normally do that. He's not here.
Any other council member comments?
Page 11
August 2, 2000
^ Any comments from the public?
Any other comments from the public?
MR. WHITE: I don't know if this is the appropriate place to interject, but you'll recall in our last
meeting that there was an abstention by Council Member Smith,and it was a requirement that he file a
memorandum of conflict and I'm just,for the record,noting that absence today and that we will get that
in the file, if it has not already been done.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Thank you. Appreciate that.
MR. WHITE: Patrick White.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Any reason why we should not adjourn?
MS. BURGESON: No. All set.
CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. Thank you.
(Whereupon, said meeting adjourned at 9:35 a.m.)
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at 9:35 a.m.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
M. KEEN CORNELL, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Sherrie Radin
Page 12
s
Item V.B
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6,2000
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No.
PUD-99-20
Petition Name: Brynwood Preserve PUD
Applicant/Developer: Brynwood Preserve, Inc.
Engineering Consultant: RWA, Inc.
Environmental Consultant: W.Dexter Bender&Associates, Inc.
II. LOCATION:
The subject property is an undeveloped 29.2 acre parcel located on the east side of
future Livingston Road, approximately 1/4 mile south of Pine Ridge Road in
Section 18,Township 49 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
Surrounding properties are mostly undeveloped with a few single-family
residences in the area.
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N - Agricultural Driving Range
Undeveloped
S - Agricultural Single-Family Homes
E - RMF-6 Hospice
Agricultural Borrow Pit
Single Family Homes
RSF-5(0.4) Undeveloped
W- Agricultural Future R.O.W. for
Livingston Road.
FP&L Transmission
Line Easement.
PUD (Kensington Park) Mostly Developed
T
EAC Meeting 09/06/2000
Brynwood Preserve PUD
Page 2 of 11
IV. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The proposed 29.26-acre Brynwood Preserve PUD is a planned residential
development that is designed around a central lake. The residential lands are
comprised of a singular 20.46-acre tract of development supporting a mix of
residential dwelling types and recreational amenities. The list of permitted uses
and structures includes single-family, two-family and multi-family dwellings
along with zero lot line development standards. If approved, the development plan
will include the following:
1. A maximum of 160 dwelling units is proposed while the resulting density is
5.47 units per acre.
2. Open space that includes 4.84 acres of preserve/conservation, a 3.98-acre lake,
landscaping and buffering totaling the minimum required 60 percent open
space for residential PUDs.
3. Access point to the project is provided from the Livingston Road.
4. The PUD Master Plan indicates that the internal PUD road will have a 50-foot
right-of-way along with a 24-foot wide pavement as required by the Land
Development Code.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element:
The subject 29.26 acre site is located within the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential Subdistrict and within the Residential Density Band around the I-75
and Pine Ridge Road Activity Center as designated in the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
FLUE and Density — Properties within one (1) mile of an Activity Center are
eligible to receive three (3) additional units per acre. The GMP indicates that the
intent behind providing a density bonus is to encourage development of these
urban parcels and to take advantage of existing public facilities and utilities
available to the area. This should also discourage development outside existing
urban areas and into rural areas of the county. The FLUE permits residential
dwellings such as those units provided in the Brynwood Preserve PUD. The
project density shall also be consistent with the density rating system contained in
the Future Land Use Element and is based on the following relationship as noted
below:
Base Density +4 dwelling units per acre
Activity Center Density Band +3 dwelling units per acre
Maximum Permitted Density +7 dwelling units per acre
The PUD indicates that the project is intended for 160 dwelling units at a density
of 5.47 units per acre. The proposed density is 1.53 units per acre less than the
EAC Meeting 09/06/2000
Brynwood Preserve PUD
Page 3 of 11
maximum of 7 dwelling units per acre the project is eligible to receive as noted
above. It should be noted that the BCC has also directed that the base density be
reduced from 4 units per acre to 2 units per acre for Agricultural zoned lands
designated Urban Residential and that are 50 acres or more in size. Since this
29.26 acre PUD is under this size requirement, it would not be required to subtract
two units per acre from its base density. As a result, staff is of the opinion that
the requested density of 5.47 units per acre is consistent with the 7 units per
acre the site is currently eligible to receive.
.
• .:42, ;
8 Otl 5� P$
Sriw A
Conservation & Coastal Management Element:
Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality
standards.
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and
cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed
in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an
attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water
(discharge) to the estuarine system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to
mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing
lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak
flow attenuation during storm events.
With regards to native vegetation preservation and wetland issues, the following
Objectives and Policies apply:
Objective 6.2 states, "There shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally
functioning marine and fresh water wetlands, excluding transitional zone wetlands
which are addressed in Objective 6.3".
EAC Meeting 09/06/2000
Brynwood Preserve PUD
Page 4 of 11
Policy 6.2.10 states, "Any development activity within a viable naturally
functioning fresh-water wetland not part of a contiguous flow way shall be
mitigated in accordance with current SFWMD mitigation rules. Mitigation may
also include restoration of previously disturbed wetlands or acquisition for public
preservation of similar habitat".
Policy 6.2.13 states, "Proposed development on parcels containing viable
naturally functioning freshwater wetlands shall cluster development to maintain
the largest contiguous wetland area practicable and shall be designed to disturb
the least amount of native wetland vegetation practicable and to preserve the pre-
development hydroperiod".
Objective 6.3 states, "A portion of the viable, naturally functioning transitional
zone wetlands shall be preserved in any new non-agricultural development unless
otherwise mitigated through the DEP and the COE permitting process and
approved by the County".
Objective 6.4 states, " A portion of each viable, naturally functioning non-wetland
native habitat shall be preserved or retained as appropriate".
Policy 6.4.6 states, "All new residential developments greater than 2.5 acres in the
Coastal Area and greater than 20 acres in the Coastal Urban Area shall retain 25%
of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site, including both the
understory and the ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible.
When several different native plant communities exist on site, the development
plans will reasonably attempt to preserve examples of all of them if possible.
Areas of landscaping and open space which are planted with native plant species
shall be included in the 25% requirement considering both understory and
groundcover. Where a project has included open space, recreational amenities, or
preserved wetlands that meet or exceed the minimum open space criteria of
Collier County, this policy shall not be construed to require a larger percentage of
open space set aside to meet the 25% native vegetation policy. This policy shall
not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands alone
constitute more than 25% of the site. Exceptions shall be granted for parcels that
cannot reasonably accommodate both the native vegetation and the proposed
activity".
This petition is consistent with staff's policy, as directed by the Board of County
Commissioners, to allow for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands when State and
Federal agency permits are issued. The petition is consistent with Objective 6.4 in
that it provides for 25% on-site native vegetation preservation pursuant to Policy
6.4.6.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Water Management:
EAC Meeting ..09/06/2000
Brynwood Preserve PUD
Page 5 of 11
The Brynwood Preserve PUD sits within the Whippoorwill area. This area has
been the subject of ongoing coordination to insure that traffic, stormwater, potable
water supply, and sanitary sewage collection systems are sufficiently sized and
properly connected.
The SFWMD has been handling permitting in this area and will permit Byrnwood.
Staff's only concern is the physical and legal availability and capacity of the
offsite stormwater runoff conveyance route between the discharge structure and
the I-75 canal.
Environmental:
Site Description:
The subject property is an undeveloped 29.2 acre parcel vegetated with pine
flatwoods, cypress and cypress-pine-cabbage palm. Natural ground elevation on
site range from 9.4 to 10.5 feet NGVD, according to the spot elevations provided
on the survey in the environmental impact statement (EIS).
f ;. C*1 04444tl t . Pt r' mat' t �►`
it
ffr
•
t '
• x i 16
.fF 0; • f.
•
�g w
#40111t
•
psi
x M a^
v ;
..r . ^t by
f`
f i
r" s
FLUCFCS Code 621M2
Cypress/Melaleuca invaded(25-50%)
E .09/06/2000
AC Meeting
Brynwood Preserve PUD
-- Page 6 of 11
474 7 1111. - :„0...s1,,,,,, ...ii); .i.4 , 14-;',,i,:: ,,,,,i'-!4:2;:j..1.4,,i1
.,,.. A ,.. ,.
�„ ,W�+* fi.- r'
,�•+x+»tet; dR+ , x�l �� ' �Rk /� d � ;,
',•*„.: *,fit<� f.FT
. ik. 4t r
ii
41' ...:':••7-.."
{a• ;, e ,+i.• , Art d r { ' S^ r- t
" a .,1'41,I r ,= f f #' '.!. ►' awl
5. eii)i
rtai tty �, �< F ,�
' Ili
r ✓ yy�..���y,�(�.ky j, Fye'
I555 yy{{.
I
,
I t #
M, r f Y d `
i.
1
*4
FLUCCS Code 624M2
Cypress-pine-cabbage palm/Melaleuca invaded(25-50%)
Seasonal high water table elevation was estimated to be 10.75 feet NGVD by
surveying the elevation of adventitious rooting on Melaleuca trees and lichen lines
on cypress trees, where possible. The historic high water levels are approximately
1 to 1.5 feet (11.75 to 12.25 feet NGVD) above the estimated seasonal high water
levels, based on buttressing on cypress trees and historic lichen line indicators.
Two soil types occur on the project site, Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum
(Unit #2) and Malabar fine sand (Unit #3). The predominant soil type found
within the limits of the property is Malabar fine sand. This soil type is generally
found on the entire site with the exception of the southwest corner of the project.
Both soils are listed as hydric by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
EAC Meeting 09/06/2000
Brynwood Preserve PUD
Page 7 of 11
Wetlands:
A total of 26 acres of Collier County/South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD)jurisdictional wetlands occur on the subject property of which 23 acres
will be permanently impacted as a result of the project. To compensate for
wetland impacts on site, 150.0 acres of wetlands adjacent to Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) lands and 1.5 miles north of the Main Golden
Gate Basin will be donated to the South Florida Water Management District with
long term management funds. Details of the off-site mitigation proposal are
included in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan in the EIS.
A total of 3.1 acres of wetlands will be preserved and 0.2 acres of wetlands will be
created, onsite, along the western property boundary. All exotic vegetation will be
removed and the hydrology restored. If after treating exotic species there are areas
where there is less than one desirable tree per 100 square feet, cypress and dahoon
holly (1 gal) will be planted on 10-foot centers. The on-site preservation area will
be qualitatively monitored annually for five years.
The construction of Pine Ridge Road, the improved dirt road which is the future
Livingston Road, the Kensington drainage canal, and several borrow pits within
one mile of the project have impacted the site's hydrology. The roadways serve as
drainage divides and have reduced the historic runoff to the site. The Kensington
discharge canal contributes to the lowering of the water table. It was determined in
meeting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to be most ecologically
beneficial to concentrate on preserving and restoring higher quality wetlands on
the west side of the property. The proposed on-site preserves align and combine
with the preserved wetland system that extends to the north on the adjacent golf
driving range.
Preservation Requirements:
The subject property contains 25.2 acres of viable native vegetation of which 6.3
acres is required to be retained and/or replanted on site (3.9.5.5.3 LDC). A total of
4.15 acres of native vegetation have been identified as preserve areas on the PUD
master plan. The remaining 2.15 acres of native vegetation will be provided in the
open space and buffers within the project.
Listed Species:
In order to review the site for the presence of listed species per Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) guidelines, the site was surveyed
during the morning and evening hours on at least five separate occasions. Visual
inspection of the site was in excess of 80% for each of the various FLUCFCS
types encountered.
EAC Meeting ..09/06/2000
Brynwood Preserve PUD
Page 8 of 11
The survey revealed the presence of inflated wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana) and
common wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) scattered throughout the property. No
other listed species were observed.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-20
"Brynwood Preserve PUD" with the following stipulations:
Water Management:
1. A SFWMD surface Water Management Permit must be obtained prior to
Site Development Plan Approval.
Environmental:
1. Remove foot-note number 5 from Table I, "Residential Development
Standards", in the PUD document.
2. Amend section 3.4(C)(2) of the PUD document as follows by adding the
underlined language.
A minimum of twenty-five (25) percent (6.3 acres) of the viable naturally
functioning native vegetation on-site (natural habitat preserve area),
including both understory and the ground cover emphasizing the largest
contiguous area possible, shall be retained on-site, as described in section
3.9.5.5.3 of the Land Development Code, or the landscape plan shall re-
create a native plant community in all three (3) strata with larger-size
planting materials, as described in section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Land
Development Code.
3. Amend the first paragraph in section 4.2 of the PUD document as follows
by adding the underlined language.
Clearing for permitted uses is allowed provided that a minimum of 6.3 acres
of native vegetation is retained or replanted within the PUD. No building,
structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in
whole or part, for other than the following:
4. Amend section 5.10(C) of the PUD document as follows by adding the
underlined language and deleting the .
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 Eiwifeamental Section Staff for review
and approval prior to Final Site Development Plan/Construction Plan
EAC Meeting 09/06/2000
Brynwood Preserve PUD
Page 9 of 11
approval. This plan shall include methods and time schedule for removal of
exotic vegetation within conservation/preservation areas.
EAC Meeting .09/06/2000
Brynwood Preserve PUD
—. Page 10 of 11
PREPARED BY:
:? .r :.<a,, .r, F1,
STAN CHRZANOWSKI, P.E. DATE
SENIOR ENGINEER
' /200Q'
STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II
REVIEWED BY:
8 . z2, • 00
RAYM II V. BELLOWS DATE
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
if/Alna2 �� �3 -22- D
THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
'4\ cz)
RONALD F. INO, AICP DATE
CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER
EAC Meeting ..09/06/2000
Brynwood Preserve PUD
Page 11 of 11
/' z ��.-. Cj �Z? 2'
ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP DATE
PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR
APPROVED BY:
7:7:0
►_ dot ---ea
VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATOR
Item V.B.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6,2000
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. 2000-7
Petition Name: Two Lakes Plaza
Applicant/Developer: North Naples Bonita Land Trust
Engineering Consultant: Hole Montes &Associates, inc.
Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc.
II. LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 41 in north
Collier County, adjacent to the southern property line for the Community
Congregational United Church of Christ. The parcel is within Section 9,
Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
This parcel is located south of the congregational Church, on the east side of US
41. It is surrounded by development to the north, east and west. The land to the
south is unimproved with similar native vegetation and habitats.
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N - Provisional Use Church
S - C-3 undeveloped
E - PUD—Sterling Oaks Residential PUD
W- US 41 Road R-O-W
PUD—The Retreat Retirement
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is a 20.4 acre parcel located on the East side of U.S. 41,
Page 1
north of Old Business 41 and the U.S. 41 intersection. The petitioner is proposing
to rezone the property from its current zoning designation of Rural Agricultural
"A" to PUD to develop 12 acres for commercial land uses with the remainder of
the site to remain in open space areas.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element:
The subject property is designated as Urban Residential-Mixed use on the Future
Land Use Map. Because the subject property abuts C-3 zoned lands to the South,
it is eligible for 12 acres of commercial use under the Office and In-fill
Commercial Sub-district of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The
proposed rezone petition complies with the required criteria, therefor it can be
deemed consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element:
Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality
standards.
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and
cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed
in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an
attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water
(discharge)to the estuarine system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to
mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing
lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak
flow attenuation during storm events.
With regards to native vegetation preservation and wetland policies, the following
Objectives and Policies apply:
Objective 6.3 states, "A portion of the viable, naturally functioning transitional
zone wetlands shall be preserved in any new non-agricultural development unless
otherwise mitigated through the DEP and the COE permitting process and
approved by the County".
This petition is consistent with Staff's Policy in respect to Objective 6.2 of the
GMP. The objective does not provide for mitigation of the type of wetlands that
are located at the north edge of the wetland system. Objective 6.2 states, "There
Page 2
shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally functioning marine and fresh
water wetlands, excluding transitional zone wetlands which are addressed in
Objective 6.3". Policy 6.2.10 states, "Any development activity within a viable
naturally functioning fresh-water wetland not part of a contiguous flow way shall
be mitigated in accordance with current SFWMD mitigation rules. Mitigation may
also include restoration of previously disturbed wetlands or acquisition for public
preservation of similar habitat". These wetlands are a part of a contiguous flow
way. However, the Board of County Commissioners has directed staff, through
internal policy, to allow for impacts to wetlands when State and Federal agencies
issue wetland permits for such impacts.
Objective 6.4 states, "A portion of each viable,naturally functioning non-wetland
native habitat shall be preserved or retained as appropriate". The policies which
discuss the preservation requirements, state that they should not be interpreted to
allow development in wetlands, should the wetlands alone constitute more than
25% of the site. The wetlands on this site cover 35% of the site. However they
are being permitted for impacts through the State and Federal wetland permitting
process.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
n Water Management:
This site sits within the Wiggins Bay Outlet Basin Study area defined by Agnoli,
Barber and Brundage in their study of April 1997.
The Water Management for this site consists of two interconnected lakes
bordering the wetland preserve. The lakes will provide the water quality retention
and water quantity peak flow attenuation required to throttle the discharge rate
down to acceptable levels. The project will be permitted by SFWMD because of
the amount of wetlands on-site.
Environmental:
Site Description:
The subject property contains 20.4 acres, made up of pine flatwoods, scrubby pine
flatwoods, two cypress heads, wet prairie and xeric oak/ rosemary scrub. The
majority of the vegetative communities on site are very high quality habitats, with
little exotic invasion evident. It appears that the xeric community had a
population of gopher tortoise at one time that have moved from the site. Many
older and filled-in burrows were observed as well as one larger inactive or
possibly abandoned burrow. There are two distinct cypress heads on site, which
are connected by hydric pine flatwoods. This wetland system is connected to off
site adjacent wetland preserves.
Page 3
�� II
Upland habitats on site include 4.8 acres of pine flatwoods with slash pine, saw
palmetto, gallberry, pennyroyal and a limited amount of Brazilian pepper and
downy rosemyrtle in the midstory. Scrubby flatwoods cover about 6 acres of the
site and include slash pine, myrtle oak, sand live oak, hog plum, saw palmetto and
rosemary, along with xeric mosses and ground cover. The third vegetative
community is xeric oak/rosemary scrub with sand live oak, myrtle oak, hogplum,
rosemary, running oak, nodding pinweed, aster and scrub mosses covering large
areas of the ground. This is an extremely rare xeric scrub community for Collier
County. The rosemary scrub is in excellent condition with no noticeable exotic
vegetation or external impacts. Staff does not have the ability to require that this
habitat be given priority for preservation, unless gopher tortoises are identified on
site. However, due to the rare and high quality nature of this habitat, Staff feels
that it is important for as much of this area to be preserved, during the site
development process, as possible.
Three soil types occur on site. They include 1) Boca, Riviera, limestone
substratum and Copeland fine sands depressional unit (hydric), 2) Pineda and
Riviera fine sands (hydric) and 3) Satellite fine sand which is typically found
along high sand ridges.
Wetlands:
Approximately 7.5 acres of South Florida Water Management District/ Collier
County jurisdictional wetlands exist on site. Two,high quality, distinct cypress
heads are separated by hydric pine flatwoods. These wetlands exhibit a seasonal
high water level, which is indicated by the consultant to be approximately the
historic water levels for these areas. Standing water was observed in both cypress
areas during staffs visit. The consultant confirms that these areas are typically
wet during the summer months, due to the elevations as identified on the
topographic maps and the field indicators such as lichen lines, buttress on the
cypress and water levels observed on site. The two cypress heads are high quality
wetlands with a very small amount of exotics observed in the much larger wetland
on the north end of the parcel. Staff has asked the consultant to preserve the
largest amount of these two wetlands as possible and to connect them to each
other and the off site wetland flow way.
The church site to the north was required, through the permitting process, to
protect the wetland on its southern property line which connects with the wetland
system on this property and connects with wetlands to the south and east to create
a substantial wetlands flow way for this area.
Page 4
Preservation Requirements:
The proposed development is required to preserve a minimum of 5.1 acres of
native vegetation on site or mitigate for that area in accordance with Section 3.9.5
of the Land Development Code. The petitioner has proposed providing for 5.3
acres of preservation and 2.1 acres of lakes within the rear 275 feet of the parcel.
Listed Species:
The environmental consultant conducted a listed plant and wildlife species survey
and did not observe any protected species utilizing the property or adjacent
parcels. However, due to the fact that prime gopher tortoise habitat exists on site,
additional gopher tortoise surveys may be required in the future, if the parcel is
not immediately developed or if staff determines the need for same.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUD-00-07, "Two
Lakes Plaza", with the following stipulations:
Water Management:
The petitioner shall obtain a SFWMD Surface Water Management Permit prior to
SDP Approval.
Environmental:
1. Add the following stipulation to the environmental section of the PUD
document, "The petitioner shall incorporate xeric scrub vegetation within the
landscaped areas of the individual tracts, at the time of SDP submittal."
2. Additional gopher tortoise surveys may be required at the time of future
development order submittals.
PREPARED BY:
ey
10600
-- STAN CHRZANOWSKI, P.E. DATE
SENIOR ENGINEER
Page 5
?-a 1-mod cb
BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE
SR. ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
REVIEWED BY:
2 -02/ - 02000
USAN MURRAY, AICP DATE
CHIEF PLANNER
CD- ILL -22-0
THOMAS E. KUCK, P.E. DATE
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
RO ALD F. NINO, A P DATE
CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER
g -2tr )
ROBER J. MULHERE, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
APPROVED ' :
VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP, ADMINISTRATOR DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Page 6
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Planning Services Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Naples, Florida 34104
August 23, 2000
Hole,Montes&Associates,Inc.
715 10th Street South
Naples,FL 34102
RE: Planned Unit Development Petition No. PUD-2000-07
"Two Lakes Plaza "PUD"
Dear Sirs:
The referenced matter will be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council during its forthcoming
meeting scheduled for September 6,2000. The Public Hearing to consider this item and other matters
will begin at 9:00 a.m. at the Collier County Government Complex,Administration Building,Third
Floor,Commissioners' Board Room.
It is recommended that you or your appointed representative be present at this meeting to answer any
n questions the Environmental Advisory Council may have regarding your request.
Attached for your information is a copy of the Environmental Advisory Council's Agenda and Staff
Report for this meeting.
If you have any questions regarding this matter,please do not hesitate to contact this office at
(941)403-2400.
Very truly yours,
/ to A. "61t,te;(31____
Barbara Burgeson
Sr. Environmental Specialist
BBB/lao/h:\EAC letters
Attachments
cc: North Naples Bonita Land Trust
Thomas G. Eckerty, Trustee
EAC File
Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www.co.collier.fl.us
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Planning Services Department
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
August 24,2000
Paula Davis
Keystone Custom Homes
9051 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 202
Naples,FL 34108
RE: Preliminary Sub-Division Plat PSP 2000-10/Special Treatment ST-99-3
"Little Palm Island PSP"
Dear Ms. Davis:
The referenced matter will be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council during its forthcoming
meeting scheduled for September 6,2000. The Public Hearing to consider this item and other matters
will begin at 9:00 a.m. at the Collier County Government Complex,Administration Building, Third
Floor, Commissioners' Board Room.
It is recommended that you or your appointed representative be present at this meeting to answer anyquestions the Environmental AdvisoryCouncil may have regarding your request.
Attached for your information is a copy of the Environmental Advisory Council's Agenda and Staff
Report for this meeting.
If you have any questions regarding this matter,please do not hesitate to contact this office at
(941)403-2400.
Very truly yours,
/30.4- LetviDat._
Barbara Burgeson
Sr. Environmental Specialist
BBB/lao/h:\EAC letters
Attachments
cc: Coastal Engineering
EAC File
Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www.co.collier.fl.us
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Planning Services Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Naples, Florida 34104
August 16,2000
William Hoover
Hoover Planning
3785 Airport Road North
Suite B
Naples,FL 34105
RE: Planned Unit Development Petition No.PUD-99-20
"Brynwood Preserve PUD"
Dear Mr. Hoover:
The referenced matter will be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council during its forthcoming
meeting scheduled for September 6,2000. The Public Hearing to consider this item and other matters
will begin at 9:00 a.m. at the Collier County Government Complex,Administration Building, Third
Floor, Commissioners' Board Room.
It is recommended that you or your appointed representative be present at this meeting to answer any
questions the Environmental Advisory Council may have regarding your request.
Attached for your information is a copy of the Environmental Advisory Council's Agenda and Staff
Report for this meeting.
If you have any questions regarding this matter,please do not hesitate to contact this office at
(941)403-2400.
Very truly yours,
IfAl
Stephen Lenberger
Environmental Specialist II
SL/lao/h:\EAC letters
Attachments
cc: David S. Braverman
EAB File
Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www.co.collier.fl.us