Loading...
EAC Agenda 06/27/1990 MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL DATE: May 16 , 1990 TIME: 8 : 45 A.M. PLACE: 3rd Floor Boardroom, Building "F" , Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida EAC STAFF PRESENT ADDISON ABS . ADAIR X NEALE X WORSHAM X LLANO X POLEN X SNYDER X SHREEVE X TURRELL X PETTROW X LORENZ X LUNTZ X MINUTES BY: Harriet Beech, Deputy Clerk CALLED TO ORDER AT: 8 : 45 A.M. ADJOURNED: 1 :05 P.M. PRESIDING: Dr. Snyder, Chairman ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA: Add Petition PU 90-12 for Administrative Approval . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Turrell moved, seconded by Mr. Neale and carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the March 21 and April 18, 1990 meetings. ***** PETITION NO: PU-90-12 FILED BY/FOR: Collier Enterprises, Inc. REQUESTING: A renewal of the provisional use for a com- munications tower on which Collier County will lease space for their emergency radio system. REPRESENTED BY: Mr . Herb Luntz, Communications and Public Affairs Director . COMMENTS: Mr. Herb Luntz explained that this petition is brought before the Council for a recommendation to Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 approve the renewal of the provisional use for construction of the tower . Collier Enterprises, Inc. had secured approval , but have not proceeded with construction plans, and the use has lapsed, he said. Collier County, he added, wishes to lease space on this tower for its emergency radio system. The Council administratively approved Petition PU-90-12 by consensus. ***** OLD BUSINESS: Definition of "Fish Camp" COMMENTS: Staff reported no unfavorable comments were received regarding this matter . MOTION: Made by Mr. Turrell to approve the new definition of Fish Camp as indicated below. Seconded by Mr. Neale and carried 4/0. Fish-Camp Fish-Camp - a temporary use chickee hut style structure, typically harboring the following characteristics: ele- vated on pilings, open-aired, without utilities such as water, sewer and electric lines or septic tanks, constructed with little to no disturbance of surrounding biological communities associated with waterfront areas, with a maximum construction footprint of one thousand ( 1000) square feet and one ( 1 ) associated access dock. All waste collection facilities must be designed for a temporary gathering only, e.g. , a portable toilet with wastes removed for proper disposal . *** PETITION NO: PU-90-7 FILED BY/FOR: Russell Shreeve of Collier County Government Housing and Urban Improvement , representing Collier County Board of County Commissioners. REQUESTING: A provisional use "B" of the Industrial Zoning District for a recycling facility. REPRESENTED BY: Russell Shreeve, Collier County Housing and Urban Improvement. Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 COMMENTS: Mr. Shreeve explained that the request is for a provi- sional use for development of a plastics recycling facility on a fifteen ( 15) acre site located in the northwest corner of the proposed Immokalee Industrial Park, north of the Immokalee airport . He said the site is currently bounded on the north and east by land zoned A-1MH, on the south by land zoned I , and on the west by the old Seaboard Coastline Railroad. The site has been completely cleared for agricultural use and presently remains zoned as A-1MH, he noted. Mr. Shreeve commented that the recycling company wishes to lease 15 acres from the County on the Immokalee Airport property and recycle agricultural film and low density polyethylene, clean it , put into pellets and then ship it out . He said they will hire fifty to seventy-five local employees from the Immokalee area. Mr. Neale asked, in Stipulation 3, for an explanation of a 500-year storm event . Mr. Worsham said that it is a very dangerous hurricane, and the reasoning is that if anything was released from the site, it would be contained on a zero discharge site, with a berm all the way around. Mr. Turrell asked how the runoff from pesticides will be handled on this site and Mr . Shreeve responded that the Orlando Laboratory is investigating to see what their runoff will contain. The company is not fully committed to moving a facility to Immokalee and until the urban development team has all the problems resolved, they will not release confidential infor- mation to the County about the contents of runoff, he said. After these issues have been resolved, a site development plan will be reviewed that will contain patented information the County needs, he continued, but the provisional use approval is necessary prior to further negotiations for this facility. Mr. Neale asked if they will come before the EAC again? Mr. Worsham said they will for the provisional use, but review of the site development plan would be a staff function. Dr . Snyder asked what are the hazardous materials of greatest concern? Pesticides and herbicides, Mr. Worsham offered, and presently it is going to a landfill, laying on the ground and leaching almost uncontrolled. He added that this will be a controlled system and will have to be permitted by DER and EPA. Dr. Snyder asked if Polycycle has Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 another plant operating elsewhere, and Mr. Worsham said they are opening another in Louisiana, although the engineering and process has been developed in France and it complies with France' s environmental laws. The main concern for the company is to have a continuous, assured electrical supply for the process, he said. Once this is assured, the company will release necessary information for county review. Mr. Neale questioned if the effluent would be treated washwater and Mr. Worsham concurred. Dr. Snyder asked Mr . Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator, about recycled washoff and he responded that the main concern is that plastic material from the fields will be laden with various agricultural chemicals. He noted that as this material comes into the plant, it will be washed, rinsed, chopped up, and sand and orga- nic materials will be removed from the plastic. After that , he continued, it will be heated, extruded, shaped into plastic pellets and shipped out . Thus, he said, when the material is washed and rinsed, there will be some solid material that must be clarified, filtered and made into a sand sludge. At that point , he continued, the question remains if that will be of a hazardous nature and how the secondary waste stream from the wash/rinse cycle will be handled; plans now are to recycle the polycycle rinse water through the plant . There will have to be a well for make-up water and rinse water must not be discharged off-site, he noted. Mr. Lorenz added that Pollution Control Department staff has sampled waste material now in the Immokalee landfill, and did detect low concentrations of Delapon, Pentechoriphynol, Chlordane, 2-4-D and 2-4-5-TP, but the concentrations were well within significant threshold concentrations which was surprising. However, he added, the process in the recycling plant will further concentrate these types of agricultural chemicals and if the waste material is of a hazardous nature, the company will have to meet state and federal regulations for hazardous waste disposal . If it is not hazardous, it has potential to be accepted at the landfill as a cover material, he said. Mr. Neale asked where the sand sludge comes from and what is the consistency. Mr . Lorenz responded it comes from sand and organics held within the waste film and will be similar in consistency to water treatment lime sludge. Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 MOTION: Made by Mr. Turrell to recommend approval of PU-90-7 for provisional use "B" of the Industrial zoning district for a recycling facility with the following stipula- tions. Seconded by Mr. Neale and carried 4/0. STIPULATIONS: 1 . All wastes generated from the cleaning and processing of the plastics which are classified as hazardous by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) or United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) shall be properly disposed of at an USEPA approved hazardous waste disposal facility. Types and quantities of waste reported to these two agencies shall be copied to Collier County Pollution Control Department . 2 . All materials or wastes which are stored or handled on site shall be contained within a curbed impervious sur- face which shall provide a volume equal to 110 percent of the permitted liquid fraction and covered to prevent any possibility of leaching due to precipitation. 3 . The site shall be required to retain a 500 year 3 day storm event with zero discharge permitted due to the nature of the hazardous wastes associated with the pro- ject . All retention must be dry, no excavations shall be allowed unless completely bermed and isolated from all site drainage pathways. 4. All FDER and USEPA permits shall be presented to Collier County Project Review Services prior to building permit approval . 5 . Quarterly groundwater, soil and air sampling shall be required for pesticides, herbicides and metals if required by FDER, the USEPA or the Collier County Environmental Services Division. If required, moni- toring shall begin at the time of issuance of cer- tificates of occupany (CO) for the first structure and shall continue for the life of the facility. If required by the County Environmental Services Division, prior to CO for the first structure the applicant must post a bond in an amount to be established by the Division Administrator to cover potential clean-up acti- vities which shall be refunded after a period of ten ( 10) years if no releases of hazardous materials are detected by the USEPA, FDER or the Collier County soil and groundwater monitoring program. Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 6 . All air emissions from plastic processing shall be pro- perly scrubbed to meet USEPA and FDER standards and sampled quarterly for the parameters discussed in stipu- lation number five . 7 . If required, the soil , groundwater and air monitoring plan must be submitted and approved at the time of site development review. 8 . Protected species surveys may be required at the time of site development plan review if indicated by Collier County Project Review environmental staff site inspections. *** PETITION NO: PU-90-8 FILED BY/FOR: Robert L. Duane of Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc . , representing the Loyal Order of Moose. REQUESTING: A provisional use "N" of A-2 for a social and fraternal organization. REPRESENTED BY: Robert L. Duane, Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc . COMMENTS: Ms . Kimberly Polen, Environmental Specialist , said that staff commended the petitioner for designing a site plan that keeps the natural features in mind. The site was an old agricultural field, she said, pre- viously planted in row crops and had lain fallow for quite some time . She noted that the project is designed around all the natural pines that exist on- site. There were no questions or comments on this petition. MOTION: Made by Mr. Neale to recommend approval of Petition PU-90-8 with staff stipulations. Seconded by Mr. Turrell and carried 4/0. STIPULATIONS: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 82-2 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-57 (Use of Native Species in Landscaping) . Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 2 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 75-21 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-58 and Ordinance No. 82-2 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-51 . The naturally function- ing vegetation to be retained on-site shall include the following: a. The existing pines, located at the northern end of the property, shall be retained; and b. The centrally located pine on the southern half of the property shall be retained. 3 . Petitioner shall be subject to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan Policy 12 . 1 . 3 (discovery of an archaeological or historical site, artifact or other indicator of preservation) . 4. Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 82-37 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-53 (Removal of Exotic Species) . 5 . In the event protected species, nests or burrows are encountered during development activities by Collier County Environmental Review Staff, project design maybe adjusted if warranted. *** PETITION NO. PU-90-10 FILED BY/FOR: H & D Communications, Limited Partnership. REQUESTING: A provisional use, Section 8 . 10 of RMF-6 zoning district to construct a communications tower. REPRESENTED BY: No one was present to represent H & C Communications. COMMENTS: Kimberly Polen, Environmental Specialist, Project Review Services, said that staff will remove Stipulations 3 and 4 due to the fact that a tree remo- val permit is not necessary for this project . She stated that the petitioner cleared the trees necessary when the soil boring testing was being done on the site and this is not a violation of the Ordinances because Collier County will be using the tower for a "repeater" for the county emergency communications system, thus the project is considered a public uti- lity. Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 The only stipulations remaining are 1 and 2 which are basic, and the Petitioner has no problems with those, she noted. The Council administratively recommended approval of Petition PU-90-10 forwarding to the Board of County Commissioners. STIPULATIONS: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 75-21 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-58 (Preservation of Native Habitat and Tree Removal Permit) . 2 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 82-37 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-53 (Removal of Exotic Species) . *** PETITION NO. PU-89-24 FILED BY/FOR: Dr. Neno J. Spagna of Florida Urban Institute, Inc. , representing Golden Gate Moose Lodge 1654, Inc. REQUESTING: A provision use 3 (d) of "E" estates zoning for a lodge facility. REPRESENTED BY: Dr. Neno J. Spagna of Florida Urban Institute, Inc. COMMENTS: Dr. Spagna said that the petitioner has worked with staff to provide all necessary documents and meet requirements of the County. He said that his client accepts the Stipulations for this construction. Jeff Adair, Environmental Specialist , Project Review Services, commented that the site in question has been disturbed in the past, the petitioner is providing for mitigation and he has no additional concerns on the project . Mr. Llano asked if the term "wetland" means that the site is subject to flooding and Mr. Adair said it is not lower than the Fire Station situated close by, but the vegetation contains a good portion of wetland spe- cies, a few cypress and cabbage palms. Mr. Adair said most of the vegetation is simply ground cover, having Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 been cleared before. Dr. Snyder commented that it is typical estates drained cypress swamp and Mr . Adair stated that in all probability the land will become drier due to the drainage system in the area. He said the species to be used in the mitigation are those which can tolerate dry conditions. Dr. Snyder asked if in the mitigation requirements, would there be a size requirement on the nursery stock and Mr. Adair said the mitigation plan will be detailed at a later stage, but the usual approval is for seven to eight foot trees. Mr. Neale asked about stormwater retention located on the north side of the property. Mr. Adair explained that the petitioner has provided a grid there. Mr. Neale commented that the cypress trees are in the southwest corner, and the retention area is in the north. Mr . Adair responded that originally it was proposed by staff to maintain the retention area in the southwest corner . Dr . Spagna explained that the area had been drained in 1967 and at one time there was a small area there that was seasonal wetland during hydrocycle and is drained and cleared. There are sable palmettos there, he continued, and four or five scrub cypress. In order to locate the parking in the most logical and convenient location, the wetland area was placed in the northern site, he noted. He said he has concern with the specified heights of the trees to be planted because it may be very costly to provide six to seven foot trees, due to the large number of trees planned for this area. At the time of site development plan review, he suggested, the size of trees can be determined with staff . Mr. Adair said the cypress on-site will be transplanted and should be successful . MOTION: Made by Mr. Turrell to approve Petition PU-89-24 with staff stipulations as stated. Seconded by Mr. Neale and carried 4/0. STIPULATIONS: 1 . Petitioner shall be subject to Ordinance No. 75-21 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-58 (Preservation of native habitat and tree removal permit) . 2 . Petitioner shall be subject to Ordinance No. 82-37 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-53 (removal of exotic species) . Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 3 . Petitioner shall be subject to Ordinance No. 89-57 (use of native species in landscaping) . 4 . Petitioner shall retain or transplant on site a minimum of fifty-six (56) cabbage palms, as well as the five (5) cypress located in the southwest corner of the property. 5 . Mitigation shall constitute the planting of a minimum of one hundred thirty ( 130) nursery-grown native wetland tree species in an area designated as "preserve stormwater retention area. " A mitigation plan shall be submitted upon submittal of the site development plan. Site development plan approval shall be contingent upon approval of the mitigation plan. *** PETITION NO: PU-90-9 FILED BY/FOR: Dr. Neno J. Spagna of Florida Urban Institute, Inc. , representing the Assembly of God, Inc. (Church of the Living God) . REQUESTING: A provisional use "A" of RMF-6 for a church. REPRESENTED BY: Dr. Neno J. Spagna, Florida Urban Institute, Inc. COMMENTS: Dr . Spagna explained that this Petition is for the purpose of constructing a one hundred ( 100) seat church with sufficient parking for a maximum of fifty- five (55) cars on the 1 . 9 acre site . The property is located in the SE quadrant of the intersection of Eustis Avenue and South 5th Street in Immokalee and is located next to another church which is under construction, he said. This lot has been previously cleared, but contains some Golden polypody, listed as threatened by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which was found on several cab- bage palms on-site, he noted. Mr . Adair, Environmental Specialist , mentioned there are some oaks on the site which will be preserved and the church intends to develop only a small portion of the lot . He stated the plans include picnic areas around the church contingent upon preserving the canopy species. MOTION: Made by Mr. Neale to recommend approval of Petition PU-90-9 with staff stipulations. Seconded by Mr. Llano and carried 4/0. Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 STIPULATIONS: 1 . Clearing of native tree species outside the development envelope is not permissible. 2 . The area outside the development envelope shall be designated as a preserve on the site plan. 3 . The ground cover of the preserve area may be kept trimmed, with native landscaping permissible. Passive recreation such as picnic areas shall also be allowed. 4 . All cabbage palms and laurel oaks within the development envelope shall be transplanted to the preserve area. 5 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 82-2 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-57 (Use of Native Species in Landscaping) . 6 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 75-21 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-58 (Preservation of Native Habitat and Tree Removal Permit) . 7 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No . 82-37 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-53 (Removal of Exotic Species) . *** PETITION NO: R-90-10 FILED BY/FOR: George L. Varnadoe, Esquire of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Benton, P.A. , repre- senting The OHIP Partnership. REQUESTING: A zoning change from "E" estates and RSF-3 to PUD, "North Naples Medical PUD. " REPRESENTED BY: Allen Reynolds of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek and Bruce Anderson of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Benton, P.A. COMMENTS: Mr. Reynolds explained the Petition background and said the property is located on the north side of Immokalee Road and is south and west of the Cocohatchee River and is east of the North Collier Health Center . There are 18 . 7 acres of land in this project , he said, historically used for two single- family homes on two different parcels, and is bisected Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 by a minor finger of water leading up to the Cocohatchee River . He noted that the site has been cleared and altered by past activities with the excep- tion of a small area of wetland and a small area of retained upland vegetation that amounts to less than 4 acres . Mr . Reynolds discussed the plan, saying it is for a medically-oriented office park, allowed by the Growth Management Plan for this type of use in proximity to the hospital complex. It will , he continued, provide for sites for doctors ' offices and other medically- oriented uses that benefit by proximity to the hospi- tal . The upland area has been integrated into a park/open space system within the project and the wetlands (approximately 1 acre) also will be preserved in an open space system, he noted. The water manage- ment system is divided into two systems because the property is bisected by the tributary, an eastern and western basin, each with its own retention system. They are using a lake retention and a controlled discharge to a spreader swale which overflows by discharge to the river , he said. Their original plans called for a rectangular lake in the western quadrant and staff expressed concerns that some native habitat would be cleared by that lake, he explained, so after meetings with staff they modified the plan to recon- figure the lake to retain the best of the vegetation in that portion of the site. He then advised that the plans call for a bridge crossing the tributary creek at a point where minimal impact will occur . Mr . Reynolds noted that the Corps of Engineers and DER jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved and they may construct a boardwalk and overlook to tie those areas into the rest of the pro- ject and allow for some educational opportunities for patients on-site . Mr. Reynolds said there are some concerns with wording in the stipulations which seemed ambiguous and the petitioner has suggested some wording changes: Stipulation 1 : no concerns. Stipulation 2 : concern because it seems to indicate that mitigation for the bridge crossing can be determined immediately. The crossing has not been designed, he said, and thus suggests a language change to say "Mitigation for the road crossing and boardwalk/observation decks will be determined by applicable State agencies during Page 12 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 permitting. " He pointed out that staff has further input during SMP, SDP and Construction Plan Review. Mr. Jeff Adair said he could accept a change of wording, deleting the sentence, "With the exception of one road crossing and boardwalks there shall be no permanent development in areas designated "passive Park. " On the last sentence, he suggested a wording change : "All impacts to wetlands shall be mitigated at ratios established by the South Florida Water Management District, " because the County uses those ratios. Mr . Worsham said that presents a possible problem because the SFWMD does not have jurisdiction at that site, but the DER and County will be involved. Mr . Reynolds agrees with Mr . Worsham, saying that the "County" can be inserted in the sentence along with applicable State agencies. Mr . Neale said he would prefer to leave in the sentence that says "with the exception of . . . " and mentioning State and County agen- cies. Mr. Adair and Mr . Neale pointed out that the definition of a passive park can better be defined in Stipulation 5 . Dr. Snyder referred to the preceding sentence, asking why staff would strike that sentence. Mr . Worsham said that in Stipulation 5 the language is more specific about what is permitted in passive park areas. Mr . Adair said that not all the passive park areas are wetlands, but that he did not want to see an observation deck installed in the wetlands, and in the next few stipulations, wording defines what can and cannot be permitted in those areas. Dr . Snyder suggested coming back to Stipulation 2 later in the discussion. Mr . Reynolds said Stipulation 3 should be deleted because there is no mitigation appropriate on the site. Mr . Adair explained that some of the passive park will be in wetland areas and it is not known where the boardwalks will be located, or where picnic tables are, or where observation towers may be. He said staff wants a mitigation plan so that when the petitioner comes in with the first SDP, staff can determine where possible "disturbances" may be and how they are planned to be mitigated, whether on the west or the north, in order to have the whole picture. Dr. Snyder suggested coming back to Stipulation 3 after reviewing Stipulations 4 and 5 . Mr . Reynolds said that Stipulation 4 deals with per- mission to have a boardwalk and an observation area Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 within the project wetlands. He said that it is per- missible to use wetlands as open spaces with board- walks for limited access, and in recognizing that no other use can be made of these properties he feels the opportunity should be granted to do this. He is not acquainted with a policy which specifically denies boardwalks in wetland areas and has concern that this indicates a new approach to allowable uses in wetland areas. He pointed out that in their revised stipula- tion, development is limited only to boardwalks and observation areas. Mr. Adair pointed out that there are only 0. 7 acres of wetland on this site which he wishes to keep in pre- serve, without development , out of 18 . 7 acres, and he noted that passive park land will have boardwalks, nature trails, picnic areas, so he feels that the .7 acres should be reserved due to its small size. He continued, wetlands are known to be sensitive areas and should not undergo disturbance. He has no objec- tion to an observation deck outside the wetland area. Mr. Neale commented that the wetland is in a corner of the site and he agrees with Mr. Adair. Mr . Reynolds says that if the county will not permit this very limited use of that land, then it is tan- tamount to taking the land because there will be no use of the property permitted. Mr . Neale stated he disagrees with that point of view. Mr. Reynolds then pointed out that Stipulation 9 suggests dedicating that area to the County and he categorically opposes that concept. He feels the petitioner should be given the opportunity to make reasonable use of the area and work it into the overall plan. Mr. Turrell suggested that only if the wetland is uni- que it should become inviolate. Dr. Snyder suggested language to connect boardwalk construction to mitiga- tion. Mr. Adair noted that trees will have to be removed in order to put a boardwalk through the wetlands. Mr. Worsham interjected that the wetland portion is DER jurisdictional and that makes it unique, that it will be preserved and platted according to DER statu- tes and they may not permit a boardwalk there. He suggested language to read "by applicable state, federal and county agencies. . . " Dr. Snyder remarked that he could accept a revised Stipulation 4, which Page 14 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 would refer to "other than a boardwalk and small observation deck permitted in the preserve area, " and then Stipulation 2 mentioning both state and county agencies. Mr. Reynolds said the petitioner will accept that. Mr. Reynolds noted that Stipulation 5 deals with upland passive park areas, "passive recreational facilities as a permitted use, " and a recommendation not to remove any tree greater than 4 inches DBH. He suggested language that trees of four inch diameter at breast height or greater, be retained "wherever possible, " and delete the last sentence. Mr. Adair said he is willing to stipulate it to SDP review, but wants trees specified on the site plan. Mr. David Pettrow, Director of Development Services, suggested conditioning the tree issue to the time that the final site development plan is in and develop a "tree plan" to see what has to be removed, at that time determining size because there is always a reaso- nability issue. He feels that the focus for deter- mination can be the site development plan. He noted that staff and petitioners must find a balance in �-. interpretation of ambiguous definition areas and he is currently working with a task force to smooth out such problems. Mr. Reynolds commented that one cannot legislate good design and during planning, staff and developers must be allowed discretion in these areas. Mr. Neale said that many things are subjective and since each site is unique and must be addressed separately, the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission relies on the Environmental Advisory Council ' s recommendations. Mr . Reynolds said that Stipulation 8 contains standard archeological language used in the past. Mr. Adair suggested one small change, "to enable Project Review Services or a designated consultant to assess the find. " Language changes suggested by Mr. Reynolds on Stipulation 9 were: "The Preserve area shall be iden- tified as a separate tract on the project plat and appropriate protective covenants pursuant to Florida Statutes shall appear on the cover of the plat con- tained within the dedication or general notes. " Mr. Reynolds does not feel the request to dedicate these lands to Collier County is appropriate, rather he Page 15 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 expressed the desire to dedicate the lands to the pro- perty owners' association to maintain. Mr. Worsham suggested "all the preserve areas" because that does not presume other agencies' jurisdiction, but this was not acceptable to Mr. Reynolds. Mr . Neale suggested language "all preserve areas shall be identified as separate tracts or easements on the project plat and appropriate protective covenants. . . " and there was consensus on that language. The language changes in the stipulations were sum- marized at this point and agreement was reached. MOTION: Made by Mr. Neale to recommend approval of Petition R-90-10 with stipulations as modified. Seconded by Mr. Llano and carried 4/0. STIPULATIONS AS MODIFIED: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 75-21 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-58 (Preservation of Native Habitat and Tree Removal Permit) . 2 . Pursuant to Ordinance No. 89-58 and Collier County Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Zone Management Element , Goal 6, Objective 6 . 2 , Policies 6. 2 . 2 , 6. 2 . 7, 6. 2 . 9, 6. 2 . 13, 6. 2 . 14, and Objective 6. 4, Policies 6. 4. 6 and 6. 4. 7, there shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally functioning fresh water wetlands. With the exception of one road crossing and boardwalk/observation deck there shall be no permanent development in the wetland area. Mitigation for the road crossing and boardwalk/observation deck will be determined by applicable State, Federal and County agen- cies during permitting. 3 . Should the project be a phased development , all mitiga- tion shall be contained within each phase. A mitigation plan for each phase shall be submitted at the time of SDP plan approval . SDP approval shall be subject to phase mitigation plan approval . 4. The northern 0.7 acre wetland shall be retained as a "preserve. " No development or passive recreation other than a boardwalk and small observation deck is permitted in the preserve area. The preserve area shall retain the existing natural canopy, understory, and groundcover vegetation, and shall be maintained free of exotic spe- cies in accordance with applicable County ordinances. Page 16 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 5 . Areas designated as "passive park" areas shall allow nature trails, picnic areas, and educational displays. All native trees to be removed will be determined at SDP process. A single boardwalk through the hammock area is permitted with its width and configuration to be deter- mined at the SDP process. 6 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 82-37 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-53 (Removal of Exotic Species) . 7 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 82-2 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-57 (Use of Native Species in Landscaping) . 8 . If during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other constructional activities, an archaeological or historical site, artifact, or other indicator is disco- vered, all development at that location shall be imme- diately stopped and Project Review Services notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable Project Review Services or a designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action in regard to its salvageability. Project Review Services will respond to any such notifi- cation in a timely and efficient manner so as to provide only a minimal interruption to any constructional activities. 9. The Preserve areas shall be identified as separate tracts or easements on the project plat and appropriate protective covenants pursuant to Florida Statutes shall appear on the cover of the plat contained within the dedication or general notes. *** Recess: 10:45 A.M. - Reconvened: 11 :00 a.m. at which time Recording Secretary Keaton replaced Deputy Clerk Beech *** PETITION NO: R-90-6 FILED BY/FOR: Carl R. Reich of Smally, Wellford and Nalven, Inc. , representing James L. Williams and Diane Williams REQUESTING: a zoning change form A-2MH to PUD, "Arrowhead" REPRESENTED BY: Carl R. Reich of Smally, Wellford and Nalven, Inc. Page 17 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 COMMENTS: Mr. Tom Stoval of Smally, Wellford and Nalven, Inc. , stated that he would like to have some wording changes on a couple of the recommendations made in the staff report . He referenced Item No. 5 and Item No. 10 - "Natural buffer/open space" and indicated he would like it to read "Natural buffer or open space" . He indicated in relation to Item No. 10, that the peti- tioner agrees to dedicate preserves and natural buffer to the county but wants to retain the open space for the project . Mr. Jeffrey Adair, Environmental Specialist , stated that he is in agreement with this change. Dr. Snyder indicated that Item No. 10 will have to be reworded to state: "All "preserves" and "natural buffer" areas shall be identified by a survey and pre- served on the plat document . . . Mr. Carl Reich stated that the term natural buffer/open space is considered to be the perimeter areas and the areas in the wetlands that are being preserved. He further stated that the open space areas are the areas internal and the two preserve areas will remain untouched. Mr. Reich indicated that it is worded this way on the PUD document . Mr. Reich stated that the petitioner is requesting that the preserve and open space areas be dedicated to the home owners association. Dr. Snyder stated that there is some confusion bet- ween the petitioner and staff as to who the areas will be dedicated to. Dr. Snyder noted that further rewording to Item No. 10 should occur and will state: "All "preserves" , "natural buffers" and "open space" areas shall be identified by a survey and preserved on the plat docu- ment by easement or tract. Protective covenants pur- suant to Florida Statutes shall appear on the cover of the plat contained within the dedication or general notes" . Eric Worsham, Chief Environmental Specialist, stated that the conservation and coastal zone management element should be identified in Item No. 2 and Item No. 6 after the Growth Management Plan. Page 18 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 SPEAKERS FOR PETITION SPEAKERS AGAINST PETITION None None MOTION: Made by Mr. Neale to recommend approval of Petition R-90-6 with the staff stipulations as modified below. Seconded by Mr. Llano. Carried 3/0, (Mr. Turrell abstained) . STIPULATIONS: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 75-21 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-58 (Preservation of Native Habitat and Tree Removal Permit) . 2 . Pursuant to Ordinance No . 89-58 and Collier County Growth Management Plan Goal 6, Objective 6 . 2 , Policies 6 . 2 . 2 , 6 . 2 . 7 , 6 . 2 . 9, 6 . 2 . 13 , 6 . 2 . 14 , and Objective 6 . 4, Policies 6 . 4 . 6 and 6 . 4 . 7 , there shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally functioning fresh water wetlands. A minimum of 12 . 25 acres shall be designated as wetland "preserves" with additional lands designated as "natural buffers" and "open space" tallying a minimum amount of 60 acres (this does not include lake areas) . 3 . A minimum of 11 . 3 acres of mitigation shall be pro- vided. A mitigation plan for the entire project shall be submitted upon the first site development submit- tal , with final site development plan approval con- tingent upon the mitigation scheme being approved by Project Review Services. 4 . Preserve areas shall retain the existing natural canopy, understory, and groundcover vegetation, and shall be maintained free of exotic species in per- petuity. Development and passive recreation of any kind is prohibited in the wetland preserve areas. 5 . Natural buffer and open space areas are permitted to have passive recreation such as nature trails and pic- nic areas. However, development of any kind is prohi- bited. All native trees of four (4) inch or greater diameter at breast height (DBH) shall be retained with maintenance of the ground cover and understory per- mitted. The "natural buffer" and "open space" area(s) are defined as being all areas not designated "preserve" , and which are not within the development envelope indicated on the conceptual master plan. Page 19 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 6. Pursuant to Collier County Growth Management Plan, Policy 7 . 3 . 4, evidence shall be submitted to Project Review Services documenting the FGFWFC ' s role in the live relocation of the American alligators located on site. This documentation must be submitted prior to approval of the first site development plan. 7 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 82-37 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-53 (Removal of Exotic Species) . 8 . Petitioner shall comply with Ordinance No. 82-2 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-57 (Use of Native Species in Landscaping) . 9. Petitioner shall cease all development and construc- tion activities in the vicinity of any found archaeological or historical site and contact Collier County Project Review Services, Environmental Staff . 10. All "preserves" and "natural buffer" and "open space" areas shall be identified by a survey and preserved on the plat document by easement or tract, dedicated to Collier County with no responsibility for main- tenance. Protective covenants pursuant to Florida Statutes shall appear on the cover of the plat con- tained within the dedication or general notes. sssss PETITION NO. : R-89-29 FILED BY/FOR: Robert L. Duane of Hole, Montes, and Associates, Inc . , representing Associates of Livingston Road, Ltd. REQUESTING: A zoning change from A-2 and A-2 "ST" to PUD for development of a mixed use project , "Livingston Road Country Club" . REPRESENTED BY: Robert L. Duane of Hole, Montes, and Associates, Inc . COMMENTS: Robert L. Duane stated that he was before this board two months ago and there was a recommendation of approval for the Livingston Road Country Club. He noted that the project is a 480 acre golf course com- munity, located at the intersection of the north/south and east/west extension of Livingston Road. He indi- Page 20 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 cated that he is back before the board to discuss an issue that was thought to have been resolved at the last meeting. He noted the issue is in reference to the percent of native vegetation that is to be pre- served within the planned unit development . He referenced the motion that was made which stated: "Should at the time of site development plan approval , the petitioner shall demonstrate to county staff that viable natural functioning habitat is less than 300 acres, the petitioner shall be permitted to adjust the 43 acres to comply with habitat requirements. " He stated that he did not have a problem with the motion but apparently he said, staff takes an exception to that language that was previously discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Duane stated that this is an issue because there is an invasion of Melaleuca on the site, therefore, it is very difficult for the petitioner to state the number of acres that are viable natural functioning habitat . He indicated that the burden was placed on the petitioner by the board, to come back with site development plans to demonstrate what is naturally functioning habitat and what is not . Mr . Duane noted that the county is presently fina- lizing construction plans for Livingston Road. He further noted that the county arrived at 300 acres from 480 acres because 50 acres is to be donated to the County for road right-of-way from the petitioner and a 2 acre utility site is to be dedicated to the county. He indicated that it very difficult for the petitioner to agree as to how many acres are viable naturally functioning habitat on the site or how they are to be incorporated into the final site design. Mr. Duane stated that the petitioner is requesting the board reinstate the motion that was made at the last meeting. He indicated that the petitioner feels that he is being denied a reasonable use of the land and stated that staff is not interpreting the policy that was adopted by the board. He noted that the pur- pose of the policy is to determine what should or should not be preserved and stated that not every acre is naturally functioning habitat . Dr. Snyder questioned if the minutes of the last meeting would reflect this subject? Page 21 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 Mr. Duane responded negatively, stating that the reinstatement of the motion was not reflected in the minutes of the last meeting. He noted that the motion was made by Mr. Neale at the November 12 , 1989 meeting. Mr. Duane stated that if at the time of site develop- ment and field investigations, the petitioner is not able to agree upon what is naturally functioning and what is not , then he presumes the petitioner will be back before the board again. He indicated that this may not be an issue because the petitioner might be able to incorporate 43 acres into the final design. Mr. Duane indicated that common sense has to be applied in this matter, otherwise, a blanket policy will be established where 25% of the gross acreage will be retained. He noted that other language in the policy states that exception to the 25% rule is allowed if the use of the site cannot co-exist with the amount of vegetation that is there. He further noted that there is a caviot built into the ordinance which allows the petitioner to come back to the board and demonstrate that this particular plan cannot work and co-exist with this policy. He indicated that staff cannot give an accurate account as to what is viable natural functioning habitat on the site today. Mr. Jeffrey Adair, Environmental Specialist , stated that the site has 482 acres, 100 of which has been cleared and is being used for agricultural purposes. He indicated that this now brings the total to approximately 300 acres, which is where he obtained a 75 acre figure. He questioned how many Melaleuca trees per acre can constitute nonviable habitat? He indicated that this determination has not been made, and will not be made for some time. He indicated that consideration was made for the plan to go through the Site Development Plan (SDP) review process, but the question still remains unanswered. Mr. Adair expressed concern, stating if 50% of an acre has Melaleuca on it , then do we assume that the acre is no longer viable. He questioned how much of a per- centage of an acre, staff is allowed to save? Mr. Neale expressed concern for stipulation no. 2 in the staff report . He questioned 75 acres and the equivalent of 25 percent of the existing natural habi- n Page 22 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 tat on site that shall be retained. He stated that staff agrees and disagrees with Mr. Duane in the same language. He indicated that staff has agreed to the 25% figure and has left it open by stating existing natural habitat. Mr. Duane stated that staff will have to determine what the percentage will be based from and indicated that the petitioner will have to present technical studies that demonstrate what is viable and what is not viable. Mr. Duane stated that the language in the stipulation that includes the word "should" is appropriate. He noted that the wording should read: "should at the time of site development plan approval, the petitioner can demonstrate to county staff that viable naturally functioning habitat is less than 300 acres, the peti- tioner shall be permitted to adjust the 43 acres to comply with habitat requirements" . He stated that the petitioner is in agreement with this wording. Dr. Snyder stated that this will delay a motion until the time of SDP approval . Mr. Adair indicated that if the petitioner can show that there is less than 300 acres of wildlife habitat then staff will have to revisit the site to determine how many acres will have to retained for a preserve. Mr. Duane stated that the petitioner is in agreement with this, and will accept staff 's recommendation. Mr. Worsham stated that it is difficult to resolve this matter at the SDP level and recommended reviewing the site at the Subdivision Master Plan (SMP) level . Mr. Duane indicated that the SMP is a further step in the process but does not go as far as the SDP. Mr. Neale stated that Melaleuca grow at a very rapid rate. He noted that if this project is a 10 or 15 year buildout, then there is a strong possibility that some of the current viable naturally functioning habi- tat that is on the site today might have their defini- tion changed at that time. Mr. Duane expressed concern with the SMP process as the petitioner will not have prepared construction Page 23 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 r-� plans for the development at that point, he will not have obtained permits from the jurisdictional agencies and will not have a final determination at to what has to be mitigated and what does not . Mr. Todd Turrell questioned why the petitioner would want to go any further with the construction plans when there are questions that still have to be answered? Mr. Duane stated that when the final design for the project is finished, the site may have 43 acres of viable naturally functioning habitat . He further stated that he cannot agree to something that an ordi- nance never intended to imply. Mr. Neale stated that the distribution of the remaining preserve acreage shall be determined as early as possible during the permitting process but not later than the SDP process. Mr. Duane stated that the petitioner agrees with this stipulation. Mr. Adair added to the stipulation stating anytime prior to the construction plan. Mr. Duane stated that this is acceptable to the peti- tioner. Dr. Snyder amended Stipulation No. 2 ( last sentence) to read: "Distribution of the remaining 43 acres shall be determined prior to final plat approval . "Should prior to the time of final plat approval the peti- tioner demonstrates to county staff that viable natural functioning habitat is less than 300 acres, the petitioner shall be permitted to adjust the 43 acres to comply with applicable ordinance. " Mr. Duane indicated that the right-of-way is still an issue. He noted that there are provisions in the zoning ordinance when land is dedicated to the county for the purpose of right-of-way. He further noted that open space is not lost for that purpose. Mr. Worsham stated that as far as county permitting is concerned, Staff wants items taken through the SMP process because it is a planning level . He indicated that the SMP process has to be fairly identical to the PUD Master Plan process in order to get approved. Page 24 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 Mr. Duane stated that the SMP process allows the peti- tioner to demonstrate if he meets the subsequent requirements of the zoning ordinance. He noted that adjustments can be made once you have gone beyond the SMP process into the platting. He indicated that the preserve areas on the site will not change and are identified on the PUD Master Plan. Mr. David Pettrow, Planning Services Director, stated that the acreage requirement may change, but indicated that more information has to be supplied by the peti- tioner and reviewed by staff. He indicated that he concurs with staff recommendations. Dr. Snyder stated that Stipulation No. 2 will be further amended by changing "final plat approval" to SMP approval . Mr . Duane stated that he would also like to have Stipulation No. 4 and Stipulation No. 10 amended to read as follows: (No. 4) "Passive recreation is pro- hibited in the wetland preserve areas as determined by Federal , State and County agencies. " (No. 10) "The 16. 1 acre ST area within the subject property shall be retained within a preserve area as identified on the PUD Master Plan. " SPEAKERS FOR PETITION SPEAKERS AGAINST PETITION None None MOTION: Made by Mr. Neale to recommend approval of Petition R-89-29 with staff stipulations as modified. Seconded by Mr. Llano. Carried unanimously. STIPULATIONS: 1 . Petitioner shall be subject to Ordinance No. 75-21 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-58 (preservation of native habitat and tree removal permit) . 2 . Pursuant to Ordinance No. 89-58 and Collier County Growth Management Plan goal 6, objective 6. 2 , policies 6. 2 . 2 , 6. 2 . 7, 6 . 2 . 9, 6. 2 . 13, 6. 2 . 14, and objective 6.4, policies 6. 4. 6 and 6. 4 . 7 , there shall be no unac- ceptable net loss of viable naturally functioning fresh water wetlands. Seventy-five (75) acres, the equivalent of twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing natural habitat on site ( i .e. disturbed and Page 25 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 agricultural land uses not included) , shall be retained. Thirty-two (32) acres of the total seventy- five (75) acres shall be designated as preserve areas. Distribution of the remaining forty-three (43) acres shall be determined prior to Subdivision Master Plan approval . Should prior to the time of Subdivision Master Plan approval , the petitioner demonstrates to county staff that viable naturally functioning habitat is less than 300 acres, the petitioner shall be per- mitted to adjust the forty-three (43) acres to comply with the applicable ordinance. 3 . Preserve areas shall retain the existing natural canopy, understory, and groundcover vegetation, and shall be maintained free of exotic species in perpetuity. 4. Passive recreation is prohibited in the wetland pre- serve areas as determined by Federal , State and County agencies. 5 . Pursuant to Collier County Growth Management Plan goal 7 , objective 7 . 3 , policies 7 . 3 . 4 and 7 . 3 . 5 , the peti- tioner shall retain big cypress fox squirrels and any found gopher tortoises on site, or shall relocate them according to Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) protocol after contacting and receiving approval from the FGFWFC. 6. All plant species of special concern not within the preserve areas and within the construction footprint shall be transplanted on site to preserve areas of suitable habitat . 7 . Petitioner shall be subject to Ordinance No. 82-37 as amended by Ordinance No. 89-53 (removal of exotic species) . 8 . Petitioner shall be subject to Ordinance No. 89-57 (use of native species in landscaping) . 9 . Petitioner shall cease all development and construc- tion activities in the vicinity of any found archaeological or historical site and contact Collier County Planning Services, Environmental Review Staff . 10 . The 16 . 1 acre ST area within the subject property shall be retained within a preserve area as identified on the PUD Master Plan. Page 26 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 ***** PETITION NO. : R-89-34 FILED BY/FOR: William C. McAnly of William C. McAnly and Associates, P.A. representing John N. Brugger as Trustee REQUESTING: A zoning change from A-2 to PUD, "Wilshire Lakes. " REPRESENTED BY: William C. McAnly of William C. McAnly and Associates, P.R. COMMENTS: Mr. Dwight Nadeau, Planning Director of William C. McAnly and Associates, P.A. , stated that Wilshire Lakes development is located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of I-75 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. He indicated that the petitioner is proposing to deve- lop a mixed use multi-family residential area on 214 acres with a total of 414 residential units at project buildout . Mr. Nadeau stated that the petitioner would like to amend some of the stipulations in the staff report as follows: (Stipulation No. 2 ) "Pursuant to Ordinance No. 89-58 and Collier County Growth Management Plan , Coastal Conservation Zone Element, Goal 6, Objective 6. 2 . Policies 6 . 2 . 2 , 6 . 3 . 7 , 6 . 2 . 9, 6 . 2 . 13 , 6 . 2 . 14, and Objective 6. 5 , net loss of viable naturally func- tioning fresh water wetlands. Approximately fifty-one (50 . 8) acres, the equivalent of twenty-five ( 25%) of the existing natural habitat on site ( i .e. disturbed and agricultural land uses not included) , shall be retained. Twenty-one ( 21 ) acres of the total acreage shall be designated as preserve areas. Distribution of the remaining acreage shall be determined at the time of Subdivision Master Plan (SMP) review and may require reduction of lake areas" . (Stipulation No. 3) "Preserve" areas shall retain the existing natural canopy, understory, and groundcover vegetation, and shall be maintained free of exotic species pursuant to applicable ordinances. A board- walk may be permitted in each preserve area as deter- mined by County, State and Federal review agencies. (Stipulation No. 8) "If during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other construction activi- ties, an archaeological or historical site, artifact, Page 27 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 or other indicator is discovered, all development at the location shall be immediately stopped and Project Review Services section notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable Project Review Services, or a designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action in regard to its salvageability. Project Review Services section will respond to any such notification in a timely and efficient manner so as to provide only a minimal interruption to any construc- tion activity" . (Stipulation No. 9) "All "preserves" and "natural buf- fer" areas shall be identified by a survey and pre- served on the plat document by easement or tract. Protective covenants pursuant to Florida Statutes shall appear on the cover of the plat contained within the dedication or general notes. Mr. Nadeau indicated that the PUD document , page 6-1 , "Conservation Area" , Modified Principal Uses - Item #2 should read as follows: "Boardwalks for purposes of enjoyment of the natural amenities by the residents of the project" . SPEAKERS FOR PETITION SPEAKERS AGAINST PETITION None None MOTION: Made by Mr. Neale to recommend approval of Petition R-89-34 with staff stipulations as modified. Seconded by Mr. Turrell. Carried unanimously. STIPULATIONS: 1 . Petitioner shall be subject to Ordinance No. k75-21 , as amended by Ordinance No. 89-58 (preservation of native habitat and tree removal permit) . 2 . Pursuant to Ordinance No. 89-58 and Collier County Growth Management Plan, Coastal Conservation Zone Element , Goal 6, Objective 6 . 2 , Policies 6 . 2 . 2 , 6 . 3 . 7 , 6 . 2 . 9, 6 . 2 . 13 , 6 . 2 . 14, and Objective 6. 5 , net loss of viable naturally functioning fresh water wetlands. Approximately fifty-one (50. 8) acres, the equivalent of twenty-five percent ( 25%) of the existing natural habitat on site ( i .e. disturbed and agricultural land uses not included) , shall be retained. Twenty-one (21 ) acres of the total acreage shall be designated as Page 28 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 preserve areas. Distribution of the remaining acreage shall be determined at the time of Subdivision Master Plan (SMP) review and may require reduction of lake areas. 3 . "Preserve" areas shall retain the existing natural canopy, understory, and groundcover vegetation, and shall be maintained free of exotic species pursuant to applicable ordinances. A boardwalk may be permitted in each preserve area as determined by County, State and Federal Review Agencies. 4. "Natural buffer" areas shall be defined as all areas not designated as "preserve" , and which are not within the development envelope. Nature trails, picnic area, and educational displays are permissible in these areas. These areas may be credited as serving as buf- fers around lake areas and preserves. 5 . A minimum of 4. 4 acres of mitigation shall be pro- vided. A mitigation plan for the entire project shall be submitted upon the first SDP submittal, with final SDP approval contingent upon the mitigation scheme being approved by Project Review Services. 6. Petitioner shall be subject to Ordinance No. 82-37, as amended by Ordinance No. 89-53 (removal of exotic species) . 7 . Petitioner shall be subject to Ordinance No. 89-57 (use of native species in landscaping) . 8. If during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other construction activities, an archaeological or historical site, artifact, or other indicator is discovered, all development at the location shall be immediately stopped and Project Review Services Section notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable Project Review Services, or a designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action in regard to its salvageability. Project Review Services Section will respond to any such notification in a timely and efficient manner so as to provide only a minimal interruption to any construction activity. 9. All "preserves" and "natural buffer" areas shall be identified by a survey and preserved on the plat docu- ment by easement or tract . Protective covenants pur- suant to Florida Statutes shall appear on the cover of Page 29 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 the plat contained within the dedication or general notes. ***** PETITION NO. : R-90-4 FILED BY/FOR: Robert L. Duane of Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc. , representing John E. Price Jr . REQUESTING: A zoning change from A-1MH ACSC/ST to PUD, "Price PUD" . REPRESENTED BY: Robert L. Duane of Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc. COMMENTS: Mr. Robert Duane stated that the project is located off the intersection of County Road 858 and State Road 29. He referenced an exhibit stating that there are a number of acres on the site that have been disturbed and used for agricultural production. He noted that the project is located within the area of critical state concern which is defined by the boundary of the two intersecting roadways. Mr. Duane stated that the petitioner is requesting to develop a 1 . 8 acre site for a convenient commercial development . He noted that the balance of the 16. 2 acres of property will be used as preserve areas and passive agricultural activities. He stated that the 1 . 8 acres to be developed, will have a minimal impact on adjoining properties or wildlife in the area. He indicated that the development will be located in an upland area of the tract which has been previously disturbed. Mr. Duane indicated that the development meets all the requirements of the zoning ordinance in the area for critical state concern and meets all the commercial site criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan only allows for convenience kinds of commercial establish- ments within the rural area to be located 5 miles apart from each other . He stated that the petitioner is proposing less than 5% impermeable surface on the site, therefore, the performance standard of the cri- tical area is needed. He further stated that 7% of the site will be cleared in order to obtain 1 . 8 acres needed for the development . He indicated that the Page 30 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 development will not generate a traffic impact within the area. Mr. Duane stated that the development is not situated in a wildlife corridor and indicated that the panthers that thrive and live on the site are on the outer reaches of the development . He noted that the deve- lopment is far removed from the urban developed area today. He further noted that the only way the Collier County Comprehensive Plan will allow additional com- mercial developments to be constructed within a 5 mile radius of each other is if there is an activity center designated on the site. He indicated that activity centers are defined as 160 acres by which commercial and mixed use projects may occur. He noted that it is not realistic to think that the county is going to approve or promote an activity center at the subject location. Mr. Gary Service, Conservation Consultants, Inc . , stated that he was involved in the initial site inspection that was prepared for the environmental impact study of the development . He noted that there are agricultural uses on the site as well as a large sized wetland which has been hydraulically altered by ditching. Therefore, he indicated, the existing native habitat is not of the best quality. Mr. Service indicated since the petitioner is only developing 10% of the site and leaving the other 90% in preserve, this is of great advantage to the area. He stated that the long term benefits for the 90% of preserve area are exemptions for agricultural to use the land possibly for timbering, therefore, reducing the habitat area. Mr. Service also indicated that he does not feel that the developed area will have a great impact on the panther or its habitat . Mr. Jeffrey Adair, Environmental Specialist, stated that the subject area is documented as having active panther use, and indicated that there are wetlands on the site which provide a lush habitat for deer and other wildlife that the panther uses as a food source. He indicated that the county has an active policy in using the area of critical concern for an area of mitigation, i .e. projects that are closer to Naples or Immokalee. He further indicated that if for some reason those areas cannot mitigate on site, then they are allowed to buy property within the area of criti- Page 31 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 s-� cal concern and deed that property to the state as part of DNR' s land acquisition program. He expressed concern in allowing a commercial development to be built in one area and possibly mitigating another development adjacent to it . He stated that there is a conflict of interest in that policy. Mr. Adair noted that the Comprehensive Plan is revised every six months and stated that this is the first year in which commercial development is allowed in this area. He further noted that the Comprehensive Plan is currently under review to have commercial development prohibited from areas of critical state concern. He stated that although there is not a policy in place within the Comprehensive Plan to pro- hibit commercial development in the subject area, there is a possibility that next year it will not be allowed. Mr. Duane stated that the site exhibits some unique characteristics which are very different from other sites in the area. He mentioned the location of the site being at the end of two intersections and the fact that the land has already been altered and cleared. Dr. Snyder indicated that the county received letters from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service who are recom- mending that the petition be denied based on the panther habitat on the site. Mr. Duane stated that the criteria for siting commer- cial development in a rural area is not unique to this plan but were permitted under the prior Comprehensive Plan. Planner Philip Scheff stated that the site is noted as rural agricultural on the Growth Management Plan land use map which allows commercial development to be located five miles apart from one another. He indi- cated that since the site is in an area of critical state concern, then this is an additional overlay to the rural agricultural land use designation. He further stated that the PUD document states that areas such as this are zoned A-1 and are to be used for com- mercial convenience facilities and agricultural uses. Mr. Bruce Anderson, Attorney representing the peti- toner, stated that there are four different sets of Page 32 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1990 laws that apply to the subject property because the site is in an area of critical state concern. He indicated that the project meets all the criteria with the State Statutes, the Florida Administrative Code, the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the Department of Community Affairs indicated that the project does comply with Chapter 380 - Florida Statutes and Chapter 28-25 - Florida Administrative Code. Mr . Neale stated that he does not have a problem with the project due to the fact that there is a 5 mile restriction placed between commercial convenience developments and because the site is at the end of two main intersections. SPEAKERS FOR PETITION SPEAKERS AGAINST PETITION None Kim Dryden Todd Logan MOTION: Made by Dr. Snyder to deny Petition R-90-4. Seconded by Mr. Llano. Carried 3/1 . (Mr. Neale opposed) . ***** There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dr. James Snyder, Chairman Page 33