Loading...
EAC LDC Subcommittee Agenda 10/11/2007 EAC LDC Subcommittee October 11, 2007 9:30 a.m. Development Services Center Room 609 1. Review/Change to Agenda 2. Committee Discussion: Preserve Management Plan Revisions (Policy 6.1.1 (6) CCME GMP) Stormwater Uses Criteria in Preserves (Policy 6.1.1 (5) b CCME GMP) 3. Public Comments 4. Setting Next Meeting Date(s) 5. Adjournment In addition to the opportunity for the general public to speak during "Public Comments", any member of the general public will be allowed to speak on each Agenda item before the Committee takes any action or moves on to the next item of the Agenda. 1 EAC LDC Subcommittee meeting dates Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division Room 609 9:30 a.m. August 29, 2007 -Wednesday September 13, 2007 - Thursday September 27, 2007 - Thursday October 11, 2007 - Thursday October 31, 2007 - Wednesday November 27, 2007 - Tuesday December 13, 2007 - Thursday December 27, 2007 - Thursday January 10, 2008 - Thursday January 24, 2008 - Thursday February 14, 2008 - Thursday February 28, 2008 - Thursday March 13, 2008 - Thursday March 27, 2008 — Thursday Revised October, 2007 EAC LDC Subcommittee October 11, 2007 9:30 a.m. Signup sheet Name E-mail address a a-61 . . (//ii4 00412/b ri r ite Liavireri McGisttlocih c -eiP@ coviseiNo nc`f-o j LiV\OLI9 krvc,e wj I svnku:i-C x• al. pi-1114t.41,0%-- a-0.4 . ut et/ r.c.44.ra/ .�'�, � r R WM c/vs L 7'4 @ 4oz—60,97- clefileiv S1eLQ1E2j6erieyp co/I/PY.904p/ 1/1;',c"t- IrLtakAr 022... 0%)', /VA- A i►sur, 4bef ube r Q oi\obo, c. Cpm Andy Wookk Ar `� u L passav-elta, nt+ DeltOlITIP11\1101AOYAlt@palairdtaM EAC LDC Subcommittee Meeting Summary October 11, 2007 meeting 9:40a.m. until 11:30 noon Attendees: Judith Hushon, Richard Miller, Bruce Layman, Alison Huber, Stephen Lenberger, Debbie Tyson, Jennifer Hecker,Nick Penniman, Lauren McCulloch, Mac Hatcher, Andy Woodruff Attendees discussed EAR-based Amendments identified for discussion during the last Subcommittee meeting. Items discussed included the following. Stormwater in preserves Review stormwater language proposed by Bruce Layman Mixed wetland and upland Control elevation important 10 year storm is what we should design for Ponding in uplands a concern No berming around uplands Meet additional SFWMD water treatment standards without impacting preserves Drained wetlands should be re-hydrated Need to re-hydrate upland preserves where drainage has occurred due to canals Storm events can affect water elevations downstream in wetlands and uplands in the same drainage basin. Use of impervious pathways for wheelchair access and for use such as bicycles should be allowed in preserves. Promotes use of preserve. Soil survey good tool Soils need to be verified in the field Deviation vs. administrative process Legal issue regarding EAC and if they can review of water management aspects of projects EAC can review impacts to uplands and listed species 150% water treatment— SFWMD allows some treatment in preserves (after first inch of rainfall) Need to evaluate Full treatment needs to occur prior to discharge into preserves SFWMD guidelines seem to be working, no problem cases identified Preserves at the new County regional park may have too much water, among other problems. Problems exist but can't pinpoint problem to just stormwater Should have to prove ecological benefit County could be more restrictive than SFWMD Preserve management plans Review preserve manager language change proposed by Bruce Layman Maintaining 30% coverage of mid-story for RCWs has been used for management of sites and has been approved by Jim Beever when he worked for the FFWCC 5 yr interval for area with grassy understory Possibly more frequent for areas with dense midstory Brush hogging can be used to maintain grass layer Proposed LDC text change to reflect staff intent (re. preserve manager) Page 1 of 1 From: Bruce Layman [mailto:BruceLayman@wilsonmiller.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:54 PM To: mason_s Cc: Tom Trettis Subject: Proposed LDC text change to reflect staff intent (re. preserve manager) «189069v3.DOC» Susan, Following is the rationale for revising the existing LDC text to reflect what we believe was staff intent: In conversation with you in May 2007 regarding the intended responsibility and liability of preserve managers, you stated that preserve managers have no legal liability if there are non-compliance issues found within a preserve. Rather, the preserve manager was intended to function as a source of guidance for the owner to advise the owner of how to maintain preserves in compliance with permit conditions, or to advise them of how to responsibly remedy non-compliance issues. LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.g.iii, however is currently written to suggest that the "Preserve Manager shall be identified as the responsible party to ensure that the Preserve Management Plan is being complied with." Additionally, the code states that"both parties" (i.e., the preserve manager and the owner) "will be responsible..." Further it later states that the "homeowner's association and the preserve manager shall be responsible for the annual maintenance of the preserve..." The text, as written could easily be interpreted by an average person to implicate the preserve manager as liable if compliance issues arise, based upon the LDC text noted above. As a result, we have drafted a revision to the existing text that identifies the owner as the party responsible for compliance with permit conditions and the preserve manager as responsible for offering guidance to the owner as it relates to preserve maintenance. The blue text reflects new text, or text that was moved from another location within the original paragraph; red text reflects deletions; and the black text remains unchanged from the original code. Please let me know if staff decides to carry this forward and if so, when, and whether the text proposed by staff will be the same as what we proposed. Thanks very much. We're eager to provide input, particularly if it will help clarify the intent of the code. Thanks. Bruce Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. file://C:\Documents and Settings\mendicino c\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OL... 10/8/2007 03.05.07 H.1.g.iii. Designation of a Preserve Manager. The Preserve Manager shall be responsible for providing the developer (property owner) with technical assistance regarding compliance with the Preserve Management Plan. A Preserve Manager shall be idcntificd as the minimum, the Preserve Manager shall have the same qualifications as are required for the author of an EIS, as set forth in section 10.02.02 A.3. The individual's name, address and phone number shall be listed on the Preserve Management Plan. The same information shall be provided regarding the developer. The developer shall be identified as the responsible party to ensure that the preserve Management Plan is being complied with. Both parties The developer will be responsible until such time that the homeowners association takes over the management of the preserve. At that time, the homeowners association shall amend the plan to provide the homeowner association information and information regarding the persons Preserve Manager hired by the association. to manage the preserve. The homeowner's association and the preserve manage shall be responsible for annual maintenance of the preserve, in perpetuity. 5/22/2007-189069-Ver:2-TKING CA#43 Z5555-555-555--0 lAir via son i er MEMORANDUM TO: EAC LDC Subcommittee rt t FROM: Bruce Layman " -A A CK DATE: 22 September 260-7---- — SUBJECT: Points for Discussion in Drafting/revising Stormwater Use Criteria in Preserves In order to move forward in drafting this code, there is some important information that is worthy of consideration, so that at the end of the day, we'll have a drafted responsible code that furthers staffs'direction and minimizes the potential for unintended consequences. There are six points, followed by proposed revisions to the EAC-approved code from last year. The purpose of the six points is to support/defend the proposed revisions. Base Information: 1. The approved GMP states in Policy 6.1.1.(5)(a), that" Passive recreational uses that do not impact the minimum required vegetation or cause a loss of function to the preserve area. Loss of function to the preserve area includes a reduction or a change in vegetation within the preserve and harming any listed species present in the preserve." This requirement is equally applicable to wetlands and uplands. Don't make either too dry or too wet at risk of changing their vegetative composition. 2. The approved GMP states in Policy 6.1.1.(5)(b), that"Discharge to preserves having wetlands requires treatment that will meet water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 62- 302. F.A.C. and will conform to the water quality criteria requirements set forth by the South Florida Water Management District." Freshwater wetlands typically need more water than directly falls on them to support their hydroperiod and depth of inundation. Water falling on natural adjacent uplands charges the water table and/or runs off to the low point on the landscape (i.e., the wetlands). If the uplands get developed, much of the rain falling on the now-developed uplands no longer seeps into the water table or runs off to the wetlands; it is shunted to the water management system (typically lakes) before it is discharged off site. The net result is that the preserved wetlands can become underhydrated unless they are incorporated into the project's stormwater management system. This is why preserves containing wetlands, that have been permitted by SFWMD over the past 20+ years, have often been incorporated into the water management systems. If this practice was inappropriate, there would be examples of vegetation dying as the result of the excess or inappropriate water application. Such examples have yet to surface. 3. The LDC (3.05.07.A.1) and the GMP (6.1.1.(2)) now direct that preserves used to satisfy the native vegetation retention requirement need to be designed "emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible". As a result, if there are wetlands located on site that are preserved, the potential is very high that a single preserve could include wetlands, uplands that surround and are adjacent to the wetlands (i.e., buffers), and uplands not immediately adjacent to the wetlands. 4. The importance of detention for stormwater on site has been repeatedly discussed in relation to the health of downstream water bodies, including canals, rivers, lakes, and estuaries. This could be in the form of decreased turbidity and current, increased water quality, and in the case of estuaries, freshwater influence. Experts have suggested that responsible detention of stormwater is a very positive project design feature for the health of the regional system. 5. In Southwest Florida, all but the driest uplands typically experience standing water or saturated soil conditions. The frequency varies seasonally and the extent is a gradation. There are no absolute natural physical boundaries, such as soil map polygons, that can define how wet something should or should not be. Soils maps were generated on a very large gross scale. As a result, the author of the maps has pointed out the need to assess in situ conditions in order to determine (approximate) actual hydrologic conditions. 6. Based upon LDC section 8.06.03.0.2, "the surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC", it appears that if there is a deviation that would go before the EAC through the appeal process, and the deviation is the result of the surface water management design of an approved SFWMD ERP, the EAC would not have the authority to review it. This may require a legal determination. Given the discussion, above, in relation to the proposed LDC text from last year's EAC approval, I'd like to propose the following revision in order to both retain the spirit of the EAC text, and avoid some unanticipated pitfalls of the prior text. Proposed Text Revisions: 3.05.07 Preservation Standards. H. Preserve standards. 1. Design standards. * * * * * * * * * * * * h. Allowable uses within preserves. For the purposes of this Section, preserves are those areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of Section 3.05.07. Wetland preserves are those containing SFWMD wetlands, or wetlands and uplands, and upland preserves are those containing only uplands. Only the following uses subject to the associated design criteria have been determined to ensure that the ecological functions of the preserves are maintained and are allowed within preserves. Passive recreational uses subject to the following criteria. a) Passive recreational uses are allowed within preserves, as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required native vegetation. These uses would allow limited access to the preserve, in a manner that will not cause negative impacts to the preserve. Allowed uses include, but are not limited to, pathways, benches and educational signs. Fences and walls are prohibited within the preserve. ii. Treated stormwater subject to the following criteria. a) Treated stormwater shall be allowed in wetland preserves in accordance with an approved SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit(ERP), or in accordance with SFWMD water quality treatment guidelines if an approved ERP does not require preservation of said wetland(s), so long as it will not negatively affect listed species present. b) Stormwater may be allowed in upland preserves at a frequency, duration, and depth similar to a typical un-impacted community type of similar vegetative composition, so long as it will not negatively affect listed species present. c) Discharge of treated stormwater into a preserve shall be in a controlled manner to prevent erosion, scour, and to promote even distribution. d) When stormwater is allowed in preserves, the associated stormwater facilities such as berms, swales, or outfall structures, may be located within the preserve, but the area of such facilities can not count towards the native vegetation preservation requirement pursuant to Section 3.05.07 of the LDC. These facilities are not subject to setback requirements as found in Section 3.05.07.H.3 of the LDC. These facilities must be placed under a drainage easement. e) Where stormwater is allowed in a preserve, the Preserve Management Plan as required in Section 3.05.07.H.1.g of the LDC must address preserve maintenance and shall provide a monitoring program comparable to SFWMD guidelines. f) Stormwater shall be allowed in preserves containing uplands in the RLSA-WRA areas in accordance with section 4.08.00 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District standards and Procedures. g.) A property owner may request an administrative deviation from the above regulations, 3.05.07.H.1.h.ii. Staff shall review the plans and proposed deviations to ensure wetlands in the preserve will receive a benefit and uplands in the preserve will receive no adverse impact from the deviations being proposed. If the deviation cannot be resolved administratively and it involves a preserve that has no jurisdictional oversight by SFWMD for review or permitting, the process for granting deviations shall follow the procedure as set forth in the Appeal section (10.06.00???or 8.06.10???)for the EAC, and shall be heard ata public hearing of the EAC. There is one last point that we as a group have not really discussed. The code, in section 3.05.07.H.1.h.i.a, requires paths in preserves to be pervious. In a county that is not rich in boardwalks, paths, or even bike trails, does the impervious nature of a path outweigh the benefit gained by providing convenient ADA access or access to outdoor activities like roller- blading, bicycling, or stroller-jogging? My thinking is that if there is anything that we can do to promote outdoor activities such as expanding the potential uses of such paths, we should �-. seriously consider it. 3.05.07 Preservation Standards. 4 (Formatted:Tabs: 2.98",Left ) H. Preserve standards. 1. Design standards. * * x * * * • * t + 4 * h. Allowable uses within preserves. For the purposes of this Section, preserves are those areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards Deleted:any and criteria of Section 3.05.07. Wetland preserves are those containing SFWMD wetlands,or peter_ rvied:,such as . wetlands and uplands,and uplandpreserves are those containing only uplands. Only the petered.peous following uses subject to the - associated design criteria have been determined to ensure that the ecological Deleted:Fences may be utilized 9 g outsidetl functions of the preserves are maintained and are allowed within preserves. of the preserves to provide protection • in the preserves in accordance with i. Passive recreational uses subject to the followingcriteria. they I protected species section 3.04.01 D.1.c. a) Passive recreational uses are allowed within preserves,as long as any Deleted only clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required Deleted: we'llthawe'llnative vegetation.These uses would allow limited access to the preserve,in a • comprised of jurisdictional wetlands manner that will not cause legative impacts to the preserve.Allowed uses jnclude,but are not uplands comprised solely of hydric soirstl limited to. as mapped in the Soil Survey of pathways,benches and educational signs.,Fences and walls are prohibited within i collier County Area,Florida,(USDA, the preserve. up 199Ends that serve as buffers around the wetland, ii. Treated stormwater subject to the following criteria. Deleted:the a) Treated stormwater shall be allowed,in wetland preserves jn accordance with aa. • Deleted:a combination thereof approved SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit(ERP),or,in accordance with SFWMD water Deleted:shall not quality treatment guidelines if an approved ERP does not require preservation of said Deleted:discharged into wetland(s),so long as it will not negatively affect listed species present. Deleted:utilized by¶ listed species. Stormwater shall be b) Stormwater may,be allowed in,upland preserves at a frequency,duration,and depth allowed yr jurisdictional wetland preserves¶ similar to a typical unimpacted community type of similar vegetative composition,so long as it with fisted species,but shall have no will not negatively affect listed species present, negative impact on those listed species c) ,pischarge of treated stormwater Deleted:Stormwater entering the preserve must be treated to meet the into a preserve shall be in a controlled manner to prevent erosion,scour,and waters to promote even distribution. i quality volumetric requirements of Section 5.2.1(a)of the Basis of Review Form d) When stormwater is allowed in preserves,the associated stormwater Environmental Resource Permit facilities such as berms,swales,or outfall structures,may be located within Applications Within the South Florida the preserve,but the area of such facilities can not count towards the native waterll Management District,(SFWMD vegetation preservation requirement pursuant to Section 3.05.07 of the LDC. February 2006). These facilities are not subject to setback requirements as found in Section Formatted:Font:5 pt 3.05.07.H.3 of the LDC. These facilities must be placed under a drainage easement. e) Where stormwater is allowed in a preserve,the Preserve Management Plan as required in Section 3.05.07.H.1.g of the LDC must address preserve, Deleted:poor maintenance,and shall,provide,a monitoring program comparable to SFWMD guidelines. Deleted:problems f) Stormwater shall be allowed in,preserves containing uplands in the RLSA-WRA areas Deleted:also in accordance with section 4.08.00 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District �Ddaeed:br standards and Procedures. (Deleted:upland g.) A property owner may request an administrative deviatiog,from the above regulations, (Deleted:s 3.05.07.H.1.h.ii. Staff shall review the plans and proposed deviations to ensure wetlands in the preserve will receive a benefit and uplands in the preserve will receive no adverse impact from the deviations being proposed. If the deviation cannot be resolved administratively and it involves a preserve that has no jurisdictional Del oversight by SFWMD for review or permitting, e ( retell:d:T process for granting deviations shall follow the procedure as set forth in the Appeal section(10.06.00???or 8.06.10???)for the EAC,and shall be heard at a public hearing of the EAC. Formatted:Font:5 pt sulameasailLYALLsamman cam Z ilusi m .0.x4. _ _