EAC LDC Stakeholder's Meeting Agenda 03/11/2009 Environmental LDC Amendments Stakeholders Meeting
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida
March 11, 2009
9:00 a.m. until noon
Rooms 609/610
Agenda
1. Schedule for 2009 LDC amendments
2. EAR-based amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
3. Other environmental amendments (Manatee Protection Plan shoreline amendment,
other?)
4. Roundtable discussion
a. Major issues
b. Concerns & Suggestions
5. Set next Meeting
O1,L /,,
Collier County Government I A,
Communication & Contact: Sandra Arnold-Lawson
Customer Relations Department Public Information Coordinator
3301 East Tamiami Trail (239) 252-8308
Naples,FL 34112
February 18,2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
9:00 a.m.
A public meeting will be held to discuss environmental Land Development Code amendments on
Wednesday, March 11 at 9:00 a.m. in conference rooms 609 & 610 at the Community
Development and Environmental Services Division Service Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive,
Naples.
Attention: two or more members of the Collier County Planning Commission may be
present and may participate at the meeting. The subject matter of this meeting may be a
future item for discussion and action at a Collier County Planning Commission meeting.
Attention: two or more members of the Environmental Advisory Council may be present
and may participate at the meeting. The subject matter of this meeting may be a future item
for discussion and action at an Environmental Advisory Council meeting.
Attention: two or more members of the Development Services Advisory Committee may be
present and may participate at the meeting. The subject matter of this meeting may be a
future item for discussion and action at a Development Services Advisory Committee
meeting.
Attention: two or more members of the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee may be present and may participate at the meeting. The subject matter of this
-- meeting may be a future item for discussion and action at a Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee meeting.
Attention: two or more members of the Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee may be
present and may participate at the meeting. The subject matter of this meeting may be a
future item for discussion and action at a Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee
meeting.
The meeting is open to the public.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this
proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please
contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail,
Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are
available in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
For more information, call Stephen Lenberger in the Engineering and Environmental Services
Department at 252-2915.
-End-
c, ` C
Environmental LDC Amendments Stakeholders Meeting
March 11, 2009
9:00 a.m.
Signup Sheet
Name E-mail address
S / W// ..%/Ki / t r2cl 9
aid avtdsvneij neer,/7.co.vl
Ivt i ,`(6) Tinsel/AJ•rac/4.?es,
/j4To 471 1-,4-i
--n a_iItoso) $w� � n & lc,I3cI1I - il/�--. ecrn
��ys�N �w� �a� _0
D-34)y X mob.., la.<<*R1414,01, 4M
'Sji* 1104/C A ) Cd CYZ C_Ci/t -Cr tilQ.0(1
tkCaj � b Ck)L(ark-Ss'-r v CV\C •
[4-'t( CUS\k, CCI, ko,e (c13-(0
qtLe_d_ jeL ie5-6,0 12 3 4 (Lz__, 6O,61(a.41-, 179e
C i ' _s CW5 e IAA Se/1 en�, COM
1-4,e (01 , A-S kf ( , c ko ixue-/ o khyn., e
rStto-i
a 1 GAA S c OttconsgivnAct.d . u -
yYFr ) , '
1),4-61,; 2 c'c 2
Environmental LDC Amendments Stakeholders Meeting
March 11, 2009
9:00 a.m.
Signup Sheet
Name E-mail address
/!- M , eohge< zdete i •(4,',
CJ-W1z!'
a ) » /t7 )
Z4 -cahotcbcAs KVLLcd
í4ifrlLLu 3 ,-v7W L)-4
S1- L . 2 )_
v-kfa,h vt 1 GL)CAy-J2 cipuuLd GL4). ot ;DY
voLA7ct
c.k_ h CLuL:&
4 crA/v(2.A
LC ( 1
Environmental LDC Amendments Stakeholders Meeting
March 11, 2009
9:00 a.m.— 12:15 p.m.
Attendees identified themselves
Stephen Lenberger presented items 1, 2 & 3 on the agenda
Meeting was open up as a roundtable discussion. Each attendee identified issues of
concern and suggestions.
Issues discussed consisted of the following:
Percent exotics allowed in preserves
Container size for mid story and canopy plantings within preserves
Vesting issues
Native vegetation definition
Criteria for defining native vegetation(What qualifies?)
Different strata
How far back in time
Previous criteria vs. new criteria for preservation
Implementation of definition
Mowed understory
UMAM
Not appropriately used in some sections of the Code
Established for entire state and supersedes local regulations
Dimensional criteria—should be incentive based (Lee County)
Off-site criteria good in recent draft
Why not allow other agency mitigation to be credited for off-site preserve
requirement
Lead, zinc, etc loadings & Harper analysis—CCME Policy 13.1.1 (duplication of
regulation)
Amend the GMP
Water quality issues best left to state. Wait until new DEP rules are adopted first
Dimensional criteria for preserves a problem—need to consider habitat type and existing
conditions
Listed plants—already protected under preserve selection criteria
Not cost effective to relocate Tillandsia
Recreational uses need to be compatible and must consider listed species using the
preserve
Stormwater in preserves
Prohibit in xeric communities
Management of preserves needs to address stormwater in preserves
Certifications for stormwater systems
State permitting—delegation agreement?
150%pretreatment currently being used by SFWMD
Off-site preserve criteria
Management
Would like to review most current draft of amendment
Monetary payment in future, possibly a concern if Conservation Collier in not
around
Land donation
Conservation easements and other encumbrances a problem
Tax value of Conservation Collier land decreases but tax value increases for the
land now allowed to be developed
Like for like habitat for rare habitats could be considered, but probably not
feasible. Restrict in code as part of off-site criteria, instead.
Slopes adjacent to preserves have to be planted with 100%native species. Stabilization of
slopes is an issue. Need to re-evaluate.
Impervious pathways should not be allowed in preserves
4 foot max width
Evaluate what is out there now! Is it a problem?
Impervious pathways act as fire breaks, beneficial. Used by vehicles managing
burns.
Urban preserves, problem with
Setbacks
Shapes/widths
Preserve management plans (PMP)
Need flexibility in management(example: allow for controlled burns)
Have PMPs allow for clearing without having to submit a separate VRP
Why require PMPs and listed species management plans on site plans?
Break
Discussion continued about native vegetation definition and how it is applied to
partially/previously cleared sites.
Vegetation should not have to be preserved if previously permitted to be cleared
and was actually cleared
Why penalize property owners that remove exotics from their property prior to
development?
Native vegetation vs. tree protection plan question?
Currently penalize property owners if trees are preserved, since they have to
replant the other strata
Why penalize new property owners for previous clearing. At what point vested?
Why penalize property owners for saving trees?
Gopher tortoises on previously disturbed sites. Need open areas with Bahia.
Setbacks from preserved trees?
Legally cleared of just exotics and subsequent mowing for Code will maintain
property in a cleared state.
Need to consider management for specific habitat types in order maintain certain
types of trees (pines reverting to an oak/cabbage palm hammock in time)
Original intent of LDC was to protect habitat!
Alternate mechanism that does not penalize property owners. Preserved trees and
not a"preserve". Call another name: park, open space, buffer, etc.
Agricultural vs. other types of legal clearing
Trees without other strata also provide habitat and functionality
Clarify in Code that planted shade trees and landscape do not count as native
vegetation for the preserve requirement
Need to protect trees as well
Consistency on application of Code is an issue!
Different criteria for open space, park, etc.
Conservation easements
Setbacks
Restoration
Incentivize
Assess lower strata
Legal clearing
Can't determine from historic aerials
Incentive for restoration
More land to develop
Flexibility—in shape or preserve
Consider Harper analysis, stormwater criteria and other requirements
which also reduce the amount of land that can be developed on a site
Consider canopy trees in retention areas (cypress)
Consider the impact of floodplain compensation and future watershed
management plans on site development
Next meeting in about 2 weeks