Resolution 1996-317
_~ ." ---..---.......1 "'.... ..~_...........-......'- --...._.....-..-...............--
-1__..__
JUL 1 6 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-~7
A RESOLUT ION TO ADD AN ADDENDlfH TO THE
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPOF~T (EAR) OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MJ\NAGEHENT PLAN BY
ABEt-WING PARAGRAPH V. C OF THE GOLDEN GATE
AREA MASTER PLAN OF THE ruTURJ:: l.AND USE
ELF:HENT AND TO TRANSMIT SAID RESOLUTION TO
THE SOUTHWEST ,LORIDA 1\%IONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL lSWFRPC) AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
WHEREAS, the Local C::wcrnment Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act of 1985, as ame'nded, (Section 163.3191 et
~~., Florida Statutes (1994) and Rule 9J-5.00S3, I!..orida
.n.dministrativ~ Code, E'~'nluation a.nd Appraisal Reports and Evaluation
and Appraisa.l Amendments, require that a local government periodically
cpdate its comprehensive plan through the preparation and adoption of
an Evaluation and Appraisal Report and adoption of Evaluati:m and
l\ppraisal Report-based plan amendments: and
WHEREAS, the SOL:th'....rest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRP:)
(lid formally request and entered into a contract with the Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) to conduct Rule 9J5.5.0053, LA.C.
sufficiency reviews of local government E11illuation and Appraisal
fteports upon request of the local governm(~nt; and
WHEREAS, Collier County did formally r.equest the delegation of the
Collier County Evaluation and P.ppraisal RI~port review to the Southwest
rlorida Regional PlAnning Council by the DeparJ....ment of Community
J,ffairs; and
vlHEREAS, the Department of Conununity Affairs approved the County
request for delegation of the J::valuation :lnd Appraisal Report
:;ufficiency review to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council;
,;:md
WHEREAS, Collier County did submit their Evaluation and Appraisal
Heport to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council for
Sufficiency Review on April 12, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Department of community Affairs has recommended that
t:he Evaluation and Ap~~aisal Report be fOUtld insufficient due to their
concerns over the EAR-based amendments proposed for policies in the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan affecting the Southern Golden Gate Estates
area; and
IDO( O()(hd 11
Amended EAR Reso.
- 1 -
, 'II: / I
. I
I"
_.__M..._<".~._.. .~.,,"._"_<'_...._~___~_,____.~~, ._,","_,="_,,,,_,~,,.,~,,",__~_.~~.",__,--".'__m._.-_...'_ "~",..-~...._.~~..--"".~.,.~ ,..,,-. ~~.,..._"-._.--,,- -,.-,..
---
--,
WHEREAS, Collier County
JUL 1 [, 1996
recognizes that the Department of Community
J\ffairs may have substantial compliance issues surrounding the EAR-based
;;,ffiendment for Golden Gate Estates as currently outlined and that needed
c:ctions by the County would be required to justify the amendment during
the EAR-based amendment process.
NOW, THERE,ORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Collier County acknowledges and provides the following
information on the Evaluation and Apprai~al Report-based
amendments for policies in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan
regarding Southern Golden Gate Estates:
1. The proposed amendment outlined in the EAR is not global in
its impact on land use, environmental issues, public
facilities or other goals, policies and objectives of thl~
Collier County Growth Management Plan since it would affl~ct
a limited geographic area of ttle County;
2. The ame:1drr\l~nt in question does not affect the internal
consistenc:! of the overall Collier County Growth Manageml~nt
Plan;
3. The County acknowledges that adequate supporting data an(j
analysis is a requirement for a finding of "in compliancl~"
for this amendment and all other EAF,-based amendments;
4. There are dpproximately 41,000 acres in Southern Golden (iate
Estates. 'fhe Department of Enviro~~ental Protection (DEPl
has made 5,400 transactions from June, 1985 through
June, 1996, representing a total of 10,950 acres. This
represents only 27% of the total acreage over an 11 year
period beillg acquired by DEP. If this rate of land
acquisitioll continues, it would take 41 years to complete
the prograrn. There does not appear from County records to
be other comparable sales in the area to determine market:
value othel: than DEP.
5. No buildin~l permits have been issued since the adoption of
Goal 2 and subsequent objectivE~s and policies in
AllgUSt, 19~J2. Therefore, the application review procedure
outlined irl Policy 2.2.3 has hnd nc effect because no
building p(!rmits have been iSS\led pursuant to that policy.
6. The Object~ves and Policies of the Conservation and Coast:al
Management Element are applicallle to development within
Collie:- County. Development Orders must be reviewed and be
consistent with those policies:
a. Objective 6.1: By August, 1992, identify, define and
prepare development standards and criteria for all
important native County habitats. Until the adoption of
specific development criteria, the County will continue
to follow current practices of habitat and s~)ecies
protection through negotiations between County staff and
development interests as part of the public hearing
process. These negotiations are based on provisions in
County Ordinances including Ordinance 75-21, the Tree
Removal Ordinance; Ordinance 77-66, the Environmental
Impact Statement Ordinance; Ordinance 80-19, the Coastal
Construction Control Line Ordinance; Ordinance 82-37,
!OOl 000,:-;145
Amended EAR Reso.
- 2 -
.. .~~."._."-" .-..~--". ._>-~-~-"",.- >~."..~-,.,_. .".<_._'.."._~~.".."-"'~-'"~._~'''-'''-''' .~._.~~-~~-^."~..,....,,-~....._.. ~-~-
__10..1_-
. ,
, I" I
. .. I I I I I ~ I
JUL 1 Ii 1996
the f:;wtlc Plants Ordinance: and Ordinance 711-9, the
Exotil: Fish Ordinance.
b. Objective 6.2: There shall be no unacceptable net loss
of vi,3ble naturally functioning marinE! and fresh water
wetla~ds, excluding transitional zone wetlands which ere
addressed in Objective 6.3.
c. Policy 6.2.1: Until such time that Natural Resource
Protection programs/plans (Objectives 1.3, 2.5 and 11.6}
and development standards for habitat areas (Objectiv(:
6.1) are adopted, the following policies shall serve as
interim criteria for incorporation into all developmerlt
orders.
d. Policy 6.2.2: All wetlands are designated as
envit"onmentally sensitive areas.
e. Policy 6.2.3: Altered or disturbed wE!tlands are
considered to be not viatlo, not natut"ally functionin~l,
degrzlded wetland ecosystems.
f. Policy 6.2.4: The follNdng policies shall not be
construed to prevent timbering operations so long as
tirnbr~ring operations util ize the best management
prac:ices to minimize the effects on ~/et1ands.
g. Poli,:y 6.2.9: Wetlands, including transi tiona1
wetlands, shall be defin(~d pursuant to the current
defi~itions of the Floricla Department of Environmental
Regulation.
h. Policy 6.2.10: Any development activity within a viable
naturally functioning frE!shwater wetland not part of .~
contiguous flow way shall be mitigatecl in accordance
w~th South Florida Water Management District mitigatilJn
rules. Mitigation may also include restoration of
previously disturbed wetlands or acquisition for public
preservation of similar habitat.
i. Policy 6.2.11: For mitigation of freshwater wetlands
out5ide of the Coastal area, first consideration shall
be given to mitigation on site, followed by mitigation
in the adjacent contiguous &rea, followed by mitigation
in the same ~Iatershed, followed by mitigation in
adjacent watersheds.
j. Objective 6.3: A portion of the 'liable, naturally
functioning transitional zone wetland~: shall be
preserved in any new non-agricultural development unless
otherwise mitigated thrcugh the DER arid the COE
permitting process and approved by thE! County.
k. Policy 6.3.1: ThE. transitional ..one Hetland shall be
defined as an area of which at least 50% is inhabited by
those species, considering all strata, listed in the
wetland definition used by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation.
1. Policy 6.3.2: CevelopmE~nt activities within the
transitional zone areas shall be miticjated on a case by
case basis. 11itigation of trans~tionnl wetlands may
take several forms. Among the types of mitigation that
are appropriate are preservation, enhancement of or
restoration of wetland ~lreas, or preservation,
enhancement or restoration of importal1t upland nativt~
vegetation communities or wildlife habitat.
lOO( lJOl)W, HG
Am~nd~d EJ~ Reso.
- 3 -
~~
._~~
~ . .-,-~,.. ~ -~ ...---
.,,.......- --....-..-
~~""_...,._~_,~..~____.o~.~_,__,'_,_"_~"_."'_~_;.._~ __^__,~_,",_~__~_~'_'__C_.'~__._'
JUL I 6 1996
m. Objecti.ve 6. <1: II portion of each viablf~, naturillly
funct:ioning non-~Ietland native habItat I:ype shall be
presl!rved or retailled as app!"opriate,
n. Polil:Y 6.4.1: By the time rnandaterj for the adoption of
land development regulations purSuilnt to Chapter
163.:J202 F.S., including any amendHlents thereto Augu~:t
1, 1989, appropdate ordinances shall bl~ modified to
requ,irc that viable, naturally functioning native
habi':()t communities be identified on all plans for
developments requiring site development plans.
o. Poli,:y 6.4.2: Flexibility in the form of area tradel)ffs
or mitigation should be allowed in the determination
areas within developments to be preserved.
p. Policy 6.4.3: Require nE!~ developments to submit an,j
implement a plan for exot:ic plant remov81 and long-term
control. Such implementation nay be considered as
mitigation.
q. Policy 6. <1. 4: JUlY development proposal in a "ST" zoned
area or any other area designated "environmentally
sensitiveN shall have a ~ite inspection, where
appropriate, by COllnty staff and be reviewed for
arproval as defined in the "ST" zoning procedure.
r.r'olicy 6.4.5: Developments greater then 2.:25 acres
shall be required to receive a tree renloval permit
according to the requirements of the Pt.otected Tree
Ordinance. Until the adoption of the Compr~hensive Land
Dcv~lopment Regulations, tree removal permits shall
incclrporated criteria contained in all applicable
objE'ctives and policies ~f this Conservation and COlIS tal
Man2lgement Element.
s. PoU.cy 6.4.7: 1\11 other types of new development shall
be required to preserve an appropriate portion of tlle
nat~ve vegetation on the site as deterl~ined through the
COUflty development review process. Preservation of
dif~erent contiguous habitats is t:o be encouraged. When
sev(~ral different native plant con~unities exist on
sitl~, the development plans will reasonably attempt to
pre:5erve examples of all of them if possible. Ilawever,
thi:3 policy shall not be interpret:ed ta allow
development in wetlands, should tile wetlands alone
constitute more than the portion ()f the site required to
be preserved. Exceptions shall be granted for parcels
which cannot reasonably accommodate both the
preservation area and tlle propose1j activity.
t. Policy 6.4.8: Agricultl1re shall be exempt from the
above preservation requirements provided ttlat any new
clearing of land for ag=iculture 3hall not be converted
to non-agricultural development f')r at least ten years.
For any such conversion:) in less than t~n years, any
County-imposed restoration measures of the site must be
restored to native vegetation.
u. Policy 6.5.1: Priorities for incorporating non-no>:ious
native vegetation into landscape design shall be al;
follo'....s:
(1) The first choice is to keep and enhance existing
native habitats on site and intact ior
incorporation into the landscape design.
(2) If this is not practicable, then consideration
should be given to transplanting existing species
to another location on site.
(3) If this is not practicable, then attempt to use
Amended EAR Rese.
(JOO w 1.17
!OO(
- 4 -
.......,.~.,' --
._,IW._~~"",__,,___'_.J1l"__"~fII'll__._. _.
~ ~
1IIl"'l'!: .
I_III.~I"U...
JUl 1 6 1996
llativc species to rCl:rcatc lost native llabitat.
(4) If recreating the nal:ive habitat is not practicable
then the new landscBI)Q design shall incorporate the
use of plants that promote "xeriscape" principles.
v. Poli.:y 6.5.2: Landscar;€ ordinancl~5, will identify
specific plant coverage arId assemblage requirements.
w. poli.;y 6.7.1: The County shall c00[clinate with adjacent
counties, State and Federal. agencies, other owners cf
land.s held in the public trust, and the Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council to protect unique
communities located alol'g the County's border by
controlling water levels and enforcing land develop~ent
regulations ~ith regard tt\creto.
x. Policy 7.3.3: By the tim(~ mandated for the adoption of
land development regulatic)ns pursuant to Chapter
163.J202, LS., incllldin'J any amendments thereto, the
County I>lill prepare manag('ment guidelines to be
inco=porated as stipulaticlns for land development orders
and to inform land owners and the general public of
proper practices to reducf~ disturbances and the general
public of proper practice~: to reduce disturbances to
eFJgll~ nests, rcd-cock,)d(~d woodpeckers. Florida panther,
and IVQod storY. habitat. Ily January 1, 1992, the County
will complete the preparat:ions of management guidelines
for ()ther species of specj.al status.
y. Policy 7.3.4: Until management guidelines are prepared,
the County will evaluate ilnd ap~ly applicable
recor:unendations of Technical Assistance to Local Govern-
mentr and u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service federal
guidelines regarding the (,[otection of species of
special status as stipulat:ions to development orders.
z. Poli\:y 7.3.5: The County's policy is to protect gopher
tortc)ise burrows wherever t~?y are fOtlnd. It is
recoqnized, however, that there will be unavoidable
conflicts which will require relocation of burrows. The
suitability of alternate ~ites should be evaluated as
to:
(1) physical suitability of the site,
(2) long-term protection,
(~) conflicts with other management abjectives for the
land, and
(4) costs of relocation.
aa. Policy 7.3.6: A species survey to include at a minimum,
species of special status that are known to inhabit
biological communities sirrilar to those existing on site
and conducted in accordance with the requirements of the
Flor:da Game and Fresh Water Commission shall be
requ~red for developments greater thall 10 acres as (,art
of ttle County's EIS review process.
bb. Policy 7.3.7: The County shall notify the Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission of the existence of any
species with special status that ~ay be discovered flS a
result of the species survey required in Policy. 7.3.6.
ce.
Policy 7.3.8: By July 1, 1990, the County will review
and revise, if necessary, its existing Ordinances
regulating exotic species (Ordlnanc,~ 82-J7, The Exotic
PlAnt Ordt~ancel, Ordinance 74-9, Tile Exotic Fish
Ordinance, Ordinance 82-2, the Zoning Codel, which
provide for appropriate possession, use, and harvest:ing
of undesirable exotic species, as identified by
ordinance.
Amended EAR Reso.
!OO(
000" 1MJ
- 5 -
JIJL 1 6 1996
dd. Pali':y 7.3.9: The County will support the efforts of
the 'J.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Panther Recovery
Plan by designating significant portions of the kncwn
halli:at for the County's Florida Panther as "Areas of
F:n',li:onmental Concern" on the County's Future Land Use
H.ap.
ee. PoLicy 10.2.3: Area~ of service for public facilities
shall concentrate on urban designated areas. Service
areas for potable water anci sewer shall tle those
established in the Public Facilities Element.
ff. Policy III .l.l: There shal: be no unnecessary dupli-
cation of existing regional, state (J[ federal permitting
programs.
This Resolution adopted this /~
Of~~ 1996 after
i:lotion,
second and majority vote.
I\.TTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY CO~ISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, ,LORIDA
< ",
pRi,~~6L~' @(,
;'(1(;; "'~ .... He,"
""'"''
, .-/<-/."
'/?:~% ----.
, ~::::: /......" -?'--::: -_/
r .~_c C _/- '- r-- -.,"-
----~~
C. NORF,IS, CHAIRJ1A.N
By:_
j"'HN
}\pproved' as to, form a=1d
legal s0.fficie'ncy:
1~2n~d'.Ud:-
~!arj~l~ M. Student
Assistant County Attorney
!OO( OOlJr,d40
Amended EAR Reso.
- 6 -
I , I', "
. If':! . Ii':.
<t I .: .' ~ I
'~l ' I t I.. ,
" '! . I ,