The URL can be used to link to this page

EAC Backup 01/06/2010ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL BACKUP DOCUMENTS JANUARY 6, 2010 COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA January 6, 2010 at 9:00 A.M. Asl ) /610 �IIN lsr A IF- 41 {.. .: :.c� if �. ec;7':a >>'•:)F; ;.i5+w x:kl.f t i, . t C I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of December 2, 2009 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Marsilea Villas Planned Unit Development Rezone PU DZ- 2007 -AR -11381 Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East VII. New Business A. LDC Amendments 1. LDC sub - section 10.02.02 A: Environmental Impact Statements B. GMP Amendments 1. Immokalee Area Master Plan Amendment - GMPA petition CP- 2008 -5 VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects IX Subcommittee Reports X. Council Member Comments XI. Staff Comments XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify Summer Arague . for attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (252- 6290}. General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. EAC HEARING FOR MARSILEA VILLAS RPUD REZONE PRESENTED BY DAVIDSON ENGINEERING u NC :Is] 6012 0, n PROPOSED LIVINGSTON RD. ROW CONNECTION 1._F5r MASTER CONCEPT PLAII - Nf.4 LAND USE TABLE AREA (ac) PARKING TABLE RATIO SPACES s —z Gell, etttpl• USE - REQUIRED PROVIDED scnoolA¢e � RESIDENTIAL ENGINEERING INC. 6.58 RESIDENTIAL (27 UNITS MAX) 2 SPACESIUNIT 54 54 NOTES: PRESERVE ov 1.89 TOTAL: 54 54 1 TOTAL SITE ACREAGE EQUALS 10.25 ACRES. 1.27 2. LANDSCAPE BUFFER (WHERE APPLICABLE) IS LAKE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PRESERVE AREA. THE BUFFERS 0.51 PRESERVE AREA SHALL SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN THIS TOTAL: 10.25 PUD X4,15' TYPE'B' ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL rt,l0� SPVAMD PRESERVE r —too. AREA AND IF AFTER ANY EXOTIC REMOVAL THE PRESERVE FAILS TO MEET THE MINIMUM n PROPOSED LIVINGSTON RD. ROW CONNECTION 1._F5r LOCATION MAP N.T.S. DuEN: THE HENNING GROUP 4344 CORPORATE SQUARE VI NAPLES, FL 34104 LANDSCAPE ACADEMY SETBACK BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. THE INSTALLATION BUFFER OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANT w�wA�w. MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED TO MEET CODE 'F = =� �--- t :.:.......... MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ::: _ T.'. 3. GARAGE DOOR SETBACK: A MINIMUM CLEAR AREA .A25 PRESERVE E . ! OF 23 FROM THE BE PR ED BACK OF URIDEWALK TO THE SETBACK• ••'•� 1 •�• '4.25' PRESERVE SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL I:::::' " ""'i ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SETBACK FOR R - RESIDENTIAL ' > 5. THE 1.23 ACRES OF RETAINED PRESERVE S LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ��---- - - - - -- - 1:: THE SITE SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL EXOTICS - - -- I i I • •' ! THE .66 ACRES OF RETAINED PRESERVE LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL EXOTICS AND REPLANTED AS NECESSARY PER THE PLANTING PLAN INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED 26rPREBERYE� I... EIS AND SUBSEQUENT LANDSCAPING PLAN �` SETBACK' ill ] PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF SDP. IMPERIAL GOLF I _____ ESTATES ,I -------- -- - - }- - - -- - - - - -- ---- ------' RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT [&APPROXIMATE(ST) _.1 PUD j BOUNDARY I. 1 ROYAL PALM INTERN ONAL ATI C, �I I K N << ® rA4CAL LOT LAYOUT m PRESERVE AREAS ,! �1 ®LAKE T 1 60' RFARYARO RETAMED L LMA. (11.27 ACRES) $ t PRESERVE BUFFER I I, { REPLANTED PRESERVE ( 1 .. 4pPRNAIE RIOIROF wAr YARD SETBACK i — — —.— — — — — — —. -. — CC� t - Nf.4 Ptn�dN, I.�dn.�3 Gell, etttpl• P.,/ByA��OECT - t' T�`1F 1• S hvr Fr scnoolA¢e � A�� jo ENGINEERING INC. 1 SHE" D JEDAVIDSON 7 LOCATION MAP N.T.S. DuEN: THE HENNING GROUP 4344 CORPORATE SQUARE VI NAPLES, FL 34104 LANDSCAPE ACADEMY SETBACK BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. THE INSTALLATION BUFFER OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANT w�wA�w. MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED TO MEET CODE 'F = =� �--- t :.:.......... MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ::: _ T.'. 3. GARAGE DOOR SETBACK: A MINIMUM CLEAR AREA .A25 PRESERVE E . ! OF 23 FROM THE BE PR ED BACK OF URIDEWALK TO THE SETBACK• ••'•� 1 •�• '4.25' PRESERVE SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL I:::::' " ""'i ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SETBACK FOR R - RESIDENTIAL ' > 5. THE 1.23 ACRES OF RETAINED PRESERVE S LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ��---- - - - - -- - 1:: THE SITE SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL EXOTICS - - -- I i I • •' ! THE .66 ACRES OF RETAINED PRESERVE LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL EXOTICS AND REPLANTED AS NECESSARY PER THE PLANTING PLAN INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED 26rPREBERYE� I... EIS AND SUBSEQUENT LANDSCAPING PLAN �` SETBACK' ill ] PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF SDP. IMPERIAL GOLF I _____ ESTATES ,I -------- -- - - }- - - -- - - - - -- ---- ------' RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT [&APPROXIMATE(ST) _.1 PUD j BOUNDARY I. 1 ROYAL PALM INTERN ONAL ATI C, �I I K N << ® rA4CAL LOT LAYOUT m PRESERVE AREAS ,! �1 ®LAKE T 1 60' RFARYARO RETAMED L LMA. (11.27 ACRES) $ t PRESERVE BUFFER I I, { REPLANTED PRESERVE ( 1 .. 4pPRNAIE RIOIROF wAr YARD SETBACK i — — —.— — — — — — —. -. — _I_J (MIN. T.S') ,t15 TYPE'S' PUD LANDSCAPE ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL BUFFER FRONT YARD ACADEMY SETBACK (MM. 1S) ENGINEERING INC. °'ART`TLE4NL:" SHE" D JEDAVIDSON 7 RPUD MABTER PLAN: EXMlR O 1530 KRAFT ROAD, SURE 301 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34705 � ov pp ��FF��4PHONE (239) 4346060 FAX (239) d346084 [ "�Na�tTNd COMPANY ID. NO. 00009496 �} 4 ' MOY IL MUe 040W4 DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. 3530 KRAFT ROAD, SUITE 301 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 PROPERTY LOCATION MAP �AVIDSON PHONE (239) 434 -6060 FAX (239) 434 -6084 COMPANY ID. NO. 00009496 u ONC !L61601 a 0 a PROPOSED LIVINGSTON RD. ROW CONNECTION V = 500' T — 6Sw orlW MR41wR 000 • ,PECT 6PsrT1 SIw.� F, CM4 x1 M 4' Q 3mtl i,ra�ceri� •. 0 �A LOCATION MAP N.T.S. cuENr: THE HENNING CROUP 4144 CORPORATE SQUARE 41 NAPLES. FL 14104 LNO8CAPE ACADEMY SETBACK BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, THE INSTALLATION BUFFER OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANT w.�,�,.1.��•�.w: �, �, �.. www�� •w•w w�Aw ,w, MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED TO MEET CODE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 3. GARAGE DOOR SETBACK: A MINIMUM CLEAR AREA - OF 23' FROM THE BACK OF CURB /SIDEWALK TO THE m75 a "�jI'. SETBACK' ::::' GARAGE DOOR MUST BE PROVIDED. I • • • •',': . . . :i '4. 25' PRESERVE SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL II i I :::::::::::::` ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SETBACK FOR R - RESIDENTIAL g�� 1 - > 5. THE 1.23 ACRES OF RETAINED PRESERVE T _ LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF I I THE SITE SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL EXOTICS T : }---- - - - - -- - - - -- ii THE.66 ACRES OF RETAINED PRESERVE ~ LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF --.1 I • ""', THE SITE SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL EXOTICS A19 TYPE'' A• L I�.:: AND REPLANTED AS NECESSARY PER THE LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED BUFFER 1V 2r PRESERVEi I• •: EIS AND SUBSEQUENT LANDSCAPING PLAN SETBACK• ri I PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF SDP. IMPERIALGSMF ESTATES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT i AAPPRO %IMATE (ST) I PUD j BOUNDARY ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL t1 ( I ACADEMY 1 � I & LAK E \ a p I ® ea LOT LAYOUT PRESERVE AREAS T REAR YARD RETAINED , A $ ; PRESERVE m LA. I (11.27 ACRE �I REPLANTED PRESERVE MASTER CONCEPT sl � D I PLAIll.. _ _ (T4 1 � IN T.5' ) LAND USE TABLE AREA (a c) PARKING TABLE RATIO SPACES ' z SETBACK (MIN. 15.) USE Vas J530 KRAFT ROAD, SURE 301 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 REQUIRED PROVIDED silo vrx xi. x001 asamx B0v 4 RESIDENTIAL 6.58 RESIDENTIAL (27 UNITS MAX) 2 SPACES /UNIT 54 54 NOTES: PRESERVE 1'89 TOTAL: 54 54 1 TOTAL SITE ACREAGE EQUALS 10.25 ACRES. LAKE 1.27 2. LANDSCAPE BUFFER (WHERE APPLICABLE) IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE PRESERVE AREA, THE BUFFERS 0.51 PRESERVE AREA SHALL SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN THIS 10.25 PUD AREA AND IF AFTER ANY EXOTIC REMOVAL TOTAL: ®16 TYPE'S' ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL 10' SFWMD PRESERVE 10D. THE PRESERVE FAILS TO MEET THE MINIMUM a PROPOSED LIVINGSTON RD. ROW CONNECTION V = 500' T — 6Sw orlW MR41wR 000 • ,PECT 6PsrT1 SIw.� F, CM4 x1 M 4' Q 3mtl i,ra�ceri� •. 0 �A LOCATION MAP N.T.S. cuENr: THE HENNING CROUP 4144 CORPORATE SQUARE 41 NAPLES. FL 14104 LNO8CAPE ACADEMY SETBACK BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, THE INSTALLATION BUFFER OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANT w.�,�,.1.��•�.w: �, �, �.. www�� •w•w w�Aw ,w, MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED TO MEET CODE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 3. GARAGE DOOR SETBACK: A MINIMUM CLEAR AREA - OF 23' FROM THE BACK OF CURB /SIDEWALK TO THE m75 a "�jI'. SETBACK' ::::' GARAGE DOOR MUST BE PROVIDED. I • • • •',': . . . :i '4. 25' PRESERVE SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL II i I :::::::::::::` ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SETBACK FOR R - RESIDENTIAL g�� 1 - > 5. THE 1.23 ACRES OF RETAINED PRESERVE T _ LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF I I THE SITE SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL EXOTICS T : }---- - - - - -- - - - -- ii THE.66 ACRES OF RETAINED PRESERVE ~ LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF --.1 I • ""', THE SITE SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL EXOTICS A19 TYPE'' A• L I�.:: AND REPLANTED AS NECESSARY PER THE LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED BUFFER 1V 2r PRESERVEi I• •: EIS AND SUBSEQUENT LANDSCAPING PLAN SETBACK• ri I PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF SDP. IMPERIALGSMF ESTATES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT i AAPPRO %IMATE (ST) I PUD j BOUNDARY ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL t1 ( I ACADEMY 1 � I & LAK E \ a p I ® ea LOT LAYOUT PRESERVE AREAS T REAR YARD RETAINED , A $ ; PRESERVE m LA. I (11.27 ACRE �I REPLANTED PRESERVE PRNATE RKXiTOF WAY sl � D I _ _ (T4 1 � IN T.5' ) PUD L15'TYPE F LANDSCAPE ROYAL PALM INTERNATONAL BUFFER FRONT YARD ACADEMY SETBACK (MIN. 15.) °E DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. Vas J530 KRAFT ROAD, SURE 301 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 ,P M:MWITC DMASM °Y - - - PHONE (239) 434.6060 FAX (239) 434 -608.1 DAVIDSON COMPANY ID. NO.00009496 silo vrx xi. x001 asamx B0v 4 FLUCFCS Legend FLUCFCS Community Acres % x ' 441 E3 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed with Ewtics (50-74 9/6) 1.43 Acs 13.95% 619BP Br "ian Pepper Wetland 234Ac.f -T f1i 619M Melaleuca Wetland 2.93 Ac.t 28.591/o A6 621 E3 00 1.58 Ac.f 15.41% t # 624E3 Pine Cypress Cabbage Palm Wetland w/ Botics (50-74 1/.) 1.97 Ac.:Ej 19.221/6 A 10.25 Ac-+ 100.00% 11, ' f'� �- �'�� rt •�a ty �Y tr'+,,,.+ .a ^� ` . ,►4 -v -r .Aj #bx 1� j2 ti4< ♦ �h •`r <�xl. Il.r -„t [n ♦ "-�.��5' FLUCFCS Legend FLUCFCS Community Acres % x ' 441 E3 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed with Ewtics (50-74 9/6) 1.43 Acs 13.95% 619BP Br "ian Pepper Wetland 234Ac.f 22.83% f1i 619M Melaleuca Wetland 2.93 Ac.t 28.591/o 621 E3 Cypress Wetland With Csotics (50-74 "o) 1.58 Ac.f 15.41% t # 624E3 Pine Cypress Cabbage Palm Wetland w/ Botics (50-74 1/.) 1.97 Ac.:Ej 19.221/6 TOTAL vv 10.25 Ac-+ 100.00% 11, 3 7 �.? '7r - i v+ � •�5. � + _ . x .a t a _�. t +M""" ' •-,..r ♦ ....... -..-va r � ate. t l ' ► .� 7 � � Ik . r* u o PROPOSED LIVINGSTON RD. ROW CONNECTION 150V _ Gael 1"TIASTER Vn•4 rCF6� CUR, .r fie CEPT I.Y,Inm� PLAI I J �`w LAND USE TABLE AREA (a c) PARKING TABLE s �• `, RATIO SPACES ' - - -_ -z USE REQUIRED PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL 6.58 RESIDENTIAL (27 UNITS MAX) 2 SPACES /UNIT 54 54 NOTES: PRESERVE 1'89 54 1 TOTAL SITE ACREAGE EQUALS 10.25 ACRES. TOTAL: 54 LAKE 1.27 2. LANDSCAPE BUFFER (WHERE APPLICABLE) IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE PRESERVE AREA. THE BUFFERS 0.51 PRESERVE AREA SHALL SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN THIS TOTAL: 10.25 PUD AREA AND IF AFTER ANY EXOTIC REMOVAL /x115' TYPE'S' µ 1DSCA - ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY AI0' SFWMD PRESERVE SETBACK 100 THE PRESERVE FAILS TO MEET THE MINIMUM BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, THE INSTALLATION o PROPOSED LIVINGSTON RD. ROW CONNECTION 150V _ Gael - Vn•4 rCF6� Pondvl, Bul .r fie � I.Y,Inm� OKIM ,P.�tOOECT s �• `, �C�W�1lM Am4 � 4 O e OM18 LOCATION MAP N.T.S. CLIENT: THE HENNING GROUP 4344 CORPORATE SQUARE #1 NAPLES, FL 34104 BUFFER OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED TO MEET CODE - - -_ ---- - - - - -- -- - . -R =_ ---- - - - - -- - - -- ......... ••••••••'•'•• MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 3. GARAGE DOOR SETBACK: A MINIMUM CLEAR AREA OF 23' FROM THE BACK OF CURBISIDEWALK TO THE GARAGE DOOR MUST BE PROVIDED. •4.25'PRESERVE SETBACK FOR PRINCIPAL II I """; ACCESSORY STRUCTURESVE SETBACK FOR R - RESIDENTIAL .. •• 3 W %5. THE 1.23 ACRES OF RETAINED PRESERVE LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF I v THE SITE SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL EXOTICS ---- - - - - -- - ---- ...... THE .66 ACRES OF RETAINED PRESERVE LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF r THE SITE SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL EXOTICS �tOTYPE' A• m�-j�T;::; AND REPLANTED AS NECESSARVPER THE LANDSCAPE -Tf - — �I" If PLANTING PLAN INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED BUFFER 24 PRESERVE EIS AND SUBSEQUENT LANDSCAPING PLAN LLAKE SETBACK' i 1 PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF SDP. RSF -3 , \I`— t�� -__IMPERIAL GOLF ____ __ _ 'J— -.. - -- - - -- ESTATES RESIDENTIAL 1 DEVELOPMENT ATE (ST) PUD ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY \ � TrPKx eD' LOT LAYOUT ,g PRESERVE AREAS AKE REAR VARO 2ATERKI-OFWAY YPE•A- ACRES) �F E RVE SCAPE � I : PRFSFRFEO r I 1 1 _—— SIDE YARD ._- w w w w I SETBACK (MIN. TS') PUD LANDSC," ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL BUFFER Y. ACADEMY SETBACK (MN. 16) MARSILEA PLEAS SHEET ��DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. RPUD ASMPLA,,,�RD 1 PHO KRAFT ROAD, 0 FAX 301 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 E�� VwDS N PHONE (239) 434 -6060 FAX (239) 4346(186 €N� Q —COMPANY 10. NO.00009496 X112, mwaz 4 LOOKING SOUTH MARSILEA TO LEFT ROYAL PALM TO w RIGHT h 4 ✓ OVA, Text underlined is new text to be added. Text stFkeahm gh is a text 4 be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: Community Development & Environmental Services Division AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Engineering and Environmental Services Department AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2009 Cycle LDC PAGE: LDC 10:6 — LDC 10:14 LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.02 Submittal Requirements for All Applications CHANGE: Replace the requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with submission of environmental data in which to review projects. REASON: The purpose of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and other environmental data is to review projects for consistency with the LDC and GMP. This information is submitted by applicants during the development review process, much of which is included on final Site Development Plans (SDP) or final plat construction plans (PPL). For other type applications, including changes or uses in zoning, this information is provided separately or as part of an EIS, if an EIS is required. The need for having a separate EIS document and separate EIS approval process has been questioned in so much that the environmental information already provided for applications is sufficient in which to review applications for compliance with applicable LDC and GMP provisions. Removing the requirement for an EIS and identifying environmental data submittal requirements is warranted and would streamline the permitting process while insuring the necessary information is provided in which to review projects. The environmental data submittal requirements identified below has been provided to fulfill the requirements of Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) GMP Policy 6.1.8 and 2.3.6 (b). CCME Policy 6.1.8 states the following (underlined /strike through version provided to identify changes adopted with the EAR -based GMP amendments): "An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or submittal of appropriate environmental data as specified in the County's land development regulations is required, to provide a method to objectively evaluate the impact of a proposed development, site alteration, or project upon the resources and environmental quality of the project area and the community and to insure that FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text stFikethFo gh as rawrent text 4 be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term planning and zoning decisions are made with a complete understanding of the impact of such decisions upon the environment, to encourage projects and developments that will protect, conserve and enhance, but not degrade, the environmental quality and resources of the particular project or development site, the general area and the greater community. The County's land development regulations shall establish the criteria for determining the type of proposed development requiring an EIS, including the size and nature of the proposed development the location of the proposed development in relation to existing environmental characteristics the degree of site alterations, and other pertinent information. An EIS shall be fequifed fef: 1 . Any site with an ST or- AGSG ST evefla�-, of within the boundar-ies of Sending Lands e RTUr RPAs. . All es se era e f the Geastal High Hi Area beundafy that are 2.5 3 All sites 1 d ,l of the Coastal LT' >, a a A boundafy that afe t 4. Any other- development or- site after-ation, whieh in the opinion of the development The HIS r° ° ent does net apply to a single duplex single lot par-eel. Z�� YY J family v uuYi�� u The ETC e e ent may be ,l ,1.; et to the 1' 11 1 . Agr-ieulter-al uses as defined in 9i 5.003(2), ineluding aquaeuktife for- native Spee 2. Aftef ifispeefien by Gatifity staff and filing of a W-Fitten fepeft, any land of par-eel of land has been se altefed as to have iffepafable damage to the _..., �.,�...,,;1w...,....,... ,.,may .,., :',- e > dfainage, gr-eundwatef feehar-ge ftinetiefts; or- that the development of the site will impfeve 6 ' , r s, dfain ^e, 6i�6i- EI��eleme�ef the Pr pe Ay—r yr h � PPv ay- r this pehey, major .,lte . 4: shall mean greater- than 1 00/ of the � 3. Exemptiens shall net apply 0 any p,afeel with an ST or- AGSG -,ST eve lay, E)f within Lands or betmdar-ies of A pt f single family 1, other-wise Sending a au vxv° a4lowed by the ST e, A rcr ST er-iteria-." Additionally, CCME Policy 2.3.6 was amended to include a pre and post water quality analysis for projects impacting 5 acres or more. Specifically, CCME Policy 2.3.6 (b) states the following with regards to this requirement (underlined /strike through version provided to identify changes adopted with the EAR -based GMP amendments): "Excluding single family homes any project impacting 5 acres or more of wetlands must provid e a pre and post development water quality analysis to demonstrate no increase in nutrient biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids lead zinc and copper loading in n the post development scenario." In evaluating this GMP requirement, technical staff from the Engineering and Environmental Services Department reviewed applicable literature and provide the following analyses. "The EAR based amendments for the GMP included a requirement in Policy 2.3.6 to do a Pre - development vs. Post - development analysis for nutrients, BOD, TSS, Pb, Zn, and Cu. The existing LDC section 10.02.02 A.4.f indicates that the analysis shall be performed using "approved methodologies" and only requires the analysis on nutrients. The methodology that has been used by the US Army Corps of Engineers and is being developed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is limited to nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). 2 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text 'LetL.M a elm is t text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term The original state stormwater regulations were based on a standard of 80 % removal of TSS. Current evaluations of Florida stormwater regulation indicate the design needs to address increasing concentrations of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in surface and ground water. Additionally other significant pollutants are more easily removed than nitrogen or phosphorus (Harper, 2007). The draft permitting handbook for the update of the state stormwater rule includes analysis only for nitrogen and phosphorus loadings (FDEP, 2009). (This analysis model is very similar to that proposed in Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulations for Southwest Florida, 2003)." "Literature Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulations for Southwest Florida. Harvey Harper PhD., P.E., David M. Baker P.E.. Environmental Research & Design, Inc. 2003 Evaluation of Current Stormwater Design Criteria within the State of Florida. Harvey Harper PhD., P.E., David M. Baker P.E.. FDEP 2007 Environmental Resource Permit Stormwater Quality. Applicant's Handbook. Draft (July 2009). FDEP" Due to the change in emphasis of state regulatory programs limiting the loading analysis to nutrients, technical staff does not recommend adding the requirement for TSS, BOD, Pb, Zn, and Cu at this time. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: According to the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Fee Schedule approved by the BCC on April 28, 2009, fees for reviewing an EIS are $2,500.00 for the 1St submittal and 2nd submittal if applicable, $1,000.00 for the 3rd submittal and $500.00 for 4th and subsequent submittals. Future review fees for environmental data will be assessed as part of the overall evaluation of fees currently under review by the Division. Basic costs for preparation of an EIS are provided below (Summary of information obtained from three environmental firms in the area). Actual costs will vary due to market conditions, contract negotiations, etc. Cost of an EIS for a small site with a minimal 20 hour listed species survey is around $12,000. Depending on the size and complexity of the project, the price range for preparing an EIS ranged from $12,000 to $120,000. Included in this amount are listed species surveys which generally start at around $2,000. Fees for listed species surveys are often higher. For example, an individual 5 day red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) survey will cost about $8,000. The costs for implementing USFWS guidelines for bald eagle monitoring, range from $25,000 to $35,000. Eliminating the requirement for and EIS along with the separate review and approval process required for it will save time and expense on the part of the applicant and County in producing, printing and reviewing these documents. One consultant indicated a cost of $20,000 to $30,000 to prepare /compile the EIS document, amend the document according to sufficiency reviews by County staff and to attend public hearings for the project. Currently an EIS is required to be 3 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text ! 'L th h is ! text ! be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term heard by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), unless a waiver of the public hearing requirement is granted pursuant to the LDC. The Planning Commission (CCPC), by policy, has also requested copies of Environmental Impact Statements, if an EIS is required for a particular project and that project is required to be heard by the CCPC. The time and expense of scheduling petitions not normally required to be heard by the EAC, to the EAC,'will also be saved. Information for actual construction of projects (final development orders) is included on Site Development Plans and final plat construction plans, whatever is applicable. This includes information regarding management for listed species and preserves, along with depiction of preserves on the site plans. This single source of information has been established by the County as a plan of record in which staff, applicant, and public can locate information for actual construction of a project. Procedures for amending SDPs and PPLs are coordinated through the Zoning and Land Development Review Department with the type of amendment based on the extent and nature of changes to the development order. Amendments for management plans for preserves and listed species are considered minor (Insubstantial Changes) and cost $400 to process. If more than one plan sheet is involved, then an additional fee of $100 per sheet is charged. Rarely is more than one plan sheet needed for a preserve management plan. Additional fees are charged for 3rd and subsequent re- submittals ($1,000 for 3rd submittal, $1,500 for 4th submittal, $2,000 for 5th and subsequent submittals). Amendments to preserve and listed species management plans do not trigger other types of amendments to an SDP or PPL. Some stakeholders have asked if management plans for preserves and listed species could be submitted separately on 8 '/z x 11 inch paper. Staff does not see an advantage of having preserve and listed species management plans separate from the approved drawings for an SDP and PPL. More effort would be required on the part of staff, property owners, consultants and the public to track down this additional information, if it were submitted separately. Potential for errors with regards to construction and management of a project could result in not having all the information included on the approved plans. The approved site plans are where everyone goes to see what was approved for a project or to locate the information to amend plans by. The cost of reviewing separate size plans for preserve and listed species management plans would likely be the same. Some savings may be had on the part of environmental consultants who have to coordinate and pay engineering firms or print shops to place and print preserve management and listed species management plans on 24 x 36 inch paper. Many environmental consultants already have this capability or work for or closely with an engineering firm who they regularly do business with. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Elimination of the requirement for an EIS will require a revision to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) section of the Code of Laws and Ordinances since the EAC is required to review Environmental Impact Statements. The EAC section was recently moved by the BCC, from the LDC to the Code of Laws and Ordinances. 4 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text StFikethrough is GUFrent text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The amendment to the EIS section of the LDC is required as part of the EAR -based GMP amendment to CCME Policy 6.1.8. OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: Created November 13, 2009. Amended November 24, 2009, December 7, 2009 Amend the LDC as follows: 10.02.02 Submittal Requirements for All Applications ter. - - sharing of ree.e,U FGe s and rA r,'4' all 'i' a 'J a . FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text 4 'L hh h' GUFFent text 4 be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term , - SZ- ie iew CIS A nem CI #ed C in WF*t#en and digital fe FFFl Mr. - - - - denial ef No developmeRt OF site , - SZ- ie iew CIS A nem CI #ed C in WF*t#en and digital fe FFFl 3. yQbrvm' of pl and denial ef No developmeRt OF site altwatiOR will i be started aPPFOYal with FnedifiGatiens. FequiFed by law. FanlUFe te full and without this appFE)Yal and peffnitG PFE)Vide of the EIS shall PFE)YOde f 1 F=xpeFIen6° 'hall rofleGt at least 3 2 o°eaFe, Gof of the bielegF6lSGienGe.S be An the State FIE)Fida, of eraelegiGal yearn OF bhE)!E)g*Gal whorsh shall of PlFefessieRal FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text StFikethMugh is GUFFent text te be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term phe#eginaph of the - site - extending at least 200 feetsutside -tdie �r}rv+r+n} 4 Try+ r.r, r}.+ }'ten Florida I .J I 1 !+ - r.....,,. ,,� rMI'STME &M Ms UT FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text i 'L 4L.M gh is Gent text to be deleted ��rr Bold text indicates a defined term IN FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc ._ MIT - - Ilk New 11o. IN FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text e#hFO gh is # # deleted. # # h a Bold text indicates a defined term ntc to wetland have been m' im' rl ■ R0,111 IM 14 e ■ # _ ■ - - # ■ r. MMI - ME - - _ - ■ M�IMWVMT. NUM s Now - ----- ----------- 16,11 "1, ®R?." 9 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text } 'L }h...ugh is nt text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term �e+ 6mi!a to these ex tine OR the site OF that have been RZ!_T. �STT7TTd Mg-w-w: - the U.S. C Cieh and \A/'Irll'fe CeFV*Ge /I SF=WC\ with regaFds to the pFejeGt. Explain hew the GGRGeFRG of these ag8RG*es have beeR fi toon I fer itc inten use f�teFa6 IRGTr�ce in cee level nc renUirer: by the (`_reuhh Management Dlen � Addotlanal -data. The -Sets Manager OF his des +gRee FnayTe�e -ice 10 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text stFikethFQugh is GUFrent text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term evaluatiOR of the EIS and pFejeGt-. A. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to identify the types and format of data that is required to review a proposed project to ensure it meets the land development standards contained within the Land Development Code 2. Preparation of Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. 3. Environmental Data. The following information shall be submitted where applicable, to evaluate projects. a. Wetlands i. Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all Collier County / SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System ( FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction plans approval. For sites in the RFMU district provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff, consistent with State regulation H. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five (5) or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management 11 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text : OI(eth.e„e.h 'e• GUFFent te.e4 to he deleted Bold text indicates a defined term controls) compared with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre - development conditions. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must demonstrate no increase in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) loadings in the post development scenario. iii. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been met. b. Listed or protected-Species i. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered. ii. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance v� with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. C. Native vegetation preservation For sites or portions of sites cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation provide documentation that the parcels) were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02.06. For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003, provide documentation 12 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text StFik thFG ,,.h is 1 text t be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term that the parcels) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP. Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality, process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05, 3.05.07 and 10.02.06 ii. Identify on a current aerial the acreage location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System ( FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on -site Include the above referenced calculations and aerial on the SDP or final plat construction plans. In a separate report demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05 07 have been met. iii. Include on a separate site plan the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA RFMU ST and ACSC -ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. iv. Where off -site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on -site, demonstrate that the criteria in section 3 05 07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type of donation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisfy the requirement Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans a location map(s) and property identification number(s) of the off -site Parcel(s) if off -site donation of land is to occur. d. General environmental requirements i. For sites with known environmental contamination provide the results of any environmental assessments and /or audits of the Property, along with a narrative of the measures needed to clean up the site or encapsulate the contamination to meet applicable FDEP standards. ii. Soil and /or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields (crop fields. cattle dipping ponds chemical mixing areas) golf courses, landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous Products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time were generated or stored. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8081) and Resource 13 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethrough IS nt text to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals using Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) soil sampling Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious. Include a background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated site. Soil sampling should occur lust below the root zone, about 6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment. For sites where contamination is found, provide an analysis of the measures needed to clean up the site or encapsulate the contamination to meet applicable FDEP standards. Include in the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment, when the contaminants are over these levels. If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be submitted. iii. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six -inch rise in sea level. iv. Provide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), if requested. V. Where applicable, provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and /or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C -25 through 62C -30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January 13, 2005. e. Other code requirements Identifv anv Wellfield Risk Manaqement Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM -ST) within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM -STs and will comply with the WRM -ST pursuant to 3.06.00. Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans. For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs, provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones identified. ii Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Interim Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. 14 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added Text c4: kethr..ugh is 4 text 4 be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern - Special Treatment overlay district (ACSC -ST) show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14. iv. For multi -slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with 5.05.02. Refer to the Manatee Protection Plan for site specific requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan not included in 5.05.02. V. For development orders within RFMU sending lands show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. f. Additional data The County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project's compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. 7-4. Exemptions. a. The €I8 Environmental Data Submittal Requirements exemption shall not apply to any parcel with a ST or ACSC -ST overlay, unless otherwise exempted by 4.02.14.1. (exemptions of this Code-. , b. Single- family or duplex uses on a single lot or parcel. This exemption shall not apply to the following. i. Wetland delineations and permitting ii. Retention of native vegetation in accordance with 3 05 07 C iii. Listed species protection in accordance with 3.04.01. C. Agricultural uses. Agricultural uses that fall within the scope of sections 163.3214(4) or 823.14(6), Florida Statutes, provided that the subject property will not be converted to a nonagricultural use use or considered for any type of rezoning petition for a period of 25 years after the agFGUltura. uses agricultural uses commence and provided that the subject property does not fall within an ACSC or ST zoning overlay. epinien ef the County MaRageF 9F his designee, aR area of pFey 15 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. T 4 ♦ ' • th gh *6 ent text t.. he deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term affected by the Proposed use. useful eGGl0giGal PUFP06e. AR example would be iR the Gase of an ii the IIrf no and/or nat Ural rirainage OF resharee napanity of the a .+ Code, and Will Rot be fuFthe degraded as a result of the PFE)pesed use OF deve'Gpment. V. The use nd!G development of the subject property will definifoiv development r � use n`ibar development whinh took plane Prier to the passage of this Code. AR example would be wheFe the developeF pFeposes to FeR)Fest the r f V. The —use —or development will exiGtinn buildings anti otFk GWIFes and Will —RGt Femme ---" DoT- altffat+en e nedi;;e +G„ –ef the existing Iand ferrns, drainage er flaFa and f ne laments of the property. TCtLTI 'rCt'GTI..TTGTITi7'"177 —CITG N. v�.r v. a�. e. All lands 1YORg within all nqURiGipalities in Gelliel: CGURty. fd. All NBMO Receiving Lands in accordance with 2.03.08 A.2.a(1). 9- s– R ngle family lets iR aGGE)rdanGe with seGtOOR 3.04.01 G.I. #e. A conventional rezone with no site plan or proposed development plan. This exemption does not apply to lands that include any of the following zoning, overlays or critical habitats: Conservation (CON), Special Treatment (ST), Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPA's), Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) Sending Lands, Xeric Scrub, Dune and Strand, Hardwood Hammocks, or any land occupied by listed species or defined by an appropriate State or Federal agency to be critical foraging habitat for listed species. f In those areas of Collier County where oil extraction and related processing is an allowable use such use is subject to applicable state and federal oil and gas permits and Collier County non - environmental site development plan review procedures. Directional - drilling and /or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized in order to minimize impacts to native habitats where determined to be practicable. This requirement shall be deemed satisfied upon issuance of a state permit in compliance with the criteria established in Chapter 62C -25 through 62C- 30 F A C as those rules existed on January 13, 2005, regardless of whether the activity occurs within the Big Cypress Watershed, as defined in Rule 62C-30.001(2). F.A.C. All applicable Collier County environmental permitting requirements shall be considered satisfied by evidence of the 11.1 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text stFH(ethFGugh is GUFFeRt text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term issuance of all applicable federal and /or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County, so long as the state Permits comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C -25 through 62C -30 F.A.C. For those areas of Collier County outside the boundary of the Big Cypress Watershed, the applicant shall be responsible for convening the Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee as set forth in Section 377 42 F.S., to assure compliance with Chapter 62C -25 through 62C -30 F.A.C. even if outside the defined Big Cypress Watershed All access roads to oil and gas uses shall be constructed and protected from unauthorized uses according to the standards established in Rule 62C-30.005(2)(a)(1) through (12), F.A.C. 1 91 - - - - 17 FA2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Draft LDC amendments for public hearings \10.02.02 A Environmental Impact Statements (120709) SL.doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Text stFikethFough 'c n. rr enh hevh he he deleted Bold text indicates a defined term CHANGE: Amend the type of development orders to be reviewed by the EAC. REASON: The amendment to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) section of the LDC requires changes to be made to the EAC section of the Code of Laws and Ordinances. With regards to development orders, the EAC would review projects which are more environmentally sensitive or where requests have been made by applicants, staff, CCPC or BCC to have them reviewed by the EAC. Projects to be reviewed by the EAC would occur at the time of application for change in zoning or CU, when conditions would be placed on petitions by the BCC or CCPC, whichever is applicable. Less environmentally sensitive projects or final development orders already demonstrating consistency with Code requirements would not fall within the scope of review by the EAC, but would be reviewed administratively by staff. The separate approval process for an EIS by the EAC would be eliminated, due to proposed changes to the EIS section of the Code. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Time and savings would be saved on the part of the applicant and staff in not having to take less environmentally sensitive projects or final development orders demonstrating consistency with Code requirements, to the EAC. This will facilitate a more expeditious review of petitions and alleviate the permitting time lag which has occurred in the past. Amend the LDC as follows: 8.06.00 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL 8.06.01 Establishment There is hereby established an Environmental Advisory Council ( "EAC'). The EAC obtains its jurisdiction, powers, and limits of authority from the BCC, and pursuant to this LDC, shall act in an advisory capacity to the BCC in matters dealing with the regulation, control, management, use, or exploitation of any or all natural resources of or within the County, and the review and evaluation of specific zoning and development petitions and their impact on those resources. (Ord. No. 05 -27, § 3.NN) 8.06.02 Purpose The EAC will function to: A. Advise on the preservation, conservation, protection, management, and beneficial use of the physical and biological natural resources (atmospheric, terrestrial, aquatic, and hydrologic) of the County in regard to the safety, health, and general well -being of the public; B. Advise and assist the County staff and the BCC toward developing the 209 F:\2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Amendments prior to public hearings \8.06.00 Environmental Advisory Council 052809 (010610 EAC meeting).doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Te)d st Fiketh Fo gh is Rt te)d to be deleted Bold text indicates a defined term purpose, intent, and criteria of all County ordinances, policies, programs, and other initiatives dealing with natural resources; C. Provide written and oral reports directly to the BCC regarding recommendations on matters dealing with the protection of natural resources; and D. Review and recommend stipulations addressing the preservation, conservation, protection, management, and beneficial use of the County's physical and biological natural resources (atmospheric, terrestrial, aquatic, and hydrologic) for petitions and /or plans for selected development orders, nsduding, but Rot limited to, rezeRelr developments of regienal im aEt, prev+';ffienal uses, subdivision mastef plane and planned Unit development a meRdmen4e that are directed to the EAC by County staff, the BCC, or the provisions of this LDC. 01 �" ✓ u I -� 8.06.03 Powers and Duties C01A The powers and duties of the EAC are as follows: A. Identify, study, evaluate, and provide technical recommendations to the BCC on programs necessary for the conservation, management, and protection of air, land, and water resources and environmental quality in the County; B. Advise the BCC in establishing goals and objectives for the County's environmental conservation and management programs; C. Advise the BCC in developing and revising, as appropriate, local rules, ordinances, regulations, programs, and other initiatives addressing the use, conservation, and preservation of the County's natural resources; D. Advise the BCC in the implementation and development of the GMP regarding environmental and natural resource issues; E. Advise the BCC in identifying and recommending solutions to existing and future environmental issues; F. Serve as the technical advisory committee to advise and assist the County in the activities involved in the development and implementation of the County environmental resources management program as stated in the Collier County GMP; G. Implement the water policy pursuant to this LDC; H. Provide an opportunity for public comment on environmental issues, ordinances, and programs; Implement the provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County GMP during the review process for 210 F:\2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Amendments prior to public hearings \8.06.00 Environmental Advisory Council 052809 (010610 EAC meeting).doc Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term development petitions and /or plans; X. Assist in the implementation of any new programs, ordinances, and /or policies adopted by the BCC which deal with the conservation, management, and protection of air, land, water, and natural resources and environmental quality in the County; KL. Provide an appellate forum and process to hear disputes between County staff and applicants concerning land development projects and recommend proposed stipulations for project approval or grounds for project denial for BCC consideration; L9. Scope of land development project reviews. The EAC shall review the following e irenmer;tat impaGt statement- (09) peF seatien 10.02.02 n-f the LDGiall developments of regional — impast(D,°1); lands with speGial treatment (ST-) er area e#— oritisal stateoenaern /apes+al— tlzeatMept (AGSG/ST -) no Ling ever -lays; orb - petition h eRVirnnmeRt l requested by either— pa#y to be- heard h the - €AC —The €AC— shall -also af:;ff rtar -poxes a r equesrfl om �G the Chairman of the €AG, CGPG or the� �rc�ci v feF that petition to be reyie��ied by the EAG r- �v-- ivc- rcv�cvvcc�v�Z�- r�-ozv. 1. Any PUD that requests a deviation from environmental standards of the LDC. 2. Any petition for which environmental issues cannot be resolved between the applicant and staff, and which is requested by either Party to be heard by the EAC. 3. Any petition which requires a hearing by Collier Countv Plannin Commission (CCPC) or the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), and by vote of CCPC or BCC, requires the petition to be reviewed by the EAC. 211 F:\2009 LDCA - Cycle 1\Amendments prior to public hearings \8.06.00 Environmental Advisory Council 052809 (010610 EAC meeting).doc Text underlined is new text to be added. TeA stF'Leth ) , h is r.UFF9At )d to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term 4. CU petitions for commercial excavations which are not part of an approved subdivision. 5. Any CU or rezone on Undeveloped Coastal Barrier islands present and an administrative appFeval has beeR gFanted; 9F 4) aR EIS was PFeViGUSIY GOMpleted and Feviewed by staff and heaFd by a nreden Rn men+ I be Fd , Rd that CIS us less than five years old (9F if older thaR five yeaFs, has been updated withiR Si months; of submittal) and the master plaR fer the site ^'Gt show gFeater impaGtS to the pFevieuslyde sigRateedpFescrvatiGR IV' ' M-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 except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged in Preserves as allowed in section 3.05.07. (Ord. No. 04 -72, § 3.W; Ord. No. 05 -27, § 3.00) 8.06.04 Membership A. Appointment \line (9) reguli r members and 2 alternate members of the EAC shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the BCC. Alternate members will be requested to attend meetings when regular members have notified staff that they will be absent Alternate members will participate in discussions and vote when replacing a regular member. Appointment to the EAC shall be by resolution of the BCC and shall set forth the date of appointment and the term of office. Each appointment or reappointment shall be for a term of 4 years. Terms shall be staggered so that no more than a minority of such members' appointments will expire in any GRe41) year. B. Vacancies. Vacancies on the EAC shall be publicized in a publication of general circulation within the County, and vacancy notices shall be posted in the County libraries and County courthouse. C. Qualifications. Members shall be permanent residents and electors of the County and should be reputable and active in community service. The primary consideration in appointing EAC members shall be to provide the BCC with technical expertise and other viewpoints that are necessary to effectively accomplish the EAC's purpose. In appointing members, the BCC should consider a membership guideline of 6 technical regular members and 3 non- technical regular members and 2 technical alternate members. Technical members shall demonstrate evidence of expertise in ape --(1) or more of the 212 F:\2009 LDCA - Cycle 1\Amendments prior to public hearings \8.06.00 Environmental Advisory Council 052809 (010610 EAC meeting).doc � uln�J Text underlined is new text to be added. Te..t ct.ikethFa gh is ruFFent te.h to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term following areas related to environmental protection and natural resources management: air quality, biology (including any of the sub - disciplines such as botany, ecology, zoology, etc.), coastal processes, estuarine processes, hazardous waste, hydrogeology, hydrology, hydraulics, land use law, land use planning, pollution control, solid waste, stormwater management, water resources, wildlife management, or other representative area deemed appropriate by the BCC. D. Removal. Any member of the EAC may be removed from office by a majority vote of the BCC. E. Officers. The officers of the EAC shall be a chairman and a vice - chairman. Officers' terms shall be for one (1) year, with eligibility for reelection. The chairman and vice - chairman shall be elected by a majority vote at the organizational meeting and thereafter at the first regular meeting of the EAC in October of each year. The chairman shall preside at all meetings of the EAC. The vice - chairman shall perform the duties of the chairman in the absence or incapacity of the chairman. In case of removal, resignation, or death of the chairman, the vice - chairman shall perform such duties as are imposed on the chairman until such time as the EAC shall elect a new chairman. Should the offices of chairman and or vice - chairman become vacant, the EAC shall elect a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting. Such election shall be for the unexpired term of said office. 8.06.05 Quorum and Voting A simple majority of the appointed members of the EAC shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting business. An affirmative vote of five (5) or more members shall be necessary in order to take official action, regardless of whether five (5) or more members of the EAC are present at a meeting. 8.06.06 Rules of Procedure A. The EAC shall, by majority vote of the entire membership, adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of meetings, resolutions, findings, and determinations. B. The following standing subcommittees comprised solely of the EAC's membership shall exist to advance the duties and responsibilities of the EAC: Growth management. The EAC may establish other subcommittees comprised solely of its membership to facilitate its functions. Meetings of the subcommittees shall conform to the same public notice requirements as that of the EAC. 8.06.07 Compensation Members of the EAC shall serve without compensation, but shall be entitled to receive reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred in the performance of their duties upon prior approval of the BCC. 213 F:\2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Amendments prior to public hearings \8.06.00 Environmental Advisory Council 052809 (010610 EAC meeting).doc Text underlined is new text to be added. TA)d ctriLcthrn nh is not tn.h In he deleted Bold text indicates a defined term 8.06.08 Meetings Regular meetings of the EAC shall be held on the first Wednesday of each month at 9:00 a.m. or otherwise as determined by the County Manger or designee, in the BCC's meeting room, third floor, building "F," Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida. Special meetings of the EAC may be called by the chairman or by a majority of the membership. 8.06.09 Evaluation of the EAC The EAC shall be reviewed for major accomplishments and whether it is serving the purpose for which it was created once every four (4) years commencing with 2003 in accordance with the procedures contained in Collier County Ordinance No. 86 -41, as amended. 8.06.10 Appeal A. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the county manager or his designee regarding any petition for which environmental issues cannot be resolved between the applicant and staff in which there is no other avenue of appeal may file a written request for appeal not later than ten days after said decision with the EAC The EAC will notify the aggrieved person and the county manager or his designee of the date time and place that such appeal shall be heard such notification will be given 21 days prior to the hearing unless all parties waive this requirement The appeal will be heard by the EAC within 60 days of the submission of the appeal No less then ten days prior to the hearing the aggrieved person and staff shall submit to the EAC and to the county manager or his designee copies of the data and information they intend to use in the appeal and will also simultaneously exchange such data and information with each other Upon conclusion of the hearing the EAC will submit to the board of county commissioners its facts findings and recommendations The board of county commissioners in regular session will make the final decision to affirm overrule or modify the decision of the county manager or his designee in light of the recommendations of the EAC. 214 F:\2009 LDCA - Cycle 1 \Amendments prior to public hearings \8.06.00 Environmental Advisory Council 052809 (010610 EAC meeting).doc CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL TO: ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: January 6, 2010 RE: PETITION CP- 2008 -5, IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner AGENT /APPLICANT: Agent: Robert Mulhere I13WA, Inc. 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 Applicant/Owner: Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Collier County Government 310 Alachua Street Immokalee, FL 34142 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The Immokalee urban area is a region of about 30 square miles containing ±17,116 acres of land, and is located in northeast Collier County, approximately 27 miles from the intersection of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Naples to the intersection of South First Street and Main Street in Immokalee. The Immokalee urban area comprises the Immokalee planning community. REQUESTED ACTION: The subject area of this amendment request is designated Urban on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This petition seeks to revise and replace in its entirety the existing adopted Immokalee Area Master Plan Element of the GMP, including the existing Implementation Strategy, which encompass the Goals, Objectives, and Policies; the Land Use Designation Description Section, which generally indicate the types of land uses for which zoning may be requested; and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Note: Though the proposed FLUM is located within the Data and Analysis portion of the petition (apart from the proposed text), the petitioner clearly intends to amend the FLUM to correlate with proposed text changes. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Area: More than half of the land use type within the Immokalee Urban area is presently agricultural. -rhe remainder is a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. Immokalee is GP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment accessed from the south and east by its major roadway, Immokalee Road (CR 846). State Road 29 provides access into the Community from the northern counties of Lee and Hendry and to the southeast areas of Collier County. 626E I 626 E � — zM FUTURE LAND USE NO Collier C—ty %dr i..a. <ssnssmrtsrex.resw.wa�ursw + aan o `-a f- i � I+ {r O I' l 2e E _T..__. � EiE .. T.. 6 76.1.. I I ®,q } r -.e .nw�+arcv ten+ �t 6 66 E Draft Future Land Use Map (FLUM) A..L.E.. I. 6 301 1 Et E 7 -T.....6 u [. ...T .6.E6 E ... -1 E E4 E. I.. I 621E I RE2.E. _I 666E I I R24E I me x. ..m...r -... ., s +. •�,+......�w •i. .i u• uw: iE; r_: rr., a :si >:r.`.iia�>ga°aF• ^•"��•,. ^ ». .`. � aaExs� bR'K -31 .,.,— 1 �Mnawty Surrounding Lands: North: Lands designated Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA) on the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The vast majority of these lands are used for agriculture. South: Lands designated Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, RLSA on the countywide FLUM. These lands are undeveloped. East: Lands designated Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, RLSA on the countywide FLUM. Lands to the east are within the Area of Critical State Concern on the countywide FLUM and which are within the Okaloacoochee Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) and the Okaloacoochee Slough Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA). These lands are undeveloped. West: Lands designated Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, RLSA on the countywide FLUM; as well as Lake Trafford and lands within the Camp Keais Strand FSA. Most of these lands are undeveloped. 2 ---------------- I 621E I RE2.E. _I 666E I I R24E I Surrounding Lands: North: Lands designated Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA) on the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The vast majority of these lands are used for agriculture. South: Lands designated Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, RLSA on the countywide FLUM. These lands are undeveloped. East: Lands designated Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, RLSA on the countywide FLUM. Lands to the east are within the Area of Critical State Concern on the countywide FLUM and which are within the Okaloacoochee Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) and the Okaloacoochee Slough Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA). These lands are undeveloped. West: Lands designated Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, RLSA on the countywide FLUM; as well as Lake Trafford and lands within the Camp Keais Strand FSA. Most of these lands are undeveloped. 2 CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment Existing Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) established an Immokalee Area Planning Commission (IAPC) in October of 1965. The Community had its own Zoning and Subdivision Regulations separate from the coastal area of Collier County. The Immokalee Area Planning Commission governed under its own Zoning Ordinance until January 1982 when a unified Zoning Ordinance was adopted for the entire unincorporated Collier County. The duties of the IAPC continued until September 1985 when the nine member Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) was established with representatives from all areas within Collier County. Today, one member serving on the CCPC is from Immokalee, and one of the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) represents District 5, which includes the Immokalee urban area. In addition to all other applicable elements of the Collier County GMP, the Immokalee Community is governed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan, an element of the GMP adopted in 1991 and revised in 1997 based on the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and revised in 2007 based on the 2004 EAR. The Master Plan contains land use designations and policies applicable only to the Immokalee area. Community Redevelopment Area: The Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) was established by the BCC by Ordinance 2000 -83 on March 14, 2000, established and declared the Board of County Commissioners to be the CRA Board in accordance with Section 163.357 of the Florida Statutes. That Section states that members of the governing body may be members of the Agency, but such members constitute the head of a legal entity, separate, distinct, and i1 GP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment independent from the Board of County Commissioners. Section 163.370, Florida Statutes outlines the powers of Community Redevelopment Agencies. These powers include: 1. Executing contracts; 2. Hiring staff; 3. Disseminating community redevelopment information; and 4. Undertaking and implementing community redevelopment and related activities within the community redevelopment area (property acquisition, demolition and removal of buildings; installation, construction, or reconstruction of streets, utilities, parks, playgrounds, and other improvements necessary to carry out the plan; and disposition of any property acquired). Ordinance 2000 -83 also provided for the creation of advisory boards for each component area of the community redevelopment area in the unincorporated area of Collier County, which is composed of citizens, residents, property owners and business owners or persons engaged in business in the area. The responsibilities of the advisory boards were determined by a separate resolution of the CRA. As required by State Statute, a redevelopment plan that provides the framework for effective redevelopment of the Community Redevelopment Area was adopted by the BCC on June 13, 2000 by Resolution 2000 -181. In addition to providing flexibility for implementation of the goals outlined for each community redevelopment area, the Plan also recognizes several funding sources for implementation including the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF). There are two CRAs in Collier County: The Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA and the Immokalee CRA. The Immokalee Area Master Plan and Visioning Committee (IMPM: The Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted the Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) in 1991. The Master Plan, with the accompanying Immokalee Area Future Land Use Map, provides a framework for development of the Immokalee Community. The Board of County Commissioners adopted a revised IAMP in 1997 based upon the 1996 EAR. The BCC adopted the Second EAR for the GMP on July 27, 2004. The EAR calls for revisions to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, to be prepared as part of the subsequent County's EAR -based amendments. During 2003, as part of the preparation of the EAR, the BCC authorized Comprehensive Planning staff to prepare recommendations for revising the 1997 IAMP. Subsequently, the Board authorized creation of an advisory committee, the Immokalee Area Master Plan Restudy Committee (Restudy Committee), to work with staff in making proposed revisions to the IAMP. The Restudy Committee, assisted by Comprehensive Planning staff, submitted recommendations to the EAR (for recommended amendments to the IAMP), in November 2003. However, during the performance of its tasks, the Committee determined that a longer, more intense restudy of the IAMP was necessary. Therefore, the IAMP Restudy Committee expressed a desire to extend the life of the Committee so that it could continue to assist the Board with the implementation the IAMP. The re- established Committee was renamed as the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Visioning Committee (IMPVC). The BCC adopted Ordinance 2004 -62, sunsetting the Immokalee Area Master Plan Restudy Committee and creating the IMPVC, on September 28, 2004. 4 CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment One of the Committee's first official acts was to direct staff to prepare Request For Proposals and Scope of Services to hire a consulting firm that would assist the IMPVC in revising the TAMP. The CRA hired the consulting firm RMPK Group and worked for over a four year period conducting public meetings, collecting and analyzing data, and drafting revisions to the TAMP. This firm prepared a study entitled "Immokalee Inventory and Analysis Report' in May of 2006, but relinquished their services in 2008. RWA, Inc. was then hired and is presently the agent in charge of the proposed amendments to TAMP and subsequent Land Development Code (LDC) regulations. Synopsis of Petition: This petition request seeks to replace each existing Goal, Objective and Policy of the IAMP as well as revise all future land use designations on the TAMP. Major Changes: In general, the amendments to the TAMP propose seven new goals, each with respective objectives and policies; followed by the revised Land Use Designation Description Section. The first goal prioritizes economic development in regard to opportunities for business, tourism, education, and redevelopment initiatives. The second goal deals with housing, as it relates to farm worker and migrant housing needs. Provisions for public infrastructure and facilities are dealt with in goal three. The fourth goal outlines standards and policies related to natural resources. Goal five describes the revised land use designations in Immokalee. Goal six relates to the development standards that are specific to the Immokalee Urban area. The seventh goal provides for coordination with certain agencies. The last portion of the revised IAMP specifies the changes among each new land use designation and the density rating system, including density bonuses and the density and intensity blending provision, and the applicable correlating revisions to the FLUM. The following are some of the major changes proposed in this petition: • Re- configuration of the wetland boundary that connects to Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand System Overlay (see attached Map 1). This change was requested by staff. • The re- designation of the lands within the boundary of the Immokalee Regional Airport from Industrial (ID) to Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict (APO). • The addition of ±100 acres of land that are proposed to be removed from the RLSA to be included within the boundary of the Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict (APO). (Correlating changes to the countywide Future Land Use Map Series are not proposed at this time, but will be considered during adoption hearings.) • The addition of the SR 29/1 -75 Bypass Route which is proposed to allow access to SR82 and SR29 from the Immokalee Regional Airport and Florida Tradeport areas. • Revisions to the land use designations in the IAMP FLUM (see Table 1 and attached Map 2): o An increase in the base density (DU /A — dwelling units per acre) allowed within the residential and mixed use designated areas (see Table 2): ■ Low Residential: no change (4 DU /A). ■ Medium Residential: from 6 DU /A to 8 DU /A ■ High Residential: from 8 DU /A to 10 DU /A 5 OP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment ■ Mixed use: from 12 DU /A allowed within the Commerce Center Mixed Use (CC -MU) and Neighborhood Center (NC) to 16 DU /A allowed in the proposed Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designated areas. ■ Recreational Tourist (RT): no change (4 DU /A). o An increase in the maximum number of potential dwelling units (see Table 3): • An increase in the maximum number of potential dwelling units within the Low, Medium and High Residential designated areas from 57,230 dwelling units to 62,322 dwelling units. This change would allow 5,092 additional dwelling units. • An increase in the total maximum number of potential dwelling units in the IAMP FLUM from 68,576 dwelling units to 83,528 dwelling units. This change would allow 14,952 additional dwelling units o An increase in the maximum number of dwelling units that could be developed within the revised wetlands connected to the Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand System boundary from 15,417 to 15,683 dwelling units. This change would allow 266 additional dwelling units. o A 20 percent decrease of residential designated lands. This re- designation of over 700 acres of residential lands are proposed to allow commercial or industrial development: ■ ±188 acres to allow commercial development. Intensity of development is proposed to remain as allowed in the existing IAMP: C -1 through C -4 uses. ■ ±356 acres to allow industrial development. ■ ±200 acres to be re- designated to Recreational Tourist sub - district. o An increase of 22 percent of potential residential units due to higher density allowed within residential designations, and within the proposed Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict (see Table 3). o An increase on the cap of allowed density that can be requested, via density bonus, from a maximum of 16 units /acre to a cap of 20 units /acre. o An increase in the amount of commercial designated lands: from 11024.4 acres to ±1212.6 acres, an increase of ±188.2 acres of commercial designated land (see Table 4). o A decrease in the amount of industrial designated lands: from 2,643.5 acres to 1615.1 acres. This decrease includes the re- designation from Industrial (ID) to Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict (APO) of 1384.3 acres of land that are part of the Immokalee Regional Airport (see Table 4). o An increase in the amount of Recreational Tourist (RT) designated lands: from ±251.28 acres to ±451.2 acres, an increase of ±200 acres. This change would allow an increase in the potential maximum number of dwelling units from 1,005 dwelling units to 1,805 dwelling units (see Table 3). 0 CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment Regarding proposed changes to the FLUM, Maps 1 and 2 that are attached to this Staff Report do not identify the Urban Infill area other than in the legend. Staff did not place the pattern for Urban Infill on the map face due to clutter and confusion it might cause. The existing IAMP FLUM depicts the Urban Infill area (see page 3); the petitioner is not proposing changes to this feature. Also, attached Maps 1 and 2 do not depict on the map face the two environmentally sensitive areas features, both of which are proposed for deletion, for the same reason (map clutter). Staff has no objection to their deletion as both are informational only (have no regulatory effect), may be out of date, and similar features on the countywide FLUM were previously removed. "fable 1: FLUM designation changes. Existing FLUM Designations Proposed FLUM Designations URBAN -MIXED USE DISTRICT URBAN -MIXED USE DISTRICT LR Low Residential LR Low Residential MR Mixed Residential MR Medium Residential HR High Residential HR High Residential NC Neighborhood Center Eliminated CC -MU Commerce Center - Mixed -Use Eliminated PUD Planned Unit Development Commercial Eliminated RT Recreational Tourist RT Recreational/Tourist DU/A) CMU Commercial -Mixed Use URBAN- COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Eliminated C Commercial — SR 29 and Jefferson Ave. Eliminated URBAN - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT URBAN - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ID Industrial IN Industrial CC -I Commerce Center - Industrial IMU Industrial Mixed Use BP Business Park Eliminated 16 APO Immokalee Regional Airport 'Table 2: Base density changes. Existing Base Density (DU /A) Proposed Maximum Dwelling Proposed Base Density (DU /A) SUBDISTRICT ACRES MAX # UNITS SUBDISTRICT ACRES I MAX # UNITS Low Residential LR 4 DU/A) Low Residential LR 4 DU /A Mixed Residential MR 6 DU/A) Medium Residential MR 8 DU /A High Residential HR 8 DU /A Hirih Residential HR 10 DU /A Mixed Use CC -MU, NC 12 DU/A) Commercial -Mixed Use CMU 16 DU /A Recreational Tourist RT 4 DU /A RecreationaUTourist RT 4 DU /A Table 3: Maximum number of dwelling units. Existing Maximum Dwelling Units Proposed Maximum Dwelling Units SUBDISTRICT ACRES MAX # UNITS SUBDISTRICT ACRES I MAX # UNITS CHANGE Low Residential LR 10,405.6 41,622.3 Low Residential LR 8,321.5 33,286.0 Mixed Residential MR 463.9 2,783.2 Medium Residential MR 2,550.2 20,401.6 High Residential HR 1,603.1 12,824.4 High Residential HR 863.4 8,634.0 SUB -TOTAL (LR +MR +HR) 12,472.6 57,229.9 SUB -TOTAL LR +MR +HR) 11,735.1 62,321.6 +5,091.7 Mixed Use CC -MU + NC 861.8 10,341.1 Commercial -Mixed Use CMU 1,212.6 19,401.6 +9,060.5 Recreational Tourist (RT) 251.2 1,004.8 1 Recreational/Tourist (RT) 451.2 1,804.8 +800.0 TOTAL 13,585.6 68,575.8 TOTAL 13,398.9 J 83,528.0 +14,952.2 7 CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment Table 4: 1 Exk SUBDISTRICT Commercial C Commerce Ce Use CC -MU Neighborhood TOTAL Commercial Acreage USES C1 through C4 ixed Cl through C4 r (NC) Limited uses (Cl - II ndustrial Acreage /l, USES Industrial (ID) Proposed Commercial Acrea eNses 2053.8 ACRES SUBDISTRICT USES ACRES CHANGE 162.6 Commercial- Mixed Use (CMU) C1 through C4 1,212.6 395.0 466.8 1024.4 TOTAL 1,212.6 +188.2 0 Proposed Industrial Acreage/Uses ACRES SIIRDISTRICT I IISFS I ACRES Industrial (ID) 1, limited commercial 2053.8 Industrial (IN) I, limited 754.0 1,299.8 uses, related uses to Use IMU commercial uses Business Park (BP)* Immokalee Regional 0 N/A N/A 0 Airport lommerce (:enter (l;l; -I) 1, U1 through Gb 589.7 Industrial Mixed- I, G1 through G5 861.1 Use IMU Business Park (BP)* 1, limited commercial 0 N/A N/A 0 uses Immokalee I, uses 1,384.3 +1,484.3 Regional Airport compatible to +100.0 (APO) Immokalee (RLSA Regional Airport 1 lands TOTAL 2643.5 TOTAL 3,099.4 +455.9 GRAND TOTAL 3,667.9 GRAND TOTAL 4,312.0 +644.1 *Text -based Subdistrict (not a FLUM designation) ANALYSIS: As note in the Environmental Staff review, this petition is not yet sufficient for substantive review (the petitioner may disagree). However, the hearing schedule has been set by the BCC, so this petition must move forward to hearings. The wetland boundary that connects to Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand System Overlay (LT /CKSSO) was adopted as part of the 2007 GMP amendments based on the 2004 EAR. As part of this change, policies were added to the CCME to increase the native vegetation retention requirements. Subsequent analysis by staff yields a different, more accurate boundary of this wetland. At staff request, the petitioner agreed to include the revised boundary as part of this amendment petition. Within the LT /CKSSO, some underlying FLUM designations are proposed to change to increase density or intensity. However, changes to CCME policies in regard to native vegetation retention are not being proposed as part of this amendment. Therefore, the existing vegetation retention policies in the CCME remain in effect and consequently the same amount of native vegetation must be retained. The proposed "Wetland Connected To Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand System Overlay" on page 49 of the Master Plan includes exemption language for developed properties (see second paragraph of that Overlay text). The petitioner needs to provide data to identify these developed properties so the magnitude of the "exempt" language can be readily seen and understood. Perhaps few properties in the Overlay are presently developed, but there is no data provided for the reviewer to determine this. Proposed changes to FLUM designations will increase density or intensity. The petitioner needs to provide data and analysis to determine availability of central water and sewer service (or alternative) to support these changes. Es3 CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment Environmental Services Section Comments: The Master Plan Amendment, as submitted, is insufficient for substantive review at this time. Although no change to Conservation and Coastal Management (CCME) Goals, Objectives or Policies is requested, most of the issues remaining have to do with clarity of the Master Plan language proposed. Staff also suggests adding more to the data and analysis section to support changes to certain sections. The wetlands east of Lake Trafford on the south end of the Immokalee Urban Area are part of a large system connected to Camp Keais Strand and are shown on the Master Plan FLU Map as Lake Trafford/ Camp Keais Strand System Overlay. The boundary has been updated by staff as explained in the Data and Analysis section of the Amendment packet beginning on page 50. This section also explains the greater degree of protection already provided to these wetlands as a result of changes to the Comprehensive Plan in 2007, based on the 2004 EAR. The following are Environmental Services staff comments from the last review of the Master Plan, completed December 7th. New policy 6.1.7 (page 39 of IAMP proposed text). Staff requests more information on what deviation is desired to make sure this request and policy is needed. The existing policy referenced (Policy 6.1.1 in the CCME) already allows for Immokalee to participate in the off -site mitigation program. Data and Analysis will be needed if the deviations will differ from the current standard (e.g., what additional criteria for the off -site mitigation is being suggested). 2. For the petitioners' information, the following are comments from Conservation Collier regarding the new change to Policy 1.1.3 Mitigation Bank: "We will be exploring the feasibility of utilizing Pepper Ranch for mitigation for both listed species habitat and wetlands, but only to compensate for "County" impacts associated with "County" development [government projects]... and not necessarily just for [County] development within the Immokalee Urban Area." 3. Regarding Policy 4.1.1, staff requests the petitioner to please explain what is meant to be accomplished. It seems this Policy could be more restrictive than the CCME preservation policies. Staff disagrees that greenfield is a readily defined term as stated in the response letter and requests a definition of it in the TAMP. Also in the petitioner's response "vacant agricultural" is described as a type of greenfield. What is the definition of vacant agricultural? Does the applicant really intend to direct development away from any wetlands? A 4,000 square foot area of dense melaleuca could be considered wetlands. Also, what is the definition of "high habitat value "? The intent of this policy needs to be explained for clarity. Is the petitioner's desire to mandate development being as dense and high as possible to save these lands? Will the same provisions apply to this retained vegetation as apply in the CCME (e.g. preserve management plan, conservation easement, etc)? It may be beneficial to map these areas. 4. Regarding Policy 4.1.2, staff suggests eliminating the last part of the first sentence since it is not well defined and not easily measurable. The portion to be eliminated reads "...in order to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the lake and its surrounding wetlands or natural habitat." The sentence would end after "water quality". 5. Staff suggests a new Policy 4.1.4 to reference the Lake Trafford/ Camp Keais Strand System Overlay (LT /CKSSO) - page 49 Land Use Designation Descriptions, C. Overlays - since the Overlay section describes how these wetlands will be protected. E CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment 6. Regarding the LT /CKSSO language in the C. Overlays section, staff requests the language be changed as follows to the last paragraph to avoid a future needed change to the Growth Management Plan: If development on the Seminole Reservation severs the connectivity of the wetland system for properties within the Overlay, east of the Reservation, the additional wetland protection measures will be reviewed to see -i € they e -st€11 waffanted, afid the - overlay amended as appfepr-iate by the County not be applied to those severed eastern wetlands. The standard measures for wetlands in Urban designated lands shall be applied as described in the CCME to those severed eastern wetlands. 7. Data and Analysis should be provided to exhibit the change in preservation of native vegetation which will occur due to changes proposed to land use. Commercial use acreage is proposed to increase and residential acreage is proposed to decrease, therefore there will be a decrease in the amount of vegetation preservation required since residential requires 10 percent more than commercial (reference CCME Policy 6.1.1). 8. Regarding the addition of lands for the Airport ( ±100 acres presently in the RLSA), staff requests a statement be added to the data and analysis on how the impacts to the environmental attributes of the land (wetlands, native vegetation, panther habitat) will be compensated and how it would compare if it were developed as part of an Stewardship Receiving Area (what is the Natural Resource Index score)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Environmental Advisory Council forward Petition CP- 2008 -5 to the Board of Collier County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit this petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, subject to the following: That the petitioner provide more information in regard to the deviation contained in the proposed Policy 6.1.7, in order to assess the need for this policy. If the deviations differ from current standards in the CCME, then data and analysis will be needed to support the deviations proposed. 2. In regard to proposed Policy 4.1.1 - Wetlands Connected To Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand System Overlay (LT /CKSSO): a. That a clarification be provided in regard to if this Policy is meant to be more restrictive than the CCME preservation policies. b. Definitions for "greenfield ", "vacant agricultural " as a type of greenfield, and "high habitat value" be included in the Master Plan. c. That a clarification be provided in regard to the intent of this Policy to direct development away from the Overlay. d. That a clarification be provided in regard to the provisions of vegetation retention that apply to the LT /CKSSO. 3. That Policy 4.1.2, be modified as follows: Recognizing the importance of Lake Trafford to potential ecotourism activities in Immokalee, proposed development adjacent to Lake Trafford will conform to best management practices regarding water quality ' OF1218F t@ aVA-md- OF 14 Within two (2) vears 10 CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment of the adoption of this Policy, the County, in conjunction with the Immokalee Redevelopment Agency will amend the Land Development Code to establish specific best management practices. 4. That a new Policy (Policy 4.1.4) be included to reference the LT /CKSSO. 5. That the LT /CKSSO language in the C. Overlays section, be modified as follows: If development on the Seminole Reservation severs the connectivitv of the wetland system for properties within the Overlay, east of the Reservation, the additional wetland protection measures will not be applied to those severed eastern wetlands. The standard measures for wetlands in Urban designated lands shall be applied as described in the CCME to those severed eastern wetlands. 6. That Data and Analysis be provided to assess impact in preservation of native vegetation due to the proposed changes in land use (outside of the LT /CKSSO). 7. That Data and Analysis be provided to assess impacts in regard to the exclusion of lands from the RLSA to be added to the proposed APO Subdistrict. 8. That the petitioner provide data to identifying developed properties within the LT /CKSSO so the magnitude of the "exempt" language can be readily assessed. 9. That the petitioner provide data and analysis to determine availability of central water and sewer service (or alternative) to support changes in density and intensity. 10. For all the above requests for clarification, new or additional data, etc., staff requests it be provided by January 15, 2010. (Hopefully, this will allow staff time to review the submittal prior to the CCPC hearing on February 16, 2010.) Words underlined are added — as proposed by petitioner. Words double underlined are added — as proposed by staff. Words double are deleted — as proposed by staff. 11 CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment PREPARED BY: F CA OLIN ALERA, PRINCIPAL PLANNER CO MPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PREPARED BY: DATE: 12-163-01 DATE: I� LAURA GIBSON, SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: DAVID WEEKS, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: r z '/8 - Pf REV WED BY DATE: 17- -1 LLIAM LORE Z, PJV, DIRECTOR ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: .PH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & RONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE: Z / k /,,( �p PETITION NO.: CP- 2008 -5 Staff Report for the January 6, 2010 EAC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the February 16, 2010 CCPC Meeting. CP- 2008 -5 EAC TH GAWmprehensiveTOMP. PLANNING GMP DATNComp. Plan Amendment0007 -2008 Combined Cycle Pelrtions12008 Cycle PettionsTP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan 12 Co er County TAMP FLUM - Existing vs. Proposed MAP 1 Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand Wetlands System Co er Caunty IAMP FLUM - Proposed Changes MAP 2 DX'X AL \ Y r A- January 4, 2010 Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Collier County Community Development & Environmental Services Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34109 Re: Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) and comments or concerns raised by EAC Chair Judy Hushon in a meeting with Bob Mulhere and Pat Vanasse held on Wednesday December 30, 2009. Dear Ms Valera and Ms Gibson: We have thoroughly reviewed the EAC staff report. Staff review and comments as well as the meeting with, and comments and concerns raised by the EAC Chair are appreciated and well articulated. Noting that the staff recommendation is to "Transmit," subject to certain recommendations, we offer the following responses related to those recommendations, comments, or concerns: Staff Recommendation # 1: That the petitioner provides more information in regard to the deviation contained in the proposed Policy 6.1.7, in order to assess the need for this policy. If the deviations differ from current standards in the CCME, then data and analysis will be needed to support the deviations proposed. Response: Proposed TAMP Policy 6.1.7 reads as follows: Polity 6.1.7: Native Preservation Requirements Within two (2) years of adoption of this Policy, Collier County shall amend the Land Development Code to provide for a deviation process from the current native vegetation retention standards set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.1 for developments within the Immokolee Urban Area. This deviation process shall be consistent with provisions set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.1(10). Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME provides for require native vegetation amounts as follows: 6510 Willow Park Drive. Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34109 • (239) 597.0575. Fax (239) 597 -0578 www consult -nva com Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 2 of 18 CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10) reads as follows (emphasis added in bold highlight): (10) Within one year of the effective date of these amendments, the County shall adopt land development regulations that allow for a process whereby a property owner may submit a petition requesting that all or a portion of the native vegetation preservation retention requirement to be satisfied by a monetary payment, land donation that contains native vegetative communities equal to or of a higher priority as described in Policy 6.1.1 (4) than the land being impacted, or other appropriate method of compensation to an acceptable land acquisition program, as required by the land development regulations. The monetary payment shall be used to purchase and manage native vegetative communities off -site. The land development regulations shall provide criteria to determine when this alternative will be considered. The criteria will be based upon the following provisions: a. The amount, type, rarity, and quality of the native vegetation on site; b. The presence of conservation lands adjoining the site; C. The presence of listed species and consideration of Federal and State agency technical assistance; d. The type of land use proposed, such as, but not limited to, affordable housing; e. The size of the preserve required to remain on site is too small to ensure that the preserve can remain functional; and f. Right of Way acquisitions for ail purposes necessary for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including utilities within the right of way acquisition area. Coastal High Hazard Area Non - Coastal High Hazard Area Less than 2.5 acres 10°% Less than 5 acres. 10% Residential and Mixed Use Equal to or greater Equal to or greater than 5 acres Development than 2.5 acres 25% and less than 20 acres. 150% Equal to or greater than 20 ac. 25°% Goff Course 35% 35°% Commercial and industrial Less than 5 acres. 10% Less than 5 acres. 10% Development Equal to or greater Equal to or than 5 acres. 15% greater than 5 acres. 15°% Industrial Development (Rural- 50 %, not to exceed 25% of the 50%, not to exceed 25°% of the Industrial District only) project site, project site. CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10) reads as follows (emphasis added in bold highlight): (10) Within one year of the effective date of these amendments, the County shall adopt land development regulations that allow for a process whereby a property owner may submit a petition requesting that all or a portion of the native vegetation preservation retention requirement to be satisfied by a monetary payment, land donation that contains native vegetative communities equal to or of a higher priority as described in Policy 6.1.1 (4) than the land being impacted, or other appropriate method of compensation to an acceptable land acquisition program, as required by the land development regulations. The monetary payment shall be used to purchase and manage native vegetative communities off -site. The land development regulations shall provide criteria to determine when this alternative will be considered. The criteria will be based upon the following provisions: a. The amount, type, rarity, and quality of the native vegetation on site; b. The presence of conservation lands adjoining the site; C. The presence of listed species and consideration of Federal and State agency technical assistance; d. The type of land use proposed, such as, but not limited to, affordable housing; e. The size of the preserve required to remain on site is too small to ensure that the preserve can remain functional; and f. Right of Way acquisitions for ail purposes necessary for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including utilities within the right of way acquisition area. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 3 of 18 The intent of the proposed TAMP Policy 6.1.7 is to ensure that the LDC is amended to create a deviation process, pursuant to the specific provisions set forth in CCME 6.1.1(10), and in particular, subparagraph e., to expressly allow for deviations from required native vegetation amounts under certain conditions and when the proposed use is for Infill development and redevelopment, affordable or workforce housing, or for any form of economic development or diversification (iob creation). The specific details, conditions, and /or limitations shall be developed as part of the LDC amendment. The LDC amendment to address Policy 6.1.1(10), as prepared by staff and currently under review reads in part, as follows (emphasis added in bold highlight): f. Off -site vegetation retention. i. Applicability. A property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier County on -site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for only the following situations and subiect to restrictions listed below. a) Properties zoned commercial or industrial where the on -site preserve requirement is less than 2 acres in size. b) Park sites where the on -site preserve requirement is less than one acre in size. c) Essential service facilities other than parks, for any size preserves. d) Preserves less than one acre in size. el Affordable housine oroiects with a BCC annroved Affordable Housin Density Bonus Agreement. The maximum percent of native vegetation retention allowed offsite shall be no more than the percent of affordable housing units allowed under the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement without limitation as to size of the preserve. f) Existing or proposed preserves with 75 percent or more coverage with exotic vegetation. Existing preserves not previously overrun with this type vegetation and which arrive at this state due to lack of management of the preserve shall mitigate off site at a ratio of 2 to 1. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 4of18 g) Created preserves which do not meet the success criteria in 3.05.07 H.1.e.viii or where preserves have not been planted in a manner which mimics a natural plant community. h) Preserves which do not meet the minimum dimensional requirements of this section. i) Portions of preserves located within platted single - family lots. j) Where future planned public infrastructure, approved by the BCC, require preserves to be located elsewhere. k) All criteria listed for created preserves. ii. Restrictions, when one or more of the following situations occur. a) Xeric scrub and hardwood hammocks which are one acre or more in size, mangrove (excluding mangrove fringes less than 40 feet in width on artificially created shorelines), coastal dune and strand environments and listed species habitat or corridors per the requirements or recommendations of the FFWCC or USFWS, shall not be allowed to have the on -site native vegetation preservation retention requirement provided offsite. b) Preserves shall remain onsite if located adiacent to or within natural flowways, natural water bodies, estuaries, government required preserves (not meeting the offsite preservation criteria herein), NRPA's, or adjacent to property designated for purchase by Conservation Collier or purchased by Conservation Collier, or adjacent to or within properties containing listed species nests, buffers, corridors and foraging habitat per the requirements or recommendations of the FFWCC or USFWS. For the purpose of this section, natural flowways shall also include those identified during wetland permitting with applicable state and federal agencies, regional drainage studies, or surface water management permits. c) Remaining portions of on -site preserves must be a minimum of one acre in size and shall not meet the offsite criteria of sub - section 3.05.07 H.1.f.i.f) and F) above, unless preserved with higher quality habitat not qualifying for the off -site native vegetation retention alternative. iii. Off -site Alternatives. Off -site native vegetation retention requirements may be met by monetary payment or by land donation. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 5 of 18 a) Applicants shall make monetary payment to Conservation Collier for the purchase and management of off -site conservation lands within the county. The monetary payment shall be based on the location of the land to be impacted and be equal to 125 percent of the average cost of land in the Urban Designation or 125 percent of the average cost for all other Designations, as applicable, as defined by the FLUE, purchased by Conservation Collier. This monetary payment shall be made prior to the preconstruction meeting for the SDP or final plat construction plans. b) In lieu of monetary pavment. applicants may choose to donate land to Conservation Collier or to another government agency. In the event of donation to Conservation Collier, the applicant may acquire and subsequently donate land within the project boundaries of Winchester Head, North Golden Gate Estates Unit 53, another multi - parcel project or any other land designated by Conservation Collier donation acceptance procedures. Applicants who choose to donate land shall be required to demonstrate that the land to be donated contains native vegetation communities equal to or of higher priority (as described in subsection 3.05.07 A.) than the land required to be preserved onsite. In no case shall the acreage of land donated be less than the acreage of land required to be preserved onsite. Land donated to satisfy the off -site vegetation retention requirement must be located entirely within Collier County. Donations of land for preservation shall be made to a federal, state or local government agency established or authorized to accept lands for the conservation and management of land in perpetuity, subiect to the policies and procedures of the receiving entity. Lands donated to Conservation Collier must include a cash payment for management of the land. The amount of this payment shall be equal to 25 percent of the average cost of land in the Urban Designation or 25 percent of the average cost in all other Designations, as applicable, as defined by the FLUE, purchased by Conservation Collier. Applicant shall provide evidence that donations of land for preservation and endowments for management have been accepted by and donated to the entity stated above, at the time of the preconstruction meeting for the SDP or final plat construction plans. Exotics shall be removed in accordance with the time frames provided in 3.05.07 H.2. State and Federal agency requirements for mitigation, remediation and monitoring for the donated land shall be the Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 6 of 18 The above language does not specifically include infill development and redevelopment or any use providing economic development or diversification (job creation) as uses that would warrant a "request that all or a portion of the Collier County on -site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite" (or via monetary contribution). For the Immokalee Urban Area, we propose that these uses be added to the LDC amendment Section f.i. If this addition is made a part of the current LDC amendment cycle then we would not object to removing the proposed IAMP Policy 6.1.7. Staff Recommendation # 2: in regard to proposed Policy 4. 1.1 - Wetlands Connected To Lake Trafford /Camp Keois Strand System Overlay (LT/CKSSO): a. That a clarification be provided in regard to if this Policy is meant to be more restrictive than the CCME preservation policies. b. Definitions for "greenfield ". "vacant agricultural" as a type of greenfield, and "high habitat value" be included in the Master Plan. c. That a clarification be provided in regard to the intent of this Policy to direct development away from the Overlay. d. That a clarification be provided in regard to the provisions of vegetation retention that apply to the LT/CKSSO. Response: The policy is not meant to be more restrictive, but rather, through incentives, to promote and /or encourage greater preservation of native vegetation as described and prioritized in CCME Policy 6.1.1(4). Moreover, the Policy was not intended to apply to the LT /CKSSO specifically, except to the degree that certain incentives and innovative land development regulations, including but not limited to TDRs and cluster development may be used as incentives to reduce development impacts and /or to direct development away from, or out of, the LT /CKSSO. Again, to be clear, this will not be more restrictive than the CCME but will provide incentives to direct development away from such existing native vegetation. The intent of the policy is to provide greater preservation of native vegetation. The incentives include but are not limited to: clustered and mixed -use development, transferable development rights, and flexible development standards (that would incentivize redevelopment and infill development). We are proposing the revised Policy language to provide greater clarity. New Language is double underlined. Policy 4.1.1: Incentives and Innovative land Development Regulations Collier County will promote the preservation of native yeaetation in the Immokalee Urban Area exceedina the minimum required amounts set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.1.. ,4; -°°* Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 7 of 18 by utilizing incentives and innovative land development regulations std e,includina but not limited -to: cluster development transferable development rights density bonuses and flexible development standards W incentivize infill development and redevelopm within already impacted MR. HR. C -MU and I -MU designated lands . Within two (2) years of the adoption of this Policy, the County will amend the Land Development Code to implement this policy. Clean Version for ease of reading: Collier County will promote the preservation of native vegetation in the Immokalee Urban Area exceeding the minimum required amounts set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.1, by utilizing incentives and innovative land development regulations, including but not limited to: cluster development, transferable development rights, density bonuses, and flexible development standards to incentivize infill development and redevelopment within already impacted MR, HR, C MU and I -MU designated lands. Within two (2) years of the adoption of this Policy, the County will amend the Land Development Code to implement this policy. Staff Recommendation # 3: That Policy 4.1.2, be modified as follows: Recognizing the importance of Lake Trafford to potential ecotourism activities in Immokalee proposed development adiacent to Lake Trafford will conform to best management practices regarding water quality in Within two (2) years of the adoption of this Policy, the County, in coniunction with the Immokalee Redevelopment Agency will amend the Land Development Code to establish specific best management practices. Response: We agree that the proposed language provide greater clarity and less likelihood of misinterpretation. We accept the staff recommendation. Staff Recommendation # 4: That a new Policy (Policy 4.1.4) be included to reference the LT/CKSSO. Response: We agree with staff's recommendation and will include the following additional Policy 4.1.4: Policy 4.1.4 Wetlands Connected To lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand System Overlay The Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP, Policy 6.2.4(4), identifies possible high quality wetland systems connected to the Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand system within the Immokalee Urban Area. The CCME further states that these wetlands require greater protection measures than wetlands located in other portions of the Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 8 of 18 Urban Designated Area Therefore the wetland protection standards set forth in Policy 6.2.5 of the CCMF shall apply to this area. These wetlands are identified on the Immokalee Future Land Use Map as the Wetlands Connected To Lake Trafford /Camp Kepis Strand System Overlay, The Density and intensity Blending provisions of this Master Plan may be utilized within this Overlay. The additional wetland protection measures do not apply to properties within the Overlay that are developed as of the adoption of this master plan. Staff Recommendation # 5: That the LT/CKSSO language in the C. Overlays section be modified as follows: If development on the Seminole Reservation severs the connectivity of the wetland system for properties within the Overlay, east of the Reservation the additional wetland protection measures will i ed t if - . ted , F4a the bewmdapv applied to those severed eastern wetlands The standard measures for wetlands in Urban designated lands shall be applied as described in_the CCME to those severed eastern wetlands. Response: We agree with the proposed change. Staff Recommendation # 6: That Data and Analysis be provided to assess impact in preservation of native vegetation due to the proposed changes in land use (outside of the LT/CKSSO). Response: We do not need to provide any additional data and analysis as it already exists. 1% 73% Commercial FLU desigr Residential FLU designaLIU110 Q7-/Q 3% Seminole Reservation . Industrial FLU designations . Recreational Tourist Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 9 of 18 Future Land Use Abbrev. Acres Commercial C 162.6 Commerce Center — Mixed -Use CC-MU 395.0 Commerce Center — Industrial CC -1 589.7 industrial ID 2,053.8 Low Residential LR 10,405.6 Mixed Residential MR 463.9 High Residential HR 1,6011 Neighborhood Center NC 466.8 Recreational Tourist RT 251.2 Seminole Indian Reservation* RES 597.3 Total -55.31 16,989.0 Proposed Future Land Use Acreage For purposes of comparison only (and with no basis in fact), let us assume that each acre of land in the urban area contains 50% native vegetation. With that assumption, the following is the potential change in native vegetation retention (based upon CCME /LDC required native vegetation preservation by development type (see Table below): For comparison purposes only (calculation of native vegetation amount assumes 50% native vegetation existing on every acre and calculated at 15% for both Commercial and Industrial and for Residential and Mixed Use Development Types). Required Required Difference Land Use Assumed Dev. Acres Native Veg. Acres & Native (Proposed Designation Type (per Adopted Pres. proposed Veg. Pres. TAMP) CCME /LDC) TAMP Amount TAMP Amount All Residential Residential & 12,472.6 935.44 11,735.1 880.13 -55.31 Mixed Use All mixed use (except Residential & 1,112.8 83.46 1,663.8 124.79 +41.33 Industrial Mixed Use) Mixed Use All commercial and Industrial & 2,806.1 210.45 3,099.7 232.48 +22.03 Industrial (including Commercial Industrial Mixed Use ) Total 16,391.5 1,229.35 16,498.6 1,237.40 +8.05 For comparison purposes only (calculation of native vegetation amount assumes 50% native vegetation existing on every acre and calculated at 15% for both Commercial and Industrial and for Residential and Mixed Use Development Types). Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 10 of 18 Development Type Coastal High Hazard Area Non - Coastal High Hazard Area Less than 10% Less than 5 acres 10% 2.5 acres Equal to or greater than 2.5 acres 25% Equal to or greater than 5 acres and less than 20 acres 15% Residential and Mixed Use development Equal to or greater than 20 25% acres Golf Course 35% 35% Less than 5 100/4) Less than 5 acres 10% Commercial and Industrial acres Equal to or greater than 15% Equal to or greater than 5 15% development and all other non- specified development types 5 acres acres Industrial development (Rural- Industrial District only) 50 %, not to exceed 25% of the project site 50 %, not to exceed 25% of the project site. LDC /CCME Required Native Preservation Note that the development type most likely not to be required to provide native vegetation or to provide it on the smaller allowable amounts (10% or parcels less than 5 acres) is the residential only land use, which is proposed to be reduced by 737.5 acres. The development types that are proposed to be increased, Mixed -Use and Industrial, are more likely to be developed at sizes requiring 15% or 25% of native vegetation, and thus it is reasonable to conclude, when coupled with the Policy 4.1.1, (intended to provide for greater than required native vegetation through incentives) that there will be greater acres of native vegetation under the proposed plan that might be achieved under the adopted plan. Staff Recommendation # 7: That Data and Analysis be provided to assess impacts in regard to the exclusion of lands from the RLSA to be added to the proposed APO Subdistrict. Response: It was agreed that the tables and other related data and analysis that needs to be adjusted to reflect the change of the +/- 103 acres from Rural Agriculture RLSA Overlay to Urban would be addressed after transmittal and prior to adoption. As to any specific data that staff feels is necessary, this should be provided as part of the Airport PUD rezoning. This was not a part of our contractual obligation, but we agreed to include the +/- 103 acres at the request of the Airport Director and with the approval to do so by the IAMPVC and CRA advisory Boards. Any additional data and analysis will Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) January 4, 2010 Page it of 18 have additional costs, and therefore this request for additional data should be directed to the Airport Authority's consultant (handling the PUD rezone). Having said that, we offer the following: The 103 acres, if, as proposed is designated APO (or industrial), and assuming the entire acreage meets the definition of native vegetation +/- 15.45 acres would need to be preserved per County requirements. The land presently falls in the Open Category under the RLSA Overlay (see below). Generally, the open lands have been determined to have lower ecological value than other lands within the RLSA. Given that any impacts to wetlands or listed species habitat will still fall under the jurisdiction of applicable state and federal agencies for permitting and given the fact that this +/- 100 acres represents a very small fraction of the overall RSLA Overlay, one can reasonably conclude that there will be minimal, if any, additional natural resource impacts associated with this change in designation. Location of additional +/-103 Staff Recommendation #I 8: That the petitioner provide data to identifying developed properties within the LT/CKS50 so the magnitude of the "exempt" language can be readily assessed. Resoonse: We are providing a map with acreage calculations depicting the "developed" lands within the LT /KSSO. Vacant and developed areas are based on information provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office. Land Uses within the LT /KSSO Land Use Parcels Acreage Agriculture 15 900.00 Conservation 2 _ Government 6 _26.21 40.94 Institutional 5 16.73 Roadways 3 7.06 Seminole Reservation 1 169.35 Single- Family 43 187.39 Vacant Land 21 144.83 Total 96 1,492.51 Although the Table above only identifies 145 acres as vacant, it is important to note that the Property Appraiser's Office considers a property to be developed (or not vacant) if any portion of the parcel is improved. Additionally, nearly all of the more than 1,400 acres of the LT /KSSO remains in a natural (uncleared and undeveloped) state but since it is zoned and designated by the Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan ([AMP) January 4, 2010 Page 12 of 18 Appraiser's office as Agriculture and thus does not show up as vacant. As you can see from the aerial, only a relatively insignificant amount of the lands within the overlay appear to be impacted by clearing or development. Staff Recommendation q 9: That the petitioner provide data and analysis to determine availability of central water and sewer service (or alternative) to support changes in density and intensity. Response: We are providing a map that depicts the areas currently served with central sewer and water. The Immokalee Water and Sewer District boundary includes the entire urban area. If staff feels it is warranted, we would be happy to include a policy requiring hook up (and extension of lines if necessary for all development not presently served by central sewer and water, unless an interim package treatment plant is deemed to be a viable alternative (until such time as central sewer and water becomes available to the site). We would not apply this requirement to development in the LR or RT Designations for development at a density of 1 dwelling unit per acre or less. Additionally, on December 30, 2009, Patrick Vanasse and I met for several hours with Judith M. Hushon, Chair of the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the staff report and to discuss the Chair's concerns and /or issues as well. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 13 of 18 The following is a summary of that meeting, and our responses to the Chair's comments and concerns. Comment or Concern: Policy 1.1.3 of proposed [AMP (Page 24 of proposed TAMP) Mitigation Bank in immolate .... Need to identify priority lands for preservation. Pepper Ranch is for County mitigation, not just in lmmokalee .... is there a provision to prevent double dipping? Response: The question regarding double dipping needs to be directed to staff. The IAMP does not address the issue of double dipping (and i do not belie it is addressed in the CCME either) ... that is using one piece of mitigation land to meet the mitigation requirements of more than one jurisdiction (or more than one type of mitigation, i.e., wetland and listed species mitigation), although the applicable jurisdictions may take issue with this. As far as the need to identify priority areas in Policy 1.1.3., please review the below revisions (double underlined is added language). Policy 1.1.3: Mitigation Bank Within two (2) Years of adoption of this policy, Collier County (Community Development and Environmental Services Division and Conservation Collier staff) in coordination with the lmmokalee Community Redevelopment Agency will explore the feasibility of utilizing Pepper Ranch or other lame ^^~ ~ ^^'ed •r^^+ undeveloped Parcels with significant wetland upland or listed species habitat value, as a listed species habitat conservation bank or wetland mitigation bank to compensate for impacts associated with development within the lmmokalee Urban Area Additionally, during this period the County shall a^+^n~l'^^ the feasibility of develop a map depicting preferred lands to be targeted for mitigation for impacts in or adjacent to the lmmokalee Man Area and incentives to be included in the LUC to direct mitigation to these targeted mitigation lands Further, the Count)L-shall consider the feasibility of a public- private partnership for the purposes of mitigation banking within gr purchase gf these targeted mitigation lands Comment or Concern: Natural Resource Data (Maps) ...not up to date ... not most recent. Exist in better forms and should be incorporated. Response: We believe that we have provided the best available data that was available when we assembled it during this process. We do not however, object to conferring with staff to see if there is more up- to -date maps available, especially related to listed species, and if so we will incorporate that up -to- date info into the data and analysis section. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 14 of 18 Comment or Concern: Water and sewer adequacy? Response: Although we are purposing to increase potential density within Immokalee Urban Area, we are not proposing any changes to the population projections, which drive the need for public facility improvements, along with several other tools. In Collier County it works like this. The GMP provides for allowable density and intensity. As part of that process, we have included all available information regarding the current capacity and projected additional capacity needed based upon the population projections. In order to ensure that there are adequate public facilities in place at the time of actual demand for such services, the following additional tools are in place. Concurrency Management: This is an actual account system that measures impacts to the system in real time, unit by unit, or gallon by gallon as the case may be. If a Level of Service for a particular public facility is exceeded, then the concurrency management system will prohibit any further issuance of development orders until the deficiency is addressed (corrected). Given the other tools that are used for public facility planning, the moratorium on issuance of development orders due to a level of service impact, should either not occur or should not be a surprise to anyone if it does occur. The additional tools include: Annual Update and Inventory Report: This annual report identifies impacts to and needed improvements to public facilities, and also identifies any planned capital improvements that may be needed or that are planned or funded to address necessary capital improvements to maintain or exceed various levels of service for public facilities. Capital Improvement Plans and Long Range Plans: Capital Improvement Plans generally cover a five year period and are reviewed and updated (based upon various inputs included the AUIR, changing costs, and available funding) on an annual basis. Long Range plans typical look out over an extended horizon (20 or more years) and look at forecasting of demand and planning for capital needs and infrastructure to meet that projected demand. Long Range Plans are generally updated on a regular base but usually every few years rather than annually. In conclusion, we have addressed the impacts associated with the proposed density increases and land use designation changes. Assuming the Plan is approved and density is increased in certain areas, the public facility providers with the use this new information, coupled with update population and other projections, to update the needed capital projects and long range plans. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 15 of 18 Comment or Concern: Wetlands, Scrub jay and panther habitat impact is not addressed. Response: First and foremost, listed species protection mechanisms are set forth in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the Collier County GMP. The proposed IAMP does not in any way lesson or deviate from those requirements. Immokalee should not be held to a higher standard than the balance of Collier County. Having said that, there are several policies in the IAMP that provide for grater protection standards or incentives that are indented to result in greater protection of listed species habitat and native vegetation. These include proposed Policies 1.1.3 ands 4.1.1 (as proposed to be amended herein) and the adoption of the LT /KSSO, which provides for greater wetland projection standards. Comment or Concern: Are densities being directed away from wetlands? Response, The answer to this question is emphatically yes. See response above. Comment or Concern: Big Cypress Proposed DRl is it included or not ...best to include it. Response: It is only included where the data we received includes it. We are providing the best available data and we are not extrapolating out the Big Cypress Project if it is included. There should be no significant impact as a result of this being included in some of the data. Comment or Concern: Data Analysis Document — Page 2 Section 1.2 line 2 insert word ecological after social and before economic. Response: We agree to make this change. 1.2 History of Planning Efforts in Immokalee Immokalee has long been recognized as a distinct community within Collier County due to its unique geographic, social, ecological and economic characteristics. Comment or Concern: Page 9 and at various other points data does not appear to be up- to- date ... Section 3 Existing land Use shows conservation at 90.6 acres ... map shows it in Arrowhead PUD. What about other lands around take Trafford... what about Pepper Ranch ...data seems flawed. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 16 of 18 Response: The data is not flawed and was the best available when we secured it. We will revise this section to include footnote re: Pepper Ranch acreage, which will increase conservation lands significantly. This data comes from Appraiser's office and the terms, such as vacant land as previously discussed, are very specific. We will add a footnote to address agriculture lands. Comment or Concern: Well Cones of depression appear to be affecting ag lands. It is unclear that the three shown are sufficient. Wellfields underlie most of Immokalee Urban Area... concerns with farm chemicals, gas stations, future industrial etc. Response: These questions should be directly to staff. It is suggested that the appropriate staff be in attendance to respond. There are regulations and protections in pace to address these concerns. Moreover, we are not adding land to the Urban Area (except the 100 acres east of the Airport), so any concerns already exist and are not being exacerbated by the proposed IAMP. They are addressed by current protection measures that staff can discuss. Comment or Concern: Section 4 requires more work — Listed Species — Map 4 -9 is incomplete, Data from Airport Extension needs to be included. Response: The data will be provided and included in this section prior to adoption (and after transmittal). It has been collected and it has been requested from Q Grady Minor, the Airport consultant. Comment or Concern: Map 4 -4 needs to be reprinted and replaced. Response: We will do this at the EAC hearing. Comment or Concern: Map 5 -2 should include primary Panther boundaries Response: We will provide a map that shows this information, but cannot place it on the FLUM itself. Comment or Concern: Zoning Map 5 -3 should show conservation lands that exist under agricultural zoning Response: Again, we can provide a separate map that depicts all lands in conservation Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 17 of 18 Comment or Concern: Need to more closely address environmental impacts of possible SR 29 Loop Road locations Response: There is a separate PD &E study ongoing. That process will address the environmental constraints and issues associated with each potential route. We cannot do that as part of the [AMP. Comment or Concern: Page 77 footnote (3) does not match chart. Response: Footnote will be corrected. Comment or Concern: CAT circle bus show be proposed to be electric or gas powered. Response: This is better directed at Alternative Transportation Staff. They can update the EAC on all efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emission (as it relates to Public Transit) Comment or Concern: Transportation report has on error on Page 4 dealing with SR 29 that needs to be corrected or clarified. Response: Report will be clarified. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner Laura Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist Responses to Staff Recommendations Re: CP- 2008 -5 Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) January 4, 2010 Page 18 of 18 We realize that this response is getting to you only a few days in advance of the hearing but nevertheless it is our hope that this will assist the EAC in its deliberations and will help to expedite the hearings since we agree with many of the staff recommendations and many of the expressed concerns or comments have been addressed. On behalf of The IAMP Vision Committee and the CRA Advisory Board, and Penny Phillippi, CRA Executive Director and the CRA staff, and on behalf of all of the Immokalee County, Please accept our thanks for the time and effort you put into this review, and for the constructive input you have provided us with as a result. We look forward to further discussion and public input at the EAC hearing on January 6, 2010. Thank you on behalf of the entire consultant team, including RWA, Inc., LDI, and Tindale Oliver and Associates. Sincerely, Robert J. Mulhere, AICP Enc: Existing Land Uses in the WCLT /CKSS Overlay Map Existing Infrastructure Locations Map Cc: Immokalee CRA and IAMPVC Members Penny Phillippi Bradley Muckel David Weeks, AICP William Lorenz, P.E. Joseph K. Schmitt Nick Casalanguida Patrick Vanasse, AICP Christopher Scott, AICP The Immokalee Regional Airport 103± acre addition contains the following FLUCFCS types /acreages: Improved Pasture (FLUCFCS Code 211) — 86.20± acres Low Pasture, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 262) — 9.30± acres Freshwater Marsh (FLUCFCS Code 641) — 4.70± acres Wet Prairie (FLUCFCS Code 643) — 1.79± acres Borrow Area (FLUCFCS Code 742) — 0.25± acres Spoil Areas (FLUCFCS Code 743) — 0.30± acres Berm (FLUCFCS Code 747) — 0.44± acres In addition to this, the following listed species and /or their sign were observed utilizing the 103± acre addition during various surveys: 1 American alligator 4 Florida sandhill cranes 2 white ibis 1 bald eagle nest tree (CO -034) 2 bald eagle perch trees IMMOKALEE C R,,4A Community Re�evelopment Agency iThe Place to Call Home! EAC Hearing '� IMMOKALEE CR-,4A Community Redevelopment Agency iThe Place to Call Home! EAC Hearing 01 -06 -10 Immokalee Area Master Plan pit NE 4 a n CRA Advisory Board & State Enterprise Zone Agency Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Capt. Tom Davis Robert Halman, Ex- officio Julio Estremera Michael Facundo Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Richard Rice Ana Salazar Rick Heers James Wall Eva Deyo Master Plan & Visioning Committee Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Chairman Edward (Ski) Olesky Clarence S. Tears, Jr. Pastor Jean C. Paul Carrie Williams Floyd Crews Pam Brown Rick Heers Dick Rice Estil Null CRA Staff Penny Phillippi, Executive Director Bradley Muckel, Project Manager Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant 2 "Those of us who live and work in Immokalee envision a great future for our town. We see new business and job opportunities in international trade and distribution, agri- business, ecotourism, recreation and entertainment, and the construction industry. We see Immokalee as an attractive, clean community with affordable- workforce housing, neighborhood parks and outstanding school- -- a place where people walk and bicycle to do their errands, and where parents are returning to classrooms to finish their education and master new job skills. Main Street will have a Latin flavor — plazas, outdoor cafes, shops, and entertainment — attracting both the local community and the tourists who come to explore our unique ecology or gamble at the Casino. " - Prepared by Penny Phillippi, Executive Director, Immokalee CRA and adopted by the IMPVC and CRA Advisory Boards 3 m 5 oric Immokalee... • First settled by Seminole Indians. • Hunters, cattlemen, Indian traders arrived around the middle of 19th century. • No permanent settlers appeared until 1872. • Known by several different names, changing with various settlers. • Seminoles first gave Immokalee the name "Gopher Ridge" because of the unusual number of land turtles and gophers in the area. • Also known at one time as "Allen Place" after William "Billy" Allen, one of the first settlers. • Received its current name, "Immokalee," meaning "my home," in October 1897 with the naming of the first post office. Name suggested by Bishop William Crane Gray, who argued that the name should be a Seminole word with pleasant associations. ��fr :oric Immokalee... • Immokalee was relatively isolated until 1921, when the Atlantic Coast Line Railway Company (ACL) expanded its lines south from LaBelle. Before the railroad was extended, trips were made by waterway or sand trails. • Collier County formed in 1923 ... only non - coastal settlements were located in Immokalee and Corkscrew areas. In order to reach County seat at Everglades City, residents of Immokalee had to first go to Fort Myers, and then take a boat to Everglades City, or they could drive south along poor road conditions to Marco Island and continue from Caxa m ba s by boat. • Barron Collier and his associates were aware of the importance of opening a direct route from Immokalee to Everglades City. They made a strenuous effort to open a North -South road and to induce the ACL to extend its lines to Everglades City. • Efforts continued for the building of a roadway into Immokalee, but the transportation problem was not resolved until Immokalee Road (CR -846) was rebuilt and resurfaced a second time in 1955 -56. With such a major improvement in the transportation system, Immokalee became a thriving center for ranching, farming, and lumbering. 7 Let llol»« ^ R nning History... • October 1965 - BCC established Immokalee Area Planning Commission (IAPC) • Oct 1965 — Jan. 1982 - The Community had its own Zoning Regulations until Jan. 1982, when unified Zoning Ordinance was adopted for unincorporated Collier. • 1983 Comp Plan - reaffirmed distinctive nature of Immokalee designating it as a distinct Planning Community. • 1985 - nine - member CCPC was established with representatives from all areas of County. Two reps from District 5 serve on the CCPC. • 1989 - Collier County adopted current GMP; recommended an area master plan for Immokalee be developed. • 1991 - IAMP completed and adopted as a separate element of GMP. Supplements the county -wide goals, objectives, and policies of the Collier County GMP by providing Immokalee- specific provisions. 0 nning History... • March 2000 — BCC made finding of conditions of blight for Immokalee through Resolution 2000 -82, allowing for the establishment of Immokalee CRA. Purpose of the CRA - to encourage economic and social improvement in Immokalee urban area. • May 2003 — establishes IAMPlan Restudy Committee • September 28, 2004 — BCC extends timeframe for Restudy committee and renames it the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee (IMPVC). • The IMPVC assisted County_irt selecting consultant to update to the IAMP (RMPK). Over four year period, the IMPVC and consultant conducted extensive public outreach, collected and analyzed data, and drafted recommended amendments to IAMP. Despite extensive effort, amendments never finalized. BCC again extended timeframe for the IMPVC and selected a new consultant (RWA) to complete the process. 10 ;cific Duties of the IMPVC Were qtified... • Assist County staff with review of general planning matters related to Immokalee Community, e.g., housing, zoning, economic or other issues as may be brought before the Committee; • Identify and provide recommendations to the BCC relating to: • road improvements • economic incentives • increasing the quality and quantity of affordable housing • land uses and improvements relative to the Immokalee Regional Airport • density increases in mixed -use districts • restructuring of future land use designations boundaries • facilitation of construction of commercial development in commercial districts • preparation of revisions to current zoning districts • development of associated Land Development Code standards • review of the 5 -year Schedule of Capital Improvements relative to Immokalee • Assist in development of revised goals, objectives, and policies, and land use designation descriptions for the IAMP • Assist in review and updating of IAMP to establish consistency between it and the County RLSA Overlay provisions 11 The IMPVC has been working steadily towards achieving these goals over the last 5 years. A Adoption of this revised 1AMP and FLUM Map is first step in completing the objectives of the Committee. A Once this occurs next steps are: • Changes to the Collier County Land Development Code in order to establish Immokalee -specific land development regulations necessary to implement IAMP GCIPs; • Update to the CRA-specific Capital Improvements Plan; Transportation assessment; Update and amendment to the CRA Redevelopment Plan. 12 e Economic Development& Smart Growth Patrick Vanasse, AICP • Overarching Goal - Economic Development & Diversity • Smart Growth -tools to achieve economic development and build a better community 13 Smart Growth Principles 1. A range of housing opportunities and choices 2. Walkable neighborhoods 3. Community and stakeholder involvement 4. Distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place 5. Predictable, fair, and cost effective development decisions A 6. Mix land uses 7. Open space, farmland, natural beauty 8. A variety of transportation choices 9. Strengthen existing communities /neighborhoods 10. Compact design 14 rt Growth Outcomes Neighborhood livability Better access, less traffic Thriving cities, suburbs, and towns Shared benefits Lower costs, lower taxes Environmental Benefits Keeping open space open Health benefits Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 15 Work Completed to Date: 1. Public Realm Plan 2. Central Business District Form Based Guidelines 3. Proposed IAM P ,,Hmmo CAIEE *CRA MMOKALEE Cl nuni� Red VC1.pmcnt The Place tv Call Hvmc DIVA" LAND DE$MN INN, 1 IMMOKALEE CRA Community Redevelopment Agency iThe Place to Call Home! ;. '11 ..4AIPL�Re Collier Countv Growth Management Plan PIA 1 Pmp—d!w COWED COUN W COMMLM4ITY FEDEALOPMENTAOENCY and Me ,. an,Cr CO' Iry C ^�1•f....; 1f n� 16 Public realm plan Legend Sub Area 3 Commercial Government Institutional Mufti-Family Single-Family Mobile Home or Recreational Vehicle Park Vacant Land I Parcels Collier County Roadways Collier County Major Roads ■ a Ilk iia, ■ 17 Public realm plan Legend 5- Minute Walk, 1/4 Mile Radius • • • • Sidewalks Crosswalk 0 Traffic Light Parcels = Proposed Public Plaza /Park Location ri, , Proposed Public Parking Buildings = Seminole Casino ............ E ; T ! ..................... ta �i G G - i I... ........ .. .'.� w�MR.. -... l 11 1♦ ♦ q • mow.. , .nra Z A I I� k a t.........,. ♦ f e � 18 9th Street Plaza &Park v a� �U4 4' CCi N Existing Trees p r Lawn & Event Tenting Res - Bik4 Bio- Swal Rain Garden O O d 1st Street Plaza Concept Art Wall' Decorative Pots �r streetscape n s e Al MI Form based guidelines TILE ROOF i OPENMOS TOWER • Spanish Vernacular C LAPS DECORATME KICK PLATE FRAME VERNACULAR STYLE STOPIIRONT ��AM+w� A, IRIS 12 era � �.= •_ ��=-!� C LAPS DECORATME KICK PLATE FRAME VERNACULAR STYLE STOPIIRONT Form based guidelines Site Access, Circulation & Parking Landscaping, Buffers, Fences, Walls Vehicular Access .1, a Parking I r y i 1J . • rp Street Vehicular Access Recommended Allowed I Street Vehicular Access Not Allowed �A 23 -,AL Q a &Characteristics: • Florida Enterprise/ Empowerment Zone • Brownfield designation for lands at the Immokalee Regional Airport • Rural Area of Critical Economic Concern (RACEC) through Governor's Executive Order 06 -34 • Community Redevelopment Area • Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program (Section 288.106 F.S.) • Quick Response Training Program (Section 228.047 F.S.) • Quick Response Training for Welfare Transition Program Participants (Section 228.047(8) F.S.) • Special Transportation Projects (Section 288.063) • Rural Job Tax Credit Program (Sections 212.098 & 220.1895 F.S.) 25 a Population Table 1. Population Estimate of Permanent Population, 1970 to 2008 IMMOKALEE CDP COLLIER COUNTY Year Persons % Increase Persons % Increase 1970 31764 38,040 1980 11,038 193.25% 85,971 126.00% 1990 141120 27.92% 152,099 76.92% 2000 19,410 37.46% 251,377 65.27% 2008 24,519 26.32% 332,854 32.29% Source: 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 population from U.S. Census; 2008 population estimate, Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department 3-I Population Figure 1. Immokalee Population Estimates & Projections (2000 -2020) 60,000 - I 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 _- 00 O'L Off` LO Olp 0Ib ,y0 y1' yD� y�o y'b ,LO —April 1 Permanent Population — October 1 Permanent Population Peak Population* Figure 2. presents the projected average April and October permanent population and peak population for the Immokalee Planning Community, as prepared by Collier County. 27 Age distribution in Immokalee is considerably different from the County as a whole. Median Age (in 2000): • Immokalee = 25 years old • Collier County = 44 years old Median age for Collier County steadily increased from 1980 to 2000, from 38 to 441 while staying unchanged in Immokalee. W Race Racial composition in Immokalee is substantially different from the County as a whole. 1980: • Immokalee - 36% white (3.,962 people) • Remaining Collier County - 84% white 1990: • Immokalee - 65% Hispanic 77 • Remaining Collier County - 7% Hispanic av 2000: • Immokalee - 70% Hispanic or Latino • Remaining Collier County — 15% Hispanic or Latino 29 ;ome &Housing • low- income community with a high % of the population living below the poverty level. • the majority of housing is renter - occupied, and a third of the housing stock is made up of mobile homes. • almost 1 out of 10 homes lack complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. • median home values are less than half of that reported for Collier County as a whole. 30 Per Capita Income 2000 Census: • Immokalee - $8,576 • Collier County - $31,195 Median Household Income 2000 Census: • Immokalee - $24,315 • Collier County - $48,289 31 Vehicle Ownership -- - - - -- - - -- Immokalee Collier County Households with: owner renter Percent of owner renter Percent of occupied occupied All Homes occupied occupied All Homes no vehicle 173 812 18% 2250 2749 5% 1 vehicle 795 1356 40% 31552 12279 43% 2 vehicles 742 761 28% 34349 8351 41% 3 vehicles 364 150 10% 7218 1407 8% 4 vehicles 66 24 2% 1670 252 2% t 5+ vehicles 112 22 2% 790 106 1% Total Homes 2252 3125 77829 25144 +4"'` Data by City - Data.com 32 I Vehicle Ownership Transportation Immokalee Collier United County States Commute Time 38.1 25.9 27.4 COMMUTE MODE Auto (alone) 34.88% 74.80% 71.32% Carpool 38.07% 14.33% 14.52% Mass Transit 18.89% 1.67% 2.00% Work at Home 1.33% 4.84% 5.46% COMMUTE TIME TO WORK Commute Less Than 15 min. 23.49% 27.24% 28.89% Commute 15 to 29 min. 17.41% 41.01% 36.08% Commute 30 to 44 min. 22.37% 20.03% 19.35% t Commute 45 to 59 min. 16.59% 6.21% 7.57% Commute greater than 60 min. 20.14% 5.51% 8.12% Data provided by Sperlings Best Places Copyright 2009 33 e Agricultural Statistics Ag is a major industry in and around Immokalee. • more than 60% of all employment and around 20% of all business establishments in Immokalee were based in agriculture in 2005. ( "Immokalee Master Plan Study Economic Analysis," prepared by Regional Economic Research Institute at Florida Gulf Coast University in 2006) r` • 1 out of 5 businesses is related to agriculture, and over 1 /z of the employed population — more than 1 out of 2 works in an agricultural industry. 34 Agricultural Statistics Figure 2. Farm Acres in Collier County (1997 -2007) 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 a 100,000 50,000 0 1997 2002 2007 Year 1,934 _ Source: The Census of Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture, 1997, 2002, and 2007 Census Publications, Volume 1, Chapter 2: County Level Data, Florida. Graphic prepared by RWA, Inc. 35 Agricultural Statistics Table 2. Value of Ag Products Sold in Collier County (1997 -2007) Farm Acres Value of Agricultural Products Sold Value of Products Sold per Acre 1997 277,279 $ 267,865,000 $ 966.05 2002 180,852 $ 267,636,000 $ 1,479.86 2007 109,934 $ 278,822,000 $ 2536.27 36 Existing/Proposed FLUM Comparison n. ........ A If -.elmmoki-&E-CRA Immokalee Future Land Use Proposed Future Land Use Comparison Map Legend 1:3 1:3 Ulm snxtion M M DIVA" .AL %6.T TL JL IMMOKAL.EE CkA Community Redevelopmeof Agency i The Place to Call Home! 3. Adopted Future Land Use Designations & Acreages EXISTING Future Land Use Commercial Commerce Center — Mixed -Use Commerce Center — Industrial Industrial Low Residential Mixed Residential High Residential Neighborhood Center Recreational Tourist Seminole Indian Reservation* TOTAL ABBREV. ACRES C 162.6 CC -MU 395.0 CC-I 589.7 ID 2,053.8 LR 10,405.6 MR 463.9 HR 1,603.1 NC 466.8 RT 251.2 RES 597.3 16,989.0 Table 4. Proposed Future Land Use Designations & Acreages PROPOSED Future ABBREV. Acres Land Use Commercial Mixed Use CMU 1,212.6 Industrial Mixed Use IMU 861.1 Immokalee Regional Airport APO 1,484.3 Industrial IN 754.0 Low Residential LR 81321.5 Medium Residential MR 2,550.2 High Residential HR 863.4 Recreational Tourist RT 451.2 Seminole Reservation* SR 591.3 TOTAL 17,089.6 39 Figure 3. Existing Land Use by Percent of Total Acreage 10' 1% 1% 6% ' - 170 55% Agriculture ■ Commercial ■ Conservation ■ Government Industrial Institutional Multi - Family w Single- Family ■ Seminole Reservation Roadways Vacant Land o Figure 6. Future Land Use by Generalized Categories 1% 73% Adopted 6% Proposed 3% by" /o All commercial FLU designations 0 All residential FLU designations ML Seminole Reservation All industrial FLU designations M Recreational Tourist ED r- Table 5. Adopted Future Land Use, Maximum Density Calculations Future Land Use Abbrev. Acres Base Max. # DU /AC DUs Commercial C 162.6 0 0.0 Commerce Center — Mixed -Use CC -MU 395.0 12 4,739.5 Commerce Center — Industrial CC-I 589.7 0 0.0 Industrial ID 2,053.8 0 0.0 Low Residential LR 10,405.6 4 41,622.3 Mixed Residential MR 463.9 6 2,783.2 High Residential HR 11603.1 $ 121824.4 Neighborhood Center NC 466.8 12 5,601.6 Recreational Tourist RT 251.2 4 1,004.8 Seminole Indian Reservation* RES 597.3 n/a 0.0 r Total 16,989.0 68,575.9 42 11 Table 6. Proposed Future Land Use, Maximum Density Calculations Future Land Use Abbrev. Acres Base Max. # DU /AC DUs Commercial Mixed Use CMU 11212.6 16 19,401.6 — ustnal Mixed Use IMU 861.1 0 0.0 Immokalee Regional Airport APO 1,484.3 0 0.0 Industrial IN 754.0 0 0.0 Low Residential LR 8,321.5 4 33,286.0 Medium Residential MR 21550.2 8 20,401.6 High Residential HR 863.4 10 8,634.0 Recreational /Tourist RT 451.2 4 1,804.8 Seminole Reservation* SR 591.3 n/a 0.0 Total 17,089.6 83,528.0 14,952 (22 %) potential additional DUs .W Wetlands & Environmentally Sensitive Areas Figure 8. Adopted Lake Trafford Urban Wetlands Overlay M Wetlands & Environmentally Sensitive Areas Figure 9. Proposed Lake Trafford Urban Wetlands Overlay Proposed Lake TnMOrd Urban Wetlands Overlay klwnokawe Lkben Ana Boundary 45 ro, LIVA m �vl W. Ipp A 77�1 11 Public Involvement &Outreach The master plan update has been an extensive process, initiated in 2005 and involving many stakeholders. The following is a summary of the key dates of public meetings and workshops held to date. Additionally, the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee (IMPVC) and the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board (CRAAB) met at least monthly from January 2006, through the present, November, 2009, to track and direct the progress of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. 47 0 February 22, 2006 at 1PM Special meeting of the IMPVC May 2, 2006 at 5:30PM Public workshop September 19, 2006 at 5:30PM Public meeting to review the Inventory and Analysis Report, priorities September 25, 2008 at 5:30 PM Public workshop to review the draft Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Immokalee Area Master Plan November 6, 2008 at 10:00 AM Public meeting to review draft Immokalee Area Master Plan prior to submittal August 10, 2009 at 9:00 AM Public meeting to review revised draft Immokalee Area Master Plan prior to resubmittal December 16, 2009 Afternoon /evening Collier County Planning Commission workshop in Immokalee January 4, 2010 EAC Hearing for development and redevelopment, and strategies for the Immokalee Area Master Plan October 3, 2006 at 5:30PM Workshop to receive input regarding the "Illustrative Plan" October 17, 2006 at 5:30PM Workshop to continue October 3 public input regarding the "Illustrative Plan" November 3, 2006 at 10:OOAM Bus tour of Immokalee to do "ground - truthing" of draft Immokalee Area Master Plan and to stimulate discussion regarding goals, objectives and policies related to development and redevelopment in Immokalee November 7, 2006 at 5:30PM Public workshop to review code enforcement, Housing Sub - committee recommendations, and the draft Immokalee Area Master Plan November 29, 2006 at 8:30AM Joint meeting of the IMPVC and the Community Redevelopment Advisory Board to review the Immokalee Master Plan Economic Analysis Study January 31, 2007 at 2:OOPM Special meeting to review the draft Immokalee Area Master Plan February 20, 2007 at 5:30PM Public meeting to review the draft Immokalee Area Master Plan September 25, 2008 at 5:30 PM Public workshop to review the draft Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Immokalee Area Master Plan November 6, 2008 at 10:00 AM Public meeting to review draft Immokalee Area Master Plan prior to submittal August 10, 2009 at 9:00 AM Public meeting to review revised draft Immokalee Area Master Plan prior to resubmittal December 16, 2009 Afternoon /evening Collier County Planning Commission workshop in Immokalee January 4, 2010 EAC Hearing Goals Goal 1: Enhance and diversify the local economy of the Immokalee community. Goal 2: Provide a diversity of safe and sanitary housing for all residents of the Immokalee Urban Area. Provide adequate and efficient public infrastructure and facilities for the Immokalee Urban Area. Goal 4: Protect important natural resources through the implementation of Immokalee- specific development standards and policies. Goal 5: Allow and encourage a mixture of land uses that is appropriate for Immokalee. Goal 6: Establish development design standards that are appropriate for Immokalee. Goal 7: Coordinate and provide for the continual exchange of information with the other governmental agencies, utility providers, non - profit organizations, the school Board, and the Seminole Tribal Council that may be affected by the Immokalee Area Master Plan. 49 Existing Conditions and Limitations - - -- 0 Existing CCME provisions and all other GMP GOPs remain in effect, unless specifically addressed in TAMP. • Nothing has been reduced. • Some additional regulatory provisions have been adopted. • Calls for feasibility of other natural resource protection tools and for incentives to increase native veg. and listed species habitat protection. AC iff Report (and Other Recommendations) Staff Recommendation 1: That the petitioner provides more information in regard to the deviation contained in the proposed Policy 6.1.7, in order to assess the need for this policy. If the deviations differ from current standards in the CCME, then data and analysis will be needed to support the deviations proposed. Response: Intent of proposed IAMP Policy 6.1.7 - to ensure that LDC is amended to create deviation process, pursuant to the specific provisions set forth in CCME 6.1.1(10), and in particular, subparagraph e., to expressly allow for deviations from required native vegetation amounts under certain conditions and when the proposed use is for infill development and redevelopment, affordable or workforce housing, or for any form of economic development or diversification (job creation). The specific details, conditions, and /or limitations shall be developed as part of the LDC amendment. 51 r Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Staff Recommendation 2: In regard to proposed Policy 4.1.1 - Wetlands Connected To Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand System Overlay (LT/CKSSO): • Clarification be provided in regard to if Policy is meant to be more restrictive than the CCME preservation policies. • Definitions for "greenfield ", "vacant agricultural" as a type of greenfield, and "high habitat value" be included in Master Plan. • That a clarification be provided in regard to the intent of this Policy to direct development away from the Overlay. • That a clarification be provided in regard to the provisions of vegetation retention that apply to the LT/CKSSO. 52 Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Response (Staff Recommendation # 2: Policy is not meant to be more restrictive, but rather, through incentives, to promote and /or encourage greater preservation of native vegetation (as described and prioritized in CCME Policy 6.1.1(4)). Applies to LT /CKSSO to degree that certain incentives and innovative land development regulations, including but not limited to TDRs and cluster development may be used as incentives to reduce development impacts and /or to direct development away from, or out of, the LT /CKSSO. 53 M Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Rewritten Clarified Policy: Policy 4.1.1: Incentives and Innovative Land Development Regulations Collier County will promote the preservation of native vegetation in the Immokalee Urban Area exceeding the minimum required amounts set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.1, by utilizing incentives and innovative land development regulations, including but not limited to: cluster development, transferable development rights, density bonuses, and flexible development standards to incentivize infill development and redevelopment within alreo-cTy- imported MR, HR, C -MU and I -MU designated lands. Within two (2) years of the adoption of this Policy, the County will amend the Land Development Code to implement this policy. 54 e Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Staff Recommendation 3: That Policy 4.1.2, be modified as follows: Recognizing the importance of Lake Trafford to potential ecotourism activities in Immokalee, proposed development adiacent to Lake Trafford will conform to best management practices regarding r *OQ a.0 -I OQ water gual�ty In llil7 ^ iO4 � x41010 r ✓�ni.ni.nni�� -� ivy OD nas=*G to +In Within two (2) r years of the adoption of this Policy, the County, in coniunction with the Immokalee Redevelopment Agency will amend the Land (ijJjV Development Code to establish specific best management practices. Response: We agree that the proposed language provide greater clarity and less likelihood of misinterpretation. We accept the staff recommendation. 55 Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Staff Recommendation 4: That a new Policy 4.1.4 be included to reference LT/CKSSO. Response: We agree with staff's recommendation and will include following t Policy 4.1.4 Wetlands Connected To Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand System Overlay 1 y° The Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. Policy 6.2.4(4), identifies possible high quality wetland systems connected to the Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand system within the Immokalee Urban Area. The CCME rvt further states that these wetlands require greater protection measures than wetlands located in other portions of the Urban Designated Area. Therefore, the + wetland protection standards set forth in Policy 6.2.5 of the CCME shall apply to this area. These wetlands are identified on the Immokalee Future Land Use Map as the Wetlands Connected To Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand System Overlay. The Density and Intensity Blending provisions of this Master Plan may be utilized within this Overlay. The additional wetland protection measures do not apply to properties within the Overlay that are developed as of the adoption of this master plan. 56 Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) n Staff Recommendation 5: That the LT/CKSSO language in C. Overlays section be modified as follows: If development on the Seminole Reservation severs the connectivity of the wetland system for properties within the Overlay, east of the Reservation, the additional wetland protection measures will be I,.,t not be applied to those severed eastern wetlands. The standard measures for wetlands in Urban designated lands shall be applied as described in the CCME to those severed eastern wetlands. Response: We agree with the proposed change. M Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Staff Recommendation 6: That Data and Analysis be provided to assess impact in preservation of native vegetation due to the proposed changes in land use (outside of the LT/CKSSO). t., Response: While we do not agree with the need to provide any additional data and analysis (as we believe it was already provided), we did conduct the following additional analysis (using certain assumptions). 4.01 4 Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Staff Recommendation 6 - Response , Cont.: For comparison only (with no empirical basis in fact). With assumption that each acre of land in urban area contains 50% native veg., the following is potential change in native veg. retention (based upon CCME /LDC required native veg. preservation by development type (see Table below): r] Calculation of native vegetation amount assumes 50% native vegetation existing on every acre and calculated at 15% for both Commercial and Industrial and at for Residential and Mixed Use Development Types). 59 Assumed Acres Required Acres & Required Difference and Use Dev. Type Adopted Native Veg. Proposed Native (Proposed Designation (per Ares. Veg. Pres. TAMP) CCME /LDC) IAMP Amount IAMP Amount All Residential Residential 12,472.6 935.44 11,735.1 880.13 -55.31 & Mixed Use All mixed use Residential 1,112.8 83.46 1,663.8 124.79 +41.33 (except Industrial & Mixed Use Mixed Use) All commercial Industrial & 2,806.1 210.45 3,099.7 232.48 +22.03 and Industrial Commercial (including Industrial Mixed Use) Total 16,391.5 1,229.35 16,498.6 1,237.40 +8.05 Calculation of native vegetation amount assumes 50% native vegetation existing on every acre and calculated at 15% for both Commercial and Industrial and at for Residential and Mixed Use Development Types). 59 Staff Recommendation 6 — Response Cont.: Development Type Coastal High Hazard Area Non - Coastal High Hazard Area Less than 2.5 Less than 5 10% 10% acres acres Residential and Mixed Equal to or Equal to or greater Use development p greater than 2.5 25% than 5 acres and 15% less than 20 acres acres Equal to or greater than 20 acres 25% Golf Course 35% 35% Less than 5 10 /° ° Less than 5 ° 10 /° Commercial, acres acres Industrial, and all other non - specified Equal Equal to or greater development types r than a greater tn 5 15% than 5 acres ° 15 /° acres 'Note - development type most likely not to be required to provide native vegetation or provide it in smaller allowable amounts (10% or parcels less than 5 acres) is residential only land use, which is proposed to be reduced by 737.5 acres. The development types that are proposed to be increased, Mixed -Use and Industrial, are more likely to be developed at sizes requiring 15% or 25% of native vegetation, and thus it is reasonable to conclude, when coupled with the Policy 4.1.1, (intended to provide for greater than required native vegetation through incentives) that there will be greater acres of native vegetation under the proposed plan that might be achieved under the adopted plan. 60 J 13 Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Staff Recommendation 7: That Data and Analysis be provided to assess impacts in regard to the exclusion of lands from the RLSA to be added to the proposed APO Subdistrict. Response: It is agreed that tables and related data and analysis needs to be adjusted to reflect change of +/- 103 acres from Rural Ag RLSA Overlay to Urban & that this would be addressed after transmittal and prior to adoption. As to any specific data that staff feels is necessary, this should be provided as part of the Airport PUD rezoning. Regardless, of the +/ -103 acres, if designated APO (or industrial), and assuming entire acreage meets definition of native veg., +/- 15.45 acres would need to be preserved. The land presently falls in the Open Category under the RLSA Overlay (see below). Generally, the open lands have been determined to have lower ecological value than other lands within the RLSA. Given that any impacts to wetlands or listed species habitat will still fall under the jurisdiction of applicable state /federal agencies and that this +/- 103 acres represents very small fraction of the overall RSLA Overlay, one can conclude that there will be minimal, if any, additional natural resource impact associated with this change in designation. Location of additional +/- 103 acres (Pink is Open) A! 0 Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Staff Recommendation 8: That the petitioner provide data to identifying developed properties within the LT/CKSSO so the magnitude of the "exempt" language can be readily assessed. Response: We are providing a map with acreage calculations depicting "developed" lands within LT /KSSO. Vacant and developed areas are based on information provided by Collier County Property Appraiser's Office. Legend LjImmokalee Urban Area Boundary QWetlands Connected to Lake Trafford! Camp Keats Strand System Overlay - Agriculture Conservation Commercial - Govemment - Industrial Institutional Single- Family Multi -Family vacanll-and Roadways I Right-of-Ways Seminole Reservation - Collier County Arterial and Collector Roads Collier County Local Roads 62 Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Staff Recommendation 9: That the petitioner provide data and analysis to determine availability of central water and sewer service (or alternative) to support changes in density and intensity. We are providing a map that depicts the areas currently served with central sewer and water. The Immokalee Water and Sewer District boundary includes the entire urban area. If staff feels it is warranted, we would be happy to include a policy requiring hook up (and extension of lines and /or fair share cost of necessary system capacity upgrades for all development not presently served by central sewer and water, unless an interim package treatment plant is deemed to be a viable . alternative (until such time as central sewer and water becomes available to the site). We would not apply this requirement to development in the LR or RT Designations for development at a density of 1 dwelling unit per acre or less. 63 M IMI URI UR rI C C C UR Response to Staff Recommendation 9 — cont. IN - Industrial Subdistrict APO - Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict 64 R Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Comments and Concerns Raised by EAC Chair That Data and Analysis be provided to assess impact on preservation of native vegetation due to the proposed changes in land use (outside of the LT/CKSSO). Response: While we do not agree with the need to provide any additional data and analysis (as we believe it was already provided), we did conduct the previously referred to analysis and we believe the data indicates that with the land use changes proposed and with the additional incentive to be developed, greater amounts and higher value native vegetation will be preserved. 65 Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Policy 1.1.3: Mitigation Bank Within two (2) years of adoption of this policy, Collier County (Community Development and Environmental Services Division and Conservation Collier staff) in coordination with the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency will explore the feasibility of utilizing Pepper Ranch, or other IaF9P e^ni .n .et„,� tr-A�t ,. undeveloped parcels with significant wetland, upland. or listed species habitat value as a listed species habitat conservation bank or wetland mitigation bank to compensate for impacts associated with development within the Immokalee Urban Area. Additionally, during this period, the County shall determine the feasibility-of develop a mar) depicting preferred lands to be targeted for mitigation for impacts in or adiacent to the Immokalee Urban Area and incentives to be included in the LDC to direct mitigation to these targeted mitigation lands. Further the County shall consider the feasibility of a public - private partnership for the purposes of mitigation banking for purchase of these targeted mitigation lands ` etland' G nReete d To La TFaf, fI I A%A 1Camiq Kepis CtYan system ilvnrla M. Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Comment or Concern: Water and sewer adequacy? Response: Although we are proposing to increase potential density within Immokalee Urban Area, we are not proposing any changes to the population projections. These projections, along with several other tools, drive the need for public facility improvements. In Collier County it works like this. The GMP provides for allowable density and intensity. As part of that process, we have included all available information regarding the current capacity and projected additional capacity needed based upon population projections. In order to ensure that there are adequate public facilities in place at the time of actual demand for such services, the following additional tools are in place. RE Concurrence Management: Actual accounting system - measures impacts to system in real time, unit by unit, gallon by gallon as case may be. If Level -of- Service (LOS) for a public facility is exceeded, then concurrency system prohibits further issuance of Wr & - development orders (DO) until deficiency is addressed (corrected). Given other tools used for public facility planning, moratorium on issuance of DOs (due to LOS deficiencies) should either, a) not occur or b) should not be a surprise to anyone if it does. Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR): AUIR identifies impacts and needed __�_mprnVP nPntC tn_P1-1h_I_irfnrIitiec Tc! T � Also an" eeded -or planned ca petal - - -- improvements as well as those that are underway or funded but not commenced, which will address capital improvements needed to maintain or exceed levels of service for various public facilities. Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) and Long Range Plans (LRP): CIPs generally cover a five year period and are reviewed and updated (based upon various inputs, such as AUIR info, changing costs, available funding) annually. LRPs typical look out over an extended horizon (20 or more years) and t forecast demand and plan for capital needs and infrastructure to meet that projected demand over the longer planning horizon. Long Range Plans are generally updated on a regular base but usually every few years rather than annually. Conclusion, we have addressed impacts associated with the proposed density increases and land use designation changes. Assuming the Plan is approved and density is increased in certain areas, the public facility providers will use this new information, coupled with updated population and other projections, to update the needed capital projects and long range plans. 68 a Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Comment or Concern: Wetlands, Scrub jay and panther habitat impact is not addressed. Response: *First and foremost, listed species protection mechanisms are set forth in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the Collier County GMP. ,,Proposed IAMP does not in any way lesson or deviate from those requirements. •Immokalee should not be held to a higher standard than the balance of Collier County. •There are several policies in the IAMP that provide for greater protection standards or incentives intended to result in greater protection of listed species habitat and native vegetation. These include proposed Policies 1.1.3 ands 4.1.1 (as proposed to be amended herein) and the adoption of the LT /KSSO, which provides for greater wetland projection standards. M • Staff Report (and other Recommendations) Comment or Concern: Are densities being directed away from wetlands? Response: The answer to this question is emphatically yes. See response above. Comment or Concern: Big Cypress Proposed DRI is it included or not ... best;io include it. Response: It is only included where the data we received includes it. We are providing the best available data and we are not extrapolating out the Big Cypress Project if it is included. There should be no significant impact as a result of this being included in some of the data. Comment or Concern: Data Analysis Document — Page 2 Section 1.2 line 2 insert word ecological after social and before economic. Response: We agree to make this change 1.2 History of Planning Efforts in Immokalee Immokalee has long been recognized as a distinct community within Collier County due to its unique geographic, social, ecological and economic characteristics. 70 i Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Comment or Concern: Page 9 and at various other points data does not appear to be up- to- date... Section 3 E '- Existing Land Use shows conservation at 90.6 acres... map shows it in Arrowhead PUD. What about other lands around Lake Trafford... what about Pepper Ranch ...data seems flawed. Response: The data is not flawed and was the best available when we secured it. We vOl-revise this section to include footnote re: Pepper Ranch acreage, which will increase conservation lands significantly. This data comes from Appraiser's office and the terms, such as vacant land as previously discussed, are very specific. We will add a footnote to address agriculture lands. Comment or Concern: Well Cones of depression appear to be affecting ag lands. It is unclear that the three shown are sufficient. Wellfields underlie most of Immokalee Urban Area... concerns with farm chemicals, gas stations, future industrial etc. Response: These questions should be directly to staff. There are regulations and protections in pace to address these concerns. Moreover, we are not adding land to the Urban Area (except the 100 acres east of the Airport), so any concerns already exist and are not being exacerbated by the proposed TAMP. They are addressed by current protection measures that staff can discuss. 71 Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Comment or Concern: Section 4 requires more work — Listed Species — Map 4-9-is incomplete, Data from Airport Extension needs to be included. Response: The data will be provided and included in this section prior to adoption (and after transmittal). It has been collected and it has been requested from Q Grady Minor, the Airport consultant. Comment or Concern: Need to more closely address environmental impacts of possible SR 29 Loop Road locations Response: There is a separate PD &E study ongoing. That process will address the environmental constraints and issues associated with each potential route. We cannot do that as part of the IAMP. 72 V Staff Report (and Other Recommendations) Comment or Concern: Page 77 footnote (3) does not match chart. Response: Footnote will be corrected. Comment or Concern: CAT circle bus show be proposed to be electric or gas powered. Response: This is better directed at Alternative Transportation Staff. They can update the EAC on all efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emission (as it relates to Public Transit) 73 aff Report (and Other Recommendations) Comment or Concern: Page 77 footnote (3) does not match chart. Response: Footnote will be corrected. Comment or Concern: CAT circle bus show be proposed to be electric or gas powered. Response: This is better directed at Alternative Transportation Staff. They can update the EAC on all efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emission (as it relates to Public Transit) Comment or Concern: Transportation report has an error on Page 4 dealing with SR 29 that needs to be corrected or clarified. Response: Report will be clarified. 74 discussion, Q &A 75 Public-Comment 76 LR RT i i CMU LR I . W-A- M" MR LR LR CMU LR IMu Q SR CMU LR • IMMOICALEE•CRA Existing Immokalee Utilities Legend OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES Immokalee Urban Area Boundary Collier County Arterial and Collector Roads Collier County Local Roads Wetlands Connected to Lake Trafford/ Camp Keais Strand System Overlay r� SR - Seminole Reservation Urban Infill and Redevelopment Area Immokalee Existing Utilities Force Main Gravity Sanitary Sewer Reuse Water Water Main Immokalee Future Land Use URBAN DESIGNATION URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT RT - Recreational Tourist Subdistrict LR - Low Residential Subdistrict MR - Medium Residential Subdistrict HR - High Residential Subdistrict CMU - Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict URBAN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT IMU - Industrial Mixed Use Subdistrict IN - Industrial Subdistrict APO - Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6.00o Feet N DAI / \INC.. CONSULTING 1 \T TL \ IMMOKALEE CPA Community kedcvelopment Agency Me Place to Call Home!