CCPC Backup 03/19/2009 R
CCPC
REGULAR
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
MARCH 19, 2009
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2009,
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LlMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE
WRITTEN OR GRAPillC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINlMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATlM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WillCH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTlMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WillCH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1YA([D
~ ;.(YInV(j L- ~ dJY(
SppdJ.
:re-f~
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19,2009 REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 20, 2009 RLSA
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MARCH 10, 2009
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13664, Port of the Islands Commnnity Improvement District, represented by
Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting three (3) Sign Variances. The first variance is
from Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.b.i. which allows a maximum sign area of
12 square feet for an off-premise directional sign to allow a 32 or square foot off-premise sign. The second
variance is from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.b.v. which requires a sign to be located within 1,000 lineal
feet of the intersection of the road serving the use to allow greater distances of up to 6,000 lineal feet for
up to 10 uses. The third sign variance is from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.c which requires a sign to be
located no closer than 50 feet from a residentially zoned district to allow a lesser distance of 23 feet. The
subject property is located on the north side of U.S. 41 in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
1
B. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13665, Port of the Islands Community Improvemeut District, represented by
Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. is requesting a Sign Variance from LDC Subsection 5.06.04
C.16.b.i. which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet to allow a 64-square foot off-premise sign at
the Port of the Islands. The subject property is located in the Port of the Islands. at the intersection of
Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Newport Drive in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
C. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13960, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, represented by
Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting a Sign Variance from LDC Subsection
5.06.04 C.16.b.i., which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet, to allow an 18-square foot off-
premise sign at the Port of the Islands in the median of Cay's Drive (south ofU. S. 41) 18 S.F. in area with
sign copy and logo designation the Port ofthe Islands Cay's Drive. The subject property is located in the
Port of the Islands at the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U. S. 41) and Cay's Drive in Section 9,
Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Pettion: V A-2008-AR-13977, Tim Chess of McDonaIds USA, LLC, represented by Jeffrey Satfield of
CPH Engineers, Inc., is requesting a Variance from the landscape requirements of Land Development
Code Subsection 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, in the General Commercial (C-4) and Gateway Triangle
Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD), to allow a modification of the required 7.5-foot wide buffer on
the western side of the property; and to reduced buffer widths on the property's northern side from 15 feet
to ten feet, the eastern side from 7.5 feet to five feet, and the southern side from 10 feet to five feet. The
0.86-acre subject property is located at 2886 Tamiami Trail East, in Section 11, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP)
B. Petition: CU-2003-AR-372S, Close Up Creatures, Inc., in reference to NGALA, represented by Robert
J. Mulhere, AICP of RW A, Inc. and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson,
Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting Conditional Uses pursuant to the Land Development Code
Section 2.03.01.A.1.C. The conditional uses being requested are as follows: Number 5, to allow
aquaculture for non-native or exotic species subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
permits; Number 23, to allow a Cultural, Ecological or Recreational Facility; and Number 25, commercial
production, raising or breeding of exotic animals. The subject property which has a Rural Agriculture
zoning district designation and consists of 2)or acres, is located on Inez Road S. W., at the northwestern
corner of the intersection of Inez Road and Kearney A venue, approximately'/. mile south of Keene
Avenue, in Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay
Deselem, AICP)
C. Petition: POOA-2007-AR-llS46, Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane,
AICP of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Longshore
Lake POO Ordinance No. 93-3, Section 3.2.B. to allow an off premise sign for Saturnia Falls (aka
Terafina PUD) in Tract B of the Longshore Lake, Unit 5C Subdivision; or, in the alternative to allow the
off-site premise sign to become an on-site premise sign for Longshore Lake; to amend Section 3.2.B. to
allow an existing maintenance building to remain as an accessory use; to reinsert omitted Traffic
Requirements into Section V; and to add Exhibit C, Deviations. The subject sign is located on a .5" acre
property located on the sontheast corner of the Longshore Lake POO, at the northwest corner of the
intersection of ImmokaIee Road (CR 846) and Logan Boulevard in Section 20, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) CONTINUED FROM
NOVEMBER 20, 2008
2
D. Petition: POOZ-A-2007-AR-12046, IM Collier Joint Venture, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich,
Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., and Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady
Minor and Associates, is requesting a rezone of the MirasoI POO from the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development zoning district (RPUD) to remedy the
sunsetted status of the project in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.0.6. The number of dwelling
units originally approved, 799 dwelling units, is not proposed to change. Ordinance No. 01-20 will be
repealed and a five acre tract will revert to Agricultural zoning. The subject 1,543 acre tract is located on
the north side of ImmokaIee Road, bordered on the east by Broken Back Road and futnre Collier
Boulevard in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
3/19/09 cepe AgendaIRay Bellows/cr
.
3
8. A-C
-
Co~r County
.~ ~ ~':... ..-. ~
MEMO
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
DATE:
~9>~1
RE:
PETITION SV-2008-AR-13664, PORT OF THE ISLANDS - UNION ROAD
PETITION SV-2008-AR-13665, PORT OF THE ISLANDS - NEWPORT DRIVE
PETITION SV -2008-AR-13960, PORT OF THE ISLANDS - CAY'S DRIVE
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) heard this petition at its February 19,2009
meeting. The CCPC voted unanimously (8-0) to approve the three Port of the Islands (POI)
petitions subject to the following stipulations of approval:
POI North (Union Road) AR-13664:
I. Allow the option of a pole sign or a monument sign.
POI (Newport Drive) AR-13665:
I. Allow the option of a pole sign or a monument sign.
2. The Language should reference the public boat ramp.
POI (Cav's Drive) AR-13960:
I. Allow the option of a pole sign or a monument sign.
2. The sign could be up to 18 square feet.
As Staff proceeded to make the stipulated revisions to the resolution, it carne to Staff's attention
that Request number 1 to "allow the option of a pole sign or a monument sign" in the three
petitions listed above can not be added to the resolution as the LDC (Land Development Code)
does not grant this tlexibility.
Regarding the Newport Drive sign (AR-13655) Request number 2, the requested language is
shown on the attached revised Sign Exhibit.
Regarding the Cay's Drive sign (AR-13960), Request number 2, the stipulation to allow the sign
to be up to 18 square feet has been added to the Resolution. Please see attached revised
Resolution.
END OF MEMO
Page J of J
RESOLUTION NO. 09 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER SV-2008-AR-13665, GRANTING A VARIANCE
FROM SECTION 5.06.04.C.16.b.i. OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, CONCERNING MAXIMUM SIGN
AREA, WHICH SIGN IS LOCATED AT PORT OF THE
ISLANDS AT THE INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL
(U.S. 41) AND NEWPORT DRNE IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP
52 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and
such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions ofthe County, among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner, Port of the Islands Community improvement District, seeks to
alter the signage on the property to have a larger sign; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have a sign with an area of 64 square feet located about
its property; and
WHEREAS, without a variance, Petitioner cannot have an off-premise sign with an area
greater than 12 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board) has held a public hearing with due
notice made, and has considered the advisability of granting this variance; and
WHEREAS, the Board has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by the Land
Development Code; and
Page I of2
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby approve a variance from LDC
Section 5.06.04.C.16.b.i, to allow a sign with an area of 64 square feet, as shown in attached
Exhibit "A", the text, including content, font and size, of which is not limited by the instant
variance, as filed by Robert L. Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., on behalf of the Petitioner, Port of
the Islands Community Improvement District, concerning the subject property located in the
Port of the Islands at the intersection of Tarniami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Newport Drive in
Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number SV-
2008-AR-13665 be recorded in the minutes of this Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this ~ day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
, Deputy Clerk
By:
DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN
By:
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
J:L 7 w'Ol
Steven T. Williams
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibit "A": Sign Depiction
Page 2 of2
I--~-~
,
I
i
,
i
i:
C'I!
.J
r---
I
,-I
['1
,
I I
C
('JIYIIJ /lfY/lfYJ . /JU liS) 11/ :lAtf{ SiJ
~
.
o
~l
I
><
W
~--
----urzr----
.--,
EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 2
,
(Y)
(Y)
,....;
N
....
o
N
Q) .
OJ.....
cu x
0-2
<{g,
..... .-
.- en
.0 _
:.ccu
x ::J
wt)
Q) CU
Q) '-
(/).2
Q)
.....
o
z
C)
o
~
00
o
o
-
, -
01"1
o
o II:J
. :::>
~-,
0
If] W
t--
<l:
0 0
0
~
T--
.176-i
-1
(\)
>
(\)
---1
"'IS
s::
:::l
o
L
\.I)
..1
~_n
--J
,
---Uf zr
EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER SV-2008-AR-13960, GRANTING A VARIANCE
FROM SECTION 5.06.04.C.16.b.i. OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, CONCERNING MAXIMUM SIGN
AREA, WHICH SIGN IS LOCATED AT PORT OF THE
ISLANDS IN THE MEDIAN OF CAY'S DRNE (SOUTH OF
U.S. 41) IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 28
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and
such business regulations as are necessary for the protection ofthe public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance No. 04-41, as arnended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner, Port of the Islands Community improvement District, seeks to
alter the signage on the property to have a larger sign; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have a sign with an area up to 18 square feet located
about its property; and
WHEREAS, without a variance, Petitioner cannot have an off-premise sign with an area
greater than 12 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board) has held a public hearing with due
notice made, and has considered the advisability of granting this variance; and
WHEREAS, the Board has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by the Land
Development Code; and
Page 1 of2
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby approve a variance from LDC
Section 5.06.04.C.16.b.i, to allow a sign with an area up to 18 square feet, as shown in attached
Exhibit "A", the text, including content, font and size, of which is not limited by the instant
variance, as filed by Robert L. Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., on behalf of the Petitioner, Port of
the Islands Community Improvement District, concerning the subject property located in the
Port of the Islands in the median of Cay's Drive, just South of U.S. 41 in Section 9, Township
52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number SV-
2008-AR-13665 be recorded in the minutes of this Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this ~ day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
By:
By:
, Deputy Clerk
DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
1:t- (. uL
Steven T. Williarns
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibit "A": Sign Depiction
Page 2 of2
N
.
o
Z:
J-
-
II)
-
:c
---......
~~"""-
z
I
I ~
-\
i
/
- T
,
,
- - ---,-
,
,
,
.,
<L,
2'
0'
,
~CO I
.,
,
,
,
,
~
U
. <(
Om
'<1'1-
w
V'l
~
u
. <(
Om
'<1'1-
w
V'l
co
'0 0
'<I' 0
N
~ "0 "l
U '<I' >-
0 II ...J
, :::l
-,
0
~ ['oJ w
U I-
<(
m 0
I- '<I'
w ,
.",,- V'l
o
[- ---
~,~..._- ]^lclO-- SA'if'J
N~lS
,
,
,
L
0
z
,--" :::J
0 0
z ~ rn
:::J "'<t t-
o (f)
rn <l: I
I- W
(f) (j') -:::-1
w . ".
~ :::J '"
'---'" 2-
0
0 0>
()) '"
'"
>-
""
0::: '"
,
. ~
(/) ';'1
SCi
'-'
ii'
I
r
::>
0
'"
EXHIB,lT A
Page 1 of 1
/
/
~
'"
~
()
'"
2
'"
'"
~
c
t}j
'"
'"
'"
(ij
AGENDA ITEM 9-B
Co~r County
~-
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING: MARCH 19,2009
SUBJECT: PETITION CU-2003-AR-3725, CLOSE UP CREATURES, INC., DBA NGALA
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner(s): Close-Up Creatures, Inc., dba NGALA
R. Donovan and Tammy Smith
2755 Inez Road
Naples, FL 34117
Agents:
Robert J. Mulhere, AICP
RWA, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Dr., Suite 200
Naples, FL 34109
Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire
Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson Yovanovich &
Koester, P.A.
4001 Tarniarni Trail N. Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) consider an application for three
Conditional Uses pursuant to the Land Development Code (LDe) Section 2.03.01.A.l.C of the
Rural Agricultural Zoning District. The conditional uses being requested are as follows:
Number 5, to allow aquaculture for non-native or exotic species subject to Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission permits; Number 23, to allow a Cultural, Ecological or
Recreational Facility; and Number 25, commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic
animals.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject 21.0c!c acre site is located at 2755 Inez Road, on the east side ofInez Road, between
Guevara Avenue and Kearney Avenue, in Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 27 East., in
Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 27 East. (See location map on the following page)
GU-2003-AR-3725
Revised 3/11/09
Page 1 of 12
"
~
"
o
~
I
~
,
Jisi a.....I\3"lt\OONOSlO'"
,
I. t
;'
i '" 5 ~
i
t
'" ~ 2
,"
,
;
i.
" ~ ~
i
!
,
!
t
~ ~~
i
~
S
,
~.
;"
:= ~ ~
!
.
z
~ 0
~ti
0;0
'3
'"
o
--~ -
!~
~".
l ...- I"
-- :)
.---- I '
!
,
! "'
;~
,
~ ~
,
~
~;
~ ~ ~
!.
~".'
~~~
,
,
L
~ ~ i
i
I:,
,"
1 "
~tl
'"
"
o
-~
'"
<
n.
,
,
...z
00
W -
--,~
00
II 0 ___
~~
"
I
1
'I"-r-~i
L I , I
~ ~ ~! I
I !
!: i
u,r,
. --,--+- 'i
r i ~ I ~i
" II ~~, 'I
~ ~~
I
!
1
@V^,,"'OO N31TIOJ
- - -j-'
--
--Z3NI __
0....
<(
:2:
C)
z
-
z
~ 0
~ N
<
,
l
'~CUl"" / ~_
I
I
i
/---------+---
,
,
~
~
,
,
~
,
~~~
-I'
! 11:
j
,.
<l..
dE
,- ~
~~
Nb'"
!'
O~~OO_N~:t
l
'.
l'
11~~
-:, \0
.. J
L..
i
~I
"
0:1
<(I
~
o
o
N
OJ
U
"
Z
o
~I
I
0....
<(
:2:
z
o
I-
<(
o
o
---1
"
i!
I
"
i'
~ i
,
~
~
g ,
0
>
~ 5':
? 0
0 >
:>:
0
,.
>
~
:: ' ~ ~. ~
iiqj
i !!
, ,
I ,
i
8 ,
r.;:;' ;,'.
'.~ ,rJ
. ~ '- .3
~
i 'JC~,
~l
"
~.
~
>
d
"
\
o
"
~ j:
o ~~
~ ~,...,
<': C'l'"
o 0
~ ~~
'.'- ~
~ !l
L" h'
~ ~ ~ .~
11,1 I,
I, 'I,
11'1
/1, I,
II
rl,I,I,
!:IPI"ot
t II ,~I ,i,
,1,1,1,
, , ,
n
o
z
tj
.......
>-3
.......
~Z
>-0
r~
275r
~~
.......
>-3
tTJ
"ti
r
>-
Z
~:i: i ! 'Ill ! 'i' ll~~' ~ ij;!
i , , 'I ~~i! . ,
I' I L I :~! ~H I, ..~= I
; ~ , i- I, ,i:" I
";~j ir ~~~ , f F .
. , ! iq 1:\&
I i , " , , . . . ~ , , , ! ,
, , ;;:~ , r~ , , , ,
~ ! ,
, or, ,,,-, ",;; ,,,-, ~'"".( ,
'IM"",''''- ',-, n' ld CLOSE -UP CR/:.'A TURES. INC DlXT^mc~=.oo
,-,,','~, .~ ,,, NGALA
"i"",,'~"" ,.""
'",., '~.'''-' "'" CONSULTING CivilEugineering
"i'''',,!'"' '" ..... ....., '.L .L Smveying&Mlpping
",-c,,,,"', """,.~ CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLA N ~; ;:~',~:::;:;'':.'''' ~..':~';'~"" "".. ~"':;'~;;:';':\'~::;;,':::,."
, .. , H.If
, /"/\;
. \1 \"')~
. . '\ ,,~
~\0~.
. .......~\ i"'.J
~ v'- '.
/"" ,
(~~)\0C
'ei
;,lli
t" ~~~
'1
iI
)
;:;
~,
2'
~:r:
~;
~;
I
,
c:J
Hi. ;I:
J~~ <>~
r~
I! ".
r cU~! 0,
~: a~ 0 0
"~ !-,~_,,",,_y~,;_..~or..'
INEZ ROAD
\,ro"m
H~l~ ,
~. ~ ~
;i;i i
GI ~ p
'!'
"I'
ii
,. .
. "
"
I
. ;~~i; ~
'I~~~ i>'
.:: s~~
~i~~r i~~~
.,111 "',
i~~ii Uf~
i~ !~~U ~~~j
~i ;;l~a~: .i:'~~
h= ! I ~~~ ~~ji
o~~!~ ~ :~~ t~,
!li; I I,,; il:l
~: ! ~e ~ 8~! !~e~
ii" r. 1'1 i.ll
~~~ ~ , h~t ~ ~il i~ia
D []
III
I'
- !
01 ,
.. "."
~~ Q' t!l~
" '. " " " '. "
, " " , " "
, " , " ,
, " ~5: ,
, " , , "
., " , t;~ I , "
" 1:1, , , " "
" " " 1:1, "
" " "
~
)
~
"
,
-.>;
o ).'
~
,
o
o
,
!
)
-"-"",,,,"",,
,
"
.,., ~~
~ i
~
[3
"""\
!
"'~
D',
~5
I' ZC'>
Sl ",,".
9. :::!
il'l!
. ~~ ~
! !!!!
, ....
'P
! -I'
~ {;
,
'1'0
j ~~
~ Cr,
,
,
IlIi'
I.>!
~;i~~
.-u. 'I
1!11:
I;.~!
,,~...~-:::
'il!;
,
,
:._v,~ ".-
I::~
o
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Petitioner has applied for three separate Conditional Uses as provided for in the Rural
Agricultural (A) zoning district to allow aquaculture for non-native or exotic species subject to
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits; Number 23, to allow a Cultural,
Ecological or Recreational Facility; and Number 25, commercial production, raising or breeding
of exotic animals cultural, educational and recreational facilities and commercial production,
raising, and breeding of exotic animals per LDC Section 2.03.01.A.1.C. The applicant seeks
after-the-fact approval of these conditional uses so the existing uses on site will become
compliant with the LDC zoning requirements. The site is currently developed with facilities to
house, train and exhibit exotic animals; restroom facilities for patrons; a single-family home; and
a large tent within which events are held and meals are served.
According to the petitioner, portions of the facility and animals have been located on the
property since 1990. NGALA was originally created as a boarding and training facility for
animals. To assist with the tinancial obligations related to boarding and feeding the animals, the
property owner scheduled events to raise revenue and these activities evolved into the present
day facilities. Currently the events are usually held using a quasi-safari theme under a tent
located on the property. The property owner, states that he has held these events for various
charities, corporations, and children's organizations as well as corporate retreats; school
functions; and other groups. The petitioner further states that the events provide an opportunity
to view and learn about wildlife and other animals as well as the animal husbandry, aquaculture,
and agricultural uses and activities occurring on-site. Arrival by individual persons in private
vehicles without an appointment is not allowed. Visitors to the facility are accepted by group
appointment only, and unlike zoos and roadside attractions, the facility is: not advertised to
drive up visitors; not open to drive-up patrons; not advertised with off-site signage; ticketed
admissions are not otfered; animals arc not on permanent display but housed out of sight;
animals are only exhibited for special pre-scheduled events; and visitors and events occur only
with a pre-arranged, scheduled appointment. Transportation is pre-arranged and accommodated
by van or bus or other similar means. The owner has indicatcd that there will be a maximum of
20 employees on site at anyone time. Day-to-day operations do not require many employees;
the number of employees or contract works such as caterers only incrcases during events.
The applicant contends that tire and emergency vchicles have adequate access since the ingress
and egress to the facility has been created to support thc size and maneuverability of motor
coaches.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Agricultural uses, with a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural
Inez Road, then agricultural uses, with a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural
Kerney Road, then residentially used tracts and agricultural uses, and two 5-acre
tracts that are also owned by the petitioner, all with a zoning designation of Rural
Agricultural
Agriculturally used lands adjacent to the northerly fivc acre tract and an undeveloped
lO acre tract that is owned by the petitioner adjacent to the southerly tract, all with a
zoning designation of Rural Agricultural
CU-2003-AR-3725
Revised 3/11/09
Page 2 of 12
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is presently designated
Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, on the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Provisions regulating
Sending Lands are part of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. [Please note that
in the following review, FLUE provisions are shown in italics, while staff analysis and
commentary is provided in conventional type.] Land uses with no agricultural connection are
not consistent with the FLUE unless they can be clearly linked to the "Interim Development
Provisions for the Agricultural/Rural Assessment Area" or the Agreed Order Abating Case.
Specific FLUE Considerations: Land designated as Sending allows low density residential uses;
Right to Farm Act-consistent agricultural uses; passive parks and recreational uses; habitat
preservation and conservation uses; sporting and recreational camps; certain essential services;
and, oil and gas exploration. The application of the RFMUD Sending Lands standards would not
allow many of the Ngala activities without special considerations - which are in place as
explained below.
Applicable exceptions from meeting the limitations and standards otherwise applied throughout
the RFMUD are found in Section 4 of Rural Fringe Mixed Use District provisions, as follows:
4. Exemptionsfrom the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards -
The requirements of this District shall not apply to, affect or limit the continuation of
existing uses. Existing uses shall include.' those uses for which all required permits
were issued prior to June 19, 2002; or projects for which a Conditional use or
Rezone petition has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002; or, land
use petitions for which a completed application has been submitted prior to June 19,
GU-2003-AR-3725
Revised 3/11/09
Page 3 of 12
2002. The continuation of existing uses shall include expansions of those uses if such
expansions are consistent with or clearly ancillary to the existing uses. Hereafter,
such previously approved developments shall be deemed to be consistent with the
Plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies and for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District,
and they may be built out in accordance with their previously approved plans.
Changes to these previous approvals shall also be deemed to be consistent with the
Plan's Goals, Policies and Objectives for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as
long as they do not result in an increase in development density or intensity.
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is also subject to the Interim Development Provisions
adopted pursuant to the Final Order AC-99-002, issued June 22, 1999 by the Florida Governor
and Cabinet. Those Provisions limited residential development to a density of 1 dulparcel of
land as it existed June 22, 1999 and prohibited numerous uses, until an Assessment was
completed for the Agricultural/Rural area, subsequent GMP arnendments were adopted pursuant
to the Assessment, and those amendments becarne effective.
On June 19,2002, the BCC adopted the Rural Fringe GMP arnendments by Ordinance No. 2002-
32 based on the Assessment for the Rural Fringe area. The Rural Fringe GMP arnendments were
found to be "in compliance" with Florida Statutes by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs (DCA); however, two legal challenges were filed to appeal DCA's compliance
determination. As a result, the Rural Fringe arnendments did not become effective until the
Florida Department of Community Affairs issued its Final Order on July 22, 2003. Current
application materials indicate the Close-Up Creatures, Inc. (dba Ngala) original application was
submitted in February 2003.
Provisions were also written into the FLUE to cover a planning and zoning related case
submitted during this period of time, entitled "Interim Development Provisions for the
Agricultural/Rural Assessment Area." These interim provisions state, "[a]ny application for
conditional use filed prior to July 22, 2003, relating to that land subject to an Agreed Order
Abating Case dated April 8, 2003, which application also includes properties under common or
related ownership with and operated and maintained by to same or related operator of such land,
shall be processed and considered pursuant to the Interim Development Provisions that were in
effect from March 7, 2001, until July 22, 2003."
The subject property is within the Rural Fringe area and is designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District (RFMUD), Sending Lands. The Close-Up Creatures property is the subject of the
Agreed Order, and this Conditional Use petition is being processed and considered pursuant to
the "Interim Development Provisions for the Agricultural/Rural Assessment Area," as
applicable.
The essential provisions of the Agreed Order were written to extend privileges offered by
Section 4 of Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, above and would be applicable to specific
"existing uses" defined as "those uses for which all required permits were issued prior to July 22,
2003" or to "projects for which a Conditional Use or Rezone petition has been approved by the
County prior to July 22, 2003" or to, "land use petitions for which a completed application has
been submitted prior to July 22, 2003".
The Agreed Order allows land use petitions to be considered by the County for which a
completed application had been submitted prior to July 22, 2003 for: commercial or industrial
development; [a] zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or similar uses; sports instructional camps or
CU.2003.AR-3725
Revised 3/11/09
Page 4 of 12
schools; and, recreational vehicle parks. To the extent that the uses, operating in combination,
described in this Conditional Use application CU-2003-AR-3725 for Close-Up Creatures, Inc. lie
within these pararneters it may be considered in compliance with the "Interim Development
Provisions for the AgriculturallRural Assessment Area."
Determinations of Existing Uses Standing: The continuation of "existing uses" includes
expansions of those uses if such expansions are consistent with, or clearly ancillary to, the
"existing uses." Land uses may be allowed to continue or expand in accordance with the
provisions of the Agreed Order, and they define the limits to the extended privileges.
Applications materials address these issues.
One statement provided in application materials states that the existing land uses were "located
on the property since 1989." Additional explanation states, "Ngala was originally created as a
boarding and training facility for animals that have been housed on the property since 1989."
Determination of Agricultural Use Standing: The applicant has identified specific uses
requested in this Conditional Use petition and has asserted the uses are agricultural in nature, or
constitute extensions of the agricultural use of the property.
Previous consideration taken by the County Code Enforcement Board (CEB) indicated the
"agricultural use" for the property was in question. The CEB had requested submittal of certain
information by the petitioner to demonstrate/verify the "agricultural use" of the property. No
substantive materials assisted the CEB with addressing this question. Enforcement proceedings
were stayed and other arrangements were made. According to an arrangement made outside the
CEB, the keeping of animals on the subject property did not rise to the standing as principally -
an agricultural land use. They are accessory or supplementary to the commercial operations for
which Ngala has become known.
The applicant's agent responds to the CEB's finding that the keeping of animals is not
principally an agricultural use, and intimates the CEB did not accurately assess the Ngala safari
experience. The premise that this is predominantly an agricultural operation is reasserted. The
"only (remaining) issue driving the CU requirement" is the commercial aspects of having
customers visit the property.
Other Considerations: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the
surrounding area and which determination is a function of the Zoning and Land Development
Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff would note that
in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses on the subject property, the compatibility
analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby
properties with respect to both agricultural and non-agricultural uses, their intensities and
densities, building, structure and other facilities' location and orientation, traffic
generation/attraction, etc.
The Ngala land uses and activities do not fit neatly into a single category. The operation does
not qualify as a "farm", and Ngala as a "farming operation" when considering every activity on
the site. The all-inclusive safari experience does however involve elements of agricultural and
non-agricultural activities operating in combination, which, when taken together, may be
considered appropriate for the subject property.
CU-2003-AR-3725
Revised 3/11/09
Page 5 of 12
Transportation Element (TE): The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that the proposed
Conditional Use results in a total of seven two-way peak PM hour trips. The maximum number
of two way daily trips generated by the site is 71 vehicles. This represents a 1.0 percent impact
on Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road; a 1.1 percent impact on
Collier Boulevard from Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway; and a 0.7 percent impact on
Pine Ridge Road from Logan to Collier Boulevard. The traffic impacts associated with the
Ngala petition are included in the existing background traffic and do not represent a significant
impact on any arterial or collector roadway. Therefore, this petition can be considered consistent
with Policy 5.1 as well as the other applicable policies of the Transportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan [GMP]. Customers to events will be transported by bus; no individual
can arrive by private car.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): The project site consists of20.08
acres of native vegetation according to the definition in the GMP and LDC and has been verified
by staff on site. On site native vegetation communities include pine tlatwoods (2.18ct acres),
mesic pine tlatwoods/Western Everglades hardwoods (8.68 ctacres), cabbage palm/saw palmetto
(l.89ct acres), and cyprcss/pine/cabbage palm (2.73ct acres).
There are approximately 2.73ct acres of SFWMD and lJSACE jurisdictional wetlands on site.
The wetland lines have been approved by the SFWMD and the USACE. The results of the
jurisdictional determination are included on the wetlands map in the EIS (Exhibit 9). The
forested wetlands on site include a mixed canopy of pine and cypress trees and cabbage palm in
the understory. Due to changes in hydrology, somc areas are showing encroachment from
upland vegetation as well as some cxotic/nuisancc vegetation. A de minimis impact of 0.035
acres to the on sitc wetlands is the result of the construction of an animal round pen used for
training purposes. The location of the round pen is shown in the ElS (Exhibit 8). Verification of
any wetland impacts shall be done by the SFWMD during the requircd Environmental Resources
Permit (ERP) process. There are no additional wetland impacts proposed on the NGALA
property.
The most recent listed species survey was conductcd by Earthbalace, Inc. on the project site in
May, 2007(EIS Table 1). An updated gopher tortoise (Gopherus po/yphemw) survey was also
conducted on May 14, 2008 and is contained in thc EIS. (Exhibit12). No listed species were
observed on site and no evidence of gopher tortoise burrows or utilization by gopher tortoises
was found. In October 2002, during a previous listed species survey, a Red-Cockaded
Woodpecker (RCW) was observed foraging on the site. As a result, a formal RCW survey was
performed in July, 2004. During that survey no RCW individuals or nest cavity trees were
observed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been notified of the project
and through e-mail correspondence no additional RCW surveys are required. (EIS Exhibit 13).
There were no observations of Florida panther (Puma conca/or coryi), Florida black bear (Ursus
americanus f/oridanus), or Big Cyprcss fox squirrel (BeFS) (Scirus niger avicennia) on the
project sitc. Howcver, this project is located in primary Florida panther and Florida black bear
habitat and contains potential habitat for thc Big Cypress fox squirrel as well. Technical
assistance regarding possible mitigation for impacts to the primary panther habitat shall be
forwarded to staff upon receipt. ^ Florida black bear and BCFS management plan shall be
required on the site plan.
The proposed native vegctation prcserve of 3.01 acres fulfills the minimum rcquircment of 3.01
acres or 15 percent of the existing nativc vegetation on site. The project proposes to preserve
CU-2003.AR.3725
Revised 3/11/09
Page 6 of 12
1.35* acres of SFWMD/USACE jurisdictional wetlands and 1.66 * acres of upland habitat. The
preserve is located in the northwest corner of the property which provides possible future
connection to potential offsite preserves.
The project area is located in the sending lands as part of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMU). The current native preservation requirement for any development within the
boundaries of the RFMU sending lands is 80 percent. Although on June 19, 2002, the Board of
County Commissioners adopted the Rural Fringe GMP arnendments, the Rural Fringe
arnendments did not become effective until July 22, 2003. Under the Interim Development
Provisions for the Agricultural/Rural Assessment Area, any land use petitions for which a
completed application had been submitted prior to July 22, 2003 would be exempt from the
proposed RFMU criteria that was adopted but not yet put into effect. This project was reviewed
against the baseline standard of 15 percent for a commercial use since the project's original
application was submitted in February 2003.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the petition may be deemed consistent with the
overall GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Before any conditional use can be recommended to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the
Planning Commission must make a finding that: 1) granting approval of the conditional use will
not adversely affect the public interest; 2) all specific requirements for the individual conditional
use are met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters,
where applicable:
1. Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan.
As noted above, this proposal is consistent with the applicable provisions of the FLUE, the
Transportation Element and the CCME Element; therefore the petition is consistent with the
overall GMP. With the conditions of approval included by staff, the proposal may also be
found consistent with all of the applicable provisions of the LDC.
2. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
and access in case of fire or catastrophe.
Transportation Planning staff indicates that they have reviewed this petition and determined
that there are no outstanding issues concerning vehicular access and traffic control. As
shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, vehicular access to the site would be afforded from three
access points on Inez Road and one on Kearney Avenue. In the current configuration most
visitors would use the two northernmost access points because those access points provide
more direct access to the parking areas. As noted previously the petitioner has agreed (see
site plan note # I) that vehicles going to and from the site will be limited; staff has reiterated
this requirement in staff's Condition #3. Limiting traffic will help maintain traffic t10w and
control and help ensure visitor safety by lessening the number of vehicles on site.
3. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to
noise, glare, economic or odor effects.
GU-2003-AR-3725
Revised 3/11/09
Page 7 of 12
Because the subject 2 lot acre site houses numerous exotic animals there is a potential for
additional noise and odors to be generated from the site. In addition, there are other
governmental agencies that regularly inspect and control the care of the exotic animal
operation. Odors generating from the animals would be controlled as part of those
inspections. Noise from the animals cannot necessarily be controlled. Additionally the
events held on site with up to 1,000 persons in attendance would generate noise from the
vehicles coming and going from the site as well as the actual activities held on site. The
petitioner has not offered to limit the hours of operation, thus events could be held at
anytime. Staff therefore is recommending a condition to limit the event hours. No event can
start until 8:30 a.m. Three events per week may remain open until II p.m., all other events
must conclude by 8 p.m. on any day ofthc week, except that any New Year's Eve event may
remain open until I a.m. Additionally, statT believes it is appropriate to utilize the existing
vegetation to provide enhanced buffering to ofTset the noise, odors and possible glare the
uses could create. Therefore, staff recommends that a 30-foot wide indigenous buffer area be
retained around the entire site, except for the preserve area and those areas shown on the site
plan where existing structures or improvements encroach. In those areas where such
encroachments exist, the development shall comply with this butler requirement to the
maximum extent possible. Any furthcr cxpansion of the uses or additions to existing
structures or new structures on site shall require that this bufTer, where the vegetation does
not achieve opacity to a height of six feet, to be augmented if ncccssary to provide two rows
of # 10 shrubs that are 4 foot high on center, 60 inches high at time of planting and
maintained at that height as a minimum. The hufler shall also include a double row of
staggered trees, with the trces to be a minimum of 10-feet high with a four-foot spread and
1.5-inch caliper at time of planting. The trees shall be maintained at no less than 10 feet
high. Further that all structures or tents he setback from all property boundaries a minimum
of 60 feet.
Thc site is fenced so as to limit vehicular traHic to and from the site to the designated access
points. With staffs additional conditions, staff is of the opinion the project will not generate
additional glare, noise or odors or otherwise create any adverse economic impacts on the
neighborhood given the inspections and rcquirements from other governmental agencies that
the property owner must meet to keep the animals on site.
4. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district.
As previously noted the site is surrounded by agriculturally zoned lands. On the east and
south boundaries there are existing roadways (Inez Road and Kearney Avenue, respectively).
To the north there is an unimproved access easement that would connect to Guevara Avenue
to the west. Across the roadways and eascments on all sides there arc agricultural uses and
some scattered residential uses on five-acre tracts.
Staff believes that with the conditions imposed by staff and the limitations proposed by the
owners, such as the maximum of 1,000 attcndccs to anyone function limitations, the project
will be compatible with the neighborhood. Additionally the petitioner will need to comply
with all Fcderal, State and other local regulations governing the uses. Staff believes therefore
that the proposed Conditional Uses to allow aquaculture for non-native or exotic species
subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits; a Cultural,
Ecological or Recreational Facility: and the commercial production, raising or breeding of
cxotic animals, may be dcemcd compatible with the neighboring properties. Furthermore,
CU-2003.AR-3725
Revised 3/11/09
Page 8 of 12
staff believes the recommended conditions of approval adequately protect the public's
interest.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
Pursuant to LDC Section 8.06.03 0.1 Powers and Duties, the EAC was required to hear this
petition. The petition was heard on February 4, 2009 and the petition was recommended for
approval by a vote of 6 to 0 (Mr. Penniman made the motion and Mr. Hughes seconded the
motion) subject to the staff recommendation and further subject to the following additional
stipulations:
1. Page 9 of 12, paragraph 3 of the EAC Staff Report be amended to read "As noted on
sheet 3 of the conditional use site plan, if no further permitting for all existing improvements
is required, then the below mentioned conditions of approval shall be required prior to
conditional use approval. If a site development plan (SDP) or Site Improvement Plan
application is to be submitted in the future for the current impacts. then the following
conditions of approval will be required at the time of SDP submittal. "
Stormwater Management: This project must obtain an Environmental Resource Permit from
the South Florida Water Management District.
Environmental:
a) Provide a Preserve Management Plan on the Site Plan including methods of exotic
vegetation removal and maintenance along with Florida black bear and Big Cypress fox
squirrel Management Plans.
b) Fulfillment of any Florida panther mitigation as required by either the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission.
c) Provide a legally sufficient title opmlOn and conservation easement. The
Conservation Easement shall be recorded within 90 days of the determined final
Development Order.
2. No more than 1,000 guests shall be on-site at any given time.
3. The uses approved shall be those deemed consistent with the listings contained in the
LDC as determined by county zoning and attorney staff.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on September 8, 2008, at 5:00 PM at
the Golden Gate Estates Library, 417 North 1st Street. Approximately five people from the
public, the applicant's tearn, and county staff were present.
Several of the persons in attendance came to ask questions were about the Solid Waste Park
Conditional Use petition. Attendees stated that they saw the ad in the newspaper and thought the
meeting was about the proposed that project. Staff stated the meeting for that project was held a
CU-2003-AR-3725
Revised 3/11/09
Page 9 of 12
few weeks ago. Staff advised those persons to contact Kay Deselem regarding any questions
about the other petition.
Mr. Donovan Smith, the applicant, presented an overview of the proposed project, explaining
that he has owned the business since 1989, but the conditional use is needed to legitimize the
uses on site. Donovan stated that he boards and trains a variety of animals such as, a zebra,
giraffe, panther, turtles, and a rhino. He also raises fish.
Mr. Smith explained that there are corporate events held at the site; therefore a conditional use is
needed to bring people to the events. The petitioner stated that no attendees will come to the site
by private vehicle; all attendees will be bussed to the site. The applicant also stated that a tent is
used ten months of the year, but the tent will be taken down when there is a hurricane warning
and during events. Mr. Smith also mentioned that there may be additional tents on site in the
future. All food served at the events will be catered. The applicant's agent stated that the events
will end around II :00 pm, but this is not a commitment.
Several other persons were in attendance; however, none of those persons had questions about
this project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition CU-
03-AR-3725 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval, subject
to the following conditions:
I. The Conditional Use is limited to what is shown on the conceptual site plan, identified
as "Nagala," prepared by RW A Consultants, Inc., dated March, 2008, and last revised
February 9, 2009, and as further limited below. The site plan noted is conceptual in
nature for conditional use approval. The final design must be in compliance with all
applicable federal, state, and county laws and regulations, and receive appropriate and
required approvals thru all federal, state and county agencies.
2. There shall be no more than 1,000 guests on site at anyone time.
3. Visitors shall be transported to the site using buses or another communal transportation
method. Arrival by private car is prohibited.
4. Overnight stays by visitors/patrons is prohibited.
5. The facility shall not be open to the general public. All visitors must be guests by prior
appointment only.
6. Upon issuance of any tropical storm or higher intensity storm watch or warning, the
property owner shall ensure that all tents and any other temporary structures are
disassembled and removed from the site immediately.
7. Parking on site is limited to the two gravel parking areas shown on site; unless
additional approvals are sought and approved thru the SDP or SIP processes.
CU.2003-AR.3725
Revised 3/11/09
Page 10 of 12
8. Note #4 on the site plan shall be revised to indicate that any future expansion shall be
subject to complete review in compliance with the applicable requirements/processes in
effect at the time. This Conditional Use approval shall not usurp the need for any
required development order (or amendments) or permit approvals.
9. Any change in use of the existing single family house shall be subject to review as a
change of use to include, but not limited to review of the use for issues such as, but not
limited to, handicap access, landscaping and parking for the proposed use.
10. Within 90 days of the approval of this Conditional Use application, the developer shall
submit a complete Site Improvement Plan Application to depict existing and proposed
structures and uses.
11. Event hours shall be limited. No event can commence before 8:30 a.m. Three events
per week may remain open until 11 p.m., all other events must end by 8 p.m. on any
day of the week, except that any New Year's Eve event may remain open until I a.m.
Staff, such as clean up crews, may remain beyond the time the event closes.
12. The developer shall retain a 30-foot wide indigenous buffer area around the entire site,
except for the preserve area and those areas shown on the site plan where existing
structures or improvements encroach. In those areas where such encroachments exist,
the development shall comply with this buffer requirement to the maximum extent
possible. Any further expansion of the uses or additions to existing structures or new
structures on site shall require that this buffer, where the vegetation does not achieve
opacity to a height of six feet, be augmented to provide two rows of # I 0 shrubs that are
4 foot on center, 60 inches high at time of planting. The shrubs shall be maintained at
least at that height. The buffer shall also include a double row of staggered trees, with
the trees to be a minimum of I O-feet high, with a tour-foot spread and a I.S-inch caliper
at time of planting. The trees shall be maintained at no less than 10 feet high.
13. All additions to any existing or any new structures or tents shall be setback from all
property boundaries a minimum of 60 feet.
14. This project must obtain an Environmental Resource Permit from the South Florida
Water Management District.
IS. Additional Environmental Conditions:
a) Provide a Preserve Management Plan on the Site Plan including methods of exotic
vegetation removal and maintenance along with Florida black bear and Big Cypress fox
squirrel Management Plans.
b) Fulfillment of any Florida panther mitigation as required by either the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission.
c) Provide a legally sufficient title opinion and conservation easement. The
Conservation Easement shall be recorded within 90 days of the determined final
Development Order.
GU-2003-AR-3725
Revised 3/11/09
Page 11 of 12
PREPARED BY:
3-5-0Cf
Y ESELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
3- ->-01
RAYMO D V. BELLO S, ZONING MANAGER DA TE
DEPART ENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~ 'fh. /~ <3- 6...0 r
.gUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
/k---7 w"L _ Huu_
STEVEN T. WILLIAMS
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
:J.t,.G1
--.--
DATE
APPROVED BY:
t3/C:; 10 q
JO EPH K. SCHMITT, ADM ISTRA TOR ~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Collier County Planning Commission:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Staff report for the March 19,2009 Collier County Planning Commission Meeting
Tentatively scheduled for the May 12, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
CU.2003-AR-3725
Revised 315109
Page 12 of 12
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Agenda Item VI D
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4th, 2009
I. NAME OF PETITIONERlPROJECT:
Petition No: Conditional Use-2003-AR-3725
Petition Name: Close-up Creatures, Inc. (NGALA)
ApplicantlDeveloper: Donovan Smith
Engineering Consultant: RW A, Inc.
Environmental Consultant: EarthBalance, Inc.
II. LOCATION:
The subject property, consisting of2H acres, is located on Inez Road S.W., at tbe
northwestern corner of the intersection of Inez Road and Kearney A venue,
approximately \I, mile south of Keene Avenue, in Section 30, Township 49 South,
Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N-
Agriculture
Agricultural uses
S -
Agriculture
Kerney Road, then residentially used tracts and
agricultural uses
E-
Agriculture
Inez Road, then agricultural uses
w-
Agri culture
Agriculturally used lands adjacent to the northerly
five acre tract and an undeveloped 10 acre tract that
is owned by the petitioner adjacent to the southerly
tract
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The facility on site consists of a single family home, a large tent used for catered
meals and as the main event area, parking areas, restrooms for staff and visitors,
and pens or cages for various animals kept on site and used in the events. The
petitioner describes the facility a~ one that "offers alternative educational
EAC Meeting
Page 2 of 12
opportunities and additional learning opportunities. . . ." The petitioner provides
the following more detailed explanation of the facilities on site:
Visitors to the facility are accepted by group appointment only, and unlike zoos
and roadside attractions, the facility is: not advertised to drive up visitors; not
open to drive-up patrons; not advertised with off-site signage; ticketed
admissions are not offered; animals are not on permanent display but housed
out of sight; animals are only exhibited for special pre-scheduled events; and
visitors and events occur only with a pre-arranged, scheduled appointment.
The petitioner is seeking after-the-fact approval of a conditional use to allow a
Cultural, Ecological or Recreational Facility pursuant to the Land Development
Code (LDC) Section 2.03.01.A.1.C.23, which is also known as Conditional Use
Number 23.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The subject property is presently designated Agricultural!Rural, Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD), Sending Lands, on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) of tbe Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Provisions
regulating Sending Lands are part of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the
GMP. [Please note that in the following review, FLUE provisions are shown in
bold Arial style print, while staff analysis and commentary are provided in
conventional type.]
Ngala is characterized by a combination of land uses which do not operate
independently, but involve substantial elements of, and are interdependent on,
secondary or accessory uses. As an example, although "animal and livestock
breeding" is an integral part of the overall operation - this activity is not
conducted alone. During an on-site visit to the subject property by staff; the
owner indicated the breeding part of operations was limited to the exotic fish
observed in a pool. Proceeds from the sale of these fish help support other aspects
of operations. The owner explained that most of the other land animals kept there
were not being bred. Many of these animals came from zoos or zoo-like
environments where they had already interbred to the extent that additional
generations would not be of benefit. These animals no longer exemplifY the
breed, and had been spayed or neutered so reproduction or additional breeding
were not possible.
EAC Meeting
Page 3 of 12
Land uses with no agricultural connection are not consistent with the FLUE unless
they can be clearly linked to the Interim Development Provisions for the
Agricultural/Rural Assessment Area or the Agreed Order Abating Case.
Specific FLUE Considerations:
Land designated as Sending allows: low density residential uses; Right to Farm
Act-consistent agricultural uses; passive parks and recreational uses; habitat
preservation and conservation uses; sporting and recreational camps; certain
essential services; and, oil and gas exploration. The application of the RFMUD
Sending Lands standards would not allow many of the Ngala activities without
special considerations - which are in place.
Applicable exceptions from meeting the limitations and standards otherwise
applied throughout the RFMUD are found in Section 4 of Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District provisions, as follows:
Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
Development Standards -
The requirements of this District shall not apply to, affect or limit
the continuation of existing uses. Existing uses shall include:
those uses for which all required permits were issued prior to
June 19, 2002; or projects for which a Conditional use or Rezone
petition has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002;
or, land use petitions for which a completed application has been
submitted prior to June 19, 2002. The continuation of existing
uses shall include expansions of those uses if such expansions
are consistent with or clearly ancillary to the existing uses.
Hereafter, such previously approved developments shall be
deemed to be consistent with the Plan's Goals, Objectives and
Policies and for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and they
may be built out in accordance with their previously approved
plans. Changes to these previous approvals shall also be
deemed to be consistent with the Plan's Goals, Policies and
Objectives for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as long as they
do not result in an increase in development density or intensity.
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is also subject to the Interim Development
Provisions adopted pursuant to the Final Order AC-99-002, issued June 22, 1999
by the Florida Governor and Cabinet. Those Provisions limited residential
development to a density of I dwelling unit/parcel of land as it existed June 22,
1999 and prohibited numerous uses, until an Assessment was completed for the
Agricultural/Rural area, subsequent GMP amendments were adopted pursuant to
the Assessment, and those amendments became effective.
EAC Meeting
Page 4 of 12
On June 19, 2002, the BCC adopted the Rural Fringe GMP amendments by
Ordinance No. 2002-32 based on the Assessment for the Rural Fringe area. The
Rural Fringe GMP amendments were found to be "in compliance" with Florida
Statutes by the Florida Department of Community Affairs CDCA); however, two
legal challenges were filed to appeal DCA's compliance determination. As a
result, the Rural Fringe amendments did not become effective until the Florida
Department of Community Affairs issued its Final Order on July 22,2003.
Current application materials indicate the Close-Up Creatures, Inc. (dba Ngala)
original application was submitted in February 2003.
Provisions were also written into the FLUE to cover a planning and zoning related
case submitted during this period of time, entitled Interim Development
Provisions for the Agricultural/Rural Assessment Area. These interim provisions
state, "[a ]ny application for conditional use filed prior to July 22, 2003, relating to
that land subject to an Agreed Order Abating Case dated April 8, 2003, which
application also includes properties under common or related ownership with and
operated and maintained by to same or related operator of such land, shall be
processed and considered pursuant to the Interim Development Provisions that
were in effect from March 7, 2001, until July 22, 2003."
The subject property is within the Rural Fringe area and is designated Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD), Sending Lands. The Close-Up Creatures
property is the subject of the Agreed Order, and this Conditional Use petition is
being processed and considered pursuant to the Interim Development Provisions
for the Agricultural/Rural Assessment Area, as applicable.
The essential provisions of the Agreed Order were written to extend privileges
offered by Section 4 of Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, above and would be
applicable to specific "existing uses" defined as "those uses for which all required
permits were issued prior to July 22, 2003" or to "projects for which a Conditional
Use or Rezone petition has been approved by the County prior to July 22, 2003"
or to, "land use petitions for which a completed application has been submitted
prior to July 22, 2003".
The Agreed Order allows land llse petitions to be considered by the County for
which a completed application had been submitted prior to July 22, 2003 for:
commercial or industrial development; [a] zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or
similar uses; sports instructional camps or schools; and, recreational vehicle
parks. To the extent that the uses, operating in combination, described in this
Conditional Use application CU-2003-AR-3725 for Close-Up Creatures, Inc. lie
within these parameters it may bc considered in compliance with the Interim
Development Provisions for the AgriculturallRural Assessment Area.
EAC Meeting
Page 5 of 12
Determinations of Existing Uses Standing:
The continuation of "existing uses" includes expansions of those uses if such
expansions are consistent with, or clearly ancillary to, the "existing uses". Land
uses may be allowed to continue or expand in accordance with the provisions of
the Agreed Order, and they defme the limits to the extended privileges.
Applications materials address these issues.
One statement provided in application materials states that the existing land uses
were "located on the property since 1989." Additional explanation states, "Ngala
was originally created as a boarding and training facility for animals that. have
been housed on the property since 1989".
Determination of Agricultural Use Standing:
The applicant has identified specific uses requested m this Conditional Use
petition and has asserted the uses are agricultural III nature, or constitute
extensions of the agricultural use of the property.
Previous consideration taken by the County Code Enforcement Board (CEB)
indicated !be "agricultural use" for the property was in question. The CEB had
requested submittal of certain information by the petitioner to demonstrate/verity
the "agricultural use" of the property. No substantive materials assisted the CEB
with addressing this question. Enforcement proceedings were stayed and other
arrangements were made. According to an arrangement made outside the CEB,
the keeping of animals on !be subject property did not rise to the standing as
principally - an agricultural land use. They are accessory or supplementary to the
commercial operations for which Ngala has become known.
The applicant's agent responds to the CEB's finding that the keeping of animals is not
principally an agricultural use, and intimates the CEB did not accurately assess the Ngala
safari experience. The premise that this is predominantly an agricultural operation is
reasserted. The "only (remaining) issue driving the CU requirement" is the commercial
aspects of having customers visit the property.
Other Considerations:
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding
area. Comprehensive Planning leavcs this determination to Zoning and Land
Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.
However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested
uses on the subject property, the compatibility analysis might include a review of
both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties with respect to
both agricultural and non-agricultural uses, their intensities and densities,
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of]2
building, structure and other facilities' location and orientation, traffic
generation/attraction, etc.
The Ngala land uses and activities do not fit neatly into a single category. The
operation does not qualifY as a "farm," and Ngala as a "farming operation" when
considering every activity on the site. The all-inclusive safari experience does
however involve elements of agricultural and non-agricultural activities operating
in combination, which, when taken together, may be considered appropriate for
the subject property.
The Ngala land uses do not operate independently, and involve substantial
elements of, and are interdependent on, secondary or accessory uses. Staff
recommends that this activity be regulated with a suitable set of conditions to
ensure that Ngala land uses continue operating in their characteristic combination.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed Conditional Uses for
Creative Creatures, Inc. in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands
may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element.
Future Land Use Element:
Conservation & Coastal Manaeement Element:
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and f10w ways discharging
into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality
standards.
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and
cumulative impacts of storm water runoff, stormwater systems should be designed
in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an
attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water
(discharge) to the estuarine system.
This project is consistent with policy 6.1 and 6.2 regarding the selection of
preserves. The property site contains 21.29 acres of which 20.08 acres is
considered native vegetation. The proposed native vegetation preserve of 3.0 I
acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 3.0l acres or 15% of the existing native
vegetation on site. A conservation easement dedicated to Collier County shall be
placed over the preserve. Selection of native vegetation to be retained on site as a
preserve area is shown to be consistent with the GMP based on the following:
Ibere were no listed species observed on site, and a portion of the on site
jurisdictional South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and United
States Army Corp of Engineers (lJSACE) wetlands shall be preserved.
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 12
As required by policy 6.2.1, a wetland jurisdictional determination has been
conducted by the SFWMD (EIS Exhibit 9) and the USACE (E1S Exhibit 10).
As required by Policy 6.1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation has been removed and
shall be maintained in perpetuity.
The EIS required by Policy 6.1.8 has been prepared and is supplied as- part of the
review packet for this submittal.
As required by Policy 7.1.2, a listed species survey was conducted on the property
and is contained in the EIS (Exhibit 12 and 13).
As required by Policy 11.1.2, an archeological survey was conducted and is
included in the EIS (Exhibit 14). The project will not impact any known historic
or archeological sites.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Stormwater Manal!:ement:
NGALA sits at the north end of the Henderson Creek Canal Basin (see attached
portion of Collier County Drainage Atlas), and therefore has an allowable
discharge rate of O.IS cfs per acre. For the 21 (+/-) acre site they would be
allowed a maximum discharge of 3.2 cfs. The drainage atlas does not show any
clear route for the off site discharge, but LiDAR topography of the area indicates a
southerly tlow.
Because Collier County has relinquished its delegation of review authority from
the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), this project will submit
to SFWMD for an Environmental Resource Permit.
Environmental:
Site Description:
The project site consists of 20.08 acres of native vegetation according to the
definition in the GMP and LDC and has been verified by staff on site. On site
native vegetation communities include pine ftatwoods (2.18" acres), mesic pine
tlatwoodslWestern Everglades hardwoods (8.68 "acres), cabbage palm/saw
palmetto (1.89" acres), and cypress/pine/cabbage palm (2.73'" acres).
Wetlands:
There are approximately 2.73" acres of SFWMD and US ACE jurisdictional
wetlands on site. The wetland lines have been approved by the SFWMD and the
USACE. The results of the jurisdictional determination are included on the
wetlands map in the EIS (Exhibit 9). The forested wetlands on site include a
EAC Meeting
Page 8 of 12
mixed canopy of pine and cypress trees and cabbage palm in the understory. Due
to changes in hydrology, some areas are showing encroachment from upland
vegetation as well as some exotic/nuisance vegetation. A de minimis impact of
0.035 acres to the on site wetlands is the result of the construction of an animal
round pen used for training purposes. The location of the round pen is shown in
the EIS (Exhibit 8). Verification of any wetland impacts shall be done by the
SFWMD during the required Environmental Resources Permit (ERP) process.
There are no additional wetland impacts proposed on the NGALA property.
Preservation Requirements:
The project area is located in the sending lands as part of the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District (RFMU). The current native preservation requirement for any
development within the boundaries of the RFMU sending lands is 80%. Although
on June 19,2002, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Rural Fringe
GMP amendments, the Rural Fringe amendments did not become effective until
July 22, 2003. Under the Interim Development Provisions for the
AgriculturallRural Assessment Area, any land use petitions for which a completed
application had been submitted prior to July 22, 2003 would be exempt from the
proposed RFMU criteria that was adopted but not yet put into effect. This project
was reviewed against the baseline standard of 15% for a commercial use since the
project's original application was submitted in February 2003.
The proposed native vegetation preserve of 3.01 acres fulfills the minimum
requirement of 3.0 I acres or 15% of the existing native vegetation on site.
The project proposes to preserve 1.35", acres of SFWMD/USACE jurisdictional
wetlands and 1.66 '" acres of upland habitat. The preserve is located in the
northwest corner of the property which provides possible future connection to
potential offsite preserves.
Listed Species:
The most recent listed species survey was conducted by Earthbalace, Inc. on the
project site in May, 2007(EIS Table I). An updated gopher tortoise (Gopherus
po/yphemus) survey was also conducted on May 14th, 2008 and is contained in
the EIS. (Exhibit 12). No listed species were observed on site and no evidence of
gopher tortoise burrows or utilization by gopher tortoises were found. In October
2002, during a previous listed species survey, a Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
(RCW) was observed foraging on the site. As a result, a formal RCW survey was
performed in July, 2004. During that survey no RCW individuals or nest cavity
trees were observed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has
been notified of the project and through e-mail correspondence no additional
RCW surveys are required. (PIS Exhibit 13). There were no observations of
Florida panther (Puma conc%r corvi). Florida black bear (Ursus orner/conus
EAC Meeting
Page 9 of 12
j1oridanus), or Big Cypress fox squirrel (BCFS) (Scirus niger avicennia) on the
project site. However, this project is located in primary Florida panther and
Florida black bear habitat and contains potential habitat for the Big Cypress fox
squirrel as well. Technical assistance regarding possible mitigation for impacts to
the primary panther habitat shall be forwarded to staff upon receipt. A Florida
black bear and BCFS management plan shall be required on the site plan.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use CU-2003-AR -3725 "NGALA"
with the following conditions:
As noted on sheet 3 of the conditional use site plan, if no further permitting for all
existing improvements is required, then the below mentioned conditions of
approval shall be required prior to conditional use approval. If a site development
plan (SDP) application is to be submitted in the future for the current impacts,
then the following conditions of approval will be required at the time of SDP
submittal.
Stormwater Manal!ement:
J) This project must obtain an Environmental Resource Permit from the South
Florida Water Management District.
Environmental:
I) Provide a preserve management plan on the site plan including methods of
exotic vegetation removal and maintenance and Florida black bear and Big
Cypress fox squirrel management plans.
2) Fulfillment of any Florida panther mitigation as required by either the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission.
3) Provide a legally sufficient title opinion and conservation easement. The
conservation easement shall be recorded within 90 days of the determined
final development order.
EAC Meeting
Page IOof11
PREPARED BY:
1'1 S~ NO!3
DATE
STAN CHRZANOW KI, P.E.
ENGINEERING RE EW MANAGER
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~
{9~
/-)'-/-01
DATE
CHRIS D'ARCO
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
cf{~ fr 0.-1 tY.,h1l)
KA SELEM
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
I-N-09
DATE
EAC Meeting
Page II of II
REVIEWED BY:
SUS S
PRIN IP ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGIN ERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ik9~2J- iJ -
LLlAM b. L N 11r., P.E.
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIRECTOR
!b.. (wlt~
STEVEN WILLIAMS
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AITORNEY
APPROVED BY:
J SEPH K. SCH I T
OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATOR
llf-rJl
DATE
Oi-/4-05
DATE
!-/s--ar
DATE
,/t1"
DA E
RESOLUTION NO. 09 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 0 F
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONAL USES TO ALLOW A
CULTURAL ECOLOGICAL OR RECREATIONAL FACILITY
PURSUANT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC)
SECTION 2.03.01.A.1.C.23; TO ALLOW AQUACULTURE
FOR NON-NATIVE OR EXOTIC SPECIES PURSUANT TO
LDC SECTION 2.03.01.A.l.C.5; AND TO ALLOW
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION, RAISING OR BREEDING OF
EXOTIC ANIMALS, PURSUANT TO 2.03.01.A.1.C.25: ALL
FOR A 2H ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON INEZ ROAD,
APPROXIMATELY ONE QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF
KEENE AVENUE IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of
Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to
establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the
protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance No. 2004.41), as amended, which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among
which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and
constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as
in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Uses
to allow a cultural ecological or recreational facility pursuant to the Land Development Code
(LDC) Section 2.03.01.A.I.C.23, to allow aquaculture for non-native or exotic species pursuant
to 2.03.01.A.1.C.5 and to allow commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic animals
pursuant to 2.03.01.A.1.C.25 on the property hereinafter described in Exhibit B, and the
CU-2003-AR-3725 NGALA
Revised 02/05/09
Page 1 DO
Collier County Planning Commission has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit A) that satisfactory
provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said
regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
The petition filed by Close Up Creatures, Inc., d/b/a NGALA, represented by Robert J.
Mulhere, AICP of RWA, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman,
Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester P.A., with respect to the property hereinafter described in
Exhibit B be and the same is hereby approved to allow a cultural ecological or recreational
facility in the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District pursuant to the Land Development Code
(LDC) Section 2.03.01.A.1.C.23. , to allow aquaculture for non-native or exotic species
pursuant to 2.03.01.A.l.C.5 and to allow commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic
animals pursuant to 2.03.01.A.1.C.25 in accordance with the Site Plan attached as Exhibit C
and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated by
reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and super-majority vote.
Done this _ day of
,2009.
CU-1003-AR-3725 NGALA
Revised 02/05109
Page 2 of3
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Deputy Clerk
DIANA FIALA, CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams ~<"\.t.b~
Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A-Findings of Fact
Exhibit B--Legal Description
Exhibit G.,Site Plan, dated February, 2009
Exhibit D-Conditions of Approval
CU-2003-AR-3725 NGALA
Revised 02/05/09
Page 3 of3
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU.2003-AR-3725
The following facts are found:
1. Sections 2.03.02.E.l.c.5 and 2.03.07.L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic tlow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or _ Affect mitigated by
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
DATE:
CHAIRMAN:
EXHIBIT A
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
CU-2003-AR-3725
The following facts are found:
]. Sections 2.03.02.E.l.c.5 and 2.03.07.L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic tlow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or _ Affect mitigated by '_.
____ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
DATE:
MEMBER:
EXHIBIT A
CU-2003-AR-3725
NGALA Conditional Use
Project: 2002090086
Date: 6/10/08
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 AND THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
o [g~[gn~~ n
JUN 1 0 2008 U
CU-2003-AR-3725
Exhibit B
.".-AI"..""'"."....",,, "."'_--.""'-.-.....,...,
".,.".,""'"., "..",loW ..,..__''''''.....'....,..._....
1l~~~=ST T.l .l'Y
1l~J!AD ONI~'nSNO::>
"""=~,.. V lX\Q
-,,-ft."-.:
.. 1
,
~r .
:~r!
I~;i
~' ;lli!
.l!' ~~
:11 mil
. O:~I'~
1-"1.
I'"~
l!'~~U
!
1301 ;
~ ~ ~
_J ~ w
0"
....
a
%:
~
!
~?
~i
c
~
::;
_'_C_', -'1,---"","-:
z
-<r:;
.....1
p..,
r.L1
E-<
>-<
--<if]
.....:lE73
--<:=,J
0.....1
zi
o
>-<
E-<
>-<
~
Z
o
u
!
!
,
~
3
~ ,
~
~ I~',
~ '11. !Ii
'" , ' ~w
~ I I I ,I
'~Ir~~~~~
, 11 I , I I I I I
II I I I I I I I
j' I' '~" I I 'It I
I' , '!" , , ,
'I ,"",
'1'1.' 1'1
'1'1,' 1.'1.'
'1'1' '1'1'1'1
,;',-~~~l
'~.' If I 'I.i ~
!.""' II,
'1'1"1
'I
',I
'I'd
'1,,',,1
'1'1'"
II .
~,~ ;~
c."0 :0-
~'g ~
~N
:" -
/
, (\\ \\\j"
'\ ,/
/-~,_/
;.'
\., /'" ,-/.'\'//
\~.~! \// '\ ~
\\
~'/)./\~/l'\
\ ~\'.\
"1!l" /\ , \/
---'\ ,!\~\ l .,. \ ,;
\_----------..:~)
'______,___
f\i'v'ld 3.LlS 3sn l'v'NOI.lJONOJ
'v")V:)N
JNI ':,'3"tln.lV3H:Jd/J-3S0TJ
i
j 'I
I ..
D
UD
, .
~ ~ 2
~ ~
~ ,1
~!i
."
i~5
~~i
!II
i
: 1
! ,
~ ~ ~.
, '.'
~ i~ ~2
i r"~"~
"
~ ~ ~~
~o .
,
H
\'
~. \ ~ r
..0 ~ <'--:>~
"
ld
~11~
; ~II'
i!'!'
",
~~ i
Ht~
5~~~
,;!'l
~i ~
!~!~
i6"
~t~~
",
"~I
I:"
l!'i~i
. " .
~ ~ 6 ~ ~! I
'I'! P' 1 ,
. , ,!!,. ,
~I r or I i ~
~~~ : ~~o& r l ;
Hilnlllli!
~!'~ I h&~ . ~ ~:
hr 1 ,,~li~ I i iH
.<' ~ [I ~ it
,.", I""'! e:,
!iii'i;m'lh
~!'l ~ 1w~-ry ~ I'
~c" ~ !~ei!~ if. e
~r~ t ~~h:':~, ~l~
~~~l ~ ~i~~~~~~I~!;
~~~~i ~~:bnJ~~"&
I !~~ !i&' 5~lla~~~;i
I ~nl~~~~~ll.rf~~~f
!!!!lii!l'!lll!:il!
i!!'I'!!r'!lI"
i ,~!,;,:Ihl;!:;,;l
avO<l Z3Nl
C
II
I
~:>~,3
'Sl'!
o::i"'E ;0
l~
----~,~---
- ~-",i"'''"
\
,
CU-2003-AR-3725
Exhibit C
0"~j
~;' 'IIJ i
r,o ,
t'2~J~~
!
i
"
"
.fI"
i ~i
: "
II
I
I)
l' ~-
:' ~E
)
,
i~
I~
,<
~
1'~
=,0::
'I ~
'0 !
,re
r .. c
rrw-cntJ'O
"'''''''rootO
1" ~;,
,~.~ ''''''''ll'
"
t:i
I ~ ~
['I
,I,
dEEl
~ i i
!i! I'
!t. ~ ; \
~
3
"
"
~
c
.^
~
"
L:::
I
:I
,
,
,
!
1
jl
'I
-,
CU-2003-AR-3725
NGALA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. The Conditional Use is limited to what is shown on the conceptual site plan,
identified as "Nagala," prepared by RW A Consultants, Inc., dated March, 2008,
and last revised February 9, 2009, and as further limited below. The site plan
noted is conceptual in nature for conditional use approval. The final design must
be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and
regulations, and receive appropriate and required approvals thru all federal, state
and county agencies.
2. There shall be no more than 1,000 guests on site at anyone time.
3. Visitors shall be transported to the site using buses or another communal
transpOliation method. Arrival by private car is prohibited.
4. Overnight stays by visitors/patrons is prohibited.
5. The facility shall not be open to the general public. All visitors must be guests
by prior appointment only.
6. Upon issuance of any tropical storm or higher intensity storm watch or warning,
the property owner shall ensure that all tents and any other temporary structures
are disassembled and removed from the site immediately.
7. Parking on site is limited to the two gravel parking areas shown on site; unless
additional approvals are sought and approved thru the SDP or SIP processes.
8. Note #4 on the site plan shall be revised to indicate that any future expansion
shall be subject to complete review in compliance with the applicable
requirements/processes in effect at the time. This Conditional Use approval
shall not usurp the need for any required development order (or amendments) or
permit approvals.
9. Any change in use of the existing single family house shall be subject to review
as a change of use to include, but not limited to review of the use for issues such
as, but not limited to, handicap access, landscaping and parking for the proposed
use.
10. Within 90 days of the approval of this Conditional Use application, the
developer shall submit a complete Site Improvement Plan Application to depict
existing and proposed structures and uses.
Revised 3/5/09
EXHIBIT 0
page 1 of 2
II. Event hours shall be limited. No event can commence before 8:30 a.m. Three
events per week may remain open until II p.m., all other events must end by 8
p.m. on any day of the week, except that any New Year's Eve event may remain
open until I a.m. Staff, such as clean up crews, may remain beyond the time the
event closes.
12. The developer shall retain a 30-foot wide indigenous buffer area around the
entire site, except for the preserve area and those areas shown on the site plan
where existing structures or improvements encroach. In those areas where such
encroachments exist. the development shall comply with this buffer requirement
to the maximum extent possible. Any further expansion of the uses or additions
to existing structures or new structures on site shall require that this buffer,
where the vegetation does not achieve opacity to a height of six feet, be
augmented to provide two rows of ill 0 shrubs that are 4 foot on center, 60
inches high at time of planting. The shrubs shall be maintained at least at that
height. The buffer shall also include a double row of staggered trees, with the
trees to be a minimum of 10-feet high, with a four-foot spread and a 1.5-inch
caliper at time of planting. The trees shall be maintained at no lcss than 10 feet
high.
13. All additions to any existing or any new structures or tents shall be setback from
all property boundaries a minimum of 60 feet.
14. This project must obtain an Environmental Resource Permit from the South
Florida Water Management District.
15. Additional Environmental Conditions:
a) Provide a Preserve Management Plan on the Site Plan including methods
of exotic vegetation removal and maintenance along with Florida black bear and
Big Cypress fox squirrel Management Plans.
b) Fulfillment of any Florida panther mitigation as required by either the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission.
c) Provide a legally sufficient title opinion and conservation easement. The
Conservation Easement shall be rccorded within 90 days of the determined final
Development Order.
Revised 3/5/09
EXHIBIT 0
page 1 of 2
z
CJ
>-
~
<
'-J
~
'"
;;;:
-..
,..,.
-.
;3l
'"
,..,.
'"
'"
~
c.,
-.
,..,.
'"
'"
'"
~
;;;:
'"
'"
:.:
~
'"
"
-.
'"
~
"
'"
<:
'"
~
-..
'"
c.,
"r,
-..
'"
"
-.
<:l...
'"
~ "T (; [ij
=:
c, .5 ~
=: n
i7
P- 0; ,
2: 'T ~
=: 0 ~
r~ P- O-. g-
~ ~ './:. ~
0 'n 0-.
0-. f c. ~, =
n .:.;. ~'
w dQ
~ ~ 1"1,3
~
w :T. , a n
!' ~ w
r c. ;r.
B ~
00 5
w r.
0-. 0 ~
~ OJ ,
~ OJ "
~ 9- 0
~ ~
~ J;
r
r
r
~ 0-. 0 c ~ ~ :;;: n ~ ~ fiiI
~ ~ C ~ C ~ n P-
~. n "- ~ 5- ~ w
" n c: c. 3
CJO OJ ~ , ~ "T
~ P- ~ n IJQ e 3 '~ ~ W
~ w n ~c C' ~ 2 ~ ~ W
r d~' ft.' 0-. 5- ~ "- ~ 7 ~
~ c;- ~
3- ~ 0-. n 0 r ~ n
2 ~ c c C ,~
" 0-. " ;T" 0
t:: ~ "T ,~ c D 2-:
= 0 ~ c. -0 ~ "T ~ r.J 2'
~ n ~ ~ "T 0 0
"" ~ ~
5 ~ '" C n ~ 0-. ~ 0 UG ~
~ n [ ~ ~ n
0-. J' c, n ~ ~ 2" ~ c;-
o
r n 00 -0 r. v c; ~ ::.
~, C, r. n' ~ 5-
0 ~ w 0 ~ ~ 0 n y-.' ~ n
CJO ~, 0 ~ 0 n 0-.
"'" ~ 0 ~
s;- r;' 0 r 7, ~ ;:: 0 ~ ~
~ X n 'c c n ~ 0-. n ~ ;::;" ;:;
C r r ~ , n ~ .D ~
0 ~ 00 n ~ ~
2- ~ ~ co ;; n "
;::::. '~ 0" 0-. 0-. ...
r , ".. v
~ "- ~
e-
c ~ 5- w ~ w v ~ ~ -0 5- 0
'" 0 3 n ~
C ;:p, P- (/;' n
[: n 0-. ~ g ~ ;T"
v 0' w
n r n ~ n n UQ &.
'< s;. ~ ~ "" n OJ a g' 0-. ~
"' '1,5 ~ -0 n ~ w w ?'
e- ~ n ~ ~ S- ~ P-
n ;; ~ n ~ n n 3
:F n g' 0 ~ 0-. 0-. n 8 P-
~ ,1'; ~ ~
~. .~ v 3
~ 0 ;:;. n c, ~ "T 0-.
~ '~ 0-. r
5- "- n ::: n 0' '^
n w 5 ~ w
'JC '::f GO n V1 ~ v ;T"
~ n ~ dQ' ""
0-. 0 0-. ~ n -0 -0
~ e 0-. S- ~ 0 n ~ " ;J 2-
r '" -0 (;' w ~ 3 n " n
r -0 S- ~ n " '" 0-. ~
w " "2- ;T" "2- n ~
3 c r ~ ~ n ~ 00 v
0 .~ ci ~ Vi' E. e- n
" ~ ~ ~ OJ
0-. c, a.. -0 n ~ ;T" ~ ~ n ~
~ 9 ~ ~ n ~ n
~ ~ "T ~ P- 8 ~ CJO
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n 00 C ~
, s.- w ;<: ~
t, ~ ;T" z: -0
~ ~ ~ r n- ~
eo ~ r
~ Cc; C 7' ~ "- "T
n
r. ;T' ~. ,;:
\
i
'~,
,
/
&.Ii;
z
s~
>- n
"
N
~ ...,
V<
V<
'" 5'
VO
-.[; n
GJ N n
v, 6" 0-
~ VO w :'i
VO 0- ,
v, C
'oJ ",-0
" to "" ,-..
, .
"@.. . ~
." . n
w
" i:i z ;::
b ~
n N W Co
~ '-.>> ;:::... ?'
-.[; n ""
ZN v
V< TI l'
vo ~
0.- vo
to -"
VO
,"
~J
0 8 '< ~ 2- n r -0 tit
~ 0 " e " z " -0
v v " a'ii' ~ ~
0 8 c (]q -0 n CJ ~ 0
,-.. ~ 2:: ~ v ~
n 3 '" r~ n ~ ';2" n >- <
E ~ ~ ~. &.
~ v n 9 < ~
n ;; " 0' "T ~ Co
0 "' c ~ ~ " " "
n 3 v v n ~ " g" (;' (]q n '<'
n . P- N ~ " n ;0- n
r;: ~ 8 .D n P- n n
2- 0 ;:: ?- ~ 3 3
5' 8' ~ 0 0 n '13,
n C; a'ii' ~ "'" P- -0 " -0
?- ~ n 6. -0 " 0- ~. ii' n ~ " ;J
n ~ C ~ "..
'~ ~ 0;- n ~ C;' " ~:
0 0 n 0- n W N
n n eo: n ~ 0-'
C " 0- n ~ n r
~ " v 3 2 0 0- n e;- n
8 it' n y
" 3 ~ o. 8 v " e;-
n 5 ;0- ~ "T 0' ~ " 0
~ ~ ~ n n ~ "
~ ~. C 0 5- ~ " P- -0
v ~. ~ .~ "
n ::: 0 ~ " n .~ ~
c; 0 n
0 n C c: n 0 "'" ;:< S-
~ ~ ~ 5 " to;
OJ ~ w ~ -0 X
" ~ " (]q 0 " 2 n 0 0
~ P- " n ~ ",3 v 2-:
~ 0 3 ~ " ~ ~ v
" "'" n ~ 0- 0-' n
~ 0 v
n r'
z .-;=c.
"Y'
.' r
>
~ '
UC;
"
~ g Iii
'n n -0 Z " n -,
" ~ ~ " ~ '"
;; '.; S n ,-..
~ f v :;; ~ -0 ~ ~
n n ~ n ~
~ n ~ ~
~ t <: r ~ n' " ~
-6- ~. >- n "
v 5 --
r eo: g 0' v r, 'g n ~
n n " ~ -,
" ~ ~ f:S::
^ "'" 5- " " ~
" '<: 8'1 ~
n " " " ~ ~
-, ~ P- " ~
,n :; ;:r ~ ~ -,
0- '" '" ~.
r n, 8' ~ " :; v " '"
-0 n - '"
;.. ~ -0 "' "".' ~ " " "
2' ~ n ~ ;0- ~ -- ~
-6< " n " ".'i n n ~
~ ~. ~ ~ 3 "
n~ n n "' !)~
g ~ CJO ~ ~ n 'ti "
n 5 8 " & " ~
a " ~ (]q "
~ n " ;0- ~ 9 ~ " ~ "
~ n n "
~ c -1 ~
~ Co "'" '" ;0- 6
5' n " ;0- N
" 5' " 7' Vi" ;;:
" ~ ;0- n "
r ;= 0 , ~
::::" n ".. -9
n ~ ~. 5- 5'
n n
::..- M " ~. 0- ~
" ;0- 01';
P- n n
-~.._.~_.- - -
Item #9B
CU-2003-AR-3725
Close-up Creatures, Inc.
NGALA
THE OVERSIZED CONDITIONAL USE
SITE PLAN MAP IS ON FILE AND
A V ALABLE FOR PUBLIC VIEWING IN THE
BOARD MINUTES & RECORDS DEPT.
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING "F"
FOURTH FLOOR
COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER
AGENDA ITEM 9-(
Co~r County
- ~
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
DATE:
MARCH 19,2009
RE:
PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKES
The Collier County Planning Commission heard the Longshore Lakes Planned Unit Development
Amendment (PUDA) at its November 20, 2008 meeting. The petition was continued because of the
discovery of an existing landscape maintenance building that is not currently an allowed land use and
because of CCPC concerns regarding reinserted Transportation Commitments.
The petitioner has submitted a revised Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance and revised sign
exhibits. The PUD Ordinance now includes a maintenance building as an accessory land use. The
Transportation Commitments have been revised in Section Five of the Ordinance to reflect current
conditions. (Please note: the underlined language represents language that has been added to the
Ordinance.) They are as follows:
2. At the time that the intersection of CR 846 and Valewood Drive meets the
warranted requirements for a signal system, the developer shall, at his option,
design/install a traffic signal acceptable to the county and state, if CR 846 is a state road at
the time of meeting the signal warrants, or make payment to the county upon receipt of
invoice the amount of $27,500 (55% ofthe estimated signal cost of $50,000) which would
allow the county to proceed with signal design and installation. Alternatively, if at the
time the traffic signal is warranted, there is an applicable county ordinance which
determines the fair share contribution toward the cost of the signal, the ordinance
requirements may be met in lieu of the above noted options. The developer's obligation
toward traffic signal improvement will be considered an improvement subiect to
subdivision security.
PUDA-2008-AR-11546. LONGSHORE LAKES
Page 1014
I
''i1f
,
J.
If approved by the Longshore Lake Homeowners Association. either direct or
emergency access shall be provided from the Longshore Lake PUD to the Logan Blvd.
Ext. at the time that Logan Blvd. roadway improvements are accepted by the County as a
public roadway. This determination will be left UP to the Longshore Lake Homeowner's
Association as to the type of access to be provided.
Since the original CCPC hearing date of November 5,2008, the off-site premise sign that was originally
proposed has been reduced slightly in size. The sign copy has been reduced from 62 square feet to 59
square feet, exceeding the maximum code area of 12 square feet by 47 square feet. The proposed sign
wall area has been reduced from 270 square feet to 210 square feet. The height of the proposed sign has
been reduced from 12.5 feet to 11 feet, exceeding the maximum code height by 1.5 feet. (Please note: the
maximum code height of an off-premise sign is 8 feet. See Deviation number 4 in Exhibit C of the
Ordinance for further explanation of how this calculation was arrived at). The original sign was not
lighted, the current sign is lighted as depicted in Exhibit B-3 of the Ordinance.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
Synopsis provided by Cheri Rollins, Administrative Assistant:
A second NIM was held as a year had past since the first NIM was held and because the CCPC had
continued this petition in order to clarifY a land use and Transportation Commitments. The NIM was
duly noticed by the applicant and held on January 29th at 5:30 p.m. at the Longshore Lakes Clubhouse,
11399 Phoenix Way, Naples, Florida. Nine people from the public attended, as well as the applicant's
agent, Mr. Bob Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., and County Staff.
Mr. Duane presented an overview of the requested PUD Amendment for the Longshore Lakes PUD. Mr.
Duane shared that the Collier County Planning Commission continued this item to get clarification that
the PUD commitments had been met. The two commitments in question are:
1. The requirement for an emergency access road, which will be left to the Home Owners Association to
determine if they want it and if so where it would be installed.
2. The landscape maintenance building that is currently exists is not listed as an accessory use. The
proposed amendment to the Longshore Lakes PUD will include the landscape maintenance building as an
accessory use. This will bring the building into compliance.
There were no objections or concerns expressed from the participants at this meeting. The meeting ended
at approximately 5:50 p.m.
Page 2 014
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Staff recommendation has changed from the
previous recommendation of denial as noted in the original staff report dated November 5, 2008 to partial
denial. Analysis indicates that this PUD amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Plan
(GMP) and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward the Longshore Lakes PUD to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval for the landscape maintenance building as an
accessory land use and the insertion of the revised Transportation Commitments as stated in the attached
revised Ordinance.
As previously recommended in the original Staff Report dated November 5, 2008, Staff further
recommends that the CCPC forward the Longshore Lakes PUD to the Board of County Commissioners
(BCe) with a recommendation of denial for the off-site premise sign.
ATTACHED INFORMATION:
The Staff Report prepared for the November 5, 2008 Planning Commission meeting is attached. In
addition, a revised Ordinance and PUD with strike thru's and underlines are attached.
Page 3 014
PREPARED BY:
, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPART T ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
fe0. ~ 1aJ1
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
1h.~ 7.utU
STEVEN T. WILLIAMS
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
,~J 0 1?r1---
RAYMO V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
"3/2/d'(
DATE
-z..(Z.6(q
I DATE
~VV"vI-\~
SU8'AN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
.2(2-7/00
DATE
APPROVED BY:
... ~
o EPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR
C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &
NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
.2/- q /d 1
(DATE
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN, CHAIRMAN
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the April 28, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting.
Page 4 014
ORDINANCE NO. 09-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 93-03, THE LONGSHORE LAKE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY AMENDING THE COVER
PAGE; AMENDING THE TABLE OF CONTENTS; AMENDING
SECTION 3.2.B.4 TO ALLOW AN OFF-SITE PREMISES SIGN
FOR THE TERAFINA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE
LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
LONGSHORE LAKE PUD OR AN ON-SITE SIGN; PROVIDING
FOR ADDITION OF SECTION 3.2.B.7 TO ALLOW AN EXISTING
MAINTENANCE BUILDING TO REMAIN AS AN ALLOWABLE
ACCESSORY USE; AMENDING SECTION V, TRAFFIC
REQUIREMENTS, OF THE LONGSHORE LAKE PUD
DOCUMENT; PROVIDING FOR ADDITION OF EXHIBIT B-1,
ARCHITECTURAL/GRADING PLAN; EXHIBIT ,B-2,
LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DETAILS; EXHIBIT B-3, PROJECT
SIGN IRRIGATION AND LIGHTING PLAN; EXHIBIT B-4,
IRRIGATION PLAN DETAILS AND NOTES; EXHIBIT B-S,
PROJECT SIGN AREA CALCULATION; AND EXHIBIT C, LIST
OF DEVIATIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No.
93-03, the Longshore Lake Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Planned Unit
Development document attached thereto (the "PUD Document"); and
WHEREAS, Robert 1. Duane, of Hole Montes Inc., representing Longshore Lake Foundation,
Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance No. 93-03, the Longshore
Lake Planned Unit Development, and the PUD Document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO COVER PAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. 93-03,
LONGSHORE LAKE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The Cover Page of the PUD Document is hereby amended to read as follows:
PREPARED BY:
VINES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
715 Tenth Street South
Naples, Florida 33940
WaIds struole through are deleted~ words underlined are added.
Page 1 0[6
REVISED BY:
HOLE MONTES. INC.
950 Encore Way
Naples. Florida 34110
SECTION TWO: AMENDMENTS TO TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE OF ORDINANCE
NO. 93-03, THE LONGSHORE LAKE PUD
The Table of Contents page of the PUD Document is hereby amended to read as follows:
TITLE: This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Longshore Lake Planned Unit
Development Ordinance".
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
Table of Contents
SECTION 1- Property Ownership and Description
+ 1-1
SECTION II- Project Development
~ 2-1
SECTION III- General Development Regulations
9 3-1
SECTION IV- Environmental Requirements
B4-l
SECTION V- Traffic Requirements
.f-9 5-1
SECTION VI- Utilities Stipulations
;!-l-6-l
SECTION VII- Engineering/Water Management Requirements
;;!+ 1:1
SECTION VIII- Additional Commitments
~8-l
Exhibits:
EXHIBIT A Master Development Plan Exhibit "I."
30
EXHIBIT B-1 Architectural/Grading Plan
B-1
EXHIBIT B-2 Landscape Plan and Details
B-2
WaIds struelc through are deleted; words underlined are added.
Page 2 0[6
EXHIBIT B-3 Proiect Sign Irrigation and Lighting Plan
B-3
EXHIBIT B-4 Irrigation Plan Details and Notes
B-4
EXHIBIT B-5 Proiect Sign Area Calculation
B-5
EXHIBIT C List of Deviations
C-l
SECTION THREE: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION
3.2.B.4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 93-03, THE LONGSHORE LAKE PUD
Section 3.2.B.4 of the PUD Document is hereby amended to read as follows:
4. Signs as permitted by the Collier County Land Development Code at the time
Permits are requested inellluinl': an off site Ilremise siJm for Satumia Falls
(alca Terafina PUD) or in the alternate to allo'.... the off site premise siJm to be
liseu f-or Lonl':shore Lake in the event the lease is terminated between
Longshore Lake and Salurrlia Falls. See also E)[hibit "B" and "c."
.. .including an off-site premises sign for the Terafina Planned Unit
Development. In the event the lease dated August 30, 2007. between
Longshore Lake Foundation. Inc., and GL Homes of Naples Associates II,
Ltd.. as it may be amended or superceded. terminates and is no longer in
effect. then the off-site premises sign for Terafina shall be permitted to
convert to an on-site premises sign for Longshore Lake PUD. The
permissible conversion shall be limited to modifying the sign face of the sign
from Saturnia Falls to Longshore Lake. See also Exhibits "B-1", "B-2", "B-
3"~ "B-4". "B-5" and "C."
SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ADD
SECTION 3.2.B.7 OF ORDINANCE NO. 93-03, THE LONGSHORE
LAKE PUD
Section 3.2.B.7 of the PUD Document is hereby added to read as follows:
7. Maintenance buildings presently located in the southeast corner of the PUD
on Tract B ofthe subdivision plat. Plat Book 32, Page 33. Sheet 2 of 2. are a
permitted accessory use to provide maintenance of the residential areas in the
Words s!ruck through are deleted; words uoderlined are added.
Page 3 0[6
Longshore Lake PUD. The existing or replacement structures of a similar
size and location shall be deemed consistent with all other provisions of this
ordinance.
SECTION FIVE: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION V, TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS, OF
ORDINANCE NO. 93-03, THE LONGSHORE LAKE PUD
Section V of the PUD Document is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION V
TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS
5.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to set forth the traffic improvement requirements which the
project developer must undertake as an integral part of the project development.
5.2. STIPULATIONS
1. The security gate at the main entrance shall be designed and located so as not to
cause entering traffic to back up onto Valewood Drive. A separate north bound right turn
lane shall be provided on Valewood Drive.
2. At the time that the intersection of CR 846 and Valewood Drive meets the
warranted requirements for a signal system, the developer shall, at his option,
design/install a traffic signal acceptable to the county and state, if CR 846 is a state road
at the time of meeting the signal warrants, or make payment to the county upon receipt of
invoice the amount of $27,500 (55% of the estimated signal cost of $50,000) which
would allow the county to proceed with signal design and installation. Alternatively, if at
the time the traffic signal is warranted, there is an applicable county ordinance which
determines the fair share contribution toward the cost of the signal, the ordinance
requirements may be met in lieu of the above noted options. The developer's obligation
toward traffic signal improvement will be considered an improvement subiect to
subdivision security.
3. If approved by the Longshore Lake Homeowners Association. either direct or
emergency access shall be provided from the Longshore Lake PUD to the Logan Blvd.
Words strudc thr01:1gh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Page 4 0[6
Ex!. at the time that Logan Blvd. roadway improvements are accepted by the County as a
public roadway. This determination will be left UP to the Longshore Lake Homeowner's
Association as to the type of access to be provided.
SECTION SIX: ADDITION OF EXHIBIT B-1 ARCHITECTURAL/GRADING PLAN;
EXHIBIT B-2, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DETAILS; EXHIBIT B-3,
PROJECT SIGN IRRIGATION AND LIGHTING PLAN; EXHIBIT B-4,
IRRIGATION PLAN DETAILS AND NOTES; EXHIBIT B-S, PROJECT
SIGN AREA CALCULATION, TO ORDINANCE NO. 93-03, THE
LONGSHORE LAKE PUD
Exhibit B-1, Architectural/Grading Plan; Exhibit B-2, Landscape Plan and Details; Exhibit
B-3, Project Sign Irrigation and Lighting Plan; and Exhibit B-4, Irrigation Plan Details and Notes;
and Exhibit B-5, Project Sign Area Calculation, attached hereto and incorporated herein, are hereby
added to the PUD Document.
SECTION SEVEN: ADDITION OF EXHIBIT C, LIST OF DEVIATIONS, TO
ORDINANCE NO. 93-03, THE LONGSHORE LAKE PUD
Exhibit C, List of Deviations, attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby added to
the PUD Document.
SECTION EIGHT: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this
day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
, Deputy Clerk
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
Words strucl~ tluOblga. are deleted; words underlined are added.
Page 5 0[6
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: EXHIBIT B-1
EXHIBIT B-2
EXHIBIT B-3
EXHIBIT B-4
EXHIBIT B-5
EXHIBIT C
CP\07 -CPS-00775\36
'0<~J\
,~
9-
Architectural/Grading Plan
Landscape Plan and Details
Project Sign Irrigation and Lighting Plan
Irrigation Plan Details and Notes
Project Sign Area Calculation
List of Deviations
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
Page 6 0[6
I
I i R
I r ~ I ~~ . 0
I )>.,m , j:-l
I 5E~ 1, "~
I ~L!1l i~ 0
I ;~~! ~/-::_~ __, 0
i ~ z~ l(;;;:---->:,:~:~~:~
II JlL,. " " \
!!. i 1 _2' \.' \
~ (+t
I~ ""
i~ ~g.
I" l'lii
,m
, iiii
:!i! /:,~
I 1', \, \, ',oj! ~
I :\\' ,/// ~
I ! \t':-________-- ::"-:-: /
i i~ -'--::::::::::::::r
"~ .
i i~
___.1.__ :~
,
,
,
I
I
,.
"~.'''~
~
N
m
o
~
~
3
::EC::E
-" -i-"
-" Ul-"
SEe ION LINE
/-----;2//
~.
D
"
~
"
.
~
~
I
!
p
I
.
"
,
\
,
"
\\
,
"
,
.. '" c',
"''''....~--< '\
~o~," "
",;z",... "
~ffi:~ "
0"'0- "-
--<:j-<~
"i1-'!~..
",,~q'il5
':t,~~
""1'1>
~ g;~
~ ~~'"
"............
.
t.
l: LAIOI' .3
0 0
Z ;: l> 0
0 Z -<0
::1 :>; l> -0.-
J> l> .- "0
lJ .- rnm
m en
m
,
"
0
l>
0
N BLVD. EXTENSION
--
D_
O r
IT>
@
~
----------------~-----
!
r
1
...........----;1
, ,
, ,
,,, ,
I.' I
c' .
~
~
-;A'_""
1.----;'1
, .
1_"___-
'1'
GLHOMES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
,...-.""-..-....,..-
..........I't-""""''''''''
o
.
0;l~8....~~ ::
>;g~;;:~Ei~ ;E
<'>"');)ifll1{)).~
.,. -~".
Hlhii.~
Plio:. '-
~~~ -~~ f
~ ~ t..
i
"""'S"-<o.,,"'<">
a""""
..)o!i 3.lf".:I
a.~ ::r g l)" g iI
~.P'3'1
~:-~~!i~g:i!:
,,:.d ~"._~~
B ,<'
~ ~
"
" --
hHi"!
["-- ..
~"'...~<:;;;t
it;;!...",....
N~-Cii~Dj.;i~~
:.:. ~ o' <!: w... ..
'" ~ r" ~:....
i...~.; ~
::t.. ... " _1<
1l'l<"!1,-"
.
[
~-
~
~
~
MAIN
~
-'
....,
c
c;;-'
'--
C"j
~
c
....,
:::;
,-
~ "' ~
0 E~
-' ;!:i ~
-< ~~
"l) ~rn ~
...., l~ 0
0
-w 'z ~
~ ,0 2
'" >. e
~> z
~ ~
~. z~ ~
::J ~~
:rc ~ ~
CJ rn
(t
, ,
w
"'--.---/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
"
"
'"
"
//--~"\
I . i
, .
-"'--./
, "
>,~
-'--'-:-:-~:~.~~~-:(~
,~y
, ,\
\ "
, ,
, ,
co
"
'"
1>-
Z
'"
, ii
z
m
"
"
Ii
'I
"
,
,
I~
,,"
,1>-
I;
I:.,:
Ip1
I
\
'\,'
"-
"w
8
:::;
-'
---1
f--::
, l' (!)
()
~ ::2 !S~2":: -l ~::IlI'~ U ~.
'----- ;:D _.ro~ ~~ ~,
::i :J 0'" ~ ~~ ~
- 2.. " _2
, ~~ ~ ~ ,~" -"",~'~ ~"
~ _. ""
0 c1~"'~Q ~ z ~<:l me ~~
0 z . :::; ~~
" z~ 0("' · r
00 " ~ JQ :< "'E F ~, ~ ~~
" ~~ Ii 2-~~1i -- ..' ~rn
CJ il~ ..
, -> >',~ i ~~~~ "2
~~ ~7< ~ ~~
~ qj: G o lI',... oi!? .-- "~
0 i~ ~ i8~~~ ~~~; n ~.
~ '~ "
z '" ~rn~~E.rnc1~ S2
" ~d ~~ 2
. 8~ ~ <l:j;d-<, ~ ~ g:.... 0, ~
~ rn" m ~~'<J~~z ~" ~"
~~ 0
--iJ ~ ,... U'p- ~ ~ GO -~
0 ~~ ~ti
~ o~~ ~ S. 0
~ 0 ~;: ~ ~ '"' ~o
. ~ oe
0 ~ :l ' -.:J<
~ ~ ".
~ ~~
~
.
b
r,
~
8
u
U'
Ie
--1
'"
m
'"
"
---1
,..,
G
fL:;
"0
ro
:::;
;::to
:::;
c:
(') H ~~ ':;r;;~ fi': ~ . ~~
L) :c ""0 ~ @~
.' ~~::l ~ ~
~. ~~ ~o
~ 2~ i i .~
ti~ 2;?; . ~.
0" " "~2 ~ ~ .0
:j~ ci~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~I
~~ <- ~ l=g r.
> ' ~~ " ~p
g~ . rn
~~ g~ ~ ~lli, ... ~ >
rr 0
&~ r. > .0 Z >
rn. ~;;J %;:.1.2' ~ 0 z
Of.'! !~~ z "
~ ~ ~ ~
-" 8 .0 i ~ l
~ S .
~
r .... '.0 Hlill'~ .. '0__- ,....
.,.. "'''.'.. ,. ,"mv "'.. '.",c,,"due.cJ ,," =0""..0 'n .m" ",,,..... _"..,.....v..., _'u'ou' 'n_ _XP'''__ _"u..... <><>~"""'" o. C' .... H..",_..
Cornor!dentlficationSignagePllInlor
Saturnla Falls
t-..db;PGLmin-:: PI..n
Collier Count~. FlorIda
EXHIBIT B-2
GLHOMES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
,__......OON'OI'><T<"""'..........
"'"""'''''"'''''''''
,.
3_31561
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1-1
10
I'U
10
I."
IOJ
I)>
Iz
17'
I,
I-Z
I
1m
-110-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
J.
I
ffl~fllll[
iit!iJfi:li
I'oll.'l
( 1"1
rfi.MJ.
II [filii
'H
I ~ ..
f !!
if H~i[ f
f ! f P
~"
om
13[;;
-~~
" '
~~
8Z
.m
.
~
,..",
:est
~"'z
mn
!!Ix
~~:IE
n-t!:
X;ll-t
go:t
lI>om
~o'"
zj:;"
G)CI~
I,D~~
lI>
o
(j,.
~.
0....".,'.....
l::Y""
;,f"
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
'.
.
---~-- -...................
..-- ........ ~
-------, """"'- (S)
-"'... ......~.... --....-
.....,..... ............ .........
'--- -- , '-
'.... "--....
--.... ','\
,
, \ \
\ , '
, ,
, ,
,
,
,
/
/
/ /
/ /
/' ,/' /..-
I J/ //
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, ,
, '
, I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
t~ rb
I;"
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, :
-III !
IU t')
)>, I
'" I
-II \ \ \
r \ \ \
- \ \ \
Z, \ \ \
ml \ \ \
, , ,
\, " '''-,,-
, ' ,
'..., '........... ..........--------
, "
'............. --
."
m
z
"
m
.
~~
.r
;8
"~
n
~~
mm
m
,
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
.~
_/
10
<J1
v1AIN
-
-------
r
-I
lD
m
I\J
:3:
:.
SEe TlQJ:;H:::..tNE
--------
----::----.:::.._---
GLHOMES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITEaURE
'-"~~i"A:'='SU'I"""
,3.31~23 P
~~~~~
'" E!-il
!l:!i~:'::~
~jJl~~
"0 ~-
;~!;:;~If
~~;;;6F
Ma~l~
~~;. F
o;S:>'iilt;
:i!~i'iiPl;g
~~g~~
:>:l<>!l!F<:>
ii:~C"';!;
~"~i' .
~~~ ~
;$i"'''''''~
"'..,...."'2-
2-%il'l~n
"'~502-
>~"';>:a
;;~~;!p
",z. Q
~%~8~
~;$;~a'c
-..',g~~/:l
~;;J",o::+:
.~o
~*~%~
~Q;~~
ilS2~z:il
~n'--::a~
~!1~2~
...... nO<!
p~~'"
"
~~~ ~~F ~ ~o~ F ~~~ ~~~ i~~
:::$;81 .....::>'l>'l... "'Fe"> 1!\ .....~~ n~> ...,,,,n
f!l~~ ~;l\~ ~ 8~; ~ ~o~ j:!S~ ~~~
1l~5 olllli F ~2~ 0:> ~~~ IG~~ 41"'~
Og2::e-~ . 1I!:-::O:Z -.<_<"> o~> s:l5i:....
".nn ::l"'1f Fl 0:> 21! ","l,~ 2.-;'5i ""-"'!il
8~~~ ~~F ~~p;iil; ~ ~~~ ~l!l~ ~~v;
:~ 2~~:: ~8~; :::..,~ ~~'" gF~
lli- ~.~ 0 o-li. ~~~ ,2~ ~.~
CI . ~ ~~"" l--'"'Q~npc~2I!~
~~~ 1II~ ~Vl~~ III ~ I.... $~~ ",5~
ll!Q.r-- c:."..., 11'> :I:Ic:..... n ,..,
:liJ'l:: ;11\:: :;!1Y> 19 "';0 ;2~~ ?j2-...
'" -<.....;51 rl\"'>~-~~""'O Iflfi
lf1lz CO n ~..... 2!::1-".;;. ~!fl ~~~
/O~~ ,,~~ .~~~~li .,"~~
m F n.-- _ :z:.... ail:!' ~....,..
:0. ~~g ~~~~ ~ ~.".~
~~z i~ II> ~~ g ~;;.~ ~~ !!l~
~~~ ::; ~~: i~i ~~ ~~~
.....ge I- % ..- '<:'O::l:Y' pn .--z~
itS i~i ~ili!S ~~@Ba
I.....~ v>i5 "'",;;, !a~ "-~noJ:::
~~:2 ~,,>;.:E 2~ ~ ~':':1 f;l~ ~~~
";0"- ;$; 2:..... n nl- ."'",
:i'l!?~ i!~5 ~i! c:- ii,,,, 2:ll ~~
""","- ..... 0 n >- :::t:~:ll :i'
nl\l;n 1Il~..... :e~;;1 ;:l>- \2% '"
2 8 z~ -< e", 2;i "':=;:"" ~
;;j~Vl ~~~ ~::~ ~Ii\ 8~ ~
~~~ ~p"" ~o !il~ ~
"'50 0>-.... G~ ~g;
2: >-0::-=<1 ",'" >-....
~~-'" "'~ ~
" . " ~ " "
g~ 22~~~ c~" .. p ~~~~e~ q~ c~%
~.. -- of " ""zF",;;:! "'..... 8~;>i
~~ :;jZ-<:i'~ ~~ ~g ~ ~~;Ii\~c:-:~ c::;-;..
~:l ,...::lo"':j " .
c:~ ~8~:g~ ~~~ 00 " ~ i"l...,...."'g:J? 0""' ,...,g
Ii\~ >-b~~.@ ~~ ~~ .o~~~..,~ ~~ ~Bi~
;<00 'Ii ~ ~->-~r-;I!l ~,., ~....~
;:;!V>,.,.,.,l'lil ~~~ ~" 2;$;.... f.'l;:!ri\ ~i!'"
~;o:- ~~~o>- .% 0_ ~
:;;~ F'" ;i:~ ~~~ A~ >" ~g",1f;~~ ~'" "g~
g~ ?i~j;;!i: ,. "' Ii ~~~:;;~!i Pl;: ~%",
5:~~ .~ pr
~:!z ~5~~ cO, ~. ~~~Q~F ~~ ~::~
~g ~~!aF ~E"" R. "c ~ 00....'" ~ ...~~
8~ ~222 ;26* ~ cF ~~;o;;o~~ ~~ :;:<;;:J:::!
?;8% .' . ,.... "'''Fp "-"':0; '"'
"'>- ,;<>=>~z i ~.8 0 ~~;e:-~",~ ~g;: ~~g
:::;;1 .---2~R "c ~ z-or-~'" ~o '" '::;:
~.",..... <"
~,. 1=l ~.... .. ':'1~~~!?'" VI~ ~~~
~'" ~~~~ !a~~ ~ 00 . ~cQ~ g -- ~D
21 ~~ 2 ;<8 Vl~ ....." g~ ~ ~
a~.~ ~ ,,~ f :~...!e~Jj ~~ Vl~:=
2" .,,~- I:;~
o 0 ~f:: g :of ~~!i3F~~ ~'" ~;o;;~
.....~ '!"cRQ ~"
[i;;!; 5?g~~ ~~~ ~ on " ~~~~02 ~~ iCgjl;
iflSF ~~ "'0"';;;1:3.,,~::J 1"'1';;;
~ ~ '" ~ ~~ . .0 . ~ .... ...- ..., :;:'''''
~~~f . r ~ ~ -.-.~~:;'>z;l1",5 .-,0
0"
~ %C'!' ~ " gQ~~~~ a~ 5~
:~;$i~ ~~~ > ~~~~8-. ~~ ~"
% ~~~~ ;>lg~ ~ i ~ -<!2 z:: ~ :0 ^"
. ~~~z ~~~. ~~/O8~ ~R "0
8~~~ a S m",,~;$\~~ ~i!: "@
,>, :;: , ~~
~!I''il !6"" "':z>- M
0 ~~8~ ~~ " .~g;"/05l ~8 -2
g t ~ ;::if/>
x"'r-o " ~""~.... !2!lj~ ~!;;'
~ ,......g- . e;~~~~ g~
_0,.,," 2~
"'",,=10 . ""
~ ~,.,~~ ~~ ~ XI~g; !3y: ~<
~ g-< ~~ ~~
.
g ~""
g
"
~
, ~
.
~ ~
,
.i "
~ ~ 00 e@ EllSE>
> :jIII!lI!!I!
~
> , I'I~ ~H
~d!,ql'
, !Ip, 'I
I!, !
~
.
~
r
o
~
o
o
e
.
~
^
~c~
.g,
-.0
~o~
I!l~~
M_n
..,~~
~h
a~~
%alJl
"'.
~;;~
~~~
~~~
""R!i.l
~~~
...~~
i~~
~~
;<.
,,~
~~
~~
"8
~5
~
c::-'
...
GO
'"
:::t
9
~
@ 0 FULL
~ @ ~ Tl-REE.QTR
@J V "-'IF
@ e QUARTER
~ i'~ Al ~ :1
'" u;t~~~ () z U;
. ~ . ~
~ ' , , r ~ () ~ J:
~Hi~ Al m
~ J: 2 1>
~ ~U~~ m Q
1> ~ '"
m Q
0
'iJ ~~m~iij '"
Ci rn~ ~ ~
N ~
0 ~ ~
iii 0
< ~ m ~
~ 3
~ ~
;\ ~ r
ffi ~
~ E
~
X r
~ ~
. ~
co
> ~
~
;\ 0(
z
~
~
~1 , in !Ill.
~ ~ llijp~
,
~ E I~ I, ~
i5 ~ I Q~ ~~
. ~
~
, 0
, "
, . !lll,~
~ (!:le@ e Be
H U Ilill! illl"'. .,'
~ 1"II!~;~~ "I
rn
. : I Ii II,,! ! !I!~I! .' .' ! !,
, ~ ~
I
~
~
~
~
rn
~
l~;
%
o
~
r)
cr
G€l e e @3€l
nlil!lln
'hIll '
: l ii! Ii! ,11
, ~p, i'
<
~
e
l!I@@@ ~~e80e0
!~ ,I I llljfll ill Ii ,! Iii .llf
II I H:'n~:nll!1I1 'Iij
II l P I,)ll!'!! Ii Ii
II lln,! I: II :
. ! n'
,~..
l'nP
:1 !!
Ii ij
i! Ii
i il
~'O' ','
':;.1 .
\,>
I~'.~.:.'~,;
i1 .".
P'
Corner Identlftcatlon Slgnage Plan for
Saturnia Falls
b7'~~L.H"o;:;
Collier County. Florida
EXHIBIT B_4
GLHOMES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
,............."""""'Io"'..................,
""..."."......"'"
7'_()'
,
.
!
~~
;~
"
"
2 D
Tn
P
"
P
r
" '! " ~
C m
r , , ,
p ~ ~ q
-j ~
0
z
. b-o"J
""
..~
~
~
0
.
>
~
II
!
~
.-
,
~
~
~
o
~
~
r .... Gc Hl[6Nlr .~:!I ;; ;;-I.I:ii~-OO~IOO.q lir.o. ~-" b. ..pm''''_;~~~;;:~l~~g;~f.;_''he''. 'C_ --.'... _0'''0 ~c..", e' GGUioMES
. . n '" r S. II f i' _hll..I......11 -..... PI.."
N : J! if by G.l.Homes LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
:iI Colll.r County, Florida ,....."=~~'='......"'"
EXHIBIT B-a:
EXHIBIT "C"
List of Deviations
For an Off-Site Premises Silw:
1. Deviation # I seeks relief from Section 5.06.04 C.16.a. of the Land Development Code
(LDC), which requires placement of signs in non-residentially zoned areas, to allow an off-site
premises sign as depicted in Exhibits "B-1". "B-2", "B.3", "B-4" and "B-5" of this PUD, in the
residentially zoned property known as the Terafina PUD, located in Section 16. Township 48
South. Range 26 East.
2. Deviation # 2 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04 C.16.b.i. of the LDC. which requires a
maximum total area of 12 square feet for a sign. to allow UP to 53 square feet of sign area, as
depicted in Exhibits "B-1", "B-2", "B-3", "BA" and "B-5".
3. Deviation # 3 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04 C.16.b.i.i. of the LDC, which requires the
maximum height of a sign to be eight feet above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway,
to allow the height of the off-premises sign as depicted in Exhibits "B-1", "B-2", "B-3", "B-4"
and "B-5" to be constructed in excess of this requirement. The arterial roadway has an elevation
of or 17.5 feet and the grade of the existing mound upon which the sign will be placed is or 18.5
feet. The height of the proposed sign from the base of the sign to the top of the sign is 8.6 feet.
This deviation is to allow the sign at a maximum elevation 27.0 feet. which is 9.5 feet above the
existing arterial roadway grade of 17.5 feet. This results in a deviation of 1.5 feet above the
allowable elevation: (l7.5 feet + 8.0 feet allowable height = 25.5 feet allowable height. (less)
27.0 feet proposed height resulting in a deviation of 1.5 feet).
4. Deviation # 4 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04 C.16.b.v. of the LDC. which requires the off-
site premises sign to be located within 1,000 feet of the intersection of the arterial roadway
serving the proposed use. The Terafina PUD is located approximately one mile from Immokalee
Road, the arterial roadway that would serve Terafina's uses, and the proposed location for the
sign. This distance between Terafina and the arterial roadway creates the need for the sign
location.
5. Deviation # 5 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04 C.16.c. of the LDC. which requires the off-
site premises sign to be located at least 50 feet from a residentially zoned district. The subiect
property for the off-premises directional sign is residentially zoned. Longshore Lake PUD.
For an On-Premises Sil!n:
6. Deviation # 6 seeks relief from Section 5.06.02A.7. of the LDC. which requires the maximum
height of a sign to be eight feet above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway, to allow
on-premise sign to exceed the eight foot height limitation, as described in Deviation No.3 above.
LONGSHORE LAKE PUD
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD)
Prepared for:
LOBgsbore Lake Joint Venture, a Florida General Par'.nership
Longshore Lake Foundation
Prepared by:
Vines a.ad ,^.ssociates, Inc.
715 Tenth Street SOHtB
Naples, Florida 33910
PboBe: (813) 262 1161
Robert 1. Duane, A.I.C.P
Hole Montes. Inc.
950 Encore Way/P.O. Box 111629
Naples, FL 34110/34108
HM PROJECT 1995087
MARCH, 2008
Date Reyiewed by CCPC: 7 21 87 Ord. No.87 51
First PUD /JIlendmeRl: 12 11 90, Or. No. 90 93
Date this Amendment filed: 10 9 92
Date revised: 12 7 92
Date re'iiewed by CCPC: 12 1792
Date approved by BCC: 1 12 93
Ordinance No. 93 3
Date Reviewed by CCPC:
Date Approved by BCC:
Ordinance No.
Amendments & Repeals
EXHIBIT "A"
TITLE: This ordinance shall be know and cited as the "Longshore Lake planned Unit
Development Ordinance".
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title
f
Table of Contents
SECTION 1- Property Ownership and Description
+l:l
SECTION II- Project Development
~H
SECTION Ill- General Development Regulations
9B
SECTION IV - Environmental Requirements
B4-l
SECTION V- Traffic Requirements
.f-9 5.1
SECTION VI- Utilities Stipulations
;!-l-H
SECTION VII- Engineering/Water Management Requirements
;;!+7-l
SECTION VIll- Additional Commitments
~.u
SECTION IX- Deviations
2:l
Exhibits: EXHIBIT A Master Development Plan EJlhibit "/." :WA-l
EXHIBIT B-1 Architectural/Grading Plan B-1
EXHIBIT B-2 Landscape Plan and Details B-2
EXHIBIT B-3 Proiect Sign Irrigation and Lighting Plan B-3
EXHIBIT B-4 Irrigation Plan Details and Notes B-4
EXHIBIT B-5 Proiect Sign Area Calculation B-5
EXHIBIT C Proiect Sign Area Calculation C-J
LONGSHORE LAKE P.UD. DOCUMENT
SECTION I
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and
to describe the existing conditions of the property to be developed under the project name
of LONGSHORE LAKE.
1.2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Follows this page.
1.3. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
This property is owned by Longshore Lake Joint Venture, a Florida general partnership,
4500 Executive Drive, Suite 110, Naples, Florida 33999.
1.4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
A. The property is basically the east half of Section 20, Township 48 S, Range 26 E.
It is bounded on the south by Immokalee Road, on the west by Quail Creek
Village, on the north by Quail Creek Country Club Estates, and on the east by the
planned Woodlands PUD.
1-1
DESCRIPTION OF LONGSHORE LAKE PROPERTY
A parcel of land located in Section 20 and Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida; being more particularly described as follows:
Commence at the Southeast corner of Section 20, TO\>'11Ship 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida; said corner being the POINT OF BEGINNING of the following described
parcel; thence run North 01000'25" West along the East line of said Section 20 for a distance of
2,660.17 feet to the East qwrrter corner of said Section 20; lhence North 01000'42" West along
the East line of said Section 20 for a distance of 2,660.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said
Section 20; thence South 89004'09" West along the North line of said Section 20 for a distance
of 2,627.60 feet to the East line of the West 20 feet of the East half of aid Section 20; thence
South 0 1 005' 14" East along the East line of the West 20 feet of the East half of said Section 20
for a distance of 3,293.03 feet; thence 165.93 feet along the arc of a tangential circular curve
having a radius of 605.00 feet, curving to the right, through a central angle of 15042'52"
subtended by a chord ]65.41 feet at a bearing of South 06046'12" West; thence non-tangent
North 88054'46" East for a distance of 62.61 feet to the East line of the West 60 feet of the East
half of said Section 20; thence South 01005' 14" East along the East line of the West 60 feet of
the East half of said Section 20 for a distance of 1,860.00 feet to a point on the South line of said
Section 20; thence North 89008'41" East along the South line of said Section 20 for a distance of
2,580.38 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Also the South 30.00 feet of the Southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida, less and except the West 20.00 feet thereof.
Containing 320.51 acres, more or less.
1-2
B. Zoning Classification of the property is A-2. The primary development objective
is a residential community which will surround a large meandering manmade
lake.
1.5. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Elevations of the property range from 12.1 feet to 13.5 feet above mean sea level. The
site contains no wetlands and has for many years been in agricultural production. There
is no natural vegetation on the property except for scattered pines in a narrow band along
the property edges. Natural drainage is southerly to a canal on the north side of
Immokalee Road which flows westerly to the Cocohatchee River. Water management is
to be the lake detention type. Excess stormwater will be discharged to the lmmokalee
Road Canal via a single control structure.
1.6. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Development of Longshore Lake as a Planned Unit Development will be in compliance
with the planning goals and objectives that Collier County has set forth in the Growth
Management Plan. The project's residential and associated recreational facilities will be
consistent with the growth policies and land development regulations of the Growth
Management Plan Future Land Use Element and other applicable documents for the
following reasons:
1. The subject property lies within the Urban Residential Land Use designation as
identified on the Future Land Use map.
2. The planned development conforrns to the Density Rating System of the Growth
Management Plan Future Land Use Element.
1-3
3. The development will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding
land uses.
4. All improvements will be in substantial compliance with applicable regulations.
5. The PUD Master Development Plan, with its extensive lake area and centrally
located recreational club facility, will insure that the developed project will be an
enjoyable residential neighborhood.
6. Although the project abuts lmmokalee Road, no direct access is planned to that
road and thus the impact of the project generated traffic on lmmokalee Road will
be minimized.
7. The project will be served by a complete range of services and facilities.
1-4
SECTION II
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
2.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth basic development regulations and to generally
describe the project development plan.
2.2. GENERAL
A. Development of this project shall be governed by the contents of this document
and applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code.
B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the
definitions set forth in Division 6.3 of the Collier County Land Development
Code.
2.3. PROJECT PLAN
A. The project development plan is graphically indicated by Exhibit "A," the PUD
Master Development Plan. The plan indicates single family lots, a single-family
cluster tract, streets, a recreational club site, a lake, and an entry gate facility.
B. In addition to the plan elements shown on the PUD Master Development Plan,
such easements and rights-of-way shall be established within or adjacent the
project site as may be necessary or desirable for the service, function, or
convenience of the project.
2.4. MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY
No more than a maximum of 566 single family dwelling units shall be constructed in the
320.51 acre total project area. If all 566 dwelling units are constructed, gross project
density will be approximately 1.77 units per acre.
2-1
2.5. PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
Prior to development of all or any portion of the recreational club site and the single-
family cluster site, detailed development plans shall be submitted to and approved via the
Collier County Land Development Code Division 3.3 Site Development Plan Approval
process.
2.6. RECORD PLA T APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
Prior to recording of the record plat, final plans of the required improvements shall
receive the approval of the Development Services Director and appropriate other Collier
County Departments and Officials to insure compliance with the project PUD document,
the PUD Master Development Plan, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the
Collier County Land Development Code Article 3 Development Requirements, and
platting laws of the State of Florida.
2.7. MODIFICATIONS TO COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
The following Collier County Land Development Code Development Requirements shall
be waived or modified:
A. Section 3.2.8.3.17: SidewalkJbike paths shall be required as shown on the
approved PUD Master Development Plan.
E. Section 3.2.8.4.16.5: The project's private streets shall meet local street standards
except that the divided entry/exit way surrounding the security gatehouse shall be
approved by the Development Services Director and except that, if approved by
the Development Services Director, the cul-de-sac streets along which there is no
jogging/bicycle path may have 50 foot rights-of-way and two ten foot travel
Beams lanes.
2-2
C. Section 3.2.8.4.16.6: The 1,000 foot length dead end street maximum shall be
waived. Dead end street lengths shall be as shown on the approved PUD Master
Development Plan.
D. Seetion 3.2.8.1.16.8: The curb radius standard shall be waived except at the
intersection of the project entrance drive with Valewood Drive. Curb radii shall
be as approved by the Development Services Director.
E. Section 3.2.8.4.16.9: The requirement that curved streets have a mInImum
tangent at intersections shall be waived and shall be as approved by the
Development Services Director.
F. Seetion 3.2.8.1.16.10: The requirement for tangents between street curves may be
reduced, subject to approval by the Development Services Director.
2.8. STREETS TO BE PRIVATE
All platted project streets shall be private.
2.9. IMPACT FEES
The Longshore Lake project shall be subject to all lawfully adopted impact fees
applicable to it at the time of project approval. In the event future impact fees are
adopted to assist with school, fire, or other public service financing, such fees shall be
applicable to the Longshore Lake project in accord with the terms of the adopted impact
fee ordinances.
2-3
SECTION 11l
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
3.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development regulations applicable to the
LONGSHORE LAKE project.
3.2. USES PERMITTED
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land use, in
whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Single family detached dwellings in the areas indicated on the PUD
Master Development Plan as individual lots.
2. Single family dwellings in the area indicated on the PUD Master
Development Plan as "Single-Family Cluster."
B. Accessory Uses:
1. Accessory uses and structures customary in single family residential
projects, including a clubhouse and recreational facilities on the club site,
and a security gatehouse.
2. Project sales and administrative offices, which may occur in a residential
or recreation building.
3. Model dwellings in the single family areas, during the period of project
development and sales. Model dwellings shall be converted to permanent
residences at the end of a two year period unless otherwise specifically
approved by the county.
1:.1
4. Signs as permitted by the Collier County Land Development Code at the
time Permits are requested inclHdinl': an off site ]'lrernise sil':n for Saturnia
Falls (aka! Terafina PUD) or in the altcrnate to allow thc off site ]'lrernise
siiCn to be Hsed for LOHiCshorc Lakc in thc c','cHt the lease is terminated
bet\veeH LOHiCshore Lake and Satrnnia Falls. See also Exhibit "B" and
~ .. . including an off-site premises sign for the Terafina Planned Unit
Development. In the event the lease dated August 30. 2007. between
Longshore Lake Foundation. Inc.. and GL Homes of Naples Associates II.
Ltd.. as it may be amended or superseded. terminates and is no longer in
effect. then the off-site premises sign for Terafina shall be permitted to
convert to an on-site premises sign for Longshore Lake PUD. The
permissible conversion shall be limited to modifYing the sign face of the
sign from Saturnia Falls to Longshore Lake. See also Exhibits "B-1 ", "B-
2", "B-3~'" "B-4". "B-5" and "C."
5. At the option of the County Supervisor of Elections, any community
recreation building within the project may be utilized as a polling place
during general or special elections.
6. Material which is excavated during construction of the 88.3 acre lake
which exceeds in amount the material required for development of the
upland portion of the project may be removed from the project ill
accordance with SectioH 3.5 of the bDG. Land Development Code.
3-3
7. Maintenance buildings presently located in the southeast corner of the
PUD on Tract B of the subdivision plat, Plat Book 32. Page 33, Sheet 2 of
2. are a permitted accessorv use to provide maintenance of the residential
areas in the Longshore Lake PUD. The existing or replacement structures
of a similar size and location shall be deemed consistent with all other
provisions of this ordinance.
3.3. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
A maximun1 of 566 dwelling units may be constructed in this 320.51 acre project.
3.4. MINIMUM LOT AREA
A.
Single family lots:
10,000 square feet in Longshore Lake Units], 2, 3, and 4
7.700 square feet in Unit 5
B. 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit in the single-family cluster tract
3.5. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
A. 80 feet in Units 1,2,3 and 4
B. 55 feet in Unit 5
C. 50 feet in the single-family cluster tract
NOTE: In the case of pie-shaped and other non-rectangular lots, lot width shall be
determined by averaging the lot width at the front and rear setback lines.
3.6. MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL YARD REQUIREMENTS
A. Single family detached residence, Units 1 through 5
Front Yard: 25 feet
Side Yard:
10 feet in Longshore Lake Units I, 2, 3 and 4
7 feet in Unit 5
Rear Yard:
30 feet (20 feet for pool enclosures)
3-4
B. Single-family cluster tract, platted phase one: as approved by the Site
Development Plan
C. Single-family cluster tract, area south of platted phase one:
Interior lots:
Front Yard: 20 feet
Side Yard: 5 feet
Rear Yard: 25 feet (7.5 feet for pool enclosure)
Corner lots:
The yard abutting the shorter segment of street shall be a front yard, the opposite
yard shall be a rear yard. The yard abutting the longer segment of street shall be a
minimum of 10 feet, the opposite yard shall be a side yard. For corner lots which
abut Longshore Way West, the setback from the Longshore Way West right-of-
way shall be 15 feet, the easterly 10 feet of which shall be a lO-foot landscape
easement, dedicated to the property owners' association.
Note: In the event sidewalks are developed along some or all streets, minimum
separation between sidewalk and garage door opening shall be 25 feet.
D. Recreational club complex
Principal Structures:
Front Yard: 50 feet
Side Yard: 25 feet
Waterfront: 25 feet.
3-5
Accessory Structures:
Front Yard: 25 feet
Side Yard: 15 feet
Waterfront: None
3.7. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA
A. ] ,800 square feet in Units 1, 2, 3 and 4
B. 1,600 square feet in Unit 5
C. 1,400 square feet in the single-family cluster tract
3.8. MAXIMUM HEIGHT
Two stories
3.9. OFFSTREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
As required by the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time permits
are requested.
3.10. CLUSTER HOUSING TRACT
In the event a cluster housing project with a common architectural theme is proposed for
all or any portion of the single-family cluster site, the Development Services Director
may permit variations from the prcviously listed residential development regulations via
the Site Development Plan approval process. Prior to approval of cluster housing site
development plans, lhe Development Services Director shall ensure that the plans are
appropriate for and compatible with the surrounding area, and that the basic intent of the
PUD standards are complicd with.
3-6
3.11. SPECIAL BUFFER REOUIREMENTS
Site development plans for the single-family cluster tract shall indicate a dense planting
screen, wall or other buffer along the tract's west and south boundaries. Buffer
installation shall occur at the time of or prior to construction of the dwelling units
planned to occur nearest the west and south boundaries of the single-family cluster tract.
3.12. SPECIAL SIDEWALKlBIKEPATH REOUIREMENTS
A sidewalk/bike path will be constructed from the Longshore Lake loop road along the
entry drive, then along the east side of Valewood Drive to the east/west road in the Quail
II Plaza commercial tract. Installation of this sidewalk shall occur at the time
improvements are made to Phase II of the Quail Plaza subdivision plat.
3-7
SECTION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the requirements established by the
Enviromnental Advisory Board.
4.2. SITE CLEARING
Petitioner shall be subject to the Collier County Land Development Code {for the
tree/vegetation removal ordinance in existence at the time of permitting}, requiring the
acquisition of a tree removal permit prior to any land clearing. A site clearing plan shall
be submitted to the Development Services Director for review and approval prior to any
work on the site. This plan may be submitted in phases to coincide with the development
schedule. The site clearing plan shall clearly depict how the final site layout incorporates
retained native vegetation to the maximum extent possible and how roads, buildings,
lakes, parking lots, and other facilities have been oriented to accommodate this goal.
4.3. NATIVE PLANT SPECIES UTILIZATION
Native species shall be utilized, where available, to the maximum extent possible in the
site landscaping design. A landscaping plan will be submitted to the Development
Services Director for review and approval. This plan will depict the incorporation of
native species and their mix with other species, if any. The goal of site landscaping shall
be the re-creation of native vegetation and habitat characteristics lost from the site during
construction or due to past activities.
4-1
4.4. EXOTIC PLANT REMOVAL
All exotic plants, as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code, shall be
removed during each phase of construction from development areas, open space areas,
and preserve areas. Following site development, a maintenance program shall be
implemented to prevent reinvasion of the site by such exotic species. This plan, which
will describe control techniques and inspection intervals, shall be filed with and subject to
approval by the Development Services Director.
4.5. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES
If, during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other constructional activities, an
archaeological or historical site, artifact, or other indicator is discovered, all development
at that location shall be immediately stopped and the Development Services Director
notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable the
Development Services Director or a designated consultant to assess the find and
determine the proper course of action in regard to its salvageability. The Development
Services Director will respond to any such notification in a timely and efficient manner
so as to provide only a minimal interruption to any constructional activities.
4.6. AQUATIC WEED CONTROL
The petitioner will design and conduct a program to reduce or prevent the growth of
"weed species" (e.g., such as cattail [Typha latifolia], hydrilla [Hydrilla verticillataJ, etc.)
in the littoral shelf zone of the lake to be constructed within the project. Details of the
program will be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services
Director. Petitioner shall consider vegetating at least portions of the littoral zone with
4-2
native species of aquatic plants (the Development Services Director would be pleased to
provide pertinent information and/or suggested species).
4.7. LAKE SIDE SLOPES
Littoral zones along lake margins should be at a side slope ratio of no less than 4: lout to
a depth of three feet from mean low water levels.
4.8. WATER OUALITY MONITORING
A water quality monitoring program shall be designed and conducted by the petitioner,
subj ect to review and approval by the Development Services Director. The appropriate
Federal Environmental Protection Agency water quality standards shall form the basis of
the monitoring parameters. Details of the monitoring program shall be mutually agreed
upon by the petitioner and the Development Services Director prior to commencement of
the site development. Details of the agreed monitoring program are hereby incorporated
by reference in this PUD document. The monitoring program shall include:
1. Surface water in the lakc and other retention areas.
2. Groundwater monitoring of selected locations.
3. Lake sediment monitoring.
4. A sampling frequency adequate to allow assessment of pollution.
Periodic water quality sampling shall occur as required by the approved monitoring
program until enactment of a county well field protection ordinance, at which time the
water quality monitoring requirements set forth by this PUD document shall be
terminated.
4-3
SECTION V
TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS
5.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the traffic improvement requirements which the
project developer must undertake as an integral part of the project development.
5.2. STIPULATIONS
1. The security gate at the main entrance shall be designed and located so as not to
cause entering traffic to back up onto Valewood Drive. A separate north bound right turn
lane shall be provided on Valewood Drive.
2. At the time that the intersection of CR 846 and Valewood Drive meets the
warranted requirements for a signal system, the developer shall, at his option,
design/install a traffic signal acceptable to the county and state, if CR 846 is a state road
at the time of meeting the signal warrants, or make payment to the county upon receipt of
invoice the amount of $27,500 (55% of the estimated signal cost of $50,000) which
would allow the county to proceed with signal design and installation. Alternatively, if at
the time the traffic signal is warranted, there is an applicable county ordinance which
determines the fair share contribution toward the cost of the signal, the ordinance
requirements may be met in lieu of the above noted options. The developer's obligation
toward traffic signal improvement will be considered an improvement subiect to
subdivision security.
1, If approved by the Longshore Lake Homeowner's Association. either direct or
emergency access shall be provided from the Longshore Lake PUD to the Logan Blvd.
Ex!. at the time that Logan Blvd. roadway improvements are accepted by the County as a
public roadway. This determination will be left UP to the Longshore Lake Homeowner's
Association as to the type of access to be provided.
il
SECTION VI
UTILITIES STIPULATIONS
6.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the utilities stipulations which must be
accommodated by the project developer.
6.2. STIPULA TIONS
The January 26, 1987 memorandum from John F. Madajewski, Utilities Engineering
Director to Ann McKim, Planning Department re: Petition R-87-2C, Longshore Lake
PUD, sets forth Utilities Department Stipulations, which are agreed to by the Longshore
Lake applicant. The January 26,1987 memorandum follows this page and its stipulations
are made an integral part of this PlJD.
6-1
SECTION VII
ENGINEERING/WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
7.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set forth the requirements established by the
Environmental Advisory Board, which requirements shall be accommodated by the
project developer.
7.2. REQUIREMENTS
1. Detailed site drainage plans shall be submitted to Project Plan Review for review.
No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed
construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Plan
Review.
2. Construction of all water management facilities shall be subject to compliance
with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code.
3. An excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake in accordance with
Division 3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
4. The existing canal crossing south of the project may be utilized as a construction
traffic access point during project buildout. Upon completion of project
development, the project developer shall remove the existing canal crossing.
5. This project is recommended for approval for rezone purposes only. A
Preliminary Subdivision Plat shall be submitted which complies with all of the
applicable design standards of Division 3.2. of the Collier County Unified Land
Development Code (ULDC) unless, in accordance with the ULDC, specific
exceptions to the design standards are requested and supported by sound
7-1
engineering reasoning during its approval process. Approval of this rezone does
not constitute an approval to any subdivision design standards which are not
specifically cited by the approved PUD document or the approved Master
Development Plan. The zoning petition Master Plan submitted shall not be
considered to suffice for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat required pursuant to the
Collier County Unified Land Development Code.
6. This project shall be required to meet all applicable County ordinances in effect at
the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval.
7-2
SECTION VIII
LONGSHORE LAKE JOINT VENTURE (DEVELOPER) COMMITMENTS
TO THE LONGSHORE LAKE FOUNDATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AND THE LONGSHORE LAKE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
1. The Longshore Lake developer has entered into an agreement with the Longshore Lake
Foundation Advisory Committee and the Longshore Lake Residents Association that the
83 lots in Longshore Lake Unit 5 will be sequentially platted from the northwesterly
portion of the Unit to the northeasterly portion of the Unit. Further commitment has been
made that, prior to platting of the last 22 lots, a majority vote of the combined Foundation
Advisory Committee and Board of Directors of the Residents Association shall be
obtained. In the event that the vote results in majority disapproval, the last 22 lots
planned for Unit 5 will be platted as 10,000 square foot minimum area lots, with the
number of lots to be reduced as required by the increase in lot size.
2. Commitment has been made by the developer that the owner of the southernmost existing
residence in Longshore Lake Unit 3, which is the nearest existing residence to Unit 5,
may participate in the development organization's review and approval of the landscape
plan for the first five dwelling units constructed in Longshore Lake Unit 5.
8-1
SECTION IX
DEVIATIONS
For an Off-Site Premises Sie:n:
1. Deviation # 1 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04 C.16.a. of the Land Development Code
(LDC), which requires placement of signs in non-residentially zoned areas. to allow an off-site
premises sign as depicted in Exhibits "B-1", "B-2", "B-3", "B-4" and "B-5" of this PUD, in the
residentially zoned property known as the Terafina PUD, located in Section 16. Township 48
South, Range 26 East.
2. Deviation # 2 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04 C.16.b.i. of the LDC, which requires a
maximum total area of 12 square feet for a sign, to allow UP to 53 square feet of sign area, as
depicted in Exhibits "B-1 ", "B-2". "B-3", "B-4" and "B-5".
3. Deviation # 3 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04 C.16.b.i.i. of the LDC, which requires the
maximum height of a sign to be eight feet above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadwav,
to allow the height of the off-premises sign as depicted in Exhibits "B-1 ", "B-2", "B-3", "B-4"
and "B-5" to be constructed in excess of this requirement. The arterial roadway has an elevation
of", 17.5 feet and the grade of the existing mound upon which the sign will be placed is", 18.5
feet. The height of the proposed sign from the base of the sign to the top of the sign is 8.6 feet.
This deviation is to allow the sign at a maximum elevation 27.0 feet. which is 9.5 feet above the
existing arterial roadway grade of 17.5 feet. This results in a deviation of 1.5 feet above the
allowable elevation: (17.5 feet + 8.0 feet allowable height = 25.5 feet allowable height - (less)
27.0 feet proposed height resulting in a deviation of 1.5 feet).
4. Deviation # 4 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04 C.16.b.v. of the LDC, which requires the off-
site premises sign to be located within 1,000 feet of the intersection of the arterial roadway
serving the proposed use. The Terafina PUD is located approximately one mile from Immokalee
Road, the arterial roadway that would serve Terafina's uses, and the proposed location for the
sign. This distance between Terafina and the arterial roadway creates the need for the sign
location.
5. Deviation # 5 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04 C.16.c. of the LDC. which requires the off-
site premises sign to be located at least 50 feet from a residentially zoned district. The subiect
property for the off-premises directional sign is residentially zoned, Longshore Lake PUD.
For an On-Premises Sie:n:
6. Deviation # 6 seeks relieffrom Section 5.06.02A.7. of the LDC. which requires the maximum
height of a sign to be eight feet above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway, to allow
on-premise sign to exceed the eight foot height limitation. as described in Deviation No.3 above.
9-1
.-. -
-
~
r
~
.
"
1.
.h
"H
:.
~t
-..
~...
:v
.........
(t}
%
~
~ -'
..
~ ..
%
~ w !:l
. "
0
~ -'
!:!
"Q(J -<( ..
"
g --' :!
..
..
~ ~
g
.:
~
I-
ID
:r:
X
w
"
..
"
0
-' ..
!:! "
.. l!
E!
'" !:!
..
i ~
I ","
I.. . d ~!ta
. "zw
~ ') .~~~
u
~ ...
~ z z
Vi~' !:!"W
d. z .,
~"s.:. !!;.::\g
~ -=i ~.Jcn
.~ ~ Q"
.. .",31-<
.. . .
_ ." '.It.u''
. <(Ii-
'" ~o..
.. ur= . ""fit'"
, ~oa ....!;;
~o(~
.. .tEE Z4
. :H .~.,..,
.
. J:~'"
" (;i~ 0-0
.. ...,,$%
'tol 059 "" 286
!
!
i
~ !
'l:""lI~ I
Ze" I
~"'~ I
~!:l!!l I
" r '
"'lI!!!~ :
>~~ I
z~:///"
If:' ,.-
, Ii
fu-~-r
lin 'i'
:i i i r.
Ht
"I'
11'1 i
" ,
'iii
II" !,!
'I' "G
jii ': , !/! \
: \\" , /?~/ :il
I \ "r'-, //,1 ~
~ T~~::=::::::(' ~
IZ \:l
'm ::!
J,
"(D
!
~
{
N
~
~
i
r
~
,""e,"" ../"
:;S<ri:;S/// /
/"
,//
,Po
>"
r-<
3'
-<"
,>
,0
.>
r
!
~
!
\
,
\
\
\
"
"
"
,
~,,,,,,-{,
",",,,!:!-l '\
g~g~'" "
:~:~ ",
o"c- "
-.[:':\....~ .
'\ 'il_o'il..
'-" ~q~~
~"~~
, 't:o
~~'"
"
;Jl
o
"
o
en
m
"
Ul
J;)
Z
~""""~...
..
,
,
~~-
"
z
~
()
l>
Z
l>
r
()
-<0
"r
;Jl"
mm
en
Ul
q
;Jl
o
l>
"
SEe ION LINE
F TURE LOQ N BLVD. EXTENSION
()
d.
r
Co
\
\ !
,,'_<.' r
, 7'_"- 1
___c---- -,
,
, ,
,
,
_ .'r
!~
~
I
r:~---~
I" '" I
'~/ I
" ,
~' -'~r
,n
,
,
,
,J ~
1
._1
~~.
o
.
<0 ~~8....~~ 5
'" ). c
~g~~~~~i
"'''';0 lflTlO). III
U~'~ll ~
H~h h
~~ir.;' !.
~~~ i~ i
ill '" ~.
~
,
."-~'!."O
~ - . '!'
..;.. ~ It 3
~~liQ3J~
~~F!!~!
no ~~ .
I. .
I.
n
"~
.~
f~
~
~
ii
~~
~i
;~
, 0
!
"
,
~
~
@
MAIN
.. .. n .
Cfl
;:r
.....
~
&
---
GJ .
~ ~
.~
~
::i
CL ~i , n - ,
n ~ ; ~
== ~ !i-~
< ~m
~;;l r ~~ ~U
ro , ~
~ ~~ 0
. ~~
>-;j ~- , ii
- ~; 2 ~ ~~ '~ .
CJ ~ ~~ ~
::;
:::r. z~ i ~ ~~
== ~~ 0 ~~ ~p
0 ~ C~
.~ ~ "
~ .
rn ;;l ~~
~.
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1-4
10
I"
'0
h
I",
I"
Iz
17'
I,
1-
,Z
,m
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
'\
'\
'\
'\
"
fI---OO
0... ....-....:' ~ ------, ...:'''-........
\j' ---- , .
/ /;>/- -'<:::~~':-:-::0"
I' I I -~~, "...
: f ! -... ','I
II I I
II I I \ \ \
I I I \ \
I I \ \
: : \ \.
I I I \
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
:
, , ,
, , ,
, ' ,
" ,
" ,
, ' ,
1-1 \"\'''':~'''-''
I~ '-,'.... '......."---
,(', ',--------
I~ '.
iiti
W
PJ
S
n
..
"
1J
\J
"
'"
o
"
o
u>
m
CJ
'"
:c
-4
OJ
m
'"
::<
.....,
.....
r:o
G
......,
y
"-'
::i
---c
~,
~
q
~~~~'~~.~ ~~ '.
~ ~~:~~~~ ~~ ~,
;;~~~1~;~n ~~ ~S
.~ .~ P~g~ ~~ ~~
2~~~~ ~~~Iii~ ~m ~~
~~Co, ~ ~~~" ~~ <~
~~~~m~~~m ~~ ~~
~~.:;~ Ii ~~ ~~ 2
~~~~H~ i~ !~ ~
bltil'i!@:E 1;'\0
~~. e ~ d~
~' ~~
~.
.....
(C
no
. 0
'V O() 13-
~;., .
~!!r
~~ ~~~ ~ ~ q~
~~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~~p~~~.
d~ ~,,~ q ~ ~~
i'~ ~~,; ~ .. W!
;:;~ d c~ ~ ~ ~ rn
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~l'l z~;z: ~ ~ lfi
'!{: !r2 t!l?'- ~
!:l Jl:I- ~ ~ ~
S . ~ ~ ~
~ m
C'
8-
v:
o
G
~
p;
~.
~
.
c
o
""V
-
'"
~
:::r.
-
~
..,
>::;
.,~,
"
.:y.;
~
'--'
CD
---c
S,)
I:
cJ~
.
~~
2~
.~
",
.~
"-
~ .
~~
Co
~
g
~
@200.. G.L. "'~m__. No "'..... _ .......... ''''..__. p'.m". .,,, "_.'..~a m_y boo r_p""du_d ..._ Q..pl.... i... Omy km.... _........<>..~... _"h<>~' 'n.. _~ph."_ _,......... ",.,..........., "'< a L ............
om -moo .-, C",,'Id"O,,~ti"OS.O.g.~.o,", OLHOMES
.~ 'I . .. I
I i ri ~ . .1 Saturnla Falls
[ Iii I ~ ! II it If It ~ ~bYGLl:t"m";:- LA~~~E~~~:l~RE
.. it ~: Colli..... County. "1....1_ .......""-,lDI'OC><.....
EXHIBIT B-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1-1
10
1-0
10
I."
IOJ
I}>
Iz
17'<
I,
1-
,z
ITn
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I I
I I
I I
I '
I '
r I
1 I
I I
j 1 I. __--
i'D- Gc -PWilll o:ii~~lrl.i~~i;m-~lli~~-. P' ~..,.o. ~.. .. '-P';:"i:~~i'~i~;~~~~'P...' ."Po., .p. ....... ."P.- .P
~ ! ~ "II! H gr f f b~~O~;
: 'I ll. Collier County, F~rlda
. EXHIBIT B-3
n
31~1
CD
~
r
!!'
vlAIN
z
:,
U>
.
~"
~~
I"~
zm
;Gl-<
" '
~"
.J>
8Z
.m
nm;Wi
j~mJH!f
Ir~l.t;Jf
,nahJt
Il-~,n
i ~l fIr
I ~ i [
~
IlH!iI!
I! I f!P
."
r...
:est
:Ii:!z
%Uln
n'"
"m:e
;!i:!i!:
"''''of
or",
cOm
~g;g
Zi:;..
'","0
In:!i~
Ul
,.
~
p
o
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
'.
00,
-.... ...."',
, ,
o , ,
"....., "~Po '0", (;)
'.... ............ ........--
........ ............ ........
"0 0- '.
............ ..........-..
--- ",,-
..... ',\
, \ \
\ \ \
\ \
\
,
,
,
/
/' /....-
, /
, '
I' 1,1 ///
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, '
/ /
/ /
I 1
I ,
I ,
I I
I I
I I
, I
,~, rlc,
l'r"
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
~I~ i
}>, I
\'I, I
~I \ \ \
- \ \ \
2. \ \ \
tn, \ \ \
, , ,
" " ".....
, ' ,
" "... .........-....
, ,
............... ........-
"
."
Tn
Z
\'I
Tn
'\,
~\1
>c
~8
~~
t.
.~
""
-------
'"
IJ1
:r:
-1
OJ
Tn
;U
::I
SEe UDW-HNE
--- .-~--
GLI-OMES
LA~DS(APE ARCHITEcruRE
'-"i::~~'=-"""'"
3,31413 P
~~~~Q
~:;!ec:l-
~~~;;;~
e~l~i
~S ss'"
~~~n
8?;~~
4l!!,," F'
~~~!~
~~g~~
~~SP-
~"~.~
~~Z~~
~~f;lz~
;'lic""~:::I
",~....CJt
~~~~~
>l~*>-i1
Sl':z~:a~
~~~!!!
2;$i~cl~
ilgl~~~
c~I-""~
"""V'I(l"'='
~~~~~
~S~,,~
il:!~Z'"
Pne"p
1ii.!i~2~
" ",~Q~
p~~
.
~~
~
"
-
..,
..,
c8"
~
g.
::;
..,
@ 0 Rll ..,
oS'
~ @ 0 """'.- ~
@) 4) ""-' ~
@ e CllJARlER ~
C
~ .~~ii ~ ~ ~ ;I ~
" ~ " <P (:,
a ~ a ~ ::0
~ ' " ~ 0 1Il ~ Ie Q..
li~i~ '" m
" ~
'! Ie ill l>
m Ig
m 'b~~~ l> ~ i
r
m 8~ ~~ 0
~ <P '"
" m" ~ ~
2 ; ~
~ Ii ~
~ ,
m ~ ~
.~ ~ ill
ffi " !;
~ "
"
0 ~
"
m m
~ :S
F
~ r
~
z
0
~
m
~
"" II!H -
..,
..,
, I-=~ ft ~.
~ Q'Q
'"
i I ~
~,
0
~ ~~~ ~I ::;
0
" ro
~ ~ ~
e:.
;~. c;:
:!jl~l p.
!:p I
" i ;~, ~ 11
~
'i ~ ~ ; ~
I ~ > ~ 11'
F ~
< .
. . ~ ~
~ ~ Ge €Ie '*"" EX!) @@ G€0
l !p~=mli ~ lllllllmll ~ !iTtf9mlmiJ.lff~f
> 'I II ~ I" '!,1II1111 'I
:111!ij!l- . h~.!I!! II " ~I! !a'" i
l I II
~ ~3 !' > ~ Ija !! 1!11! 11111"11 ill I!
.
.
~~~ ~~F~(;cli F~~!.S~~::g {~~ ~R~
>-i!''''' """" 5 ~F(i> c..,3i! "'~~ aJ> 4""n
~~~ ;;~~ ~ ~~>' ~ ~~g ~2~ ~2~ ;;:,.~
~~2 ~~" e ~~r~ ~~R ~~~ ~~o ~~o
~::! r~" ~. .".1; lie~ .,;~~ ~g~
p~~ .OF ~ ~~> ~ ~!'~ "'", ~~. ~"'~
:i~ ~~. ~ ~8~ ~ ~,~ .i~ ~e~ ""e Z
~ g~:;:!~0245F~~~5: Q>2i~~~fI'l C
= . ~ ~ ~ '" XI ~~ n. li2: ~ a1 t5 41] XI ,... ,
2~~ ~~~I"F~~~14~~~"'~f;; ~d~ ~
~~ ;.l!~ ~ ~.~ ~ "'~~ fl!~~ ~fid ~;\\~
"FIl -<cl'" ;li.">~;::;;':::~4C !l3::>:I ~1l1
~~>' c n ~ ~ 1<~'" . ~~ ~"e "'~'"
F~!:':l i'fi:!.Q 5 ~2:i! c>"'~ _>!SI- Or""""""
sa~ J:;l % z'" "" c:~2 ~:t "''''~ "'?<:~
:~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~':~ ~~ ~i~ ~~2
~~z ~> ~ il~ ~ ffi"'" 1<0 ",e "~~
~tiB p8 s::: 2~ ~ ~fJ~ ~~ ~e~ ~~i
a"~ e1< ~ ~o" ~~l' ;10 ~%~ ~o
~i~ ~~i ;;;~ @~!2 ~~ h" d
.~~ ~~~ o~ ~ ~il ;" 8~~ ~"
~~r-!{!'" \2!{! ~ y>~ i'= ~gf"'> j!':f!
;;:~~ eg~ ~e; ";' ~~ "';;: ~e
Q~n ~Z:1 ;>;:l'll!i! d:2< ~~ :r~,2-6
:f 8 -!i' tllll - XII- >- '" g
"'~Gl ~~ ~ ~.... ~ 2:1Ol 8~ E 2
~i'i~ g.h go ,,~~ ~
:oj >- '" 5g il\~
. ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~4
;z" Iii:
"
.0:;< ~
;::; p; pi
~~ ~n~!O:J ~U ~'f ~e ~ ~~~~e~ ~~ ~~~
2~ ~~<~" ~~i ,,~ i~ ~ t5~~2 XI~ :F;'>;
(j2 ~~~~~ ~ ~l;l.~",m:!! aiS o~~
;;I" :'.I'!i: ~ 1< . ~F~C;:ll iI::::l ~~>-
~ i;\ >cl~~~ ~~9 ~>- (;iiz 2 Ft'JS::~~1!I ~~ z>!~
;;l "'''''....~;;:j ~c:~ J":rill "'='~~4"'J:;l ~!il ~!;;;:
::'J;O::~;!:!;~c> ;]~ S~ ~~ .
~~ ~ ~o ~ ~"..,~~" i~ ~o.
gF 5~ g ~~~ ,~ pe " ~~~ 2!{! ~ ~z~
U ~~;~ ~~~ ~e~. ~ ~8~~F ~~ ~~~
"g . ~~ e
8 ~ ~~~~ ~,,~ ~ 2 ~~~~~m ~~ ;il~~
~ l'll~~rs~~ ~~ ~S3~
~>- ?,d % ~~F ~ i~ 0
~: R~%a .. ~ ~..... ~l"l ':
~2".... 8 z'i ~ ;~~z!2"" "';;I ~~~
~XI ~l;l.~~ il~~ ~ ;~ ~n~~ "'" ~o
21 ~~ &2: i'll_,!: ~ ~. > eMF <!;,,!ti~ ~~~
n ~ ~~ii.~ ~:J;}1 ~ ~~ '" ,..'" ~"tIs:5 ~g "'-c;!=
, ~Q~F~~ \2% ~~~
~o::: ~~~~ i5~!i! 1<<<" 'i
~~ QZ"~ ~~ ~ o~ !1 :e::!:ll",clE ~~ . <t>i;
~f;;~>-1lI::; ~~
~~ .~~11 ~'e ~ g:g . "1.c",Cii~::!1 2~ ",.'"
"'~
." ~~ r ~~i lti ....~ 11 .''''~~~ ~ e0
> ~ ~?i ~ " %Q' 1lI >-~
'" ~",~r: ~~~ > ~ ,g2""f~~ elo s~
2 g ~[;l"'<<:::g...... ~~ ~1lI
i.:l~~~ ~ ~ ~ -<S!!f~ (!;;;l
~ E'~~% ~~- ~~~n~S3 iR ~n .
g "". " 8 1 "'lll~~~~ ~ ~~ .
, 8~~~ ~:...~ ;;: " ~ .
> ~~~~ " 1i:"g-. ""~ g~ 3=1 ~
~ ~~ ,. e'" -g ,"
:;!",.-n ~ !1 ~ ~~~ F~ ~~ >-Y' ~
"".....R4 ~ C " ~~O::!> ~!;!
~ 0>'" ~~
~'2i< ~ -<o~~F s~ i'!l2 ~
~ ~~ . "'~~!3yl ;f-~
p " ~
~ !' ~. ~1ii ,
." ~ (!)@@ e ee
~ lllloPl1
" e ~ .j II rn III
m
. :II! ~II
~ III
I
Corner Identificatlon Signage Plan for
Saturnla Falls
b~Ltp'o~~
C..I..... County, Florida
EXHIBIT B_4
GLHOMES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
...,...........""""""'...-.......-
..-.~....,..,......
7'_0"
f-
1)
m
l>
"
l>
,-
"
c
,-
l>
C)
z
~
J
.
""
. .
L"-o.J
x
;~
."
3~
,
"
>
~
:7::1
-8
~~
"
~
t
~
~
"
~
~
E
~
,
.
E
o~
>0
'p
~1
AGENDA ITEM 9-B
-."~. "Ji.
jl~:?M.'~..
cO~rier County
'E'j;:.~;{e':'::;"~1,':h"",~;;:~'~'''r;;:'~:;',I\':;'!:2;-;:-:;;;:''T';;:'''':/c:.';"~~'':7,,':';
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 20,2008
SUBJECT:
PETITION NO: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Property Owner/Applicant:
William Bates, President
Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc.
11399 Phoenix Way
Naples, FL 34119
Co-Applicant:
N. Maria Menendez, Vice President
GL Homes of Naples II Corporation
1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 300
Sunrise, FL 33323
Agent:
Mr. Robert 1. Duane, AICP
Hole Montes, Inc.
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
REOUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a proposed
amendment to Ordinance Number 93-03 the Longshore Lake Planned Unit Development (PUD) to
allow an off-site premise sign for Saturnia Falls (also know as Terafina PUD) in Longshore Lake
Unit 5C, Tract B; or, in the alternative to allow the off-site premise sign to become an on-site
premise sign for Longshore Lake; to insert Section 3.2.B.4. "Accessory Uses," to reinsert partially
omitted Traffic Requirements: Section 5.2, Stipulations subsection 2; to reinsert omitted Traffic
Requirements: Section 5.2, Stipulations subsections 3 and 4; and to add Section IX "Deviations"
(Exhibit C "List of Deviations).
Longshore Lake PUD, PUDA-2007-AR-11546
September B, 200B
Page 1 of 11
~j~~ ~A ~~~ \:Z[')/ l~- ~
1J=! 'B'R <7::?~J U U I
~ i_ IIf=: ~~/iJ/ ~:FJ ~!7iffiJ'r"\ C;,
g ~ J Uti
6 ~ ~: ~ ..~,=
ITC~J,~'~'~ $~.",'
",c'" '"
[II ~= ~ [/1\. r~
II I H~ ~ - '1.,/ ~~ja E
f-L-.I h i\Y'II1vj 'A I lU I~
g ,1 11\111 V^~'!'</ _ ~
Ii\ 1-1! if- .,(~(fj\ ';' ~!J ' ~
J_\ LI~ J'\ g '<
LJ h! :J, ':: =...n.~
~ ~ Iltill .\-' ~
~\) ~'
lY ~. ~-g{,j~Y) ~.-:) "-~~1
.- (A~ ~'.' c.. ."j '_~.n~\J
]!\J~ g b, f/ _~~Jf~~~) ')
g ~ ~ j~~,~";fTT-j~~~:]
:J rt I~\~...J ( ']Li !Ii:.
,t
t
\.--
~~
~~
I'
U
j-.
.,
l'
>-
c
z
"
0
u
e, ~~
w
-,
1
jP
~ ~
,
li'
~
:z:.
~~!
!
!l
"
~.
1'-
2m~
~,~.
- ~~~
Ii
LMNGSlON Ro.o.o
1..0)
~.~ N''''''''
u
~\
;'.-
~li~6
~
':;'
2
I ~
~
,f::= 1
-I---
r-- I-- ,
l
I
~
I
,
11:1- -
, :f-~' -
\;'''--
l --
1-, -
!
w
r-
Ite: J
;1\QSD.lJ.0I< / ~
-
t
,
N ~ 5
!
I
~
!
S
o"...,,:nnoa ~30""'o L"'...."
j
~ O....fI31r<>O N""'"
j-
~~>
"->.1'J.S~31NL
.>
Ii
~ h-
I'
~
-.
- ,
q
!
-
0'-
- ~ ~
!
~~:;:
.i!j:!"
g:Z~
~r:~
.. ~:<~
l"
. I,
"
~;;
,-
-
Q...
e::(
2:
(9
z
z
o
N
~
'"
"
'"
'"
~
co
<(
~
01
o
N
<(
o
:J
0.'
"
Z
o
f-
~I
D-
c::(
2:
z
o
l-
e::(
o
o
....J
"
~~
~~
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The 320.5H acre Longshore Lake PUD is located approximately one mile east of 1-75 and is
located on the north side of Immokolee Road (CR 846) and west of Olde Cypress Boulevard in
Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
The subject of the proposed sign, Saturnia Falls, also known as Terafina PUD is located
approximately one mile north of the intersection ofImmokalee Road and Olde Cypress Boulevard
in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on
previous page.)
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner is proposing an amendment to Ordinance Number 93-3, the Longshore Lake PUD
instead of adopting a new PUD by Ordinance and repealing that Ordinance. No changes are
proposed to uses, densities or intensities approved in the existing PUD.
The purpose of the amendment to Longshore Lake PUD is to accommodate an off-site premise
sign for the Terafina PUD/Saturnia Falls development in the residential district of the Longshore
Lakes PUD. The off-site sign will be located at the southeast corner of the Longshore Lake PUD,
in the northwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Olde Cypress Boulevard. The
sign may be converted to a future on-site premise sign for Longshore Lakes around the year 2012.
The request for an off-site sign is not supported by a typical variance request. This is because only
a variance from dimensional requirements may be requested. A variance can not be requested
from a land use such as this off-site sign in a residentially zoned district. However, the applicant
has the right to pursue this request for an off-site sign through the PUD amendment process. This
is one of the primary reasons Staff can not support the proposed amendment.
The 636.8,", acre Terafina PUD/Saturnia Falls project is not located directly on Immokalee Road.
It is one mile north of Irnmokalee Road on the east side of Olde Cypress Boulevard and is north of
Olde Cypress PUD/DRI. The Terafina PUD/Saturnia Falls development is approved for 850
dwelling units. Access to the Terafina PUD/Saturnia Falls development will be provided from the
extension of Olde Cypress Boulevard to Bonita Beach Road.
The 320.5H acre Longshore Lake PUD was originally approved in 1987 with the adoption of
Ordinance Number 87-54. This ordinance was first amended in 1990 with the adoption of
Ordinance Number 90-93. On January 12, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance Number 93-03 that repealed Ordinance Number 87-54. The Longshore Lake PUD is
approaching project build-out for the approved 566 single-family dwelling units.
The proposed off-site sign will be double-sided and will have approximately 62 square feet of sign
copy. The sign will be attached to walls that form a v-shaped structure and each wall will be
approximately 270-square feet in area. The sign copy exceeds the maximum code area of 12
square feet by 50 square feet or 416 percent. The l2.5-foot height of the sign exceeds maximum
code height of 8 feet by 4.5 feet or 64 percent.
Longshore Lake PUD, PUDA-2007-AR-11546
Seplember 8, 2008
Page 4 of 11
The petitioner is now proposing an amendment to Ordinance Number 93-03, the Longshore Lake
PUD instead of adopting a new PUD by Ordinance and repealing this Ordinance. The amending
Ordinance proposes the following changes:
. Section 3.2.B.4.: The applicant is requesting added language to allow an off-site sign for
Saturnia Falls (aka Terafina PUD). The applicant has also requested that in the event the lease for
the off-premise sign is terminated between Longshore Lakes and Saturnia Falls/Terafina PUD, the
sign may become an on-site premise sign for Longshore Lake.
. Traffic Requirements Section 5.2. Stipulations subsection 2, 3, and 4: The applicant seeks
to reinsert transportation stipulations that were adopted but inadvertently left out of the last
adopted version of this PUD.
. Section IX "List of Deviations:" The applicant is seeking seven deviations from the
requirement of Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5.06.00. Signs. The
analysis of the requested deviations is provided in the "Deviation Discussion" section of this Staff
Report.
. Exhibits: The following Exhibits depicting the proposed off-site premises sign and related
landscaping and irrigation are proposed to be added to the Longshore Lake PUD: Exhibit B-1
"Corner Identification Signage Plan," Exhibit B-2 "Landscape Plan and Details," Exhibit B-3
"Project Sign Irrigation Plan," and Exhibit B-4 "Irrigation Details and Notes."
No increases in intensity or density are proposed and no changes are proposed to the Master Plan.
This petition is incorporating a strike through and underline format to address the specific changes
proposed only. It has been determined that this type of PUD amendment does not "open" the
entire PUD to additional scrutiny.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Quail Creek, a residential golf course community zoned RSF-2 and GC
East: Olde Cypress PUD/DRI, a residential golf course community, zoned PUD/DRI
South: Immokalee Road, a six-lane divided roadway then, Estates zoning
West: Quail II PUD, commercial development. then Valewood Drive and then a developed golf
course, zoned PUD
Longshore lake PUD, PUDA-2007-AR-11546
September 8, 2008
Page 5 of 11
SUBJECT
SIGN
AERIAL OF PROJECT SITE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject properties are located within the Urban
Residential Sub-district of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP. The GMP does not
address signs, it focuses on the greater issue of actual land use.
ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a
favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Section 10.03.05 1.
and Section 1O.02.13.B.5 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and require staff evaluation and
comment. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the Board of Collier County
Commissioners (BCC) also used these criteria as the basis for their recommendation. Appropriate
evaluation of petitions for amendments to PUD's should establish a factual basis for supportive
action by appointed and elected decision-makers. Each of the potential impacts or considerations
identified during the staff review are listed under each of the criterion noted and are summarized
by staff, culminating in a determination of compliance, non-compliance, or compliance with
mitigation. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff
report (See Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B").
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed this project and is
recommending approval of this amendment subject to the stipulation that the applicant reinsert the
Traffic Stipulations that were inadvertently left out of the previously adopted Ordinance Number
93-03. The applicant has included the stipulations in the Section V "Traffic Requirements"
subsection 5.2 "Stipulations" 2,3 and 4 of the Ordinance.
Zoning Review: The proposed amendment to Section 3 "Development Regulations" subsection
3.2. B.4. "Accessory Uses," Section V "Traffic Requirements" subsection 5.2 "Stipulations" 2, 3
and 4 and the addition of Section IX "List of Deviations" will not change the currently approved
Longshore Lake PUD, PUDA-2007-AR-11546
September 8. 2008
Page 6 01 11
permitted uses and intensity. The change primarily addresses the proposal for an off-site sign and
the reinsertion of transportation stipulations that were inadvertently left out of the previous
ordinance.
Deviation Discussion:
The petitioner is seeking seven deviations from LDC requirements and has provided justification
in support of the deviation requests. The deviations are found in Section IX "List of Deviations"
of the amended PUD Ordinance. Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and provides the
analyses and recommendations below:
The first requested "deviation" is not a deviation per LDC Subsection 10.02.13 A.2.v. It is an
amendment to the Longshore Lake PUD. The applicant seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.06.04
C.16.a. which requires that "Off-premises directional signs shall only be permitted in
nonresidentially zoned, or agricultural districts." The alternative proposal would allow an off-site
sign for a residential land use where none is currently allowed.
Petitioner's Rationale: This request is justified in order allow an off-site sign for Terafina PUD
within the residentially zoned Longshore Lake PUD. (See Exhibit Section IX "List of
Deviations").
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends
denial. LDC Section 5.06.01 sets forth the general purpose why there are sign standards in Collier
County citing:
Increased numbers and sizes of signs. as well as certain types of lighting distract the attention of
motorists and pedestrians, and interfere with traffic safety. The indiscriminate erection of signs
degrades the aesthetic attractiveness of the natural and manmade attributes of the community
and thereby undermines the economic value of tourism, visitation and permanent economic
growth.
Staff is of the opinion that the applicant (Terrafina PUD/Saturnia Falls) has not provided sufficient
justification to allow the proposed sign in the residential district of the Longshore Lake PUD based
upon the petitioners' own decision to develop a property with residential uses further from the
intersection of Olde Cypress Boulevard and lmmokalee Road. That rationale provided could be
used for every residential development that does not front an arterial roadway, which would result
in a proliferation of signs.
Deviation # 1 (applicant deviation # 2) seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.b.i. which
requires that: "Each [off-premise] sign is not more than 12 square feet in area." The alternative
proposal would allow each sign to be 62.4 square feet.
Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is justified because the size limitation of 12 square feet
would not be visible to the public traveling on Immokalee Road. Visibility is further diminished
by the 100-foot wide Immokalee Road canal which is located between Immokalee Road and the
proposed sign location. (See Exhibit "B-1" "Corner Identification Signage Plan.")
Longshore lake PUD, PUDA-2007-AR~11546
Seplember 8, 2008
Page7of11
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review Staff recommends
denial. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has not provided adequate justification to support
the requested deviation allowing the proposed sign to exceeds the maximum allowable size by 156
percent. Furthermore, the proposed sign is located on a wall that is 270 square feet in area.
Granting the requested deviation would confer upon the applicant special privilege that would be
denied to other property owners in the residential district.
As previously stated, the request for an off-site sign is not supported by a typical variance request.
This is because a variance from dimensional requirements only may be requested. A variance can
not be requested from a land use such as this off-site sign in a residentially zoned district.
However, the applicant has the right to pursue this request for an off-site sign through the PUD
amendment process. This is one of the primary reasons Staff can not support the proposed
amendment.
Deviation # 2 (applicant deviation #3) seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.b.i. which
requires that: "The sign is not more than eight feet in height above the lowest center grade of the
arterial roadway."" The alternative proposal would allow a 9-foot high sign that is located on a 4-
foot high berm, or a sign that is 12.5 feet above the adjacent arterial roadway.
Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner has requested this to allow the off-premise sign as depicted
in Exhibits "B-l~', "B-2", "B-3" and "B-4."
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review Staff recommends
denial. The applicant has not provided adequate justification for staff to support the requested
deviation allowing a sign that exceeds the maximum allowable height by 64 percent. Granting the
requested deviation would confer upon the applicant a special privilege that would be denied to
other property owners in the residential district.
Deviation # 3 (applicant deviation # 4) seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.b.v. which
requires that: "The sign shall only be located within 1,000 feet of the intersection of the arterial
roadway serving the building, structure, or use."
Petitioner's Rationale' The Terafina PUD/Saturnia Falls is located approximately one mile from
Immokalee Road, the arterial roadway that would serve the Terafina PUD/Saturnia Falls uses, and
the proposed location for the sign. This distance between Terafina PUD/Saturnia Falls and the
arterial roadway creates the need for the sign location.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: As previously stated in Deviation number 1, the intent of this
code provisions is to prohibit off-premise signs in residential zoning districts. The proposed off-
premise sign is located a mile away on a residential zoned parcel in a different development from
the residential development that it is identifYing.
Deviation # 4 (applicant deviation # 3) seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.c. which
requires that: "Off-premises directional signs shall not be located closer than 50 feet from a
residentially zoned district."
Longshore Lake PUD. PUDA-2007-AR-11546
September B. 200B
PageBof11
Petitioner's Rationale: The subject property is within the residentially zoned Longshore Lake
PUD. There is no non-residentially zoned property in the vicinity of the intersection ofImmokalee
Road and Logan Boulevard.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The current sign requirements of the LDC have been
adopted to promote the welfare of the community as noted in the citation above. In staffs opinion,
approval of this deviation is not consistent with the sign provisions of the LDC and is not
compatible because of its close proximity to an established residential neighborhood. Therefore,
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL, finding that, in compliance
with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not demonstrated that "the element may be
waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC
Section 10.02.l3.B.5.h, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation # 5 (applicant deviation # 6) seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.c. which
requires that: "On-premises signs within residential districts. Two ground signs with a
maximum height of eight feet or wall residential entrance or gate signs may be located at each
entrance to a multi-family, single-family......" to allow the off-premises sign to become an on-
premise sign and to exceed the eight foot height limitation.
Petitioner's Rationale: To provide visibility for project signage and identification for the Terafina
PUD which does not have frontage on lmmokalee Road.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review Staff recommends
denial. Even though the proposed sign is separated by a canal, Staff is unable to find adequate
reason to support authorization of a sign that exceeds the maximum allowable height by 64
percent. Granting the requested deviation would confer upon the applicant special privilege that
would be denied to other property owners in the residential district.
Deviation # 6 (applicant deviation # 7) seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.06.02 A.6.b. which
requires that: "The ground or wall signs shall not exceed a combined area of 64 square feet, and
shall not exceed the height or length of the wall or gate upon which it is located." The alternative
proposal would allow each sign to be 62.4 square feet or a combined total of 128.4 square feet.
Petitioner's Rationale: To provide visibility for project signage and identification for the Terafina
PUD which does not have frontage on Immokalee Road.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review Staff recommends
denial. Staff is unable to find adequate reason to support authorization of a sign that exceeds the
maximum allowable size by 206 percent. Furthermore, the proposed sign is located on a wall that
is 270 square feet in area.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator and rewritten by Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner:
Longshore Lake PUD, PUDA-2007 -AR-11546
September 8, 2008
Page 9 of 11
The applicant duly noticed and held the required meeting on May 23, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. at the
November 29, 2007, 5:30 PM at the Longshore Lake Clubhouse, 11399 Phoenix Way, Naples,
Florida. Approximately eight people including the applicant, Kevin Ratterie of GL Homes, the
agent Bob Duane, and County Staff attended the meeting.
The applicant and the agent presented a brief overview of the off-premise sign for Saturnia Falls,
also known as Terafina RPUD. They stated that the proposed sign will be located at the southeast
corner of Longshore Lake, west of Old Cypress PUD/DRI, on Immokalee Road. The sign will be
270 square feet in size, 9 feet high, and located on top of a berm feature that will include plantings
of sabal palms. Mr. Ratterie further stated the following: "We're responsible for the landscaping;
we have a Home Owners Association (HOA) lease with Longshore Lake; there will be no spot
lighting on the sign, we'll be using coach lamp type lighting fixtures."
Mr. Ratterie displayed a rendering of the sign. There were no objections to the proposed sign.
The meeting concluded at 5:45 p.m.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission forward Petition PUDA-2007-AR-llS46 to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation of denial.
Longshore Lake PUD, PUDA-2007-AR-11546
September 8, 2008
Page10of11
PREPARED BY:
OctD~xr n, 2<<0
DATE '
REVIEWED BY:
~t-~ 7 u]L
STEVEN T. WILLIAMS
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
lo.~o.og
DATE
/O'f7-0g
DATE
RAY D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
.xL.~~Lrn.~
SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
/0 //..O ;;, f
'DA 1'E
APPROVED BY:
/cJ~/ ~ ~
I -DATE
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the September 18,2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting.
Exhibits: A. Rezone Findings
B. PUD findings
Longshore lake PUD, PUDA-2007-AR-11546
September 8, 2008
Page 11 of 11
EXHIBIT" A"
REZONE FINDINGS
PETITION PUDA-2007-AR-1l546
Chapter 10.03.05 1. of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the
report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County
Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the
proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies and Future Land Use Map and the elements of tbe Growth
Management Plan.
The proposed PUD amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
2. The existing land use pattern.
As noted in the Staff Report, Longshore Lake PUD is a 320.51 io acre parcel and
is approved for 566 single family units. Terrafina PUD is a 636.8io acre parcel
and is approved for 850 dwelling units.
To the north of Longshore Lake PUD is Quail Creek, a residential golf course
community. To the east is Olde Cypress Boulevard and then Olde Cypress
PUD/DRI, a residential golf course community. To the south is Inunokalee Road
and then Estates zoning.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts.
The currently approved PUD was deemed to be of sufficient size and did not
result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts when the
PUD was adopted. The proposed amendment does not change the projects
consistency with the FLUE.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
The proposed amendment to the Longshore Lake PUD doesn't change the
currently approved district boundaries that were previously deemed to be logically
drawn in relation to existing conditions at the time the property was first rezoned
to a PUD.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
PUDA-07-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKE PUD
Page 1 0[4
The growth and development trends, and the challenging residential market
conditions make the proposed amendment desirable to the petitioner. The
amendment is not necessary, per se.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in
the neighborhood.
The proposed Sign amendment will allow for additional signage III the
neighborhood than would normally be allowed.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic
congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding
land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic,
including activity during construction phases of the development, or
otherwise affect public safety.
The proposed amcndment does not increase the intensity of the approved PUD.
Therefore, the proposed PUD amendment will not excessively increase traffic
congestion.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed amendment to allow for an off-premise sign and revisions to the
PUD document will not change the current approved development plan or
intensity of development. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not create a
drainage problem.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent
areas.
The proposed amendment will not change the currently approved development
standards that have been determined not to seriously reduce light and air to
adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the
adjacent area.
The proposed amendment will not change the permitted uses, project intensity or
the approved development standards. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this
petition will not adversely affect property values. It should be noted that the value
of property is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which
may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected
by a host of factors including zoning, however zoning by itself mayor may not
affect values, since value detemlination by law is driven by market value.
PUDA-07-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKE PUD
Page 2 of 4
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The development of Terafina PUD/Saturnia Falls will be improved if the
Longshore Lake PUD amendment is approved because the signage amendments
will help to promote the development and sales of Terafina PUD/Satumia Falls.
In addition, since the Longshore Lake PUD is nearly built -out, this proposed
amendment should not be a deterrent to its development.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare.
Approval of this deviation would confer upon the applicant special privilege that
would be denied to other property owners in the residential district.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning.
The subject property is being developed in accordance with the existing PUD
zoning. The proposed PUD amendment does not seek to alter the current uses or
development standards.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the
neighborhood or the County;
As previously stated in the Staff Report, the proposed sign amendments result in
signage that is larger than what would otherwise be permitted in the County.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
The Terafina POD seeks to locate an identification sign on an arterial road. There
are no nomesidential sites located within its immediate vicinity to locate its
identification sign.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration
which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of
potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
The proposed amendment will hardly impact the currently approved physical
characteristics of the property.
PUDA-07-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKE PUD
Page 3 of 4
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities
and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier
County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through
the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
A multi-disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP has
previously reviewed these PUD's and has found them consistent with the GMP.
Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that
required infrastructure meets with GMP established relationships. The proposed
amendment will have no affect upon those conditions.
PUDA-07-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKE PUD
Page 4 of4
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS FOR PUD
PUDA-2007-AR-11546
Section 10.02.13 .B.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning
Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following
criteria:
1; The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed
in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattern of
development approved and developed for the subject property. Development
conditions contained in the approved Longshore Lake PUD document give
assurance that all infrastructures will be developed consistent with County
regulations. The proposed amendment will not adversely impact the approved
mitigation measures that assure compliance with Level of Service relationships as
prescribed by the GMP.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed
agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those
proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be
made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and
facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense.
The applicant has provided evidence of unified control for this amendment. The
Lease Agreement submitted with the amendment application provides evidence of
continuing private operation and maintenance of the proposed sign location.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,
objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan.
The currently approved PUD's have been found consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies of the GMP.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions
may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design,
and buffering and screening requirements.
Staff analysis indicates that this amendment will not adversely impact the PUD's
compatibility, both internally and externally, with the proposed and existing uses.
PUDA-07-AR-11546, LONGSHORE
LAKE PUD
Page 1 of2
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to
serve the development.
The amount of open space currently approved for this PUD is consistent with the
provisions of the Land Development Code. The proposed amendment will not
change the adequacy of the usable open space.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the
adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Given the fact that the Longshore Lake PUD is almost built-out and that the
Terafina PUD/DRI is currently under development, the timing or sequence of
development in light of concurrency requirements is not a significant problem.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to
accommodate expansion.
Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as
wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property
relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, is supportive of conditions emanating
from urban development. Infrastructure is or will be in place in the vicinity and
its adequacy will be determined at the time of SDP approval. The proposed
amendment will not adversely impact the ability to accommodate expansion.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such
modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least
equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
The petilioner is seeking seven deviations to allow design flexibility in
compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development
Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the
extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for lhis PUD
depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar
conventional zoning district. Please refer to the staff report for a more extensive
examination of the deviations.
PUDA-07-AR-11546. LONGSHORE
LAKE PUD
Page 2 of2
AGENDA ITEM 9-D
Co~r County
'-- ~-- -
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: MARCH 19,2009
SUBJECT:
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046, MIRASOL RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner: 1M Collier Joint Venture
P.O. Box 10489
Naples, FL 34104
Agent: Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich
Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson Y ovanovich
& Koester, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
REOUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone
of the Mirasol PUD from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to the Residential
Planned Unit Development zoning district (RPUD) to remedy the sunsetted status of the project in
compliance with Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.l3.D.6. The number of dwelling
units originally approved, 799 dwelling units, is not proposed to change. Ordinance No. 01-20
will be repealed and a five acre tract will revert to Agricultural zoning.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject 1,543 acre tract is located on the north side ofImmokalee Road (CR 846), bordered
on the east by Broken Back Road and the proposed future Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections
10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on
following page)
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Mirasol PUD, comprising 1,558"= acres, was zoned from Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district
to Planned Unit Development (PUD) on April 24, 2001, pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-20 to allow
for 799 residential units and two, l8-hole golf courses that would feature a clubhouse and
recreation amenities. Since no development has occurred within the LDC allotted three-year time
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 1 0125
RollinsCheri
From:
Sent:
To:
RollinsCheri
Wednesday. March 11. 2009 2:25 PM
HomiakKaren; MurrayRobert; 'Paul Midney'; ReedCaronDonna; SchifferBrad; StrainMark;
'Thomas Eastman'; 'Tor Kolflat'; Vigliotti Robert; WolfleyDavid
bellows_r
RE: March 19th Packets
February 19.pdf; February 20 RLSApdf
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Your packets will be ready for pick up anytime tomorrow (Thursday, March 12th) after 11 :00 a.m.
I've attached the minutes to this e-mail as well.
Thank you.
Cherv'R~
Administrative Assistant
Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Community Development & Environmental Services
Collier County Government - Naples, Florida
239-252-2476
239-252-6711 fax
~ please consider the environment before printing this email
From: RollinsCheri
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 3:17 PM
To: HomiakKaren; MurrayRobert; 'Paul Midney'; ReedCaronDonna; schifferBrad; StrainMark; 'Thomas Eastman'; 'Tor
Kolflat'; Vigliotti Robert; WolfleyDavid
Cc: bellows_r; DeselemKay
Subject: March 19th Packets
CCPC Members, on the CCPC's March 19th agenda you are scheduled to hear the Mirasol project and we received the
backup materials today. There is a large amount of material for just this project and along with the backup materials for
the remaining items on the agenda we are asking (in an effort to reduce our shipping costs) - would it be possible for
you to come by our office to pick up your pockets?
The packets should be ready no later than Thursday afternoon or all day Friday.
For those of you who con pick up your packet, I will send a follow up e-mail letting you know exactly when they will be
ready. For those of you who connot pick up your packets, we will make arrangements to have them delivered either by
staff or Fed Ex.
I will be out ofthe office tomorrow (March 6th) and Monday (March 9th), however I will be checking my e-mails, so if you
could please let me know as soon as possible I would appreciate it. Also, if you have any questions in the meantime,
please feel free to contact Ray Bellows (ravbellows@colliergov.net) or Kay Deselem (kavdeselem@colliergov.net).
Thank you,
cherV~
Administrative Assistant
Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Community Development & Environmental Services
Collier County Government - Naples. Florida
1
lfi. , .
~- ~ -
1 i
. I!
Ii 'it! ," ,
" , " g~
. ~~:
" "'
f- r
.."''''..11......
\
1'.:::-....
>-
I ll) ~
-i i
" ~
~ i
. .
, z
w2
!::l;(
000
'3
.'
3j .
1,1; I
~~J
,
"
!j
"
c~
c'
D.~
'OJ 33l
"
,
o-z
00
w-
'!<
00
g:g
~
,.
;e
~
~
g~.
a.;!O
~
<
c.
,.
D.~
~OJ.JON /
_ Z-
~
" ,
,
. ,
~ -,'
, ,"
.!
I
,
,
'.
Ii "i~
I!
Ii
IIi6"Y::1I
CIlI\IlIiYIOllllilT'lDO
,
i -
n,
.,
r
1 ,
IP <1~~
i olil
! O>N~N\O'!X)l
l
"
f
~
:
,
!
j
I
~
L
"
~ <1 ~
I
i-
i~ .,
1O/"iU.YL911WlI
Q..
<(
~
C)
z
z
o
N
'"
..,
o
N
a:
<(
...
o
o
N
<(
,
I
,
,
~
,
N
o
::J
"-
"
z
o
0-
0-
W
Q.
Q..
<(
~
z
o
I-
<(
U
o
....J
~
~
.
~
N
iii
o
z
~
00
~
ri.
j'
00
Z
~
o
~
,;
"'
"
z
o
~
u
w
00
CJ)
W
>
e:::
w
CJ)
w
e:::
a..
Cl
z
~
I-
Z
w
::2:
a..
o
...J
W
>
W
Cl
I-
Z
W
<.)
~
...,
Cl
~
u gf~::;::
S::::'P ~ ~
-~] ~ $
i(3o~o,-
~Uo-1::::l
.-_ 1+.';'":"
g~ ~-~
~Il)g-
~!lz~
cl"d 2 j:Q..c
.~.~ ~
=t~ ~i
co:::J_ u___
:I: c(:l ...;: ~
=..,~ ~~
Q>"5 <=:: 8
. S21 ~ ~
E--< '"
.c~~~~:O::~TY.............. (,~I:f
. . . I
- ..:
. .......JW.....I
.... . . : : .'. _' . - .....................J
......(\).......-.-TN.
.. . - -. ..............
......... .............
.' - .. ... .........Qp..... ..
l~~.' ~_....
\- . . - "f
... -. ...
.... .-.. .. .
,......: - ....:._.....
.... .-. -.....
{AI
~ACANT . . . . . . - . -
OUT PARCEL :0" "-:-:-:-:-:-:'. : :.' .
OWNER:FLAMAXLlC _" .........
...... .
... ............ - .
.. ........ -.....
-. .-6..."........ .T. - -
::..:..:::...:.:9r::......-:.
PARKlANDS
{PUD)
..N!'.
J
1
. .
.. -
..... ....
{Al
VACANT
1~1:: T- ". _ .".
I:...:::::.:::.::...:
...",. .01"
..;..~.:.;.~........:.:~-.r.:...
..'OP\.
L . '\
,-
RIG
L
. Hi>.
....-.-."/-".............-.-.. .
.-....-.-'-...:-.-........-. ....
..-.o,;.-..'-i..:..-...-....
~>,..:: '-'-'0
--'-1
- .
I
TERAFINA
{PUD)
''';-'-
L
~
RIG
RIG
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 1 OF 3
CLIENT
PROJECT NAME
MmASOLPUDAMENDMENT
I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE
Certifical~ of Authoriution No<. LB 3664 3nd EB 3664
DRAWING NAME
....I!1\
====hGNOLI
.....~D
=====~DARBER &
......~D
===m~DRUNDAGE, INe.
Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors
Collier Coun'" 7400 Tamiam; Trail N. N'ple., Fl.. HIOR Ph.: (239) 597._1111 - Fox: (239) 566-2203
MIRASOL
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
IAI
VACANT
~
o 500 1 000
SCALE IN FEET
ttERITAGE BAY
{PUDI
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT 'C2'
DRAWN S'(
REVIEWED 8Y
DAn
SCALE:
ROP
ROP
05/08
1'" 1000'
ABS PROJ[Cl No
ACAD FILE NAME
DRAWING FILE No
SHEET
7883
9418C2
9418 2
2 OF 3
...
~
!ii
!!l
'"
""
!5
..
:;
'"
0>
'"
.0
'"
~
'"
~
""
Q
'"
o
i;j
~
ll:
~
NorE: FOR PLAN LEGEND AND SPECIAL NOTES SEE SHEET 3 OF 3
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 2 OF 3
L
TERAFINA
(PUD)
d
IS'TYPE
'i'LI.E.
RIG
1-
L
@
TREE FARM
(PUD)
" " rg
tS'TYPE
" " 'I'LI.E.
OlDE CYPRESS " " RIG
(PUDI " "
<0 "
" ~
" "
IS' TYPE
'S'LS.E.
.'RASOl l
PROPERTY I
BOUNDARY :
I
,.,
::1
:;(1
-"
%1
~I
~I
I
17 1& 15
'"
"
ISO mE
'I'LI.E.
>--ENTIlV
SIGNACE
ITYP.I
CLIENT'
PROJECT NAME
MmASOLPUDAMENDMENT
I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE
C""ir.C"f~ of AudlOriurion No.. LB 3664 and EB 3664
DRAWING NAME
....I!~
:mhGNOLI
.....~D
:m:~DARBER &
......~D
:m::~DRUNDAGE, INC.
Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors
Collier Counl~: 7400 T.mi.mi T.~il N. - N.pl.., FL. 34108 Ph.: (239) 597,_'111 _ Fu; (239) 566-2203
SFWMP
PRESERVE
zO'TYPE'B'LB.E.
100' PROPOSEIll1St EXl.
R.O.W. DEDICATION
POSSIBLE
FUTURE
INTERCONNECT
POSSIBLE i'
FUTURE ~
INTERCONNECT
HERITAGE BAY
(PUDI
~
o 500
SCALE IN
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT 'C2'
DRAWN 8Y
REVIEWED BY:
DATE
SCALE
ROP
ROP
05 08
,".,1000'
ABS PROJECT No:
ACAD FILE NAME
DRAWING FILE No
SH[ET.
78BJ
9418C2
9418 1
1 oc
-J
~
~
.,
..
~
0..
;;
'"
'"
'"
<b
"1
~
'"
l!:!
Ci
'"
o
V;
s
il!
<Q]
1000
FEET
J
RIGHT-Of-WAY
-J
~
!E
~
'"
g
0..
;;
'"
'"
c
.0
9
~
c
~
~
"
o
;;;
~
0:
<12]
LEGEND
L CONCEPTUAL LAKE LOCATIONS
* RIG RESIDENTIAL / GOLf
1:::::::::::::1 NATIVE PRESERVE
1:::::::::::::1 OTHER PRESERVES
* LAND USE AREAS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO
RELOCATION/CHANGE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING
SPECIAL NOTES:
I} WHERE APPLICABLE ALONG PROJECT BOUNDARY AND UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED PRESERVE AREAS SHALL SERVE AS BUFFERS. IF AFTER EXOTIC REMOVAL
THE PRESERVE VEGETATION FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM CODE BUFFER STANDARDS
ADDITIONAL PLANT MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED.
NATIVE HABITAT SUMMARY:
EXISTING NATIVE HABITAT = 8S3.2 Ac.::!::.
REQUIRED NATIVE HABITAT (60%) = Sll.9 Ac.::!::.
PROVIDED NATIVE HABITAT (ON SITE) = 461.6 Ac.::!::.
NATIVE HABITAT PROVIDED (OFF-SITE) = S03 Ac. +
CLIENT"
PROJECT NAME
I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE
MmASOLPUDAMENDMENT
Cmific.re of AUfhor;ulion No..LB 3664.ndEB3664
DRAWING NAME
GNOLI
.....~BARBER &
......~D
:::::::nRUNDAGE, INC.
Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors
CollkrCounly: HOO Tamiam; Troil N.. N,pl.., FL. 3410B Ph.; (239)597-3111 - h" (~J9) 5~-210_,
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT 'C2' LEGEND & SPECIAL NOTES
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY:
DATE
SCALE
"OP
"OP
05/08
1" 2000'
ABS PROJECT No.:
ACAO FILE NAME
DRAWING FILE No
SH[[ L
7883
9418C2
9418 J
J or J
frame the subject PUD sunsetted on April 24, 2004. The petitioner sought two, two-year PUD
extensions (from April 24, 2004 to April 24, 2008) via petition PUDEX-2006-AR-9l24 that was
heard by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on May 8, 2007; the BCC did not take
action on that petition because it was withdrawn by the petitioner on that date when he agreed to
seek sunsetting relief through the PUD amendment process instead.
At that May 8, 2007 BCC hearing, the BCC adopted a Developer's Contribution Agreement
(DCA) for the project's prepayment of impact fees to be utilized for intersection improvements at
the Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard intersection thereby vesting the project's 799 dwelling
units. That DCA indicates that this DCA will "help finance needed improvements and additions
to the County's transportation system" and the DCA is "consistent with both the public interest
and with the comprehensive plan."
As presently configured, this amendment petition does not propose to add any dwelling units to
the project. This petition does propose to remove the previously proposed flow way as a project
requirement. The applicant is updating the PUD document to remove redundant language from
the original PUD document and to update the PUD document to put it in the currently acceptable
format. A five-acre tract that was inadvertently included in the original approval is being removed
from the project.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: (Please see attached exhibit entitled Mirasol
Adjacent Development and Preserves for a pictorial rendering ofthe adjacent uses.)
North: Village Walk, a developed residential project within Lee County, with a zOlllng
designation of Residential Planned Development (RPD)
East: Heritage Bay DRI/PUD, a developing project with a zoning designation of PUD that
allows a maximum of 3,450 residential units, 200 Assisted Living units, 54 golf holes, and 40
acres of commercial uses, and Agricultural (ST) zoned lands some of which are part of the Crew
Trust Lands and other undeveloped tracts
South: Immokalee Road (CR 846), and then the developed Laurelwood and Richland PUD zoned
projects
West: Terafina and the Parklands PUD zoned projects. Terafina (approved at a density of 1.3
units per acre) and Parklands (approved at a density of 2.5 units per acre) remain undeveloped.
Additionally there are smaller agriculturally zoned tracts that are used for agricultural and
residential purposes; then Olde Cypress (approved at a density of2.l units per acre), a developed
residential project with a zoning designation ofPUD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): A portion of the total subject property (340.7 acres in
Section 22) is designated Urban (Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), the
remainder of the property (1,212 acres in Sections 10 & 15) is designated Agricultural/Rural
(Rural Fringe Mixed Use District [RMFU], Neutral Lands) as identified on the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 2 01 25
Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential development at a
base density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, subject to the Density Rating System provisions;
recreation and open space; and earth mining and related processing uses. The existing PUD
portion in the Urban area is eligible for a maximum of 1,363 dwelling units.
Eligible density for property within Section 22 of approved PUD:
340.7 acres x 4 DU/A = 1,363 units (1,362.8)
Eligible density for property within Section 22 of proposed PUD amendment:
340.7 acres x 4 DU/A = 1,363 units (1,362.8)
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands allows for a base density of one (I) dwelling
unit (DU) per five (5) acres; golf courses subject to specific standards; and, earth mining and
related processing. The proposed amendment would reduce the amount of property that is within
this portion of the existing PUD, from 1,217 acres to 1,212 acres, thus reducing the maximum
allowed density on the portion of the PUD that is located in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(Sections 10 and 15):
Eligible density for property within Section 10 and 15 of approved PUD:
1,217 acres x 0.2 DU/A (I DU/5 acs.) = 243 units (243.4)
Eligible density for property within Section 10 and 15 of proposed PUD amendment:
1,217 acres - 5 acres = 1,212 acres x 0.2 DU/A (1 DU/5 acs.) = 242 units (242.4)
The entire PUD, Urban Residential and RFMU Neutral Lands combined, is eligible for up to 1,605
DUs. The existing PUD provides for 799 DUs. The proposed PUD amendment proposes the same
amount of residential units, or 799.
The maximum amount of dwelling units allowed in Section 22, located within the Urban
Residential Subdistrict, and in Sections 10 and 15, located within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District, are to be developed within their respective District/Subdistrict if density blending is not
utilized.
Specific to the Mirasol PUD, Section 5(g) of the Density Rating System allows for density
blending between the portions of the PUD that straddles between, and only within, Sections 15 and
22. The application documents for this PUD petition asserts that the density allowed for Section 10
is to be clustered with the density permitted for Sections 15 and 22. Therefore, per the FLUE, if
dwelling units are not developed in Section 10, a maximum of 1,605 dwelling units is the
maximum density that can be developed within Sections 15 and 22 of the Mirasol PUD.
The proposed PUD amendment seeks to utilize the Density Blending provision of the Density
Rating System of the FLUE which reads as follows (conditions and limitations are followed by
staff's analysis in italics):
5. Density Blending: This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to
preserve wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that
straddle the Urban Mixed Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and
Neutral Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasof RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe1Rev: 3/4/09
Page 3 01 25
were in existence and under unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the
applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may
be distributed throughout the project, regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a
portion of the project exceeds that which is otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are
met:
1. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban
Residential Sub-District or Urban Residential Fringe Sub-District and either the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District Neutral or Receiving Lands:
(a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Sub-District or Urban Residential
Fringe Sub-District and either the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral or Receiving Lands;
(Condition met. The existing Mirasol PUD straddles between the Urban Residential Sub-District
and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands.)
(b) The project in aggregate is a minimum of 80 acres in size; (Condition met.
Condition (g) specifically provides for Section 15 only excludes Section 10 to utilize Density
Blending. The project lands in Section 15 and 22 total 982.97 acres.)
(c) At least 25 percent of the project is located within the Urban Mixed Use District
(Condition met. Condition 5(g) specifically provides for Section 15 only to utilize Density
Blending. Therefore, the cited minimum applies to the aggregate lands of the Mirasol PUD located
in Sections 15 and 22 only. The project acreage in the Urban Mixed Use District is 340.7 acres,
which is 28 percent of the acreage in those two Sections). The entire project is located within the
Collier County Sewer and Water District Boundaries and will utilize central water and sewer to
serve the project unless interim provisions for sewer and water are authorized by Collier County;
(Condition met. Sections 15 and 22 are eligible for Density Blending and are within the Collier
County Water and Sewer District boundaries and subject to the "Availability Letter" issued by the
Public Utilities Division at the time o{Site Development Plan (SDP).)
(d) The project is currently zoned or will be rezoned to a PUD; (Condition met. The
subject petition is for the Mirasol PUD.)
(e) Density to be shifted to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District from the Urban
Residential Subdistrict is to be located on impacted lands, or it is demonstrated that the
development on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native
vegetation and/or habitat on-site and to maximize the connectivity of such native vegetation and/or
habitat with adjacent preservation and/or habitat areas; (Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this
determination to the Engineering and Environmental Services Department staff)
(f) The entire project shall meet the applicable preservation standards of the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District. (These preservation requirements shall be calculated upon and apply
to the total project area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to the
Engineering and Environmental Services Department staff)
(g) Section 15 (Township 48 South, Range 26 East), which straddles the boundary of
the Urban Residential Subdistrict and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, is designated Neutral,
and is in the approved Mirasol PUD, may utilize this density blending provision, subject to the
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 4 0125
above criteria. (The Mirasol P UD application asserts that density blending would be utilized for
properties located in Section 15.)
FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below; each policy is followed by staff analysis.
Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places:
The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and
adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be
implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable.
Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties
to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without
violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (The Mirasol PUD
Conceptual Master Plan depicts direct access to 1mmokalee Road (S.R. 846), an arterial road as
identified in the Transportation Element.)
Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce
vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.
(The Mirasol PUD Conceptual Master Plan depicts internal access or loop roads.)
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of
land use type. (As shown in the Mirasol PUD Conceptual Master Plan, there are several proposed
interconnects to the adjoining properties along the east of the project boundary. Native vegetation
preserve and open spaces are proposed between the subject project and the adjoining properties to
the north and most of the properties to the west thereby precluding interconnections in that area.
1n addition, most properties to the west are developed with single-family homes. The main access
to andfrom the proposed PUD is/rom the south. or 1mmokalee Road.)
Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a
blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types.
(Open spaces and different housing types are proposed in the PUD document. Sidewalks must be
provided as required by the LDC as no deviations are requested.)
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed amendment
petition of the Mirasol PUD consistent with the FLUE
Transportation Element: Transportation staff has reviewed the petition and finds it consistent
with the applicable policies of the Transportation Element. However, segment(s) of Immokalee
Road that are significantly impacted by this project are currently over capacity. The petitioner has
entered a Developer's Contribution Agreement (DCA) with the County to provide mitigation
addressing consistency with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management
Plan over the five-year planning period. Furthermore, the petitioner has agreed to provide fair
share compensation for construction of the north leg of the CR-951/Broken Back Road intersection
with Inunokalee Road, which includes modification, replacement, or relocation of the at-grade
bridge crossing the Cocohatchee Canal. The petitioner has also agreed to dedicate to the County
the future rights-of-way necessary to accommodate extension of CR-95 1 to the northerly boundary
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19. 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 5 0125
of his project, which extends to the Lee County line. This dedication is agreed to be in exchange
for impact fees, but the per-acre property value for the exchange has not been established as of this
time.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): The Mirasol project is consistent
with all applicable sections of the CCME, including the following objectives and policies. (Please
refer to the Environmental Impact Statement for further detail.)
Objective 2.2: All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable
federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to
limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be
designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is
made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine
system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or
enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry detention
area(s), lake(s) and a wetland(s) to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation
during storm events.
Objective 6.1: The County shall protect native vegetative communities through the application of
minimum preservation requirements. The following policies provide criteria to make this objective
measurable. These policies shall apply to all of Collier County except for that portion of the County
which is identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay. As described under the applicable Policies, these criteria are being met
by the proposed PUD Master Plan.
Policy 6.1.1: For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation
Designated Area, and Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, Rural-Industrial District and Rural-
Settlement Area District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved on-site
through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria,
unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State concern (ACSC) where the ACSC
standards referenced in the Future Land Use Element shall apply. The property straddles the
RFMU neutral land and the urban residential land boundary. The Mirasol PUD was specifically
authorized to utilize the density blending provisions when the density blending provisions were
incorporated into the Future Land Use Element (IB.5.) of the Collier County Growth Management
Plan. The density blending provisions in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management
Plan specifically allow the blending of density from the urban area to Section IS in the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District. As such, the entire project will be required to meet the native
vegetation preservation standards outlined in the RFMU section of the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element as presented below (Policy 6.1.2).
Policy 6.1.2: For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, as designated on the FLUM, native
vegetation shall be preserved on site through the application of the following preservation and
vegetation retention standards and criteria for Neutral Lands: A minimum of 60 percent of the native
vegetation present, not to exceed 45 percent of the total site area shall be preserved, except that, for
Section 24, Township 49 south, Range 26 East, located in the North Belle Meade Overlay, a
minimum of 70 percent of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 70 percent of the total site
areas, shall be preserved. Sections 10 and 15 are within the RFMU zoning and are designated as
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 1 g, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 6 01 25
Neutral lands on the FLUM Due to the density blending standards, the entire site will be
considered under these RFMU criteria.
Policy 6.1.4: Prohibited invasive exotic vegetation shall be removed from all new developments.
The project has coordinated a Preserve Management Plan with state and federal review agencies.
This plan includes provisions for exotic removal and perpetual maintenance to keep the preserves
free of nuisance and exotic vegetation. This Plan is Exhibit 15 of the EIS. In addition, all
developed areas shall be kept free of exotic vegetation.
Policy 6.1.7: The County shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into landscape designs
in order to promote the preservation of native plant communities and to encourage water
conservation. This shall be accomplished by: According to the EIS, native vegetation retention and
restoration will be encouraged throughout the project site. In addition, the wet detention lakes will
have all required littoral plantings indicated at the time of site development plan submittal.
Policy 6.1.8: An Environmental Impact Statement (ElS), or submittal of appropriate environmental
data as specified in the County's land development regulations, is required..... This EIS submittal
was made in accordance with this requirement and it was forwarded to the EAC
Objective 6.2: The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of
wetlands pursuant to the appropriate policies under Goal 6. The following policies provide criteria
to make this objective measurable. The County's wetland protection policies and strategies shall be
coordinated with the Watershed Management Plans as required by Objective 2.1 of this Element.
Policy 6.2.1: As required by Florida Administrative Code 9J5-5.006(l)(b), wetlands identified by
the 1994-95 South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) land use and land cover
inventory are mapped on the Future Land Use Map series. These areas shall be verified by
jurisdictional field delineation, subject to Policy 6.2.2 of this element, at the time of project
permitting to determine the exact location of jurisdictional wetland boundaries. Wetland
boundaries have been delineated and verified by the SFWMD. The jurisdictional lines are
indicated on the SFWMD permit exhibits as well as on the applicable exhibits included in this EIS
submittal (see exhibits 2, 3, 6, 7 of EIS).
Policy 6.2.2: Wetlands shall be defined pursuant to Section 373.019 Florida Statutes. The location
of jurisdictional wetland boundaries are further described by the delineation methodology in Section
373.421 Florida Statutes. This has been done. Wetland boundaries have been delineated and
verified by the SFWMD. The jurisdictional lines are indicated on the SFWMD permit exhibits as
well as on the applicable exhibits included in this EIS submittal.
Policy 6.2.4: Within the Urban Designated area, the County shall rely on the wetland jurisdictional
determinations and permit requirements issued by the applicable jurisdictional agency. As stated
above, a portion of the proposed project is within the Urban Designated area but since the
remainder of the project is within the RFMU District, the Density Blending provisions require the
entire site to be reviewed under the RFMU criteria.
Policy 6.2.5: Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and that portion of the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System which is contained within the Immokalee Urban Designated
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 7 of 25
Area, Collier County shall direct land uses away from higher functioning wetlands by limiting direct
impacts within wetlands based upon the vegetation requirements of Policy 6.1.2 of this element, the
wetland functionality assessment described in paragraph (2) below, and the final permitting
requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. OMP Policy 6.2.5.(6) states,
"Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetlands in order to result in no net loss of
wetland functions." In addition, the policy states, ""No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean
that the wetland functional score of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland
functional score of the impacted wetlands. However, in no case shall the acreage proposed for
mitigation be less than the acreage being impacted." The project is proposing impacts to 586 acres
of wetlands. The project has identified 515.2 acres of 586.2 acres (88 percent) of the required
wetland mitigation acreage. The remaining 71 acres of off-site mitigation shall be identified prior
to SDP approval.
Policy 6.2.6: Within the Urban Designation and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, required
wetland preservation areas, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be dedicated as conservation and
common areas in the form of conservation easements and shall be identified or platted as separate
tracts; and, in the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on
the PUD Master Plan. All preservation, buffer, and mitigation areas required under the County
Codes will be placed under conservation easements prior to site plan approval as outlined in this
Policy and as required by the LDC at the time of development.
Objective 6.4: The County will protect, conserve and appropriately use ecological communities
shared with or tangential to State and Federal lands and other local governments. This PUD is
proposing to preserve lands that will connect existing and proposed preserve lands to the west with
existing preserve lands to the east. The Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) and the
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary are also located to the east and north of the project as shown on
Exhibit 8 of the EIS.
Objective 6.5: The County shall protect natural reservations from the impact of surrounding
development. For the purpose of this Objective and its related policies: natural reservations shall
include only Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) and designated Conservation Lands on
the Future Land Use Map; and, development shall include all projects except for permitting and
construction of single-family dwelling units situated on individual lots or parcels. This Objective
and its Policies shall apply only to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district [except as noted in Policy
6.5.3].
Policy 6.5.2: The following criteria shall apply to development contiguous to natural reservations in
order to reduce negative impacts to the natural reservations: The proposed project is located
adjacent to the CREW Natural Resource Protection Area. The entire boundary adjacent to the
NRP A is included in the preserve areas of the project. Adjacent preserve areas associated with
other developments will be protected through natural and structural buffers, placement of less
intensive uses such as golf course and water management areas, and through the education of
residents.
Goal 7: The County shall protect and conserve its fisheries and wildlife.
Objective 7.1: The County shall direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and
their habitats. The County relies on the listing process of State and Federal agencies to identifY
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 8 0125
species that require special protection because of their endangered, threatened, or species of special
concern status. The project is not within a NRP A but is adjacent to one. Development and preserve
locations associated with the development have taken into account providing the largest possible
buffers between the development and the NRP A boundary.
Policy 7.1.2: Within areas of Collier County, excluding the lands contained in the RLSA Overlay,
non-agricultural development, excluding individual single-family residences, shall be directed away
from listed species and their habitats... A Listed Species Survey has been conducted on the project
site. Coordination has occurred between the project and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FFWCC) and Us. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The FFWCC has not
commented on the project since the 2002 SFWMD approval but the USFWS has recently issued
their Biological Opinion (Exhibit 17 of E1S) and indicated that the project would not jeopardize any
federally listed species.
Policy 7.1.4: All development shall comply with applicable federal and state permlttmg
requirements regarding listed species protection. The project has undergone significant review by
the FWS and the results of that review are presented in the Biological Opinion.
Policy 7.1.6: The County shall evaluate the need for the protection of listed plants and within one
(1) year of the effective date of this amendment adopt land development regulations addressing the
protection of listed plants. The petitioner stated in the E1S that the only plants from the list that
have been observed on the Mirasol site are the common wild pine bromeliad (Fillandsia
fasciculata) and the butterfly orchid (Encvclia tam/Jensis). These plants have been observed in
several of the cypress areas and the vast majority will be preserved under the proposed plan.
Goal 11: The County shall provide for the protection, preservation and sensitive re-use of historic
resources
Objective 11.1: To protect historic and archaeological resources m Collier County. No
archaeological sites are known to exist on this property.
Discussion o(CCME Obiective 2.1: Water Management Staff Comments
Within the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element Objective 2.1 states the following.
By January 2008, the County shall complete the prioritization and begin the process of preparing
Watershed Management Plans, which contain appropriate mechanisms to protect the County's
estuarine and wetland systems. The process shall consist of
(1) An evaluation of areas for which Watershed Management Plans are not necessary based
on current or past watershed management planning efforts,
(2) An assessment of available data and information that can be used in the development of
Watershed Management Plans, and
(3) Budget authorization to begin preparation of the first Watershed Management Plan by
January 2008.
A funding schedule shall be established to ensure that all Watershed Management Plans will be
completed by 2010. In selecting the order of Plan completion, the County shall give priority to
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 9 0125
watersheds where the development growth potential is greatest and will impact the greatest
amount of wetland and listed species habitats. The schedule and priorities shall also be
coordinated with the Federal and State agency plans that address Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs).
Until the Watershed Management Plans are completed, the County shall apply the following as
interim standards for development:
a. All new development and re-development projects shall meet 150 percent of the water
quality volumetric requirements of Section 5.2.1 (a) of the Basis of Review for
Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management
District (February 2006) and the retention and detention requirements, and the allowable
offsite discharge rates required by Drainage Sub-element Policy 6.2 and 6.3, respectively;
b. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall be
compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on site
and within or adjacent to the impacted wetland.
c. Floodplain storage compensation shall be evaluated for developments within the
designated flood zones "A", "AE", and "VE" as depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency with an effective date of
November 17, 2005. Floodplain storage compensation shall also be evaluated for areas
known to be periodically inundated by intense rainfall or sheetflow conditions.
d. All development located within areas identified on Figure 1 shall be evaluated to
determine impacts to natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs. For this particular evaluation,
natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs shall be tentatively identified as contiguous lands
having a continual preponderance of wetland or wet facultative plant species and a ground
elevation through the major portion of the natural wetland, flowway, or slough at least one
(1) foot lower than the ground at the edge of the natural wetland, flowway, or slough. The
edge of the natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs shall be identified by field determination
and based upon vegetation and elevation differences from the adjacent uplands or
transitional wetlands. The County shall require the applicant to avoid direct impacts to these
natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs or, when not possible, to ensure any direct impact is
minimized and compensated for by providing the same conveyance capacity lost by the
direct impact. The County shall adhere to the limiting discharge rates of each basin as
outlined in Ordinance 2001-27, adopted May 22, 2001 which amended the County Water
Management Policy and provided basin delineations where special peak discharge rates have
been established. The limiting discharge rates will be reviewed as a part of the Watershed
Management Plans, and modified according to the analyses and findings of the Watershed
Management Plans.
e. All new development and re-development projects shall ensure surrounding properties
will not be adversely impacted from the project's influence on stormwater sheet flow.
f. Prior to the issuance of a final development order, the County shall require all
development projects to obtain the necessary state and federal environmental permits.
g. Within one year of the effective date of these amendments, the County shall adopt land
development regulations to require Best Management Practices of future development or re-
development projects. Best Management Practices means structural and nonstructural
facilities or practices intended to reduce pollution either through source control or treatment
of stormwater.
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19,2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 100125
!~~:l
,i
q
.. ~'
~:-T""
ifr.~,.:!!,C __
\t_i;':f~tt~. '~I."~' _-.
, j.",d~j ,. ... ',~ ~ ~~,
'~~~.1 -.~'. (;;L--.{.~ /-
~ ~) Ih1. '", ~
ti ~>:-2..,~,~ 1 ~i (1\
.""'] ,....~ i \,
'------' ,:';t:~. !,"''''\,: ~
f2&i~' / C",
'L-' ,.- "1 . t-.:-:..'-~'-'--
. i
'1_,~~1
, .
... ./<"'( r'
Uf',;r:; ,--
''',:>",'',' ,-
I itf. 'J'i
. '~~.-
. r 'C'
L' -', ,I
11.<--", (
\.
, I
1/
'-.-.!...
..
I
,
~
Figure 1 (as referenced in Objective 2.l.d)
In reviewing the Mirasol PUD, staff evaluated each of these criteria to determine if the proposed
development activities could comply with the overall purpose of the Objective. Knowing that the
County has initiated the development of Watershed Management Plans, the proposed PUD must
then be evaluated in accordance with the interim standards for development as specified in sub-
paragraphs "a" through "g".
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3f4f09
Page 110125
Compliance with Sub-paragraph "a" - The Mirasol PUD proposes to develop using a stepped water
management system that provides 150 percent of the required stormwater quality treatment volume
before discharging into the separate offsite flow-through lake system, which will have the potential
to provide additional water quality treatment even though there are no credits provided for the
additional water quality treatment.
Compliance with Sub-paragraph "b" - The Mirasol PUD contains lakes, conveyance facilities, and
other methods designed to contain and provide storage compensation as a part of the overall
stormwater management system.
Compliance with Sub-paragraphs "c". "d" and "e" - The Mirasol PUD was designed to incorporate
the requirements of these three sub-paragraphs through a combination of features. The Flood
Insurance Rate Maps published by FEMA identifY the Mirasol property as flood zone "X" based
upon a coastal surge analysis only. However, portions of the property are known to be periodically
inundated by intense rainfall or sheetflow conditions, so that factor had to be included in the
proposed development's design.
The property is located within areas identified in the Figure 1 attached to the CCME Objective
2.l.d. In considering whether or not the property would qualifY for evaluation on impacts to natural
wetlands, flowways, or sloughs, the definition for these terms needs to be considered on a regional
basis, as intended in the original creation of the definition, and not limited to an individual
property's boundary as the comparative condition. The nature of this site makes it difficult to apply
Objective 2.l.d's I-foot criteria in defining a flowway. However, high elevation aerial
photography, along with aerial topography (LiDAR imagery) identifies a large, wide historical
wetland flowway system extending from northwest of Lake Trafford into both Collier and Lee
counties. Existing development activities in both Collier and Lee counties have tended to pinch and
direct the historical regional sheetflow conditions so that it becomes somewhat difficult to
determine specifically where the edge of the regional flowway would be in a more natural state.
Currently, the sheetflow travels across the northern third of the Mirasol PUD property, which is
proposed to be preserved, and makes its way south to the Cocohatchee Canal, traveling to the west
of the Mirasol PUD property. Current conditions restrict the sheetflow, which must pass through a
270 foot-wide gap near the Old Cypress golf course, west of the Mirasol PUD property.
Because portions of the property are known to be periodically inundated by sheetflow, the
requirements of sub-paragraph "d" require the proposed development to avoid direct impacts to
these natural wetlands, flowways or sloughs, OR ensure any direct impact is minimized and
compensated for by providing the same conveyance capacity lost by a direct impact. The Mirasol
PUD property is a mixture of uplands and wetlands such that it is not possible to avoid direct
impacts to these natural wetlands, flowways or sloughs and still develop the property in a manner
consistent with the requirements for health, safety and welfare of residents. Because of other
existing developments in both Collier and Lee counties that have pinched the historical wetland
flowway, it is not reasonable to determine that the Mirasol PUD property is undevelopable if
suitable alternative measures can be provided to address the passage of historical offsite sheetflow
and floodplain storage compensation while ensuring that surrounding properties will not be
adversely impacted from the project's influence on the sheet flow. The purpose of sub-paragraph
"d" was never intended to serve as a wetland impact minimization evaluation tool. Those
requirements are covered in other portions of existing regulatory review. The purpose was to ensure
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19,2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 12 0125
that sheetflow through natural systems was evaluated and maintained so that development activities
didn't restrict the flow or storage capacity and cause greatly increased runoff volumes or sheetflow
depths on nearby and upstream properties.
The Mirasol PUD was designed to maintain desirable wetland sheetflow elevations coming toward
the property from the northeast by only receiving them into the project's developed portion of the
property once they reach a specified elevation. A long weir at the northern edge of the development
was expressly designed to maintain existing flows and water levels on adjacent properties. Under
normal conditions a notch in the weir accepts the same amount of water into the development as
would currently be conveyed from a series of culverts located at the berm along the canal at the
southern edge of the property. As wet season water levels rise, water is allowed to overtop the weir
and flow into a chain of lakes designed to pass the sheetflow through the property and into the
downstream receiving canal along the north side ofImmokalee Road. This prevents the undesirable
rise in water elevations in the flowway to nearby properties and to the northeast, and thus addresses
many possible problems to existing developments along the boundaries of the regional sheetflow
flowway. The Mirasol PUD developed portions are served by individual stormwater management
sub-basins that each provide the required controlled discharge and comply with Ordinance 2001-27.
By addressing the three sub-paragraphs in a total package approach, staff determined that the
proposed development is in compliance with the requirements.
Compliance with sub-paragraph "f" - The Mirasol PUD will be required to obtain all necessary
federal, state, and local permits before construction activities can commence.
Compliance with sub-paragraph "g" - This is strictly a County effort requirement and is not an issue
for any single development application.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this
proposed rezoning to RPUD. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of
consistency or inconsistency with the applicable policies of the GMP as part of the recommendation
for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency
with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff
believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE. The proposed PUD amendment is
also consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff
is recommending that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff
recommends that the petition be found consistent with the applicable policies of the GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a
determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in LDC Sections 10.02.13 and
10.02.13.B.5. The staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations of
staff. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria as the basis for
the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to
support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are provided as part of the Zoning
Review listed below.
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 13 0125
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petitIOn and the PUD
documents to address any environmental concerns. This petition was required to submit an
Environment Impact Statement (ElS) and was heard by the Environmental Advisory Commission
(EAC) on February 4, 2009. The EAC voted 6 to 2 to recommend approval subject to the
conditions of approval contained in the EAC staff report. A copy of the EAC staff report is
included in the back up material. Please refer to that document for environmental review details.
Transportation Review: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed the petition for compliance
with the GMP and the LDC. The PUD document contains numerous transportation commitments
that the petitioner and Transportation Planning staff has agreed upon to reach a point wherein
Transportation Planning staff can recommend approval of this project. Some of the commitments
are listed below:
1. The developer is to dedicate (fee simple) right-of-way for the roadway and
drainage for those areas located outside the limits of the residential/Golf Course areas
depicted as "RIG" on the PUD master plan. The developer may be eligible for
Transportation Impact Fee credits or cash reimbursement for that dedication, but the
Developer shall not be responsible to obtain or modifY any permits on behalf of the
County related to the extension ofCR-951.
2. The Developer is to construct a multi-use pathway along the Immokalee Road
right-of-way on the North side of the Cocohatchee Canal as a part of the entrance
construction.
3. The Developer is to pay a fair share of the North leg of the CR-95l/Broken Back
Road intersection with Immokalee Road, which includes modification, replacement, or
relocation of the at-grade bridge crossing the Cocohatchee Canal.
Refer to PUD Exhibit F for the full list of Transportation commitments.
Zoninl! Review: As previously discussed, the petitioner does not propose any changes to the uses
densities or development standards. Staff has evaluated the currently approved uses and their
intensities and/or densities; the development standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape
buffers; building mass; building location and orientation; the amount and type of open space and its
location; and traffic generation/attraction to ensure compatibility with the adjacent land uses. The
project proposes to allow a variety of single-family detached, zero-lot line, two-family/duplex,
single-family attached/townhouse and multi-family dwelling units along with a clubhouse and
recreation buildings. A minimum lot area ranging from 3,500 square feet per lot or unit for the two-
family/duplex/single-family attached/townhome units up to 9,000 square feet is proposed. A 20
foot front yard setback and a 15 foot rear setback will be maintained for most principal structures.
All principal structures other than the multi-family and clubhouse/recreational buildings will be a
maximum of 35 feet in zoned height; the multi-family structures are proposed to be a maximum of
50 feet high in a maximum of five stories tall, and clubhouse and recreational buildings will be a
maximum of 50 feet high with two stories over parking. The development standards proposed some
reductions in front yard setbacks for side entry garages and reductions in lot width for cul-de-sac
lots, but these reductions should not cause sidewalks to be blocked or allow reduced lot sizes for
those particular instances. Because the previously approved uses and the proposed uses and
development regulations are similar to what has been approved in the neighboring PUD zoned
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD Page 14 of 25
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
_.....c.._--.'__.~..."...,M._.._____,._ -.,_..._.~.._-_.._~"-_."._.,.
projects such as Terafina, Parklands and Heritage Bay, staff believes this PUD amendment remains
compatible with the neighborhood.
Deviation Discussion:
The petitioner is seeking four deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are
found in PUD Exhibit E. These deviations were not approved as part ofthe original rezone.
Deviation #1 seeks relief from Appendix B of the LDC, entitled "Typical Street Sections and
Right-of-way Design Standards," which requires cul-de-sacs and local streets less than one
thousand feet (1,000') in length to have a minimum sixty foot (60') right-of-way width and two ten
foot (10') wide travel lanes, to allow a minimum right-of-way width of forty feet (40') for private
streets and fifty feet (50') for spine, collector and interconnecting roads.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification that this deviation is warranted for
a variety of factors. First, most roads within the Mirasol RPUD are intended to be private rather
than public roads. Maintenance responsibility will be by the developer and Homeowner's
Association. Additionally, the proposed forty foot (40') right-of-way width is adequately sized to
accommodate necessary infrastructure requirements including standard width travel lanes, utility
easements, and dual sidewalks. The LDC does permit a developer to deviate from standard LDC
construction standards during the preliminary platting process. The developer would like to obtain
the deviation prior to the platting process in order to be able to prepare development plans with
certainty of the approval of the deviation.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Transportation Planning staff has not voiced opposition to
this deviation, therefore zoning staff does not object since the roadways will be private and the
responsibility for maintenance will be borne by the developer. Zoning and Land Development
Review staff therefore recommends APPROVAL. Staff recommends that a finding be made in
compliance with LDC Section 10.02. 13.A.3, that the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element
may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community"
and LDC Section 1O.02.l3.B.5.h. the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "iustified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.0 lJ. Street System Requirements, to allow that
cul-de-sacs in excess of one thousand feet (1,000') in length. Streets with block lengths of greater
than six hundred feet (600') shall have traffic calming devices installed at an approximate spacing
of three hundred feet (300').
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification that this deviation is warranted due
to the irregular shape of several of the development tracts due to environmental preserve locations,
and due to configuration of development tracts around the proposed golf course. Cul-de-sacs will
be designed with standard travel lanes and turning radius; therefore, there are no public safety
issues resulting from the increased length of a cul-de-sac.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Neither Transportation Planning nor any other reviewing
staff has voiced opposition to this deviation, therefore zoning staff does not object since the
roadways will be private and the responsibility for maintenance will be borne by the developer.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff therefore recommends APPROVAL. Staff
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19,2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 150125
recommends that a finding be made in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3. that the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the
health. safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h. the petitioner has
demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least
equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.0I.Q. Street System Requirements, which
requires that street name markers shall be approved by the County Manager or designee for private
streets or in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. This requirement shall be waived. However,
breakaway posts shall be used.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification that this deviation will permit the
developer to create a more customized streetscape, reflective of individual subdivision architectural
standards. The street markers will be sized and located in order to meet the intent of
U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. standards.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Neither Transportation Planning nor any other reviewing
staff has voiced opposition to this deviation, therefore zoning staff does not object since the
roadways will be private and the responsibility for maintenance will be borne by the developer.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff therefore recommends APPROVAL. Staff
recommends that a finding be made in compliance with LDC Section 1O.02.13.A.3. that the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the
health. safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h. the petitioner has
demonstrated that the deviation is "iustified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least
equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.R. Street Requirements which requires that
street pavement painting, striping and reflective edging of public roadway markings shall be
provided by the developer as required by the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration (U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A). This requirement shall be waived for private roadways with
40 foot widths. Traffic circulation signage shall be in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device standards.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification that this deviation will permit the
developer to create a more customized streetscape, reflective of individual subdivision architectural
standards. The street markers will be sized and located in order to meet the intent of
U.S.D.O.T.F.H.WA standards.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Neither Transportation Planning nor any other reviewing
staff has voiced opposition to this deviation, therefore zoning staff does not object since the
roadways will be private and the responsibility for maintenance will be borne by the developer.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff therefore recommends APPROVAL. Staff
recommends that a finding be made in compliance with LDC Section IO.02.13.A.3. that the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the element mav be waived without a detrimental effect on the
health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 1O.02.13.B.5.h. the petitioner has
demonstrated that the deviation is "iustified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least
equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19. 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 160125
LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners.. . shall show
that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable." Additionally, Section 1 0.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the
Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional
criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are
designated as PUD. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in non-italicized font]:
Rezone Findin1!s:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the GMP.
As noted in the GMP Consistency portion of this report, the proposed uses and development
standards would generally further the goals and objectives of the FLUE and the applicable portions
of the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore staff recommendation that this petition be
deemed consistent with the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern.
As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the neighborhood's
existing land use pattern is characterized by residentially zoned and used lands (within Lee County)
to the north, and either planned, existing or developing residential uses to the west and across
Immokalee Road to the south. To the east is the developing Heritage Bay DRIlPUD and Crew Trust
Lands.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The proposed rezoning would not create an isolated zoning district because, with the exception of a
five-acre tract that is being removed from the project, approval of this rezoning to PUD was already
determined to be a logical and appropriate recommendation. This rezoning action is a reiteration of
the previous rezoning approvals for the same parcel to allow the same uses and resolves the
sunsetted status of the PUD.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposedfor change.
As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the eXlstmg district
boundaries are logically drawn. The proposed PUD zoning boundaries follow the property
ownership boundaries. The location map on page two of the staff report illustrates the perimeter of
the outer boundary of the subject parcel.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
The proposed change is necessary because LDC Section 10.02.13.D.7 (pertaining to PUD time
limits) does not allow the County to accept applications for development order approvals until the
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 170125
zoning is "updated." Additionally, the petitioner has updated the Master Plan to show the required
preserve area contiguous to the preserve area in the neighboring Livingston Lakes PUD project.
Furthermore, the proposed zoning change is appropriate based on the existing conditions of the
property and its positive relationship to elements of the GMP.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the
GMP support the approval of the uses proposed at this location. Staff is of the opinion that the
proposed rezone is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Also, the PUD document provides assurances that the site
improvements will include adequate landscaping, setbacks and buffering for the development.
Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the proposed change will not adversely influence living
conditions in the neighborhood.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes
or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety.
It should be noted that this PUD amendment does not increase the size or intensity of the
currently approved PUD. In addition, development of the subject property is consistent with
provisions of the Transportation Element of the GMP and the trips are vested according to
Transportation Planning staff as part of the adopted DCA. However Transportation Planning
staff notes that although this PUD is considered vested by Transportation Planning staff for a
certain density, the PUD contains additional stipulations to ensure consistency. Therefore, this
project should not create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses and it
should not affect the public safety.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
Appropriate stormwater management has been provided on the Master Plan to address this issue as
part of the rezone process. The proposed development should not create drainage or surface water
problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards as part of the
local development order process that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby
properties. Any proposed water management and drainage system will need to be designed to
prevent drainage problems on site and be compatible with the adjacent water management systems.
Additionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on
new developments.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The PUD document provides adequate property development regulations to ensure light and air
should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. The Master Plan further demonstrates that the
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 180125
locations of proposed preserve and open space areas should further ensure light and air should not
be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. Additionally, a roadway separates this project from adjacent
uses to the south along Immokalee Road.
10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area.
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external
to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however
zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value.
There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding
developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Properties around this property are already partially developed as previously noted. The basic
premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when
combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives
reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or
development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed PUD amendment should not be a
deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
The proposed development complies with the GMP, a public policy statement supporting Zoning
actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed
change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further
determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the
public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The proposed change is necessary because LDC Section 10.02.13.D.7 does not allow the County to
accept applications for development order approvals until the zoning is "updated" to resolve the
sunsetted status of the PUD.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
The proposed development complies with the GMP subdistrict's requirements for the uses
proposed, however the density issues remains unresolved. The GMP is a policy statement which has
evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the
urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards
and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the
community.
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 190125
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permiUing such use.
There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is
not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition
was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not
review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed
zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and
this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development
regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building
permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding
Adequate Public Facilities for and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals
and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by
county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning
process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall
deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
PUD Findinfls:
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
The type and pattern of development proposed should not have a negative impact upon any physical
characteristics of the land, the surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and
other utilities. Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required to comply with all county
regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00
Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may
relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of
such areas andfacilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense.
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 20 0125
Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control. The
RPUD document and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for the
continuing operation and maintenance of common areas.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and
policies of the GMP (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives
and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis,
staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
The development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements contained in this petition are
designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses and the use mixture within
the project itself. Staff believes a finding that this petition is compatible, both internally and
externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing surrounding uses would be appropriate once
the density issue is resolved. Additionally, the Development Commitments contained in the PUD
document provide additional requirements the developer will have to fulfill.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements andfacilities, both public and private.
Although development of the project has not yet commenced, the timing or sequence of
development in light of concurrency requirements does not appear to be a significant problem for
this project based upon the transportation commitments contained in the PUD document and
discussed in considerable detail in the GMP Transportation section of this report. In addition, the
project's development must be in compliance with all other applicable concurrency management
regulations when development approvals are sought. The sunsetting provision of the LDC will also
apply to this development.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
Please refer to PUD finding number 6 above.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting
public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 21 0125
This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and
deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the
most similar conventional zoning district. Staff is of the opinion that the deviations proposed can
be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 1O.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has
demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety
and welfare of the community" and LDC Section IO.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated
that the deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations."
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC heard this petition on February 4, 2009. Chairman Hughes made the motion to approve
the petition subject to the following conditions:
1. This approval is subject to the recommendations contained in the EAC Staff Report as
follows:
a. The project is proposing impacts to 586 acres of wetlands. The project has identified
515.2 acres of 586.2 acres (88 percent) of the required wetland mitigation acreage. The remaining
71 acres of off-site mitigation shall be identified prior to SDP approval; and
b. The minimum preserve acreage shall be maintained. Additional preserve acreage shall
be added onsite or offsite to compensate for any clearing needed for private access to out parcels
within the preserve.
And further subject to the following additional conditions:
2. This petition shall be subject to compliance with condition #33 of the South Florida Water
Management District Environmental Resource Permit SFWMD, ERP #1l-0203l-P dated
September 13, 2007, issued to LM. Collier, which states "The Permittee shall implement the
Mirasol Water Quality Monitoring Plan, attached as Exhibit 6. Any deviation from these testing
and monitoring procedures will require prior approval from the District Environmental Compliance
Staff. Such request shall be made in writing and shall include (1) reason for the change and (2) an
outline of the proposed change" into this approval.
3. The results of the Water Quality Monitoring referenced above shall be submitted to Collier
County's Director of Engineering and Environmental Services.
4. If the Petitioner is not in compliance with standards in condition #2 (condition #33 of the
SFWMD, ERP referenced above), remediation shall occur at the Petitioner's expense.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Standridge. The motion passed 6 to 2 with Mr. Penniman and Dr.
Hushon voting against the motion. Dr. Hushon stated she was voting against the motion because
the petition is inconsistent with the following Sections of the GMP, Conservation and Coastal
Management Element - 2.l.d, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5. She expressed concern that the rules currently in
place are not being implemented. Mr. Penniman stated he was voting against the motion because he
believed the Petition violates the Goals 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 of the GMP, Conservation and Coastal
Management Element.
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 1 g, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 22 0125
Two persons spoke at the EAC voicing opposition to this petition. Nicole Ryan Conservancy of
Southwest Florida submitted a copy of GMP CCME Section 2.1 and voiced her opinion that this
project was not consistent with this policy because the project is within a High Priority Restoration
Area and the project fails to avoid and minimize wetland impacts.
Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society also spoke, voicing his opposition to the petition
and his concurrence with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida's position. Additionally, he added
his concerns about wildlife habitat. (Please refer to the EAC Minutes for details.)
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
This petitioner has held two Neighborhood Information Meetings. The first NIM was held on
December 13,2007, and the second was held on January 14,2009. The synopses of those meetings
are provided below.
The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on December 13, 2007, 6:00 PM at
Gulf Coast High School cafeteria. Eleven public persons attended, as well as the applicant's team
and county staff. The applicant's agent(s) provided copies of the project location map upon
attendees' arrival. Following introductions by the county's principal project planner, Kay Deselem,
the applicant's agent Richard Yovanovich, stated the following facts:
· The petitioner plans to develop the project at 1.7 units per acre
. The PUD rezone/amendment is adding eighty acres for a total of 1,638 acres
· 1,917 units are proposed, (which is) allowed under the current Growth Management
Plan(GMP)/Comprehensive Plan
· The number of allowable/proposed units is under the Development of Regional Impact (DR!)
threshold number, so, there will be no DR! level review
· The zoning is still "Residential" and "Golf Course" and we're adding "Village Center" to
include 18,900 square feet of office and retail uses to be co-located on 15 acres of "Village Center"
. Preserve area is 440 acres
· Preserve aligns with Parklands to the west and southwest area with Olde Cypress
. Density blending under the Compo Plan
. The "flow way" is no longer a requirement of the PUD"
Attendees asked the following questions and the applicant's agents responded:
· Q. (will there be) "Access to Broken Back Road?
. A. Via (C.R.) 951 Extension
· Mr. Ray Pellitier asked, "What may the impact to properties to the south be now that the flow
way is not required?"
A. Army Corp of Engineers said flow way is not required
Mr. Rick Barber said, "We're providing pass through water system through control structures to the
canal, and berm structures should provide some relief."
. Q. Construction start date?
. A. No projection
· Q. Rose Boulevard property owner questioned buffering
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 23 of 25
.
. A. Fifteen feet as required
. Q. Pushing water?
. A. Historical flow buffering"
The same property owner on Rose Boulevard said, ''I'm excited abut the project." The meeting
concluded at approximately 6:20 PM.
The second NIM was duly noticed by the applicant and held on January 14,2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the
Golden Gate Fire Station #73. Twenty people from the public attended, as well as the applicant's
team (Rich Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, & Johnson, Karen Bishop ofPMS, Inc. and others)
and county staff. Karen presented an overview of the requested rezone from PUD zoning district to
PUD zoning district to be known as Mirasol PUD. The meeting ended at approximately 6:30 p.m.
The concerns and questions raised are as follows:
1. Participants wanted to know what "sunsetting" meant? Rich explained that it's simply an
extension to the time period a project has to be built. If you have not built within your time frame,
then you need an extension to the PUD and it has to be brought up to today's standards.
2. Participants asked what how the excavation be done. The applicant stated that there would
be some blasting and that dozers, front loaders and trucks would be used. The residents would also
be notified of the blasting times and it would be done over a period of time and not on Sundays.
3. An Olde Cypress resident commented that there is currently a bike path that stops at the
Mirasol property line and water flows over it and are there any plans to extend it? Karen responded
there are plans to slope the area so the path will no longer be underwater and that the County does
require the project to install a bike path.
4. A resident on Rose Court asked if there was any intention on using Rose Court during the
project, as it is a private road, not maintained by Collier County, the applicant responded that there
is no intention of using Rose Court.
5. Participants asked if this project is still going to be a residential community, the answer was
yes.
6. The Olde Cypress residents wanted to know the canal/flow way would still be built through
the preserve and on Old Cypress property. Rich stated the flow way is no longer part of this PUD as
it is no longer an obligation.
7. Olde Cypress residents asked if their Master Association could be notified with a
construction schedule. The project manger stated that he would do the best he could with getting
that information to the association.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ-
A-2007-AR-12046 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of
approval subject to the staff stipulations that have been incorporated into the RPUD document.
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19,2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 24 01 25
3-Lj-QCf
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
':;J!I~
'3 dr~CJ7
DATE
Hll'cL A (JIG
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
DATE
~~, .I\ST~
SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
31510'
DATE
APPROVED BY:
<..3J~- /01
PHK. SCHMI T ADMINIS RATOR . DATE
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the April 28, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 Mirasol RPUD
March 19, 2009 eepe
Rev: 3/4/09
Page 25 of 25
Item VI. C.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4. 2009
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT
Petition No.:
Petition Name:
Applicant/Developer:
Consultant:
Environmental Consultant:
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046
Mirasol Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD)
I M Collier Joint Venture
Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich &
Koester, P.A., and Wayne Amold, ofQ.
Grady Minor and Associates
Turrell, Hall, and Associates
II. LOCATION
The subject 1,543 acre tract is located on the north side of Immokalee Road, bordered on
the east by Broken Back Road, future Collier Boulevard in Sections 10, 15 and 22,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N- Planned Development (within Lee County) residential uses
S- Immokalee Road; then PUD Laurelwood, Richland
residential projects
E- Heritage Bay DRI/PUD and developing residential
AgriculturaliST zoning and undeveloped areas
w- Parklands and Terafma PUD undeveloped
Agricultural zoning Agricultural uses
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Mirasol PUD was approved on April 24, 2002. The existing PUD, cOIIiprising
1558"' acres, was zoned from Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) on April 24, pursuant to Ordinance 01-20 to allow for 799
Mirasol EAC Staff Report
Page 2 of 12
residential units and 2 l8-hole golf courses that would feature a clubhouse and recreation
amenities. No development occurred within the LDC allotted time frame therefore the
PUD sunsetted. The petitioner sought two, 2-year PUD extensions (from April 24, 2006
to April 24, 2010) in petition number PUDEX-2006-AR-9l24 that was scheduled to be
heard by the Board on May 8, 2007; the BCC did not take action on the petition because
it was withdrawn by the petitioner on that date. The petitioner agreed to seek sunsetting
reliefthru the PUD amendment process instead.
At that May 8, 2007 Board hearing, the Board adopted a Developer's Contribution
Agreement (DCA) for the project's prepayment of impact fees to be utilized for
intersection improvements at the Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard intersection
therefore vesting the project's 799 dwelling units.
As presently configured, this amendment petition does not propose to add any dwelling
units to the project. Also proposed is the removal of the previously proposed flow way as
a project requirement. The applicant is updating the PUD document to remove redundant
language from the original PUD document and to update the PUD document to put it in
the currently acceptable format. A five acre tract that was inadvertently included is being
removed from the project also.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
Future Land Use Element
A portion of the total subject property (property in Section 22) is designated Urban
(Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-district), the remainder of the property
(property in Sections 10 & 15) is designated Agricultural/Rural (Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District, Neutral Lands) as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP).
Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Sub-district allows residential
development at a base density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, subject to the Density
Rating System provisions; and recreation and open space. No additional dwelling units
are proposed therefore the density will not change as a result of the PUD amendment
request.
Conservation & Coastal Manaeement Element
The Mirasol project is Consistent with all applicable sections of the Growth Management
Plan, including the following objectives and policies. Please refer to the Environmental
Impact Statement for further detail.
OBJECTIVE 2.2: All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall
meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards.
Mira,ol EAC StatfReport
Page 3 of12
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative
impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that
discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance
the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or
enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry
detention area(s), lake(s) and a wetland(s) to provide water quality retention and peak
flow attenuation during storm events.
OBJECTIVE 6.1: The County shall protect native vegetative communities through
the application of minimum preservation requirements. The following policies
provide criteria to make this objective measurable. These policies shall apply to all
of Collier County except for that portion of the County which is identified on the
Countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay.
As described under the applicable Policies, these criteria are being met by the proposed
PUD Master Plan.
Policy 6.1.1: For the County's Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area,
Conservation Designated Area, and Agricultural/RuraJ Mixed Use District, Rural-
Industrial District and Rural-Settlenrent Area District as designated on the FLUM,
native vegetation shall be preserved on-site through the application of the following
preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development
occurs within the Area of Critical State concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards
referenced in the Future Land Use Element shall apply.
The property straddles the RFMU neutral land and the urban residential land boundary.
The Mirasol PUD was specifically authorized to utilize the density blending provisions
when the density blending provisions were incorporated into the Future Land Use
Element (I B. 5.) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The density blending
provisions in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan specifically
allow the blending of density from the urban area to Section 15 in the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District.
As such, the entire project will be required to meet the native vegetation preservation
standards outlined in the RFMU section of the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element as presented below (Policy 6.1.2).
Policy 6.1.2: For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, as designated on the
FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved on site through the application of the
following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria for Neutral Lands:
Mirasol EAC Staff Report
Page 4 of 12
A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site
area shall be preserved, except that, for Section 24, Township 49 south, Range 26 East,
located in the North Belle Meade Overlay, a minimum of 70% of the native vegetation
present, not to exceed 70% of the total site areas, shall be preserved.
Sections 10 and 15 are within the RFMU zoning and are designated as Neutrallantis on
the FLUM Due to the density blending standards, the entire site will be considered
under these RFMU criteria. .
Policy 6.1.4: Prohibited invasive exotic vegetation shall be removed from all new
developments.
The project has coordinated a Preserve Management Plan with state andfederal review
agencies. This plan includes provisions for exotic removal and perpetual maintenance to
keep the preserves free of nuisance and exotic vegetation. This Plan is Exhibit 15 of the
EIS. In addition, all developed areas shall be kept free of exotic vegetation.
Policy 6.1.7: The County shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into
landscape designs in order to promote the preservation of native plant communities and to
encourage water conservation. This shall be accomplished by:
According to the EIS, native vegetation retention and restoration will be encouraged
throughout the project site. In addition, the wet detention lakes will have all required
littoral plantings indicated at the time of site development plan submittal.
Policy 6.1.8: An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or submittal of appropriate
environmental data as specified in the County's land development regulations, is
required... ..
This EIS submittal was made in accordance with this requirement and is part of the EAC
review packet.
OBJECTIVE 6.2: The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural
functions of wetlands pursuant to the appropriate policies under Goal 6. The
following policies provide criteria to make this objective measurable. The County's
wetland protection policies and strategies shall be coordinated with the Watershed
Management Plans as required by Objective 2.1 of this Element.
Policy 6.2.1: As required by Florida Administrative Code 9J5-5.006(1)(b), wetlands
identified by the 1994-95 South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) land use
and land cover inventory are mapped on the Future Land Use Map series. These areas
shall be verified by jurisdictional field delineation, subject to Policy 6.2.2 of this element,
at the time of project permitting to determine the exact location of jurisdictional wetland
boundaries.
Mirasol EAC Staff Report
Page 5 of 12
Wetland boundaries have been delineated and verified by the SFWMD. The
jurisdictional lines are indicated on the SFWMD permit exhibits as well as on the
applicable exhibits included in this EIS submittal (see exhibits 2, 3, 6, 7 of EIS).
Policy 6.2.2: Wetlands shall be defined pursuant to Section 373.019 Florida Statutes.
The location of jurisdictional wetland boundaries are further described by the delineatiqQ
methodology in Section 373.421 Florida Statutes. .
This has been done. Wetland boundaries have been delineated and verified by the
SFWMD. The jurisdictional lines are indicated on the SFWMD permit exhibits as well as
on the applicable exhibits included in this EIS submittal.
Policy 6.2.4: Within the Urban Designated area, the County shall rely on the wetland
jurisdictional determinations and permit requirements issued by the applicable
jurisdictional agency.
As stated above, a portion of the proposed project is within the Urban Designated area
but since the remainder of the project is within the RFMU District, the Density Blending
provisions require the entire site to be reviewed under the RFMU criteria.
Policy 6.2.5: Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and that portion of the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System which is contained within the Immokalee Urban
Designated Area, Collier County shall direct land uses away from higher functioning
wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands based upon the vegetation
requirements of Policy 6.1.2 of this element, the wetland functionality assessment
described in paragraph (2) below, and the [mal permitting requirements of the South
Florida Water Management District.
GMP Policy 6.2.5. (6) states, "Mitigation shall be requiredfor direct impacts to wetlands
in order to result in no net loss of wetland jUnctions." In addition, the policy states,
''''No net loss ofwetlandfimctions" shall mean that the wetlandfunctional score of the
proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the
impacted wetlands. However, in no case shall the acreage proposed for mitigation be less
than the acreage being impacted." The project is proposing impacts to 586 acres of
wetlands. The project has identified 5 I 5. 2 acres of 586.2 acres (88%) of the required
wetland mitigation acreage. The remaining 71 acres of off-site mitigation shall be
identified prior to SDP approval.
Policy 6.2.6: Within the Urban Designation and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District,
required wetland preservation areas, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be dedicated
as conservation and common areas in the form of conservation easements and shall be
identified or platted as separate tracts; and, in the case of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan.
Mirasol EAC Staff Report
Page 6 of 12
All preservation, buffer, and mitigation areas required under the County Codes will be
placed under conservation easements prior to site plan approval as outlined in this
Policy and as required by the LDC at the time of development.
OBJECTIVE 6.4: The County will protect, conserve and appropriately use
ecological communities shared with or tangential to State and Federal lands and
other local governments.
This PUD is proposing to preserve lands that will connect existing and proposed
preserve lands to the west with existing preserve lands to the east. Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) and Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary are also located to the
east and north of the project as shown on Exhibit 8 of the EIS.
OBJECTIVE 6.5: The County shall protect natural reservations from the impact of
surrounding development. For the purpose of this Objective and its related policies:
natural reservations shall include only Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs)
and designated Conservation Lands on the Future Land Use Map; and,
development shall include all projects except for permitting and construction of
single-family dwelling units situated on individual lots or parcels. This Objective
and its Policies shall apply only to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district [except as
noted in Policy 6.5.3].
Policy 6.5.2:
The following criteria shall apply to development contiguous to natural reservations in
order to reduce negative impacts to the natural reservations:
The proposed project is located adjacent to the CREW Natural Resource Protection
Area. The entire boundary adjacent to the NRPA is included in the preserve areas of the
project. Adjacent preserve areas associated with other developments will be protected
through natural and structural buffers, placement of less intensive uses such as golf
course and water management areas, and through the education of residents.
GOAL 7: THE COUNTY SHALL PROTECT AND CONSERVE ITS FISHERIES
AND WILDLIFE.
OBJECTIVE 7.1:
The County shall direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and
their habitats. The County relies on the listing process of State and Federal agencies
to identify species that require special protection because of their endangered,
threatened, or species of special concern status.
The project is not within a NRPA but is adjacent to one. Development and preserve
locations associated with the development have taken into account providing the largest
possible buffers between the development and the NRPA boundary.
Mirasol EAC Staff Report
Page 7 of 12
Policy 7.1.2: Within areas of Collier County, excluding the lands contained in the RLSA
Overlay, non-agricultural development, excluding individual single-family residences,
shall be directed away from listed species and their habitats...
A Listed Species Survey has been conducted on the project site. Coordination has
occurred between the project and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FFWCC) and US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The FFWCC has not commented
on the project since the 2002 SFWMD approval but the USFWS has recently issued their
Biological Opinion (Exhibit 17 of EIS) and indicated that the project would not
jeopardize any federally listed species.
Policy 7.1.4: All development shall comply with applicable federal and state permitting
requirements regarding listed species protection.
The project has undergone significant review by the FWS and the results of that review
are presented in the Biological Opinion.
Policy 7.1.6: The County shall evaluate the need for the protection of listed plants and
within one (1) year of the effective date of this amendment adopt land development
regulations addressing the protection oflisted plants.
The petitioner stated in the EIS that the only plants from the list that have been observed
on the Mirasol site are the common wild pine bromeliad (fillandsia fasciculata) and the
butterfly orchid (Encvclia tamvensis). These plants have been observed in several of the
cypress areas and the vast majority will be preserved under the proposed plan.
GOAL 11: THE COUNTY SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION,
PRESERVATION AND SENSITIVE RE-USE OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES
OBJECTIVE 11.1: To protect historic and archaeological resources in Collier
County.
No archaeological sites are known to exist on this property.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES
Stonnwater Manal!ement
The Mirasol project sits in the Cocohatchee River Basin and by Collier County Ordinance
2001-27, is limited to a maximum site-wide allowable discharge rate of 0.04 cfs per acre.
The Drainage Atlas of Collier County shows that flow from this portion of the
Cocohatchee River Basin is intercepted by the Inunokalee Road (Cocohatchee) Canal.
Judging from the topography (Jan 2001), historical flow was possibly anywhere from
Mirasol EAC Staff Report
Page 8 of 12
westward to southward but the construction of Immokalee Road and the adjacent canal
intercepted the flow and sent it west into the Wigging Bay system.
The attached portion of a Soils Map is from data gathered prior to 1941, and it appears
that prior to the construction of all the roads and subdivisions in "North Naples", flow
may have been predominantly westward. The only road that existed in the area at the
time shows on the map as US 41. Another parallel portion of US 41 is to the west, and
some rail lines cut between the two. As a note of interest, the depressional cypress heads
that show on the LiDAR in section I 6 (Terrafina) and section 9 (parklands) also show in
the same areas on these earliest soils maps.
Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "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 into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07."
Mirasol received the latest Modification to their Environmental Resource Permit # 11-
02031-P on 13 September 2007. Because of the configuration of the site with the
preserves being in the north part of the site and the developed area being in the south of
the site and also because of the southerly direction of the flow of water in this area, there
is no proposed use of the preserves for water retention., so the water management
aspects of the site are exempt from EAC review and discussion. The water
management system proposes to use a standard design of interconnected wet and dry
retention and detention areas to achieve water quality retention and peak flow attenuation.
This project originally proposed a "flow way" to route runoff from the north through the
site. The flow way was advocated by some agencies and opposed by environmental
groups and the approach was eventually discarded. County Engineering staff is deferring
all aspects of the stormwater review to SFWMD.
Environmental
Please note that future alignments for the extension of Collier Boulevard may bisect the
proposed preserve. This has not been addressed in the EIS or PUD exhibit. It shall be
noted that LDC Section 9.03.07 Nonconformities Created or Increased by Public
Acquisition allows properties to become legally non-conforming with requirements
including native vegetation, conservation areas, and preserves. This section applies to the
acquisition for present or planned public use. The possible alignment through the
preserve can be found on the Transportation Planning document "Collier County Level of
Service Network 2020" on their website: www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=580.
Mirasol EAC Staff Report
Page 9 of]2
1. Site Description
The project site is approximately 1,543.7 acres and consists of both urban (340.8 acres)
and RFMU neutral lands (1,202.9 acres) within the proposed PUD boundary. The
majority of the site has been infested to varying degrees by melaleuca The 1,543.7 acre
PUD footprint contains about 262.7 acres of upland habitats and 1,281 acres of wetland
habitats. Of the 1,543.7 acres, approximately 853.2 acres meet the County definition of
native habitat. The remainder of the property is dense melaleuca (See Exhibit II).
2. Wetlands
The site contains 1,281.0 acres of wetland habitats. Approximately 586 acres of wetlands
(46% of the PUD wetlands) will be impacted by the proposed development. The Wetland
Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) functional assessment conducted for the Unite
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit showed that the wetlands being
impacted are of lower quality and lower functional value than high quality wetlands. The
hydrological changes in the area over the past 30 years coupled with the dense exotic
vegetation infestation have depressed the functional viability of the wetlands on the
project site.
3. Preservation Requirements
The project has a total of 1543.7 acres of which about 853.2 acres are existing native
habitat. The property must therefore preserve at least 511.9 acres (60% of853) of native
habitat either on-site or through a combination of on and off site sources. The 511.9 acres
required does not exceed 45% (45% x 1543.7 = 694.7 acres) of the entire site.
Native habitat acreage is being preserved throughout the site plan. The project is
providing a large preserve contiguous with adjacent preserves to the east and west and is
also providing 5 smaller preserve areas (which contain higher quality wetlands) within the
development area. Higher quality wetlands are those that have a WRAP score of 0.65 or
greater. High quality wetlands are third in the preserve selection ranking criteria as
defined by the GMP Policy 6.1.2. and LDC section 3.05.07.A.3. All together, these
preserves contribute approximately 461.6 acres of native habitat preservation. The
remaining 50.3 acres of required native preservation will be met off-site with lands
preserved in NRP A Sending Lands in Section II immediately east of this project.
Selection of native vegetation to be retained as preserve areas shall reflect the following
criteria in descending order of priority:
a. Wetland or upland areas known to be utilized by listed species or that serve
as corridors for the movement of wildlife shall be preserved and protected in
order to facilitate the continued use of the site by listed species or the
movement through the site, consistent with the requirements of Policy 7.1.1
and 7.1.2 of this element.
Mirasol EAC Staff Report
Page ]0 of 12
b. Xeric Scrub, Dune and Strand, Hardwood Hammocks.
c. Onsite wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7
UMAM (Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method).
d. Any upland habitat that serves as a buffer to a wetland area
e. Dry Prairie, Pine Flatwoods, and
f. All other native habitats.
4. Listed Species
A Listed Species Survey has been conducted on the project site. Species observations
have been underway for the past five years. The FFWCC has not commented on the
project since the 2002 SFWMD approval. The USFWS has recently issued their
Biological Opinion and concurred with the USACE that the project "may affect" the
endangered Florida panther and wood stork. Regarding wood storks, the Biological
Opinion concludes there will be a loss of fish biomass that is the basis of their Take
estimation. The Opinion did state that there would be no direct take of and any incidental
take of either species would be difficult to detect. Please refer to the conclusions on page
61 and 82 of the Biological Opinion (Exhibit 17 ofEIS).
Big Cypress fox squirrel, Florida black bear, snowy egret, great egret, tricolored heron,
great blue heron, green-backed heron, white ibis, and wood stork have been observed on
and adjacent to the project site during the wildlife survey.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval ofMirasol PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046 with the following conditions:
Stormwater Manal!:ement:
None
Environmental:
]. The project is proposing impacts to 586 acres of wetlands. The project has identified
515.2 acres of586.2 acres (88%) of the required wetland mitigation acreage. The
remaining 71 acres of off-site mitigation shall be identified prior to SDP approvaL
2. The minimum preserve acreage shall be maintained. Additional preserve acreage shall
be added onsite or offsite to compensate for any clearing needed for private access to out
parcels within the preserve.
Mirasol EAC Staff Report
Page]lof12
PREPARED BY:
TANCHRZANO Kl,P.E.
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
ENGINEERlNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ltb \"
UMMER ARAQ
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALI T
ENGINEERlNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
io~Lfd~
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
r<~is o+F
~W1l\
,p;~l~.
l{, J"ItiN (j9
DATE
/0 (hHl d1
DATE;
/ /dO/09
,
DATE
Mirasol EAC Staff Report
Page 12ofl2
REVIEWED BY:
1- tto-Oq
DATE
Jk~
~. .:;. /\..
LIAM D. L NZ, r., P.E.
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
o{-ZP- oq
DATE
-iJ.)l A-- erO
1-2/-0~
DATE
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED BY:
1_/ ,:~ fA1f'"
JOSEPH K. SCHMITT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
l ADMINISTRATOR
ORDINANCE NO. 09-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSNE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESCRlBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRlCT (PUD) TO A
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
ZONING DISTRlcT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE
MlRASOL RPUD, A PROJECT WITH A TOTAL OF 799
DWELLING UNITS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) BORDERED
ON THE EAST BY BROKEN BACK ROAD AND FUTURE
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), IN SECTIONS 10, 15 AND
22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 1,543+/- ACRES;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER
2001-20, THE MlRASOL PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, lMcOLLIER JOINT VENTURE, represented by Richard Yovanovich,
Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of
County Commissioners to change the zoning classification ofthe herein described real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Sections 10, 15
and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Planned
Mirasol, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046
Revised 12/31108 HFAC
Page 1 of3
Unit Development Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning
District for a 1,543+/- acre project to be known as the Mirasol RPUD, in accordance with
Exhibits A-F, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
Ordinance Number 01-20, known as the Mirasol PUD, adopted on April 24, 2001 by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION THREE:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this
day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
, Deputy Clerk
DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
. \)\
I~"" , "
.1' ",' 0
Y'I 1.0'
,'Y. '
'~
Mirasol, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046
Revised 12/31108 HFAC
Page 2 of3
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit B2
Exhibit C
Exhibit C2
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
08-CPS.00860\21
Permitted Uses
Development Standards
Flag Lot Scenario
Location Map
Master Plan
Legal Description
Deviations
Developer Commitments
Mirasol, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046
Revised 12/31/08 HF AC
Page 3 of3
EXHIBIT A
FOR
MIRASOL RPUD
PERMITTED USES:
A maximum of 799 residential units and a maximum of 36 golf course holes may
be developed within the RPUD.
L Residential/Golf Tracts (RG):
A. Principal Uses:
I. Single-family detached dwelling units.
2. Zero lot line dwellings.
3. Single-family attached and townhouse dwellings.
4. Two-family and duplex dwellings.
S. Multiple-family dwellings.
6. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals
determines to be compatible in the "RG" district.
B. Accessory Uses/Structures:
I. Uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses
permitted
2. Guest houses.
3. Common area recreation facilities.
4. Clubhouse or recreation centers for residential uses.
5. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to,
boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, gazebos, boat and canoe
docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters.
6. Model homes, welcome centers and sales trailers.
7. Pro-shops, practice areas and ranges, golf cart barns, rest rooms,
shelters snack bars and golf course maintenance yards.
Revision date 2-27-09
8. Retail establishments accessory to the permitted uses in the
District such as, but not limited to, golf, tennis and recreation
related sales.
9. Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other
types of accessory facilities intended for outdoor recreation.
10. Restaurants, cocktail lounges, and similar uses intended to
serve club members and club guests.
I L Golf course, golf club, tennis clubs, health spas and equestrian
clubs.
12. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures.
13. Essential services, pursuant to the LDC.
14. Water management facilities and related structures.
15. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or
structural bank treatments.
16. Community and neighborhood parks, recreational facilities,
community centers.
17. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for
the developer, builders, and their authorized contractors and
consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and
related uses.
18. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape
buffers berms, fences and walls.
19. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals
determines to be compatible in the "RO" district.
II. Conservation/Preserve Tract:
A. Principal Uses:
L Passive recreation uses limited to the following so long as
clearing for such uses does not result in the reduction of
Preserve acreage below the minimum requirement:
Revision date 2-27-09
2
Revision date 2-27-09
1. Boardwalks
11. Environmental uses (wetlands and conservation areas)
111. Pedestrian bridges
IV. Equestrian trails
v. Pervious nature trails except where American
Disabilities Act requires otherwise.
VI. Wildlife sanctuary
VII. Inclement weather shelters, in preserve upland areas
only unless constructed as a part of a permitted
boardwalk system. The shelter shall be a maximum of
150 square feet.
2. Environmental research
3. Drainage and water management facilities subject to all
required permits.
4. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing
list or permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of
Zoning Appeals through the process outlined in the LDC.
3
EXHIBIT B
FOR
MlRASOL RPUD
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD.
Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections
of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or
subdivision plat.
TABLE]
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
"RG" RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Single Zero Two Single Multi- Clubhousel
PERMITTED Family Lot Family and Family Family Recreation
USES Detached Line Duplex Attached and Dwelling Buildings
AND Townhouse *6
STANDARDS
1 2 3 4 5 6
Principal
Structures
Minimum Lot 5,000 SF 4,000 3,500 SF per 3,500 SF 9000 SF nla
Area SF lot or unit
*3
Minimum Lot 50' *7 40' *7 35' per lot 35' *7 90' nla
Width *4 *7 or unit *7
Front Yard 20' *2 *7 20' *2 20' *2 *7 20' *2 *7 20'*2 25'
Setback *2 *7
Side Yard 7.5' *7 o or 10' 7.5' *7 *8 7.5' *7 *8 15' *5 5'
Setback *7
Rear Yard 15' *7 15' *7 15' *7 15' *7 15' 0'
Setback * 1
Setback From 0' *7 0' *7 0' 0' 0' 20'
Golf Course
Setback From 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25'
Preserves
Maximum 35' 35' 35' 35' 50' (5 50' (2 stories over
Zoned Heieht stories) oarking)
Actual Height 45' 45' 45' 45' 65' 75'
Floor Area 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF ] 000 SF 750 SF nla
Min. (S.F.)
Distance 10' 10' 10' 10' 20' *6 15' or .5BH
Between whichever is greater
Principal *5
Structures
Revision date 2-27-09
4
Single Zero Lot Two Family Single Family Multifamily Clubhouse/Recreation
Accessory Family Line and Duplex Attached and Dwelling Buildings *6
Structures Detached Townhouse
Front Yard SPS *7 SPS *7 SPS SPS SPS SPS
Setback *2
Side Yard 5' *7 o or 5' 5' 5' 10' 5'
Setback *7
Rear Yard 10' *7 ] 0' *7 10' 10' 10' 10'
Accessory
Setback * 1
Setback From 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' ]0'
Preserves
Distance 0' or 10' 0' or 10' O' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or ] 0'
Between
Accessory
Structures on
the same lot
Distance 0' or 10' 0' or 10' 0' or ]0' 0' or ]0' 0' or 10' 0' or ]0'
Between
Accessory and
Principal
Structures on
same lot
Maximum SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS
Zoned Height
Actual Height SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS
All distances aTe in feet unless otherwise noted.
Front yards for all uses shall be measured as follows:
A. If the parcel is served by a public road right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right~of~way line.
B. lethe parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from lhe back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not
curbed).
*] - Rear yards fOf principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lakes and open spaces. Setbacks from lakes for alf
principal and accessory uses may be 0 feet provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design and subject to written
approval from the Collier County Engineering Review Section
.2 - Sing]e-family dwellings which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking other than
in private driveways may reduce the front yard requirement to 10 feet for a side entry garage. Multi-family dwellings which provide
for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking may reduce the front yard to 15 feet. This reduction
shall not result in an approval to impede or block the sidewalk Front loaded garages shall be a minimum of23 feet from the edge of
sidewalk.
*3 - Each half of a duplex unit requires a Jot area allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet.
*4 - Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained
*5 - Building distance may be reduced at garages to_half the sum of the height of the garages.
*6 Although neither setbacks nor separation between structures are applicable to the clubhouse and other recreation structures located
on a clubhouse tract, neither the clubhouse nor any other recreational structure shall be located closer than 25 feet from any residential
or preservation boundary.
.7 - The use of flag lots is allowed to provide maximum flexibility in subdivision design and may vary from the minimum lot widths
However, neither the minimum lot area, nor the minimum distance between structures may be reduced.
*8 - Zero foot (0') setback for internal units
BH = Building Height
SPS = Same as Principal Structure
Revision date 2-27-09
5
I
I
I
J
~-
FLAG LOT
FLAG LOT
DENOTES LOT LINE
NOTE:
THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES
TO SHOW HOW CERTAIN GEOMETRY OF A GIVEN
TRACT WOULD FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF A "FLAG LOT" DESIGN LAYOUT.
o
50 100
SCALE IN FEET
PREPARED FOR'
I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE
Ccn;fi~2.e of Authn.ization Nos. LB 366-4 and 'E.B 366~
.....~
==mnGNOLI
.....~D
=====~DARBER &
......~D
======~DRUNDAGE, INe.
Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors
Collin Cou'''y' 7400 Tami.m; T..~ N.. N.pleo,Ft.. Hl118 Ph.: (239l S97-3111 . F,~, (239) 561>-1203
PROJECT NAME
DRAWING NAME:
,
200
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
FLAG LOT
MIRASOL PUDA
.,J
~
S!l
!g
en
g
0.
;5
'"
..
<:>
..
'T
~
~
l!!
~
<:
o
0;
S
'"
0:
<E]
FLAG LOT SCENARIO EXHIBIT '82'
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY
DATE"
SCALL
ROP
ROP
OJ DB
N A
ABS PROJECT No.:
ACAD FILE NAME:
DRAWiNG FILE No.:
SH[ET:
788J
9814EX8-B2
N A
1 or
'~\~coll~,g~~;;iY- '/ =///~' __--~---u.
I
I
I
""'" .~' 'l////,j I
~. Ib..- L - -- - - ~ - - - - ;--- -~
~~ \1 ~A ~ '" .-. ~.- 2- ~_. ... ....
- ~^~I- ~ ~,),/ ~ :F - +~~W~~ ",,' SITE .:
..7...... INTERSTATE ~ -"l '.''\ .11 Y.S ~..' ~A Tn" I %0 ~ LOCATION y
~~\~~ Pt-,1~fi~'.1 ~~I ' 'E"~-' 1 '
L.~~ij ....~ ~ lJi,1oKALEEROA /// ~4~([ .....~
B'uwd~ I~ ""m=,. . ~. ,I ,~~ C!. ,I ; \,.~ ~t:"1~ ~NTY!
~'ov~c, <>?\O\"Gt'f.mAm ~;;;., ~~ . sr RG ~:.' 'I)",',,,, IY =:
G::;':~__S: l-, ~'*l; \,,,,I'll~i1l:
:~I .... ..' ~~.~.J_s 2Jo ~.~:::i' .. "GA~AGAO,",
.. -8~ ---T - -~-.'-I ~. . \).'C::" I T - :~5...'~."=' -Q~- ~'- -
'j" ." . ..... ..b-'-iJ".bw"';~ "~\~.. \. u==
~~ L..,..... ..GO~i;~~'i~I*~~;(:,'~),,~-~~~51 ,~"""~L . ~
I '" . J .' . '. .. l~10 J.I\ .. '&1, I ] F--c'1'''c...l\~OUNTY .um"Ll _
. 0:"..' VANDERBILT BEACH EXT. """~,"u", h1 ".
,/, "'y ,,,:' I, 1JJfL,r;IZ.' 'AGiO "..,~ .-1.
~r{-~~ !/dh, I ,
I i:!I . II/I ,r'\1 '--< I ' ,I
~
I
..'
o 2000 4000
SCALE IN FEET
& REVISION DATE 11.04-08 5th PUDA SUBMITTAL
CLIENT:
PRO..t:CT NAME
I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE
MmASOLPUDAMENDMENT
555i~GN 0 LI C.niF;cue ()( Au,horiwion No.. La 36M and EB 36M
.....~D
:===:~DARBER &
......~D
::::::~DRUNDAGE, INe.
Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors
Col1ior eo_n'y: ?400 T.m..miTr'~ N.. Nap1.., fl. 3410g Ph.: (239) ~9'._1l1l . Fa: (~39) 566.220.\
ORA'MNG NAME
LOCA TION MAP
EXHIBIT 'C'
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY:
DATE"
SCALE:
ROP ASS PROJECT No.:
ROP ACAD FILE NAME:
05/08 DRAWING FILE No_:
," 4000' SH[[T;
7883
9418C
9418 5
1 OF 1
1-
NOTE: FOR PLAN LEGEND AND SPECIAL NOTES SEE SHEET 3 OF 3
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 2 OF 3
L
d
SFWMD
PRESERVE
....
~
!ii
~
CO
(l;
;:,
"-
-S
'"
'"
"
.;,
~
~
"
~
<{
Q
"
o
;;;
S
"'
0:
TERAfINA
IPUO,
IS'TYPE
'B'LI.E.
RIG
L
@
1514
2223
~
ENTRY
$:IGNAGE
IlYP.1
to'mE'S'LB.E.
100' PROPOSED 9S1 EXl.
It.O.W. DEDICATION
POSSIBLE
FUTURE
INTERCONNECT
TREE FARM
IPUO,
POSSIBLE f'
FUTURE ~
INTERCONNECT
HERrTAGE BAY
IPUO,
~ " C[] MIRA-SOL I
lS'lYrE PROPERTY ,
" " 'It'LI.E. BOUNDARY :
RIG 1$'TYrE
OLPE CYPRESS " " 'B'LU.
,
IPUOI " " '"
" " ~
~
~ ~
" " ~
:'
" " ,
" " "
~
o
SCALE
500 1000
IN FEET
CLIENT-
PROJECT NAME
I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE
MmASOLPUDAMENDMENT
....,~
::mnGNOLI
.....~D
:::::~DARBER &
......~D
::::mVRUNDAGE, INe.
Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors
Cnlli... eo.nly, HooT,,"i,m; T,o~ N.. Nap!..., fl.. 34108 Ph.: (239)597,.\111. fax: (239) S~2203
CeMifica,. of AUlhonz.alio" No.. LB 3664 and EB 3664
DRAWING NAME
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT 'C2'
DRAWN BY' ROP ABS PROJECT No.: 788J
REVIEWED BY: ROP ACAD FILE NAME: 9418C2
DATE: 05 OB DRAWING FILE No.. 9418 1
SCALE: ,-' 1000. SHEET: 1 Of J
PARKLANDS
IPU',
t: -NJi .
V::::::
J'" .
..~
- - . ~ . - . . . . . - . .
. ............ .
: .:.: . .':':':':-:QP:-:':-:':':'
. . . . - - . . . . .. .
- - . - . .
..... .... -.
-.. . -
. -.. .. ... .
... ...
::f
:C:"~:E:O::U:TV : ::: : : : : :- : : . ( 1~1:,
I
. . <N:P: . .1
. .
.. .. .. I
I
.1
. '1
. .
NlRASOL
PIWPEIm'
BOUNDARY'
-.J
~
l!l
!!l
'"
Cl;
"
0..
S
'"
Co
"
ob
~
~
"
~
Cl
<:
o
in
S
il!
~
<N:P'.
IAI
VACANT
. .
. .
\::<:::
1<
L:-::
I.
1
:-1
'-CJ
J
1
..:.:.:. NP:.:
IAI
VACANT
Ni>-:-: . .
~
RIG
TERAFINA
IPU'I
o 500
SCALE IN
1000
FEET
N
RIG
RIG
HERITAOE BAY
1'"'1
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 1 OF 3
CLIENT'
PROJECT NAME
I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE
MmASOLPUDAMENDMENT
....I!~
==mnGNOLI
.....~D
=====~DARBER &
......~D
======~l.JRUNDAGE, INe.
Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors
Colli.. CoPfI'Y: 7.00 Tom;,,", T..il N.. N'rlt., FL- 3.,0B Ph_, (239) 597-.lltJ _ 1-"a: (239) 56f~220J
C.rtific... of Au,hn.izuioft NOl_ LB 366<1 :"..1 EB 3664
DRAWING NAME'
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT 'C2'
DRAWN BY ROP ABB PROJECT No: 7BBJ
REVIEWED BY: ROP ACAD FILE NAME' 941BC2
DATE 05 08 DRAWING FILE No 941 B- 2
SCALE: 1"="000' SH[ET: 2 OF J
LEGEND
....
~
lE
gj
'"
~
"
..
;;
'"
'"
9
'"
9
~
'"
l:!!
~
<:
o
OJ
S
UJ
Il:
L CONCEPTUAL LAKE LOCATIONS
* RIG RESIDENTIAL I GOLf
1:::::::::::::1 NATIVE PRESERVE
tjiH,",c"k'l OTHER PRESERVES
<Q]
RIGHT-Of-WAY
* LAND USE AREAS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO
RelOCATION/CHANGE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING
SPECIAL NOTES:
1) WHERE APPLICABLE ALONG PROJECT BOUNDARY AND UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED PRESERVE AREAS SHALL SERVE AS BUFFERS. IF AFTER EXOTIC REMOVAL
THE PRESERVE VEGETATION FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM CODE BUFFER STANDARDS
ADDITIONAL PLANT MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED.
NATIVE HABITAT SUMMARY:
EXISTING NATIVE HABITAT = 853.2 Ac. +
REQUIRED NATIVE HABITAT (60%) = 511.9 Ac.:!=.
PROVIDED NATIVE HABITAT (ON SITE) = 461.6 Ac.:!=.
NATIVE HABITAT PROVIDED (OFF-SITE) = 50.3 Ac.:!=.
CLIENT:
PROJECT NAME
I.M. COLLIER JOINT VENTURE
MmASOLPUDAMENDMENT
EEe5~GNOLI Cmifiu,t of Au."".;.....io.. No.. LB 366~ and EB 366-4
.......[8
...... ARBER &
.....r.
......~D
::::::~DRUNDAGE, INC.
Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors
Com., Coun.y: 7400 Tomi.m; T..;I N. - N'pl.., Fl.. HH18 Pt..: j2l,} H7.H 11 . fax: (239) 566-1203
DRAWING NAME:
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT 'C2' LEGEND & SPECIAL NOTES
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED 8'1':
DATE:
SCALE:
ROP
ROP
OS/OB
," 2000'
ABB PROJECT No.:
ACAO FILE NAME:
DRAWlNG FILE No'
SHEET;
7883
94 J 8C2
9418 3
J or .3
EXHIBIT D
FOR MIRASOL RPUD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SECTION 10
ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4)
PARCELS:
I) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
2) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
3) THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
4) THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHEAST 1/4
SECTION 15
ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LESS & EXCEPT
THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4, AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4,
SECTION 22
ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE P ARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS;
THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, AND THE EAST 1/2 OF THE
NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
Revision date 2-27-09
11
THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4; AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST
1/4, LESS & EXCEPT THE SOUTH 100 FEET,
THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER, LESS & EXCEPT THE SOUTH 100 FEET,
THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER, LESS & EXCEPT THE SOUTH 100 FEET,
THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHEAST 1/4,
THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
THE WEST 1/2 OF SOUTHWEST ]/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, LESS & EXCEPT
THE SOUTH 100 FEET,
THE WEST 3/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST
1/4, LESS & EXCEPT THE SOUTH 100 FEET
Revision date 2-27-09
12
EXHIBIT E
FOR
MlRASOL RPUD
DEVIATIONS
1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from Appendix B ofthe LDC, entitled "Typical Street
Sections and Right-of-way Design Standards", which requires cul-de-sacs and
local streets less than one thousand feet (1,000') in length to have a minimum
sixty foot (60') right-of-way width and two ten foot (10') wide travel lanes, to
allow a minimum right-of-way width of forty feet (40') for private streets and
fifty feet (50') for spine, collector and interconnecting roads.
2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.1. Street System
Requirements, to allow that Cul-de-sacs in excess of one
thousand feet (1,000') in length. Streets with block lengths of
greater than six hundred feet (600') shall have traffic calming devices
installed at an approximate spacing of three hundred feet (300').
3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.0I.Q. Street System
Requirements, which requires that street name markers shall be approved by
the County Manager or designee for private streets or in conformance with
U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. This requirement shall be waived. However, breakaway
posts shall be used.
4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDc Section 6.06.0I.R. Street Requirements
which requires that street pavement painting, striping and reflective edging
of public roadway markings shall be provided by the developer as required
by the U.S.D.OTF.H. W.A. This requirement shall be waived for private
roadways with 40' widths. Traffic circulation signage shall be in conformance
with U.S.D.OTF.H.W.A. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device
standards.
Revision date 2-27-09
13
EXHIBIT F
FOR
MIRASOL RPUD
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
Regulations for development of the Mirasol RPUD shall be in accordance with the
contents ofthis RPUD Ordinance and applicable sections ofthe LDc and Growth
Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order in
which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development
standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise
applicable shall apply.
A. RPUD MASTER PLAN
I. Exhibit "c2", the RPUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed
development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use
boundaries or special land use boundaries, shall not be construed to be
final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as
platting or site development plan application. Subject to the provisions
of Section 10.02.13 of the LDc, RPUD amendments may be made from
time to time.
B. TRANSPORTATION
1. Upon the County's adoption of a cR-951 extension corridor alignment,
and within 180 days of the County's request, the Developer, its
successors or assigns, shall dedicate to County fee simple right-of-way
for the roadway and drainage system at the predetermined amount of
$45,000 per acre, for those areas located outside the limits of the
residential/Golf Course areas depicted as "RiG" on the PUD master
plan.
Upon recordation of the deed or other conveyance instrument in the
public records of Collier County for the dedication of the right-of-way,
the Developer shall become eligible for Transportation Impact fee
credits in accordance with the consolidated impact fee Ordinance in
effect at the time of recordation of the dedication. If the project is built
out or has prepaid transportation Impact Fees to be assessed for the
project, then the Developer or its successors or assigns shall be eligible
to request cash reimbursement.
The Developer shall not be responsible to obtain or modifY any permits
on behalf of the County related to the extension of CR-95 1.
2. The Developer shall construct a 10' multi-use pathway to be located
along the Immokalee Road right-of-way on the North side of the
Revision date 2-27-09
14
cocohatchee Canal as a part of the entrance construction. Completion
of construction of the pathway shall be completed concurrently with the
vehicular connection to the existing bridge over the Cocohatchee CanaL
3. The Developer entered into a Developer Contribution Agreement with
Collier County on May 3rd, 2007. Pursuant to the terms of that
agreement, the project is vested for 799 dwelling units for the purposes
of transportation concurrency.
4. The Developer, its successors, or assigns, agree that at the time of any
subsequent Development Order approval within this PUD, the
Developer, or its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for their
respective fair share of the North leg of the CR-951/Broken Back Road
intersection with lmmokalee Road, which includes modification,
replacement, or relocation of the at-grade bridge crossing the
Cocohatchee CanaL
c. ENVIRONMENTAL
1. As a part of the environmental resource permitting process of the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) permitting, recommendations
from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWcC)
and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding
impacts to protected wildlife species will be incorporated into the
permits issued for this project. The developer shall comply with the
guidelines set forth within those permits. Habitat management plans
shall be provided for protected listed species.
2. The property will be required to preserve 511.9 acres of native habitat.
This will be done through a mix of on-site and off-site preservation.
3. Mirasol will provide water quality testing as defined in the Mirasol
Water Quality Monitoring Plan which is Exhibit #6 ofthe Mirasol
Environmental Resource Permit # ll-02031-P. Any deviation from these
testing and monitoring procedures will require prior approval from the
District Environmental Compliance Staff. Such request must be made in
writing and shall include (1) reason for the change and (2) an outline of
the proposed change.
The results of the Water Quality Monitoring referenced above shall be
submitted to Collier County's Director of Engineering and
Environmental Services. Ifthe Petitioner is not in compliance with
standards in condition #3 (condition #33 of the SFWMD, ERP
referenced above), remediation shall occur at the Petitioners' expense.
Revision date 2-27-09
15
D. EXCAVATION
Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a commercial or
development excavation pursuant to Section 22-106 of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances of Collier County Florida. The entire water management
pass-thru system will be constructed at one time as per South Florida
Water Management permit #11-02031-P, as amended, prior to the
residential development under an administratively issued
"development" excavation permit as long as no more than 20,000 C.y. of
material is removed off-site. As per Section 22-106 of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances, a commercial excavation permit will be required for
removing more than the approved 20,000 c.y. of material off-site.
E. OUTPARcEL IN SECTION 10
A temporary access easement shall be granted to the owner of parcel
number 00178760007, at a location specified by 1M Collier Joint Venture
it's successors and assigns. At such time that the northern portion of the
Mirasol RPUD has access to a public road, the developer shall provide
reasonable access from the parcel number 00178760007 across the
Mirasol RPUD to the public road. Both the temporary and permanent
easements shall be granted to the owner of this parcel, at no cost to the
County or the owner of this parceL
Revision date 2-27-09
16
41>
.'
",~\i'EO ST-1'lf-d'l
i"'~
· ~'Wi &
~ '
~1tJ: '\~
"'t PAO"1~C.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
A TLANT A, GEORGIA 30303-6960
SEP 2 2 2006
Colonel Paul L. Grosskruger, District Engineer
Department of the Almy
Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers
AITN: Mr. Harry W. Bergmann
1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 310
Fort Myers, FL 33919
REC~IVED
SEP 2 Ii 2006
JACI<SONVILLE DISTRICT
USACE
SUBJECT: J.D. Nicewonder, Jr. - Mirasol
Public Notice: SAJ-2000-1926 (IP-HWB)
Dear Colonel Grosskruger:
This letter is the US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4's response to
the public notice (PN) for the revised permit application number SAJ~2000-1926 (IP-HWB),
dated August 24, 2006. On the basis of our review of information presently available in the
PN, we believe the proposed project may result in substantial and unacceptable adverse
environmental impacts to Aquatic Resources of National Importance (ARNl). As detailed in'
our comments below, the proposed project does not appear to be in compliance with the
requirements of the Clean Water Act's (CWA) Section 404(b)(I) Guidelines (Guidelines), i.e.,
the criteria for evaluating discharges of dredged or fill materials into navigable waters and
adjacent wetlands under Section 404 of the CW A.
Project Description
In overview, the proposed project (aka "Mirasol") involves the construction of a
residential development within 1,714 acres of biologically sensitive habitat located west of the
intersection of Immokalee Road and State Road (SR) 951 in Collier County, Florida.
According to the PN, the project site includes 1,486.14 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (an
amalgam of melaleuca, disturbed hydric pine, pine-cypress, and cypress communities) and
227,15 acres of uplands. Proposed wetlands impacts are approximately 655.90 acres (i.e.,
529.22 acres of fill and 126.68 acres of dredge impacts.)
Assessment of ARNI Criteria
Currently the subject wetlands provide suitable habitat for a diverse array of wildlife,
induding threatened and endangered species. According to the PN, the proj"ct site contains
habitat for Florida panther (Felis conc%r coryz), the wood stork (Mycteria Americana), the
red cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and the Eastem indigo snake (Drymarchon
Intelnet Address (URL) 0. http~II1MYW.$pa.gov
Recycl0d/Aecvclablo" Printed wllh Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled PaperlMlnimum 30% Poslcnnsumar)
<1P
.'
2
corais coupen). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has identified the
propeJtyas "Priority Wetlands" with "Biodiversity Hotspots" and as a "Strategic Habitat
Conservation Area". EPA has performed numerous site visits and observed many interspersed
cypress ponds (with their abundant fish species) and cypress-pine communities in the northern
portion of the Mirasol site. These communities are especially important to the many wildlife
species, such as shallow wading birds, and the efficient ecosystem functioning in thc
Cocohatchee Basin (CB). That is, cypress wetland systems are very effective in removing
nutrients and other pollutants from surface runoff, function as natural water storage reservoirs,
and facilitate groundwater recharge. Since much of this community type has been converted
to urban and agricultural pursuits (e.g., the Parklands, Terafina, and Olde Cypress residential
developments), water quality in the CB has incrementally declined (for a generic overview of
these type problems see "Final Environmental Impact Statement on Improving the Regulatory
Process in Southwest Florida, Lee and Collier Counties, Florida").
The wetlands proposed to be impacted by this project are significant due to their size,
location, and functionality within the Cocohatchee watershed, i.e., they are upstream of the
Cocohatchee Canal, Cocohatchee River, and Wiggins Pass Estuarine Area, The Cocohatchee
River and Wiggins Pass Estuarine Area are also Outstanding Florida Waters (OPW) and
warrant the highest level of protection within the State. The watershed is already experiencing
environmental problems resulting from previous development, e.g., the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) has listed the Cocohatchee Canal and Cocohatchee River as
impaired for dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria, and high iron concentrations. The potential
water quality restrictions associated with development of Total Maximum Daily Loads in
2007 will likely add another layer of environmental complexity to this watershed.
A development of this magnitude within the historic Cocohatchee Slough has a
potential fOl' significant degradation with serious alteration to the distribution and timing of
flows into these downstream waters. The secondary and cumulative impacts from the
proposed project in concert with adjacent developments may adversely affect water quality,
flood storage, watershed sheet-flow, and wildlife habitat. Any changes to downstream
hydrology may have significant impacts to the feeding and breeding eycles of important
species such as the wood storks and other wading birds. Although many of these wetland
types are expeliencing varying degrees of perturbation via the presence of exotic wetland
species, they still provide important biological and hydrological functions that include filtering
and cleaning surface water runoff, storing Hood waters during the rainy season, recharging
groundwater, and providing food and refuges for wildlife.
Compliance with thc Guidelines
By convention, the applicant's proposal is a non-water dependant project since it does
not have to be located in an aquatic site to achieve its basic purpose. For non-water dependant
projects, there is a presumption in the Guidelines that alternative upland sites exist and are
3
available to the applicant. Section 230.1O(a) of the Guidelines prohibits the discharge of
dredged or fill material if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which
would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not
have other significant adverse environmental consequences, Practicable alternatives are those
that are available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing
technology, and logistics in light of the overall project purposes. Another presumption in the
Guidelines is that fill material placed in uplands will have a lesser adverse impact on the
aquatic environment than when wetlands are sacrificed for project purposes. Given these
preconditions, the chosen project site must be shown to be the least damaging practicable
alternative that meets the basic project objectives.
EP A requests that the applicant outline efforts taken to analyze alternative sites and
provide the following information, (if diffel'ent from the original public notice):
. Describe the site selection criteria used and identify other parcels evaluated;
. Provide geogfaphic limits to your search of altemative sites;
. Provide a map of the alternative sites;
. Provide a written statement explaining why the project must be locatcd in a
wetland;
. Provide a rating of each site criterion and an overall fating for each site, and
. Provide a hydrologic study focusing on the timing and distribution of water,
especially considering thc number, size, and depth of the currently proposed water
management system.
Section 230.1O(d) of the Guidelines prohibits issuance of a permit to fill wetlands unless
appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of
the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem. In particular, the applicant should avoid and minimize
impacts to on-site wetlands and (as feasible) enhance them for water quality and habitat mitigation.
For exa.mple, the applicant could modify the design of its golf course and cluster development to
take maximum advantage of the upland porti ons of the parcel. Reducing the size and footprint of
the overall development could also lessen the adverse impacts attendant to construction of the
proposed lakes, Experience demonstrates that excavated lakes tend to lower local groundwater
levels and exacerbate evaporation rates. This, in turn, can change the hydrology of and adversely
affect adjacent wetlands. Reducing the overall development footprint, providing more on-site
mitigation, and preserving interspersed cypress areas are all measures which will help ensure that
the integrity of the Cocohatchee Slough and its downstream environments is maintained,
It is important to note that the currently proposed wetland impacts (655.90 acres) are greater
than that (587 acres) proposed in the revised 2005 application that was submitted to the COE and
denied by the COE. Hence, EPA finds it interesting that the applicant has now reapplied with a
design with even greater wetland impacts associated with its housing and golf course development.
It is important to note that 86.76 acres of the oliginal wetland impacts were a function of a flow-way
4
which is no longer included in the subject project design. To provide a comparative sense of the
impacts proposed by this project, all similar previous/planned permit actions within and adjacent to
the Cocohatchee Slough are less than the impacts currently being proposed by this project. Since
the 2005 project plan was deemed to be economically viable, EP A believes the applicant may be
able to demonstrate additional avoidance and minimization measures without materially affecting
the project's feasibility.
As noted, the PN for the project does not comply with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
Specifically, these Guidelines require applicants to follow a sequence of avoidance, minimization
and mitigation in planning for development of wetland sites and to ensure that proposed projects do
not cause or contribute to the signifIcant degradation of waters of the U.S. Currently proposed on-
site mitigation includes preservation of 830.24 acres of wetland communities and 110.42 acres of
upland communities. The applicant also proposes to purchase 27.68 credits from the Panther Island
Mitigation Bank and, enhance and restore another 100 acres within the Primary Zone of the Panther
Consultation Area. All preserve areas will be maintained free of exotic vegetation and placed under
a perpetual conservation easement granted to the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD).
In order for EP A to properly evaluate the no net loss of functional values and the
appropriateness of mitigation as proposed above, EP A requests that the applicant provide Wetland
Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) scores for the proposed impacts. Since the project footprint
and design have changed from previous submissions, and the Mirasol flow-way has been removed,
a new technical rationale for this project must be resubmitted and all revised scores should be
included. It is our understanding that the COE may be conducting a Uniform Wetland Mitigation
Assessment (UMAM) on the project impact and mitigation sites. EPA has concerns about the use of
the UMAM for determining the functional value of aquatic resources. The method has not yet been
independently peer reviewed and has shown inconsistent results in field tests.. EP A recommends
that until concerns about the validity of the method and variability of results are addressed,
applicants verify UMAM scores using accepted assessment techniques (such as WRAP or the
Hydrogeomorphic Method) or standard scientific field methods.
In order to establish appropriate mitigation, Section 230.11 of the Guidelines rcquires
consideration of both direct and indirect or secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystems. EP A
requests the applicant submit supporting documentation for this secondary impact analysis, The
project's effects on adjacent undeveloped sites and downstream aquatic environments should be also
be evaluated in this submission for determining mitigation. Considering the importance of the
resources impacted by the project, EP A rccommends that the applicant consider alternate design
options so that wetland impacts are minimized, onsite wetland enhancement is maximized, and
appropriate mitigation is mOl"e practically achieved.
If the applicant proposes to modify or submit additional infonnation, EP A would like to
review the following:
5
.
Detailed overview and cross-sectional drawings with elevations of the
proposed mitigation area;
A planting plan and/or enhancement plan;
A description of the surface water management system;
The responsible party for the long-term management of the mitigation area;
A long-term mitigation monitoring plan; and
A mitigation plan schedule.
.
.
.
.
.
The magnitude and scope of the environmental impacts that would result if a permit were
granted for this development appear significant. Therefore, an environmental impact statement
(BIS) is recommended to more effectively evaluate the overall consequences ofthe proposed
project. An EIS, with its greater depth of impact analysis and rigorous examination of altematives,
would more adequately document and then address the immediate and potential long-term effects of
this action. An EIS would also be a much better vehicle to compare Mirasol to other proposed and
permitted developments in the Cocohatchee Slough to more comprehensively evaluate cumulative
impacts.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) describes the two part test which
determines whether a proposed action should be evaluated within the context of an EIS.
Specifically, an EIS should be prepared to examine any major federal action which significantly
affects the quality of the human environment. In this instance, the federal action is the issuance of
CW A Section 404 permit by the COB. The second test is evident from the proposal's geographic
reach and scope of impacts, An EIS provides the federal decision-maker the required information to
determine the level and kind of impacts attendant to a proposal and by extension whether an action
is in the overall public interest. Public involvement, which is part of the NEPA process, also allows
those who will be most immediately affected by a proposal a means to make their opinions known
to the federal decision-maker.
Further, the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of NEP A establish a precedent for examining a proposal of this type, scope
and magnitude via an EIS, For example, the Mobile DistJict of the COE evaluated the significant
wetland impacts associated with the construction of a large-scale casino/hotel complex in the
Mississippi Sound in Biloxi, MS in this fashion. The EIS was prepared to supplement information
in the original environmental assessment which was derived from material submitted by the
applicant for the project's PN. Moreover, an EIS is presently under development to examine the
comprehensive impacts of multiple, mixed use private developments located in wetland habitats in
the vicinity of Orange Beach, Alabama,
Conclusion
Based on the comments outlined above, EP A has determined that this PN does not provide
enough information to verify compliance with the requirements of the 404(b )(1) Guidelines.
6
Moreover, the conversion of on-site wetlands, and the potential cumulative effects of this loss
coupled with planned and permitted projects within the Cocohatchee Slough may cause and/or
contribute to significant degradation of waters of the U.S., which is prohibited in 40 CFR, Section
230.1O(c). In accordance with the procedural requirements of the 1992 404(q) Memorandum of
Agreement Part N, 3(a} between the COE and EPA, we are advising your office that the proposed
work may result in substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts to ARNl, Further, given its scope
and potential significant environmental impacts coupled with the need for additional information,
the application should be held in abeyance until the major outstanding issues are resolved preferably
via the preparation of an EIS.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this request for authorization. If you have any
questions, please contact me or have someone from your staff contact EPA's representative, Robert
Lin at (561) 616-8824, U,S. EPA South Florida Office, 400 North Congress Avenue, Suite 120,
West Palm Beach, l<lorida, 33401.
Sincerely,
/:r(7
.~ijOJ:lC-
./fames D. Giattina, Director
v Water Management Division
cc: Brad Rieck, USFWS/Vero Beach
FWC/Punta Gorda
SWFMD/Ft. Myers (No.060524-2)
qb
BEFORE THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMENTS ON PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046, MlRASOL RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
Nicole Ryan, Governmental Relations Manager
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
March 19,2009
I. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CCME OBJECTIVE 2.1.d.
CCME Objective 2.1.d. states:
All development located within areas identified on Figure 1 shall be evaluated to
determine impacts to natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs. For this particular
evaluation, natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs shall be tentatively identified
as contiguous lands having a continual preponderance of wetland or wet
facultative plant species and a ground elevation through the major portion of the
natural wetland, flowway, or slough at least one (I) foot lower than the ground at
the edge of the natural wetland, flowway, or slough. The edge of the natural
wetlands, flowways, or sloughs shall be identified by field determination and
based upon vegetation and elevation differences from the adjacent uplands or
transitional wetlands. The Countv shall require the applicant to avoid direct
impacts to these natural wetlands, flowwavs, or sloughs or, when not possible. to
ensure anv direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing the same
conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact. [Emphasis added].
As found by the County Water Management Staff, the Mirasol PUD should be evaluated under
this Objective. The property is part of the historic Cocohatchee Slough, which was once 20 miles
wide, starting near Lake Trafford and flowing through Corkscrew Swamp to the Cocohatchee
River and the Gulf of Mexico. The Southwest Florida Environmental Impact Statement
identified the Cocohatchee Slough as a natural flowway in 2000. [Ex. I: Appendix H, Figure 14,
Environmental Impact Statement: Improving the Regulatory Process In Southwest Florida Lee
and Collier Counties, Florida]. It is true that during the past forty years, the Cocohatchee Slough
has been significantly narrowed by development, which makes protecting and restoring the
remaining portions extremely important for both flood protection and wetlands preservation,
instead of permitting the further narrowing of the Slough by four residential developments
(Mirasol, Saturnia Falls/Terafina, Parklands Collier, and Preserve Estates).l
Sometime in the late 1990s the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD") Big
Cypress Basin built a berm along the southern boundary of the Mirasol property where it drains
into the Cocohatchee Canal. This reduced the flows of the Cocohatchee Slough through Section
I Of these four developments, the federal permits for Mirasol, Satumia Falls, and Parklands Collier, are under legal
challenge by the Conservancy and other conservation organizations. Preserve Estates is a much smaller development
under construction on Immokalee Road, which does remove some of the outflow of the Cocohatchee Slough into the
Cocohatchee Canal.
.....~,.
t;< "
'.
22 of the Mirasol property to the Canal, but the whole property is still hydrologically connected
to the Cocohatchee Canal with some of the tlow entering the canal through 4 or 5 culverts at the
southern end of Section 22 of the Mirasol property and a larger portion tlowing further to the
west and eventually entering the canal via a I,OOO-foot-Iong concrete weir. [Ex. 2 Part I:
Transcript, National Audubon, et al. v. I.M. Collier J V, et al. ("Tr.") pp. 89-90, 149-150]. If the
project is constructed, there would be a discharge of approximately 200 cfs from the project
during storm conditions through the internal lake system to the Canal through a weir at the
southeastern end of the Mirasol property in Section 22. [Ex. 2 Part I: Tr., p. 90].
In assessing compliance with CCME Objective 2.I.d., the County Water Management Staff
erroneously attempted to change the wording and the meaning of the Objective. The language
used in the Staff Report is as follows:
the requirements of sub-paragraph "d" require the proposed development to avoid
direct impacts to these natural wetlands, tlowways or sloughs, OR ensure any
direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing the same
conveyance capacity lost by a direct impact. [Emphasis in original].
The actual language of Objective 2.l.d., quoted at the beginning of these comments, doesn't
offer a choice of avoidance OR minimization and compensation. It states that the County shall
require the applicant to "avoid direct impacts ... or, when not possible," to minimize or
compensate. There has been no showing that avoidance of direct impacts to the Cocohatchee
Slough wetlands is "not possible." Yet, the StatT Report goes on to disagree with the clear
language of the Objective by stating that "the purpose of sub-paragraph 'd' was never intended
to serve as a wetland impact minimization evaluation tool."
The CCPC should apply the clear language of Objective 2.l.d. and require true avoidance of at
least part of the Cocohatchee Slough wetlands on the Mirasol property. The applicant may argue
that it is "not possible" to avoid the wetlands on the property, because the property is over 80%
wetlands. One way to avoid a signiticant amount of the wetlands, however, would be to
eliminate the 36-hole golf course, which is at least 211 acres of the project's 718-acre footprint.2
This could allow the consolidation of the residential development areas further on the eastern
portion of the property with less intrusion into the Cocohatchee Slough wetlands. In cooperation
with the Big Cypress Basin, it would also be possible to restore some of the Slough tlow across
the southern end of the Mirasol property in Section 22 into the Cocohatchee Canal, preserving
more Slough wetlands and providing a larger outlet than currently exists.
The applicant may also argue that it demonstrated avoidance in its permit process with the
SFWMD and the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Neither of these agencies addressed avoidance,
however. The Administrative Law Judge in the hearing on the Mirasol Environmental Resource
Permit ("ERP") determined that the 2006 permit that was challenged did not require the
applicant to reduce or eliminate wetland impacts, because only the modification to the 2002
permit (involving 39 additional acres of impacts) was considered on appeal. [Ex. 3: National
Audubon, et al. v. I.M Collier J V. et aI., Recommended Order Excerpt]. The Corps of
2 The plans submitted to SFWMD for the Mirasol Environmental Resource Pemit show approximately 300 acres
for the golf course, the cart path, and .'remaining open space" which includes golf course and landscaping area.
2
Engineers did not find that it was "not possible" to avoid the wetlands on the Mirasol site, but
did approve a Section 404 wetlands filling permit for the amended project in 2007. That permit is
being challenged by the Conservancy and other organizations in Federal District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, for, among other reasons, the failure to require alternatives to and
avoidance of wetland impacts. See National Wildlife Federation, et al. v. Souza, et al., No. 2:08-
cv-14115. Motions for summary judgment are pending. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency ("EP A") requested that the Corps deny the 2007 Section 404 permit, for
among other reasons, the availability of alternatives and the lack of avoidance and minimization
of wetland impacts, [Ex. 4: Letter, James Giattina, EPA Region 4, to Co!. Paul Grosskruger, U.S.
ACOE, Sept. 22, 2006; Letter, J.I. Palmer, EPA Region 4, to Co!. Paul Grosskruger, U.S. ACOE,
Oct. 18,2006].
After dismissing the idea of avoidance, in the face of the clear language of Objective 2.1.d., the
Staff Report quickly turns to compensation for the lost storage and conveyance capacity of the
wetlands and makes findings that have been contradicted by documents and testimony dealing
with the Mirasol ERPs. The current design for the footprint of the Mirasol PUD removes the
same amount of storage from the Cocohatchee Slough wetlands as the previous Mirasol design,
but does not provide the conveyance that was provided by the Mirasol ditch and does not
adequately compensate for the loss of storage.
There is no question that filling of wetlands and the construction of the proposed development
and its stormwater management system on approximately 718 acres of the project site would
remove historic basin storage from the Cocohatchee Slough. The 2002 Mirasol ERP was
approved by SFWMD based upon the Mirasol Flowway as a conveyance structure to increase
flow and lower water stages during the wet season as compensation for the loss of historic
floodplain storage due to the Mirasol project footprint as well as the other projects proposed for
the Cocohatchee Slough. [Ex. 5: Mirasol 2002 ERP Staff Report p. 5-6]. Several documents
provided to SFWMD and the Corps supported the idea that additional conveyance would be
necessary to prevent flooding if the Mirasol development is permitted with the development
footprint as designed. Of course, the Corps denied the Section 404 permit for the project with
the Mirasol ditch because of the massive impacts to wetlands, and the current design does not
include the ditch.
We are not advocating for the construction of the Mirasol ditch. We are just pointing out what
should be obvious: that without the ditch there will be no lowering of flood stages in the area or
increased conveyance, as was required for the Mirasol ERP in 2002. Without the ditch there
must be a reduction in the footprint of Mirasol and the other developments to reduce the loss of
floodplain storage to avoid flooding "upstream" on the Imperial River and in Collier County
north of Immokalee Road. Documents providing evidence that the current design does not
provide the same compensation for loss of historic tloodplain storage as the 2002 design with the
Mirasol ditch include the 2002 ERP Staff Report for the project which states [Ex. 5, SFWMD
Mirasol2002 ERP Staff Report, p. 5-6]:
3
Flood Plain/Compensating Storage:
In the existing conditions, the project site provides historic storage for run-otT
from the eastern part of the Lee and Collier County during the middle to last part
of the normal rainy season. The storage is required due to the restriction in the
natural slough conveyance system through reduction in width, development to the
west and an invasion of exotic species in the slough. As the wet season
progresses, the wetland vegetation impedes the conveyance of flow and the
resulting elevated water stages inundate properties adjacent to the wetlands.
The proposed project includes an approximately 200-250 ft. wide, shallow
meandering channel which improves the conveyance through the wetland slough
and lowers the peak stage experienced during the wet season.
Documents submitted by the Mirasol project engineer during the permit process for the 2002
permit state:
On the basis of these facts [without the Mirasol ditch] we can predict that this
disruption in historic flow patterns will only worsen the perennial tlooding in
Bonita Springs and Collier County north of Immokalee Road. This problem, we
must point out, will be much worse if the eventuality of a 25 year storm is
considered; especially when viewed against the backdrop of tlood stages
experienced last year, a wet season of relatively low storm intensity.
[Ex. 6: Letter from Rick Barber, Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc., to Clarence Tears, SFWMD,
Nov. 17,2000].
The SFWMD wrote:
There were several objectives [for the Mirasol ditch] insisted on by District statT.
These include:
. The lowering of peak stages.
. Restoration of impacted wetland vegetation features.
. Providing for storage for a toO-year design storm event.
. Restoring historical hydrology (capacity as well as duration and depth).
. Incorporating proposed future developments.
[Ex. 7: Letter from Chip Merriam, SFWMD, to Rick Barber, Agnoli, Barber, & Brudage, Inc.,
March 14,2001].
The Mirasol ERP application stated in 200 I:
. The Cocohatchee Flowway has been identified in the South Lee Study as a
major outfall for the Imperial/Corkscrew Swamp Watershed.
* * *
4
. Recent actions in the flowway have impaired the operation raising stages
and decreasing flow to much less than 1995 historic proportions (i.e" the
construction of the berm along the north side of the Cocohatchee Canal
and the permitted construction of the Old Cypress Project).
. Since the outfall cross-section has been drastically reduced, conveyance
must be added to the flowway to return it to historic levels.
* * *
. The flowway, as presently impaired, will result in higher stages in the
Kehl Canal/Imperial River.
[Ex. 8: Cocohatchee Flowway Improvements and Mirasol ERP Application Submittal #5,
Updated 9-17-01].
The current design of the Mirasol Project without the Mirasol ditch does not meet the
conveyance and flood protection goals of the previous design. According to the project engineer,
the Mirasol ditch in the 2002 design was designed to reduce peak stages during a 25-year storm
in the area by 0.4 feet. The current design does not provide the same flows or any reduction in
water levels as the 2002 design would have. [Ex. 2 Part 2: Tr. pp. 145-46, 173-4]. Furthermore,
when the footprints of the adjacent TeratinalSaturnia Falls and Parklands Collier developments
were included in the modeling of the current design, the water levels were predicted to be even
higher than existing levels on the Mirasol site. [Ex. 2 Part 3: Tr. 261-3; Tr.l240-1]. The
encroachment of the development into the Cocohatchee Slough and the design of the berm and
weir at the north end of the project would also create a dam that would contribute to higher water
levels during wet periods. [Ex. 2 Part 4: Tr.1232-4]. Furthermore, the modeling assumed that the
2-foot deep collector swale at the northern end of the developed area for collecting water to pass
into the "pass through lake" system was about 3,000 to 4,000 feet long, when according to the
engineering design it would be about 1,000-1,500 feet long. Thus, the modeling used by the
applicant overestimated the amount of water that could be collected in the swale and
underestimated the increases in water levels in the area north of the berm. [Ex. 2 Parts 3 and 4:
T.1234-5; 152-3; 1358-9].
In order to comply with Objective 2.1.d. the development footprint should be reduced to the
extent possible to avoid more of the wetlands of the Cocohatchee Slough. Even if minimization
and compensation for loss of floodplain storage are considered, the intrusion into the
Cocohatchee Slough wetlands by the current Mirasol project must be reduced to accomplish the
same conveyance and flood prevention goals as the previous design with the Mirasol ditch.
5
II, THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CCME OBJECTIVE 2,2 AND
POLICIES 2.2.2,
Objective 2.2 states:
All canals, rivers, and !low ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all
applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards.
To accomplish that, Policy 2.2.2 states:
In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff,
storm water systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does
not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing,
quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system.
The Mirasol project would discharge into the Cocohatchee Canal, which !lows into the
Cocohatchee River before entering the Wiggins Pass Estuary and reaching the Gulf of Mexico.
The Cocohatchee River and Wiggins Pass Estuary west of U.S. Highway 41 have been
designated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") as "Outstanding
Florida Waters." Because of the nature of the canal (straight, cleared of vegetation, with rip rap
banks), very little pollutant reduction occurs in the canal.
The Cocohatchee Canal into which the Mirasol project would discharge does not meet state
water quality standards. It has been listed on the DEP Verified Impaired Waters List as being
impaired for low dissolved oxygen with total nitrogen and total phosphorus (nutrients) as
causative pollutants. [Ex. 9: Florida DEP, Everglades West Coast Group 1 Basin / South District
- Verified List (adopted June 2008)]. Therefore, the discharge of nutrients, such as fertilizers for
lawns and golf courses, from the Mirasol project would exacerbate the violation.
There was no independent analysis by the County Staff of the information submitted by the
applicant for compliance with the water quality requirements of Policy 2.2.2. Because most of
the Mirasol project is in the Rural Fringe Area, the County cannot simply rely on the SFWMD
permit to satisfY this requirement.
It should also be noted that neither the EIS nor the County Staff Report even mention compliance
with Objective 2.3 and Policy 2.3.6, which calls for a specific type of analysis (pre- versus post-
development pollutant loadings) to prevent degradation of estuaries due to upstream discharges.
Because of the direct connection between the Mirasol site and the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee
River Estuary, through only the straight, pass-through Cocohatchee Canal, the County should
have required compliance with Objective 2.3 and Policy 2.3.6. Objective 2.3 states: "All canals,
rivers, and !low ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable Federal, State, or local
water quality standards."
Policy 2.3.6.b. for implementing this Objective states:
6
any project impacting 5 acres or more of wetlands must provide 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 the post development scenario.
Policy 2.3.6.c. requires that [in pertinent part]:
By January 2008, the County shall undertake an assessment of the current model
used to evaluate pre and post development pollutant loadings referenced in (b) of
this Policy... to verify the accuracy of the model and to provide data evaluating
stormwater management structure design.
Although the applicant did submit a pre and post development water quality analysis, it was an
outdated version of a repudiated methodology, and it did not address all of the pollutants
required by Policy 2.3.6.b., only nutrients. Furthermore, there is no indication that the County
has undertaken any assessment of any current model used under Policy 2.3.6 over one year after
the deadline in Policy 2.3.6,c.
The Water Quality Analysis provided by Mirasol in its EIS was based entirely on the so-called
"Harper methodology" for estimating pre- versus post-development pollutant loadings. Although
the applicant states that the methodology was accepted by the United States EPA, it was
subsequently severely criticized in a 2005 EP A peer review. Among other reasons, the EP A peer
review criticized the methodology for assuming that natural wetlands on property in the pre-
development condition are sources of pollutants. Wetlands are, instead, sinks for pollutants,
especially nutrients, and created wetlands are often used for treating stormwater runoff. [Ex. 10,
Excerpts from Comments Summary Report: External Peer Review of "Evaluation Of Alternative
Stormwater Regulations For Southwest Florida" (The 'Harper Method'). Prepared for: U.S.
Envirorunental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health
and Ecological Criteria Division (April 2005)].
The Water Quality Analysis in the EIS is also based on the 2003 version of the Harper
methodology, which has been supplanted by a 2006-07 revision of the methodology. Among
other things, the 2006-07 version reduces the assumed treatment efficiencies of wet detention
ponds considerably. [Ex. II: Evaluation of Current Stormwater Design Criteria within the State
of Florida, H. Harper, et al. (June 2007)].3 When questioned in the Mirasol ERP hearing, Dr.
Harper stated that he would not rely on the 2003 version of his methodology to perform water
quality calculations. [Ex. 2 Part 5: Tr. pp. 1058-59]. The reduction in assumed treatment
efficiencies of wet detention ponds in the 2006-07 version of the methodology would mean that
the predicted post-development nutrient loads would be much higher than those submitted by the
applicant in the EIS.
3 Although Ex. 20 of the EIS doesn't explicitly state that it is relying on the 2003 version of the Harper
methodology, page 4 of 7, for instance, states: "Wet Detention BMP calculations are based on method outlined in
'Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulations for Southwest Florida' ERD 3/03." Page 6 of 7 contains the
following: "'''Note' Coefficient 'C' per ERD manual [mar-03]," which is the earliest version of the Harper
methodology, prior to corrections made in August 2003 and prior to the revised version in 2006-07.
7
There was ample testimony in the challenge to the Mirasol ERP that water quality standards
would be violated. DEP rules at Rule 62-40.432(2) F.A.C. provide a rebuttable presumption for
permits for stormwater management systems that has led to the District's volumetric criteria for
design of wet detention ponds being called "presumptive criteria.,,4 That rule requires that rules
pertaining to stormwater management systems achieve at least 80 percent reduction of the
average annual load of pollutants. Where the discharge can impact Outstanding Florida Waters,
the requirement is for at least 95 percent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that
would cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards.
The evidence in the hearing showed that wet detention pond treatment, at either the 1 inch
detention or I and y, inch detention volume, does not achieve at least 80 percent reduction of the
average annual load of dissolved nutrients that would cause or contribute to violations of state
water quality standards or at least 95 percent reduction of the average annual load of nutrients
that would cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards in Outstanding
Florida Waters. The maximum removal efficiency of total nitrogen in wet detention ponds is
around 40% and total phosphorus around 70%. [Ex. 10: Evaluation of Current Stormwater
Design Criteria within the State of Florida, H. Harper, et at (June 2007), p. 2-2, 5-8-9]. Even
when combining the assumed removal efticiencies of all of the wet detention ponds in the
applicant's design, the assumed removal efticiency for nitrogen would be less than 80% or the
95% for Outstanding Florida Waters. [Ex. 2 Part 6: Tr. pp. 1085-861.
Finally, because Mirasol is discharging upstream of the Coccohatchee River and Wiggins Pass
Outstanding Florida Waters, Mirasol must demonstrate that its discharge will not cumulatively
cause degradation of the existing water quality of the OFW. Because Mirasol has not presented
evidence concerning the existing ambient water quality of the Cocohatchee River OFW at the
time it was listed as OFW, this calculation cannot be performed. [Ex. 2 Part 7: Tr. pp. 523-5241.
Thus, Mirasol failed to demonstrate it will not cause degradation of these OFW.
4 Rule 62-40.432(2) FAC. states:
(a) When a stonnwater management system complies with rules establishing the design and
performance criteria for such systems, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the discharge
from such systems will comply with state water quality standards. The Department and the
Districts. pursuant to Section 373.418. F.S., shall, when adopting rules pertaining to stormwater
management systems, specity design and performance criteria for new stormwater management
systems which:
1. Achieve at least 80 percent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause
or contribute to violations of state water quality standards.
2. Achieve at least 95 percent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause
or contribute to violations of state water quality standards in Outstanding Florida Waters.
8
Exhibit I:
Flowways
,
l
,
,
,
,
)-
~'
~1:i
,'0'"
\"
~
",'"",,-'
!'
N
+
5
10 Miles
~
1-75
","(
"" ....
~,~~;9;i'i~:':;-'~
~t:."~;.:)~{ .
~ -' ""'C
_r
'1
u.s~_ ~
4 Flowways
1 .
Exhibit II:
Minutes from State of
Florida Division of
Administrative
Hearings
EXHIBIT II, PART 1
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Collier J.V.
VOLUME 1
Page 1
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY,
INC.; COLLIER COUNTY
AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC.;
FLORIDA WILDLIFE
FEDERATION; CONSERVANCY OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; and
FRANKLIN ADAMS,
Petitioners,
CASE NO. 06-4157
VOLUME J
PAGES 1 - 270
VS.
I.M. COLLIER J.V. and SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT,
Respondents.
/
HEARING BEFORE:
The Honorable Donald R. Alexander
DATE:
April 24, 2007
TIME:
9:02 a.m. to 6:06 p.m.
LOCATION:
Big Cypress Basin Service Center
Conference Room
6089 Janes Lane
Naples, Florida
REPORTER: Lori 1. Bundy, RPR, CCR
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Collier J,V.
Page 86
1 Southwest Florida? 1
2 A. No, sir. 2
3 MR. DAVIS: I still object. I don't believe that 3
4 -- I think it's a very vague question as to what usual 4
5 and unusual is, Your Honor. I mean -- and I don't 5
6 believe he's been qualified to say what the practice 6
7 is in all engineering firms in Southwest Florida. 7
8 THE COURT: Well, based on his experience, do you 8
9 understand the question, sir? 9
10 THE WITNESS: I do, sir. 10
11 THE COURT: All right. Ovenuled. Go ahead and 11
12 answer, if you would. 12
13 THE WITNESS: The use of conveyance to satisfy 13
14 the I OO-year flood plain encroachment is a common 14
15 thing that you have to do in Southwest Florida. 15
16 BY MR. BAUMANN: 16
17 Q. And why is that? 17
18 A. Because as we look at this map -- I'm not sure 18
19 what exhibit number this is. 19
20 MR. DAVIS: I believe that's number 17. 20
21 MR. BAUMANN: It's Exhibit 18. 21
22 THE WITNESS: 18. As we look at Exhibit 18, 22
23 there aren't many developments that we see within the 23
24 general area of Mira sol, in fact along the Immokalee 24
25 Road system, that are not within the 1 OO-vear flood 25
Page 87
1 plain.
2 BY MR. BAUMANN:
3 Q. Now, we've talked about encroachment into the
4 I OO-year flood plain, and we also talked about the
5 restriction on sheet flow.
6 I would like to show you an exhibit which is on
7 the exhibit list as LM. Collier's Exhibit 6 and it's in
8 Your Honor's binder as Exhibit 21. Could you just briefly
9 point out to us -- we've had some discussion about where
10 the water goes in this area. Tell me what this is that
11 we're looking at.
12 (LM.C. Exhibit No.2 I, Series of aerial
13 photographs (remarked as l.M.C. Exhibit No.6), was
14 marked for identification.)
15 A. These are a series of aerial photographs that
16 show the constriction that we find in existing conditions
17 between the OIde Cypress project and the commercial
18 developments along lmmokalee Road. That's the same area,
19 if you will, as right here (indicated).
20 MR. REESE: By right here, you mean the west side
21 of Mirasol?
22 THE WITNESS: Correct. The west side of Mirasol.
23 And this is a blowup of that same area, with Mirasol
24 being over here on the map, and this is a golf hole on
25 the Olde Cypress course, and this is a residential
VOLUME 1
Page 88
development.
And the blowups show -- the northernmost one is
labeled restricted area A that constricts the flowway
down to 580 feet, and if you remember with the
question Your Honor asked about how the water enters
the project, there was about a mile and a halfup at
the north end, all of section 10 and part of section
15, so that mile and a halfis constricted down to
580 feet in existing conditions; in the north blowup
and in the south blowup at B, it's down to about
270 feet.
And this is prior to the water getting to the __
through this area to the 1 ,000- foot weir east of the
COC03 structure.
BY MR. BAUMANN:
Q. And you prepared this exhibit?
A. Correct.
Q. And this is a true and accurate reflection of
what you prepared?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. BAUMANN: We would move that exhibit in as
LM. Collier's 21.
MR. DAVIS: No objection. Is that what it's
going to be called?
THE COURT: 21; correct. Received.
Page 89
1 (I.M.C's Exhibit No. 21, Series of aerial
2 photographs, (remarked as I.M.C. Exhibit No.6) was
3 received into evidence.)
4 MR. BAUMANN: Thank you, Your Honor.
5 MR. REESE: That was your I.M.C. NO.6 on the
6 prestip exhibit, now it's 21?
7 MR. BAUMANN: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Reese.
8 Thank you.
9 BY MR. BAUMANN:
10 Q. Mr. Barber, do these constrictions exist today?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Does the Mirasol project, should it be built,
13 reduce those constrictions in any manner?
14 A. No.
15 Q. How much water flows through those two points, A
16 and B, during a 25-year flood event?
17 A. The calculation by Mr. Tomasello is approximately
18 553 CFS.
19 Q. Okay. Does any amount of water leave the Mirasol
20 site itself directly into the Cocohatcbee Canal?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. Do you know approximately how much?
23 A. Approximately 20 CFS in the present condition
24 through the culverts underneath the constructed berm.
25 That would be underneath this berm right here (indicated)
....,...~._...^._..-""_;=.,==_.,,"'.,.o.,,",... .,.".~.~= <', u....... ""'W'm'~,"','d',^,.,__",,",,",,_"
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Collier J.V.
Page 90
1 north of the Cocohatchee Canal.
2 Q. And that's at the south end of the Mirasol
3 property where you're indicating?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Should the Mirasol project be built, will all of
6 that water still have to travel down that flowway that
7 you've just described into those constrictions?
8 A. No, as previously stated, we would take a portion
9 of that water through the Mirasol project; approximately
10 200 CFS in the 25-year storm would come through the
11 Mirasol project.
12 MR. BAUMANN: Your Honor, could we take a brie
13 recess here?
14 THE COURT: Yeah, we can go off the record.
15 (A discussion was held off the record.)
16 (A break was taken.)
17 THE COURT: Let's go ahead and get started. Are
18 you ready, counsel?
19 MR. BAUMANN: Yes, Your Honor. First, just in
20 light of the numbering snafu between the notebooks and
21 the exhibit list, what I would propose, Your Honor, is
22 that tomorrow morning we will furnish you and the
23 parties with a revised exhibit list, joint, and our
24 exhibits that will conform to the numbers that are the
25 notebook and I aoologize for that.
Page 91
1 THE COURT: Yeah, I appreciate it. 1
2 BY MR. BAUMANN: 2
3 Q. Mr. Barber, are you familiar with the South 3
4 Florida Water Management District's criteria in their 4
5 basis of review regarding the level of treatment of water 5
6 quality within a surface water management system? 6
7 A. Yes, sir. 7
8 Q. Can you tell us your understanding of what that 8
9 requirement is? 9
lOA. Water quality is measured volumetrically by the ] 0
11 water management district above control elevation. 11
12 Generally it's the first inch of runoff from the developed 12
13 project or two and a half inches times the percent of 13
14 impervious, whichever is greater. 1 <;
15 Q. As originally designed in 2002, did the project 1"
16 meet that criteria? 16
17 A. Ycs,sir. 11"1
18 Q. Now, I believe you stated, but just to make sure 118
19 we keep this clear, was the system's storm water quality 19
20 treatment component modified from the 2002 design as pa12 0
21 of this modification that's the subject of this hearing? . 2]
22 A. Yes. [22
23 Q. Can you tell us briefly how? i 23
24 A. Thc Cocohatchee Canal was put on the DEP 303(d) i 24
25 list as an impaired water body, and the water management I 25
VOLUME 1
Page 92
1 district asked that an additional 50 percent of water
2 quality volume be contained onsite -- or detained onsite
3 to meet the requirements of discharge into an impaired
4 water volume.
5 Q. All right. Do you know what pollutants
6 contribute to the impainnent of the Cocohatchee Canal?
7 A. 1 think it was listed for iron and dissolved
8 oxygen.
9 Q. Are you aware what the source of the iron would
10 be')
11 A. Generally it's from groundwater, but we can't be
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
surc.
Q. Okay. How about dissolved oxygen?
A. That's usually caused by a nutrient load into the
impairment.
Q. Okay. And by nutrients, are there any particular
chemicals that you would include in that term nutrients?
A. In Southwest Florida, the focus has been on
1 9 nitrogen and phosphorus.
20 Q. I'm not sure you stated it as such or not, but
21 was the Cocohatchee Canal designated as impaired by DEP
22 back in 2002 when the project was originally permitted?
23 A. No, it wasn't.
24 Q. Since it is now impaired, was there -- is there
25 some additional permit criteria regarding discharges into
Page 93
an impaired water?
A. Y cs, Terric Bates issued a memo on June I11h,
2004 that listed certain things that the water management
district wanted to have done before -- to ensure no
degradation or further degradation of that impaired water
body.
Q. Okay. And I see you looking at a document there
that you brought with you. Is that the Terrie Bates
June lIth. 2004 memo?
A. Yes, it is.
MR. BAUMANN: For the record, Your Honor, that's
marked in our prehearing stipulation as 9 -- that's
l.M.C. 9 in the prehearing stip, and it's in the
notebook, Your Honor, at tab 16.
BY MR. BAUMANN:
Q. Okay. Pursuant to this memorandum, are you aware
of any additional policies or requirements that are placed
upon applicants who propose to discharge into an impaired
water?
A. In her memo she states, "In addition to the extra
50 percent treatment volume to OFWs, impaired waters or
other water bodies that do not meet water quality
standards, the following is a list of potential options
that can be considered in evaluating a particular permit
application. "
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Society -vs- 1.M. Collier J.V.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 14 6
the half-a-foot; all we could achieve was four-tenths of a
foot due to the size restrictions that were put on the
flowway itself.
Q. Okay. So even though the objective was a
half-a-foot, the calculated results, since this has never
been built, were A feet; is that right?
A. That's correct. In a 25-year storm.
Q. Okay. And the 2006 design that we're talking
about, as per this permit application, would not result or
is not even designed to reduce flood stages by A feet or
.5 feet; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. The 2002 permit, if you're familiar with it, had
a special condition in it, and do you recall the special
condition 36 in that 2002 permit?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you recall a special condition in the 2002
permit that stated that the construction of the flowway
must be completed prior to the construction of impervious
surface on the Mirasol project site?
A. I remember something to that effect
Q. And are you familiar with the 2006 permit?
A. Yes.
Q. And that condition was removed; is that not true?
A. That's true.
Page 147
1 Q. And that was removed after the Corps permit was 1
2 denied for the application that had the flowway in it -- 2
3 for the Army Corps of Engineers application that had the 3
4 flowway in it; is that right? 4
5 A. It was removed in the 2006 permit. 5
6 Q. Okay. And when was the Army Corps of Engineers 6
7 permit denied? 7
8 A. I don't recall the exact date. 8
9 Q. Does December of 2005 refresh your memory? 9
lOA. That could be. 10
11 Q. And was it before the new application for the 11
12 modification was submitted for the Mirasol permit that 12
13 welre dealing with in this hearing? 13
14 A. Yes. 14
15 Q. Okay. And as you testified, that new application 15
16 did not have the flowway in it. Could the project as it 16
17 was designed in 2002 have been built after the denial of 17
18 the Army Corps of Engineers permit in 2005? 18
19 A. Not without a Corps permit. 19
20 Q. And the Corps wasn't going to issue a permit with 20
21 the flowway in it, was it? 21
22 A. They -- they denied the permit. 22
23 Q. Okay. So the answer is that Mirasol could not 23
24 have proceeded with the construction of the 2002 design of 24
25 this project without having modified the permit in 2006? 25
VOLUME 1
Page 148
1 A. Could not have proceeded with construction?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. I believe you testified that the 2002 version of
5 the project had two basins and the 2005 version has five.
6 And let me just ask you a couple of questions about that.
7 You talked about lakes being in these two designs, and I
8 believe in response to some questions from Mr. Baumann you
9 pointed out the different colors oflakes on the
10 Exhibit 19 which is behind you, do you recall doing that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You mentioned the pass-through system and you
13 mentioned the other lakes. The lakes that are in the five
14 basins, are those wet detention ponds?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And those are designed for storm water treatment;
1 7 is that right?
18 A. That's one of their functions.
19 Q. Okay. And in the 2002 permit -- in the 2002
20 design, was there any connection between the exterior
21 wetlands and the internal wetlands?
22 A. Over a weir there was.
23 Q. And what was the level of that weir?
24 A. 13.4.
25 Q. And in the 2006 permit, what would the weir level
Page 149
be before there could be any water passing back and forth
between the two sites, between the wetlands and the
interior of the project?
A. Which wetlands?
Q. The exterior wetlands. By that, I mean exterior
to the project footprint.
A. That would be at the weir notch at elevation 14
NGVD.
Q. SO approximately a six-foot difference between
the way water could pass in and out in the two projects?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you had talked about that currently there is
a berm that is at the southern end of the I.M. Collier
property, are you familiar with that?
A. At the north bank of the Cocohatchee Canal?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And is that berm one that was constructed by the
water management district at Big Cypress Basin?
A. Yes.
Q. And how high is the berm?
A. I don't recall its exact elevation.
Q. And how many culverts are through that berm?
A. Where?
Q. You had talked about there being some culverts
38 (Pages 146 to 149)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Collier J.V.
Page 150
1 that extend under the berm from the I.M. Collier property
2 to the Cocohatchee Canal.
3 A. I believe there's four or five at the Mirasol
4 property.
5 Q. Yeah, and just so we're clear, when we use
6 Mirasol or I.M. Collier, do you understand we're talking
7 about the same property?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And have you ever measured any flow at
10 those culverts?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And you talked about that the design that we
13 currently are dealing with in this hearing would provide
14 similar flow as to what currently passes through those
15 culverts, did you not?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And how do you know what that flow is then?
18 A. We calculated it.
19 Q. And calculated based upon the size of the
20 culverts?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And how could you calculate it if you don't know
23 the height of the berm? What would the bead be?
24 A. The head would be tbe water surface elevation on
25 the site as we look at it from historical records, the 951
Page 151
1 gauge. 1
2 Q. Now, would another method for restoring the 2
3 historical flows, the sheet flow as you call it, across 3
4 the Mirasol property, short of building a whole "
5 development with a pass-through lake system, be to remove 5
6 the berm? 6
7 A. ] don't believe that's possible for the design of 7
8 the Cocohatchee Canal. 8
9 Q. Have you ever discussed with the water managemen 9
10 district the removal of the berm? 10
11 A. Yes. 1]
12 Q. And did they say that the Cocohatchee Canal 12
13 wouldn't accept that? 13
14 A. They said that the design of the canal was based 14
15 on the flood stages being held in the canal and the berm 15
16 accomplishes that. J 6
17 Q I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your answer. 17
18 In the canal or in the -- or on the Mirasol property where ]8
19 the flood stage should be held? 19
20 A. I n the canal. 20
21 Q. And what level would have to exist on the Mirasol 21
22 property for water to flow through the culverts? 22
23 A. Above ground. 23
24 Q. Are the culverts at ground level? 24
25 A. Yes, or above. 25
.....,.,~ He."
VOLUME I
Page 152
Q. Looking at the 2002 versus the 2006 design, you
mentioned that in the 2006 design there is a collector's
swale at the northern end of the property?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. How deep is that?
6 A. 1 don't recall. I can look at the plans, if you
7 wish me to.
8 Q. Does three feet ring a bell with you?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Okay. Well, do you know how long the collector's
11 swale is in the design?
] 2 A. No, I don't.
13 Q. Would you mind looking at the plan to see if you
1 4 can determine that?
15 A. I don't see a length on the collector's swale,
1 6 but if --
17 Q. Can you approximate it, based on the scale of the
18 drawing"
1 9 A. The depth of it looks to be two feet deep.
20 Q. Okay.
2] A. And the length is about 1,500 feet.
22 Q. Okay. And what -- for the record, what plan are
23 you referring to? What date was this submitted?
24 A. Looking at date of 04/06.
25 Q. Aorilof'06?
1
"
L
3
Page 153
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Was this the plan that was submitted with
the application?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know ifit was the final plan that was
incorporated into the design?
A. There were modifications to the different places
and different sheets through the RAI process.
Q. And do you know if what you just described as the
collector's swale was modified in any ofthase
modifications?
A. 1 donlt recall that it was.
Q. Okay. You have talked about relying upon other
models other than the ones you ran for some of the data
that was input into the 2002 plans as well as the 2006
plans and I believe you mentioned Mr. Tomasello; is that
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you rely upon his model for the flows corning
onto the Mirasol project site?
A. I relied on his model for the stages above the
north end of the -- at the north end of the project.
Q. And what about the flows that you testified to as
those that were flowing through the project site, either
in existing conditions or under the proposed 2006 design?
39 (Pages 150 to 153)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239) 793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Collier J.V.
Page 170
1 THE COURT: All right. Go back on the record 1
2 then. The petitioner's exhibits -- counsel will 2
3 stipulate subject to further checking in review of the 3
4 documents the authenticity of petitioner's exhibits 4
5 20,32,36,37,38,39,40,41,44,45,46,47,48, 5
6 52, and 55, and it won't be necessary to get the 6
7 witness to identify and authenticate those documents. 7
8 Counsel? 8
9 MR. DA VlS: Okay. 9
10 BY MR. DAVIS: 10
11 Q. Mr. Barber, could you turn to Petitioner's 11
12 Exhibit No. 20, please? 12
13 A. No. 13
14 Q. I'm sony, you don't have the notebook anymore. 14
15 MR. BAUMANN: Just registering my objection to 15
16 cross-examining the witness without the document in 1 6
17 front of me. 17
18 MR. MENTON: And, Your Honor, at this point as we 18
19 start getting into the substance, I would go ahead and 1 9
20 voice an objection. I think -- ] don't have the 20
21 document in front of me, but just looking at it, I 21
22 think it is a document that probably goes beyond the 22
23 scope of the direct testimony. 23
24 So I would object on those grounds, and in 24
25 addition just on the relevancy grounds of documents 25
Page 171
VOLUME 1
Page 172
througb 55 -- not 20 through 55, but the numbers
include those, did you have any other examination or
other cross-examination of the witness or does this
wrap it up?
MR. DAVIS: I do have some other that was going
to follow on from some ofthese documents, but there
is some additional. I could ask some questions
without having the documents as well, but, I mean,
just let me give you a for-instance, Your Honor. I
mean, in Exhibit 20 I deposed the witness about this
document and he answered questions in his deposition
about it, but -- and it's an exhibit to his
deposition.
But beyond that, I'll be happy to follow whatever
procedure you would like us to in this regard and
we'll have copies of all these for opposing counsel
first thing in the morning.
MR. MENTON: Just on the point of the deposition,
obviously you weren't there to rule on any objections
we might have had at that time, so I don't think that
is enough to get it in. And we would stand by the
objections we raised before in terms of beyond the
scope of direct.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't we -- I just
think it's inannronriate at this time to ~o ahead and
Page 173
1 that were sent back and forth in 2002 apparently 1 allow cross-examination when counsel don't have
2 between the applicant and EP A, which are not issues 2 copies, haven't seen them, and won't get a copy until
3 that are relevant for purposes of this proceeding. 3 tomorrow morning.
4 You know, if they intend to get into that, at a 4 They stipulated authenticity subject to a further
5 minimum they should save it for their case in chief 5 review of the documents. I think that's about the
6 and we can make the objections again and take it then. 6 best we can do at this point unless counsel are
7 THE COURT: It seems to be unfair at this point, 7 agreeable to allowing cross. We got an objection from
8 counselor, trying to take cross-examination on these 8 one, I assume --
9 documents. They don't even have -- one counsel 9 MR. BAUMANN: I do have an objection--
10 doesn't even have a copy to look at while you're doing 10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 the cross-examination or having the witness answer 11 MR. BAUMANN: -- to that document on a slightly
12 questions without them, plus he's got other 12 different grounds, but I'll hold it for
13 objections. 13 cross-examination.
14 I don't want to --I'm trying to think of the 14 THE COURT: Okay. And I assume the witness is
15 most expeditious way to handle this. It may be 15 going to be here tomorrow. Boy, I hate to put it
16 necessary to recall the witness later when we can make 16 over, but why don't you finish up everything else that
17 copies of these particular documents. It's just not 17 you can on the witness other than questioning
18 fair to -- 18 regarding these particular documents, and we'll see if
19 MR. DAVIS: I understand, Your Honor. 19 we can get started on it in the morning then.
20 THE COURT: --do that, particularly since they 20 MR. DAVIS: Yes, Your Honor. I appreciate that.
21 only got copies last night, and he doesn't even have a 21 And, again, I apologize. I thought I was giving them
22 copy at bis table nor do the other counsel. I think 22 their documents back in this case.
23 we got one extra one and I've got one and I would like 23 BY MR. DAVIS:
24 to follow along as well. 24 Q. Mr. Barber, referring to the 2002 design that
25 Other than these -- talking about these 20 25 we've been discussing, was there a determination bv you
44 (Pages 170 to 173)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239) 793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Collier J.V.
Pace 174
1 and your firm that the proposed Mirasol flowway provided 1
2 regional flood control benefits? 2
3 A. Yes. 3
4 Q. And did the district take that into account in 4
5 the consideration of the 2002 permit? 5
6 MR. BAUMANN: Objectioo. Calls for speculation. 6
7 BY MR. DAVIS: 7
8 Q. You're aware that the district considered the 8
9 regional benefits for the proposed Mirasol flowway in the 9
10 2002 permit, are you not? 10
11 MR. BAUMANN: Same objection. 1]
12 MR. MENTON: I would join that. 12
13 THE COURT: Do you have personal knowledge, sir? 13
14 THE WITNESS: I don't know if they considered 14
15 the -- I don't want to answer the question if I'm not 15
1 6 supposed to, but -- 1 6
17 THE COURT: Well, I mean, do you know? 17
18 THE WITNESS: Do I know if they considered? 18
19 THE COURT: Do you have personal knowledge as to 19
20 what occurred? If you do, go ahead and answer; if you 20
21 don't, don't answer. 21
22 THEWlTNESS: I don't know ifit was part of the 22
23 permit decision, but I do know that they thought it 23
24 was a regional benefit. 24
25 MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, we would submit the -- 25
Page 175
1 and I don't think they'll be an objection to this. 1
2 The district and the respondents have on their joint 2
3 exhibit list of 2002, environmental resource permit 3
4 staff report -- and as soon as we figure out what that 4
5 is. It is listed on the joint stipulation as 5
6 Exhibit 2. ] don't know what it is in the black 6
7 notebooks. 7
8 MR. BAUMANN: J believe it's number I in your 8
9 notebooks, Your Honor. Volume I, number 1. 9
10 MR. DAVIS: Have we identified the exhibit? 10
11 MR. BAUMANN: Yes. 11
12 (l.M.C. Exhibit No. I, February 14,2002 12
13 composite of permit, addendum, and staff report 13
14 <remarked as Joint Exhibit No.2), was marked for 14
15 identification. ) 15
16 THE COURT: All right. It will be l.M. 16
17 Exhibit]. That was correct, wasn't it, l.M. 17
18 Exhibit I? 18
19 MR. BAUMANN: That's what it's marked at in the 19
20 binders. 20
21 MR. MENTON: Your Honor, I hate to complicate 21
22 matters here, but I think the ones that we were doing 22
23 with direct, I think you had called those joint 23
24 exhibits, so all the ones that you're using the tab 24
25 numbers from before you had used -- you called ioint 25
.'."'.."",..,.c.... ~__ '..
VOLUME 1
Page 176
exhibits. Because I think at least the ones on direct
were from the tabs.
MR. BAUMANN: Your Honor, I would suggest just
admitting it as l.M.C. 1 at the moment. We will have
the list for you to go over first thing in the
morning, and we can sort this numbering out. And if
you wish to redesignate exhibits, you have the option
to do that at that time.
THE COURT: Okay. It will be referred to as
l.M.C. Exhibit I.
MR. BAUMANN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
BY MR. DAVIS:
Q. Mr. Barber, let me approach and hand you a copy
of l.M.C. Exhibit I, which is the 2002 environmental
resource permit and staff report. And if you can look at
the discussion in thc first four or five pages of the
staff report and see if the district took into
consideration in this permit issuance, as written in their
staff report, the regional benefits of the Mirasol
flowway?
MR. MENTON: Your Honor, I would object at this
point asking this witness to speculate what the
district took into account. I mean, the document
speaks for itself, and so it says what it says. But
Page 177
to ask this witness to speculate what the district may
have done or tbought, I think is improper.
MR. BAUMANN: Same objection, Your Honor.
MR.DAVIS: YourHonor--
THE COURT: Does the witness have an
understanding of what the district took into account
or not?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I believe so.
THE COURT: Are you able to answer the question
then?
THE WITNESS: If the question is, was the
regional flowway or the flowway, the Mirasol flowway,
considered a regional benefit by the district, it was
partially their idea, so I believe they did.
MR DAVIS: And, Your Honor, we can move this
exhibit into evidence at another time, but it makes it
extremely clear what tbe district considered and the
document will speak for itself. But this witness--
let me just ask questions.
BY MR. DAVIS:
Q. Mr. Barber, did you have discussions with the
district starting in about 1999 concerning a Mirasol
flowway or what became known as the Mirasol flowway?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were at that time also working on the
45 (Pages 174 to 177)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Collier J.V.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 258
coming forward on this from any of the witnesses on 1
the witness list. And secondly, where his model has 2
been used in another area has nothing to do with its 3
general acceptance. 4
MR. BAUMANN: Respectfully, Your Honor, he was 5
asked if his model had been reviewed, he was asked if 6
his model had been accepted. He just provided 7
Mr. Davis with yet another example of where his model 8
is accepted. 9
We're going to go through this, Your Honor, with 10
every aspect of this case. We have gone through it 11
with the Harper methodology, we're going to go through 12
it with Mr. Tomasello's model. I didn't hear any 13
objection about where's the science that littoral 14
zones around lakes would be good for water pollution. 15
] didn't hear any objection about where's the science 16
behind whether berms keep water back. 1 7
You know, this is exactly what we pointed out in 18
the beginning of this case. Mr. Tomasello has laid 19
out his credentials, he's provided several instances 20
wbere this model has been accepted, and he's provided 21
the results of that model. 22
And if they wish to bring forth a contrary 2 3
witness who's done no modeling in this area to 24
question this model -- ll!Uess that's their obiection. 25
Page 259
But I mean, I don't know why we have to sit here with 1
every aspect of this case and have the underlying 2
assumptions challenged through yet another application 3
of the Frye challenge, which is where he's undoubtedly 4
leading, Your Honor. 5
MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, I think he reads far too 6
much into my very simple objection in this case. ] 7
was objecting to hearsay, first of all, and -- 8
THE COURT: Same ruling on the hearsay part. 9
Second part? 1 0
MR. DAVIS: And the second part was the relevance 11
of his response in a particular case by, you know, the 12
application of his model in some other part of the 13
State. And it was also an unresponsive response 14
because I asked docs anyone else use his model; I 15
didn't ask if other people rely upon his results. It 16
was, does anyone else use his model. 17
THE COURT: Well, let me ask, does anyone else 18
use your model, sir? 19
THE WITNESS: Well, the model has been turned 20
over to Martin County, who's now the agency 21
contracting this particular phase of the work. It 22
will be -- it could be uscd by others through that 23
contract, the way -- the arrangement we have with 24
Martin County, it could be used for anything related 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VOLUME 1
Page 260
to that study by other contractors.
MR. DAVIS: May I follow up on that question?
THE COURT: Yeah, go ahead. Sure.
BY MR. DAVIS:
Q. Mr. Tomasello, as far as you know, Martin County
is not using your model; is that correct?
A. Well, we're using the model for Martin County.
Q. SO basically you are a user group of one for your
model; is that correct?
A. Well, as I explained, the model has been turned
over to Martin County. In fact, they want us to provide a
training program for their people to be using the model.
Q. Maybe I didn't ask my question clearly enough.
You're using it for them, they're not using it right now?
A. At this moment, no, sir, they are not using it.
Q. You initially, in the application for the 2006
modification to the Mirasol permit, submitted a design,
storm routings for the Mirasol development document. Do
you remember that, in April, 2006?
A. Yes.
MR. DAVIS: And, Your Honor, for the record, this
is part of what we've been calling Respondent's Joint
Exhibit 5 and the Bates stamp numbers on these pages
are SFWMD-00292 to SFWMD-00313.
And like I said, they've called it No.5, so I'm
Page 261
not sure what it was in the notebooks that you have
before you. My notes say it may have been 7 in the
notebook, but it's the July 29th, 2006 submission.
THE COURT: Let's go off the record a moment.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
THE COURT: We'll go back on the record.
MR. DAVIS: And I guess I should share this with
the witness, unless you have a copy in front of you.
THE WITNESS: I don't
MR. DAVIS: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, go ahead.
BY MR. DAVIS:
Q. Mr. Tomasello, let me show you what we've
identified as part of Respondent's Joint Exhibit 5 and ask
if this is a report that you submitted for purposes of
inclusion in the Mirasol application?
A. It appears to be.
Q. Okay. And just a -- one particular question, I
would like you to turn to the figure 16 and 17 of this
exbibit. And you have testified, I believe, that the
modeling that you performed has shown that there is no
impact on flood stages upstream of the Mirasol property.
And my question to you is, in that opinion in the
modeling you performed in support of that opinion, you did
not include the Terafina or the Parklands developments in
66 (Pages 258 to 261)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Collier J.V.
Page 262
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the modeling, did you?
A. Only their footprints in one of the runs we ran
here.
Q. And -- but in the most recent modeling that you
did, which I think you're referring to in the drawings
that you showed to the Judge in tbis case, you did not
include even their footprints, did you?
A. I'm not sure whicb drawings you're referring to. 8
Q. I'm sorry. The aerials that were used as 9
demonstrative exhibits in your testimony. 10
A. You mean these (indicated)? 1]
Q. Yes. 12
A. Well, right. This is done for the long-term 13
stimulation; that's correct. 14
Q. And that long-term stimulation that you have 15
testified about did not include the impact of Mirasol and 16
T erafina; correct? 1 7
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, on the Exhibit 5 portion, Your Honor, the 19
last two pages ofthat, which are 00312 and 00313 in the 20
Bates stamps -- I'll go ahead and ask the question. 21
When you did use the footprints of Mira sol and 22
Terafina in your modeling for the flood stages, isn't it 23
true that you found a higher flood stage than the existing 24
conditions in vour model results? 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 263
A. When we put the footprints in, yes, sir. 1
Q. And you've done -- 2
A. On the order of two-tenths of a foot or less, and 3
it represented a stonn that would occur four times a 4
century, tv.ro-tenths being approximately tv./o inches of 5
water level. 6
Q. And if your level of your floor in your housc is -,
at the bottom of that two inches, you're not very happy; 8
is that right? 9
MR. BAUMANN: Objection to form. ] 0
BY MR. DAVIS: 11
Q. Two inches is significant when it comes to 12
differences in flood stage; correct? I .: 3
A. In this case we, of course. looked at the 114
footprints and the whole purpose was to see what the 15
compensating -- compensatory, either storage or discharge,[16
would be necessary for the other two projects to alleviate 1'"
that Two-tenths. i 18
Q. And in your most recent modeling, you didn't i 19
include the other 1\\'0 projects; correct? 1 20
A. They're long-term stimulations. no. i 21
I
Q. Okay. Thank you. 1 22
MR. DA VIS: I may have one or two more, Your i 23
Honor. i 24
BY MR. DAVIS: i 25
VOLUME 1
1
2
3
4
Page 264
Q. Did you take into account in your modeling of the
area the proposed footprint of County Road 951?
A. County Road 951? No -- well-- no, sir, 95 I is
south of Immokalee Road, so it's not in our model.
Q. Okay. I'm talking about the proposed extension
01'951 north 01'951.
A. I don't know of any proposed 951 extension.
Q. You talked about a -- 1 guess, a monitoring
station for water levels that's north of Immokalee Road.
And what is that called?
A. That's 951 EXT.
Q. And do you know what the EXT stands for?
A. I assume that meant if you extended 951 to the
north, you get to the rain gauge and the water level
recorder.
Q. And is that -- can you point out the location of
that rain gauge, please?
A. Yeah, that's right about there (indicated).
Q. And let's do it on a drawing that shows the
Mirasol project a little more clearly.
A. Okay.
Q. If you can look at the Respondent's Exhibit No.
18, I believe, where would the 951 EXT gauge he?
A. Right there (indicated).
O. Okay. 11'951 were extended as a four-lane
Page 265
highway up to there and across the Mirasol property, would
that affect the hydrology of the area?
MR. MENTON: I'm going to object, Your Honor.
That calls for speculation. It depends on how it's
going to be built, it depends on if it's going to be
built, there's just so much in that question.
THE COURT: Yeah, I'll sustain.
'>1R. DAVIS: Let me rephrase, please.
BY MR. DAVIS:
Q. 11'951 were to be extended, would that be
something that you would want to consider as far as the
hydrologic impacts of the road?
A. Consider with respect to what?
Q. Consider with respect to your modeling of this
whole area?
A. If a client had asked me to include 951 extension
wherever it goes into the area, yes, I would think it
would be something we would want to look at.
Q. And other roads in your model are hydrologic
features as well, aren't they?
A. Well, as I explained, we do have the ability to
put in barriers to represent roads wherever they obstruct
sheet flow, and put in the structures and whatever goes
along with those roads. So I'm not sure I understand the
question, other than, yeah, we can represent roads in the
5
6
18
67 (Pages 262 to 265)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
EXHIBIT II, PART 2
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Collier J.V.
Page 520
1 also -- calls for a legal conclusion. 1
2 MR. MENTON: I would join in that objection, Your 2
3 Honor. 3
4 MR. REESE: This witness testified concerning the 4
5 water quality impact and this project meeting various 5
6 criteria; a fundamental part of that is where are the 6
7 waters of the state? Are the wetlands in the interior 7
8 part of the project waters of the state or did they 8
9 magically become property of Mirasol that's no longer 9
10 waters of the state? 10
11 THE COURT: Is this, again, in your area of 11
12 responsibility, sir? 12
13 THE WITNESS: Sometimes it is. 13
14 THE COURT: Can you answer the question? 14
15 THE WITNESS: I believe they are waters of the 15
16 State. 16
17 THE COURT: Okay. I'll overrule. Is that your 17
18 response then? 18
19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19
20 THE COURT: Okay. 20
21 BY MR. REESE: 21
22 Q. Would the same be true for the pass-through 22
23 lakes? 23
24 A. I'm not entirely sure; it's possible. 24
25 Q. So it's possible that the pass-throu~h lakes 25
Page 521
1 would be waters of the state and the water quality
2 standards would apply to those?
3 A. They're not impaired; class 3 water standards
4 would apply potentially.
5 Q. Now, you were asked questions about water quality
6 monitoring and the applicants proposing that. Is there
7 any proposed permit criteria on what will be done if the
8 monitoring showed noncompliance?
9 A. I'm not sure I understood your question.
10 Q. Well, if the monitoring showed that the water
11 coming in at the north end of the weir was better quality
12 than what's coming out the weir at the south end, what
13 would the implication be in the permit?
14 A. I'm not sure that would necessarily dictate that
15 there was a problem, just because of what's coming in at
16 the north is better than what's coming in at the souili. ]
17 mean, it would depend on the quality of the water that was
18 discharged at the south end. I believe that would be the
19 point of measurement.
20 Q. SO in that situation there wouldn't be any
21 consequences, even though the water quality going into the
22 Cocohatchee Canal -- impaired waters -- would not be as
23 good as what's coming in the north end of the Mirasal
24 project?
2 5 A. I'm not sure I said iliat. I was trying to say
VOLUME 2
Page 522
that the point of measurement would be at the outfall of
the development and the idea would be that that shouldn't
degrade the receiving body.
Q. Well, impaired waters -- isn't the objective to
bring it back into the compliance?
A. Well, the objective here was to make sure that
they didn't contribute to the impairment. It's not their
obligation to improve it, I don't believe.
Q. Well, isn't the rule whether you cause or
contribute, not that you have to individually do it, but
are you contributing -- if you 're contributing nutrients,
aren't you contributing to a nutrient problem?
A. Not necessarily, if you're generating less than
the current condition.
Q. What criteria would we use to determine whether
there would be consequences from the monitoring data?
A. I'm not sure what you mean by what criteria was
developed.
Q. Well, does the permit have any criteria as
conditions that state what you're going to do with this
water quality monitoring data, or are you merely going to
be collecting it or do you have some permit condition that
says if we get X, you're going to bave to do Y as
remediation?
A. That would denend on what the data shows. It's
Page 523
1 difficult to write a condition that would presuppose what
2 the results are.
3 Q. SO there hasn't been any -- there are no permit
4 conditions on how to use this water quality data?
5 A. Not specifically to address your question.
6 Q. To address any question on what you're going to
7 do with it?
8 A. It's required to be submitted and evaluated and
9 it would be compared to the receiving water body.
10 Q. You were asked questions concerning the
11 outstanding Florida water. Do you know what date the
12 downstream OFW was designated outstanding Florida water?
13 A. I don't recall iliat question, but I don't know
14 when the OFW was designated.
15 Q. Do you know what the existing ambient water
16 quality is to the downstrcam OFW?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. Do you know how thcy would calculate what thc
19 existing ambient of the downstream OFW is?
20 A. I'm not sure what you're referring to.
21 Q. Do DEP's rules concerning outstanding Florida
22 waters have any definition or criteria how you would
23 establish existing ambient water quality for the OFW?
24 A. It's -- I think I've read the passages you're
25 referring to but it's been a while, and I don't recall
64 (Pages 520 to 523)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Society -vs- 1.M. Collier J.V.
Page 524
1 specifically -- 1 think it says something about a year's 1
2 worth of data thatls representative of the conditions or 2
3 the quality that was established at the point of 3
4 designation. 4
5 Q One year prior to the designation? 5
6 A. Pardon me? 6
7 Q. One year prior to the designation? -;
8 A. I don't recall that that's what it says. 8
9 Q. Is it correct that the Bates memo does not 9
10 address impaired outstanding Florida waters? 10
1] A. It doesn't make a distinction between impaired l1
12 waters or impaired outstanding Florida waters. 12
13 Q. Well, for impaired waters, it's proposing using 13
14 the OFW water quality treatment level 50 percent more, but 14
15 if you have an impaired OFW, that doesn't help the ] 5
16 problem, does it? 16
17 A. It would depend on what the impairment is, and 17
18 you would have to factor that into the evaluation. ] 8
19 Q. Is it correct that the district doesn't have a 19
20 wood stork expert? 20
21 A. I don't know. 21
22 Q. You're not a wood stork expert? 22
23 A. No, sir. 23
24 Q. Y oulre not a fish expert? 24
25 A. NO,sir. 25
Page 525
1 Q Witb regards to the Cocohatchee Canal berm -- I
2 I'll call it a discharge device, the overflow on the 2
3 Cocohatchee berm -- are you familiar with what I'm talking 3
4 about? 4
5 A. I think so. 5
6 Q. Who constructs those? 6
7 A. I believe that was constructed as a component of -;
8 that Cocohatchee Canal plan by the Big Cypress Basin. 8
9 Q. The Big Cypress Basin is the entity that 9
10 determines where and how those are constructed? 10
1] A. I wasn't directly involved in the establishment 11
12 of those. My understanding is that it was designed 12
13 through the auspices of the Big Cypress Basin and it was 13
14 submitted to the regulatory agencies and approved. I 14
15 didn't personally participate in that. 15
16 Q The Big Cypress Basin, that's part of the 16
17 district? 17
18 A. Yes, sir. 18
19 Q. Are you familiar with the conservation easement 19
20 proposed in this case? 20
21 A. I know there is one. I didn't evaluate it as 21
22 part of the application. 22
23 Q. Are you familiar with how a conservation easement 23
24 would be modified in the future? 24
25 MR. BAUMANN: Your Honor, I'm going to object as 25
,
VOLUME 2
Page 526
being outside the scope of the --
MR. REESE: I'll withdraw the question. May 1
approach?
THE COURT: Sure. If you'll indicate to counsel
what you're going to show the witness.
MR. REESE: These are Petitioner's Exhibits 1 I,
12,13.14,15,16,17, and 18, which are water
management district ERP's within the basin, and
they're in the notebook.
(Petitioner Exhibit No. ]] - 17, documents, were
marked for identification.)
BY MR. REESE:
Q. I'll ask you if you can identifY what's
Petitioner's Exhibit II?
MR. MENTON: Your Honor, I'll go ahead and just
object. J think this is beyond the scope ofthe
direct and I think it's irrelevant, so before we --
MR. BAUMANN: I would join in the objection, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Counsel, did I understand these are
Petitioner's Exhibits II --
MR. DAVIS: I I through 18.
THE COURT: 11 through 18?
MR. DAVIS: They're ERP permits issued by the
district within the basin and they're relevant to the
Page 527
issue of cumulative impacts.
Actually, it's 11 through 17.
THE COURT: Through 17?
MR. DA V1S: Yes.
THE COURT: Perhaps counsel would stipulate that
permits have been issued within this unnamed basin and
over a period of time that are reflected in Exhibits
II through 17. I don't know whether counsel are
willing to stipulate to that or not.
MR. MENTON: And, Your Honor, I think we are.
Again, we just got these this morning; we haven't
looked at these particular exhibit. With the caveat
that we had the other day that if for some reason we
come across something that doesnlt look right we can
bring that back up, but in order to expedite
matters --
MR. DAVIS: These are things that they produced
before.
MR. MENTON: It may be. I can't sit here right
now and tell you because there was a lot of stuff
produced.
MR. BAUMANN: I have to continue to object to
them, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do counsel need to perhaps review
them? I hate to give you work to do this evening, but
65 (Pages 524 to 527)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
EXHIBIT II, PART 3
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Collier J.V.
Page 1231
1 system proposed by the applicant preserve site groundwater
2 recharge characteristics?
3 MR. BAUMANN: Same objection I raised with the
4 earlier question.
5 MR. DAVIS: You have to wait until the Judge
6 responds. I can respond to that, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Yeah, if you would, please.
8 MR. DAVIS: Ifhe says same objection, I assume
9 that be's objecting that the witness is not an expert
lain the ERP basis of review. I didn't ask whether it
11 complied with section 6.4 or whatever of the basis of
12 review; Ijust asked a simple question in English.
13 MR. BAUMANN: He essentially restated the section
14 6.4 of the basis of review in his question, Your
15 Honor.
16 THE COURT: I'll go ahead and let the witness
17 give an opinion on that. Go ahead, sir.
18 THE WITNESS: That was an area where I thought
19 that the modeling would be enlightening because the
20 model purports to use a very well known, widely
21 applied groundwater model called MODFLOW, which is the
22 most commonly applied groundwater model in the entire
23 field,
24 And those results were not included in the
25 package I received, so there was no analytical basis
Page 1232
VOLUME 5
Page 1233
1 to be longer, less effect during dry and average years, so
2 that is generally considered a beneficial wetland impact.
3 However, the encroachment on the slough and the
4 design of the -- basically a berm at the northern end of
5 the development will tend to increase peak water levels
6 during wet years. So, very -- I would expect a
7 continuation of what has been observed in the basin of
8 each ofthese developments contributing to incrementally
9 higher water levels during wet periods, artificially high
10 water during wet periods.
11 Q. Considering the area just to the north of the
12 development footprint, can you point out where the weir
13 that you're discussing would be and show that to the
14 Judge?
15 A. According to the plans, there's an intake weir
16 right there (indicated), and this set elevation,
17 14.95 feet, passes through the I - and 25-year storm, and
18 into a system of pass-through lakes down the center of the
19 system. This water is fed into that weir by a spreader
20 canal or a collector canal that, according to the plans,
21 goes not very far, maybe 500 feet that way and 1,000 feet,
22 so maybe about 1,500 feet according to the plans on the
23 north side. So that water is collected from that area and
24 then passed into the development.
25 Q. Well, first of all, based UDon this 14.95-foot
Page 1234
1 even to look at groundwater flow. So looking at the 1 weir crest elevation and the berm on the northern part of
2 basis of review, that simply says that the gradient 2 the site, what would you expect would happen to water
3 has to be smaller, zero, or have no groundwater 3 levels to the north of the site as compared to the
4 recharge effects, so I had a lot of difficulty 4 existing levels?
5 ascertaining that. 5 A. For the 14.95, I would expect that to be--
6 BY MR. DAVIS: 6 result in slightly higher peak water levels, that the peak
7 Q. SO did the applicant provide sufficient 7 water levels on that don't get that high during -- how can
8 information to -- 8 I phrase this? That berm will tend to act like a dam and
9 A. Not necessarily for me to ascertain that. ] was 9 that water will have to flow from the surrounding wetlands
10 expecting that to be the part that would be relatively 10 and somehow try to get into that 1,500-foot swale to be
11 straightforward to examinc. 11 passed through the lake system. That's essentially an
12 Q. I'm going to turn your attention to the so-called 12 impediment to flow, slowing flow down, and that will tend
13 main preserves. And what is your opinion about whether 13 to increase the water levels, tend to increase depths.
14 the proposed system, proposed in the 2006 permit, would 14 Q. And bave you reviewed the part of the Tomasello
15 have an adverse impact on the wetlands in the main 15 documentation where it looks at the swale as a method of
16 preserve? 16 conveying water into the weir system that we're talking
17 A. Well, the -- it's not a straightforward matter to 17 about, the pass-through lake system?
18 determine whether or not it's a simple matter of adverse 18 A. I did look at the input file and then listen to
19 or beneficial impact. It's my opinion that the wetland 19 his deposition.
20 will respond differently between the 2002 and the 2006. 20 Q. And was there anything that gave you a pause
21 Some aspects of wetland behavior will be beneficial, 21 about what was done in the model?
22 others will not be beneficial. 22 A. According to the input file, he spread that
23 So the important thing is that it is -- I would 23 spreader swale across four 1,000 foot nodes or about 4,000
24 expect some very significant differences. With the 24 feet, which would tend to, in the simulations -- just
25 absence of the Mirasol Canal, I would expect hydroperiods 25 taking them at face value -- would tend to increase the
67 (Pages 1231 to 1234)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239) 793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Socie~y -vs- I.M. Collier J.V.
Page 1235
1 efficiency of the collector system, so it would tend to 1
2 underestimate the peak water levels. 2
3 Q. And based upon your review of design, is the 3
4 collector swale that long? 4
5 A. 4,000 feet? 5
6 Q. Rigbt. 6
7 A. Not according to the plans, no. !
8 Q. I want to turn your attention to the Cocohatchee 8
9 Slough in a broader fashion, and if you'll look to your 9
10 left at Petitioner's Exhibit 10, which is the colorful map 10
11 there. Are you familiar with your review of all the -'- ~
12 documents in this case the history of the Cocohatchee 12
13 Slough and the impacts of development in the slough on 13
14 wetlands and water flows? 14
15 A. In a general way, yes. ] 5
16 Q. And I'm not going to ask you to go through the 1 6
17 names of the developments in Exhibit 10, but has the 17
18 Cocohatchee Slough from a hydrologic standpoint been 18
1 9 impacted by development? 1 9
20 MR. MENTON: Your Honor, before we get --1 would 20
21 interpose an objection at this point. First of all, 21
22 the standing objection on the cumulative impacts, but 22
23 in addition, I think this witness has just said he's 23
24 familiar in a general sense, and now we're going to 24
25 have him start drawing conclusions from a general 25
Page 1236
1
2
analysis, which I don't think would be appropriate
either.
MR. BAUMANN: And] would further join --1 would
join in that objection and further add that it's
highly cumulative of the slide show and 20 or
30 minutes of testimony we had from Jason Lauritsen a1
the end of the week.
MR. DA VIS: Your Honor, the testimony--
MR. BAUMANN: I'm not sure how many times we have
to hear this.
MR. DAVIS: The testimony of Mr. Lauritsen was
about the impacts to wetlands from the standpoint of
wood stork habitat and Dr. Van Lent is going to
testify about impacts from the standpoint of
hydrological standpoints. And we're not going to
reiterate on this.
The reason I said a general sense is because I
didn't want him to force him to go through the names
of the developments, but he could if you needed him.
So with that -- I mean, this will be fairly short
testimony. We understand it's already objected to
because it's about the cumulative impact assessment,
so I don't understand why that he shouldn't be able to
provide his opinions on the cumulative impacts from a
hydrologic standpoint.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VOLUME 5
i
Page 1237
MR. MENTON: But I think, Your Honor, the point
is that when he just references it generally, he
hasn't established if he's actually looked at the
surface water management systems that have actually
been put in place or proposed to be put in place in
connection with any of these developments and how that
may have an affect, whether those systems are actually
operating the way that they were designed, whether
there may be problems because they're not operating
the way that they were designed, and how tbat might
impact on any of the conclusions that hels trying to
draw.
MR. BAUMANN: And 1 would further add that]
don't believe he's been qualified to conduct or
provide Your Honor with a cumulative impact assessment
under the basis of review, whether it's wetlands or
hydrology.
MR. DAVIS: I don't think he had to be
specifically qualified for that. Judge, this is
certainly relevant as to his opinions on cumulative
impact. It was a predicate to have him express
opinions about cumulative impact, and so, I mean, we
think it's certainly admissible and that therels no
basis for the objection. Other than this general
objection to uttering the word cumulative imDacts.
Page 1238
THE COURT: All right. I'll go ahead and allow
the question and answer. Again, if! don't think
cumulative impacts are relevant, I'll just disregard
that part of the record. Go ahead and answer the
question, if you would.
THE WITNESS: One of the things I've spent a lot
of time looking at in Southwest Florida are aerial
photographs and trying to understand the extent of
wetlands, and] have looked at this area, Collier
County, and Lee County in terms of, for example,
'40's, 1940's aerials, to look at the extent of
wetlands versus today.
And it's pretty clear this area, right here, the
water coming out of the -- well, from the Corkscrew
through the Cocohatchee has undergo pretty dramatic
changes over the past four to six decades.
I have also reviewed the relevant water
management documents, for example, the Lee County --
South Lee County watershed plan, and it was cited in
the district's 2006 staff report, the Cocohatchec
improvement, that the combination of these -- the
effect of all these restrictions to the flow has been
an increase in the peak water stages. And how that's
been compensated for, I've looked -- again, looked at
the hydrologic record, the actual data they have
-,
,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ii
12
13
14
] 5
16
J.7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-
68 (Pages 1235 to 1238)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters com
National Audubon Society -vs- 1.M. Collier J.V.
Page 1239
1 collected about --from gauges, to understand how they
2 responded to these.
3 And my analysis there, it looks like the way they
4 responded to peak water levels is to lower the water
5 levels in the canals to try to compensate, try to pull
6 down these peak water levels. So this has resulted in
7 pretty significant changes in the hydrology across the
8 whole region.
9 So there's been a series of changes, series of
10 water management responses, which have implemented
11 series of changes, and it's just kind of a continual
12 cycle.
13 BY MR. DAVIS:
14 Q. Dr. Van Lent, would the Mirasol project and its
15 footprint in the flood plain in conjunction with these
16 past projects, with projects that are presently permitted
17 but not yet constructed and likely future projects, have
18 cumulative impacts upon the functions of wetlands within
19 the Cocohatchee Slough?
20 MR. MENTON: Same objection, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: All right. Overruled. Go ahead.
22 THE WI1NESS: That's not as straightforward to
23 answer as you might think. But the -- it's reasonable
24 to expect that if I change the wetland extent, I
2 5 change the amount of storage in the wetland and the
Page 1240
1 way the wetlands respond to rainfall, that the 1
2 difference between a lake witb a weir and a wetland 2
3 response are maybe the same in terms of the peak water 3
4 level but they have very different response to 4
5 rainfall. 5
6 So changing from a system of stored water and 6
7 lakes controlled by weirs from a wetland will, in 7
8 fact, I think, have changes to the wetland response in 8
9 the remaining wetlands. 9
10 BY MR. DAVIS: 10
11 Q. And in conjunction with the past developments 11
12 that we've discussed and the present ones that are 12
13 proposed and not yet constructed and the likely future 13
14 ones, will there be impacts that aren't accounted for? 14
15 A. Yeah, I would just -- there was one result 15
16 presented in the April, 2005 modeling by Mr. Tomasello. 16
17 Again, I was not sure how these were arrived at; I was 17
18 just taking the data at face value. But he had the one in 18
19 25-year storm event with existing conditions with the 19
20 Mirasol footprint, and then what's called the Terafina or 20
21 Sarumia Falls, the property just to the west in which 21
22 about a half a section, about 300-and-some acres was 22
23 removed from the flowway, and that showed an increase in 23
24 the peak water level of about two-tenths of a foot, from 24
25 just the removal 0000 acres. 25
VOLUME 5
Page 1241
1 So, I mean, I took that as -- yeah, that that at
2 least makes sense, if! constrict the flowway, the model
3 is responding in an appropriate physical way by increasing
4 the depth. So, yeah, I would expect taking wetlands out
5 of -- changing their characteristics and how they interact
6 is an important thing to look at when trying to understand
7 wetland impacts.
8 Q. Let me turn your attention to the Harper
9 methodology that we've heard testimony about this
1 0 afternoon--
11 MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, we could take a short
12 break if it's appropriate for the court reporter at
13 this point?
14 THE COURT: Okay. Go off the record.
15 (A break was taken.)
16 THE COURT: Back on the record. Mr. Davis?
17 MR. DAVIS: Thank you.
18 BY MR. DAVIS:
19 Q. Dr. Van Lent, have you reviewed the methodology
20 that has been described in this case by the name of the
21 Harper methodology?
22 A. Yes, I have.
23 Q. And were you in the room when Dr. Harper
24 presented his testimony today?
25 A. Yes, I was.
Page 1242
Q. And based upon your review of the methodology, do
you have any opinions as to the hydrologic part of the
methodology for estimating the runoff from a particular
parcel of property?
A. Yes, I do. I evaluated the -- or read the
document called "Evaluation of Current Storm Water Design
Criteria Within the State of Florida." It's labeled
exhibit JR 11, and when I first read this document, my
opinion was that it was a very clear description of the
calculations that Dr. Harper presented -- or went through
to determine what the runoff from a basin was.
But after listening to his testimony this
morning, I'm apparently not sure -- or I'm no longer sure
that that's true. Let me just refer to -- this would be
on page 433, the second sentence of the page of this
report, where he says, "These calculations were performed
using the Soil Conservation Service curve number
methodology and the rainfall distributions for the
designated meteorological regions provided in appendix A.!1
And then on page 436 he basically says, "In
general the model utilizes analysis, the curve number
method, calculates the runoff depth generated by the
median rainfall depth for each rainfall event listed in
the rainfall distributions provided in appendix A."
So my understanding of his calculations, that he
69 (Pages 1239 to 1242)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
EXHIBIT II, PART 4
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Collier J.V.
Page 1355
1 A. Yes, sir. 1
2 Q. And why didn't you use that data? 2
3 A. Well, the reason we didn't use it, we 3
4 attempted -- we first plotted up against the model 4
5 results, and it compared welL But we found that there 5
6 was a water level difference and we had the surveyors go 6
7 out and check it and we did find a bust in the survey 7
8 information. 8
9 Q. A bust in the survey information? 9
lOA. Right. The actual water levels that were shown 10
11 were based on a survey of the site, I mean, based on a 1 }
12 water level -- or a ground -- I'm sony -- an elevation on 12
13 the top of the well that was shot and they found that that 13
14 was incorrectly surveyed and so we felt like the data 14
15 wasn't -- we didn't want to present something that wasn't 15
1 6 surveyed correctly. 1 6
17 Q. Okay. So if! understand you correctly then, 17
1 8 that well gauge data was not correct? 1 8
19 A. That's correct, it was -- 1 9
20 Q. Now, Ijust want to make clear. Is that the same 20
21 well gauge data that Dr. Van Lent was referring to on the 21
22 site? 22
23 A. That's the only data that exists, well data that 23
24 exists onsite. 24
25 MR. BA UMANN: No further questions. 25
Page 1356
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: Mr. Menton?
MR. MENTON: No questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Davis?
MR. DAVIS: Judge, I'm afraid I'm at a little bit
of a disadvantage on that last set of questions
because I was going to bring in the map to -- that we
have from Mr. Hall's deposition where he presented
this well data and go through that with any witnesses
who were testifying about the data and 1 don't have
that yet. It's being printed out and being brought
here. And so I'm not able to cross-examine the
witness on that issue at this moment. 12
MR. BAUMANN: Well, respectfully. Your Honor, he 13
asked the question and he cross-examined the witness 14
on the gauge data back in the original testimony and
no such data as Mr. Davis refers to is on any exhibit
list or prehearing stip.
MR. DAVIS: Well, it was a deposition exhibit.
The data itself was part of a deposition exhibit from
Mr. Hall's deposition who also had a map of the
locations of these wells on the site, and this is what
Dr. Van Lent compared the water level measurements in
those wells to the model results.
Now this witness just testified that they
compared favorably and that was different than Dr. Van
VOLUME 6
Page 1357
Lent testified, so I need to have that exhibit to be
able to cross-examine the witness. It's coming, it
should be here within 15 minutes.
MR. BAUMANN: Well, respectfully, Your Honor,
it's not here, it's not what the witness testified
originally, and it's not what he testified now.
MR. DAVIS: Okay. Then we'll do it the hard way.
THE COURT: I don't know what the significance of
the well gauge data -- I don't recall, have any
recollection about the significance of that. The
witness indicated that he had used it, the witness on
the stand now indicated he had used this particular
well gauge data but it was incorrect, he later found
out that there was a survey that was wrong and the
data that he had used or was incorrect or did I
misunderstand his testimony?
MR. DAVIS: We'll start from the beginning. Tbe
significance is Dr. Van Lent testified that he's
trying to predict water levels in his model and we had
some actual well data on the site that the model
didn't predict the water levels.
And the second part of it that the witness just
testified to is that he contradicted Dr. Van Lent and
said the levels matched. Okay. That's one thing that
1 would cross about. And thirdly, he testified that
Page 1358
there was some incorrect surveying and 1 would also
cross-examine about the incorrect survey.
So those would be the issues but 1 can do it with
going through, you know, thc maps that we have here
with us and if the witness understands where the wells
are located, then we can accomplish it without
referring to the exhibit I don't have.
We have the different water level measurements,
so. I mean, we can do it but it's going to be more
difficult. If I have 15 minutes 1 could accomplish
that.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions regarding
the collector's swale area that was raised during
direct examination?
MR. DAVIS: 1 would have onc question.
THE COURT: Why don't you go ahead and ask that
then at this point.
18 REBUTTAL CROSS-EXAMINA nON
19 BY MR. DAVIS:
20 Q. Mr. Tomasello, you recall you were just asked
21 questions about the collector swale that was shown in your
22 model results. I don't have that demonstrative exhibit in
23 front of you, but approximately what length did you show
24 the collector's swale as in your model?
25 A. 1 don't specifically recall, but I believe Dr.
;
2
3
~
o.
6
,
8
9
10
1:
15
16
17
19 (Pages 1355 to 1358)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239) 793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Society -vs- 1.M. Collier J.V.
VOLUME 6
Page 1361
Page 1359
1 Van Lent said it was 4,000 feet, but -- 1
2 Q. Do you contradict that as how it was shown? 2
3 A. Yes. 3
4 Q. And then what length do you recall? 4
5 A. Well, what I recall is that the grid or -- the 5
6 plotted swale is shown to pass through four grids, which 6
7 would be 4,000 feet. However, the actual swales are 7
8 applied from center of grid to center of grid and to take 8
9 it to the structure is actually 3,000 feet. 9
10 Q. Okay. And do you recall the testimony that the 10
11 design of the swale is approximately 1,500 feet? 11
12 A. Idorecallthat. 12
13 Q. Okay. 13
14 MR. DAVIS: That would be the questions I would 14
15 ask. 15
16 THE COURT: In going back to the second area of 16
17 the well gauge data that the witness testified was 17
18 incorrect, and your proffer was that Dr. Van Lent had 18
19 relied on that well gauge data in presentation of his 19
20 case; is that correct? 20
21 MR. DAVIS: Yes, he had testified that the 21
22 modeled results were different than the actual 22
23 results. 23
24 THE COURT: And you need the map to do what? 24
25 MR. DAVIS: To cross-examine this witness on what 25
Page 1360
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the differences were because -- 1
THE COURT: Between the survey and what -- 2
MR. DAVIS: No, between the predicted well water 3
levels and the actual water levels. I mean, his model 4
predicts water levels and tben actual water levels 5
were measured and there were differences of two feet 6
or more, and so he just testified differently than 7
that, and I would like to be able to cross on that. I 8
MR. BAUMANN: And respectfully, Your Honor, I 9
believe what Mr. Tomasello said was that he did not 10
use that data because he had discovered that the well 11
data was incorrectly surveyed. So he did not use that 112
in terms of a verification of water levels of his 13
model. 14
THE COURT: The witness here did not use it 15
because -- 16
MR. BAUMANN: That's correct. He testified to it 17
before, and then he had to come back and clarify that 18
once again this is the same wells we're talking about, 19
it's the only ones. 20
MR. DAVIS: I just heard him say that they 21
compared favorably and that's why I'm -- 22
MR. BAUMANN: I didn't hear that. 23
THE COURT: Why don't you clarify that point then 24
at this time, if you would, sir. 25
BY MR. DAVIS:
Q. Mr. Tomasello, did you ever compare the well
measurements with your predicted values for the time
period of record that we have for the wells that have been
installed on the Mirasol property?
A. Well, not for the entire length, no.
Q. Did you compare them for any period?
A. Yes, I compared them to the length of the period
ofrecord that we -- the wells existed, compared to the
duration of the validation, model validation, which was in
-- I can't remember the date, but it was into the fall of
2006.
Q. For the entire period of measurements that you
had for the well at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And didn't you just say that they compared
favorably?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And when you say compared favorably, were
they identical?
A. Well, they compared favorably from the standpoint
of water levels rising and falling and rising again, and
so forth. In other words, the time of restoration of the
surface water at the site agreed favorably. What we did
find was the water levels were different, and that's when
Page 1362
the surveyors were sent out and found that there was a
bust in the survey information.
Q. Okay. And before we get to the water level
measurements because I see my map is coming in the door as
we speak, before we get to the water level measurements,
when you say a bust in the survey, how -- were the wells
located in the wrong place horizontally?
A. Vertically is what we're talking about.
Q. SO arc you saying that the ground level was not
surveyed properly?
A. The tops of the wells where the reference to the
water levels in the wells was made was surveyed
incorrectly.
Q. And what was the difference?
A. I donlt know. We didnlt get the corrected
results in time to provide any additional or -- that was
my testimony, that we didn't have the corrected
information to actually do a comparison, so that's why we
left it out.
Q. SO you ended up not using the well data in your
validation at all?
A. The final well data, yes, because it was
incorrect from what we had before.
Q. Let me just -- so we understand, I'm going to
show you a copy --
20 (Pages 1359 to 1362)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
EXHIBIT II, PART 5
National Audubon Society -vs- I.M. Cullier J.V.
Page 10S5
1 BY MR. DAVIS:
2 Q. And, Dr. Harper, with Joint Exhibit II, is this a 2
3 draft final report as it's called? 3
4 A. Yes. 4
5 Q And so this methodology that's contained in this 5
6 2006 version of your methodology has not been finally 6
7 accepted by the Department of Environmental Protection? 7
8 A. It has been accepted. We haven't given them the 8
9 final report; we are in the process of finalizing it right 9
10 now. :0
11 Q. Now, you know, do you not, that if this is going :J
12 to be used in rule~making that there's a lengthy process :2
13 involved in the rule-making process which starts with rule ' c
L,
14 development, notice, and proceeds to actual rule-making. 1,
15 do you not? Do you understand that? 15
16 A. Yeah, basically. 16
17 Q. And as far as you know, there's been no notice of 17
18 rule development that has been issued by the DE? with a 18
19 rule -- a proposed rule that would embody this ~9
20 methodology? ;c
21 A. Not that I have seen. 21
22 Q Okay. And I don't know how involved you've ever 22
23 been in rule-making, but you understand, do you not, that c
c,
24 what is proposed may change thoroughly in the process of 24
25 rule-making and if this methodology would be embodied in a 25
Paqe 1056
1 proposed rule that may not ultimately be accepted by DEp? 1
2 A. I suppose that's possible. 2
3 Q. And this methodology in this Joint Respondent's 3
4 Exhibit 11 has not been peer-reviewed, has it? 4
5 A. Yes, it has. 5
6 Q. Well, you told me before that it was 6
7 peer-reviewed by the water management districts. That's 7
8 not the type of scientific peer review that scientists I 89.
9 would normally engage in by having an article published in
10 a peer review journal, is it? I J 0
A. No, but this is not an article published in a 1 : 1
journal. That was reviewed by the water quality experts i J 2
at each of the water management districts. It was i 13
reviewed by the ,vater quality resident water quality i 1 4
expert for the conservancy, comments were provided to DE?'I ] 5
and we have those comments and arc incorporating those i 16
into the final version. : ] )
Q. And so the final version could change as compared i 18
to what's in Joint Respondent's Exhibit II? I ] 9
A. It's not going to change substantially, no. 20
Q. And you have mentioned comments from the I 21
conservancy? I 22
A. Yes. 123
Q. And were those -- and were those used in your 24
final version that you're drafting now? 25
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2]
22
23
24
25
VO:"'UME 5
Page 1057
A. The only two conunents that 1 was provided was a
concern over the deep lakes, and why does this version not
havc loading rates for wetlands; those were the two
comments I got from the conservancy through DEP. The deej:
lake issue is addressed, and they have asked me, as the
conservancy required, to include information on wetlands,
which is not currently in there.
Q. Okay. We'll come back to that. But, again, as
far as peer review goes, who from the water management
district, in this case the South Florida Water Management
District, reviewed this methodology?
A. I'm not sure exactly.
Q. Did you receive any comments from the South
Florida Water Management District?
A. Yes.
Q. And what were those?
A. Basically editorial comments. I don't recall
exactly, but nothing significant.
Q. And have any scientists at any university said
anything -- who deal with stonn water management, who
peer-reviewed this draft?
A. Yes.
Q. And who would that be?
A. Dr. Marty Wanielista at the Storm Water Academy,
University of Central Florida, reviewed it.
Page 1058
THE COURT: Could you spell the last name on
that, please?
THE WITNESS: WcA-N-I-E-L-I-ScTcA.
THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MR. DAVIS:
Q. You used to work with Dr. Wanielista, did you
not?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know if a previous version of this
methodology was peer-reviewed by academic experts from,
among other places, University of Florida -- James Heaney,
does that ring a bell'>
A. He's not with the University of Florida, he's
with the University of Colorado, I believe.
Q. He's now the chair of the civil engineering
department at the University of Florida.
A. He must have come back.
Q. But he peer-reviewed it previously, did he not?
A. He did, yes.
Q. We'll come back to that. But as far as this
version goes, from your point of view, the 2006 version of
your methodology would be the prcfcrable methodology to
use for a postdevelopment versus predcvelopment loading
analysis?
A. Yes.
23 (Pages 1055 to 1058)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
National Audubon Society -vs~ r.M. Collier J.V.
Page 1059
1 Q. And so you wouldn't rely upon your previous 2003 1
2 methodology for that purpose now? 2
3 A. I wouldn't, no. 3
4 Q. And there has been some discussion prior to you 4
5 taking the witness stand in this case, and just accept 5
6 this as a hypothetical, about whether EP A and the Corps of 6
7 Engineers have accepted the 2003 version of your 7
8 methodology, and you're aware that the 2003 version has 8
9 been in use for permits for the Corps of Engineers? 9
10 A. Yes. 10
11 Q. SO do you know when the Corps and EPA first 11
12 started allowing the use of your methodology on pre versus 12
13 post development analysis? 13
14 A. I don't know the exact date. It was sometime, ] 14
15 guess, during 2003. I'm not sure exactly. 15
16 Q. And at that time, your methodology had not been 16
17 peer-reviewed; correct? 17
18 A. IthadbeenreviewedbyDEPandthewater 18
19 management district at that time. 19
20 Q. And was that a substantive peerreview that went 20
21 through all the aspects of the hydrology and the water 21
22 quality issue? 22
23 A. Yes. 23
24 Q. You know EPA subsequently, after allowing the 24
25 methodology to be used, had a oeer review that was 25
Page 1060
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
published in 2005; correct? 1
A. Yes. 2
Q. And as far as your methodology goes then, the use 3
of it or acceptance of it by EP A and the Corps of 4
Engineers occurred before the EP A peer rcview? 5
A. I can't comment on that. I don't know the exact 6
date. 7
Q. 2003 is before 2005 in time; is that correct? 8
A. It is, but I'm not sure exactly when they began 9
using it. 10
Q. Okay. 11
A. I mean, ] don't want to testifY to something I'm 12
not surc of. I'm not sure of the date that they began 13
using it. 14
Q. Okay. You do recall that you were contracted by 15
the WERC group to produce a report of your methodology 16
sometime in late 2002 or early 2003? 17
A. Well, yeah, when you say contracted, they -- the 18
contract for the work went througb tbem. The work was 19
done for DEP and the water management district. 20
Q. I've asked for the contract and have never 21
received it in this -- discovery in this case, and you 22
have never produced it either. But the contract was with 23
the WERC group; correct? 24
A. The contract for the funds went through the WERC 25
VOLUME 5
Page 1061
group, yes.
Q. And the WERC group is predominately a group of
developers in Lee and Collier County and their
consultants?
A. I'm not sure of the makeup of the group.
Q. And Mr. Rick Barber was their representative, who
was your contact throughout the process of developing the
report; is that correct?
A. I had -- well, Rick Barber was my contact, but I
only had contact with him initially. During the
development of the report I had no contact with him
whatsoever.
Q. But he was a representative of the WERC group who
you had contact with in the process of engaging in the
work?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes.
Q. And you understood Mr. Barber to be affiliated
with the WERC group?
A. Yes.
Q. And this was at a time when the Mirasol project
was undergoing a permit review with the Corps of
Engineers, do you recall that?
A. I recall it well.
Page 1062
Q. And also a time when the Terafina project was
undergoing review with the Corps of Engineers -- or as
that project is also known, Saturnia Falls now, do you
recall thaI"
A. Not as much, no.
Q. Okay.
A. I recall the Mirasol because Mr. Boler called me
on it probably 10 times looking for my advice on it, but
the other one] don't recall.
Q. And you are aware that Mr. Boler recommended the
use of your loadings analysis to the applicant in this
case without the assumption that wetlands are a source of
pollutants, correct?
MR. BAUMANN: Objection. Mischaracterizes the
witness1s testimony, and there's no evidence in the
record regarding wetlands, quote, being a course of
pollutants, end quote.
THE COURT: Well, the question is whether or not
Mr. Boler made that type of recommendation to the
witness?
MR. DAVIS: Not to the witness, whether he made
that recommendation to the applicants in this case,
based upon his discussions with Dr. Harper.
THE COURT: Do you know if he did make that type
of recommendation, sir?
24 (Pages 1059 to 1062)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
EXHIBIT II, PART 6
National Audubon Society ~vs- I.M. Collier C.V.
Page] 083
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one-inch applied if you're not discharging into an
impaired water but if it's an impaired water then you
have to go provide additional reasonable assurance and
that would be the additional one-half-inch, or am I
missing the point there?
MS. MARTIN: If the one-inch criteria applies, if
you discharge into an OFW, then you do an
inch-and-a-half, and correct me if I get this wrong,
but in addition to that, we use section 4 of our basis
of review if you're discharging into an impaired water
body to require that an applicant demonstrate that it
won't cause or contribute to water quality violations
in the impaired water body.
So first you meet the presumptive criteria, then
you provide an additional level of reasonable 15
reassurances. So that's what they've done here, 1 6
they've satisfied the presumptive criteria and now 17
through Dr. Harper they're providing their additional 1 8
level of reasonable assurances to show that there 1 9
won't be an impact to the Cocohatchee. 20
THE COURT: Okay. Can counsel argue this in your 21
proposed order? I think it will be easier -- it's 22
hard for me to digest all this, although you all have 23
done a good job on trying to explain it to mc. Would 24
that be nossible" And counsel, if vou want to relv 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 1084
upon the exhibit that's been -- his study that's been 1
now admitted into evidence, would that be adequate? 2
MR. DAVIS: In the interest of time. we'll do 3
that, Judge, and this issue, of course, is just one 4
that is important to the petitioners in this case. 5
And the Terrie Bates memo which has been entered as 6
I.M.C. Exhibit 9 does outline essentially what Ms. 7
Martin just said as far as how these sections work 8
together. 9
THE COURT: Whose Exhibit 9" 10
MR. DAVIS: This is I.M.C. 11
THE COURT: I.M.C. 9. Is that in evidence at 12
this point? 1 :
MR. DAVIS: It was moved into evidence, 1 1,
believe. 15
MR. BAUMANN: Yes, Your Honor. 16
MR. DAVIS: And while we don't necessarily agree 17
with its result in terms of what it takes to provide 18
these additional assurances, it does describe that 19
additional assurances need to be provided over and 20
above the 50 percent additional treatment because 121
that's only the first part of it. So and, again, we 22
would be happy to argue that issue. I 23
THE COURT: And I apologize to everyone for not 124
understanding. This seems like a comnlex issue and I 25
VOLUME 5
Page 1085
it's hard to digest here spontaneously, so hopefully
y'all can -- I'm sure you will set it out in proposed
orders on this particular issue.
MR. DAVIS: And we didn't tend to have our legal
argument here; we're just dealing with an objection.
6 I mean, it seems like every objection is about a legal
7 issue rather than about the evidence.
8 THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to move on to
9 another subject now?
10 MR. DAVIS: It's a related subject, but I would
11 like to have a little latitude on this.
12 THE COURT: Ycah, go ahead.
13 BY MR. DAVIS:
J 4 Q. Dr. Harper, have you -- while we're talking about
this subject, have you looked at the data that you -- or
the estimates that you have made, I should say, rather
than data. to determine whether the total nitrogen would
be removed to a certain percentage as compared to what's
coming into the onsite lakes?
A. Yes.
Q. Overall, have you looked at it overall?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's less than 80 percent; correct?
A. It is less than 80 percent, but I need to correct
a mischaracterization that vou made of mv renort. The
J
"
L
3
4
5
Page 1086
water resource implementation rule which is chapter
17-40 --
MR. DAVIS: I don't believe we're getting into
his legal argument now, Your Honor.
MR. BAUMANN: Your Honor--
MR. DAVIS: Hc's trying to direct our legal
argument.
THE COURT: If you all want to get into it on
redirect, you can do so at that time. Go ahead.
BY MR. DAVIS:
Q. SO just so that we're clear, the removal of total
nitrogen in the ponds, as you have testified, would not be
to the 80 percent extent?
A. It would not be to the 80 percent rule and is not
required to be to the 80 percent rule.
Q. Okay. And I understand that that's your legal
interpretation. And so as far as the overall efficiency
of this treatment system for removing total nitrogen, it
would be less than 80 percent, and what is the maximum
that would be removed in each of these ponds, as you have
in your report?
A. Each pond removes about 40 percent; the whole
system removes about 75 percent.
Q. And let's talk for a minute about your
methodology. Off the record just one second.
30 (Pages 1083 to 1086)
DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (239)793-0021
www.donovanreporters.com
Exhibit III:
Recommended
Order
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC.;
COLLIER COUNTY AUDUBON SOCIETY,
INC.; FLORIDA WILDLIFE
FEDERATION; CONSERVANCY OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; and
FRANKLIN ADAMS,
Petitioners,
vs.
Case No. 06-4157
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT and I.M. COLLIER, J.V.,
Respondents.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the
Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned
Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on April 24-27
and May 1 and 2, 2007, in Naples, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Thomas W. Reese, Esquire
2951 61st Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-0649
Gary A. Davis, Esquire
Post Office Box 649
Hot Springs, North Carolina 28743-0649
environmental impacts, and water quality, while the second rule
generally requires that a public interest balancing test be
made, that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered, and that
the District consider past violations, if any, by the applicant
of District or Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
rules.
(The parties have cited no prior violations by the
applicant that should be considered.)
Besides these two rules,
a number of BOR provisions which implement the rule criteria
must also be taken into account.
26. If an applicant proposes to modify an existing ERP, as
it does here, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.331(2) (a)
comes into play and requires that the District review the
application to modify the ERP "using the same criteria as new
applications for those portions of the project proposed for, or
affected by, the modification." Under this rule, those portions
of the project altered or affected by the modification are
reviewed under the current ERP criteria, but otherwise the 2002
Permit is not the subject of review in this case.
Therefore,
----------
the District's review includes only that portion of the existing
permit that is proposed to be modified or affected by the
modification.
In this case, the 2006 design is very similar to
the 2002 design, and the project's footprint, control
elevations, roadway network, southern outfall, and main preserve
are unchanged. However, as pointed out below, since most of the
15
engineering-related components of the SWMS were affected by the
Flow-Way's removal, the District reassessed the hydrologic
components of the internal water management system and the pass-
through lake system for levels of flood protection and water
quality treatment.
27. Because most of the engineering-related components of
the SWMS for the proJect were modified as a result of the
removal of the Flow-Way, the District staff reassessed the
project's hydrologic calculations associated with levels of
flood protection and reassessed the proJect's water quality
treatment volumes applying the currently existing ERP criteria.
As to wetland impacts and mitigation, review of the wetland
impacts for the 2006 Permit was limited to an analysis of
additional wetlands impacts associated with the modification.
This was primarily the elimination of the previously permitted,
secondarily impacted wetlands.
Thus, only the additional
wetlands impacts due to the revised SWMS are considered under
the currently existing ERP criteria.
28. The 2006 Permit made only slight changes to the
project's wetland impacts and mitigation components authorized
under the 2002 Permit.
The proJect's footprint was not changed
and the main mitigation area (the Northern Preserve) was
unaffected by the changes except that 36.50 acres were actually
added to that preserve as a result of the removal of the Flow-
16
Exhibit IV:
EPA
Comments
~",\'li'~.D Sr-1~
in i:,
s ~ z
\ ~1'tJ-)
~1-J: c,"
"'( PA01~
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303.8960
SEP 2 2 2006
Colonel Paul L. Grosskruger, District Engineer
Department of the Anny
Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers
A TIN: Mr. Harry W. Bergmann
1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 310
Fort Myers, FL 33919
REC~IVED
SEP ? i< 2006
JJWl<SONVILLE DISTRICT
USACE
SUBJECT: J.D. Nicewonder, Jr. - Mirasol
Public Notice: SAJ-2000-1926 (lP-HWB)
Dear Colonel Grosskruger:
This letter is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4's response to
the public notice (PN) for the revised pemlit application number SAJc2000-1926 (lP-HWB),
dated August 24,2006. On the basis of our review of information presently available in the
PN, we believe the proposed project may result in substantial and unacceptable adverse
environmf7ntal impacts to Aquatic Resources of National Importance (ARNI). As detailed in'
our comments below, the proposed project does not appear to be in compliance with the
requirements of the Clean Water Act's (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines), Le.,
the cliteria for evaluating discharges of dredged or fill materials into navigable waters and
adjacent wetlands under Section 404 of the CW A.
Project Description
In overview, the proposed project (aka "Mirasol") involves the construction of a
residential development within 1,714 acres of biologically sensitive habitat located west of the
intersection of Immokalee Road and State Road (SR) 951 in Collier County, Florida.
According to the PN, the project site includes 1,486.14 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (an
amalgam of melaleuca, disturbed hydric pine, pine-cypress, and cypress communities) and
227.15 acres of uplands. Proposed wetlands impacts are approximately 655.90 acres (i.e.,
529.22 acres of fill and 126.68 acres of dredge impacts.)
Assessment of ARNI Criteria
Currently the subject wetlands provide suilable habitat for a diverse array of wildlife,
inclUding threatened and endangered species. According to the PN, the project site contains
habitat for Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi), the wood stork (Mycteria Americana), the
red cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and the Eastem indigo snake (Drymarchon
Internet Address (VAL) 0 http://lNWW.epa.gov
AecyclodlAecvclablo 0 Printed wRh VogalabJe O~ Based Intes on R8~CJed Papot (Minimum 30"10 Poslconsuffiet)
.'
2
corais coupen). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has identified the
property as "Priority Wetlands" with "Biodiversity Hotspots" and as a "Strategic Habitat
Conservation Area". EPA has performed numerous site visits and observed many interspersed
cypress ponds (with their abundant fish species) and cypress-pine communities in the northern
portion of the Mirasol site. These communities are especially important to the many wildlife
species, such as shallow wading birds, and the efficient ecosystem functioning in the
Cocohatchee Basin (CB). That is, cypress wetland systems are very effective in removing
nutrients and other pollutants from surface runoff, function as natural water storage reservoirs,
and facilitate groundwater recharge. Since much of this community type has been converted
to urban and agricultural pursuits (e.g., the Parklands, Terafina, and Olde Cypress residential
developments), water quality in the CB has incrementally declined (for a generic overview of
these type problems see "Final Environmental Impact Statement on Improving the Regulatory
Process in Southwest Florida, Lee and Collier Counties, Florida").
The wetlands proposed to be impacted by this project are significant due to their size,
location, and functionality within the Cocohatchee watershed, i.e., they are upstream of the
Cocohatchee Canal, Cocohatchee River, and Wiggins Pass Estuarine Area. The Cocohatchee
River and Wiggins Pass Estuarine Area are also Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) and
warrant the highest level of protection within the State. The watershed is already experiencing
environmental problems resulting from previous development, e.g., the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) has listed the Cocohatchee Canal and Cocohatchee River as
impaired for dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria, and high iron concentrations. The potential
water quality restrictions associated with development of Total Maximum Daily Loads in
2007 willlikeiy add another layer of environmental complexity to this watershed.
A development of this magnitude within the historic Cocohatchee Slough has a
potential for significant degradation with serious alteration to the distribution and timing of
flows into these downstream waters. The secondary and cumulative impacts from the
proposed project in concert with adjacent developments may adversely affect water quality,
flood storage, watershed sheet-flow, and wildlife habitat. Any changes to downstream
hydrology may have significant impacts to the feeding and breeding cycles of important
species such as the wood storks and other wading birds. Although many of these wetland
types are experiencing varying degrees of perturbation via the presence of exotic wetland
species, they still provide important biological and hydrological functions that include filtering
and cleaning surface water runoff, storing flood waters during the rainy season, recharging
groundwater, and providing food and refuges for wildlife.
Compliance with the Guidelines
By convention, the applicant's proposal is a non-water dependant project since it does
not have to be located in an aquatic site to achieve its basic purpose. For non-water dependant
projects, there is a presumption in the Guidelines that alternative upland sites exist and are
3
available to the applicant Section 230.1O(a) of the Guidelines prohibits the discharge of
dredged or fill material if there is a practicable altemative to lhe proposed discharge which
would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not
have other significant adverse environmental consequences. Practicable altematives are those
that are available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing
technology, and logistics in light of the overall project purposes. Another presumption in the
Guidelines is that fill material placed in uplands will have a lesser adverse impact on the
aquatic environment than when wetlands are sacrificed for project purposes. Given these
preconditions, the chosen project site must be shown to be the least damaging practicable
alternative that meets the basic project objectives.
EP A requests that the applicant outline efforts taken to analyze alternative sites and
provide the following information, (if different from the original public notice):
. Describe the site selection criteria used and identify other parcels evaluated;
. Provide geographic limits to your search of altemative sites;
. Provide a map of the alternative sites;
. Provide a written statement explaining why the project must be located in a
wetland;
. Provide a rating of each site criterion and an overall rating for each site, and
. Provide a hydrologic study focusing on the timing and distribution of water,
especially considering the number, size, and depth of the currently proposed water
management system.
Section 230.10(d) of the Guidelines prohibits issuance of a permit to fill wetlands unless
appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of
the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem. In particular, the applicant should avoid and minimize
impacts to on-site wetlands and (as feasible) enhance them for water quality and habitat mitigation.
For example, the applicant could modify the design of its golf course and cluster development to
take maximum advantage of the upland portions of the parcel. Reducing the size and footprint of
the overall development could also lessen the adverse impacts attendant to construction of the
proposed lakes. Experience demonstrates that excavated lakes tend to lower local groundwater
levels and exacerbate evaporation rates. This, in turn, can change the hydrology of and adversely
affect adjacent wetlands. Rcducing the overall development footprint, providing more on-site
mitigation, and preserving interspersed cypress areas are all measures which will help ensure that
the integrity of the Cocohatchee Slough and its downstream environments is maintained.
It is important to note that the currently proposed wetland impacts (655,90 acres) are greater
than that (587 acres) proposed in the revised 2005 application that was submitted to the COE and
denied by the COE. Hence, EP A finds it interesting that the applicant has now reapplied with a
design with even greater wetland impacts associated with its housing and golf course development
It is important to note that 86.76 acres of the original wetland impacts were a function of a flow-way
.'
4
which is no longer included in the subject project design. To provide a comparative sense of the
impacts proposed by this project, all similar previous/planned permit actions within and adjacent to
the Cocohatchee Slough are less than the impacts currently being proposed by this project. Since
the 2005 project plan was deemed to be economically viable, EPA believes the applicant may be
able to demonstrate additional avoidance and minimization measures without materially affecting
the project's feasibility.
As noted, the PN for the project does not comply with the Section 404(b)(1) Guide]ines.
Specifically, these Guidelines require applicants to follow a sequence of avoidance, minimization
and mitigation in planning for development of wetland sites and to ensure that proposed projects do
not cause or contribute to the significant degradation of waters of the U.S. Currently proposed on-
site mitigation includes preservation of 830.24 acres of wetland comniunities and 110.42 acres of
upland communities, The applicant also proposes to purchase 27.68 credits from the Panther Island
Mitigation Bank and, enhance and restore another 100 acres within the Primary Zone of the Panther
Consultation Area. All preserve areas will be maintained free of exotic vegetation and placed under
a perpetual conservation easement granted to the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD).
In order for EP A to properly evaluate the no net loss of functional values and the
appropriateness of mitigation as proposed above, EP A requests that the applicant provide Wetland
Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) scores for the proposed impacts. Since the project footprint
and design have changed from previous submissions, and the Miraso] flow-way has been removed,
a new technical rationale for this project must be resubmitted and all revised scores should be
included. It is our understanding that the COE may be conducting a Uniform Wetland Mitigation
Assessment (UMAM) on the project impact and mitigation sites. EPA has concerns about the use of
the UMAM for determining the functional value of aquatic resources. The method has not yet been
independently peer reviewed and has shown inconsistent results in field tests. EPA recommends
that until concerns about the validity of the method and variability of results are addressed,
applicants verify UMAM scores using accepted assessment techniques (such as WRAP or the
Hydrogeornorphic Method) or standard scientific field methods.
In order to establish appropriate mitigation, Section 230.11 of the Guidelines requires
consideration of both direct and indirect or secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystems. EP A
requests the applicant submit supporting documentation for thjs secondary impact analysis. The
project's effects on adjacent undeveloped sites and downstream aquatic environments should be also
be evaluated in this submission for determining mitigation. Considering the importance of the
resources impacted by the project, EPA recommends that the applicant consider alternate design
options so that wetland impacts are minimized, onsite wetland enhancement is maximized, and
appropriate mitigation is more practical]y achieved.
If the applicant proposes to modify or submit additional information, EPA would like to
review the following:
,
5
. Detailed overview and cross-sectional drawings with elevations of the
proposed mitigation area;
. A planting plan and/or enhancement plan;
. A description of the surface water management system;
. The responsible party for the long-term management of the mitigation area;
. A long-term mitigation monitoring plan; and
. A mitigation plan schedule.
The magnitude and scope of the environmental impacts that would result if a permit were
granted for this development appear significant. Therefore, an environmental impact statement
(EIS) is recommended to more effectively evaluate the overall consequences of the proposed
project. An EIS, with its greater depth of impact analysis and rigorous examination of alternatives,
would more adequately document and then address the immediate and potential long-term effects of
this action. An EIS would also be a much better vehicle to compare Mirasol to other proposed and
permitted developments in the Cocohatchee Slough to more comprehensively evaluate cumulative
impacts.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) describes the two part test which
determines whether a proposed action should be evaluated within the context of an EIS.
Specifically, an EIS should be prepared to examine any major federal action which significantly
affects the quality of the human environment. In this instance, the federal action is the issuance of
CW A Section 404 permit by the CaE. The second test is evident from the proposal's geographic
reach and scope of impacts. An EIS provides the federal decision-maker the required information to
determine the level and kind of impacts attendant to a proposal and by extension whether an action
is in the overall public interest. Public involvement, which is part of the NEP A process, also allows
those who will be most immediately affected by a proposal a means to make their opinions known
to the federal decision-maker.
Further, the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for hnplementing the
Procedural Provisions of NEP A establish a precedent for examining a proposal of this type, scope
and magnitude via an EIS. For example, the Mobile Disttict of the COE evaluated the significant
wetland impacts associated with the construction of a large-scale casino/hotel complex in the
Mississippi Sound in Biloxi, MS in this fashion. The EIS was prepared to supplement infomlation
in the original environmental assessment which was derived from material submitted by the
applicant for the project's PN. Moreover, an ElS is presently under development to examine the
comprehensive impacts of multiple, mixed use private developments located in wetland habitats in
the vicinity of Orange Beach, Alabama.
Conclusion
Based on the comments outlined above, EP A has determined that this PN does not provide
enough information to verify compliance with the requirements of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
6
Moreover, the conversion of on-site wetlands, and the potential cumulative effects of this loss
coupled with planned and pennitted projects within the Cocohatchee Slough may cause andlor
contribute to significant degradation of waters of the U.S., which is prohibited in 40 CFR, Section
230.1O{c). In accordance with the procedural requirements of the 1992 404(q) Memorandum of
Agreement Part IV, 3(a) between the COE and EPA. we are advising your office that the proposed
work may result in substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts to ARNI. Further, given its scope
and potential significant environmental impacts coupled with the need for additional infonnation,
the application should be held in abeyance until the major outstanding issues are resolved preferably
via the preparation of an EIS.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this request for authorization. If you have any
questions. please contact me or have someone from your staff contact EPA's representative, Robert
Lin at (561) 616-8824. U.S. EPA South Florida Office, 400 North Congress Avenue, Suite 120,
West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401.
Sincerely,
../"'y...7
.'j)J~
/ /?
./James D. Giattina, Director
i/ Water Management Division
cc: Brad Rieck, USFWSIV ero Beach
FWClPunta Gorda
SWFMDlFt. Myers (No.060524-2)
_,\~EO Sl"-1~
v""" ;('.s>
fft70
-~t.
>> "
\ ~'{
~~ '\~
-'I{ PA01jE"
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
OCT 1 8 2006
Colonel Paul L. Grosskruger
District Commander
Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Mr. RarryW. Bergmann
1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 310
Fort Myers, FL 33919
RECEIVED
.'. 2006
JACKSONVILLE DIS]'E1Cll
II.SAnE . .
SUBJECT: J.D. NiCewonder, Jr. - Mirasol
Public Notice: SAJ-2000-1926 (IP-RWB)
Dear Colonel Grosskruger:
This letter is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) response to the August
24,2006. public notice for the revised permit application number SAJ-2000-1926 (IP-RWB).
The proposed project (aka "Mirasol") involves the construction of a residential golf development
within 1,714 acres of biologically-sensitive habitat located west ofthe intersection of Immokalee
Road and State Road (SR) 951 in Collier County, Florida.
The applicant proposes to impact approximately 655.90 acres including 529.22 acres of
fill and 126.68 acres of dredge impacts. For reasons outlined in our September 22, 2006, letter,
EPA considers these wetlands to be aquatic resources of national importance (ARNI). The
proposed mitigation to offset these impacts to aquatic resources includes 830.24 acres of on-site
preservation of wetlands and 110.42 acres of upland communities. The applicant also proposes
to purchase 27.68 credits from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank and enhance and restore
another 100 acres within the Primary Zone of the .Panther Consultation Area. All preserve areas
will be Inaintained free of exotic vegetation and placed under a pcrpctU..Lllx.nsenoaticn caSCln~'.nt
granted to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
In our September 22, 2006, letter, we provided comments regarding the issuance of this
permit based on the requirements of the Clean Water Act's (CWA) 404(b)(I) Guidelines. We
also recommended the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). An EIS would
provide a more effective evaluation ofthe overall consequences of the proposed project with a
greater depth of analysis regarding potential cumulative and secondary impacts. To date, we
have not received a response to our recommendations or comments.
Internet Address (URl) . hltp:llwww.epa.gov
RecyclodlRec.yclablo . Prinled with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% PoslconSumer)
I
2
The State of Florida has also not issued an Environmental Resources Permit for the
proposed project, which constitutes a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. This
'certification must be obtained before EP A can make a final determination under CW A Section
404. Therefore, we are unable to further comment on the project until the State of Florida has
concluded its programmatic review.
In conclusion, due to the potential significant increase in pollutant loading associated with
the proposed land use alterations, this project, as proposed, may cause or contribute to the
significant degradation of waters of the United States. Because EP A has not been provided
sufficient additional information to allow us to determine that the proposed project complies with
the Guidelines and the State of Florida has not issued its Section 401 Water Quality Certification,
we believe that a permit for the proposed project is not approvable at this time. EP A has also
determined that the proposed project, as currently described, will have substantial and
unacceptable impacts on ARNI, and thus we retain the option to refer this proposed project
through the procedures for Elevation of Individual Permits outlined in the 1992 MOA between
the EP A and the Department of the Army.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. We would like to continue to
work with you and the applicant to address the concerns identified in our letters. If you have any
questions, please contact me or have someone from your staff contact Robert Lin at
(561) 616-8824.
Sincerely,
d
J. 1. Palmer, Jr.
Regional Administrator
cc: Brad Rieck, USFWS
FWClPunta Gorda
SFWMD, Ft. Myers (No. 060524-2)
.
Exhibit V:
Mirasol E
2002 Staff
Report
f\ . VVtdedicUS( - Jta.JJJ
Last Date For Agency Action: March 14, 2002
INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT STAFF REPORT
Project Name: Mirasol
Penn it No.: 11-02031-P
Application No.: 000518-10
Application Type:Environmental Resource (New Construction/Operation)
Location: Collier County, S10,15,22IT48SIR26E
Pennittee : J D Nicewonder Jr
Operating Entity: Mirasol Community Development District
Project Area: 1766.46 acres
Project Land Use: Recreational
Residential
DRAFT
Subject to Governing
. Board Approval
Drainage Basin:
Receiving Body:
WEST COLLIER
COCOHA TCHEE CANAL
Class: CLASS III
Special Drainage District: NA
Total Acres Wetland Onsite:
Total Acres Wetland Preserved Onsile:
Total Acres Impacted Onsite :
Total Acres Presv/Mit Compensation Onsite:
Conservation Easement To District: Yes
Sovereign Submerged Lands: No
1429.25
860.59
568.66
972.50
ii_!fl.i!;ll')lil;t/..._;_....."<<'.\,\;ui;W"il;m!.@"ji;i~""w..it"%&n!^)%",qw'''1'111;;!':t!t4w:m;~\;mw....."''....>>....
fr~~~~~u~i~~a~_i~_~~~%n~~ftft{~~i~lOOmk~t@
This application requests an Environmental Resource Permit to authorize the Construction and
Operation of a surface water management system which serves a 1713.7 acre residential and golf
course development and the construction of a 52.76 acre conveyance channel which extends off-site
through the adjacent Wildewood Lakes and Olde Cypress developments. The system discharges to the
Cocohalchee Canal.
App.no.: 000518-'0
Page 1 of 24
Cocohatchee Canal as determined by the Hydrologic-Hydraulic Assessment in the Cocohatchee Canal
Phase Four Improvements report.
Discharge Storm Frequency: 25 YEAR-3 DAY
Design Rainfall: 11.3 inches
Basin
Allow Disch
(cfs)
5.91
580
Method Of
Determination
Discharge Fonnula
Other
Peak Disch
(cfs)
5.9
529
Peak Stage
(ft, NGVDI
16.17
15.46
Basin 1
Basin 2
Finished Floors:
Basin
Peak Stage
(ft, NGVD)
16.66
16.46
Design Rainfall :
Proposed Min. Finished Floors
(ft, NGVD)
16.7
16.7
14.3 inches
FEMA Elevation
(ft, NGVDI
N/A
N/A
Building Storm Frequency: 100 YEAR-3 DAY
Basin 1
Basin 2
Road Design :
Road storm Frequency: 25 YEAR-3 DAY
Basin
Peak Stage
(ft, NGVD)
16.17
15.46
Design Rainfall: 11.3 inches
Proposed Min. Road Crown
(ft, NGVD)
16.2
15.5
Basin 1
Basin 2
Parking Lot Design:
Parking Lot Storm Frequency: 25 YEAR-3 DAY
Basin Peak Stage
(ft, NGVD)
16.17
15.46
Design Rainfall 11.3 Inches
Proposed Mln.Parking Elev.
(ft, NGVD)
16.2
15.5
Basin 1
Basin 2
Flood Plain/Compensating Storage:
In the existing conditions, the project site provides historic storage for run-off from the eastern part of
Lee and Collier County during the middle to last part of the normal rainy season. The storage is required
due to the restriction in the natural slough conveyance system through reduction in width, development
to the west and an invasion of exotic species in the slough. As the wet season progresses, the wetland
vegetation impedes the conveyance of flow and the resulting elevated water stages inundate properties
adjacent to the wetlands. With the onset of the dry season, the slough recedes quick.ly as water table
elevations drop.
The proposed project includes an approximately 200-250 ft. wide, shallow meandering channel which
improves the conveyance through the wetland slough and iowers the peak. stage experienced during the
wet season. Control structures on the channel limit the discharge to a rate which the Cocohatchee Canal
App.no. : 000518-10
Page 5 of 24
can accept and restrict the discharging of run-off directly into the canal during the dry season and the
early part of the rainy season thus prolonging water levels in the slough.
The analysis provided by the applicant identifies the proposed peak stages in the slough during the 100
yr. storm event (see exhibit ). The peak stage was determined by balancing the conveyance capabilities
of the Cocohatchee Canal, the relief required for the Imperial River, and the environmental needs of the
slough. In addition, the analysis shows that some flow reversal occurs, from the f10wway into the
development during the 100 yr. 3 day storm event. The surface water management system in the
lfevelopment therefore is still available for historic basin storage.
Control Eievation :
Basin 1
Basin 2
Upper Flowway
Lower Flowway
Area Ctrl Elev WSWT Ctri Elev Method Of
(Acres) (ft, NGVD) (ft, NGVD) Detennination
147.70 13.4 13.40 Wetland Indicator Elevation
656.40 13.5 13.50 Wetland Indicator Elevation
880.80 13.5 13.50 Wetland Indicator Elevation
395.60 12,75 12.75 Wetland Indicator Elevation
Basin
Receiving Body:
Basin
Basin 1
Basin 2
Basin 2
Basin 2
Upper Flowway
Lower Flowway
Str.#
1
2
8
9
3
4
Receiving Body
Cocohatchee Canal
Upper Flowway
Upper Flowway
Upper Flowway
Lower Flowway
Cocohatchee Canal
Discharne Structures
Discharge Culverts:
Basin Str.# Dimensions
Basin 2
Basin 2
Lower Flowway
8 1 - 222' long 72" dia. Reinforced Concrete Pipe
9 2 - 271' long 7'Z' dia. Reinforced Concrete Pipe
4 3 - 326' long 72" dia. Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Discharge Weirs:
- ,
Basin 2
Basin 2
Upper Flowway
Lower Flowway
8 1 - 24' wide Sharp Crested
9 1 - 32' wide Sharp Crested
3 1 - 340' wide Sharp Crested
4 1 - 35' wide X 2' high Rectangular Notch
Crest Elev,
(ft, NGVD)
14.1
14,1
13.5
12.75
Basin
Str.# Dimensions
Water Quality Structures:
Water Quality Bleeders
App.no.: 000516-10
Page 6 of 24
Exhibit VI:
Barber Letter
to Clarence
Tears,
11/17 /2000
FROM Panasonic FAX SYSTEI1
~ NO. 9415662293
Nov. 18 200ll 98: 4!lAM P:
r- .
GNOU
!ARBER &
P,uf'eHinn3ll:ngillccn, pt2nncn. surveylll1 &. map,'>crs
November 17. 2000
Mr. Clarence Tears
South Florida Water Management District
Big Cypress Basin
6167 Janes Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Re: Cocohalchee Flow Way
ABB PN 7883/X003
Dear Clarence:
We appreciate the input that you and yow staff have provided in the ongoing flow way
restoration project, we expectlhe support of your office to be vital as we move through
the permit process.
A$ we are all aware, the present proposals under consideration aim to control flood levels
in the lower Corkscrew watershed; this in an area where the historic overland flow
drainage patterns have been altered and the flow areas hitherto available significantly
reduced. Moreover we note that the existing drainage corridors keep shrinking and that
the present conditions are actually worse than those of 1995. the most recent year of
hislOriealiy high rainfall,
Although the above considerations have been previousiy shared. with your office;it seems
appropriate at this time to again review the rationale for the Woodlands flow way
improvements. After assessing the available. exisliDg bistoricdata and:careful..analysisof.
the hydraulic efficiency of this terrain, we have been able to make some:conservative
predictions with regard to flow rates and resulting flood levels during design stann
conditions. The calibrated conveyance of this basin has been matched to the previously
developed Sheet2D model of the upper watershed and the emerging picture very e1eariy
indicates a critical intensifi~ation of flood leveis in the upper reaches of the Woodlands
!low way, Since this Mea receives a historical share of the outflow from the Corkscrew
watershed. prohibitively high stages there have effectively shifted the drainoge burden to
other avllilable locations, the Imperial River and the upper Cocohatehee watershed.
On the basis of these facts we can predict that this disntption in historic flow patterns will
oniy WOrsen the perennial flooding in Bonita Springs and Collier County north of
Immokalee Rood. This problem, we must point out, will be much worse if the eventuality
ora 25 year storm is considered; especially when viewed against the backdrop of flood
slagCl experienced last year, a wet season ofreialiveiy low storm intensity.
Mnin Office. 7400 Tami;Jl\\j Tr;\iJ N.. Suite 200. N."I~'Ic\", Flul'idll :;4108 (94l) ~9'.JIII FAX: (Q<CJ) 566.2203
Let! CAWUY: 1625 H.~nd,,,, Sc., Sllil~ 101, F,wt Myer~. Florid:! 3391)\ (~4l) n....1173 fAX: (941) 3i'4.1t7~
fROM Pa"" SDn I c fAX SYSTEM
PHONE NO. 9415662203
Nov. 18 2000 08:41AM P3
,
It seems clear therefore that a signiflclUlt regional benefit is to be derived by retrofitting
the conveyance capacity of this drainage corridor. With regards to this specific issue, the
acceptable ailowable runoff from the flow way basin (Woodlands Slough] has already
been proposed (Cocohatchee Phase 4 improvements which were accomplished at
considerable Basin expense) and we have attempted to adequately meter the flow
increase while maintaining flow regimes acceptable to the receiving Cocohatchee Canal.
The planned discharge rate in this case is 580 cfs, a criterion obtained from the SFWMD
"Cocohatchee Canal Phase 4 Improvements" repon- tNs has been, and remains, the
maximum design discharge for our control structure.
A.s you may recall, our original flow way proposal envisioned a chain of lakes
interconnected by shallow conveyances of approximately four[4 ') feet in depth. A.s a
resull of environmental BIld other considerations, this concept has now been modified; the
lakes have now been entirely replaced by a shallow conveyance of eonstant four [4 '] deep
cro,,-section. Additionally flow way drainage will now consist of two cascading basins,
all in an effort to maintain present hydrology and to mitigate environmental impacts.
Taken in their totality these SFWMD modifications bave unfortunately had significant
negative impact on the hydraulic efficiency oflhe flow way. Jfwe were now to include
your latest eoncept proposal (a reduction in outflow during design stonn conditions), the
option of removing the channel allogether, it seems quite clear that we will effectively
negate any possible useful benefit of the /low way.
Throughoutlhis process we have attempted to maintain the integrity of the design in
order 10 acbieve the functional results of the historic drainage system, We believe that the
present design adequately balances the overall regional benefit against the concerns of
potential over-drainage as expressed by the of water managers of the Corkscrew Swamp.
During the periods or relatively low to moderate rainfall or a nonnal wet season, flood
stages are controlled by the hydraulic parameter of nonnal depth BIld stages experienced
at sections II &. 12, are not lowered; under these conditions, the existing conveyance
capacities are generally maintained,
The additional conveyance capacity only becomcs significant, as it should, during periods
of peak storm events when /lood stages reach historic highs and the speedy evacuation of
floodwaters becomes an urgent priority, In Ibis eventuality, we are giving due
consideration to the Cocohatchee canal water manage'" by maintaining the accepted
moximwn design discharge thereby ensuring that Big Cypress Basin's interesll are fully
protected; this whilc affording a comfortable level of flood protection to the adjacent
properties.
On the race ofit, the goals of this flow way restoration proposal appear simple enough.
To achieve these goals, however we havc mcd to adequataly address issues (ovCr1hc last
two years) of eoncem to the property owners and the govenuncnt agencies overseeing
this restoration. At this juncture the affected landowners have joined forces in a broad
coalition 10 sct aside the requisite land are. and to create the necessary flow way corrid",r.
We must seize this unique opportunity to promote the publie interest and thus ensure the
future beneiits of this proposal.
FRO'1 : Pana son I c FAX SYSTEM
PHONE NO. 9415662203
Nov. 18 2000 08: 41RM P4
Here are the bullet points.t() summarize:
. The c()nslant reducti()n of sheet f1()W area by private and public enlities leave n<>
choice but 10 increase conveyance t() compensate. The natural capacity ()fthe
flow way has been severely reduced since the 1995 st()nn. In 1990 !here were at
ieasl two miles of sheet flow.
. What has been presented to Big Cypress staffWl\S a system ()f connected Jake.
(connecli()n being a 4' deep canveyance secti()n). The permitling process has
rendered the present section of a constant 4' deep seeli()n wi!h ~ sets ()r control
slnlctures.
. The concept of a "natural flow way" sounds environmentally friendly, however,
this lIl'ea acts like a flow way because of default, everything is diked off arolDld it.
The remnant whieh is lell was fUrther impacted by the berm placed on the north
side of the Cocohatchee preventing sheet flow Ilnd the permit for the Old Cypress
project which reduces the width of the flow way t() 270'. This i. why present
capacity is 380 cfs. Adding conveyance to offsetthesc encroachments is not an
option, it is a requirement.
. The flow way as proposed in the Mirasol applicati()n is in !2!!1 confonnance with
the Cocohatehee Phase Four Report, which Big Cypress Basin instructed us to use
for design criteria, If the flows are modified then the Phase 4 Report must be
modified.
. When adjacent projects to the east were asked to look at the size of an additional
conveyance with the reaUzati()n that b()rrow pits must be separated or the storage
is i()st, then conveYllncc will not be considered as an option on the remaining
properties. They c'aMot absorb another SOcfs much less 30Ocfs. That was the
reason for the group meeting at ABB's office on the 14'h of November,
I trust this infonnation will prove beneficial to you. Thank you for your cooperation,
have attached the meeting summary for your use,
Sincerely,
AGNOLl, BARBER & BRUNDAGE,INC,
}~ J. f.).~
Frederick T, Barber m, P .E.
Cheinnlln, C.E.D.
FT8/yo
II-ZI6YOO,LTIl
Exhibit VII:
Tears Letter to
Barber
12/7 /2000
:t\"RM:tt/..,r
~;-. C(I'
.... '.--t
2'~ j.
"' ij.' ~
o. "r::;
~. ,
"';. .- -~
y ,-b
.)0 '. 'l-J'
S.
BIG CYPRESS BASIN
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANACEMENT OISTIlICT
6"89 J...... Lan.. Naples. FL 3-1109
(94-1) 597-1505 . Suncom 721.7920 . Fax (941) 597-4987 . www.siwmd.gov/organ/2_bcb.html
PRO Cocohatchee
December 7, 2000
Mr. Rick Barber
Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc.
7400 Tamiami Trail North
Naples. FL 34108
Dear Mr. Barber:
Subject: Cocohlltchee Flowways
I am writing in response to your recent communication on the feasibility of implementing
the Cocohatchee flov.ways. and the implications for restoration of the historic drainage
pattern of this complex watershed under the existing and proposed development
pressures. As we all know, most of the water management problems of flood, drought,
and environmental quality degradation in the North Collier-Bonita Springs area have
emerged from disruption of the historic flowways by roads, canals, and other
inadequalely planned infrastructures. Your professional association during the last
decade in finding solutions to these problems - first in the South Lee County Watershed'
rvlanagement Plan, and later in various land development projects, has been laudable.
We have tried to incorporate the qUl\nrified conveyance capacity goals of regional
flov.ways identified in the regional" prans into the recently completed and proposed
capital improvement plans of the Cocohatchee, CR 951, and Golden Gate Canals, subject
to capacity of downstream waterways without adverse environmental impacts. Presently,
we do not know the reason for the shift in plan from the earlier concept of interconnected
lakes and buffers to a 4.foot deep conveyance with two water control structures and
cascaded basins. We do not altogether oppose in principle the proposed configuration of
a shallow channel. Some form of controlled flov.way will be necessary to convey runoff
to the major receiving water bodies. However. we want to emphasize that they are not to
act as a perennial vehicle of overdrainage, Due to the predominately wetland nature of
the watershed. some high wet season stages in parts of the watershed would have 10 be
tolerated. For instance. the high stages in the Sections II and 12 are not expected to be
abnormal since these sections are well within the western periphery of the Bird Rookery
Swamp. and is in the heart of the Coral Reef Aquifer.
BIC CYPRESS B""sI:-; COVE/tNING BOAW
DIRECTOR
Trudi K, Williams. ChnirprrsoFl, E.xafficirJ. Ft. My~'~
Mary Ellen Hawkins. Viet CI,oi, . .....IlI'Jt~
Patricia Carroll, Srcrttory ~ NllpltJ
Carrett S, Richter. NQplt~
JoAnn Smallwood. Ndplc!
Fred N. Thomas. Jr. .lmmoJmltl
Clarence S. Tears. Jr.
v
Mr. Rick Barber
December 7, 2000
Page 2
While we understand the need for providing better drainage avenues for a rapidly
urbanizing community, it is imperative that the water management systems proposed for
the developments, primarily the waterway corridors of the Cocohatchee west and east
flowways be implemented with sound foresight. The improvements of Cocohatchee
Canal Phase IV and CR 951 Canal should be completed by early 2002. In addition, the
Big Cypress Basin Five-Year Plan has outlined improvement of the Corkscrew Canal
System and a possible diversion of some Corkscrew Canal flows eastward to Golden
Gate Main Canal. Since any rerouted flows through the Cocohatchee flo\','Ways have to
be accommodated by the enhanced conveyance capacities of the downstream waterways,
we suggest that the improvement of the Cocohatchee Flowways be implemented only
after the Cocohatchee Canal Phase IV and CR 951 Canal modifications are completed.
We appreciate your valued professional cooperation and guidance in devising sound
engineering solutions for the drainage needs of the community while preserving the
regional resources for future generations.
Sincerely,
~L<<
Director
CST/amc
c:
Chip Merriam
Karen Jolmson
Richard Thompson
00 ~ @{lO' W ~ @ \
EJ
FORl MYERS_.
-.--...-
~
Exhibit VIII:
CFIR
Cocohatchee
Flowway
Improvements
And Mirasol ERP
Application
Submittal #5
CFIR
COCOHATCHEE FLOWW A Y
IMPROVEMENTS
AND
MIRASOL ERP APPLICATION
Submittal #5
Updated 09-17-01
COCOHATCHEEFLO~AY
Abstract
. The Cocohatchee Flowway has been identified in the South Lee Study as a major outfall
for the ImperiaVCorkscrew Swamp Watershed.
. The flowway has been identified as worthy of acquisition by CREW Trust Save Our
Rivers program and identified in the Draft ACOE EIS as a "Flowway."
. The flowway was identified as the "Woodlands" flowway in the Big Cypress Basin
"Cocohatchee Canal Phase 4 Improvements, Hydrologic-Hydraulic Assessment, June
1999,"
. Recent actions in the flowway have impaired the operation raising stages and decreasing
flow to much less than 1995 historic proportions (Le" the construction of the berm along
the north side of the Cocohatchee Canal and the permitted construction of the Old
Cypress Project).
. Since the outfall cross-section has been drastically reduced, conveyance must be added to
the flowway to return it to historic levels.
. A rare opportunity exists between all property owners to cooperate with the construction
ofthe flowway,
. This flowway, as presently impaired, will result in higher stages in the Kehl
CanaVImperial River,
. The constant reduction of sheet flow area by private and public entities leave no choice
but to increase conveyance to compensate. The natural capacity of the flow way has been
severely reduced since the 1995 storm, In 1990 there were at least two miles of sheet
flow.
. What has been presented to Big Cypress staff was a system of connected lakes
(connection being a 4' deep conveyance section). The' permitting process has rendered
the present section of a constant 4' deep section with jy{Q sets of control structures.
. The concept of a "natural flow way" sounds environmentally friendly, however, this area
acts like a flow way because of default, everything is diked off around it. The remnant
which is left was further impacted by the berm placed on the north side of the
Cocohatchee preventing sheet flow and the permit for the Old Cypress project which
reduces the width of the flow way to 270'. This is why present capacity is 380 cfs at a
much higher stage. Adding conveyance to offset these encroachments is not an option, it
is a requirement.
. The flow way as proposed in the Mirasol application is in total conformance with the
Cocohatchee Phase Four Report, which Big Cypress Basin offered as design criteria.
12-283Y9.DOC
Exhibit IX:
Everglades West
Coast Group
Verified List
-
III
:::;
."
'"
'"
."
'"
>
,
-
"
."
-
III
Q
J::
-
:I
o
"'_
III
l: '"
'r;; 0
"'u
al1ij
- '"
c.;:
:I III
o '"
~."
Cl '"
1ii"EI
'" ~
o '"
U~
-
en....
CD 'c
;:;:)
= .~
."m
'" 0
~e
"'."
> '"
W:!:
"
o 0.
. I-
ZZ"01Il
t-I-Cl'll.,..;
. -= I'll ai.~
~.~ ~~ ~
::~O~~
.-!5!~Iil.;;:
g::i1~.g~
~8.~Cb~
?"_ ~ E e-
~~~aO
M 1Il . . E::
_::1000
II) B II II "'C
~~~~.~
II CI:l'- 'C ctI
c.o.. i Q) E
0.1-::E::!: ._
W
I~Cl
O"Z
"1-:'\
8~z
"
. 0
> .
15
.
BO
o
ll.'!!! II
I-~ffi
"O::E .-
lijzal
zl-::;
I-~o.
....:j~
'" . 0
_Clll
~~E
II = 0
0.8.'"
:>_ Q)!E. ~
ffi~~"8
;::~EO)
lDl:Illl)CO
II U~M
a.eOO:
c. mil 0
E
"
'"
.
::;
~
E
o
.,;
V
~ ~
15
.
60
Lc
M
::;
<
w
0:
l-
V)
s:
W
0: W
" WO
Cf.l:r: :r:Z
~~~~[i
8~~~~
o
'"
~
N
M
"
.
o
"
"
~
~
"
o
V)
M
:g
9
'"
o
E
"
'"
.
::;
~
E
o
.,;
V
.
.-
"c E
.2g
8_
0,
o
~
^
Lc
M
::; ::;
< <
W W
0: 0:
I- l-
V) V)
~
<0
~
N
M
"
.
o
"
"
~
~
"
o
V)
""
'"
o
..
o
.~ ffi
z'E gj
1-~~1ii
o)Z"O::i
N~*a5
;;;;i::ilE
~ 1: 't~
II ~ -g....
g.=M Q)
0; 8.~ ~
I'-Ql-U...j
.....:>...J[:O)
--- i61i1 0 Ion
;~EaiP.l
-; B ~'iil Q
Qle C.lD
e::s Il .s ~
~
-'
E
g
15
"
1i
.
Lc
~
M
w
wo
,IZ
;:;l:!~
<<I-
LcIV)
'"
<0
~
N
M
"
.
o
"
~
~
"
o
V)
'"
:g
o
..
o
o
~ ~ ~ Q) II
'C~~ .s!ii
ffi z .~ 'i5
z....::E Q)
1-':;0. ~E
N"li ~ N:=
I'-IIlC IOJ::
_1:m --
~~~ ~!.
II - 0 II r:: III
a.&g a..s"8
:> (1)- >=('1")
u,~ ~,.J III i::i 8.""
r--i5 a,"8 M ~
-IIlEco-~
ffiiiltJ}<O~~E
II U <<:..... II III <0
fi~~a fiBd
E
"
'"
.
::;
~
E
o
.,;
V
"
. 0
> .
15
.
50
"
.
>
15
.
60
Lc
M
::;
<
w
0:
l-
V)
Z
Z Q
o V)
oo:Z
o:ww
0;;,1-
(!)a::~
'"
<0
~
N
M
"
.
o
"
"
~
,s
"
o
V)
<0
<0
'"
9
<0
o
.
.3
~
E
o
.,;
V
o
.
Lc
M
::;
<
W
0:
l-
V)
",,,
<0'"
~'"
NN
MM
"
.
o
"
j
"
o
V)
~
<0
'"
o
..
o
"
.~
E
"
'"
.
::;
E
"
~
::;
~
-'
~
~
0.
. ~
E'~ E E
"":~8 M
Mu.... 0
^ M ^
~
^
E
o
.,;
V
'llo
> .
15
. 0
60 U
E
g
15
"
1i
.
Lc
Lc
M
N
N
::;
<
W
0:
l-
V)
,.
0:
<
OJ
l-
V)
W
,. ,.
0: 0:
< <
OJ OJ
I- l-
V) V)
w w
w >- >- >-
~ ca..../ca...Jca....J
<( oo<oo<({/)<(
:::t"zWl--wI-Wl--
~wii~([~[[~
~ca~g~8~8
--lc:::~a::~a::~
co COlt} eot() c:tlLO
.....r--N.....N.....N
~PJM~M~M
"
~
"
"
~
"'
"
o
V)
"
.
o
"
"
~
"'
"
o
V)
"
.
o
"
"
~
"'
"
o
V)
'"
<0
9
<0
o
'"
:g
:b
o
R
'"
9
<0
o
ll..- .r;a..
1-:-1-
Z It -0
I- Je 00
. c '8 a:I
M" ".
......"5lnl::1tl
~8.~ ~.'8
~~.,.J~~
........0:;. i3:I 0 N
II 10 EN
g-~~U;o::!
.. ~o-E
~fJl;go
N~l::ciN
- .
NO.- II II
oo'icc
...... CD::2'~'~
11-0 'i~
fr{iij~:E:E
E
"
'"
.
::;
E
"
~
::;
c
,g
~
N
N
,.
0:
<
OJ
l-
V)
W
~
"'-'
V),o
WV)
-'<
~O
z"
0:'"
~~
PJPS
"
.
o
"
"
~
"'
"
ill
"
.
o
"
1
"
o
V)
;:
'"
9
<0
o
N
~
'"
:b
o
o
.2
U
~
~
jj
o
.
E
~
.,
o
W
"
)
.
~
.
"
.
~
'0
.2
~
~
"
~
~
o
o
N
~
~
J1
Peer Review of Evaluation o/Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page I of 88
II. CHARGE TO THE PEER REVIEWERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 of 88
III. GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................. Page 5 of 88
IV. RESPONSE TO CHARGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page I I of 88
V.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS ........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 49 of 88
Harper Method ~ Draft
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulations for Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
I. INTRODUCTION
Southwest Florida is one of the fastest growing coastal areas in the United States. Extensive areas
including wetlands are rapidly being developed into residential and commercial sites. Stormwater
management and potential water quality degradation are inherent issues. F]orida rules require permits for
new storm water discharges. Under these permits, performance standards and water quality standards are
assumed to be met when best management practice design criteria are implemented. ]n addition, some
existing systems were constructed prior to the adoption of current regulatory requirements. The required
performance is 80 % reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to
violations of state water quality standards, with 95% removal of the average annual pollutant load for
Outstanding Florida Waters. Unfortunately, additional data are needed to confirm that the commonly
used storm water system designs meet these Florida performance standards.
In August of 2003, in order to address concerns about whether incremental permit reviews under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act were adequately addressing cumulative and secondary effects ofwet]and fills
in the rapidly growing southwest Florida area, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) released the
Final Environmental Impact Statement on Improving the Regulatory Process in Southwest Florida, Lee
and Collier Counties, Florida (EIS). The EIS predicted continued water quality degradation with the "no
action" alternative and recommended the use of specific permit review criteria to reduce habitat
fragmentation and provide greater predictability for the applicant. For water quality protection, the EIS
recommended that applicants show that post-project pollutant loadings will not exceed pre-project
loadings. In order to make this determination, an interim method was agreed to by the federal and state
wetland regulatory agencies. The selected method is described in a 2003 report by Environmental
Research and Design, Inc. (Harvey H. Harper, Ph.D., P.E.) entitled "Eva]uation of A]ternative Stormwater
Regulations for Southwest F]orida" (Harper Method).
Ongoing development in southwest F]orida and addressing cumulative stormwater pollutant loads have
severa] interrelated aspects. These include defining appropriate storm water treatment, defining water
quality permit conditions and monitoring requirements, obtaining water quality certification, and meeting
water quality standards and assuring that the designated use of F]orida waters is met. In addition,
cumulative water quality degradation resulting from past, present and future storm water pollutant loads
could result in water body impairments, mandating development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs). ]t is imperative that post-project pollutant loads are not greater than pre-project pollutant
loads so that impairments and TMDLs can be avoided.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently requesting the water quality determinations described in
the EIS, and the South F]orida Water Management District is certifYing them as part oftheir water quality
certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The Harper Method is currently being used by
Florida and federal regulatory agencies as a tool to assure that post-project pollutant loadings do not
exceed pre-project loadings for projects that involve filling over 5 acres of wetlands. Various parties
have raised questions or criticisms regarding the method, its assumptions, or its use. Therefore, it is
important that the method undergo external scientific peer review.
Peer review is an important component of the scientific process. It provides a focused, objective
evaluation of the document or material submitted for review. The criticism, suggestions and new ideas
provided by the peer reviewers stimulate creative thought, strengthen the reviewed document and confer
credibility on the product. Comprehensive, objective peer review leads to good science and product
acceptance within the scientific community. This document was peer reviewed by Dr. James P. Heaney,
Mr. Jonathan E. Jones, Dr. Larry A. Roesner, Mr. Ben R. Urbonas, and Dr. William W. Walker.
Harper Method. Draft
Page 1 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest F70rida
(The 'Harper Method')
II. CHARGE TO THE PEER REVIEWERS
The peer reviewers were charged with reviewing the Harper Method to determine its appropriateness for
determining stormwater treatment system designs. Post-development nutrient loading must not exceed
pre-development loading. IdentifY deficiencies, recommend modifications, and/or recommend an
alternative approach that is relatively simple to employ and straightforward. The Method should
accurately estimate pre-project and post-project stormwater pollutant loadings in southwest Florida. and it
should be sound from an engineering and scientific standpoint. The Method should minimize the amount
of user interpretation required.
I. Does the Harper Method accurately estimate pre-development and post-development pollutant
loads for southwest Florida? Why or why not?
2. Is the Method an appropriate method to use for stormwater treatment design system
recommendations on a site-specific level? Why or why not?
3. Overall, does the Method reflect the current state of knowledge for stormwater treatment
systems? Do you know of a better or more appropriate approach?
4. Does the Method utilize commonly accepted scientific and engineering assumptions and
approaches?
5. The Method estimates annual pre-development and post-development runoff from subject
property by assigning pollutant concentrations based on land use, estimating water runoff
volumes, and calculating pollutant loads. What would you expect to be the greatest sources of
error in this approach? How would you reduce the error?
6. What effect would variability in annual rainfall and hydrology have on the overall accuracy of the
Method?
7. Land use runoff characteristics were based on a 1994 study by Harvey Harper, Stormwater
Loading Rate Parameters for Central and South Florida, and a supplemental literature search. Are
you aware of additional data that would be appropriate for southwest Florida?
8. Criticisms have been raised regarding runoff volumes and constituent concentrations for isolated
wetlands in southwest Florida. The example on p. 3-23 uses a runoff coefficient of 0.225.
Some have suggested that isolated wetlands do not discharge, or if they do they have a nutrient
concentration of zero. What is a scientifically sound runoff coefficient for isolated wetlands in
southwest Florida? If they do discharge. what is an accurate nutrient concentration for the
discharge? Why?
9. Criticisms have been raised regarding runoff volumes and constituent concentrations for
flow-through wetlands in southwest Florida. For flow-through wetlands, the Method example
assumes that 50% of nitrogen, phosphorus and water volume are retained, and 50% are
discharged. Are these assumptions scientifically sound? Why or why not? What is an
appropriate runoff coefficient for flow-through wetlands in southwest Florida? What is an
accurate nutrient concentration for the discharge?
10. Does the Method appropriately account for pollutant loads from existing and new stormwater
ponds? Why or why not? Ifnot, what is a better approach?
Harper Method ~ Draft
Page 2 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
II. At what depths do stormwater treatment ponds in southwest Florida offer the greatest treatment
benefits for nutrient removal? Are stormwater treatment ponds with depths greater than 6-8 feet
(ie. 20 or 30 feet deep) expected to offer treatment benefits or have problems that would not be
expected to occur in a pond that is only 6-8 feet deep? Do the benefits provided by a deeper pond
exceed potential problems associated with the increased depth?
12. The Method uses some data from residential wet detention lakes to determine natural open water
quality conditions. Is this scientifically sound? Are you aware of other appropriate sources of
data or approaches?
13. Are the nitrogen, phosphorus, TSS and BOD percent removal vs. residence time curves used to
determine the required residence time for wet detention ponds defensible from a scientific and
engineering perspective? Do they overestimate percent removal? Are you aware of other sources
of information for assessing percent removal vs. residence time?
]4. Is the equation on page 3-22 of Harper that relates anoxic depth to secchi depth, chlorophyll a and
phosphorus scientifically sound? If not, why not and can you suggest an alternative that
improves the scientific accuracy?
] 5. ]s the approach used to select and size the required storm water treatment technically sound? Why
or why not?
] 6. Are there oversimplifications in the Method that result in large inaccuracies or errors? If so, what
are they and how would you address these inaccuracies?
] 7. Are you aware of other data, studies or models that are more appropriate for application in
southwest Florida?
18. Could parts of the Method be clarified to increase consistency among users?
19. In your opinion, what is the weakest aspect of the Harper Method, and how would you correct
this?
20. Identify any changes that you would make to the Method so that it more accurately assesses
pre-project and post-project loads for southwest Florida.
21. Does the Harper Method lend itself to refinement as more data become available? Which aspects
are in need of refinement the most?
22. Are you aware of an alternative approach to the Harper Method that utilizes sound engineering
and science that could be used in southwest Florida to determine stonnwater treatment design
requirements so that post-development loadings do not exceed pre-development loadings?
Harper Method - Draft
Page 3 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stormwaler Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
III, GENERAL COMMENTS
James p, Heaney
Prelude
The questions being posed about the Harper Method (HM) and its applicability to Southwest Florida are
being asked in many areas of the United States. My groups at the University of Colorado and the
University of Florida (since September 2003) have been conducting national studies to answer these
questions under sponsorship of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Water Environment
Research Foundation, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, and the Jacksonville District
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA report is complete and is being processed for final
publication. It was done in collaboration with Professor Wayne Huber and his group at Oregon State U.
The WERF and NCHRP reports will be completed in May 2005 and published later this year. The Corps
effort is underway and a report should be available in late 2005. These reports, several published papers,
three dissertations and three theses that also have relevant background information are referenced at the
end of this review. Other citations are also included.
Many of the questions ask for general conclusions about the HM. The overall evaluation ofHM needs to
be done by evaluating its components. e.g. rainfall, runoff. concentration estimates, load estimates, and
BMP performance evaluation. The bulk of my evaluation is presented using this format. Then, responses
to the questions are rramed within the evaluation of the components ofHM. The questions are answered
in the order that they were posed.
In order to answer your questions in a more systematic manner, my evaluation of the individual
components of the HM are presented below (Section V and Appendix A of this Comments Summary
Report). The responses to the specific questions are presented in the following section (Section IV of this
Comments Summary Report). They follow the format of the HM report.
Jonathan E, Jones
The Report is well organized, logical, and easy to read and implement. The authors' rationale is clear and
straightforward, and the guidance and methods that they provide can be utilized by design engineers with
little difficulty. The authors are obviously highly qualified and are well versed on stormwater quality
management, not only in southwest Florida, but nationally, as well. Significant time and effort were
invested to prepare the Report, and there are many praiseworthy aspects of the document. The
recommendations of the Report are intended to achieve the goal of "no net increase in pollution for
selected stormwater constituents under post-development conditions." ]n our experience, this is a very
aggressive goal to meet, which goes well beyond the typical requirement of utilizing best management
practices (BMPs) designed in accordance with standard engineering practice to manage stormwater runoff
quality. This goal is achievable for only certain pollutants and under certain site-specific circumstances.
The Harper Method could be utilized as a regulatory tool; however, there are a number of aspects where
the current scientific and/or engineering basis is not sound and where certain assumptions should be
revisited. We also suggest that some additional "reasonableness checking" would be desirable. These
questions and concerns are defined in the remainder of our letter. These are not "fatal flaws," but until
these questions and concerns are addressed. along with those from other peer reviewers, it would be best
to utilize the Report for background information and general guidance rather than as a regulatory tool.
Larry A, Roesner
Harper Method - Draft
Page 4 01 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of A/ternative Stornrwater Regulalionsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Summary
It is curious to me that anyone would want to take a problem as difficult as estimating pre- and post-
development nutrient loading, and rem ova] efficiency of BMPs, and reduce it to an approach that: I)
"...is relatively simple to employ and straightforward.", but at the same time 2) "...accurate]y estimate(s)
pre-project and post-project loadings in southwest F]orida and it should be sound rrom an engineering and
scientific standpoint." and 3) ".. .minimize(s) the amount of user interpretation required."
That being said, my review of the Harper Method (called The Method hereafter) can be summarized as
follows;
I. The Method is "simp]e to employ and straightforward."
The Method provides estimates of pre-project and post-project loadings in southwest F]orida. It
is based on state of practice scientific and engineering technology and, in my opinion is more
sophisticated than the technology used by 75 - 80 percent ofthe US municipalities operating
under EPA Phase I stonnwater regulations. But The Method is lacking in two areas with respect
to the state of know/edge that exists in the stonnwater management field: 1) The Method assumes
that the Water Qua]ity Capture Volume (WQCV) is fully recovered between stonns, which is not
always true; and 2) the use of percent removal versus time to compute the efficiency of
constituent removal in the BMPs. The result of the assumption regarding availability of detention
storage is that overflow frequency is underestimated, which means that pollutant removal is
overestimated. The method of estimating constituent removal also overestimates the rem ova]
efficiency of the BMPs, but again, the degree to which the "accuracy" of The Method is
compromised cannot be detennined without additional analysis.
There are ways to overcome these deficiencies; improving the accuracy of the constituent
removal efficiency is straightforward and easy, but accounting for water left rrom the previous
stonn in the BMP at the beginning of the following stann would increase the complexity of The
Method over its current simplicity. One must chose between simplicity with reduced accuracy,
and more complexity with greater accuracy. Since the authors of The Method acknowledge that
the current Method ignores carryover storage in the BMPs, I wouldn't be surprised if they made a
conscious decision to give up this accuracy for the sake of simplicity
2. The Method "minimize(s) the amount of user interpretation required."
So, in my opinion, The Method achieves, without question, at least two of the three major
objectives specified for it. Whether is meets the accuracy objective is an open question, because
no guidance has been given regarding the desired degree of accuracy expected of The Method,
Le. how accurately should The Method estimate; a) pre-development stonnwater pollutant
loadings; b) post-development loadings; and c) pollutant removal efficiency?
Addressing Accuracy
While there are many assumptions and approximations in the model that affect its accuracy, three
attracted my attention. They are: I) The assumption that the WQCV is empty at the start of each event;
2) The method that is used to compute constituent rem ova] in the BMPs, and 3) The accuracy of The
Method given the variability in the data base used to detennine concentrations in the runoff, and
constituent removal in the BMPs given the scatter in the curves of percent removal vs. time. These issues
are discussed below.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 5 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwaler Regulationsfor Southwest f70rida
(The 'Harper Method')
Assummlon that the woe V Is emD/v at the start olthe storm. The Method assumes that the Water
Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) is empty at the beginning of every rainfall event. This assumption is
undoubtedly violated numerous times over the year, especially in the summer when the average time
between stonns (1.66 days) is less than the recovery time of the WQCV. This means that pollutant
removal during the summer season is probably overestimated. To what degree this affects the "accuracy"
of The Method cannot be estimated without further analysis such as that done by Camp Dresser & McKee
(2004) in their peer review of The Method. In my personal experience with stonnwater management,
accounting for residual runoff in storage at the beginning of the next stonn is important, and I would
recommend that the author's of The Method consider moditying the protocol to use a continuous
simulation model like HEC STORM or equivalent that tracks the volume of runoff in storage over time,
and can take into account the timing between storms to determine the actual amount of runoff that is
captured in the BMP, and the amount that overflows untreated to the receiving water(see Question 5
below). It is also my opinion, based on experience with continuous simulation at numerous geographical
locations, that a lO year rainfall record is sufficient to generate the water quality statistics required to
detennine pre-and post-development runoff quality and water quality constituent removal efficiency of
BMPs.
Method%l?V lor comDutln~ constituent removal in the BMFs. The method for computing percent
removal of pollutants in The Method has been shown by several investigators (see ASCEIEPA, 2002 and
Wong (2002) for example) to be problematical. A much better way to express constituent removal is as a
function of the difference between the influent concentration and a "background" concentration such as
the pre-development runoff concentration, or the ambient concentration of the receiving waters. Some
thought might be given to modi tying the ordinate of the charts in Figures 3-6 to be:
(Cm - CO",)! Cm ~ Cel
(l)
where Co is the background or equilibrium concentration.
Alternatively (and better), it is recommended that the effluent concentration be expressed as:
COWl = Co + (Cin - CO>-e-k1
(2)
where t is the residence time in days and k is the removal rate coefficient.
Accuracv of comvuted stormwater loads and removal efficiencv calculations. The Method estimates pre-
and post-development stonnwater pollutant loads using the average concentration for various land uses
from Tables 5, 6, and 7. But the expected load (or the load that one would measure in the field) would
vary around that number being dependent upon the variability ofthe concentrations data set that
comprises the average concentration value used in the equation on page 2-14. To examine the accuracy
with which the model can predict pre- and post-development loads, assuming that there is no error in any
other part of the Method, one must set up a set of equations that includes error estimates of the following
form:
Harper Method. Draft
Page 6 01 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
(3)
Li,pre:!: eLi,pre = Q"pre · (Ci,pre:!: eCi,pre)
Li,POSI:!: eLi,post = Qi,POSI · (Ci,POSI:!: E1,pust)
(4)
Li,'na"d i:. eL",na,ed = (i"po" i:. eL"po,,). (1- ( k.ui:. eRi,u ))
(5)
where
Q"p" and Qi.po." = pre-and pos-development annual runoff as determined by the Method,
L,.p,,' L'.T=' , and L"",",," = estimated pre-development, post-development and treated post-
development watershed load of constituent i as determined by The Method,
~
C'p" and C'.PWI = the pre- and post-development concentrations of constituent i in pre-and
untreated post-development runoff respectively, and
R"u = removal efficiency (fractional) of treatment type u for constituent i as determined by The
Method.
The terms eL, eC, and eR are the magnitude ofthe error associated with the pollutant load estimations,
constituent concentration estimations, and BMP removal efficiency, respectively.
The error terms can be calculated from Tables 5, 6 (and the data used to develop average runoff
concentrations for other land uses in Table 7), and the graphs of percent removal vs. residence time for
various constituents and treatment methods in Section 3 of the report. The results can be used to assess
the accuracy of the estimates of pre-development pollutant loads, post-development loads, and treated
post-development runoff based on the accuracy of the water quality data used in The Method.
Ben R. Urbonas
General Comments
The report offers a simplified method, called Harper Method, in how to calculate the changes in annual
loadings for a number of constituents in response to land-use changes. Nitrogen and phosphorous are the
constituents of greatest concern that are being addressed. lt also suggests means of sizing "dry retention
ponds" and "wet detention ponds" to reduce the average annual wet-weather loads of these constituents to
levels that existed before land-use changes occurred. It is based on a number of assumptions and some
data are used to support these calculations. However, there appears to have been no attempt to calibrate
this method in total using local field data. In addition, it is based on hydrologic methods that are of
questionable validity when used in urban areas and on the use of pollutant removal "efficiencies".
Providing the storm water management community, including the regulators, with simplified methods that
are relatively easy to understand and follow is a laudable goal and there are a number of successful
examples where this has taken place in United States. The Harper Method is an attempt to do so.
However, despite other issues that will be discussed later, it provides questionable guidance in the design
Harper Method - Draft
Page 7 01 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative SlOrmwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
of both "wet" and "dry" facilities, relies too heavily on individual assumptions about the pre- and post-
development site conditions, gives no guidance in how to select accurate parameters such as CN numbers
and the degree of DCIA and nDCIA the new development sites will have. All of this can lead to annual
runoff calculations that mayor may not be representative for a specific development site.
Summary
The reviewing this document reveals the following positive and questionable aspect of the Harper
Method:
Positive Aspects of the Harper Method
1) The Harper Method provides a concise protocol for calculating pre-and post-development annual
loads for constituent, mostly nutrients, found in stonnwater surface runoff.
2) The Method provides consistent protocols for comparing annual loads of constituents delivered
by stann water surface runoff.
3) The method is based in part on field data for constituent concentrations and annual runoff
coefficients. Whether that latter correlates well with the calculated annual runoff coefficients
based on the NRCS hydrologic methodology is not clear.
Questionab/e Aspects of the Harper Method
1) The methodology assumes that anything entering the groundwater regime is out of the system and
does not affect the receiving waters further. Whether that component of hydrology and water
qualiry is of importance is not clearly answered in this report.
2) The annual surface runoff calculations are based, to a significant degree, on the NRCS hydrologic
methodology and require a number of assumptions to implement. My experience has been that the
assumptions made can make profound differences in the final answers. Each assumption, unless it
is field-data verified, can contribute to calculations that can be different from the site conditions
and how they are changed during development.
3) The constituent removals are based on percent removals published (I.e., efficiencies) in literature.
This approach has many fatal flaws as the published "efficiencies" were driven by the constituent
concentrations entering the treatment facility and are very broadly scattered. Much more effective
and reliable way of calculating what leaves the treatment facility is to use seasonal or annual,
average effluent concentrations irom the tested facilities.
4) In my opinion, and unless groundwater flow calculations can show otherwise, the details for a dry
retention basin show inadequate separation between seasonal high groundwater and the pond's
bottom. The one-foot separating will be hard pressed to pennit full emptying of the pond's
volume within the specified 40 hours average separation between stonns during the wet Season.
Final Conclusion
The Harper Method is based on technologies that 1 would question for estimating pre- and post-
development average annual loads of constituents in stonnwater surface runoff. It does provide, however,
a methodology that can provide SW Florida a consistent approach for making such calculations. Can we
say without reservation that if gives erroneous results? No. However. its methodologies and
recommendations leave me to suspect its accuracy. especially if it is to be relied upon to protect sensitive
eco-systems.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 8 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
William W. Walker
Without BMP's, urban development can increase phosphorus export per unit area by a factor of 10 or
more. The loading functions developed by ERD indicate that this is also the case in Florida. The stated
goal of development with no net increase in phosphorus (or nitrogen, TSS, BOD) loading is ambitious but
potentially attainable with the appropriate mix of BMP' s, including source controls, swales, infiltration
devices (swales, dry ponds) and wet ponds. The document lays out a "cookbook" to assist engineers,
planners, and regulatory agencies in designing and evaluating developments. Similar approaches have
been applied in other regions (e.g., Scheuler's "Simple Method"). The acknowledged simplifications and
uncertainties associated with these desktop procedures are necessary for practical purposes (large numbers
of developments with minimal site-specific data, cost, regulatory burden). In larger developments,
consideration should be given to perfonning more detailed assessments that include collection of site-
specific runoff data and more sophisticated stonnwater modeling, especially when the cumulative impacts
of regional development are of concern.
1 have found dynamic rainfall/runoff models to be useful for generating runoff coefficient functions or
lookup tables similar to Table 4 and for evaluating performance of infiltration devices, swales, and
detention ponds (P8, Walker, 1990). These are relatively simple and driven by the same infonnation used
by ERD's methodology (hourly rainfall, impervious area, SCS runoff curve number) but do not require the
assumption that rainfall events are independent or that devices drain completely between events. P8 routs
suspended solids with a distribution of settling velocities or other constituents with simple first or second-
order kinetics though networks BMP's. It does not require the assumption that the cumulative
perfonnance ofBMP's in series can be predicted in a simple linear fashion (Section 3.3, p 3-17). Because
of the distribution of particle sizes and settling velocities in runoff, the first detention pond in a series will
generally have a higher removal efficiency at a given water residence time, as compared with downstream
ponds. This concept also applies to nutrients. P8 was developed for designing site BMP's to achieve
regional TSS removal criteria or to compare pre-development vs. post-development scenarios with
minimal site-specific calibration and is currently used extensively in Minnesota & Wisconsin. This type
of model might be considered in situations calling for more detailed assessments.
One way to simplify this type of assessment is to focus on one or two key stonnwater pollutants rather
than the entire suite. TSS and/or phosphorus have been used elsewhere. Because of the relative time
scales of removal mechanisms and relative magnitudes runoff concentrations, BMP's designed to remove
phosphorus and fine suspended solids will typically remove most other constituents of concern (trace
metals, hydrocarbons, BOD, nitrogen), or at least bring them down to stable or "irreducible" levels.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 9 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation QfAlternative Stornn1'uter Regulationsfor Soutmvest "torida
(The 'Harper Method')
IV, RESPONSE TO CHARGE
1. Does the Harper Method accurately estimate pre-development and
post-development pollutant ioads for southwest Fiorida? Why or why not?
James P. Heaney
This overall question can only be answered by benchmarking HM against more refined infonnation. The
hierarchy of definitive knowledge in descending order is as follows:
]. Monitoring for the study area that measure rainfall, runoff, water quality, imperviousness, etc.
This infonnation is used to calibrate a process simulation model such as SWMM. The simulation
model is run for several years of rainfall data and predicts annual pollutant loads for that site. A
Florida example of such a database is Dr. Betty Rushton's Florida Aquarium parking lot
monitoring data in Tampa. However, modeling has not been done for this site.
2. Same as 1 with monitoring data from a comparable study area.
3. Continuous simulation of pollutant loads using a process model like SWMM that is calibrated
using "typical" values for the parameters of the model and site-specific climatological, land use,
BMP and other data.
4. Frequency analysis of the precipitation data and estimate annual runoff based on this frequency
distribution. Assume "typical" values for pollutant concentrations. The HM falls into this
category. The frequency analysis can be based onjlaw rales or va/urnes. The HM is based on
volume per event. BMP effectiveness is based on a constant % removal or an assumed residence
time removal equation.
5. Design event methods wherein a single rainfall event is used to evaluate performance. Pollutant
concentrations are based on "typical" values and BMP efficiencies are based on point estimates,
e.g., 80% removal.
6. Design event methods based on assumed annual pollutant loads that are based on "typical"
conditions. BMP efficiencies are based on point estimates.
A major effort has been made in our studies during the past several years to find high quality databases
that could be used to do evaluations in the first category. However, they are rare. Some of the best
available data is based on USGS studies in the] 970's in southeast Florida wherein rainfall, runoff, and
water quality were measured for four catchments: low density urban, high density urban, commercial, and
highway (Miller] 979). Some of my evaluations for this review are based on our recent analysis of this
data.
The HM report does not benchmark their method against measured data for a catchment. Thus, it is
impossible to judge its accuracy. My experience would suggest that it should be more accurate than single
Harper Method ~ Draft
Page lOot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
event, annual load methods since it separates the effects of flow and concentration. It is also safe to say
that it would be expected to be significantly less accurate than options] to 3 listed above.
Jonathan E. Jones
Questions I and 2 are addressed in tandem due to their interrelated nature. The distinction between
whether the Harper Method is able to "accurately estimate pre- and post-development pollutant loads"
versus whether it is "appropriate for storm water treatment system design on a site-specific level" is
fundamental to the comments we are providing in this review. We view "accuracy" as a scientific
criterion, as opposed to "appropriate" as an engineering criterion. Of course, engineering methods that are
"appropriate" should be as "accurate" as practical, given constraints on data availability,
state-of-the-practice methods that are available, ability of the design engineer to apply the method to meet
criteria, etc. However, engineering is an application of science and other disciplines, and assumptions and
simplifications that influence "accuracy" must be employed to create an "appropriate" regulatory tool.
Conceptually, the Harper Method appears to be a reasonable method for stormwater regulation in
southwest Florida, given that the comments and suggestions stated in this letter are addressed, along with
comments of other peer reviewers. The accuracy of the Harper Method is far more difficult to assess. A
method with assumptions and simplifications that are necessary for realistic applicability as a regulatory
tool, by definition, cannot be expected to be accurate for every given site. From an engineering
perspective, the Harper Method, with appropriate revisions resulting from peer review, may be a useful
and appropriate regulatory tool. When site-specific data are available that provide more detailed
information regarding the underlying assumptions and simplifications ofthe Harper Method, there should
be regulatory flexibility to allow this information to be taken into account for site-level design. Comments
in the following section further illuminate this fundamental point.
Larry A. Roesner
As discussed above, this question is difficult to answer without knowing the degree of accuracy desired.
Things that affect the accuracy of The Method include:
. The accuracy of the data used to develop pre- and post-development runoff concentrations.
Average concentrations are used in The Method, which means that the accuracy of the resulting
answers must be interpreted within a statistical measure of the variation within the data set used to
generate the averages. Equations 3 and 4 can be used to develop such an error analysis.
There is the question of how much the assumption that the WQCV is empty at the start of each
storm affects the answer. To answer this would require that a continuous simulation model like
HEC STORM be used but substituting the Harper Method for runoff calculation, and comparing
the results of this simulation with the current Method.
The regression equations for computing percent removal of pollutants by BMPs have low R2
values. The error inherent in the present method can be estimated using equation 5 above. But it
appears that a scientifically better way of expressing removal would be to express removal as a
function of the difference between the influent concentration and a "background" concentration as
expressed in equation 2 above.
Ben R. Urbonas
Harper Method - Draft
Page 11 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
See discussion on Section 2 in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005.
In my judgment the answer is no. The runoff volumes are not being calculated accurately for reasons
stated in the review.
William W. Walker
See comments in Section 2.1 & 3.5.1
Page 12 of 82
04/05
Harper Method - Draft
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
2. Is the Method an appropriate method to nse for stormwater treatment design
system recommendations on a site-specific ievel? Why or why not?
James P. Heaney
It's an improvement over single design stann methods or annual loadings. Design stann approaches make
very strong assumptions about the expected loads and BMP effectiveness. Annual load methods combine
the flow and water quality calculations into a single number. HM separates the runoff effects from the
concentration effects using a stonn frequency approach.
Jonathan E. Jones
See response to Question I. Questions I and 2 are addressed in tandem due to their interrelated nature.
Larry A. Roesner
The Method is appropriate for use; many Phase I communities use similar protocols. But as stated above,
there may be limitations in its accuracy due to the way that carryover BMP storage is handled and the way
that pollutant removal in the BMPs is calculated.
Ben R. Urbonas
In my judgment the answer is no. This is because the runoff volumes are not being calculated accurately
and "percent removals" are used instead of average annual effluent concentrations. In addition, there
appear to be questionable recommendations as to the vertical separation between bottom of retention pond
and high groundwater table. The approach also appears to underestimate the "retention basin" volumes
and, as a result, overestimate the pollutant loads removed.
See discussion on Section 3 in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005.
William W. Walker
I have concerns about some of the assumptions. See comments on all sections.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 13 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Storrnwater Regulationsfor Soutlnvest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
3. Overall, does tbe Metbod reflect tbe current state of knowiedge for
stormwater treatment systems? Do you know of a better or more
appropriate approacb?
James P. Heaney
Its use of the frequency distribution of runoff is a definite improvement over single event evaluations.
However, some of its assumptions appear to be unrealistic. Frequency approaches have been promoted
since the 1970s with initial work by Howard (1976) and DiToro and Small (1979). Adams and several co-
workers have refined these approaches. A summary of frequency approaches can be found in Adams and
Papa (2000). It would be helpful if the HM cited this earlier work and built on its findings.
Frequency approaches have been touted as a simpler alternative to continuous simulation methods such as
STORM that predate the use of frequency approaches. However, as Goforth et a!. (1983) have shown, the
accuracy of frequency approaches needs to be verified using process simulators like STORM or SWMM.
The early (Pre PC) rationale for using frequency approaches instead of process simulators was that they
were advantageous from a computational point of view. However, with the widespread use of
microcomputers, it is quite easy to set up the process simulators and get more accurate results. Research
by Heaney and colleagues during the past several years has led to the development of process simulators
on spreadsheets that also allow for direct optimization of stonnwater designs (Heaney and Lee 2005).
Thus, it is very easy to do process simulation directly. For infiltration systems where storage is not
significant, the frequency approach can be used (Pack et a!. 2004).
Jonathan E. Jones
Questions 3 and 4 are addressed in tandem, as there is considerable overlap between the questions. In
many respects the method does utilize commonly accepted scientific and engineering assumptions and
approaches and does reflect the current state of knowledge for stormwater treatment systems. However, as
discussed in the next section of our Jener, in certain areas. this is not the case. To provide a few examples:
There is undue emphasis on "percent removals" for BMPs and no discussion of observed effluent
concentrations. Influent and effluent concentrations can significantly influence the percent
removal of a stonnwater BMP and effects on receiving waters. We do not recommend reliance on
percent removal as a measure ofBMP perfonnance or receiving water impacts unless, at a bare
minimum! influent concentrations are taken into consideration and reported along with reported or
expected percent removals.
Onsite methods for storm water management. often referred to as "low impact development."
"conservation site design," "bener site design," or "minimizing directly connected impervious
area," are not mentioned. yet they are highly desirable for water quality management.
Much more emphasis should be placed on a multi-layered, "treatment-train" approach. per
recommendations of organizations such as the American Society of Civil Engineers. Water
Environment Federation, American Public Works Association, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), and others. In addition. to obtain the ambitious goal of assuring that
post-development water quality is not worse that pre-development water quality for selected
Harper Method - Draft
Page 14 at 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulations for Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
constituents, it is incumbent upon designers to consistently use conservative design assumptions,
and this design philosophy is not mentioned.
. There is no discussion of either nutrient or metals speciation.
The assumption of 100% pollutant removal for dry retention basins is unduly optimistic,
particularly for nitrogen, but for other pollutants, as well.
Larry A. Roesner
The Method reflects current state of practice for most areas of the United States, but I do not believe it
represents the current state of knowledge, which has been addressed above.
Ben R. Urbonas
In my judgment the answer is no.
See discussion in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005.
William W. Walker
See General Comments. Other sections also contain suggestions.
Harper Method. Draft
Page 15 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
4. Does the Method utilize commonly accepted scientific and engineering
assnmptions and approaches?
James P. Heaney
The report is weak on comparing the HM to methods developed elsewhere particularly outside of Florida.
lts use of removal equations with residence times approaching one year is particularly suspect as discussed
earlier.
The use of a perfonnance criterion based on no increase of pollutant loads is very unusual. It may not be a
realistic control goal as described earlier.
Including wetlands and lakes/open water as "land uses" is very unusual. They are usually viewed as wet-
weather controls.
It is difficult to assess many aspects of the HM report because oflack of access to the source material,
much of which is unavailable.
Jonathan E, Jones
See response to Question 3. Questions 3 and 4 are addressed in tandem, as there is considerable overlap
between the questions.
Larry A. Roesner
Yes.
Ben R. Vrbonas
in some cases a limited yes, but for the most part no.
William W. Walker
I don't agree with all ofthe assumptions, as noted in the attached. Otherwise it is a reasonable approach.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 16 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
5. Tbe Metbod estimates annuai pre-deveiopment and post-development runoff
from subject property by assigning pollutant concentrations based on Jand
use, estimating water runoff voiumes, and calcuiating pollutant Joads. Wbat
wouid you expect to be tbe greatest sources of error in tbis approacb? How
wouid you reduce tbe error?
James P. Heaney
Runoff coefficients can vary widely within a given land use. It is essential to separate directly connected
impervious area (DCJA) from other impervious area (OIA) and pervious area (PA) (Lee and Heaney
2003). The sample sizes used to estimate runoff coefficients are very small, e.g.,
Runoff coefficients for single family residential-2 (other 5 values are calculated in an unspecified
manner).
For DCJA, all of the precipitation can be assumed to runoff after deducting for an initial
abstraction [see Lee and Heaney (2003) for an analysis of four land uses in southeast Florida].
However, runoff from pervious areas is a much more complex combination of infiltration rates,
available storage, and the effect of antecedent conditions including the effects of irrigation on soil
moisture storage. HM provides a way to include the impact ofnon-DCJA using the probability
distribution of the runoff. The key assumption is the available soil moisture storage or infiltration
rate.
A critical and unsupported assumption in HM is to define a storm event as ending if it hasn't
rained for three consecutive hours. The proper event definition depends on the residence time of
the storm water (Heaney and Lee EP A 2005 report). Residence time is the sum of overland flow
travel time that can be estimated using time of concentration formulas and residence times in the
BMPs. Early work focused on centralized controls where event definitions of several hours were
appropriate. However, for decentralized controls (AKA low impact development), event
definitions are more appropriate.
Jonathan E. Jones
While there are potential errors related to hydrologic information, including rainfall data and gauge used,
site-specific characteristics, and other variables discussed in greater detail in the following section, one of
the most significant sources of potential error in the Harper MetllOd is reliance on event mean
concentration (EMC) pollutant concentration data from a limited number of sites for calculation of
pollutant loads. EMCs are useful and are applied by stormwater engineers routinely; however, there is
little doubt from published values in the literature and the International BMP Database that there is
tremendous variability in pollutant concentrations within a single storm event and from one storm event to
another. For example, consider runoff from a parking lot adjacent to a recreational area that is heavily used
on weekends. Pollutant EMCs are likely to higher for a storm event occurring on a Sunday evening after a
weekend of heavy use in the summer than from runoff later in the following week after a period of reduced
use and antecedent events that have already washed off pollutants. Engineers and scientists will always
want "more data," and the accuracy and appropriateness of an engineering method will improve as more
data become available for analysis. Water quality data can be expensive to collect (more so than
Harper Method. Draft
Page 17 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stornnvater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
hydrologic data), so it is not surprising that water quality data and assumptions would be a large source of
error in the estimation of pollutant loadings.
Larry A. Roesner
As stated above, the greatest sources of error are:
1. Assumption that the WQCY is empty at the start of each rainfall event, and
2. The method for calculating percent removal of pollutants in the BMPs
I recommend: 1) using a continuous model such as HEC STORM to process the long term record of
rainfall data and simulate runoff, water capture and release in the BMPs, and removal of pollutants,
substituting Harper's algorithm for computing runoff from any given storm. but with soil moisture
capacity computed continuously using evapotranspiration rates to recover soil moisture capacity between
storms; and 2) change the method of computing pollutant removal to a form like equation 2 above.
Ben R. Urbonas
Greatest source of errors are runoff volume using the NRCS-based method and then the resultant load
calculations, followed by the use of "percent removal" by treatment facilities instead of effluent
concentrations. This could be improved using continuous simulation with a calibrated model to generate
seasonal and annual runoff volumes form different land uses and types of soils and the volumes captured
by "retention ponds."
See discussion in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005.
William W. Walker
The Method estimates annual pre-development and post-development runoff from subject property by
assigning pollutant concentrations based on land use, estimating water runoff volumes, and calculating
pollutant loads. What would you expect to be the greatest sources of error in this approach? How would
you reduce the error?
Harper Method - Draft
Page 18 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
6. What effect would variability in annual rainfail and hydroiogy have on the
overail accuracy of the Method?
James P. Heaney
During dry years, virtually all of the runoff would emanate from DCIA. Accordingly, the pollutant
concentrations should be based on functional categories such as streets and roofs and not on aggregate
land use such as single family residential.
During very wet years with major storms, loadings from non-DClA areas could predominate with a
disproportionate amount of the annual load coming from the larger storms as non- DClA areas are flushed
out by significant overland flow.
What situation is "critical" depends on the nature of the receiving water and the mix of DCJA and other
areas. The combined impact of the wet-weather flows as flow increases can range from almost a pure
dilution that occurs in some CSO and SSO situations (Wright 2003) to an increasing concentration as flow
increases that is more typical of non-DCIA land uses like agriculture and natural areas
Jonathan E. Jones
Variability in average annual precipitation and hydrology can have significant effects on the accuracy of
the Harper Method, and more importantly, on BMP effectiveness and receiving water impacts. The idea of
an "average year" is useful for planning and regulatory purposes, but, in terms of actual precipitation for a
given year, is an anomaly. Most, if not all, years will be above or below average in terms of precipitation
and many other environmental variables. Above-average years pose greater challenges to water quality
protection that below-average years. Consider the antecedent dry period reported in Table 3 of the Report
of J .66 days versus the assumption of full recovery of treatment volume for dry retention ponds for the
wet season stated in Table 8 with a recovery criteria of < 40 hours. For antecedent dry periods less than the
mean, a pond with a 40-hour recovery time would not be fully recovered in time for the next event.
To account for variability in hydrologic variables, including precipitation from year-to-year, we would
recommend continuous simulation. We realize that is it not practical for a regulation to require continuous
simulation for a site-level design; however, we believe that continuous simulation using available
precipitation data for a variety of land uses and levels of imperviousness could be useful for developing
sizing guidelines for water quality facilities. Recent research by Dr. Larry A. Roesner, P.E. of Colorado
State University, who has extensive experience in Florida through his work with COM, could be helpful to
review in regard to continuous simulation. At a minimum, continuous simulation should be used as a
"reasonableness check" on guidance provided for sizing using the Harper Method.
Larry A. Roesner
The Method describes performance in an average rainfall year. Due to the way that it handles WQCV
available at the beginning of a rainfall event, J would expect the model to be more accurate in low rainfall
years when the time between storms ins larger, and the assumption that the entire WQCV is available at
the start of the rainfall event is more often met. I expect The Method to be less accurate in wet years when
the timing between successive rainfall events is shorter than normal and the WQCV will often not be
Harper Method. Draft
PageJ90f 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
wholly available.
Ben R. Urbonas
See comments 1, 2 and 3 on page 2 of 7 in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005. The method used to
reduce continuous rainfall record to annual runoff coefficients assumes statistical independence between
many variables.
See discussion in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005.
William W. Walker
No.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 20 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
7. Land use runoff characteristics were based on a 1994 study by Harvey
Harper, Stormwater Loading Rate Parameters for Central and South
Fiorida, and a supplementai literature search. Are you aware of additionai
data that would be appropriate for southwest Fiorida?
James P. Heaney
This 1994 study is not in the open literature so it is hard to evaluate it without being able to review it. The
runoff characteristics in the HM database are based on very few studies. Most of the estimated runoff
coefficients in the HM database are based on calculated values. However, the report does not tell how the
calculations were done. Lee and Heaney (2003) have evaluated runoff coefficients for four land uses in
southeast Florida based on the USGS studies done during the] 970s. This database remains one of the best
ones for estimating runoff and loads. HM (Table 8.1) lists a calculated runoff coefficient for the Pompano
Beach USGS study by Mattraw et a1. (1978). However, Mattraw et a1. (1978) provide rainfall-runoff
estimates (Lee and Heaney 2003). Similarly, HM shows a calculated runoff coefficient for the Miami
Kings Creek Apartments studied by Miller (1979) as presented in Lee and Heaney (2003).
Jonathan E. Jones
We are not aware of additional data that would be appropriate for southwest Florida, although we presume
that the Report authors have contacted the following stormwater experts for land use runoff characteristics
and loading rate parameters: Eric Livingston, State of Florida; Dr. James P. Heaney, P.E., University of
Florida; Dr. Martin Wanielsta, University of Central Florida; Dr. Charles Rowney, P.E., Consultant; Dr.
Larry A. Roesner, P.E., Colorado State University; and Dr. Betty Rushton, P.E., South Florida Water
Management District. In addition, Dr. Robert Pitt ofthe University of Alabama has developed a
comprehensive land use runoff characteristics database, which could provide a valuable check.
Larry A. Roesner
No, 1 assume the authors are familiar with the national databases and have reasons for using the numbers
that they did, based on their many years experience in Florida.
Ben R. Urbonas
The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program report published by EPA in early 1980s and the follow-up data
collected by Phase 1 municipalities for EPA and the States when they applied for their stormwater
discharge permits and later compiled and published by Pitt
{h Itn:1 lu n ix.en!!."a. cd "I-rnl tt/Resca re h/ms4/Paller I M a in ms4 na ner.1t t m I}.
William W. Walker
No.
Harper Method ~ Draft
Page 21 at 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
8. Criticisms have been raised regarding runoff volumes and constituent
concentrations for isoiated wetiands in southwest Florida. The example on p,
3-23 uses a runoff coefficient of 0.225. Some have suggested that isolated
wetlands do not discharge, or if they do they have a nutrient concentration of
zero. What is a scientifically sound runoff coefficient for isoiated wetiands in
southwest Florida? If they do discharge, what is an accurate nutrient
concentration for the discharge? Why?
James P. Heaney
Runoff from any control including wetlands can only be calculated using a water budget. There is no
basis for picking a single runoff coefficient. Wetlands are just a form of detention system.
Table A.20 shows the database upon which wetlands runoff coefficients are estimated. Only one data
point with a value of 0.303 is presented (Harper et al. 1985). The otherthree are calculated by an
unspecified method.
Wetlands can be evaluated like any other storage-release BMP. Continuous simulation can be used to
estimate their expected performance. This approach is much better than selecting a single performance
measure such as a runoff coefficient of 0.225 for all wetlands. Kadlec and Knight (1996) describe
methods to evaluate wetlands and include a database on wetlands performance.
Jonathan E. Jones
We have considerable experience with wetlands hydrology and water quality, although not in Florida,
specifically. Our experience does indicate, however, that it is very difficult to generalize runoff
coefficients and nutrient concentrations for wetlands - this is one area where site-specific data are highly
desirable. With regard to the specific questions posed in No.8. some isolated wetlands do not discharge
(except during extreme events), while other isolated wetlands do discharge - again, this is highly site
specific and may be seasonal in nature. It is important to bear in mind that in most wetlands, for much of
the time in a typical year, soils are saturated to the ground surface. Consequently, if a rainfall event occurs,
there will be a discharge from the wetland. We strongly disagree with suggestions that discharges from
isolated wetlands would have nutrient concentrations of zero - this is not supported by any scientific
literature regarding wetlands that we are familiar with. We cannot address your question for a scientifically
sound runoff coefficient and an accurate nutrient concentration; these parameters should be developed
using the best available data, supplemented by additional field data for isolated wetlands. When all of
these data are gathered and analyzed, there is the distinct possibility that there will be so much scatter in
the runoff coefficient data and nutrient yield
Larry A. Roesner
I doubt that there is a scientifically sound runoff coefficient for isolated wetlands. All runoff will be
captured in the wetland until its retention capacity is exceeded, at which point it will overflow (discharge).
This phenomenon could be represented in STORM, where the wetland retention capacity is set as the
storage volume, and the "treatment rate" set at the combined rate at which water is removed from the
wetland by ET and infiltration to the groundwater. The computed "overflows" will represent the periods
of discharge from the wetland.
Harper Method. Draft
Page 22 01 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Regarding the nutrient concentration of the discharge, there is no such thing as zero concentration of
nutrients. I do not know an "accurate" concentration for the nutrient concentration during discharge.
expect that it would be low and close to the "background" concentration as discussed above, but it is
commonly reported in the literature that during certain periods of the year, wetlands become net
dischargers of nutrients, so I would not think that there is a single value for the nutrient concentration in
the discharge from an isolated wetland. I am not familiar with the literature regarding background
concentrations of nutrients or nutrient export from wetlands in southwest Florida.
Ben R. Urbonas
I have no opinion on this except these coefficients appear to be based on data in Florida. One has to
investigate how these data were collected and processed to answer this question. I just assumed it is
accurate.
William W. Walker
See comments on Section 3.5.1.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 23 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stonmvater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
9, Criticisms have been raised regarding runoff volumes and constituent
concentrations for flow-through wetlands in southwest Fiorida.
(a) For flow-through wetiands, the Method example assumes that 50% of
nitrogen, phosphorus and water voiume are retained, and 50% are
discharged. Are these assumptions scientifically sound? Why or why
not?
(b) What is an appropriate runoff coefficient for flow-through wetlands in
southwest Fiorida?
(c) What is an accurate nutrient concentration for the discharge?
James P. Heaney
a) These assumptions are not sound. Flow-through wetlands vary widely in how they function. A
process simulation can be used to make an infonned estimate ofthe fate of the water and Nand P
b) A water and nutrient budget is needed to answer this question. It is easy to do this
calculation on a spreadsheet.
c) Answer depends primarily on the initial concentration of water entering the wetlands, the wetland
kinetics and the associated residence time in the wetland. Process simulators such as DMST A
(Walker and Kadlec 2005) can be used to make these estimates. Extensive data are available from
the studies of Stonnwater Treatment Areas (ST As) as part of the Everglades Restoration. These
studies have been done at a wide range of spatial scales under a variety of loadings. We are
currently evaluating these studies as part of a project to estimate the nutrient effluent quality from
the ST As downstream of a proposed reservoir.
Jonathan E, Jones
These assumptions, based on literature that we are familiar with and data provided in the Report, are not
scientifically sound. A 50%-50% assumption for phosphorus and water volume retention by flow through
wetlands may be a useful approximation for regulatory purposes. but does not account for the complexities
of wetland hydrology and water quality. including seasonal and annual variability in groundwater levels,
biological and chemical processes, and other factors. On any given site, it is unlikely that the 50%-50%
assumptions would be accurate on an annual or even long-term basis. Please refer to comments on
Question 8 above regarding site-specific data. variability, and scatter.
Larry A. Roesner
These assumptions may be alright on the average, but for small stonns, or during low rainfall years, a
much higher fraction of the runoff volume and its constituents will be retained in the wetland since the
residence time is higher. I expect that they would behave similarly to the curves of percent removal versus
residence time shown in Figures 3-6 for wet detention ponds. During wet years, I would expect smaller
volumes to be retained and higher concentrations of nutrients to be discharged due to the shorter detention
times, and shorter periods between stonns for the wetland to recoup detention storage capacity.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 24 at 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwa1er Regulations for Soutmves1 Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Ben R. Urbanas
I have no opinion on this except these coefficients appear to be based on data in Florida. One has to
investigate how these data were collected and processed to answer this question. I just assumed it is
accurate.
William W. Walker
Models are available for predicting water & nutrient budgets of flow through wetlands (e.g.,
http://www.wwwalker.net/dmsta) It is not possible to generalize about percent removals of flow or
nutrients as these would be highly site-specific. A conservative assumption of no removal would be
appropriate without site-specific modeling.
Harper Method ~ Draft
Page 25 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation QfAlternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
10. Does the Method appropriately account for pollutant loads from existiug and
new stormwater ponds? Why or why not? If not, what is a better approach?
James p, Heaney
Here again, the direct way to answer this question is to set up and run a process simulator, ideally with
some local data. The simulations can be done on a case by case basis or a range of simulations can be
done to generalize these results. We are using this approach in a soon to be completed study for the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). For example, the HM type of frequency
distribution for Ft. Myers is being run for cities across the United States.
Jonathan E. Jones
Although we agree with much ofthe discussion regarding stonnwater ponds (wet detention systems) in the
Harper Method, we do have some specific questions and concerns, as presented in the following section.
For example, the method for calculating detention time provided on Page 3-10 provides an average annual
detention time, for an average runoff year. This calculated value is not representative of a wet period
and/or a wet year. We pose questions, below. regarding the regression graphs (Figures 3-6). For example,
it is not clear from the text what the nature of the data points is. There are fewer data points than we would
have expected given the magnitude of wet pond data available for southwest Florida. There are very few
data points for residence times beyond 100 days. Interestingly. it appears that if the data points for
residence times of greater than 100 days were excluded. the "R2" values would be significantly lower than
they currently are (and they are already low, in the case of nitrogen and phosphorus). The regressions
graphs show percent removal on the vertical axis: it would desirable to have effluent concentrations on the
vertical axis, instead, or alternatively. to use a method thatnonnalizes percent removal to influent
concentrations along with reporting of influent and/or effluent concentrations in conjunction with the
graphs.
We do agree with the basic assumption made in the Harper Method that pollutant removal can be
correlated with residence time. and if the authors can address the concems and questions that we have
raised in this regard, we would be satisfied that the approach is reasonable.
Larry A. Roesner
The Method is OK, as discussed above, but I believe its level of accuracy would be improved by: 1)
changing to continuous simulation so residual runoff in the BMP from previous the previous stann is
adequately accounted for: and 2) computing pollutant removal in the pond with equation 2 which takes
into account the "equilibrium concentration" of constituents in the water.
Ben R. Urbonas
This was addressed above under item 2. Also, see discussion on Section 3 in my "Peer Review" dated
March 6, 2005. The fundamental issue is the use of "percent removals" and the hydrologic method use as
the basis for estimating annual load calculations.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 26 at 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Soutlnvest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
William W. Walker
No opinion.
Harper Method ~ Draft
Page 27 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regu/ationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
11. a) At what depths do stormwater treatment ponds in southwest Florida
offer the greatest treatment benefits for nutrient removal?
b) Are stormwater treatment ponds with depths greater than 6-8 feet (ie. 20
or 30 feet deep) expected to offer treatment benefits or have problems
that would not be expected to occur in a pond that is oniy 6-8 feet deep?
c) Do the benefits provided by a deeper pond exceed potential problems
associated with the increased depth?
James P. Heaney
a) Depth is less important than residence time. Pollutant uptake is a nonlinear function of residence
time with strong diminishing marginal returns as detention time increases.
b) The HM includes regression equations to estimate pond stratification as depth increases. Probably a
more direct concern is that the pond would be below the ground water table. A variety of impacts
could occur in this case.
c) Do the benefits provided by a deeper pond exceed potential problems associated with the increased
depth?
Jonathan E. Jones
WWE has not had occasion to determine which depths for stonnwater treatment ponds in southwest
Florida offer the greatest treatment benefits for nutrient removal. Our experience elsewhere in the United
States indicates that it is preferable to construct wet ponds that are deeper than 6 - 8 feet, primarily
because this reduces algae problems and provides room for sediment accumulation. As duly noted by the
Harper Method, the problem with very deep wet ponds (20 - 30 feet) is that they can stratify, such that
incoming storm flows do not mix with water in the hypolimnion. However, as the authors note. if
stratification is likely to be an issue, this can be addressed with water column mixing.
Larry A. Roesner
There is no single answer, but based on my 15 years experience with storm water management in Florida,
and experience with ponds in other areas of the United States, I have formed some hypotheses that, while
untested, I believe to be pertinent.
In most areas of the US. a pond over 6-9 feet deep will stratiry and become anaerobic because there is no
mechanism for aerating the water that deep. But I have seen ponds much deeper than that in Florida that
are very clean and not stratified. My hypothesis is that these ponds are dug into the groundwater aquifer
and that the groundwater is moving through the pond at a sufficient rate to keep the pondfrom stratifYing.
In this case, I believe the deeper the pond, the better it is at removing pollutants from runoff. But if the
pond is dug into the groundwater that is stagnant or moving very slowly, then the pond will stratify as
ponds do in other locations in the US become anaerobic and not perform as well as the shallow ponds (6-8
feet deep).
In Southwest Florida, I expect that most, if not all, deep ponds penetrate the groundwater table so the
question of depth vs. effectiveness is dependent upon the rate of movement of the groundwater. But for
Harper Method - Draft
Page 28 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
those near the coast, I would expect the groundwater to be saline so that the pond basically floats on the
saltwater groundwater. In this case, I would not be surprised to see the saline portion of deep ponds go
anaerobic because the fresh water bubble will not be that deep and rate of transfer of oxygen across the
saltwater- freshwater interface will be low.
Ben R. Urbonas
See discussion on Section 3 in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005
William W. Walker
See Comments on Section 3.3.2. I have not seen specific data that justify these deeper non-conventional
designs.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 29 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stonrrll'ater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
12, The Method uses some data from residential wet detention lakes to determine
natural open water quality conditions. Is this scientifically sonnd? Are you
aware of other appropriate sources of data or approaches?
James P. Heaney
Analogies between wet-weather detention systems and natural lakes. sedimentation units in wastewater
treatment plants. and wastewater oxidation ponds have been used for many years to approximate the
behavior of wet weather detention ponds. Natural lakes tend to have detention times in the order of
months as opposed to a few days for stonnwater ponds. The kinetics shown in the HM with residence
times approaching one year are very atypical of stonnwater detention systems. A more representative
range would be residence times of ] 0 days or less.
Jonathan E. Jones
We do not agree that it is appropriate to utilize data from residential wet detention lakes to detennine
natural open water quality conditions. We are not aware of other appropriate sources of data for natural
open water bodies in southwest Florida.
Larry A. Roesner
Before rendering an opinion on this question. I would want to know which data came from residential
ponds and which from natural lakes. I could not detennine from the report, which data were taken from
residential wet detention lakes. The report does say that that water quality in the lakes reported ranged
from mesotrophic to hypereutrophic. Ifthe data taken from the residential lakes is primarily in one of
those categories, while the remaining data are in the other category, then there is obviously a bias in using
residential ponds. I note that the report does recommend that site specific data be used when available.
Another consideration is the wet season residence time of the lakes. The design criteria specified in The
Method for residential ponds, are intended to result in a man-made lake that behaves similarly to natural
systems if the residence time is more than 30 days during the wet season. If the residential lakes from
which data were taken for this study were designed according to the guidelines of The Method. and have a
residence time of more than 30 days during the wet season. my opinion is that the water quality in those
lakes is close to natural.
Ben R. Urbonas
See my answer to question I and my discussion on Section 3 in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005.
William W. Walker
Monitoring.
Page 30 01 82
04/05
Harper Method - Draft
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
13. (a) Are the nitrogen, phosphorus, TSS and BOD percent removal vs.
residence time curves used to determine the required residence time for
wet detention ponds defensibie from a scientific and engineering
perspective?
(b) Do they overestimate percent removal?
(c) Are you aware of other sources of information for assessing percent
removal vs. residence time?
James P. Heaney
(a) See the discussion in the previous section regarding these performance curves.
(b) and (c) Fitting a single simple equation over such a wide range of detention times is quite risky since
the kinetics would be expected to vary from an initial high removal rate in the first few hours
to much lower rates as time increases. A Iso, k depends heavily on initial concentration which
is not considered in this method. Expressing removal as a function of residence time, initial
concentrations, and reaction rates is a standard practice in wastewater and storm water process
engineering (e.g., Metcalf and Eddy 2003). Only a few reliable data sources are available for
storm water detention systems due to lack of complete monitoring data to do a mass balance on
water and the constituents of interest including change in storage in the control unit. Recent
research stresses the importance of initial concentration on the expected performance of the
control unit. Also, it is not desirable to use only normalized plots of % control vs. detention
time since this data masks the actual conditions.
Jonathan E. Jones
As noted in the response to Question 10, there are concerns related to the nitrogen, phosphorus, total
suspended solids (TSS), and BOD percent removal versus residence time curves presented and the Report.
These concerns, in many ways, are related to the amount of data used for statistical analysis, but also
include pre-processing of data (averaging and other methods used to derive data points), statistical
significance of results, and statistical methods (e.g., using a fourth order polynomial equation for BOD to
closely fit what is widely recognized as a first order process to achieve an R20f 1.0). Judging whether the
curves presented over- or under-estimate percent removal is not possible given the scope and budget of
this review. The important thing to understand is the variability in the data (characterized by the R2 value
shown on the figures). The scatter of the data shows that the curves can both under- and over-estimate
performance in terms of percent removal. Greater confidence and less under- and over-estimation can only
come through collection of more data, but can never be completely overcome due to site-specific
characteristics.
Other methods are available for estimating removal for some pollutants. For example, the USEP A
Quiescent Dynamic Settling Model for detention pond design (USEP A 1986), which is based on particle
size distribution could be applied for TSS and particulate.
Larry A. Roesner
Harper Method ~ Draft
Page 31 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
The use of percent removal curves used in The Methodology is a typical approach used by many
municipalities for a long time and is defensible. But in the last several years, investigators have had
problems with this approach when constituent concentrations are low. A more accurate way to express
removal is given by equation 2 in the Summary. See ASCE/EPA (2002) and Wong (2002) for more
information on this approach.
Ben R, Urbanas
] do not believe they are defensible. See discussion on Section 3 in my "Peer Review" dated
March 6. 2005.
William W. Walker
Probably over-estimate removal for N,P, & BOD. See comments on Section 3.2.2.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 32 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
14. Is the equation on page 3-22 of Harper that reiates anoxic depth to secchi
depth, chlorophyll a and phosphorus scientifically sound? If not, why not and
can you suggest an alternative that improves the scientific accnracy?
James P. Heaney
The equation on p. 3-22 is empirical; it's simply a linear regression. It is derived from 1974 empirical
equations of Dillon and Rigler. The Dillon and Rigler reference is missing in the report. I doubt that any
simple regression equation is going to provide an accurate estimate of the anoxic depth unless the database
reflects similar systems in Florida.
As a minimum, a more thorough literature review of stratification in stormwater ponds should be included.
If these ponds have more typical residence times of a few days or weeks and highly variable stages, then
one would not expect stratification to be an important factor. Here again, a simple process simulation
model would provide a much more meaningful approach than using a regression equation.
Jonathan E. Jones
The scope of our review does not enable us to spend the time necessary to evaluate the relationship (if any)
among anoxic depth versus secchi depth, chlorophyll a, and phosphorus. We agree, however, that this is an
important question to evaluate. If feasible, one or more lake water quality scientists (limnologists) with
expertise in southwest Florida should address this question.
Larry A. Roesner
The fact that Harper used a data set of more than 150 sets of measurements and got an R2 of 0.98 for the
fit of his equation to that data indicates that the empirical relationship is a scientifically valid description of
the relationship between the variables. Whether it can be defended on the basis of first principles is
another story; but we have used empirical functions to describe cause-effect relationships since the
beginnings of scientific investigation, and I dare say there are more empirical descriptions of cause-effect
relationships in the ecologic literature than there are equations derived from first principles of physics,
biology and chemistry.
I can see some reason behind the selection of variables, i.e.
Secchi disk depth is a measure of light penetration and thus the depth of solar heating, which is a
principal factor in determining the depth ofthe thermocline,
Chyl-a is a direct indicator of night-time respiration a principal drain on the oxygen in the water,
and
Total P is a good indicator of the rate of the algae growth rate (being the limiting nutrient) and
indicates the potential for sustaining the O2 demand.
Ben R. Urbonas
Harper Method ~ Draft
Page 33 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor .";outhwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
See discussion in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005.
William W. Walker
See comments on Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
Page 34 of 82
Harper Method - Draft
04(05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
15. Is the approach used to select and size the required stormwater treatment
technically sound? Why or why not?
James P. Heaney
See discussion in the previous section.
Jonathan E. Jones
We have three primary concerns regarding whether the Harper Method is "technically sound" with respect
to selecting and sizing of stonnwater treatment facilities:
Please refer to the comments in responses to Questions 3 and 4 regarding "treatment train" and
"multi-layer" stormwater management approaches. The Harper Method addresses only two types of
BMPs. Stonnwater management literature clearly supports a multi-layer approach rather than a "end
of pipe" treatment approach. Onsite BMPs, conveyance BMPs, andlor others, in conjunction with
the BMPs addressed in the Report, are the most effective approach for stonnwater management for
development.
. A second underlying concern in the heavy reliance on percent removals in the Harper Method. This
has been discussed in responses to questions above and is further discussed in comments in the
following section.
Driscoll (Driscoll et al 1989) perfonned analysis of precipitation across the United States and in
Florida for USEP A and used a gauge in Miami with a longer period ofrecord than the Ft. Meyers
gauge used by the Harper Method. Accounting for the exclusion of data from 1980 - 1984, and 1986
_ 1992 for the Ft. Meyers gauge per footnotes on Tables 1 and 2, the Harper Method is based on a
22-year period of record. We have not analyzed the Driscoll data in detail to detennine which years
may have been excluded in his analysis; however, we believe that the Report should explain why
this gauge is not considered appropriate. In addition, Driscoll used a 6-hour inter-event criterion for
stann separation to define stonn events versus the 3-hour criterion used in the Harper Method. A
3-hour criterion may be appropriate; however, no discussion or justification is provided in the
Report, and significant differences in the number of annual events, mean event precipitation,
antecedent dry times, and other hydrologic factors arise from assuming a 3-hour versus a 6-hour
stonn separation time to define a "storm event". Additional discussion is provided in the following
section.
Larry A. Roesner
I believe so; the approach follows closely the state-of-practice as defined by ASCE and WEF for the
design of urban runoff BMPs. I was one of the original developers of the approach for retention pond
sizing; it is based strongly on Vollenwieder principles of lake behavior (see Hartigan, 1989)
Harper Method - Draft
Page 35 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Souf}n1-'est Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Ben R. Urbonas
i do not believe it to be sound. See discussion on Section 3 in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005.
William W. Walker
See comments on Sections 3.2.] and 3.2.2.
Page 36 of 82
04105
Harper Method - Draft
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Soutml'est Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
16. Are there oversimplifications in the Method that result in large inaccuracies or errors?
If so, what are they and how would you address these inaccuracies?
James P. Heaney
Key sources of error in HM are:
(a) Using only one climatic station and only part of the available record.
(b) Using only 19 bins instead of using bins with increments of 0.01 inches.
( c) Basing soil moisture storage on CN alone and not calibrating it against local infiltration
measurements.
(d) Defining DC1A to include: "It is also considered directly connected if runoff from it occurs as
concentrated shallow flow that runs over a pervious area, such as a roadside swale, and then into a
drainage ditch." (p. 2-5, paragraph 2). Recent studies in California (Barrett 2004, Pack 2004) show
that roadside swales have a major beneficial effect in reducing the quantity and improving the
quality of highway runoff. DClA should not include this type of other impervious area.
Jonathan E. Jones
Please see responses to Nos. 2 and 3.
Larry A. Roesner
There are oversimplifications as noted above in the Summary above. But as J have noted previously, the
effect on accuracy - or lack of accuracy - has not been determined. Based on my experience, I
recommend the changes to the model suggested under question 5 be implemented.
Ben R. Urbonas
There are potential errors and inaccuracies. They may be large, but without a comparative study using
methods I suggested in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005 J cannot make a definitive judgment.
William W. Walker
Performance of wet detention facilities dependent on depth & concentration, not just water residence time.
The method may under-estimate runoff from pervious areas (see comments on Section 2.1)
Page 37 ot 82
04/05
Harper Method - Draft
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stornni'ater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
17, Are you aware of other data, studies or models that are more appropriate for
application in southwest Florida?
James P. Heaney
My group at the University of Colorado (until Sept. 2003) and the University of Florida (Sept. 2003-
present) have been conducting research for the US EPA, WERF, NCHRP, and U.S. Anny Corps of
Engineers, Jacksonville, to develop improved methods for simulating and optimizing wet-weather water
quality. Much of this work has been done in collaboration with Professor Wayne Huber of Oregon State
U., a long-term colleague at the U. of Florida from ] 968-1991. The focus of the research during the past
several years has been on smaller BMPs associated with source or upstream control. Interest in
decentralized controls has come from a desire to manage the problem at its source as a more sustainable
solution than primary reliance on larger, centralized downstream controls. In order to evaluate
decentralized controls, it is necessary to model stonnwater behavior at the individual parcel level where
response times are very short and of the order of a few minutes for overland flow. A conceptual advantage
of micro-scale evaluations is that it is possible to collect much more complete data sets than is feasible at
larger spatial scales. The on-going studies for the US Army Corps of Engineers are an example of an
evaluation of a large stonnwater treatment area in the Everglades Agricultural Area. Excellent data are
available for these studies. The best data sets that we have found for Florida are:
(a) USGS studies of four catchments in southeast Florida (Lee and Heaney 2002).
(b) A variety of studies by Dr. Betty Rushton ofSWFWMD.
(c) Studies in support of the Everglades Restoration.
(d) Early highway studies by UCF (Wanielista, Yousej~ et al.) appear to be good but we don't have
these data sets.
A significant effort was expended in evaluating all available data on the performance of stann water BMPs.
The approach was to select the best available data and then run SWMM and our spreadsheet models to
evaluate the integrated performance of these BMPs. The results were very sobering. For a variety of
reasons, there is virtually no reliable data on the perfonnance of wet-weather BMPs that is sufficiently
detailed to do process modeling. The entire ASCE/EPA BMP database is populated with stonn event
measurements only. No intra-stann data are available nor is information available on how storage changes
in the control units over time. Another critical piece of information is treatability data for stormwater
constituents, e.g., settling column data. Here again. reliable data are meager. Rapp (2004) shows how
these data can be analyzed to estimate removal as a function of residence time and initial concentration.
Finally, the assumed mixing regime is an important detenninant of water quality control effectiveness.
Tracer studies allow us to estimate the degree of short-circuiting that can occur in control units but this
data is rare for stonnwater controls. Kadlec and Knight (1996) show how tracer data can be used to
estimate the actual mixing regime. Thus, we have had to conclude that insufficient data are available on
comparable controls to argue that their perfonnance can be used to provide a reliable guide to the expected
behavior of new BMPs in SW Florida or elsewhere.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 38 ot 82
04105
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
On the positive side, this research has demonstrated some key elements and newer methods for evaluating
wet-weather BMPs including:
Page 39 of 82
04/05
Harper Method - Draft
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormu'ater Regulationsfor Soutmvest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
(a) Spreadsheets (SSs) can be used to simulate BMP dynamics except for complex cases of backwater
effects in sewers. SSs are used by virtually all engineers and stonnwater professionals. SWMM 5.0
is now available. It is much easier to use than the old Fortran SWMM. Thus. it is easier than ever
to set up process level simulations and run them for one or more years using an hourly time step.
Time dependent process simulation is definitely the preferred way to evaluate BMP performance.
(b) We recommend the simpler frequency approach that is used in the HM for systems where the
storage effect is relatively unimportant, e.g., infiltration systems. Pack (2004) shows how this
method can be used to estimate the effect of highway right of ways that infiltrate runoff from non
curb and gutter highway runoff. Unlike the HM method that assumeS that a fixed storage volume is
available for each storm. a constant infiltration rate is assumed. Infiltration rates can be measured
locally using infiltrometer tests. The frequency database is the actual hourly data and no separate
stonn event definition is needed. It is quite simple to determine the pdffor the original data set.
Then, all runoff hours that are less than or equal to this rate are infiltrated. Also, a prorated portion
of the higher inflows will be infiltrated. The balance that is overland flow will receive some
treatment as it moveS across the right of way as overland flow. We have excellent calibration data
for these systems for highways based on the extensive CAL TRA NS research program (Barrelt
2004). Volume and concentration control are evaluated separately so that their individual effects
can be evaluated.
(c) For systems with significant storage effects, it is essential to route these flows through the storage-
release system and to depict the mixing regime and the kinetics. The HM assumes complete mixing
which provides poorer treatment perfonnance than plug flow that is more appropriate for control
systems with shorter residence times. For storage systems. a release rate must be assumed. Indeed,
various combinations of storage volumes and release rates should be evaluated to find the least cost
combination of storage and release rate. The measure of perfonnance should be % control of annual
pollutant load, not annual runoff volume (Lee. Heaney, and Lai 2005). Typical ranges in residence
times for efficient controls are of the order of lto 5 days. By sharp contrast HM describes detention
times of up to one year. Typical ranges of detention times for wastewater and stonnwater controls
are shown in Table 17.1. None of these residence times approach the HM values. The HM
residence times are more representative of the behavior of natural lakes.
Table 17.1. Typical ranges of residence times for wet-weather controls
Control
--.-----
High-rate wet-weather treatment
Infiltration systems
Detention Basins
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Wastewater wetlands
Residence ,
i Times, hours I
---25 to -r--
0.1 to 48
2 to 120
10 to 12
50 to 500
--------,---_...--_.,--'"~-------
Jonathan E, Jones
Please see response to No.7.
Larry A, Roesner
Page 40 of 82
04/05
Harper Method - Draft
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulations for Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
No, not that are simple to apply and interpret as required in the Objectives
Ben R. Urbonas
See my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005.
William W. Walker
No.
Page 41 of 82
04/05
Harper Method - Draft
Peer Review of Evaluation afAlternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest f70rida
(The 'Harper Method')
18. Could parts ofthe Method be clarified to increase consistency among users?
James P. Heaney
Yes. The frequency calculations and extensive lookup tables that link DCJA and non-DCIA areas can be
greatly simplified as follows:
(a) Calculate the runoff from the DCIA and non-DCIA areas separately and add them at the end. The
current method of using lookup tables is clumsy and the combined use ofDCIA and CNs can be
expressed more directly as two separate calculations.
Jonathan E. Jones
Yes. there are parts of the method that could be clarified to increase consistency among users. and these
are discussed below. However, in general, the Report does a good job of clearly eXplaining the Harper
Method, and we believe that most stormwater BMP designers would be able to utilize it with consistency.
Larry A. Roesner
I think The Method is pretty straight forward. I assume that The Method has be coded into a user friendly
spreadsheet with user instructions. If so, what can be simpler or more consistent for users?
Ben R, Urbonas
J do not believe so, but could be proved wrong.
William W. Walker
You might consider converting it all to a spreadsheet to facilitate use.
Page 42 of 82
04/05
Harper Method - Draft
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
19, In yonr opinion, wbat is tbe weakest aspect of tbe Harper Metbod, and bow
wouid you correct tbis?
James P. Heaney
The perfonnance equations appear to be unrealistic and use % removal as the ordinate instead of actual
concentrations. Their origin is obscure. Fitting a single equation to residence times approaching one year
doesn't appear to be realistic.
I would first find out the nature of the data that are the basis of these equations. A significant part ofthe
unusually long detention times is the use of very deep detention basins that would be expected to be below
the ground water table. These deep excavations do provide a source of fill that may be a significant
economic benefit in South Florida.
Jonathan E. Jones
We have not specifically defined the single weakest aspect of the Harper Method. Areas of significant
concern include: exclusive reliance on percent removal; questions regarding precipitation analysis
(described below); handling of wetlands and open watersllakes; and the endorsement of only dry retention
and wet detention as acceptable BMPs. We also are concemed about the assumption of] 00% pollutant
removal and the regression methods shown in Figures 3-7.
Larry A. Roesner
See question 16 above.
Ben R. Urbonas
Runoff volume estimating procedures based on the NRCS methodology, the method chosen to analyze and
systematize the continuous rainfall records, and the use of "percent removals" instead of average effluent
concentrations. See my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005.
William W. Walker
Lack of support for wet detention pond design criteria, which are probably optimistic.
Page 43 of 82
04/05
Harper Method - Draft
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stornm1ater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
20, Identify any changes that you would make to the Method so that it more
accurately assesses pre-project and post-project loads for southwest Florida,
James p, Heaney
Pre and post-project loads
(a) DCJA-Published concentrations for DCJA's should be relatively accurate since they represent the
result of generic urban activities. DCJA's can be expected to follow the buildup-washoffprocess
with a finite amount of available material on the impervious surface. Accordingly, a plot of
concentration as a function of storm flow wouJd tend to show decreasing concentrations. Thus, the
existing concentration database should be compared with estimates from other areas to estimate
concentrations. The associated runoff volumes for DClA can also be estimated fairly well because
it is a simple rainfall-runoff relationship (Lee and Heaney 2002). The only real debate is over the
initial abstraction at the beginning of a storm.
(b) Non-DCJA-Concentrations from non-DCJA areas are much more difficult to estimate since they
depend heavily on the mix of other impervious area and pervious area. Also, the availability of
pollutants from pervious areas is more complex since the sources are not well defined. Pervious
areas would tend to behave like natural watersheds with concentrations increasing as flow increases.
These two areas could be weighted to estimate a composite concentration. Spatial scale is very
important for non-DCIA areas since overland flow is complex in this situation.
Jonathan E, Jones
Suggested changes to the Harper Method are provided in the following section. We do think it very
important to emphasize that the Harper Method should be subject to periodic updates in response to new
data, new methods, user experience, etc. The authors are clearly interested in comprehensive literature
reviews and data acquisition, and we suspect that they would agree with viewing this Report as a "living
document".
Larry A, Roesner
See question 16 above.
Ben R, Urbonas
This is beyond the scope of this peer review. You are asking a protocols design question.
William W. Walker
See recommendations regarding model for P removal in wet detention ponds (Figures 2-3).
Harper Method - Draft
Page 44 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
21. Does the Harper Method lend itseif to refinement as more data become
available? Which aspects are in need ofrefinement the most?
James P. Heaney
HM would benefit by having a much firmer conceptual foundation upon which judgments could be made
about the benefits of more data and improved formulations. Ideally, a few long-term monitoring sites
would be used to provide a benchmark for evaluating how these systems actually behave. Dr. Betty
Rushton of SWFWMD already has considerable data. Process simulators such as SWMM or our SS
SWMM or SS STORM could then be set up to model the behavior of these sites using the local data for
calibration. Given the calibrated simulation model, the BMP design could be optimized and provide
valuable information about how these systems actually behave. This detailed process level information
can then provide a sound basis for judging the merits of any simplified method like HM or single design
storm approaches. The simpler methods could also be calibrated using the more detailed data sets.
Jonathan E. Jones
Please see response to No. 20.
Larry A. Roesner
Nearly any algorithm lends itself to refinement as more data become available, and the Harper Method is
no exception. For those aspects in most need of refinement, see question 16 above.
Ben R. Urbonas
Yes, if the suggestions in my "Peer Review" dated March 6, 2005 are followed.
William W. Walker
Yes. Justification for wet detention performance curves. Additional runoff concentration data for various
land uses.
Harper Method. Draft
Page 45 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
22. Are you aware of an alternative approach to tbe Harper Method that utilizes
sound engineering and science that couid he used in southwest Florida to
determine storm water treatment design requirements so that
post-development loadings do not exceed pre-development loadings?
James P. Heaney
A variety of approaches that we have developed during the past several years have been described in this
review. These methods could significantly improve the evaluation methodology.
Jonathan E. Jones
There are many alternative approaches to the Harper Method that could be used in southwest Florida to
determine design requirements. However, it is far beyond the scope of our review to describe these
alternative methods. Furthermore. our "bottom line" view on the Harper Method is that it would be an
acceptable regulatory tool. provided that the questions and concerns that we have raised herein (along with
those from other peer reviewers) are addressed by the authors.
Larry A, Roesner
Obviously there "are alternative approaches to the Harper Method..." These include:
. The Florida Watershed Management Model. which is similar, but not tailored specifically to
Southwest Florida.
. The model MUSIC developed by Wong (2002) which is more detailed than The Method, and more
difficult to apply.
HSPF or SWMM which are very sophisticated models, and not easy to apply.
So at this time, and subject to refinements recommended under question 16, I do not think there is an
alternative approach that: 1)"...is relatively simple to employ and straightforward.". but at the same time
2) ".. .accurately estimate(s) pre-project and post-project loadings in southwest Florida and it should be
sound from an engineering and scientific standpoint." and 3) "...minimize(s) the amount of user
interpretation required."
Ben R. Urbonas
Yes, see the suggestion in "Peer Review" dated March 6. 2005 are followed. Beyond that the question
exceeds the scope of the peer review assignment and requires specific design of methodology.
William W. Walker
Yes. Schueler's "Simple Method." P8 Model. See General Comments.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 46 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Storrmvater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
V. SPECIFIC COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION
William W. Walker
Page 1-1. Bottom Paragraph. Mass Units
While the Kg units are fine because you have to pick something, but this is the first I've heard that pounds
are not "scientifically defensible."
Harper Method - Draft
Page 47 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation (?fAllernative StormH'Gter Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
SECTION 2
Section 2.1
James P. Heaney
PreciDitation
HM uses hourly rainfall data that are reported in intervals of 0.0 I inches. This information is taken from
the NCDC database. HM uses only part of the Ft. Myers hourly data for 1960 to 1993. They exclude 12
years from these 24 years but don't explain why. Hourly data are now available througb 7/2004. Ft.
Myers, FL is a good data set since it presents rain depths measured in 0.01 inch increments. Many oftbe
hourly data sets only report data in 0.10 inch increments leading to significant errors in the analysis. It is
very easy to get this data for any NCDC station
(http://ols.nndc.noaa.gov/plolstore/plsql/olstore.prodspecificoprodnum=C00313- T AP-AOOO I)
by downloading it from the NCDC web site onto a spreadsheet. If the one hour data are used directly, then
it is simple to sort them and develop the cumulative distribution function (CDF). The initial abstraction
can be deducted before doing the frequency plot. This CDF can be used as a rate of runoff or volume of
runoffifa storm event is defined to last one hour. I suggest doing a careful analysis ofNCDC stations in
the region of interest, and generating the precipitation statistics for several stations to better define the
spatial variability of the precipitation. Also, using a longer period ofrecord would be helpful.
The HM follows the more typical approach of defining a stonn event. The HM is based on a single storm
event definition that states that a storm ends ifit hasn't rained for three consecutive hours. This assumed
value is referred to as the minimum interevent time (MIT). The storm event statistics are very sensitive to
the selected MIT. Bases for selecting MIT include:
Statistical convenience (Adams and Papa 2000)
Knee of the curve wherein further increases in the MIT reduce the number of events per year at a
much lower rate (Heaney et a!. 1977)
The expected travel time through the catchment and the control(s) (Heaney and Lee 2005). The
travel time through the catchment can be approximated by a variety of time of concentration
formulas. The residence time in a BMP can be estimated based on its capacity and expected flow
through rates. This last definition is the only one that recognizes the dependency of the event
definition on spatial scale. Accordingly, the MIT should depend on the size of the catchment. At
the shorter end of the MIT is the fact that the parent precipitation data are hourly.
The range ofMITs that have been used by investigators typically range from 3 to 12 hours. The
results of the analysis are fairly sensitive to the selected MIT especially for smaller MITs such as 3
hours.
The HM partitions the precipitation data into only 19 bins necessitating significant interpolation.
For example, according to Table 1 in the HM report, 45.2% of the annual events are 0.10 inches or
less. This category is represented as a single bin. The data are reported in 0.0 I inch increments.
The most accurate way to represent them is to generate the probability density function (pdf) using
bins for each 0.01 inch increment. This calculation is simple to do using a spreadsheet, e.g., Excel's
ToolslData Analysis/Histograms, once the hourly data have been divided into events. Heaney and
Harper Method - Drah
Page 48 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Lee (2005) present software that automatically partitions the hourly data into event data for a given
MIT. If an MIT of 0 hours is used, then the data can simply be sorted without needing any special
software.
Overall, suggested improvements in characterizing rainfall are as follows:
Use data from the nearest NCDC gage and generate the CDF for each gage. The HM might be
extended to generate these CDFs using the above methods.
Include a procedure for calculating the appropriate MIT based on the nature of the study area with
shorter MlTs for smaller catchments.
Use smaller bin increments to more accurately define the CDF.
. Relate the HM to available literature on this subject.
. Generate the CDF using the one hour data so that flow rates as well as volumes can be evaluated.
Runoff
DeJA Runoff
HM calculates annual runoff as the sum of the DCIA and non-DCIA runoff. DCIA runoff is simply
rainfall- O. I 0 inches for each stonn event. The HM report, Table I, cites a long tenn rainfall average of
53.15 inches per year. The selected MIT affects the number of events per year. For example, if there are
200 events per year using a given MIT, then the initial abstraction accounts for 200 events/year"O.1 0
in.levent or 20 inches per year of initial abstraction, nearly 40% of the total precipitation. This calculation
assumes that the entire 0.10 inch of depression storage is available at the beginning of each event. For
shorter MIT's like 3 hours, this may not be the case. Conclusions on initial abstraction are as follows:
The use of O. 10 inches per event for initial abstraction is a common value.
The use of a 3 hour MIT is not a typical assumption. The MIT definition strongly affects the
number of events per year. The appropriate definition ofMIT should depend on the travel time
through the catchment and expected residence time in the BMP.
The HM is to be commended for evaluating the effect ofDClA separately. Studies by Lee and Heaney
(2002, 2003) clearly demonstrate the importance of evaluating the effects of DCIA separately since it has a
disproportionally large impact on total annual runoff. I strongly disagree with the second part of their
definition ofDCIA (P. 2-5).
"It is also considered directly connected if runoff from it occurs as concentrated shallow flow that runs
over a pervious area, such as a roadside swale, and then into a drainage system."
Our highway runoff studies show the high rate of infiltration and pollutant removal occurs in swales (Pack
2004, Pack, Heaney, and Lee 2005). They do not behave as DC1A. DCIA should be defined as the runoff
that flows directly to the stonn drainage system over directly connected impervious areas.
Harper Method. Draft
Page 49 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southlllest rlorida
(The 'Harper Method')
Non DCIA Runoff
The non-DClA portion of runoff is calculated by finding a weighted average curve number (CN) where
CN is a weighted average of the CNs of the pervious area (PA) and other impervious area (OJA). This
method has been used by other investigators. The end result of this calculation is an estimate of the
average available storage per event. S. This method assumes that all of this storage is available at the
beginning of each event. This may not be the case for several reasons including:
The soil moisture storage is still draining from the previous event. Using a 3 hour MlT. it is highly
likely that this condition may not be satisfied for many events.
Soil moisture storage is afTected by antecedent irrigation as well as antecedent precipitation.
Irrigation is a significant component of the annual water budget in warmer climates like
southeastern Florida. A general rule of thumb in irrigation scheduling is to fill the soil moisture
storage if it becomes half empty (0.5'S). Irrigation occurs every 1 to 3 days.
Urban soil compaction can cause a significant reduction in soil moisture storage. Thus, it is important to
conduct local infiltrometer tests to better estimate the expected actual rate of infiltration (Pack 2004,
Sample 2003).
To overcome difficulties in measuring soil moisture storage volumes, we have opted to use infiltration
rates and hourly data to evaluate infiltration based systems (Pack 2004, Pack et al. 2005). If a significant
storage effect exists, then continuous simulation of the dynamics of the storage effect is needed to avoid
having to arbitrarily assume an MlT and a single value of storage that is always assumed to be available at
the beginning of each event (Rapp 2004, Rapp et al. 2005).
The HM method for calculating DCIA and non DCIA runoff requires the determination of a single runoff
coefficient as presented in Table 4 for various combinations of DCIA % and non DCJA CNs. I was able to
verity these calculations for a few assumed combinations of DCJA and Non-DCIA by separating the
calculations into DCJA runoff and non-DCIA runoff. If DeJA = 100%. then according to the last row of
Table 4, the annual runoff coefficient is 0.782. Our evaluation of the USGS data for a shopping center in
southeast Florida (Lee and Heaney 2002) with a DCIA of98% indicates a runoff coefficient of about 0.95.
The much lower coefficient of 0.782 is probably due to the assumed impact of initial abstractions for the
relatively large number of events per year associated with an MIT of 3 hours. This evidence suggests that
either the assumed initial abstraction and/or the number of events per year are incorrect.
Given the cdfhistogram of annual runoff, it is simple to calculate the non-DCJA runoff using a simple
spreadsheet calculation. A given storage, S, inches/event, will capture all of the runoff up to a volume of
S, and a prorated portion. of the volume for storms larger than S. For example, ifS = 2.0 inches, then the
annual runoff from all storms <= 2.0 inches is captured, and a proportionate (S/2) amount of the larger
runoff events are captured. The calculated % control can be determined by a simple SS calculation for S =
2 inches. This result can be determined for any specified value of S by repeating this calculation. This
can be done easily using the one-way data table feature in Excel.
Suggestions for determining annual runoff are as follows:
Separate the DCIA and non-DCIA calculations.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 50 0/ 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Storrmvater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Express the non-DCIA calculations as a function of assumed storage, incheslevent, and develop a
performance function that expresses runoff coefficient as a function of assumed storage.
. Calibrate the basic assumptions against measured values in the literature that provide more accurate
estimates, e.g., the USGS shopping center data in southeast Florida analyzed by Lee and Heaney
(2002, 2003).
. Put the calculations onto a SS template for users that replaces the Table 4 calculation.
Section 2.1
Ben R. Urbonas
1. The use of a 33-year rainfall record of hourly precipitation depths to develop total storm depth
characteristic and statistics is to be applauded. The use of continuous rainfall records for the
development of the types of methodologies contained in the report is essential to paint a realistic
annual runoff and loading picture. The analysis of the data identified the differences in mean storm
durations, depths, and antecedent dry periods between the dry and wet seasons.
2. The selection of 3-hours of no rain as the basis for defining the beginning of a new storm event has
to be questioned. Driscoll, et. a!., in their report to EPA in the 1980s recommended 6-hour
separation to define new storms on the basis of statistical analysis of rainfall record throughout the
United States. His suggestion may not be valid here where the Harper Method bases load
calculations on dry retention basins that empty in 40 hours.
The use of longer time-of-separation to define a new storm would reveal different mean storm
depths, storm durations and antecedent dry periods. The 3-hour time of separation is also
inconsistent with the suggested 40-hour emptying time for dry retention ponds, for which a 24-hour
emptying time would be more representative of filling and emptying statistics for these retention
ponds. At least a 24-hour separation time would assure that for the majority of storms the full
retention volume is available and the volume occupied by a prior storm has been vacated. Three
hours hardly gives the wet ground time to recover from a previous rainfall event and, in addition,
can bias the statistics by showing the full capture of may small storms.
3. One other concern is the use of very small events in calculating seasonal average/mean depths (e.g.,
Dricoll, et. a!. filtered out storm events that had less than 0.1 inches in depth from their statistical
analysis). They have large numbers of these runoff events that do not produce surface runoff and
tent to only wet the surface and evapotranspire, thus depressing mean storm depth that can result in
smaller treatment facilities.
4. The use of the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) method in calculation runoff form
urban areas can be problematic for urbanized areas. This becomes event more of a concern when
the DCIA and non-DCIA are part of the calculation. The use of composite CNs for a catchments
that have pervious and impervious surfaces typically depresses the numbers of runoff events and the
amount of runoff volumes that occurs. By using composite CN numbers, the incipient runoff that
occurs from DCIA surfaces does not appear until significant amount of precipitation has occurred,
while in the real world, these surfaces begin (0 show some runoff after 0.06 to 0.10 inches.
5. The use of other distributed rainfall runoff models, especially if one has calibration data, can
produce results that may be more defensible. For example, if HSPF or the EPA SWMM version 4.4
would have been employed in a continuous simulation mode. more defensible seasonal average
Harper Method. Draft
Page 51 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stornnl'ater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
runoff coefficients would have resulted. Those coefficients could then be used for estimating
average seasonal and then average annual runotlvolumes and pollutant loads. The use of only
annual average runoff coefficient for the post-development period can produce a lesser total annual
runoff volumes and loads than using seasonal values.
6. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around how to use Table 4 in a way that I felt comfortable.
First I need to know or assume pre-development CNs in the catchments. Then I need to calculate, or
assume, the composite post-development CNs. Am I to assume that the same soil and vegetation
characteristic apply for pre- and post-development conditions. event though the soils have been
reworked extensively? Or am I supposed to account for changes in soil composition in making my
new CN assumptions? Then. given those assumptions. I am supposed to calculate the non-DCJA
CN.
Nevertheless. the 100% DCIA with 98% non-DCIA runoff coefficient seems to be reasonable. One
question that comes to mind is whether the local experience indicates that the average annual runoff
volume in SW Florida for 0% DCIA is only 0.1 % of the annual precipitation as the table implies? Some
of the runoff data in this report seems to argue against that.
Section 2.]
Page 2-], Calculation of runoff Volumes
William W. Walker
The definition ofrain events is critical to predicting runoff from pervious areas using the SCS method and
for evaluating the performance of infiltration devices. The analysis assumes that each rain event is
independent and that infiltration devices drain completely between events. It seems as though a 3-hour
inter-event period is very short relative to the recommended 40 hour drawdown period. The independent-
event assumption may not be valid for evaluating dry detention ponds or other infiltration devices. The
effect of this will be to separate some very large storms into smaller ones. As it is used here, the SCS
method will also under-predict runoff from pervious areas if the inter-event time is too short. This, in turn,
may lead to under-estimation of runotl coefficients and under-design ofBMP's. Sensitivity of the
computed runoff coefficients (Table 4) and infiltration device designs to the 3-hour inter-event assumption
should be evaluated.
Section 2-], General Comment
Jonathan E, Jones
It is not clear from the text whether a nortnal or log-normal statistical analysis was performed.
Section 2.]
Page 2-], Paragraph 2
Jonathan E. Jones
This paragraph states that based on a review of the "available meteorological records, Ft. Meyers is the
only major city in southwest Florida which has sufficient long-term meteorological data for estimate of
rainfall trends." We believe that this statement requires further justification. As a part of our research and
creating the International BMP Database with other co- principal investigators including Eric Strecker,
P.E. and Ben R. Urbonas, P.E., we obtained information on the data sets used by Driscoll et al (1989). The
Driscoll data included a rain gauge in Miami (WSCMO AP, Station ID 5663) with a period of record
running from 1949 to 1987. Why was this data suitable for use by Driscoll et al. but not by Harper?
Should this data be examined and integrated into the Report?
Section 2.]
Page 52 01 82
04105
Harper Method - Draft
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Soutmvest Florida
(The . Harper Method')
Page 2-1, Paragraph 3
Jonathan E, Jones
The Harper Method specifies a storm separation criterion of 3 hours for defining an individual "storm
event". What is the basis of the 3-hour event separation criterion? Driscoll et al (1989) used a 6-hour storm
separation time. We recommend that the authors provide better justification for the use of the 3-hour storm
separation time in the Report. The effects of using a 3-hour versus a 6-hour storm separation criteria can
be significant (refer to Page 2-2, Paragraph 2):
Average Annual Number of Events: The analysis by Driscoll et al of the Miami gauge using a
6-hour storm separation criterion resulted in an average of 78 events per year. The 3-hour storm
separation criterion used in the Harper Method results in 115 events per year on average.
Storm Duration: The Driscoll analysis with the 6-hour storm separation criterion resulted in an
average storm duration of 6 hours. The analysis in the Harper Method using the 3-hour storm
separation criterion provides a mean value of2.32 hours.
Page 2-2, Paragrapb 2, Sentence 2
Jonathan E, Jones
Describes the number of rainfall events falling into different depth categories, is also significantly
influenced by the storm separation criterion that is used. In general, a shorter storm separation criterion
will result in a greater number of smaller events.
We note that the average annual precipitation from the Miami gauge used by Driscoll and the Ft. Meyers
gauge used in the Harper Method are quite similar. We raise this issue not because we necessarily believe
a 6-hour storm separation criterion is more appropriate than a 3-hour storm separation criterion. We raise
this issue to highlight the importance of the storm separation criterion on characterization of storm events.
Whether a 3-hour, 6-hour, or other storm separation criterion is used in the analysis, we believe that it is
important to justify the choice and explain this in the Report.
Section 2.1
Pages 2-3 and 2-4, Tabies 1,2, and 3
Jonathan E. Jones
Why are the years of 1980 - 1984 and 1986 - 1992 excluded from the analysis? This exclusion results in a
precipitation record of 22 years for analysis. We are somewhat surprised that other long-term precipitation
data are not available for southwest Florida. Would it be possible to use data from another site to try to fill
in some of the gaps in the Ft. Meyers gauge record?
Section 2,1
Page 2-4, Table 2
Jonathan E, Jones
We note in this table that the standard deviation reported for annual rainfall is 8.68 inches. This highlights
the importance of previous comments on reliance on averages for sizing of storm water facilities. For year
with total annual rainfall, one standard deviation above the mean value (in general, not considered an
extreme or rare occurrence, especially for precipitation) would have total precipitation roughly 15%
greater than that of an average year. For water quality facilities sized based on annual averages, this would
be expected to result in significant untreated flows. The untreated flows in wetter than average years
would not necessarily be "offset" by decreased demands on facilities or better performance of facilities in
drier than average years.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 53 ot 82
04105
Peer Review of Evaluation o/Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or ,)'oUlIru'cst f70rida
(The 'Harper Method')
Section 2.1
Page 2-5, Equation for nDCIA Curve Number (CN)
Jonathan E. Jones
The equation on Page 2-5 for nDCIA CN is a linear interpolation between (100 -Imp) and (Imp - DCIA).
In fact, CNs are non-linear functions. Errors can occur when applying linear combination techniques to
these non-linear functions. The greatest potential for errors would occur when the values for (100 -Imp)
and (Imp - DCIA) are similar. A better approach might be to apply the equations that follow this first
equation to the (100 - Imp) and (Imp - DCIA) terms separately to detennine excess precipitation and then
to combine.
Section 2.2
Pollutant Concentrations
James P. Heaney
Table 7 in the HM report presents the results of the estimated concentrations for total Nand P, BOD, TSS,
copper, lead and zinc based on review of the literature, primarily in Florida. This infonnation is presented
for 13 land uses, wetlands, and open water/lake categories. The wetlands concentrations in Table 7 are
based on the wetlands summary data presented in Table 5 of the HM report. It is surprising to see
wetlands and open water/lakes listed as "land uses". They are typically viewed as control areas, not source
areas.
Pollutant concentrations for a given land use depend heavily on DCIA and the size of the catchment.
Measurements taken at the bottom of a catchment are fairly accurate for DCIA since no significant
pollutant removal occurs during overland flow on the impervious surfaces. However, runoff across
pervious areas is a much more complex process that includes the influence of infiltration and uptake by
vegetation. For example, recent results for runoff from highways in California indicate that most of the
pavement runoff onto the adjacent right of way infiltrates within a few feet (Barrett 2004). Thus,
measurements taken at a downstream outlet reflect a much lower flow and concentration due to the effect
of treatment along the way. Our ongoing studies of low impact development illustrate the important
influence of upstream control on the now and concentration that reaches the outlet. This is especially true
for larger catchments. Thus. spatial scale needs to be incorporated explicitly. The HM database for single
family residential ranges from 30 to 897 acres. Thus, a significant in-system effect occurs at these spatial
scales. Ideally, the monitoring is done at a small spatial scale that represents the pollutant buildup and
washoffprocess only. How much of it actually reaches a downstream outlet depends on a delivery ratio.
The effect of spatial scale has traditionally been estimated using a delivery ratio coefficient, e.g., the
Universal Soil Loss Equation. The delivery ratio is hard to estimate and is often used as calibration
parameter in a process simulator. Alternatively, one can adjust the assumed concentration at the source.
Recent research by my group on source control for wet-weather systems indicates the vital importance of
accurately estimating the local benefits of pervious areas that store and/or infiltrate much of the annual
pollutant load from these areas.
The HM database for single family residential areas ranges in size from 25.1 to 897 acres (Table A.I). At
900 acres and a length:width ratio of 3: I, the length offlow in the catchment is on the order of almost 2
miles. Thus. it is unrealistic to assume that pollutant concentration data collected for small spatial scales
can be upscaled to be accurate for much larger areas, especially for non-DCIA.
Pitt et aJ. (2004) have summarized stonnwater concentration data based on a national review ofNPDES
pennit data. A comparison to the values listed in HM is shown below. In general, the assumed values are
similar.
Page 54 of 82
04/05
Harper Method - Draft
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Comparision of mean (HM) and median (Pitt et al. 2004) pollutant concentrations
Land Use Source TSS BODS Phosphorous Copper Lead Zinc
(mgll) (mg/I) Total (mgli) Total Total Total
(ugli) (ug/I) (ug/l)
Residential Pitt 48.0 9.0 0.300 12.0 12.0 72.0
Residential HM 26.0 7.4 0.335 31.0 39.0 73.0
Commercial Pitt 43.0 11.9 0.220 17.0 18.0 150.0
Commercial HM 84.0 ]2.3 0.300 23.0 ]7.5 ]40.0
Industrial Pitt 76.4 9.0 0.260 22.0 25.0 210.0
Industrial HM 93.9 9.6 0.310 No Data 202.0 ]22.0
Freeways Pitt 99.0 8.0 0.250 34.7 25.0 200.0
Highways HM 49.1 6.7 0.270 40.0 211.0 167.0
I am perplexed as to how the data in Table 5 (wetlands) and Table 6 (lakes/open water) can be used to
represent "land use" data. I presume that these data represent samples taken within these systems and are
not outflow data. Wetlands and lakes/open water are normally considered to be part of the subset of wet-
weather controls that can have a significant positive impact on water quality. Residence times in these
systems range from a few weeks to many months. For wetlands, Kadlec and Knight (1996) present a
thorough overview of the expected performance of wetlands for water quality control. Extensive data on
wetlands are available from numerous studies associated with the Everglades Restoration. Similar
evaluations have been done for lakes and reservoirs for many years. From a process engineering point of
view, they may be viewed as relatively large reactors that have a significant influence on flow patterns
through a storage effect and pollutant concentrations through physical, chemical, and biological processes.
They can be analyzed as storage-release BMPs using a variety of methods.
Section 2.2
Ben R. Urban as
]. This section provides a good summary of the constituent concentrations data (averages) used as the
basis for annual load calculation in this report.
2. The use of average concentrations arrived at using field data lends credibility to the Harper Method.
All surface runoff water quality data are very noisy and do not correlate well with the size of the
runoff event and the use of averages is as accurate as it gets at the current state-of-practice.
Section 2.2
Page 2-8, Ta ble 4
Jonathan E. Jones
Are the values in Table 4 consistent with field data (data from gaged watersheds with known DCIA
characteristics)? We note that for a CN of 98 and 100% DCIA, which would equate to something like a
paved parking lot or rooftop that is entirely impervious, the annual runoff factor is 0.782. In other words,
on an annual basis, 78% of the precipitation becomes runoff and 22% is lost, presumably through
evaporation. Is this reasonable and consistent with local experience or should annual runoff factors for
largely impervious surfaces be higher?
Section 2.2
Harper Method - Draft
Page 55 01 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation <<f Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Page 2-9, Paragraph 3, and Page 2-10, Paragraph I
Jonathan E. Jones
The text states that wetland monitoring data are available from 19 separate stations, representing a variety
of wetlands with various degrees of impact. However. the text goes on to indicate that these 19 wetlands
will be used as "estimates of pre-development wetland characteristics for loading evaluation purposes."
Based on our current (1 imited) understanding. it would not appear appropriate to use impacted wetlands as
the basis for pre-development wetland characteristics. In addition, we do not believe that the data in Table
5 are consistent with the authors' statement that, "In general. measured concentrations for the evaluated
parameters appear to be relatively consistent between the measured wetland systems." To the contrary, we
observe a wide range in the data for Table 5; for example, total phosphorus concentrations in the wetlands
range from 0.01 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.025 mg/L. and total zinc values range from 0.00
micrograms per liter (f'g/L) to 29.37 f'g/L. to provide only two examples.
Section 2,2
Page 2-10, Paragraph 2
Jonathan E. Jones
lt is not clear to us that Table 6 provides sufficient data to enable a correlation between land use and lake
water quality. We strongly agree with the authors' statement, "If available, site-specific water quality data
for water bodies in a particular project area should be used." The following statement in the Report is not
clear to us:
In the absence of site-specific data. the mean values summarized at the boltom af'Table 6 can be
used as estimates of ambient characteristics of open water/lakes to be used in generation of
poilu/an/loadings for this par/icular land use ca/egor\'.
What "particular land use category" are the authors referring to? Are they suggesting that the mean values
are appropriate for open water/lakes in areas that have been unimpacted? If so, this would not appear to be
an appropriate assumption because some of the open water/lakes in Lee and Collier Counties have
apparently been impacted. We also have concern about utilizing the mean values for total nitrogen and
total phosphorus (particularly total phosphorus) given the spread in the data and the fact that selecting the
mean value would result in half of the samples having higher concentrations. There are too few
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) data in Table 6 to calculate
meaningful mean values.
Section 2.2
Page 2-11, Table 5
Jonathan E, Jones
In addition to the questions raised earlier regarding Table 5. it would helpful if the authors could provide
additional infonnation regarding the fonn (speciation) of the metals. as well as the speciation of the
nutrients.
Section 2.2
Page 2-13, Table 7
Jonathan E. Jones
Are the data in Table 7 generally consistent with data from other studies such as the National Urban
Runoff Program, monitoring data from the stonnwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permitting Program (Phase I and II cities), the University of Alabama Runoff Quality Database,
etc.? We presume that the authors are citing various sources for the values in Table 7. It would be helpful
if these citations could be indicated. We question the zero percent impervious values for agricultural land.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 56 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation a/Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
The percent impervious value for wetland is shown to be zero, yet the authors use an annual runoff
coefficient for isolated wetlands of 0.225. Are these parameters consistent?
Section 2.3
Pre- and Post-Development Loadings
James P. Heaney
Given an estimated annual runoff volume and average concentration, it is simple to calculate the annual
load as shown in the equation in Section 2.3 of the HM report. Other than a typo. in how the summation is
identified in this equation, this calculation is straightforward.
What is not straightforward and very atypical is the assumed performance requirement that no net increase
in poIlutant load is all owed following development as expressed in the equation:
Required removal efficiency (%) ~ {[(post development load - predevelopment load))/(post development
load)) * 1 00
This performance measure may be very difficult, ifnot impossible, to meet for a variety of reasons:
If the predevelopment condition is a pristine natural condition, then the concentrations are already at
their natural background level. Thus, any new development will increase these loads.
This equation is assumed to be applied across the seven pollutants listed in Table 7. hus, the
condition must be satisfied for all of them.
We don't have BMPs that can remove poIlutants down to a background level except at an enormous
cost. Numerous studies dating to the late 1970's, e.g., Heaney et al. (1979) have shown that the
incremental cost of wet-weather control increase very rapidly beyond control of80-85% of the
poIlution. In order to control the remainder ofthe poIlution it is necessary to include very large
storage facilities that can capture and treat large storm events that only occur rarely. A recent
example of a cost-effectiveness curve is taken from Rapp et al. (2004) based on an optimized
detention system design is shown in Figure I. Marginal costs increase rapidly beyond a control
level of about 75%.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 57 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Soutln~Jest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Figure 1. Cost-effectiveness curve for a highway detention system (Rapp et al. 2004).
$300,000
$250,000
~ $200,000
...
'"
0 $150,000
U
ili $100,000 .
...
0
I- $50,000
$0
0 25 50 75 100
Pollutant Removal (%)
Given these conditions, the typical way to express wet-weather performance measures is in terms of a
specified % reduction in either total pollutant load or, better, total removable pollutant load that recognizes
that a background level exists for each constituent.
Section 2.3
Ben R. Urbonas
1. This section provides a method of calculating the average annual loadings of constituents in
stormwater runoff. Its accuracy depends on the accuracy of the runoff volume calculations (see
discussion above). Ifthe calculated average annual surface runoff volumes are questionable, so will
be the calculated constituent loads.
2. Why is efficiency in terms of percent removal being addressed and is an issue? Is it not the goal to
not exceed the pre-development loadings? If that is the case the only question that needs to be
answered is whether the post-development load is more. less or the same as the pre-development
annual load.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 58 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation C?f Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
SECTION 3
Section 3
Stormwater Treatment Options
James P. Heaney
The HM report concludes that dry retention and wet detention systems are the only viable options. Our
recent research indicates that BMPs can be classified in terms of performance as infiltration rate dominated
systems, e.g., swales, and storage-release systems such as detention systems. This could be viewed as
being analogous to the HM approach if dry retention is viewed as an infiltration system.
The dry retention system is assumed to empty in no more than 40 hours as attested by a registered
geotechnical engineer.
F or the wet detention system, the HM method bases performance on residence time in the detention
system. They assume complete mixing for these systems as opposed to plug flow that may be more
appropriate.
The curves for Nand P show residence times of up to 300 days and 15-20 data points. Unfortunately, they
never describe the source of the data. Several years of data would be needed in order to get meaningful
estimates for residence times greater than 100 days. Perhaps the authors used lake and wetland data for
these estimates. We have found very few defensible data sets that allow us to simulate the performance of
wet ponds with detention times in the more normal range of 1 to 10 days. The HM curves ignore the
important effect of initial concentration on % removal. If the influent is relatively high in initial
concentration, then it is easier to remove and the % control would tend to be higher. These curves also
ignore the important fact that there is an irreducible concentration for each of these constituents. Thus, it
is more meaningful to evaluate control of the removable, not the total, fraction.
The basis for these performance data sets is of vital importance in judging their validity. This removal is a
function of both concentration changes and volume changes, not just concentration reductions. For short
(less than 5 days) residence times, concentration changes would tend to dominate while for the very long
residence times shown in these figures, volume changes could be important.
For TN, TP, and TSS, the HM equations are:
% TN removed = 27.25+8.4216*ln(Res. Time)
%TP removed = 44.583+8.0847*ln(Res. Time)
% TSS removed = 49.362+1O.062*ln(Res. Time)
This functional form is not typically used in estimating the kinetics of a treatment reactor. Using this
functional form, the % removal goes negative as residence time approaches 0, e.g., TN % removal is
negative if detention time is less than 0.039 days. The % removal exceeds 100% for larger values of
detention time, e.g., % removal ofTSS exceeds 100 if detention time is greater than about 153.3 days. A
better functional form would be to use first order kinetics with a minimum achievable concentration, Cm'o'
This equation is used for evaluating the performance of wetlands (Kadlec and Knight 1996). Rapp,
Heaney, and Lee (2004) have also found that this equation fits stormwater detention performance well
with only two parameters, k and Cmm. The equation is:
Harper Method - Draft
Page 59 oj 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
C ~ Cmm +(C-Cmm)*exp( -kt)
Where C = effluent concentration, mg/I
Cmm ::::: minimum attainable concentration, mg/I
k = rate constant (I/hr), and
t = residence time. hr.
The HM equations are presented in normalized form of % removal. However, it is not possible to
evaluate them without knowing how % removal is determined, i.e., is it:
% concentration reduction averaged over many storms?
% load reduction averaged over many storms?
Other?
The BOD curve is a polynomial with a perfect R'. However, all that the HM method does is to use the
standard first order kinetics with no minimum concentration. or
y = l-C,/Coo, = I -exp( -kt)
where they assume k = O.I/day.
This equation is identical to their polynomial. It is the special case where the minimum achievable BOD
concentration is zero, an untenable assumption.
The effect of initial concentration on the settleability of TSS is shown dramatically in Table 1 that is taken
from Rapp et al. (2004). In test 7, with an initial concentration of721 mgll, the concentration after 2 hours
is 103 mg/I, an 86% reduction. In sharp contrast, in test I, the initial concentration of 15 mg/I is reduced
only to 14 mgll in two hours, a 7% reduction. Thus, it is essential to know how the % removal is
calculated and how it accounts for the effect of initial concentration and changes in volume due to
evaporation and other losses.
Table 1. Setteability of Suspended Solids in Urban Runoff(Randall et al. 1982)
Total Suspended Solids Concentration, mg/L
Sedimentatiom Time, hours Maximum
Test % Removal
No. Initial 2 6 12 24 48
IS 14 14 13 II 2 87
2 35 20 18.5 18 14.5 7 80
3 38 24 16 6 84
4 100 45 34 30 19 7 93
5 155 21 17 12 9 7 95
6 215 67 40 26 17 9 96
7 721 103 34 30 18 ]8 98
In summary. the basis underlying the pollutant removal relationships used in the HM needs to be carefully
reviewed for the following reasons:
Harper Method - Draft
Page 60 01 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor SoutJrH!est Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
The source(s) ofthe data are unknown.
. The assumed residence times of up to 300 days are well beyond the normal residence times that are
of the order of a few days or weeks. These residence times are contradictory to the design
guidelines shown in Table 9 that state that the bleeddown rate should be about 0.5 inch in the first
24 hours.
How % pollutant control is defined needs to be clearly specified. Is it concentration changes only,
or is it a composite of concentration and flow changes?
. The effect of background concentration needs to be included. It is impossible to achieve 100%
control due to background concentrations. Attention should be focused on removal of the
controllable portion of the load.
Section 3.1
Ben R, Urbonas
1. This section discuses the need to achieve 60 to 95% pollutant "removal efficiencies" and concludes
that only two treatment systems can achieve this goal, dry retention and wet detention.
2. The use of pollutant "removal efficiencies" instead of average effluent concentrations from the
treatment facilities is suspect when calculating average annual loads. The EPA/ASCE International
Database Project published more than one interpretative report recommending the use of "average
effluent concentrations" instead of "removal efficiencies" (i.e., percent removals) [ref.:
www.BMPDatabase.org, (2000), "Determining Urban Stormwater Best Management Practice
(BMP) Removal Efficiencies"; Stecker et. aI., (1999 & 2004), two different ASCE Proceedings,
other papers and reports]. One of the issues is that "removal efficiencies" are proportional to
influent concentrations, which have very wide bands of standard error of estimate. Effluent
concentrations data exhibit much tighter bands of standard error of estimate and are more
appropriate to use when estimating average annual load calculations. There are other considerations
that are discussed in the above-mentioned references that argue for the use of mean effluent
concentrations when making constituent load estimates.
Section 3.2
Ben R. Urbonas
I. This section provides a method of calculating the average annual loadings of constituents in
stormwater runoff. Its accuracy depends on the accuracy of the runoff volume calculations (see
discussion above) and on the validity of the assumptions made.
2. The assumption that the available treatment volume (Assumption 2) is fully recovered is not
justified by simple independent variable statistical analysis that was used to develop the Harper
Method and the 3-hour storm separation period in analyzing the rainfall data to develop the Harper
Method. Long-term rainfall, retention-containment and runoff simulations would have been a more
robust method supporting this assumption or suggesting something else.
Section 3.2
Page 3-2, Numbered List of Assumptions, Item Nos. 2, 3, and 4
Jonathan E. Jones
We offer the following comments with regard to these assumptions:
Harper Method - Draft
Page 61 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation 0/ Alternative Stonmvater Regulations/or Soutmvest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Assumption No.2: We indicated our concern with this assumption in the previous section.
Based on the criteria in Table 8, it would possible to have a facility designed for a recovery time of
nearly 40 hours. Based on the average inter-event time of 1.66 days for the wet season stated in
Table 3, this facility would not fully recover for many events (any events with less than mean
inter-event dry time). In addition to this observation, we are aware that often there is a trend in
southwest Florida for daily convective thunderstorms in the summer months. Averaging techniques,
even with differentiation between wet and dry seasons. may not capture this characteristic. We
believe this underscores the importance of continuous simulation as a verification method or
underlying principle.
Assumption No.3: Pollutant loads may be greatly influenced by antecedent conditions, particularly
the time for pollutant buildup. A storm with 0.5 inches of runoff that occurred after an extended dry
period with considerable time for pollutant buildup would likely have a higher pollutant load than
the same amount of runoff when antecedent conditions were wetter. We realize that assumptions
such as this one are necessary to create a practical method that can be used by developers, engineers,
as well as regulators; however. from a scientific standpoint, this is not technically sound.
Assumption No.4; As with Assumption No.3, this assumption may be necessary to create a method
that is practical and useable; however, it is to technically sound. Removal efficiencies for runoff
constituents will vary from event to event and, for many BMPs, such as wetlands, there may be
seasonal or other trends in addition to the natural variability in performance that make the use of a
constant year-round percent removal questionable from a technical and scientific standpoint. This is
well established in the literature.
Section 3.2
Page 3-2, Paragraph 2
Jonathan E. Jones
Some general comments regarding the potential treatment options defined in the Harper Method are as
follows:
There is undue emphasis on pollutant removal efficiency percentages. It would be helpful if the
authors could either replace their percent removal approach or supplement it with probability-based
effluent concentration data.
There are more BMPs than only wet detention and dry retention facilities that could be utilized.
Discussion regarding onsite treatment techniques. such as low impact development, minimizing
directly connected impervious area, and others would be desirable. It appears that the authors are
exclusive advocating an "end of pipe" approach. However. there is a general consensus that
storm water quality management should begin with source controls and progress upwards (in size)
from individual lots to larger, regional facilities.
It would be helpful for the authors to mention that source controls are potentially quite valuable at
limiting discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus. This is particularly true for larger areas such as
parks and golf courses.
It would helpful if the authors could emphasize that a multi-layered approach to BMP utilization,
featuring a broad array of both non-structural and structural BMPs, is highly desirable. Such an
approach emphasizes redundancy and minimizes undue reliance on anyone technology. In addition,
Harper Method ~ Draft
Page 62 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
we suggest that the authors recommend that conservative design assumptions are necessary to
overcome the limitation of variable BMP perfonnance.
The authors may want to note that the Harper Method provides only selected design criteria for dry
retention and wet detention facilities, and other references should be consulted for additional
criteria. For example, the whole subject of dam/embankment design from the standpoint of stability,
safety, etc. is not covered.
. Given that many facilities accessible to the public will be designed in accordance with the Harper
Method, we suggest that the authors emphasize that, first and foremost with any design, is the need
to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and there are many techniques to accomplish this, such
as flattening side slopes, including debris/safety racks on outlet structures, utilizing railings where
necessary, etc.
The authors may wish to provide some design guidance regarding water quality outlets for these
facilities, as there has been considerable progress with design details for such structures.
One of the significant findings of the International BMP Database is that there appear to be tangible
water losses associated with BMPs. That is, in general, more stonnwater flows into BMPs over time
than exits the BMPs, due to various losses. Given that the Harper Method is based on loads rather
than concentrations. it would be valuable for the authors to account for these losses.
. We suggest that the authors devote more discussion to the critically important subject of
maintenance. For instance, it is essential to maintain dry retention facilities so that they are capable
of continually infiltrating stonnwater at the design rate. The nature of this maintenance is not
discussed. The long-term tendency of infiltration-based measures to plug is not mentioned. The
authors might consider advocating forebays with regular (periodic) and unscheduled (i.e., after a
tropical stann or hurricane) maintenance for both the wet and dry storage facilities to reduce solids
loading.
Section 3.2.1
Ben R. Urbanas
The suggested detail in Figure 1 for "Dry Retention" does not follow recommendations contained in most
design guide references, such as the Water Environment Federation's Manual of Practice for Stormwater
Quality Management (WEF MOP #23). Most design guidance recommends a minimum separation of 4-
to 5-feet between the bottom of an infiltration basin (which the dry retention basin is) and the seasonal
high groundwater table.
The issue here is that in order for the basin to evacuate via infiltration through the basin's bottom and sides
within the specified period of 40 hours, the underlying soils have to have high hydraulic conductivity and
a large cross-sectional area and the hydraulic gradient has to be sufficient to drive the groundwater flow at
velocities high enough for that to happen. A one-foot separation as shown in Figure 1 raises a question if
those conditions can all be met to have these basins fully evacuate in 40 hours during high groundwater
seasons, especially during the wet seasons. Again, continuous simulation of this phenomenon at different
sites using their specific groundwater and geologic conditions could answer this question. For this
reasons alone one can question whether the Harper Method accurately estimates average annual
stonnwater loading rates leaving the retention treatment systems.
Section 3.2.1
Harper Method. Draft
Page 63 at 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stornrwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Page 3-3, Dry Detention Systems
William W. Walker
See above comments on potential sensitivity to the assumed stonn inter-event time. The first paragraph
recommends a 72-hour draw down time. Table 8 indicates 40 hours.
The 40-hour drawdown requirement is left up to an engineer certification. I guess this is in lieu of direct
modeling. The infiltration rate is a critical parameter in this computation. It might be helpful to provide
some guidance! regional infonnation on typical infiltration rates. Conservative assumptions should be
required to allow for decline infiltration rates over time associated with filtration of runoff particles. I did
not see any mention of maintenance requirements to ensure longevity of dry or wet detention systems.
A removal efficiency of 100% is assumed for retained water. This is equivalent to assuming
concentrations of 0 mg/I in all water that infiltrates. A significant fraction of the infiltrating flow may
eventually reach drainage canals connected to downstream water bodies. This assumption may be
reasonable for suspended solids, but not for nutrients. For example, seepage collected in perimeter canals
of Everglades Stonnwater Treatment Areas (ST A-I W). averages about 0.025 mg/I Total P and 3.5 mg!1
Total N (SFWMD data). SW Florida regional values could be estimated from groundwater samples. The
seepage phosphorus concentration is much lower than the typical runoff concentrations shown in Table 7
(0.2-0.5 mg!l) , but the seepage nitrogen concentration is greater than all of the runoff TN values (1.1-2.8
mg!I). The assumption of 100% removal is more likely to have an effect on BMP designs controlled by
nitrogen.
Section 3.2.1
Page 3-4, Figure 1
Jonathan E, Jones
We believe that it is necessary to have more than one foot of difference in elevation between the dry
retention facility bottom and the seasonal high groundwater table elevation. In addition, some projection of
the maximum groundwater table elevation would be preferable to the seasonal high elevation, to provide
for a more conservative design.
Section 3.2,1
Page 3-4, Paragraph 1
Jonathan E, Jones
The Report notes that stonnwater pollutants are trapped in relatively stable associations in the upper 4
inches of soil within retention basins, yet states at the top of Page 3-5 that lateral distances between
retention ponds and surface water bodies should be maintained as large as possible, at least 100 feet or
more, depending on site conditions. It is not clear to us that these parameters (4 inches versus] 00 feet) are
consistent.
Section 3.2,1
Page 3-5, Paragraph 3
Jonathan E, Jones
We disagree that] 00% removal rates can be assumed for nitrogen. phosphorus, BOD, and TSS. First,
soluble fractions of these pollutants will be mobile and will not be entrapped in soils. For example. nitrate,
the predominant fonn of nitrogen in urban stann water runoff. is highly mobile. Secondly, even though the
stonnwater in dry retention facilities is infiltrated. it is not as if the water disappears. Instead, this water
will eventually resurface downgradient. This is a particularly important consideration since the Harper
Method is focused on average annual conditions rather than individual runoff events. Regarding pollutant
l-Jarper Method - Draft
Page 64 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
removal efficiencies, have the authors considered recommending monitoring programs for representative
dry retention and wet detention facilities? The method could be periodically updated in response to the
collected data.
Section 3.2.1
Page 3-6, Paragraph 3
Jonathan E, Jones
Our concerns with the 1.66-day mean antecedent dry period between rain events during the wet season and
the <40 hour recovery time criteria for dry retention ponds was stated on our response to Question No.6.
We believe that continuous simulation would be helpful for better understanding the implications of using
a method that relies heavily on mean values for sizing. We do not believe that it would necessary to
perform continuous simulation for individual sites (this would not be practical); however, we believe that
continuous simulation using a range of land uses andlor imperviousness levels to see how facilities sized
using the Harper Method would perform hydrologically over the period of the precipitation record would
be useful.
Section 3.2.2
Ben R. Urbonas
1. One concern is the recommendation of ponds that exceed ] 2 to 15 foot maximum depth and are
more likely to stratifY crating anoxic conditions that can remobilize the constituents deposited on
their bottom. This issue is very complex and one cannot draw generalized conclusions however.
Staying with the current state-of-practice recommended in the WEF MOP #23 would be more
conservative.
2. The greater concern is the use of "removal efficiencies" to calculate annual loads instead of dry or
wet pond effluent concentrations based on data in the region for such facilities (see the discussion
above on this issue). Suggest looking at the data scatter on Figures 3 and 4 for the two constituents
of greatest concern. Although the R' ~ 0.68 shows some level of correlation, this probably could
be improved if effluent concentrations were used instead. One has to recognize that high percent
removals are associated with high influent concentrations and low ones with cleaner influent.
Section 3.2,2
Page 3-7, Wet Detention Systems
William W. Walker
The methodology generally leads to wet pond designs that are deeper (6-30 ft) and have longer residence
times (100-300 days) than conventional design criteria (3-5 ft, 14-30 days). The designs are apparently
driven by the residence time performance curves, high P removal requirements, and economic
considerations (favoring lower surface area). Deep ponds may be desirable to reduce wind-induced re-
suspension, provided they are also aerated to avoid stratification. Unlike the residence-time based
performance curves (Figures 3-5), a conventional particle settling model based upon areal water load
would favor shallower ponds to provide a given water residence time. Supporting performance data are
needed to justifY these unconventional deeper designs.
Section 3.2,2
Pages 3-11 and 3-2, Figures 3 and 4
Jonathan E, Jones
As noted above, we were surprised by the relatively few number of data points for percent removal versus
residence time used in these plots. We are surprised that more data are not available for wet ponds in
Harper Method. Draft
Page 65 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative .'.;torrnwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
southwest Florida. There is considerable scatter in the data, and the R2 values (0.68 for nitrogen and 0.72
for phosphorus) are modest. Data for residence times of less than 100 days are particularly scattered. We
would be interested to see the R2 values with points for residence times in excess of 100 days were
removed, and we believe that they would be significantly lower than those shown on the graphs.
Information is not provided on these graphs that allows the use to determine the potential influence of
influent concentrations on percent removals, nor is information provided that would allow a user to
detennine the effluent quality that could be expected to be achieved. As stated earlier, We believe that the
heavy reliance on percent removal without acknowledgment of the importance of influent and effluent
concentrations and loadings is one of the greatest weaknesses of the Harper Method.
Section 3.2,2
Page 3-11, Figure 3, Nitrogeu Removal
William W. Walker
The USEPA (1978) collected nitrogen budget data from Florida lakes that could be used in testing the
ERD's nitrogen removal equation (Figure 3). A preliminary review of that data suggests that the equation
over-predicts N removal in all of the lakes. I agree with COM's suggested alternatives, including the
second-order nitrogen model (Walker, 1985;2004), but have not tested it specifically on Florida lake data.
A simple relationship between removal rate and residence time is not expected for nitrogen. Processing
in a pond or wetland can reduce concentrations to stable "background" levels on the order of 0.5-1.0 mg/I,
generally in the form of dissolved or colloidal organic nitrogen. The second-order or first-order K/C*
models (Kadlec & Knight, 1996) would be more appropriate.
Section 3.2.2
Page 3-12, Figure 4" Phosphorus Removal
William W. Walker
I agree with COM's Peer Review Panel that the procedure used to estimate performance of wet detention
ponds (ERD Fig 4) predicts substantially higher phosphorus removal efficiencies relative to other
methods and typical performance data. Figure I compares model predictions with nationwide data from
detention ponds (Walker, 1987) and Florida lakes data recently compiled to support modeling of
SFWMO/CERP regional storage reservoirs (Walker. 2005). The model prediction skirts the upper
boundary of the datasets. One limitation of this comparison is that the Florida lakes had mean depths
ranging from 3 to 11 feet. considerably less than ERO's 15 to 30 ft design concepts. With the exception
ofrock pits, lakes in that depth range are probably rare in Florida.
ERD's equation was reportedly based upon data from wet detention ponds in Florida, but there are no
details provided. Reasons for the apparent differences between ERD's detention ponds and other Florida
lakes are unknown. Differences in depth, size, or mixing regime (plug flow vs. completely mixed) may
be factors. Given no information on ERD's datasets and the substantial differences between model
predictions and data from Florida lakes and other systems, ERD's model is not recommended for use in
design. Analysis of the ERD dataset would be needed to justify any application. I agree with COM's
recommendation that efficiencies should be computed from cumulative budgets, rather than discrete event
data. Facilities with short periods of record, alum treatment, other chemical enhancement should be
excluded.
COM (Appendix A) describes a second-order empirical model developed by the author (Walker, 1987) as
an alternative method for predicting P removal. That model was originally developed based upon
nationwide data from Corps of Engineer reservoirs (Walker, 1985) and used in software for assessment
and prediction of reservoir eutrophication (BATHTUB, Walker, 2004). The model was later applied to
nationwide data from 24 detention ponds (3 in Florida) (Walker. 1987) and incorporated into software for
Harper Method - Draft
Page 66 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stornnvater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
routing phosphorus through networks of detention ponds (PONDNET, Walker, 1989). Removal
efficiency is computed as a function of four factors: mean depth, hydraulic load (=depthlresidence time),
inflow TP concentration, and inflow SRP/Total P ratio. Calibration to Florida lake data is shown in Figure
2. Since inflow SRP/TP values were not available for each lake, an average of 0.5 is used. This is typical
of SFWMD long-tenn monitoring data from structures and pump stations discharging into the Everglades
Water Conservation Areas and Lake Okeechobee. Results demonstrate the applicability of the second-
order model to Florida lakes. A simple first-order settling velocity model [ R = K I (K + Q), where Q =
hydraulic load mlyr, K = settling velocity 1.4-5.6 m/yr] fits the Florida lake data about as well as the
second order model (Walker, 2005).
It is difficult to obtain P removal efficiencies above 60- 70% by increasing basin area or residence time in
a single well-mixed pond. Walker (1987) used the second-order model to evaluate the sensitivity of
perfonnance to other design features, including depth, infiltration rate, mixing regime, and the SRP/TP
ratio. For a given residence time and inflow concentration, the model predicts that perfonnance could be
improved by increasing depth (subject to stratification concerns, discussed below), by increasing
infiltration rate, by promoting plug flow vs. well-mixed hydraulics, and/or by chemical treatment to
reduce the inflow SRP/TP ratio. Theoretically, these concepts can be applied to enhance perfonnance at a
given residence time or pond volume.
In CDM's example (Depth = 15 ft, Inflow P = 335 ppb, HRT = 270 days, Appendix A & Table 2-1, p6),
the predicted phosphorus removal efficiency would decrease from 76% to 72% as a consequence of the
higher SRP/TP ratio calibrated in Figure 2 (.50 vs. .33). The equations cited by CDM and in Figure 2
apply to a single, well-mixed pond. Based upon size and shape, this is a reasonable assumption for most
of the Florida lakes in the calibration dataset. With ideal plug flow [(R = N I ( 1 + N ) , Walker, 1987] ,
the removal increases to 90%, similar to that predicted by ERD's model. This is an extrapolation of the
model beyond the depth range of the Florida lake dataset (15 ft vs. 3-11 ft), but is within the range of the
nationwide datasets (detention ponds, Corps reservoirs). With an inflow concentration 0000 ppb and
depth of 15 ft, the plug flow version ofthe second-order model gives similar predictions to ERD's model
at residence times> 50 days (Figure 3). This is a theoretical comparison, since I am unaware of any
perfonnance data from detention facilities with this depth and ideal plug flow. The predictions diverge
for mixed systems, shallower depths, or lower inflow concentrations. Analysis of the supporting data for
ERD's model would be required to determine whether the divergence in Figure I can be explained by
greater depths and ideal plug flow conditions in the detention ponds used to develop the model.
It is unlikely that ideal plug flow can be obtained in a single pond without a highly elongated shape and
baffling. A design concept involving ponds in series followed by a shallow marsh was recommended for
application in Minnesota (Walker, 1987; 1987b). The associated gradients in depth and biological
communities potentially promote a wider range mechanisms for assimilation of stonnwater pollutants, as
compared with single deep pond. Based upon the perfonnance of Everglades Stonnwater Treatment
Areas (Walker, 2005), phosphorus removal rates in shallow (1-2.5 ft) marsh communities are higher than
those typical of lakes (3 - 11 ft), as measured by effective settling velocities (10-30 mlyr vs. 2-6 m/yr).
Wetland cells could be used for polishing provided that shallow water levels can be maintained by
detention of stonn flows in the upstream ponds.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 67 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Slornnvaler Regulations/or SoutJn11est Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Figure 1
ERD TP Retention Model vs Data from Detention Ponds & Fiortda Lakes
100%
~
c;
.12
w
"
'0
0>
cr
w
c;
o
o
EF.'D FI~1 4 Equati,-,n .
. .
80% <>
.
<> 4 4
60% .
4<> .
(}
.
.~ .
(} . . E .
40%
<lo- .
.
.
. . .
.
.
. NES Fiend.
. DMSTADat.sels
oQ Detenti on Ponds
-ERDMed.1
100 150 200 250 300
HRT (days)
20%
0%
E
<>4
..
.
(}
-20%
o
50
N ES Florida
DMSTA
Detention P
ERD Equation
USEPA National Eutrophic.ation Survey, Florida (EPA 1075)
DMSTA Reservoir Calibration Datas:ets, florida (W,ker, 2005)
Runoff Detention Ponds:, Nationwide (\1V,ker,19S7)
R = 8.00 In (HR'T) + '14.6
Harper Method - Draft
Page 68 of 82
04105
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Figu re 2
Em pi rical Model for phosphorus Retention in Deternon Ponds & Rorida Lakes
100%
80%
~ 60%
c::
~
u
:>
'0 40%
Q)
0::
u
c::
0
0 20%
0%
-20%
0%
e
<> -
.-.
-'
.'().
e-
.,.
e
--
.
e
e
e
eNES Florida
. DMST A D 8lasels
~Delenlion Ponds
.
20%
40% 60%
Predicted
80%
Seoond Order Model(Waker,1Q35:1Q37)
R= 1. (.1+ [1+4N]"")/2N)
Symbol
Z
Q
Pi
F
R
N
N ES Florida
D MSTA
D I'tention P
N I;; .056 Pi Z J ( 0 + 13.3) I F
Desoription
mun depth(m)
hydraulic load (rrlyr)
inllCAAl TP o(lnc(ppb) < 1000 ppb
inflOO\l SRP I Total P
o(lncenttation reduction (%)
second order reaction raw
USEPA Na'tional Eutrophica'tion Survey, Florida (EPA 1975)
DMSTA Reservoir Calibration Datasets:. Florida (VII ,ker, 200:5)
RUnClff Detention Ponds:, Naiionwide (\flIaker,1987)
[
050
050
030
--
100%
Regional Mean, SFWMD
Regional Mean. SfWMD
VII aIo:er. 1967
Harper Method. Draft
04/05
Page 69 of 82
Peer Review of Eva/uation ofA/lerna/ive Stormwater Regulations/or 5'outJrwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Figure 3
100%
>R
'::: 60%
o
.~ 50%
'0
ill
cr:
CL 40%
I-
Predicted TP Removal vs. HRT, Depth, & Mixing Regime
90%
80%
70%
30%
r::', /. "~c__"
,. <:,:'jI-/-
GJ f>:'" .
J 'II" ------+--
d',- /.-
'..~. ~
i~'
~
20%
10%
0%
o
50
ERD ERD F~ure 4
Z Mean Depth, Feet
Mixed Completely Mixed Sa sin
PF Ideal Plug Flow
InflowSRPfrP 05
InflowTP
300
ppb
. .
. E-
. . -
"'\........-----------....~-.~-;;-~:;--
.v- . . - - . - - -
t
-ERD
--Z=15, Mixed
. EJ. Z =1 5 , PF
__Z=3, Mixed
- .". Z=3,PF
100
150
HRT (days)
250
300
200
Walker (1987) Model (Figure 2)
See Equation in Figure2
R ~ N I ( 1 + N), N defined in Figure 2
Harper Method - Draft
04/05
Page 70 ot 82
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Soutmrest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Section 3.2.2
Page 3-13, Figure 5, TSS Removal
William W. Walker
The TSS performance curves (Figure 5) appear to be reasonably consistent with other design criteria. As
for nitrogen and phosphorus, it seems appropriate to provide more details on the supporting database.
Section 3.2.2
Page 3-13, Figure 5
Jonathan E. Jones
We have many of the same concerns with this figure related to percent removal that we expressed in the
comments on Figures 3 and 4. The R2 value of 0.95 is significantly better than the R2 values for Figures
3 and 4. This is not surprising given the fact that TSS removal is much less susceptible to seasonal
variability than nutrient removal by BMPs. We are surprised that only 12 data points are available for
TSS removal as a function of residence time.
Section 3.2.2
Page 3-15, Figure 6, BOD Removal
William W. Walker
The BOD removal efficiency curve (Figure 6) is not based directly on performance data but generated by
a model that assumes first-order decay, steady flows, and ideal plug flow conditions. While the assumed
decay rate (0.1 I day) seems reasonable, the model would over-predict removal efficiency in storm-driven
ponds with dynamic flows and concentrations or in ponds with less than ideal plug flow. ERD notes a
background concentration of 1-2 mg/l attributed to algae and detritus. The K/C* model (Kadlec &
Knight, 1996) with a completely-mixed assumption seems more appropriate. It is unlikely that BOD
removal requirements will control BMP design, given the requirements for phosphorus and TSS removal.
If application experience indicates this to be the case, consideration should be given to dropping the BOD
performance requirement altogether.
Section 3.2,2
Page 3-15, Figure 6
Jonathan E. Jones
The same concerns that we have expressed for Figures 3, 4, and 5 with regard to percent removal also
apply to Figure 6. We are encouraged to see that the authors address the idea of an irreducible
concentration for BOD on Pages 3-14 and 3-16; however, we wish that Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 bettertook
this concept into account. The polynomial curved fitting (using a fourth order polynomial to represent
what is widely recognized as a first order process) to achieve an R2 value of ] does not appear to have a
scientific basis.
Section 3,3
Ben R. Urbonas
The equation for "Overall Treatment Train Efficiencies" suffers from the assumption that a successive
treatment facility will have the same "efficiency" (I.e., percent removal) as does the first one. That is not
the case. Subsequent facilities often have to treat cleaner and cleaner inffluent. As was reported by
Schueler and others, there is a lower limit to the effluent concentrations that can be achieved. The use of
average effluent concentrations for each treatment facility in the "train", as suggestion WEF MOP #23
can produce more believable results.
Harper Method. Draft
Page 71 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative 5;torml;,,'ater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Section 3,3
Page 3-17, Paragraph 2
Jonathan E, Jones
The equation for overall treatment train efficiency overstates the efficiency ohhe second BMP in series.
This efficiency will be reduced because the first BMP in series will initially remove a significant portion
of the pollutant load (pollutant removal efficiency typically declines in relation to influent concentration).
Section 3.4, Evaluation of Pond Stratification Potential
James p, Heaney
Pond stratification is rarely an issue in storm water BMP evaluations since the normal range of residence
times are in range of one to several days. Stratification could become an issue if storage lasts for several
months as suggested by the perfonnance curves in the previous section. The method proposed in the HM
report is based on regression equation.
Section 3.4
Ben R, Urbonas
1. Good discussion on evaluation of pond stratification in this report.
2. The regression equation on page 3-22, as reported on page 3-23 has a very strong regression
coefficient for the data supporting it. This implies confidence in its predictability.
3. Stratified ponds have been known to have seasonal turnovers. which release the constituent
remobilized from the bottom deposits into the water column. Mechanical aerating of the deeper
ponds is recommended in the report and is one solution to this potential problem.
Section 3.4
Page 3-18, Paragraph 2
Jonathan E, Jones
We suggest that one or more limnologists with experience in southwest Florida review Section 3.4 and
offer recommendations, as appropriate.
Section 3.4
Page 3-18, Evaluation of Pond Stratification Potential
William W. Walker
Concerns about avoiding destratification are justified. Without aeration, intermittent periods of
stratification and destratification driven by cyclical weather patterns could recycle nutrients, stimulate
algal blooms, and cause fishkills. The method for predicting stratification potential is based upon a
multiple regression relating anoxic depth 10 phosphorus. chlorophyll-a. and Secchi depth. Causal
inferences tram a multiple regression based upon three correlated independent variables are risky.
Empirical equations based upon data from Canadian lakes are used to estimate chlorophyll-a and Secchi
from phosphorus. The applicability of these regressions 10 Florida lakes is not supported. The Secchi
term ohhe regression model appears to be dominant but ignores the effect of non-algal turbidity or color.
The combined equations predict anoxic depths ranging from 12 to 3 feet for total phosphorus
concentrations ranging from 40 to 200 ppb. The anoxic depth should be compared with the maximum
depth oflhe pond (vs. mean depth) to evaluate the need for aeration. This suggests that aeration would be
required for most wet ponds sized according to this methodology.
It seems likely that the stratification depth would also depend upon mean depth, maximum depth, flushing
Harper Method - Draft
Page 72 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
rate, and/or surface area (as related to wind fetch). Walker (1985; 2004) developed an empirical model
that relates the mean depth of the upper mixed layer to mean depth in Corps of Engineer reservoirs.
While it has not been tested in Florida, the model basically predicts that reservoirs with mean depths less
than 12 feet are unstratified. Reckhow & Chapra (1983) describe a function that discriminant function
that predicts oxygen status (oxic vs. anoxic) as a function of depth, areal water load, and areal phosphorus
load. Again, this model has not been tested in Florida, but indicates the importance of morphometric and
hydrologic factors.
Section 3.5, Estimation of Loadings From Wetland Systems
James P. Heaney
As mentioned earlier, wetlands and open water/lakes are usually viewed as controls, not sources. Using a
runoff coefficient of 0.225 is arbitrary. Equally arbitrary is the assumption that 50% of the annual runoff
into a wetland will be retained and 50% will be discharged. Wetlands vary widely in their design and
operating regime (Kadlec and Knight 1996).
Section 3.5
Ben R. Urbonas
1. This part of the report is mostly based on data collected in Lee and Collier Counties. Analysis
protocols based on local data sets, provided they are accurate and representative of SW Florida,
have sufficient populations and are properly analyzed, should be much more reliable than ones
based on assumptions and modeling.
2. Thus, unless that data are wrong or not representative of SW Florida, the approach suggested in this
section should yield believable annual loads from wetland systems in SW Florida. However this
observation may not apply if the natural wetlands receive urban runoff and the increased
constituents it carries.
Section 3.5.1
Page 3-23, Isolated Wetlands
William W. Walker
The runoff coefficient for isolated wetlands (0.225) seems high. I assume that "isolated wetlands" refers
to ones driven only by rainfall. Marsh evapotranspiration rates measured by SFWMD (Everglades
Nutrient Removal Project) average 52.2 inches/yr (1996-2004). This is only slightly below the 53.3
inches/yr Ft Meyers rainfall and indicates a 1.1 inch/yr runoff rate or a runoff coefficient of 0.02 for
wetlands that are continuously flooded. While I could not find this in the report, estimation of the "runoff
coefficient" for lakes should also be justified relative to regional lake evaporation and rainfall rates.
I searched the report for the basis of the 0.225 assumption for wetlands. Page 2-23 refers to Table 5, but
there are no runoff coefficient data in that table. Page 4-13 refers to Table 7, but it likewise does not
contain runoff coefficients. It seems to have come from Table A.20, which lists runoff coefficients for 4
wetlands that average 0.225. However, the footnote indicates that three ofthese values were "calculated
estimates" and only one was directly measured. This is an insufficient basis for recommending a default
value.
The reported phosphorus concentration for wetlands (Table 5, Table 7, 0.09 mgll) seems high. It is not
clear whether the supporting data (Table 5) are from wetlands that are truly isolated and contain no
external inputs. Note that the median concentration in Table 5 is 0.05 mil (vs. .09 mg/I mean) and the
frequency distribution is highly skewed. Background marsh concentrations in the Everglades are <0.01
mg/I (SFWMD data) Pollman et al (2002) reported volume-weighted mean concentration of .005 mg/I
Harper Method - Draft
Page 73 01 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor 5,'owJn1!est Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
in rainfall at 10 Florida sites, 5 of which were in SW Florida. The wet deposition rate averaged 7.5
mg/m2-yr. Estimating dry deposition at twice that, the total deposition would be -22 mg/m2_yr. With
ERD's values for wetlands (Rainfall = 53.3 in/yr, RunoffCoef= 0.225. TP Cone = .09 mg/I), the runoff
rate would be 1] inches/yr and unit area export would be 27 mg/m2-yr. This is similar in scale to regional
estimates of bulk atmospheric deposition. Because of plant uptake, physical processes, and peat
accretion, an isolated wetland would be expected to export less phosphorus than it receives from the
atmosphere.
Assumptions for wetlands would have a large effect on BMP requirements in some cases. A more
extensive search of regional data is recommended to identify appropriate runoff coefficients and
concentrations for wetlands. Meanwhile, I recommend that site-specific data be required to estimate
baseline loads for projects involving wetlands.
Section 3.5,2
Page 3-24, Paragraph 3
Jonathan E. Jones
This paragraph was the subject of Question 9 in the charge. As noted above. the 50%-50% assumption for
annual runoff volume is arbitrary. This may be a useful assumption in absence of other data; however, we
strongly recommend the use of site-specific data when available. Wetland hydrology varies seasonally
and from year to year. It would be useful for the authors to provide their rationale behind the 50%-50%
assumption. We believe that it is important for the Report to acknowledge the limitations of this
assumption and to allow for the use of site-specific data when available in lieu of the assumption.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 74 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
SECTION 4
Section 4
Ben R. Urbonas
1. The design examples are easy to follow.
2. As was discussed above, each example requires a number of assumptions on behalf of the person
doing the analysis. It is the accuracy and validity of the assumptions made that will determine the
accuracy of the comparisons between the pre- and post-development loads of constituents of
concern. Without strong guidance from professionals overseeing the planning and design of new
developments, this methodology can become a numbers game.
3. One minor example of the assumptions that was made can be founding example 2 where the runoff
coefficient from the wetland remains unchanged, yet it may be receiving additional runoff from the
newly developed lands. Typically, when larger amounts of hydrologic loading occur, a larger
percentage of runoff takes place (i.e., has higher runoff coefficients).
4. In example 2 a natural flow-through wetland is filled, which is a questionable development practice
in light of "no net loss of wetlands" federal policy. Mitigation of filled wetlands is not discussed in
the report or in this example. Without knowing the regulatory wetland policy in Florida one cannot
answer if this example provides a suggested practice that is acceptable. In addition, it assumes that
the soils used to fill the wetland will retain their pre-development hydrologic characteristics. This
assumption for Type C and 0 soils may not result in significant runoff differences, as they are very
thigh to begin with, but can be way off for Type A and B soil groups.
5. Another questionable assumption occurs in example 2. It is assumed that the rate of removals of
pre-treated runoff (i.e., by swales in this case) is the same by the pond as though the water entering
it was untreated runoff. Does that mean that if the runoff entering the pond is very clean one can
still expect the rates of removal (efficiencies) assumed in that example? There are diminishing
returns in removal of constituents by ponds or any other treatment facility and eventually a limit in
constituent concentration is reached after which one cannot expect cleaner effluent.
Section 4.1
Page 4-5, Paragraph 3
Jonathan E. Jones
It is not clear to us why the authors are suggesting that dry retention is an option on a site that has entirely
Class 0 hydrologic soil group soils. With soils this tight, an infiltration-based method should not work.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 75 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative ,)'tormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
APPENDIX A
Jonathan E, Jones
Appendix A
We offer the following comments on the tables included in Appendix A summarizing hydrologic
characteristics and storm water p01lutant characteristics for different land uses and different sites. Many of
the comments that we provide below are relevant to multiple tables in this appendix. Please note that we
have conducted our review of the data and information in Appendix A at a cursory level, and that
additional and more detailed comments could be made with a more in depth and time consuming review.
Our observations are as f01l0ws:
Table A.I. Column 2:The runoff coefficient ofO. I 69 for a 43.9% impervious site in
Pompano Beach is significantly lower than we would expect.
Table A,2:We believe that it would be useful to include the number of events for each study
and the coefficient of variation for mean values in this table. This would provide the reader
with some characterization of the limitations and variability of the data used. With regard to
the overa1l mean value reported in the last column of the table, we question whether this
value is an average of mean values from each site or an average of individual values pooled
from a1l sites. Based on a quick check of the first row for total nitrogen, it appears that mean
values for each site have been averaged to calculate the overa1l mean value. This may not be
an appropriate technique if some sites have significantly more data than other sites. EMC data
from sites with larger data pools are under-represented using this technique, while data from
sites with one, or only a few. data points are over-represented. We would recommend
comparing the overall mean value obtained from averaging individual data points from sites
pooled together with the values that are reported in the tables in Appendix A.
Tables A.5. A.7. and A.9:We note in these tables that runoff coefficient values reported in
many cases are higher than the maximum annual runoff coefficient of 0.782 in Table 4. In
Tables A.5 and A. 7, it is not clear if the runoff coefficients reported are for individual storm
events or represent annual average runoff coefficients. In Table A.9, however, the fifth row is
clearly labeled '"annual runoff coefficient". Four values in this row are greater than the
maximum value in Table 4. and, in fact. one of these values (C = 0.85) from the Orlando 1-4
site is from a study conducted by Harper in ] 988.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 76 01 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
VI. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
James P. Heaney
Citations for this review
Adams, B.J. and F. Papa. 2000. Urban Stormwater Management Planning with Ana]ytica] Probabilistic
Mode]s. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Barrett, M.E. (2004) "Performance and design of vegetated BMPs in the highway environment." Proc.
EWRl/ASCE World Water & Environmental Resources Congress, Salt Lake City, UT, June 27-Ju]y ],
2004.
Di Toro, D.M., and MJ. Small. ]979. Stormwater interception and storage. Jour. of Environmental
Engineering, Vol. 105, No. EEl.
Goforth, G.F., Heaney, J.P., and W.e. Huber. ]983. Comparison of Basin Performance Mode]ing
Techniques, Journa] of Environmenta] Engineering, Vol. ]09, No.5.
Heaney, J.P., et aI. ] 977. Nationwide Eva]uation of Combined Sewer Overflows and Urban Stormwater
Discharges, Volume II: Cost Assessment and Impacts. US EPA, EPA-600/2-77-0Mb, Cincinnati, Ohio.
1111 n:llwww,ena.~o,/ednnrmrl/renository/EP A-600-2- 77-064100020007 -] .PD F
Heaney, J.P., et al. 1979. Nationwide Cost of Controlling Combined Sewer Overflows and Urban
Stormwater Discharges, Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 51, No.8.
Howard, CD.D. 1976. Theory of storage and treatment plant overflows. Jour. of Environmental
Engineering, Vol. ]02, No. EE4.
Kadlec, R. and R. Knight. ]996. Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press.
Lee, J., and J.P. Heaney. 2002. Directly Connected Impervious Areas as Major Sources of Urban
Stormwater Quality Problems-Evidence from South Florida. In Proc. 7" Biennial Conference on
Stormwater Research and Water Quality Management, Tampa, Florida.
Lee, J., and J.P. Heaney. 2003. Urban imperviousness and its impacts on stormwater systems. Jour. Of
Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 129, No.5, p. 419-426.
Metcalf and Eddy. 2003. Wastewater Engineering, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hili, New York.
Miller, R.A. ] 979. Characteristics of Four Urbanized Basins in South Florida., U.S. Geological Survey Open
File Report 79-694, Tallahassee, Florida, 45 p.
Pack, C. 2004. Design Methodology for Highway Vegetated ]nfiltration BMPs. ME Thesis, U. of
Colorado, Boulder.
Pack, C.A., Heaney, J.P., and J. G. Lee. 2005. Long-term Perfonnance Modeling of
VegetativelInfiltration BMPs for Highways. ASCE EWRl Conference Proceedings, Anchorage, Alaska,
May.
Harper Method. Draft
Page 77 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest f70rida
(The 'Harper Method')
Pitt, R. et al. 2004. National Storm water Quality Database.
h tt n:/ III n ix.en 2.. u3.ed u/-rnit t/H.csea rch/ms-VPa ner/recent na De r.ll tm
Rapp, D. 2004. Methodology for Design of Storage-Release BMPs for Highway Systems. ME Thesis. U.
of Colorado, Boulder.
Rapp, D.N., Heaney, J.P., and J. G. Lee. 2005. Methodology for Design and Optimization of Highway
Detention Basins. ASCE EWRI Conference Proceedings. Anchorage. Alaska, May.
Sample. D. 2003. Decentralized Urban Water Infrastructure Systems. PhD Dissertation, U. of Colorado,
Boulder.
Walker, W. and R. Kadlec. 2005. Dynamic Model for Stormwater Treatment Areas, DMSTA.
h t t n: 11\\\\",a II,e r.n etl d m s la 1
Recent and Ongoing Research by Heaney et al.
Project Reports
EPA Report
Heaney, J.P. and J. Lee. 2005. Methods for optimizing urban wet-weather control systems. Final Report
to US EPA, Edison, NJ
Spreadsheet-based methods for simulating and optimizing the design and operation of urban H'et-weather
BMPs.
WERF Report
Geosyntec Consultants, Oregon State U.. U. of Florida, Louisiana State U. 2005. Critical Assessment of
Stormwater Treatment and Controllssues-WERF Guidance Manual. 2005. Water Environment Research
Foundation, Alexandria, V A, Report available in late 2005.
Thorough stale qf the art revinl' (~lalternative methods o.levaluating urban wet-weather water quality
control s..vstems including single design events, jj<equency methods such as the HA1, continuous simulation
using EP A SWMA1 and ~preadsheets, and conjunctive simulation/optimization of wet-weather controls.
Application is to urhan systems.
NCHRP Report
Oregon State U., Geosyntec Consultants, U. of Florida, and Low Impact Development Center. 2005.
Methods for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Highway BMPs for Stormwater Management. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington. D.C. Report available in late 2005.
Thorough state o.l the art review o.l alternative methods 0.( evaluating urban wet-weather water quality
control systems including single design events, frequency methods such as the HM, continuous simulation
using EP A SJVM.A1 and spreadsheets, and c0l1iunctive simulation/optimization o.fwet-weather controls.
Applieationfoeuses on major highway systems. Includes detailed evaluation of the results of the $30
million CALTRANS monitoring program in Calilornia that provides high quality data on actual
pelformance ofBMPs. Companion pr(4eCI includes evaluation qflow impact development options.
Corps Report
Heaney, J.P., Knight, S., and D. Reisinger. 2005. Evaluation of the Effect of Upstream Storage on the
Effectiveness of Storm water Treatment Areas in the Everglades Agricultural Area. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Jacksonville. FL. Report available in late 2005.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 78 01 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Sout/rnlest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Application of simulation and optimization methods to find cost-eflective designs for improving water
quality. Application is to natural and agricultural areas.
Pa pers
Pack, C.A., Heaney, J.P., and J. G. Lee. 2005. Long-term Performance Modeling of
Vegetativellnfiltration BMPs for Highways. ASCE EWRI Conference Proceedings, Anchorage, Alaska,
May.
Rapp, D.N., Heaney, J.P., and J. G. Lee. 2005. Methodology for Design and Optimization of Highway
Detention Basins. ASCE EWRI Conference Proceedings, Anchorage, Alaska, May.
Lee, J.G., Heaney, J.P., Rapp, D.N., and C.A. Pack. 2005. Life cycle optimization for highway BMPs.
Proc. 10th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Copenhagen, Denmark, August.
Lee, J.G., Heaney, J.P., and D. Lai. 2005. Optimization of integrated urban wet-weather control strategies.
Jour. of Water Resources Planning and Management, July.
Pack, C.A., Heaney, J.P. and J. G. Lee. 2004. Optimization of Roadside Infiltration for Highway Runoff
Control. Froc. ASCE/EWRl Congress, Salt Lake City, UT, June.
Rapp, D.N., Heaney, J.P., and J.G. Lee. 2004. Optimization of Detention Basins for Highway Runoff
Control. Proc. ASCE/EWRl Congress, Salt Lake City, UT, June.
Lee, J., and J.P. Heaney. 2003. Urban imperviousness and its impacts on stormwater systems. Jour. Of
Water Resources Planning and Management. Vol. 129, No.5, p. 419-426.
Sample, D., Heaney, J.P., Wright, L., Fan, C-Y., Lai, F-H., and R. Field. 2003. Costs of best management
practices (BMPs) and associated land for urban stormwater control. Jour. Of Water Resources Planning
and Management, Vol. 129. No.1, p. 59-68.
Alexander, D. and J.P. Heaney. 2003. Comparison of Conventional and Low Impact Development
Designs. Proc. _ Experience with Best Management Practices in Colorado. Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District, Denver, p. 86-93. http://www.udfcd.orgl030409%20ConfProceedings%20-%20C.pdf
Recent Dissertations and Theses
Pack, C. 2004. Design Methodology for Highway Vegetated lnfiltration BMPs. ME Thesis, U. of
Colorado, Boulder.
Rapp, D. 2004. Methodology for Design of Storage-Release BMPs for Highway Systems. ME Thesis, U.
of Colorado, Boulder.
Alexander, D. 2003. Comparison of Conventional and Low Impact Development Wet-weather Designs.
M.E. Thesis, U.ofColorado, Boulder.
Wright, L. 2003. Design Optimization ofa Sanitary Sewer Overflow Control Plan. PhD Dissertation, U.
of Colorado, Boulder.
Sample, D. 2003. Decentralized Urban Water Infrastructure Systems. PhD Dissertation, U. of Colorado,
Boulder.
Harper Method. Draft
Page 79 of 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative S'tormwater Regulations/or Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Lee, Joong. 2003. Process Analysis and Optimization of Distributed Urban Stonnwater Management
Strategies. PhD Dissertation. U. of Colorado. Boulder.
Jonathan E, JOlles
Driscoll, E.D., G.E. palhegyi. E.W. Strecker, and P.E. Shelley. 1989. Analysis oj Storm Events
Characteristicsfor Selected Rainfall Gauges Throughout the United States. USEPA. P. 43.
USEPA. 1986. MethodologyJor Analysis of Detention Basins/or Control of Urban Runoff Quality.
William W. Walker
Kadlec, R.H. & R. L. Knight. Treatment Wetlands, Lewis Publishers, 1996.
Pollman, C.D., W.M. Landing, J.J. Perry. T. Fitzpatrick, "Wet Deposition of Phosphorus in Florida",
Atmosoheric Environment, Vol. 36, pp 2309-23 I 8,2002.
Reckhow. K.H. & S.C. Chapra, Engineering Aooroaches for Lake Management. Butterworth, 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Eutrophication Survey, "A Compendium of Lake &
Reservoir Data Collected by the National Eutrophication Survey in Eastern, North-Central, & Southwestern
United States", Working Paper No. 475. Corvallis Environmental Research Lab and Environmental
Monitoring & Support Lab, Las Vegas, September 1978.
Walker, W.W., "Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments - Report 3: Model
Refinements", prepared for Office, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., Technical Report E-
81-9, U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, March 1985.
Walker, W.W.. "Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff Detention Basins", Lake & Reservoir Management,
Vol. 3. pp. 314-326, 1987.
h t t n: I Iwww.WI,""alkcr.nct/ndf/dbasins.lldl
Walker, W.W., "Design Calculations for Wet Detention Ponds", prepared for St. Paul Water Utility &
Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization, Minnesota, October 1987b.
h 11n: II",,,,,,,. \v,,"\Va lkt, r. n cOnd 1'1 s nwu ({('s. n d f
Walker, W.W., "Flow & Phosphorus Routing in Pond Networks". prepared forSt. Paul Water Utility, Version
2.1, March 1989.
hit n://www.wwwalkcr.nct/ndf/nondnct.ndf
Harper Method - Draft
Page 80 01 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Storrnwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
Walker, W.W., "P8 Urban Catchment Model", prepared for IEP Inc., USEPA/RIDEM Narragansett Bay
Project, Wisconsin DNR, CH2MHill, et aI., 1990-2000.
h tt n :II,,~,'''' """a lker.n et/n8/ind ex.h t m
Walker, W.W., "BA THTUB-Simplified Techniques for Eutrophication Assessment&Prediction- Version
6.1 ", prepared for Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, April 2004.
h tt II: II"",,,, ",,>va lke r, n d/eoe/ba th tll b,e h 111
Walker, W.W., "DMSTA Calibration & Enhancements for Reservoirs", prepared for U.S. Anny Corps of
Engineers and U.S. Department of the Interior, DRAFT, March 2005.
http://www.wwwalker.net/dmstaJreservoirs
Larry A. Roesner
ASCEIEPA. (2002), Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring: A Guidance Manualfor Meeting
National Stormwater BMP Database Requirements. EPA-821-B-02-001. USEPA Office of Water,
Washington, DC. April 2002.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (2004), Peer Review of Storm water Management Criteria in Evaluation of
Alternative Stormwater Regulations for Southwest Florida. Task Assignment 005.01/04-xxx under the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection contract with the Florida Atlantic University Center for
Environmental Studies.
Hartigan, J.P. (1989), Basis For Design a/Wet Detention Basin BMPs. Design of Urban Runoff Quality
Controls; Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference on Current Practice and Design Criteria for
Urban Quality Control, ed. L.A. Roesner, B.R. Urbonas, and M.B. Sonnen, ASCE, NY, 122-143.
Wong, T.H.F. and Breen, P.F. (2002), Recent Advances in Australian Practice on the use of Constructed
Wetlands for Stormwater Treatment. Proceedings ofthe 9,h International Conference on Urban Drainage,
Portland, Oregon, USA, 9-13 September 2002.
Harper Method - Draft
Page 81 ot 82
04/05
Peer Review of Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulationsfor Southwest Florida
(The 'Harper Method')
APPENDIX A
REVIEWER COMMENTS
Harper Method - Draft
Page 82 at 82
04/05
Exhibit XI:
Evaluation of Current
Stormwater Design
Criteria within the
State of Florida:
Final Report
Evaluation of Current
Stormwater Design
Criteria within tile
State of Florida
Final Report
,
,(.
)
Prepared for:
'.M'i'tIO'~""
0\,', \',;, ~f':~.'.~1 ,j' '.
'~'\\" -
,~t::.-..;,. ~~.. ",
...~;:' ~ .<<, r~
.',' 'J. \
I FlORI15A.J'''- j
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FDEP Contract No. 50108
June 2007
Prepared By:
Harvey H. Harper, Ph.D., P.E.
David M. Baker, P.E.
Environmental Research & Design, Inc.
3419 Trentwood Blvd., Suite 102
Orlando, Fl 32812
2-2
Chapter 62-40.432, titled "Surface Water Management Regulation", establishes guidelines
for regulation of surface water management systems. Paragraph 2 of this section establishes
minimum stormwater treatment performance standards as follows:
"When a stormwater management system complies with rules establishing the design and
performance criteria for such systems, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the
discharge from such systems will comply with State water quality standards. The
Department and the Districts, pursuant to Section 373.418, F.S., shall, when adopting rules
pertaining to stormwater management systems, specifY design and performance criteria for
new stormwater management systems which:
I. Achieve at least 80% reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would
cause or contribute to violations of State water quality standards
2. Achieve at least 95% reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would
cause or contribute to violations of State water quality standards in Outstanding
Florida Waters."
Based upon the language outlined above, all stormwater management systems designed within the
State of Florida must "achieve at least 80% reduetion of the annual average load of pollutants that
would cause or eontribute to violations of state water quality standards", This statement forms the
minimum basis for all stormwater design criteria within the State of Florida.
If stormwater management systems are designed according to the goals and guidelines
established in Chapter 62-40, there is a rebuttable presumption that the discharge from the
stormwater system will comply with state water quality standards. Specific numerical criteria for
regulated water quality constituents are outlined in Chapter 62-302 F AC, titled "Surface Water
Quality Standards", This chapter establishes the minimum water quality levels which are necessary
to protect the designated uses of a waterbody. Chapter 62-302.400 outlines five surface water
classifications, according to designated uses, as follows: (1) Class I - Potable Water Supplies;
(2) Class II _ Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting; (3) Class III - Recreation, Propagation and
Maintenance ofa Healthy Well-Balanced Population ofFish and Wildlife; (4) Class IV- Agricultural
Water Supplies; and (5) Class V -Navigation, Utility and Industrial Use. Water quality
classifications are arranged in order of the degree of protection required, with Class I water having
generally the most stringent water quality criteria and Class V the least. In general, all surface
waters of the State of Florida are classified as Class III unless otherwise specified, A listing of
waterbodies classified as Class I, Class II, or Class IV is given in Ch, 62-302.400(12).
Chapter 62-302.700, titled "Special Protection - Outstanding Florida Waters, Outstanding
Natural Resource Waters", establishes a list of waters within the State of Florida to be afforded a
higher level of protection. No degradation of water quality is to be permitted in Outstanding Florida
Waters (OFW). To achieve this goal, Chapter 62-40 establishes that stormwater management
systems discharging to Outstanding Florida Waters be designed to achieve at least a 95% reduction
of the average armual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state water
quality standards.
fDEPISTORMWATER TREATMENT REPORT
5-8
A summary of treatment efficiencies for wct detention systems based on selected
research studies in Florida is given in Table 5-2. Measured removal efficiencies for
orthophosphorus, total phosphorus, TSS, and heavy metals are relatively consistent between the
studies presented within the table. In contrast, a high degrec of variability in measured removal
efficiencies is present for total nitrogen. Removal cfficicncies for total nitrogen range from 12-
63% for the studies presented in Table 5-2. Wet detention systems provide mean removal
efficiencies of approximately 60-65% for total phosphorus, BOD, and copper, while removal
efficiencies for orthophosphorus, TSS, lead, and zinc approach or exceed 75-85%.
TABLE 5-2
TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES FOR WET
DETENTION SYSTEMS BASED ON SELECTED
RESEARCH STUDIES IN FLORIDA
STUDY TYPE OF MEAN REMOVAL EFFICIENCtES (%)
REFERENCE SITEI EFFICIENCtES Total Ortho- Total Total Total Total
LAND USE REPORTEn N P P TSS Bon Cu Pb Zu
PBS&J Brevard
County/ Surface WaleT -- -- 69 94 -- -- 96 --
(1982) Commercial
Cullum Boca RalOn/ SurfaceWatcr 12 93 55 68 -- -- -- --
(1984\ Residential Overall 15 82 60 64 -- -- -- --
Yousef, et aI. Maitland! Surface Water 35 94 " 56 88 92
(1986\ HiQ'hwav -- --
Yousef, et al. EPCOT ! Surface Water 44 92 6:2 88
(1986) Hil!hwa" -- -- -- --
Martin & Miller Orlandoi Surtace Water ::,7 :IN 66 40
(1987) Urban -- -- -- --
Harper Orlandoi' SurfaceWaler 91 82 90 90 90 96
(1988) Residential --
Harper & Herr DeBary/ Overall
Commercial lL 1,,=7 days 20 40 60 85 50 40 60 1;5
(1993) & Residential b. t'I=14 daYs 30 611 70 85 60 50 85 95
Rushton & Dye Tampa/Light Surface Water -- 67 65 55 -- -- -- 51
(1993) Commercial
Overall
Rushton, et al Tampa.' a. t.10-2 days JJ 69 62 71 -- ND ND 56
(1995) Commercial h. td"=' days 1(, 39 <7 67 -- I ND 32
L V"14davs 63 92 90 94 -- 55 92 87
DB <I. td"] day 4 56 20 -- -- 32 41 --
Environmental Melbourne b. v"'7 days 3.1 " 56 -- -- 81 8' --
(2005) c. td"""14 davs 36 gg 65 -- 92 96 --
MEAN VALUES. 37 7" 6" n 75 69 84 85
1, Based on 14-day residence time, if applicable
FDEP'STORMWATER TREATME!\T RFPORl
5-9
In many of the studies, the ability of the system to remove total nitrogen was heavily
dependent upon the proportion of total nitrogen present as organic nitrogen, Organic nitrogen is
not readily available, either biologically or chemically, and there are relatively few mechanisms
for removal of this species in a wet detention system. In contrast, both NOx and NH3 are readily
taken up in biological processes which accounts for the relatively good removal efficiencies
achieved for these species in wet detention ponds. In systems where organic nitrogen represents
the dominant portion of the total nitrogen in the incoming stormwater flow, removal of total
nitrogen can be expected to be relatively poor. If inorganic species of NOx and NH3 represent
the dominant nitrogen species found, then removal efficiencies for total nitrogen can be expected
to increase. On an average basis, wet detention systems with a detention time of 14 days can be
expected to provide a net removal of approximately 20-40% for total nitrogen; 60-70% for total
phosphorus and copper; and 75-85% or more for TSS, total lead and total zinc,
The report by Harper and Herr (1993) presents separate removal efficiencies for pond
residence times of approximately 7 days, along with detention times of 14 days or more, With
the exception of TSS, increasing the pond detention time results in a slight improvement in
removal efficiencies for the listed parameters, At a detention time of 7 days, removal of total
nitrogen, total phosphorus and TSS is estimated to be approximately 20%, 50%, and 85%,
respectively. At a detention time of 14 days, removal of total nitrogen, total phosphorus and
TSS increase slightly to approximately 30%, 70%, and 85%, respectively. Little additional
improvement in removal efficiencies was observed for most parameters at detention times in
excess of 14 days up to the maximum detention time of 41 days included in the study,
The report by Ruston, et al. (1995) summarizes pollutant removal efficiencies achieved
within a wet detention pond in Tampa which receives stormwater runoff from a light commercial
area, Pollutant removal efficiencies are provided for pond detention times of 2, 5, and 14 days.
In general, pollutant removal efficiencies obtained at a detention time of 2 days are lower than
removal efficiencies obtained at a detention time of 14 days for all evaluated parameters.
However, the lowest removal efficiencies in the study were obtained at the 5-day detention time.
Rushton, et al. reports that the lower efficiencies observed during the 5-day detention time study
period were highly influenced by one extreme storm event where almost 6 inches of rain
occurred during a single week.
The most recent study to evaluate impacts of residence time on performance efficiency
was conducted by DB Environmental (2005). This study was performed on a wet detention pond
in Melbourne where portions of the pond were isolated to create microcosms to simulate
residence times of I, 7, and 14 days, In general, removal efficiencies for all of the evaluated
parameters increased with increases in detention time within the microcosms. The removal
efficiencies achieved at the l4-day residence time are similar to values reported by Harper and
Herr (1993), also for a 14-day residence time,
FDEP\ STORMWATER TREATMENT REPORT
DRAWN BY:
==
PROJECT .:
9418
DATE:
08-01-06
SCALE:
1"=1200'
.
v_
. .~'-...
...
~ .,."
~
- ... j
, .,. ...
-, ...
,~ ~
...
"'-
\ -
,
"
..
"'
\.1
" k"
REVlEWEOBY:
TTT
EXHIBIT:
TAB NAME:
llxl7 Exotics REVISIONS:
07-17-07
TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, 1Ne.
Mlrine & Environmental <lmIuIting
35M Exchanp Ave. 8uitll e,
Naplea.F1.34104-3732
PhoIle:(n9)643-0166
Fax: (239)643-6632
email: tuna@tumll-usociltes.com
11D
os.ml81a.M
FILENAME:
""\8~~EI88.1Mg
NATIVE VEGETATION
853.2 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION (>25% NATIVE CANOPY)
GMP REQUIRES 60% PRESERVATION OF NATIVE
VEGETATION. FOR THIS SITE, A MINIMUM OF 511.9
ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION MUST BE PRESERVED.
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWS 461.6 ACRES OF
NATIVE PRESERVE SO A MINIMUM OF 50.3 ACRES FROM
OFF-SITE SENDING LANDS (SECTION 11) MUST ALSO BE
PRESERVED.
P.U.D. ACREAGES
. UPLAND AREAS [<75% EXOTICS] (262.70 AC.)
(e1) 0-25% EXOTICS [80.13 WETLAND AC.]
(e2) 26-50% EXOTICS [177.75 WETLAND AC.]
(e3) 51-75% EXOTICS [332.65 WETLAND AC.]
76-100% EXOTICS [690.47 AC]
WETLAND (690.47 AC.)
2{1OO
I
llAAWINllI ARE FORflIRMITl'IIG PUIlPOlIE8
Y _ ARE !lOT tH'I1NOIO FOR CONlITR\JC'TION USE.
... ACMAGE CALCUl.ATlONlIARE APPROlCIMATE M NO
DATA AVAlUlIl.E.
~ II <.~= ~C ~L
NATIVE HABITAT: UPLANDS
;:
,
~
I'
ii
.,'::;'~Y' -
j",_,,"\yi;':"'. ,_.
-t..". _""1.,,., ,
~ :'r' "~'<;)""'~' ~ II
:.,;;ki~'_" ,
:,-~,''''~'-'
~i;"':~"''-::b';-
..l'.., ' ,',-
~ ,,-...~':" "
:
,
~
I,
...'
,,'"
~~
7--:='
x
if'
~
~
..
C:\Oocumenl1landSaUlngslBrlan.8BnIl:lnIDBlIId,..,.;ng3.dwg
'('111111 'J~l.~!' 1'1'\1<11/\
w.~
s
~,
'.
}s ~ ~urrell, Hall & Associates, me,
, "'''c Manne & Envrronmental Consultmg
V-- . 3584 Exchange Ave, Suite B. Naples, FL 34104-3732
Email: tuna@mmll"""".,com Phone: (239) 64J-Q166 Fax: (239) 643-6632
DESIGNED: T.T.T. REVISION:
DRA'MII BY: NlA
CREATED: NlA
JOB NO.: NlA
SECTION~ TOWNSHIP-
TAB NAME:
SHEET:
SCALE:
AS SHOWN
RANGE-
(")
o
~
CfJ
(')
""
t'D
~
~
~
""
CfJ
=-
~
~
....
t'D
""
CfJ
=-
t'D
Q,.
,. .
I <~
mea
(II ~ G) It
<D C/Jg
Cll - 0=
0 <D
J ~ -0
~:::l
-
0
0
<
It
..
III
ea
It
-
CJlJ: ~J::.i:
o '< <D '< Cll
~ Q. - Q. ::J
C ~
.,. _. "'0 ::::!. co
0 ill 0 0
OJ:
'< Cll ::;" !! <
1/ 3 -, III <D
<D ~ Cj
$ 3 0
(Jl 0 0 0
0 Q.
"" '"l
III ~
rIJ
:.i: :.i: :.i:CJlO ~
<D <D III ~ '< '"l
(Jl (Jl iil III 1/ ~
(=i' n" J 3 <D ~
J: .... "Cl III
Q) ii" 61
3 ~ ~ ~
3 0 <D
0 0 ~ ~
o Q.
"" '"l
IIII rIJ
t:l'"
z 0 x x ~
0 or <D <D
Q. - ~ ~
c c;' c;' ~
III ~
iit g .... .....
Q. ill ~
~ '"l
0 rIJ
0
Q. t:l'"
~
Q..
, '~,~
, "4>' .-...._
-, .,.... "'''Lt;.
.,..., ,. -"""
.. ......,,.~,
.' ,"' ~'. -:::..--.... '
-.
'.
,
,
~
BEFORE THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY THE CONSERVANCY OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA ON PUDZ-A-2007, MIRASOL RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Submitted on behalf of the Applicant by Steve Walker, Esq., Lewis, Longman & Walker
March 19,2009
This memorandwn is submitted in response to the March 19, 2009 submittal by the
Government Relations Manager of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The purpose of this
memoreandwn is to respond to the Conservancy's proposed interpretation of portions of the
Collier County Comprehensive Plan, and provide rebuttal to a nwnber of the Conservancy's
misstatements concerning the review and approval of the Mirasol PUO as currently permitted by
the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMO") and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers ("Corps").
1. The Project Complies With CCME Objective 2.1(d).
Objective 2.1 of the County's Comprehensive Plan is devoted to the preparation of
watershed management plans to protect the County's wetland and estuarine systems. In
particular, the Conservancy has identified Objective 2.1 (d) as pertinent to the Mirasol PUO
application. This provision provides:
All developments located identified on Figure 1 shall be evaluated to determine
impacts to natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs. For this particular evaluation,
natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs shall be tentatively identified as
contiguous lands having a continual preponderance of wetland or wet facultative
plant species and a ground elevation through the major portion of the natural
wetland, flowway or slough at least one (1) foot lower than the ground at the edge
of the natural wetland, flowway or slough. The edge of the natural wetlands,
flowways or sloughs shall be identified by field determination and based upon
vegetation and elevation differences from the adjacent uplands or transitional
wetlands. The County shall require the applicant to avoid direct impacts to
these natural wetlands, flowways, or sloughs or when not possible, to ensure
that any direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing the same
conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact. The County shall adhere to the
limiting discharge rates of each basin as outlined in Ordinance 2001-27, adopted
May 22, 2001, which amended the County Water Management Policy and
provided basin delineations where special peak discharge rates have been
established. The limiting discharge rates will be reviewed as a part of the
Watershed Management Plans, and modified according to the analysis and
findings of the Watershed Management Plans.
Objective 2.1 (d) (emphasis added).
The Conservancy seeks to stretch Objective 2.1(d)'s interim watershed management
policies, arguing that 2.1(d) requires additional avoidance or reduction of wetland impacts
beyond that required in state and federal permitting - and even beyond that required by the
County's own wetland protection ordinances. This argument improperly expands Objective
2.1 (d) from a floodplain conveyance provision into the realm of generalized wetland protection.
The argument is flawed for the following reasons.
Where there is any doubt as to the meaning of an enactment, the purpose for which it was
enacted is of primary importance in the interpretation thereof. Cason v. Dept. of Management
Services, 944 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2006); Sunshine State News Co. v. State, 121 So. 2d Fla. 3d DCA
1960). The purpose and underlying intent of a statute is properly ascertained by resorting to the
legislative history leading up to its enactment in order to determine the intent of the provision in
question. State v. Jefferson, 758 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2000); Gelzer v. Diamond, 920 So. 2d 1235
(Fla. 5th DCA 2006). The legislative origin of Objective 2.1(d) and the circumstances underlying
its enactment make clear that Objective 2.1 generally is intended to protect natural sheet flow
and drainage functions on a basin-wide scale. Objective 2.I(d) serves as an interim safeguard
against severing or constricting watershed drainage while the County prepares and adopts formal
Watershed Management Plans. Thus, until a formal Watershed Management Plan is established'
for a given basin, the County must evaluate whether a pending development application will
impact a wetland, flowway or slough that would be covered by such a Plan, and must require that
the developer avoid direct impacts to the wetland, flowway or slough, or when not possible,
minimize such impact and compensate for unavoidable direct impacts by providing the same
conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact. Accordingly, the legislative history of Objective
2.1 (d) does not support application of the term to wetland protection generally as advocated by
project opponents.
Analysis of the express language and terms of Objective 2.1 (d) establish that the
Objective is directed to addressing conveyance of surface waters - and not general wetland
protection as suggested by opponents. First, Objective 2.1 (d) cannot be read in a vacuum, but
must instead be read in pari materia with the remainder of the Objective. Zold v. Zold, 911 So.
2d 1222 (Fla. 2005); Ortiz v. Department of Health, Bd. of Medicine, 882 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2004). Thus, in determining the scope and meaning of paragraph (d), the provision must
be read together with, and in light of, the other paragraphs in the Objective. Id. Review of the
entire Objective 2.1 as a whole, makes it very clear that the Objective is not directed to wetland
protection, but is confined to protecting conveyance of water on a basin-wide level. Each of the
2
other paragraphs expressly deals with storage and conveyance of surface waters. In short, none
of the remaining provisions of Objective 2.] can properly be characterized as relating to wetland
regulations outside of protecting conveyance of surface waters.
Objective 2.](d) is not a wetlands protection ordinance. By its plain terms it is directed at
impacts to the flood storage and conveyance capacity of the wetlands - not to the generalized
"wetland functions" typically addressed by SFWMD's Environmental Resource Permitting
("ERP") criteria. The Conservancy attempts to read one portion of one sentence in 2.1(d) in
isolation of the remainder of the Objective and artificially create an additional wetland avoidance
and minimization requirement.
The term "wetland" as used in Objective 2.1 (d) is not coextensive with jurisdictional
wetlands. The term "wetlands" is repeatedly used as a descriptive term as part of a list -
"wetland, flowway or slough". The three terms are repeatedly joined throughout the Objective.
Nowhere in the Objective 2.](d) is the term "wetland" used in isolation of the terms "flowway"
and "slough." ]t is settled that the meaning of particular terms in a statute may be ascertained by
reference to words associated with them in a statute. Under doctrine of nocitur a sociis, which
literally means that a word is known by the company it keeps, one must examine all the words
used together in a string or list of concepts in order to derive the overall intent. Nehme v.
Smilhkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 863 So. 2d 20] (Fla. 2003); Aerothrust Corp. v.
Granada Ins. Co., 904 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). General and specific words susceptible
to an analogous meaning by being associated together take color from each other. City of West
Palm Beach v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 746 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.
1999). Accordingly, general words are properly restricted to a less general meaning by the
context in which they are used in association 'with narrower terms. Carraway v. Armour & Co.,
]95 So. 2d 494 (Fla. ]91'3); State ex reI. Wedgworth Farms, Inc. v. Thomspon, 101 So. 2d 381
(Fla. 1958); Thus, the broader term "wetland" must be qualified by the narrower terms
"flowway" and "sloughs" which are repeatedly associated with it through the section.
As further evidence, Objective 2.1 (d) narrowly defines lands qualifying as "wetlands,
flowways or sloughs". Objective 2.1 expressly excludes some wetlands (i.e. transitional
wetlands) that would otherwise be "jurisdictional wetlands," and limits the reach of the Objective
to those lands which possess both the proper wetland vegetation and appropriate elevation.
Thus, simply having the character of a wetland is not enough to fall under this Objective.
Instead, the Objective is expressly limited to areas which, in their natural state, have the physical
capability to convey sheet flow as part of a drainage basin.
Contrary to the Conservancy's interpretation, not all "wetlands" would even fall under
this Objective. Only those wetlands that serve a conveyance function as part of a drainage basin
are addressed by the Objective. The limited reach of this Objective is conclusively established
3
by the fact that the Objective expressly states that mitigation for direct impacts to wetlands,
flowways and sloughs is not accomplished by restoration of wetlands or purchase of mitigation
credits - but only by replacing the sheet flow conveyance function that was lost due to the direct
impact. As such, the term "direct impact" is clearly qualified to mean "direct impact to the
conveyance capacity of a wetland, flowway or slough. Therefore, avoidance and minimization
specified in this section means avoiding or minimizing direct impacts which result in a loss of
conveyance capacity of the wetland, flowway or slough.
Attempts by the Conservancy to use this provision to argue for further reduction in the
development for the sake of reducing wetland impacts, is unsupported by the Objective.
Objective 2.1 (d) is neither intended, nor designed to serve as a wetland avoidance or
minimization regulation. Other provisions in the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations fill this role. Rather, expanding Objective 2.1(d) to do the same
injects an unnecessary and inappropriate amount of duplication into the County's regulations and
potentially creates conflicts with the County's actual wetland protection regulations which have
different standards for avoiding, minimizing and mitigating wetland impacts from this Objective.
It is clear that the currently designed Mirasol PUD application satisfies this provision.
First, impacts to the wetland, flowway or slough (even assuming such a thing remains in this
area), is unavoidable. The Mirasol property contains only scattered upland islands and .could not
be developed without substantial wetland encroachment. Additionally, further reduction of the
size of the development will not yield a gain in sheet flow conveyance capability from the
wetlands, flowways or sloughs. As conceded by the Conservancy, the sheet flow conveyance in
this area is already constricted by existing structural impediments which reduce the width of the
sheet flow down to a 270 foot gap located to the west of Mirasol. This impediment exists now,
and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the Mirasol PUD is ever built. The
Mirasol PUD does not affect this constriction. Currently, almost all the overland sheet flow
(approximately 553 cfs) must squeeze through this gap to reach the 1,000 foot weir and
discharge into the Cocohatchee Canal. Very little water (about 20 cfs) is discharged directly
from the Mirasol property. The entire water management plan was scrutinized by the
Conservancy's experts, was the subject of a two week trial, and was found by an Administrative
Law Judge and SFWMD to maintain existing flow levels by diverting the appropriate amount of
the overland sheet flow (a maximum of 200 cfs) through the center of the development using a
series of connected lakes.
The Conservancy attempts to cloud the issue by resurrecting the old Mirasol flowway
that was part of the prior project design. The Conservancy, who fought hard against the old
flowway, now has the audacity to suggest that its flood-protection function is a good thing and
necessary to meet the Comprehensive Plan. On this point, the Conservancy has grossly distorted
the record. The flowway was never "necessary" to compensate for the Mirasol PUD's
encroachment into the floodplain. In fact, the flowway compensated for flood plain
4
encroachments for Mirasol and two other partIcIpating developments, and additionally,
conveyed enough water to lower peak flood elevations in the entire area by 0,5 feet. Contrary
to the Conservancy's suggestions, the design was actually selected because SFWMD asked that a
regional flowway be incorporated into the project to help with flooding conditions in Bonita
Springs. The flowway was a regional benefit for other properties in addition to Mirasol and was
designed to convey far more water than needed to accommodate the Mirasol project alone. In
fact, the Corps denied Mirasol's original federal permit because the flowway was more than was
needed for this project.
The Conservancy then suggests that the Mirasol PUD, without the flowway, provides no
compensating storage. This is false. Unlike the flow-way, which was designed to convey the
area's entire sheet flow down to the 1,000-foot weir and into the Cocohatchee Canal, the current
system permitted by SFWMD and the Corps is designed to only provide enough compensating
storage to offset the project's footprint in the floodplain by accepting about 40% (200 cfs) of
water flows during periods of high water or flood, and passing that amount of water through the
center of the development and down to the Canal. The remainder of the overland sheet flow
continues to flow to the west of Mirasol and down to the weir. This design was specifically
tailored to leave water levels in adjacent and upstream wetlands unchanged while fully
compensating for Mirsol's footprint in the floodplain. This was the successfully established
during the 2007 trial and the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the project will not increase
flood stages. The Conservancy also raises several other technical critiques of the Mirasol
hydrologic model leveled by the Conservancy's paid expert witness - none of which were found
credible by the Administrative Law Judge. In spite of the fact that the Conservancy was unable
to prove these points during a two week trial, it continues to argue them before the Planning
Commission.
Since the proposal completely offsets both storage and conveyance functions that were
lost as a result of direct impacts to the floodplain, the letter, intent and spirit of Objective 2.I(d)
has been met.
2. The Project Complies with CCME 2.2 and Policies 2.2.2 and 2.3.6,
The Conservancy also tries to argue that the Mirasol PUD does not meet certain
objectives and policies in the Comprehensive Plan regarding protection of water quality. Once
again, the Conservancy attempts to resurrect old arguments that were rejected by SFWMD, an
Administrative Law Judge and the Corps. The Mirasol PUD has already undergone rigorous
water quality analysis by SFWMD and the Corps before the County ever considered the
application.
First, the Conservancy points to Objective 2.3 which requires canals, rivers and flow
ways discharging into estuaries to "meet all applicable Federal, State, or local water quality
standards. The Conservancy also points to Policy 2.3.6 which implements this requirement by
5
submittal of a specific type of water quality analysis - a pre-versus-post pollutant loading
analysis.
The Mirasol PUD does not discharge into an estuary. The Mirasol PUD discharges into
the pass-through lake system within the development, where it mixes with upstream waters
already being conveyed down to the Cocohatchee Canal. The Mirasol PUD then, secondarily
discharges into the Cocohatchee Canal. Water must travel several miles downstream, mixing
with water from thousands of different sources before discharging into the Wiggins Pass Estuary.
The Conservancy would argue that this constitutes discharge into an estuary. However, the
argument is specious, All water must go somewhere. Therefore, under the Conservancy's
interpretation of Objective 2.3 and Policy 2.3.6, every project would discharge into an estuary
(eventually) and every project in Collier County would require a pre-versus-post analysis of the
type described in 2.3.6.
Even if it could be argued that Mirasol discharges into an estuary, the Conservancy
provides no evidence that the Mirasol PUD fails to meet any water quality standards. In fact, all
state, federal and local agencies have already found that such standards are met or exceeded.
The Conservancy also points to Policy 2.3.6 which requires submittal of a pre-versus-post
pollutant loading analysis. The Conservancy then concedes that this analysis was done and
submitted to the County. The Conservancy's objection is directed only to the model used by the
applicant. First, the Conservancy argues that the Mirasol PUD is supported by an "outdated" and
"discredited" version of the so-called Harper Methodology which measures pre-versus-post
pollutant loadings. Yet the Mirasol PUD is supported by not one - but three separate Harper
pollutant loading calculations - one of which was performed by Dr. Harper himself using the
most recent version of his own study.
Next, the Conservancy argues that the Harper Methodology is "discredited", To this end,
the Conservancy has submitted a peer review of Dr. Harpers' work, while apparently missing the
point of a peer review - which is to provide an open scientific discourse and exchange. A peer
review does not "discredit" anything. Contrary to the Conservancy's arguments, Dr. Harper's
pre-versus-post loading calculation remains mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Corps, and is used extensively by SFWMD. The Conservancy's critique of Dr. Harper
has been repeatedly rejected. Dr. Harper's calculations were approved by the Administrative
Law Judge in the Mirasol ERP challenge and have also been approved in two other lawsuits. See
Captiva Civic Association, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management District, 2006 WL
3257349, p. 9 (F1a.Div,Admin.Hrgs., Nov. 8, 2006); Conservancy oJSouthwest Florida v. G.L.
Homes oJNaples Assoc. II, Ltd, 2007 WL 1455785, p. 14 (Fla.Div.Admin.Hrgs., May 15,2007).
The Conservancy's statement that "there was ample testimony in the challenge to the
Mirasol ERP that water quality standards would be violated" is absurd. The Conservancy
offered no evidence to rebut the testimony of two engineers and the SFWMD Director of the
6
Water Management Division (himself an engineer) that the Mirasol design met and actually
exceeded state standards, and exceeded state volumetric treatment criteria by more than 50%.
The Administrative Law Judge did not find any of the Conservancy's objections credible, and
concluded that the Mirasol PUD would not degrade water quality. The Conservancy now asks
the Planning Board to second guess the Administrative Law Judge, SFMWD, the Corps and two
highly regarded surface water engineers - including Dr. Harper himself.
The Conservancy also attempts to twist the application of the so-called 80% reduction
rule found in Department of Environmental Protection CDEP") Rule 62-40-432(2), F.A.C.,
arguing that if the Mirasol project does not remove at least 80% of total pollutants from its storm
water, it somehow violates state water quality standards. This argument was also tried before
and rejected by SFWMD and the Administrative Law Judge. The Conservancy disingenuously
omits from its connnents that the Administrative Law Judge found this argument to be "a broad
overstatement of DEP's rule." There is no 80% pollutant removal requirement in SFWMD's
criteria. Instead, the Administrative Law Judge pointed out that the 80% pollutant removal
criteria is aspirational and should be used by agencies in formulating their own permitting
criteria. National Audubon Society. Inc. v. SFMWD, DOAH Case No. 06-4157 at pg. 33-34
(Fla.Div.Admin.Hrgs. July 24, 2007). This contention was also made by the Conservancy and
rejected by another Administrative Law Judge in the challenge to the Satumia Falls ERP.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida v. G.L. Homes of Naples Assoc. II. Ltd., 2007 WL 1455785,
p. 14 (F1a.Div.Admin.Hrgs., May 15,2007).
In conclusion, t.~e ~1irascl pun is consistent v'lith all goals, objectives and policies of the
County Comprehensive Plan. The Conservancy's last-minute critique merely rehashes old
arguments that have been repeatedly rejected by judges and state and federal agencies in the past.
The Conservancy is merely attempting to re-litigate its ERP challenge before the Ccunty, and
asks that the County Planning Commission discard and second guess the professional judgment
of SFWMD and the Corp and overturn the decision of an Administrative Law Judge who, after
hearing these same arguments over the course of a two-week trial, concluded that there was no
basis to these claims.
7
r
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
~fl( ; I,C\~)I
>
Ill) CL 1 YlrIl [y/(::: I! J
-
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: ~_
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
>) \L k '" (I;ll ^"" I",,, I ') I
NAME: \, ' . ,Ie ADDRESS: I' LJ,! t'\[ r If I\i ! _. t
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER:( OTHER: (1~'Jr I(>!' \(li ( O,j
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No> 07-24 REOUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYI G ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLE TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD' MINUTES AND RECO~DS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL.
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
;V1,. rr..~-t
PIJD/RL
I
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
~
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
NAME:
i3 r~ CY'~
ADDRESS: t; r (,
A"..l.. 1.._ Serf:.
/0'11"- Av..,jJ
.
:3 'i 1/1 iI
,
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER: 6/ (,'l"r ~ PrA.
OTHER:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL.
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.