The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 06/13/2001 S COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA · Wednesday, June 13, 2001 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE- ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 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. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMII'FED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1 June 13, 2001 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Request that the Board of County Commissioners consider and endorse the Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies and direct staff to prepare draft Growth Management Plan Amendments for Resolution of Remedial Actions directed in the Administration Commission Final Order AC-99-02 for the Rural Fringe Assessment Area. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774.-8383. 2 June 13, 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSSIONERS CONSIDER AND ENDORSE THE RURAL FRINGE AREA ASSESSMENT CONCEPTUAL STATEGIES AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR RESOLUTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS DIRECTED IN THE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION FINAL ORDER AC-99-02 FOR THE RURAL FRINGE ASSESSMENT AREA OBJECTIVE: To receive policy direction fi.om the BCC for staff to prepare draft GMP amendments, based on the Conceptual Strategies, in conjunction with the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee, for a transmittal public hearing in October 2001. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the Final Order imposed by the Governor and Cabinet in June 1999, the State of Florida has mandated certain revisions to Collier County's Growth Management Plan. The Final Order requires that these revisions become effective prior to June 22, 2002 and allows the County to conduct a Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment (Assessment) to collect the appropriate date, gather public input and recommend amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Major issues to be addressed by the Assessment include protecting wetlands, wildlife and their habitats, managing storm water to protect water quality, protecting prime agricultural lands form the premature conversion to other uses, and assessing the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of these rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away fi.om critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, cjustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. The Final Order allows the Qounty to conduct the assessment in phases. Accordingly, Collier County has divided the Assessment into two geographical areas, the Rural Fringe Area and the Eastern Lands Area. Collier County has also established the Rural Fringe Area Oversight Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) and the Eastern Lands Area Oversight Committee to address the planning for each respective area. The Final Order notes that public participation will be the "hallmark" of this planning effort. The Advisory Committees and the interactive Assessment web site have been among the primary mechanisms to inform the public and solicit community input to undertake various tasks in the study. Since October 27, 1999, the Rural Fringe Assessment Area Oversight Committee has held thirty- six (36) public meetings, which have culminated in the conceptual strategies, which are being presented to you today, for addressing the issues in the Final Order. The report presents staff findings and the committee position on all the critical issues. In several cases, which will be out :iic,~ ~llll~l~ JUN 1 li 001 additional discussion will be required with the staff and committee working to resolve differences in their respective positions over the summer months. CONSIDERATIONS: The Committee and staff have been studying, researching and discussing a myriad of issues and concepts, which need to be addressed in the GMP amendments in order to resolve the requirements of the Final Order. Some of the concepts you will be presented include: 1) Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPA) 2) Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) 3) Preservation Incentives a) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)-sending and receiving areas b) Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)-sending and receiving areas c) Cjustering d) Density Blending e) Density Bonuses 4) Designation of Sub-districts transitioning between Urban and Rural 5) Site Preservation Standards 6) Native Vegetation Retention Standards 7) Minimum clearing standards for smaller parcels 8) On and off site mitigation 9) Countywide minimum wetlands, vegetative and wildlife proiection standards 10) Wildlife Management Standards 11) Golf Course Development-as a permitted use, locational and development standards 12) Urban Sprawl 13) Water quality and quantity and flood control 14) Wildfire protection 15) Hurricane Evacuation Issues 16) Extension of central water and sewer service to the Rural Fringe Assessment Area 17) Schools, essential services, employment opportunities, mixed use development 18) Workforce Housing - FISCAL IMPACT: None as a result of the policy direction requested upon presentation of the Conceptual Strategies. The impact of the adoption of GMP amendments in resolution of the requirements of the Final Order is undetermined at this time. If the BCC approves the staff recommendation to hire an economic consulting firm, the costs will be determined via the RFP process. If the staff recommendation to conduct a transportation impacts analysis is approved, there may be associated consulting costs to be determined. JUN 1 3 2001 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Policy direction received will ultimately conclude with the adoption of GMP amendments to resolve remedial actions directed by the Final Order for the Rural Fringe Assessment Area. HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: NA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: NA EAC RECOMMENDATIONS: NA PLANNIING SER¥1CES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) That the BCC direct staff to drai~ goals, objectives, policies (GOPs) and text, and assemble supporting data and analysis, for further joint review by the committee and staff, based on staff recommendations contained in the "Staff Findings" of the Conceptual Strategies. Further, that the Committee and staff be directed to continue to work toward consensus on areas where there is a significant divergence in approach to issues in the staff findings versus the Committee Position. 2) That the BCC approve and direct staff to issue an RFP for an economic consultant to perform a market impact viability study of the preservation incentives needed and the attendant feasibility of realizing the preservation goals as a result of the implementation of the incentives program. 3) That the Transportation Administrator be directed to conduct an analysis of the transportation impacts that would result from the adoption of the Conceptual Strategies in the Rural Fringe Assessment Area. PREPARED_~~BY: ~ STAN~LITSINGE~ AICP, ~MPREHENSIVE PLANNING MANAC;Ea DATE AGENDA ITEM Ne. JUN 1 3 2001 REVIEWED BY: TOM KUCI~ INTERIM PLANNING/ ENGINEERING SERVICES DIRECTOR RESOURCES DIRECTOR ~/ - - APP ,~BY~ Jg~N~u'N~ TU~ NDUECv.K' IANNDT EE ~v~RAoDNMd~ INSTTA LRA~vO~s. DATE DATE DATE EX SUMMARY/LB A~ENOA ITEM JUN 1 3 2001 Report to the Collier County Board of Commissioners Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies JUN 13 2001 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies ':~':~I http://www.nasites,com/collier/ Prepared for the Collier County Board of Commissioners Special Meeting June 13, 2001 Prepared by: Robert J. Mulhere, AICP RWA, Inc. 3050 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 270 _ Naples, FL 34104 -lt,. ~ · · .J.. ,.,lB. Environmental Consultants .,,lB- ~ · · .,/- .lk. Environmental Consultants Page 2 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites.co m/collier/ This Report Was Prepared for the Collier County Board of Commissioners: James D. Cater, Ph.D., District II, Chairman Pamela S. Mac'Kie, District IV, Vice Chairwoman James N. Coletta, Jr., District V Donna Fiala, District I Thomas Henning, District III Administration: Thomas W. Olliff, County Manager Mike Mc Nees, Assistant County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Rural Fringe Oversight Committee: Tom Conrecodc, P.E. - Chairman Chuck Mohlke David Ellis Patrick K. Miller Kathy Prosser Gary Hayes Ty Agoston Dawn Jantsch, CAE Ray Pelletier David E. Bryant, Esquire Former Committee Members: Fay Biles, Ph.D. David Guggenheim, Ph.D. Michael Lehn Stephen A. Bortone The following individuals are recognized for their assistance in preparing this report: Carlton Fields~ Attorneys at Law: Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire Martha 'Marti' H. Chumbler, Esquire Jack Sullivan, AICP The Office of the County Attorney: Marjorie M. Student, Asst. County Attorney Patrick White, Asst. County Attorney Collier County CommuniW Development and Environmental Services Division: John Dunnuck, III, Interim Administrator William Lorenz, P.E., Natural Resource Director Stan Litsinger, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager David Weeks, AICP Chief Planner Susan Murray, Interim Current Planning Manager Mac Hatcher, Environmental Specialist II Doug Suitor, Senior Environmental Specialist Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Tech Glenda Smith, Planning Technician Marcia Kendal, Planning Technician ~ ~ · · ,.t.. ~ Enwronmental Consultants JUN 13 2001 Page 3 '"i Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies htt p://www, nasites, com/collier/ Table of Contents Section I Section II Report Attachments A. Special Meeting Public Notice B. Collier County Future Land Use Map C. Final Order AC-99-02 D. Rural and Agricultural 'Uniform Assessment Process' E. Rural and Agricultural Assessment 'Evaluation Matrix' F. Growth Management Plan Objectives and Policies Addressing Minimum Standards for Wetlands, Habitats and Wildlife Protection. G. Letter form Nancy Linnan Re: Countywide Minimum Standards for Wetlands, Habitats and Wildlife Protection. H. Letter from Nancy Linnan re: Public Hearings & Workshops .lB- ~ · · .~. ~ Environmental Consullants JUN 13 2001 Page 4 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, na sites, corn~collier~ The purpose of this report and the June 13, 2001 special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners is as follows: · To inform the Board and the public of the various alternative land use strategies and tools that have been developed by staff and the Rural Fringe Committee (with input from the public stakeholders and from various interest groups); and · To respond to questions from the Board and the public regarding these strategies; · To obtain direction from the Board regarding these strategies in order to facilitate the development of specific amendments to the Collier County Growth Management plan, which will address the requirements of the Final Order in this phase of the Rural and Agricultural Assessment for the Rural Fringe lands; and · To allow for additional public input and participation directly to the Board of County Commissioners. It should be understood at the outset of this report that the concepts and recommendations contained herein may be modified as a result of additional Rural Fringe Oversight Committee, public stakeholder and interest group comments and recommendations. Such modification will be reflected in detailed Growth management plan amendments anticipated to be presented to the Board in October of 2001 (in a Growth Management Plan Amendment Transmittal Hearing). An adoption hearing is anticipated in February of 2002, followed by adoption of any necessary land code amendments in the June 2002 Land Development Code amendment cycle. CIVIL ENGINEEIL5 Developmenl & ~ ~ · ~ .j. m, Environmental Consultants JUN 13 2001 ?age f~ i Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies '-' ~ http://www.nasites.com/collier/ Pursuant to the Final Order .... - .......... imposed by the Governor and , ~~ Cabinet in June 1999, the State ~'"'---' -" '-~=:~[j~la0t~ "X~' of Florida has mandated certain o,-~ ~=~' ~"'"' )o'--- revisions to Collier County's Growth Management Plan. A ~ ~.~TODyr copy of the Final Order is ~, ~2~-~ ""'~'~'~;:::~R$~'~[ attached to this report [ ] (Attachment "C"). The Final ~ ~ L=:I -i::: -' ~'7'~'-' '''' ___.~ Order requires that these .~ revisions become effective prior ..X.,~ ,~ ~a~i :''~I to June 22, 2002 and allows the Countyto conduct a Rural and ~ Agricultural Area Assessment (Assessment) to collect the! ~-_ appropriate data, gather public '~h I' ~1[ ~~l~: ~n~' input and recommend amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Major issues to be addressed by the Assessment include protecting'~~~~l~i~it~r~~ural wetlands, wildlife and their ~~ -:- -_ A,B,C& D Fringe Areas habitats, managing stormwater to protect water quality, protecting prime ~ , ~ ~X-"~ ~-'~. ~ ~ North Belle Meade agricultural lands from the premature conversion to other ~x~"~.x~ ~.~__~~ Study Area uses, and assessing the growth l.x.'.~~ potential of the Area by assessing the potential Exhibit 1: Rural Fringe Areas conversion of these rural lands Source: Collier Countv Granhics Deoartment to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative I md planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private school ur~[n JUN 1 3 2001 Ja ~ · · .&. ~ Environmental Consultants Page 6 ~ural Fringe Areas ~~ _~. -_ A, B, C& D ~ ~_ ~1~ ~ North Belle Meade Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites.co m/col lier/ villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, cjustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. The Final Order allows the County to conduct the assessment in phases. Accordingly, Collier County has divided the Assessment into two geographical areas, the Rural Fringe Area and the Eastern Lands Area (see Exhibit 1). Collier County has also established the Rural Fringe Area Oversight Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) and the Eastern Lands Area Oversight Committee to address the planning for each respective area. The Final Order notes that public participation will be the "hallmark" of this planning effort. The Advisory Committees and the interactive Assessment web site have been among the primary mechanisms to inform the public and solicit community input to undertake various tasks in the study. The Committee consists of 10 members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. At the writing of this report, there is one vacancy on the committee. The following are the seated members: Tom Conrecode, P.E. - Chairman - WCI Communities, Civil Engineer Gary Hayes - Elegance Plumbing, Plumbing Contractor Chuck Mohlke - Fraser, Mohlke & Assoc., Inc., Consulting/Market Research Firm Ty Agoston - Retired Businessman David Ellis - Collier Building Industry Assoc., Executive Director Dawn Jantsch, CAE - Naples Area Chamber of Commerce, President and CEO Patrick K. Miller - Gulf Coast National Bank, Senior Vice President Ray Pelletier - Ray's Lawn & Garden, Landscape Contractor Kathy Prosser - CEO, The Conservancy of SW Florida David Br.vant, Esquire - Attorney The Committee held its first meeting in October of 1999, and has met on more than 35 separate occasions over the past 20 months. All meetings have been advertised and open to the public. All agendas, minutes, maps, studies, and pertinent documents have been made available to the public both at the meetings and on the Assessment web site. With the assistance of Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Secretary Steve ~_;~'~rt. a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) of State and Federal agencies was establi~ed t~Nl~l'r~ assist staff and the Rural Assessment committees and to review and provide prof~ ;sionqJl· ~ JUN 1 3 2001 I X-YTA ! // CIVIL ENGINE~g ~v~nl t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ En~nmen~l Con. Rants Parc 7 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites.co m/col lier/ and technical comments and recommendations on data collection methodologies, studies and work products developed as part of the assessment. The TAG includes the following representatives: Bob Cambric, AICP, Growth Management Administrator, (DCA) Jim Beever, FL Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) Andy Barienbrock, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Clarence Tears, Big Cypress Basin (and South Florida Water Management District) David Burr, Planning Director, Southwest Florida Planning Council (SWFRPC) John Limbaugh, Intergovernmental Liaison (FDOT) Kim Dryden, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (DOA) John Folks, Florida Department of Agriculture Kelly Unger, Planning Division, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) As technical work products have been developed, they have been distributed to the TAG and the TAG comments have been submitted to the Committee for consideration and incorporation into staff and Committee work. Arm ~ ~ of tl~ AmaA 6,827 7% .al. mC* 10,31211% ........ ............. 47' ............. Exhibit 2: Rural Fringe Sub Areas by Size *Note: Area C excludes the Study Area The Rural Fringe Area (Fringe Area) is essentially composed of the lands located east of the County's urban area and surrounded by Golden Gate Estates. For data and analysis purposes, the Rural Fringe Area has been subdivided into various planning areas (Exhibits 1 and 2). This will allow for different applications of alternative land use scenarios and regulations in different sub-areas of the Fringe Area, as supported by area specific data. Areas A, B, and the CREW NRPA are located north of Golden Gate Estates and east of the urban designated boundary. Area C and the North Belle Mead Study Area are located south of Golden Gate Parkway and Estates designated lands, and North of 1-75. Area D is located south of the Belle Meade NRPA, east of the urban boundary and is bisected by US 41 East. ~ ~ · · .f- ~ Environmental Consultants JUN 1 3 2001 [age i. Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http ://www. nasites, com/collier/ General Land Cover Categories for the Rural Fdnge Area Exhibit 3: Rural Fringe Land Cover Categories The Fringe Area consists of 93,600 acres (rounded up), or 7% of Collier County's total land area (Exhibit 2 and 3). Analysis of land cover data from 1994-1995 aerial photos~ indicate that 4% of the Fringe Area has been urbanized, agricultural lands cover 19% or about 17,900 acres of the Fringe Area. Of these 17,900 acres, about 8,000 acres are utilized for more intensive agricultural operations such as row crops, citrus and nurseries, with the remaining 9,800 acres in pastureland. Natural lands, as measured by wetland land cover (59%) and forest land cover (14%), comprise almost three-fourths of the Fringe Area (Exhibit 3). Wetlands - Wetland land cover comprises 56,929 acres or 59% of the Fringe Area. The CREW and Belle Meade NRPAs account for 76.3% of the total wetland land cover in the Fringe Area. Areas B and C contain 20% of the Fringe Area Wetlands while areas A and D account for less than 5% (Exhibit 4). More than 87% of the NRPA designated lands are classified as wetland land cover. It should be understood that land cover analysis is conducted by reviewing aerial photographs to determine the existence of certain Distribution of Wetlands In the Rural Fringe Area /1% 3% &eta I% &et B &e~r C 6% t4% Exhibi! 4: Rural Fringe Wetlands Distribution t Where staff is aware of more recent land cover data, that information has been factored into these categories. Examples include the Twin Eagles Development and Golf Club of the Everglades. CIVIL ENG1NEElt. S Development & .]1.. ~ · · _f., 'm, Environmental Consultants Pa JUN 13 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http ://www. na sites, co m/collier/ vegetation types such as wetland or upland vegetation. This is a landscape-scale planning tool used as an indicator of the existence of wetlands or uplands within a specific area. Land cover analysis should not be used as an indicator of whether or not wetlands actually exist on a specific piece of property. Certain State and Federal agencies have the legal authority, or jurisdiction, to protect wetlands. Such agencies include the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). An analysis, referred to as a 'jurisdictional determination' is conducted to determine whether or not the property contains wetland soils, wetland vegetation, or hydrological conditions the would qualify it legally as a wetland. For the most part, the existing data used to analyze the Fringe Areas has not been site-specific and therefore should not be use to indicate the presence of wetlands on any piece of property. Over the past 2 years since the Final Order was issued, County staff, the Committee and public stakeholders have worked diligently towards developing an appropriate and well- balanced land use scenario for the Fringe Area. The following interim work products were developed to guide and facilitate that process. Early in the assessment process staff created and both the Committee (Rural Fringe Area) and the Eastern Lands Oversight Committee endorsed a Uniform Assessment Process. The purpose of the Uniform Assessment Process was to establish consensus on standard methodology for: · Collecting and analyzing data (Phase I); · Creating alternative-land-use and natural-resource-protection strategies (Phase II); · Evaluating those alternative strategies (Phase III): · Developing Comprehensive Plan Amendments that incorporate the best of those alternative strategies (Phase IV). As of the date of this report (June 13, 2001), the Committee is at the latter stages of evaluating alternate land-use and natural-resource-protection strategies (Phase III). Based on Board direction today, staff will commence Phase IV of the Uniform Assessment Process, by working with the committee and the public, to prepare Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments that will be presented to the Board in an October ~ ~ · · .J- ~ Environmental Consultants JUN 13 2001 ;e 10 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites.com/collier/ transmittal hearing. A flow chart depicting the Uniform Assessment Process is incorporated into this to this report as Attachment "D." Ill Staff and the Committee have identified a number of criteria to evaluate the effect of future development in the Fringe Area on the natural resources present. These factors are listed in an Evaluation Matrix, adopted by the Rural Fringe Area Committee in July 2000. A significant amount of time (more than 8 months) was spent developing the Evaluation Factor Matrix. A copy of the matrix is incorporated into this report as Attachment "E". The Evaluation Factor Matrix is an assortment of tools intended to assist staff, the Committee and the public in assessing the impact of alternate land use strategies in order to make informed recommendations to the Board. The matrix identifies the following 12 evaluation factors: · Agricultural Lands; · Wetlands; · Listed Species; · Upland Habitats and Other Vegetative Communities; · Habitat Fragmentation; · Water Resources; · Effect on Adjacent Neighborhoods and Conservation Lands; · Existing Pattern of Property Ownership and Development; · Urban Sprawl · Community Infrastructure; · Private Property Rights and Values; and · Economic Impacts. For each of these 12 evaluation factors, the matrix identifies the applicable requirements of the Final Order and any applicable State mandated growth management requirements [Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Rule 9J-5]. Finally, for each of the 12 evaluation factors, the matrix identifies "Specific Evaluative Criteria," which will be used to determine the following: · The degree to which a specific evaluation factor occurs or is determined to be significant within a specified area under analysis; ,.,I.,. ~ · · ,.~ ~ Environmerrtal Consultants JUN 1 3 2Q01 lJ [age~l /o/ Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www.nasites,com/collier/ · The degree to which the application of one or more alternative land use strategies may be used to protect, manage, promote, increase, reduce, minimize or eliminate specific evaluation factors; and · The degree to which a particular altemative land use strategy addresses the requirements of the Final Order when compared with the existing Comprehensive Plan. At the outset of this process in September of 1999, the Board determined to separate the Assessment into two distinct but related efforts. This bifurcation of the processes was driven by an understanding that the Fringe Area, although rural in designation, was different from the more remote, largely intact natural areas and agricultural properties farther to the east. How is the Fringe Area different from the Eastem Lands Assessment Area? One significant difference is the pattern of property ownership. In the Eastern Lands Assessment Area there is total of 224 separate ownership parcels, with only 138 separate parcels of less than 40 acres.2 In the Fringe Area, which is less than one-half the size of the Eastern Lands Assessment Areas, there are 5,558 tax parcels, and at least 3,835 separate and distinct property owners.3 This disparate pattern of property ownership in the Fringe Area does present a challenge for developing alternative land use strategies. This is apparent when one considers the provision in the Final Order allowing for the vested use of one single-family dwelling unit for each parcel in existence on or before June 22, 1999. Furthermore, any alternative strategies developed for the Fringe Area will need to consider these existing ownership rights. The Fringe Area is also different from the Rural Lands Area in terms of adjacent land uses. Significant portions of the Fringe Area are adjacent to the urban area or to the suburban and rapidly developing Northern Golden Gate Estates platted lands. In part, the Final Order requires the County to develop strategies (in the form of Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Objectives) that prevent the premature 2 Source: WilsonMiller April 23, 2001 PowerPoint presentation to Rural Lands Oversight Committee entitled: Stage 2 - Existing Land Use, Population and Transportation Data Overview. Parcel & Ownership Data Source: Collier County Tax Records 3 Source: WilsonMiller Rural Fringe Parcels/Property Owners Map - March, 2001 CIVIL ENGINEER-5 .JL. ~ · · -C. ~ Environmental Consultants Pa e ]:IUN 1 3 2001 n. /6, Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites, com/collier/ conversion of agricultural lands. According to the WilsonMiller Stage One Report4 for the Eastern Rural Lands Area, 176,612 acres, or 91% of this area is in agricultural land use. By comparison, in the Rural Fringe Area, only 19% of the land is in agricultural use and less than 3% is currently being used for more intensive agricultural operations such as row crops, citrus and nurseries.5 The agricultural land uses within the Fringe Area represent approximately 6% of the total land area within the Rural and Agricultural Assessment Area. The Fringe Area represents a transitional area from the more intense suburban lands directly to the east in the Golden Gate Estates and urban lands to the west, to the vast natural lands and significant agricultural operations even farther to the east. The conceptual land use strategies that follow have been developed with consideration of the unique characteristics of this transitional area. These strategies have been developed to address the requirements of the Final Order in a balanced way that protects natural resources, considers potential conversion to other uses in appropriate locations, discourages urban sprawl, and encourages development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private schools, area specific land-use allocations, residential cjustering with open space provisions and mixed use development. Regardless of its proximity to the urban area, the Fringe Area does contain significant wetlands and valuable wildlife habitat. The data indicates that portions of these lands provide habitat for a number of listed species including Florida Panthers, Black Bears, Wood Storks and Red Cockaded Woodpeckers. The conceptual plan for the Fringe Area utilizes a balanced approach employing both regulations and incentives to address the requirements of the Final Order. Some of the proposed policies are employed at the landscape scale and others at the site-specific scale. In terms of natural resource protection strategies, an American Planning Association Report, entitled Habitat Protection Planning: Where the Wild Things Are, defines these terms as follows6: 4 WilsonMiller Rural Lands Area (The Immokalee Area Study) Stage I Report. 5 South Florida Water Management District 94/95 Land Cover Maps 6 American Planning Association PAS Report # 470/471 Habitat Protection Planning: Where the WiM Things Are. Christopher J. Duerksen, Donald L. Eiliott, N. Thompson Hobbs, Erin Johnson, and James R. Miller. May 1997. CIVIL I~.I~GIN//.]/.I{.5 Devetof:ln3ont & ~ ~ · · ~ ~' Environmental Consultants JUN 13 2001 age 13 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites.co m/collier/ Landscape Scale "Landscape refers to a large land area (i.e., multiple square miles) that contains habitat for wildlife. A watershed offers an excellent example of what we mean by a landscape. Within a landscape there are usually different types of vegetation arranged in a mosaic, much like a patchwork quilt." Site-Specific Scale "Scale is the relative size of an area of interest. If we focus on a relatively small area, say the area around a house or a single subdivision, our focus is fine scale. If we pay attention to a much larger area, (i.e., a county or a watershed, we are looking at course scale." The report goes on to state, "...development influences wildlife at two fundamentally different scales the broad 'landscape' scale and the more focused 'site' [specific] scale... Scale, in turn, determines the usefulness of actions to modify the impacts of development." The utilization for these depends on the development history of a given area. The continuum'of development in Collier County extends from the relatively un-urbanized eastern lands, with relatively few owners and parcels, to the still rural but significantly more "broken-up" Fringe Area, and/or to the suburban large-lot platted North Golden Gate Estates, to the developed urban area. This continuum is iljustrated below. Domain Site Management Opportunity for Rasto raUon Exhibit 5: American Planning Association PAS Report # 470/471 ~ ~.. · · ..~ ~ Environmental Consultants Page 14 JUN 1 3 20 n. /? Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www.nasites.com/collier/ Landscape scale natural resource protection strategies work best in rural areas where large areas of undeveloped land are prevalent. In urban areas, site-specific strategies work best due to the fragmentation of natural areas, but may work in concert with landscape- scale strategies. In the transitional Fringe Area, both strategies can be employed to varying degrees to ensure a balance between protection of natural resources and protection of private property rights. Currently, these strategies are conceptual in nature. Further refinement of these strategies is scheduled to occur over the summer and early fall of 2001 through continued staff work with the Committee and with contributions from the public and stakeholders. CIVIL ENGINEERS DevetOp~nt & ~ ~ · · ,=~ ~ Environmental Consultants Pa JUN 13 2001 e ]5 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites,com/collier/ FUTUBE LAND USE MAP Exhibit 6: Collier County Future Land Use Map depicting the Fringe Area, the Eastern (Rural) Lands Assessment Area, interim NRPA boundaries, and Stud)' Areas. Source: Collier County Graphic Department. ~ ~,~ · · ,.~ ~ Environmental Consultants P JUN 13 2001 ge 16 n._ . Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http : / /www.nasite$.com/collier/ The NRPA designation is an overlay on the County's GMP Future Land Use Map (Exhibit 6) which is intended to identify and protect areas of the County that contain valuable natural resources, including but not limited to wetlands, flow-ways, and critical habitat areas for listed species. A NRPA designation should include the development of guidelines and standards to protect both natural resources and private property rights, to maintain ecologically functioning systems, and to restore or mitigate already degraded areas. On May 9, 2000, as required by the Final Order, Collier County adopted interim NRPAs. With the adoption of these interim NRPA areas, final NRPA boundary delineations were deferred until completion of the Rural and Agricultural Assessment. Within the Rural Fringe Area two interim NRPAs were established, the Crew Lands NRPA and Belle Meade NRPA (Exhibit 6). The Belle Meade NRPA is adjacent to the west of South Golden Gate Estates. A portion of sub-area "C" was designated a "Study Area" as part of interim amendments to the GMP required by the Final Order (Exhibit 6). Additional study of this area is called for during the assessment period in order to determine whether the North Belle Meade Study Area should be designated a NRPA, or should be subject to other requirements directed at protecting wetlands, listed species and their habitat. The additional considerations of the North Belle Meade Study Area identified in the GMP are as follows: · The extent to which existing agricultural operations, improvements and facilities have impacted water flow and quality, wetlands and habitat for the Florida panther and other listed species; · Examine the impacts of abutting urban and Estates development; · Examine access into the area and connectivity to other habitat as it relates to the Florida panther; · Examine opportunities for restoration of flow-ways, buffering from abutting development and improvements for listed species habitat through actions to include consideration of the addition of underpasses to Interstate 75; · Examine the impacts of potential earth mining activities on the above resources; · Examine whether the use of transfer of development rights would be appropriate in this area and, if so, whether there should be any restrictions on their use; and · Examine the possibility of public acquisition of these properties. ~ ~ · · ,t '~' Environmental Consultants Pa~ ].7JUN 13 200] I Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies htt p://www, nasites, corn/collie r/ ~ On the basis of the data that has thus far been collected and analyzed, the following are draft findings and staff recommendations regarding the North Belle Meade Study Area and other new or existing NRPAs in or proximate to the Rural Fringe area [Staff findings are italicized]: NRPAs: Staff recommends a 10% total site alteration standard for projects located in NRPAs. This is consistent with staff's recommendation for 90% m~ =~ain=~in me/ lOO% D I.i~ed ~ W~'~ls BW~l~nd Cowr II BKxi~r. it~ Nol:.lX~ IIBemlaant~ I-eb~t Exhibit 7: Informational Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission Closing the Gaps Report; SF~,rMD Land Cover Dala Base 1994/1995 site preservation standard for NRPAs. North Belle Meade: NRPA designation or a specific sub-area designation or overlay on the North Belle Meade Study Area is warranted based on the concentration of wetland and listed species indicators, and the large amount of contiguous habitat available to support wildlife species (Exhibit 7). The specific rationale for this recommendation is as follows: · The Study Area ha~-concentrations of wetland land cover and listed species habitat, consistent with other Rural Fringe NRPA areas. This similarity with other NRPAs argues for the Study Area to be protected with similar protection mechanisms as other Rural Fringe NRPAs. However unlike other NRPAs, the North Belle Meade Study Area is physically separated from other publicly or privately owned conservation lands and from other NRPAs. This dissimilarity may warrant some differentiation as well from protection mechanisms used in other NRPAs. · Panther data indicates movement from the North Belle Meade Study Area to the south across 1-75 and to the east and northeast through North Golden Gate Estates. The Count)' should support Panther crossings under 1-75 to the south. Funds raised mi ~ · · -/- ~ Environmental Consultants Page 18 JUN 13 20 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www.nasites.com/collier/ from toll receipts on Alligator Alley may be used to fund the construction of these wildlife underpasses. It is important to note that currently there are no plans by the State to construct any underpasses associated with the Study Area. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission TAG designee James Beaver has testified that he would not recommend underpasses to the Study Area unless the Study Area lands were under public ownership. Neither the Study Area nor any contiguous lands have been designated as Priority Panther Habitat. However, six radio-collared panthers have been identified in Area C over the past ten years. Records for these panthers indicate they moved into Area C crossing Northern Golden Gate Estates and 1-75 to and from South Belle Meade. A female panther had a successful den in the area. The level of utilization by panthers in this area indicates that the quality of habitat for panthers is marginal. However marginal, this level of utilization is important for an endangered species like the panther with limited available habitat. The amount and type of habitat present can contribute to the continued existence for important listed species such as the Florida Panther. Additional listed species supported by this habitat include the Eastern indigo snake, Big Cypress fox squirrel, Florida sandhill crane, Bald eagle and Black bear. It is staffs position that the Count), should support acquisition of privately owned lands in the North belle Meade Stud)' Area as a mechanism for protection. The area should also be considered as a sending zone for a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. This will provide a legitimate mechanism for property owners to recoup some loss of attendant value and land use. Incompatible land uses should be directed outside of the Study Area. Opportunity exists for the density to be shifted to Rural Fringe lands abutting the Study Area and along the edge of the platted Estates to the north. This area should be a TDR receiving area. Staff recognizes that the expanding suburban development in North Golden Gate Estates abutting the_ northern and eastern boundaries of the Study Area may diminish habitat value for the Florida Panther in this area. In order to maximize the current habitat value in the Study Area and to protect the eastem connection to the publicly owned lands to the east (Panther National Wildlife Preserve and the Big Cypress National Wildlife Preserve), additional protection mechanisms could be proposed for the Estates area abutting the eastern boundary of the Study Area, including but not limited to clearing limitations, TDRs, and Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs). However, this is outside the scope of the Assessment and should be considered as part of the Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy. CI¥1L ENGINEEI~LS Development & ~ ~ · · ../.. ~ Environmental Consultants Pag~ Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites,co m/collier/ Crew NRPA: Generally the proposed boundaries of the CREW NRPA are well supported by the data. However, the Bonita Bay West Golf Course is included in this NRPA. The Final Order and the County's current Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP prohibit golf courses within NRPAs during the Assessment period. If golf courses are prohibited in NRPAs in the future, as staff currently proposes, then the Bonita Bay West Course will become a non-conforming use. The Bonita Bay West Golf Course should therefore be excluded from the NRPA designation. It should also be recognized, however, that a properly designed golf course is not necessarily an incompatible land use adjacent to a NRPA as evidenced by the Bonita Bay West Golf Course. The Corkscrew Marsh, located immediately northeast of the interim CREW NRPA boundaries should be included in the CREW NRPA. Although this area is not technically within the Rural Fringe Area, it abuts the northeastern boundary of the CREW NRPA. Note: Staff recommends that the Eastern Rural Lands Advisory Committee should also review this recommendation. While generally supporting the use of NRPAs as a landscape-scale tool for protecting listed species and their habitat and for directing incompatible land uses away from Wetlands, the Committee has withheld endorsing specific NRPA additions or revisions to the interim NRPA boundaries adopted by the BCC in May of 2000, pending additional review and discussion and further development of other elements of the overall plan. The Committee has not endorsed the designation of the North Belle Meade Study Area as a NRPA pending additional staff presentation and further review of the data. The Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) program was established by the State of Florida (FS Chapter 380) to protect large and critical natural areas and systems. The Collier County GMP Future Land Use Element includes an ACSC overlay on some 835,250 acres. The ACSC area, which lies outside the boundaries of the Rural Fringe Area, is predominantly in public ownership, however a significant portion of the northeast portion of the County, adjacent to the Okaloacoohee Slough, while privately owned, is also designated ACSC. The ACSC area contains some 62% of the County's wetlands. Staff and the Committee have considered whether or not the ACSC designation should be expanded to apply to areas within the Rural Fringe. ,.BI- ~ · · ,.C ~ Environmental Consultants Page JUN 13 20 n. 0¥ Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www.nasites.com/cotlier/ ~ For non-agricultural land uses located within the ACSC, the ACSC regulations limit the alteration of a site to 10% of the total site size and also limit the installation of non-permeable surfaces to 50% of the altered area. The current regulations allow a minimum of 2,500 square feet to be altered on any permitted site. Staff does not recommend that the boundaries for currently designated A CSC areas be enlarged. If this was the intent of the State, the State could have already begun proceedings to increase the ACSC designation. The Final Order directs the County to develop appropriate natural resource protection standards. ~,~ ~ ' ~ ~:~,~ ."', The Committee agrees with staff that boundaries for the ACSC should not be enlarged. The committee does not support the application of ACSC 10% alteration limitation contained in the ACSC regulations in NRPAs at this time, but expects to fully consider other alternatives for resource protection in NRPAs. The Committee also recommends that staff research and bring back to the Committee information regarding ACSC enabling legislation that allows the County to obtain an additional revenue source for acquiring sensitive lands. Final recommendation of the Committee will be brought to the BCC in October as part of the GMP transmittal hearing. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) process has long been recognized as a potential tool for protecting natural resources, preserving rural areas and agricultural lands, and as a means of reducing the negative impacts of sprawling low-density development. The TDR process provides one viable method to address the impacts on private property rights associated with such policies. TDRs are specifically referenced in the State of Florida Sprawl Rule as a mechanism to reduce urban sprawl.7 Moreover, TDRs are specifically referred to in the Final Order. If properly applied, TDRs represent a viable mechanism to_provide compensation to property owners for lost value that may be attributable to GMP amendments and land development regulations developed as a result of the Rural Assessment process.8 TDRs are also recognized and recommended as a valuable growth management tool in the Final Report of the Governor's Growth Management Study Commission.9 7 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) 9J-5.006 ~ ACC-99-002 Final Order, June 22, 1999 9 Governor's Growth Management Study Commission, Final Report, A Livable Florida for Today and Tomorrow. February 2001. http://www.floridagrowth.org/ CIVIL ENCJINEEIt-S Development ~ ~ · · J,. '~' Environmental Consultants Pag 21 JUN 1 Pi. I Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites, co m/collier/ As part of the Rural Fringe Committee's evaluation of TDRs, Richard Woodruff, Ph.D., Planning Director for the consulting firm of WilsonMiller, conducted research and prepared a report on TDRs. The report, entitled Transfer of Development Rights and the Rural Fringe Assessment, provides several useful working definitions: l0 Exhibit 8: TDR., · Use Rights m Those activities, opportunities and privileges which come with property ownership as established and granted to the citizens by the United States Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and laws adopted by the federal, state and local governments. · Development Rights -- Those rights established under zoning and land development regulations as adopted by the federal, state and local governments. · Land Development m Activities on the land, under the land, and/or over the land that alter the natural conditions or use the natural components of the property. · Transfer of Development Rights -- The act of transferring use rights or development rights from one land parcel to another land parcel. A TDR process has been in place in the Urban designated area of Collier County for many years. However, it has only been used on a few occasions, resulting in relatively few transferred units. The same is generally true for TDR programs throughout southwest Florida. In Collier County, this is largely due to the nature of the development market, which currently favors relatively low-density, master-planned residential communities with amenities.TM A 1999 report prepared by James Nicholas, Ph.D., economist with the ~o WilsonMiller. April 11,2001. Transfer of Development Rights and the Rural Fringe il Collier County Zoning Records (Shiney Book) & WilsonMiller. April I 1,2001. Transfer of Development Rights and the Rural Fringe ,..I-- ~ · · -&. ,.!1,. Environmental Consultants Pa JUN I :3 2001 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http : //www.nasites.com/collier/ University of Florida and principal author of several successful TDR programs, identifies the critical need for a TDR program in Collier County to be designed so as to be marketable.~2 This critical need is also identified in the April 13, 2001, WilsonMiller TDR Report, and is supported by the preponderance of literature on TDR programs. ~ 'The critical components for a successful TDR program in Collier County, recommended by Dr. Woodruff, are as follows: · The program must be designed so as to enhance the market attraction of the transferable units. · The program must be designed such that transfers of units from environmentally sensitive lands (NRPAs) offer the greatest incentive. · The program must clearly identify sending areas and receiving areas in the Rural Fringe and the Urban Area. · The program must be designed such that there is sufficient receiving capacity to accept all available units from sending areas. Staff concurs with Dr. Woodruffs analysis, and adds the following additional considerations: · Consideration shouM be given to establishing a policy that allows for the transfer of units between environmentally sensitive sending areas and appropriate receiving areas within and to the Rural Fringe. · There should be consideration for transfers to quali~,ing wor¥orce-housing and urban infill sites in Urban designated areas of the Count),. In order to maximize the marketabilit3, of such a program, it shouM be developed as a "by right" process. · Additional consideration should be given to a policy that would allow developers to mitigate affordable- and workforce-housing associated with a particular development through a cash payment or through the purchase of rural TDRs that would be granted to the County by right. The revenue exacted and/or transferred dwelling units could then be made available at no cost to qualified affordable- and workforce-housing projects. This wouM provide a market incentive for development of workforce-housing through a subsidy on land costs or through increased density at no additional cost to the developer. As with other concepts and tools discussed in this report, specifics of the TDR process must be developed over the summer months, leading up to the October GMP amendment transmittal hearing. During this period, the specific boundaries for sending and receiving ]2 Blaesser and Nicholas Report to Collier County Board of Commissioners, February 12, 1999 ~'~ ~ ~ · · .,/.. ~ Environmental Consultants JUN 1 3 200l Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www.nasites.com/collier/ areas will be developed. It is strongly recommended that the Commissioners authorize staff to contract with an economist, developing TDR procedures and development market incentives. Board of County with experience in The Committee supports the use of TDRs as a means o: ~protecting environmentally sensitive lands and for addressing impacts to private property rights. The Committee has not endorsed specific sending and receiving areas or any other specific of a TDR process pending additional analysis. The committee also recognizes the need for assistance from a qualified economist to ensure a TDR process that is workable and viable in the free market system. The Final Order requires the County to ensure that "Plan amendments are coordinated with the biological and hydrological needs, such as interconnected wetland systems and as provided for in F.A.C. Rule 9J-5, also requires that the County's GMP provide for one or more policies to protect areas designated for conservation purposes (Natural Reservations). To address this requirement, the current Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.8.1 states .that: "All requests for land development within 1,000 feet of natural reservations shall be reviewed as part of the County's development review process to insure no unacceptable impact to the natural reservation." ~3 It is recommended that Polio' 6.8.1 be amended to substitute "NRPA "for "natural reservation." In order to minbnize the impacts on private property rights attributable to these buffering requirements, land set aside to meet open space and preservation requirements and located adjacent to a "natural reserve" may also meet these buffer requirements. Currently, the Collier C~ounty LDC 14 defines useable open space as: "...active or passive recreation areas such as playgrounds, golf courses, beach frontage, waterways, lagoons, floodplains, nature trails and other similar open spaces. Open space areas shall also include those areas set aside for preservation of native vegetation and landscape areas. Open water area beyond the perimeter of the site, street right-of-way except where dedicated or donated for public use, driveways, off-street parking [3 Collier County GMP, Coastal Conservation Management Element [4 Collier County LDC, Ordinance 91-102, as amended. Article 6: Definitions .JI-- ~ · · .,C, ..11. Environmenlal Consullanl$ Pa JUN 13 2001 24 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http : //www,nasites.com/collier/ areas, and off-street loading areas shall not be counted in determining usable open space." ~ The range in spatial requirements makes it difficult to specify an exact number for all cases. The existing policy provides for a staff review of development activities occurring within 1,000 feet of a natural reservation. If the purpose of the policy is to protect natural reservations from adjacent development, then the operative concept is to encourage placement of any required open space and preserve areas next to the natural reservation through incentives rather than select a specific review distance. This argues for the policy to be reworded to simply address adjacent developments. Additionally, the existing policy does not provide for specific criteria to determine "unacceptable impact". Staff recommends that the policy specify that required open space be located so as buffer to the natural reservation (NRPA) whenever feasible. In order to address the Final Order's requirements that plan amendments be "coordinated with the biological and hydrological needs, such as interconnected wetland systems and listed species habitat, of publicly or privately owned conservation lands", staff also recommends that the policy address additional water quality protection measures. Information taken from Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands and Wildlife in East Central Floridal's indicates that a 400-foot distance is needed to provide adequate spatial requirements of individual animals for at least 50% of the species in habitats commonly found in Collier County. This argues for preservation areas to maintain this distance as the minimum width of the required preserve area and for incentives to increase this width. These and other guidelines, such as provisions to accommodate the movement of wildlife through the project to the natural reservation (conservation land) or NRPA, should be considered. Ilii~l~Fi~n~e uvers~~~:~.osm0n: The Committee agrees with the need to buffer development from conservation and NRPA lands. The Committee voted to support a 300-foot buffer from adjacent conservation or NRPA boundary. The Committee further supports staff recommendation that in applying these buffer requirements there should be flexibility in allowing required open space (and preserve areas) to be used to protect wildlife corridors or to buffer the conservation or NRPA lands from the most intense uses of the project. 15 Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands and Wildlife in East Central Florida, Brown, Schaefer and Brandt (1990) CIV1L ENGINEEIt--S, Development & ~ ~ · · *./. ~ Environmental Consullants P~ JUN 1 3 2001I e2Sn. I Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www.nasites.com/collier/ In order to balance private property rights issues with natural resource protection strategies, cjustering of development is a key strategy. Cjustering is specifically referenced in the Final Order as a means of "directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that uses creative land use planning techniques...,16 Moreover, cjustering is a "Smart Growth" tool that is recommended in the Final Report of the Governor's Growth Management Study Commission.17 ~ There are several important reasons supporting the use of cjustering for areas identified as being appropriate for development within the Rural Fringe: and First, these lands must allow a higher gross density per acre in order to accept transferred units from environmentally sensitive lands Exhibit 9: Residential Cjustering within the Rural Fringe area. Preliminary evaluations indicate that a maximum gross density of 1 dwelling unit per gross acre within receiving areas will accommodate all potential transferred units, as well as any density incentives offered for increased on-site preservation (see Section 4.0.1.6 of this report). 16 ACC-99-002 Final Order, June 22, 1999 ~7 Governor's Growth Management Study Commission, Final Report, A Livable Florida for Today and Tomorrow. February 2001. http://www.floridagrowth.org/ ~ ~ · · ~ ~ Environmental Consultants Pa JUN 13 2001 e 26 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, na sites, co m/collier/ Second, from the site-specific scale perspective, cjustering will allow for preservation of the best natural areas on any particular site (Exhibit 9). Third, cjustering will allow a property owner to develop the site with the permitted gross density, thereby avoiding the likelihood of a successful Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act~8 claims. l~~ ~-~ The Committee has expressed support for cjustering in order direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and to maximize natural resource protection in areas deemed appropriate for development. Density blending19 is currently proposed as follows. For properties that, as of the effective date of the Final Order (June 22, 1999), straddle the Urban and Rural designated areas and have a minimum size of 80 acres, of which at least 25% is located within the Urban designated area, allowable density may be distributed throughout the project. Density Blending is proposed in order to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within the project. The following conditions are recommended: · A master plan for development shall be submitted with the rezone. It is strongly recommended that this be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). · Density shifted to Rural designated lands from Urban or Urban Fringe designated lands within the project shall only be located on impacted lands or lands with less environmental value than exists within the Urban or Urban Fringe designated lands within the project. · Where Density Blending is employed, all Rural Fringe preservation requirements shall be met or exceeded. ~~~: The Committee has voted to support the concept of density blending as outlined herein. It should be noted that as with all of these concepts, the Committee anticipates additional changes and refinement as specific GMP amendments are developed. J8 Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Protection Act (Ch. 70.001(2) Florida Statutes 19 Credit is given to Robert Duane, AICP, Planning Director for Hole Montes & Associates for assistance in developing the definition and conditions for Density Blending as outlined in a memo submitted to the Rural Fringe ~ ~. · · .Z. JIB- Environmental Consultants Pag 27 JUN / n. $t Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http ://www, nasites.co ~¥col lief/ As previously stated, the data supports the development of varying standards for each of the four subdistricts. For working purposes, the subdistricts have been designated A, B, C and D. The intent of these distinctive designations is to recognize that Rural Fringe Areas have varying qualities and should be treated differently. Staff recommends that each of the Rural Fringe Areas be designated as a "subdistrict" on the Future Land Use Map. The following areas should be considered as Rural Fringe Subdistricts as part of the Future Land Use Element: Big Corkscrew Rural Fringe District (Area A); Immokalee Road Rural Fringe District (Area B); North Belle Meade Rural Fringe District (Area C: excluding the Study Area which is recommended as a NRPA); Tamiami Trail Rural Fringe District (Area D) ~ Each Subdistrict should have different requirements reflecting the unique nature of each area: a. Density. ( J ) Staff recommends that all the Rural Fringe lands not within a NRPA maintain their existing gross density of 1 residential unit per 5 acres. On-site densities within NRPAs should be limited to one single-family dwelling unit per parcel or lot created prior to June 22, 1999, although TDRs may be sent from NRPAs to yet to be identified receiving areas at a rate of at least 1 unit per 5 gross acres. (2) Density bonuses should be recommended for different subdistricts as incentives for increasing the amount of area and type of habitats set aside for preserves. b. Allowable Land U~es. (1) Allowable land uses for each district should be determined by considering the natural resources contained within and adjacent to each respective subdistrict. These uses should also consider the characteristics and patterns of existing land use and subdivision of property. Intensive land uses should be directed away from critical resource areas such as Priority Panther Habitat and suitable habitat for Red Cockaded Woodpeckers. c. Land Development Standards (i.e., cjustering, preservation requirements, wildlife management criteria). --IL. ~ · · -/- ~ Environmental Consultants Pag JUN 13 201] 28 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http : / /www,nasites.com/collier/ (1) Land development standards should be established considering the composition and spatial extent of the natural resources found within each subdistrict. The Natural Area Preservation Standards section of this document recommends site preservation and natural vegetative retention standards for each subdistrict. Special standards addressing specific wildlife species should also be addressed for each subdistrict as appropriate. Transfer of Development Rights. (1) Each subdistrict or portions, thereof, should be identified as either a sending or receiving zone for transfer of development rights or purchase of development rights within the Rural Fringe. Wetland land cover data and Strategic Habitat Conservation Area (SHCA) data were analyzed to determine the amount of site preservation to protect a range of wetland and listed species habitat for each subdistrict area. Staff recommends that the site preservation standards be based on preserving a specific amount of wetland and listed species habitat for the Rural Fringe. Accordingly, staff recommends that site preservation standards, incentives and mitigation allowances be established to protect 90% to 100% of wetland land cover (and 80% to 95% of SHCAs). This can be accomplished by establishing an appropriate balance between minimum preservation standards, incentives for additional preservation and/or mitigation through restoration of degraded areas. : The Committee voted to support the creation of subdistricts. The Committee has not taken action with respect to allowable density in NRPA designated areas. As of the date of this report, although the concept has been discussed, the Committee has not identified specific TDR sending or receiving areas pending specific recommendations by staff. Based upon the wetland and listed species data referenced in this report and utilized by staff and the committee during the Assessment process, within the Big Corkscrew Rural Fringe District (Area A) and Tamiami Trail Rural Fringe District (Area D) a 10% and 13% site preservation standard, respectively, should be applied in order to protect wetlands and listed species habitat. Because these areas have been severely altered, significant restoration opportunities exist in these two subdistricts. Thus, if a minimum site preservation requirement of 25% is applied in these areas, it will allow for a restoration component of 15% for Area A and 12% for Area D. The Immokalee Road Rural Fringe District (Area B) and the North Belle Meade Rural Fringe District (Area C, ~ ~ · · ..J- ~ Environmental Consultants Pa JUN 1 3 20011 ie 29 I I Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites, corn~collier~ excluding the Study Area which is recommended as a NRPA) contain significantly higher percentages of environmentally valuable lands. ~ Based on this analysis, staff has made an initial recommendation for site preservation targets as follows: a. Big Corkscrew Rural Fringe District (Area A) - 25% of the site b. lmmokalee Road Rural Fringe District (Area B) - 30% of the site c. North Belle Meade Rural Fringe District (Area C) - 60% of the site (This is the area within C except for the Study Area.) d. Tamiami Trail Rural Fringe District (Area D) - 25% of the site e. North Belle Meade Study Area - 90% of the site f. NRPAs - 90% of the site. The amount of natural vegetation found within an area is proportional to the amount of SHCAs identified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. This analysis has been performed and is summarized in the following table: Area Wetland + Upland = Native SHCA Ratio of (Acres) (Acres) Veg. (NV)2° (Acres) SHCA To NV (Acres) A 552 1,386 1,938 821 0.42 B 1,841 478 2,319 1,486 0.64 C:~ 2,553 4,591 7,144 6,769 0.95 D 1,365 729 2,094 1,278 0.61 Study Area 5,309 608 5,917 5,915 1.00 NRPA 28,910 2,698 31,608 31,220 0.99 Exhibit 10: Native Vegetation and SHCA Lands within Rural Fringe by Area. Source: Collier County Natural Resources Dept. In the opinion of staff~-based upon the data, in addition to minimum site preservation standards, minin-mm native vegetation preservation requirements are also necessary. The ratios in Exhibit 10 indicate that the most important native vegetation utilized for listed species occurs in Area C, the Study Area and NRPAs where the ratios are greater than 20 21 Note: Tabulated values include areas not contained within any properties already within a PUD or having received a Conditional Use. Excludes the Study area from the analysis, which is calculated separately. JUN 1 3 21 Page 0 ~ ~ · · ../- .Ik. Environmental Consultants Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www.nasites,com/collier/ 0.95. The total range for the Fringe is 0.42 to 1.0. Therefore, this analysis indicates that SCHAs range from 42% to 100% of the native vegetation for the Fringe areas. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends the following minimum native preservation requirements: a. Big Corkscrew Rural Fringe District (Area A) - 40% of the native vegetation b. lmmokalee Road Rural Fringe District (Area B) - 60% of the native vegetation c. North Belle Meade Rural Fringe District (Area C) - 85% of the native vegetation d. Tamiami Trail Rural Fringe District (Area D) - 55% of the native vegetation e. North Belle Meade Stud), Area (Study Area) - 90% of the native vegetation f. NRPAs - 90% of the native vegetation Staff recognizes that the calculated ratios for the Study Area and NRPAs are unrealistic to apply to smaller properties and thus must be adjusted, by applying a sliding scale to ensure reasonable use of property for small parcels. (See Section 4.0.1.6.5 entitled Minimum Clearing Allowances for Smaller Parcels) ~¢:, o~tio~: The Committee supports the use of minimum preservation standards but does not .concur with the percentages recommended by staff. The Committee has endorsed the following preservation standards by sub-area: a. Big Corkscrew Rural Fringe District (Area A) - 30% of the site b. Immokalee Road Rural Fringe District (Area B) - 30% of the site c. North Belle Meade Rural Fringe District (Area C) - 45 % of the site (This is the area within C except for the Study Area.) d. Tamiami Trail Rural Fringe District (Area D) - 30% of the site e. North Belle Mead_e Study Area - 45 % of the site f. NRPAs - 90% of the site. ~ Staff also recommends the creation of an incentive program to increase both the area and the native vegetation to be preserved. As proposed, property owners setting aside more land than is required by applying the m#ffmum site preservation and native vegetation retention standards would be granted a density bonus. The purpose of the Density Bonus Incentive Program is to provide incentives for property owners to establish preserved areas that exceed minimum site preservation and vegetation retention C~VZL ~NC~NEE]~.~ Develc~ment & ,.Il,. ~ · · ,,./. .JI- Environmental Consultants Pag~ JUN 1 3 2Utjl n. '-'~l~~~~li~i Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites.com/col lier/ standards. Incentives should be designed to provide the property owner with a profitable density increment that allows the developer to set aside additional land but recover any lost costs through the increased number of units awarded by the incentive program. Furthermore, staff recommends that the incentive program be structured to provide a greater incentive to protect existing native vegetation than to preserve areas that are devoid of native vegetation. As proposed, density bonuses are not available for development of lands within the Study Area and NRPAs because of the overall environmental sensitivity of these areas. Protecting lands adjacent to NRPAs provides additional value since these areas represent large connected systems that are extremely important for maintaining the highest functions for wetlands and wildlife purposes. Bonus densities should therefore reflect a higher incentive to add to these areas. Preservation of established vegetated areas is more valuable than preserving non-vegetative areas. However, a bonus should be granted for increasing the functionality of fallow land. In recognition of potential impacts from additional density on receiving lands, both from density incentives and TDRs, it may be necessary to establish a maximum bonus. Further -- analysis of whether or not there should be a density bonus cap and what that cap may be should be a principal review function of a qualified economist hired by the County to review the marketability of the density bonus incentive program and the TDR program. Based upon these objectives, staff has tentatively proposed the following policies: I. On-Site Bonus: a. Provide 0.4 units per acre for each acre of on-site vegetation preserved that is greater than that required by the application of the vegetation retention standard. b. Provide 0.2 units per acre for each acre of non-vegetated area set aside as preserve area than that required by the application of the site preservation standard. 2. Off-Site Bonus: a. Provide 0.4 units per acre for each acre of off-site vegetation preserved that is greater than that required by the application of the vegetation retention standard. This bonus is increased to 0.8 units per acre for vegetation preserved within or contiguous with NRPAs, Conservation Lands or other designated areas. 2ool ~ ~ · · ,./. ~ Environmental Consultants Page 32 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www,nasites.com/collier/ bo Provide 0.2 units per acre for each acre of non-vegetated area set aside as preserve area than that required by the application of the site preservation standard. This bonus is increased to 0.4 units per acre for non-vegetative areas preserved within or contiguous with NRPAs, Conservation Lands or other designated areas. o The density bonuses for preserving non-vegetative areas may be increased by 50% if these areas are planted and maintained with an appropriate cover of native vegetation. 4. The density bonuses will be applied after the application of preservation standards and allowable mitigation options to meet the minimum standards. Staff is continuing to work with the committee to further the development of these preservation and native vegetation retention incentives, pending review by a qualified economist, as recommended in this report. Exhibit 12 reflects the current staff recommendations with respect to preservation and native vegetation standards, density bonus incentives and mitigation opportunities. Area Area Area Area Study NRPA A B C D Area Minimum Preservation Standards 22 Site Preservation Requirement 25% 30% 60% 25% 90% 90% Native Vegetation Retention 40% 60% 85% 55% 90% 90% Mitigation allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Density Bonus Incentives (Units per acre) Exceeding Site Preservation Requirements 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 N/A23 N/A Exceeding Native Vegetation Requirements 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 N/A N/A Exhibit 12: Minimum Preservation/Native Vegetation Retention Standards, Density Bonus Incentives and Mitigation Opportunities Note: As proposed, in calculating the minimum preservation requirement and the native vegetation retention percentage, a property owner would be required to preserve whichever is the greater amount. The example below provides an iljustration of how these standards would apply in the Immokalee Road Rural Fringe District (Area B) where 22 A minimum of 20,000 square feet is allowed to be cleared for any property within the Rural Fringe, subject to wetland permitting requirements. 23 These density bonuses are not available for the Study Area and NRPAs. CIVIL ENGiN BEllS Dovolopm~nl & .,BI.. ~,. · · .~. ~ Environmental Consultants Pa JUN 1 3 20u, ~ Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies ¢,i http://www, nasites, com/collier/ the proposed Site Preservation Standard requires at least 30% of the site be placed in a preserve status and that 60% of native vegetation must be retained. 100 acre Site having 20 acres of native vegetation Application of the preservation requirements: (1) Site Preservation Standard: 0.30 x 100 acres = 30 acres (2) Native Vegetation Standard: 0.60 x 20 acres = 12 acres Preserved area shall be 30 acres24 100 acre Site having 80 acres of native vegetation Application of the proposed preservation requirements: (1) Site Preservation Standard: 0.30 x 100 acres = 30 acres (2) Native Vegetation Standard: 0.60 x 80 acres = 48 acres Preserved area shall be 48 acres25 ~~~-~: It must be stated that staff and the committee are not in agreement on the specifics of the preservation and native vegetation retention standards, nor on the proposed density incentive bonuses. The Committee has indicted that the staff goal of preserving 90 to 100% of the study area vegetation may be better achieved through lesser minimum requirements and higher incentives. Staff and the Committee continue to work on this issue and to consider public stakeholder input to further refine the relationship between minimum requirements and incentives. As an example, Robert Duane, AICP, Planning Director for Hole Montes and Associates, made a presentation to the committee that set forth standards that are somewhat between the Committee's current recommendations and the staff recommendations. As indicted throughout this report, the staff and the Committee continue to evaluate a range of concepts designed to work in concert to implement the requirements f the Final Order. These-include: the proposed Minimum Wetland, Vegetative Communities and Wildlife Protection Standards (Section 4.0.1.6.7); incentives for on-site and off-site preservation; NRPA designation; TDRs; buffers from Conservation and NRPA lands, and others. The Committee has expressed concern that the preservation and native vegetation standard are not developed so as to overshadow the other tools current under consideration. Exhibit 13, prepared by Mr. Duane iljustrates the proposed staff and Committee recommendations for Preservation standards and includes Mr. Duane's recommendations as well. 24 The greater of either the Site Preservation or Native Vegetation Standard shall apply. 2~ The greater of either the Site Preservation or Native Vegetation Standard shall apply. ~ trfl~ ~~ I~~T'~'c 2001 C ...... C. .... ~ Development& JUN 1 3 ..lB- ~ · · _/_ ~ Environmental Consultants P, ge 34 , -iL? Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http ://www.nasites.com/collier/ Fle~our~, 'i: Total Area Wetlands Uplands Total Ve~letation SHCAs Area A 6,659 552 1,386 1,938 821 Exhibit 13: Comparison of Preservation & Density Area B 5,280 1,841 478 2,319 1,486 Incentive Proposals. Source: Hole Montes & Area C 10,125 2,553 4,591 7,144 6,769 Associates Study Area 6,147 5,309 608 5,917 5,915 Area D 9,614 1,365 729 2,094 1,278 NRPAs 33,086 28,910 2,698 31,608 31,220 70,911 40,530 10,490 51,020 47,489 RFAC Proposal Staff Proposal Alternative Proposal/Duane Base Bonus ! ~rvation Standards Ve~letation Site Ve~letation Site Vegetation Vegetation Site Area A 30% 0% 40% 25% 40% 50% 0% Area B 30% 0% 60% 30% 40*/ 50% 0% Area C 45% 0% 85% 60% 45% 55% 0% Study Area 45% 0% 90% 90% 45% 45% 0% Area D 30% 0% 55% 25% 35% 45% 0% NRPAs 90°/= 0% 90% 90% 90°/= 90% 0% ~oiect~ vegetat~n ~ uang Preservation Standards RFAC Proposal Staff Proposal Alternative Proposal/Duane Retained Vecjetation Base Ve~letation Bonus Vegetation Area A 581 775 775 969 Area B 696 1,391 927 1,160 Area C 3,215 6,072 3,215 3.929 Study Area 2,663 5,325 2,663 2.663 Area D 628 1,152 732: 945 NRPAs 28,447 28,447 28,44'/ 28,447 Acres of Retained I Vecjetation 36,230 43,163 36,759 38,110! Restored Ye,~]etatien Area a 0 1,180 C Area B 0 888 C Area C 0 1,789 C Study Areal 0 207 C Area C 0 1,880 C NRPAs! 0 1,330 C Acres of Restored Ve~letation 0 7,274 . ~,r~ TI -lB-- ~A. · · ,J.. ~ Environmental Consultants Pag~ 35 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites, co m/collier/ ~ Staff recommends that an3' property be allowed to clear up to one-half acre or 22,000 square feet in order to provide an accommodation for single-family residences to meet fire buffers and residential use of the property. This standard is based on the assumed site requirements shown in below. For example, a 2.25 acre property located anywhere in the Rural Fringe would be allowed to clear 22,000 square feet, even though this clearing represents 20% of the site size. For the most restrictive preservation standards proposed (Study Area and NRPAs), a 90% preservation standard applied to a 5- acre lot would allow 21,780 square feet to be cleared. An example of the minimum clearing application is provided below. Elements Allocated Area 1. House 2.Driveway 3.Fire Buffer Clearing 4.Other Total 5,000 sq.ft. (150' x 15') 2,250 sq.ft. (30ft. from house) 12,000 sq.ft. 1000 sq.ft. 20,150 sq.ft. ~i~;~. . The Committee has not yet taken a position on the staff recommended minimum Clearing Allowances for Smaller Properties. The Committee has expressed a strong desire to develop standards that allows a property owner reasonable use of his or her property. ~ Retention of native vegetation is encouraged to be met on site, however, there may be instances where reasonable use of property is not possible with a strict application of the proposed preservation standards. In these cases, limited off-site mitigation is recommended to meet a portion of the preservation requirements. Mitigation Standards for the site preservation requirement: For sites where there is a small amount of native vegetation, the application of the Site Preservation Standard may result in a preserve area that is greater than the amount of vegetation that must be retained. In these circumstances, up to 100% of the non-vegetated fraction of the required preserve area may be mitigated for offsite. a. Ratios for preserving this amount of area are as follows: ~ ~ · · ../,. ~ Environmental Consultants Pa Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, n asites, corn~collier~ (1) Locations that are within or contiguous with NRPAs, Conservation Lands or other Designated Areas ........................................................... O. 75:1 (2) Locations that are not within or contiguous with NRPAs, Conservation Lands or other Designated Areas ......................................................... l : l The site preserVation standards already require that preservation areas devoid of native vegetation be cleared of exotics and maintained exotic free, thereby allowing native vegetation to re-establish. That, in and of itself, increases the habitat value of these areas. Increasing habitat value of these areas will reduce the proposed off-site mitigation ratios for meeting preservation/native vegetation retention requirements listed in 1.a (1) and (2) above. Note: Standardized methodologies for measuring habitat functionality will need to be identified in order to quantify the amount of increased habitat value. Proposed Mitigation Standards for the native vegetation retention requirement: Offsite mitigation by preserving similar offsite areas is allowed for up to 50% of the vegetation area required to be retained by the application of the Vegetation Retention Standard. a. Offsite Vegetation Mitigation Ratios for mitigating vegetation destroyed that is greater than that allowed by the application of the Vegetation Retention Standard: (I) Locations that are within or contiguous with NRPAs, Conservation Lands or other Designated Areas ............................................................ 2:1 (2) Locations that are not within or contiguous with NRPAs, Conservation Lands or other Designated Areas .......................................................... 3:1 b.Qualified areas shall be "like for like" Onsite and offsite mitigation by restoration or creation is allowed for up to 10% of the vegetation area required to be retained by the application of the Vegetation Retention Standard. a. Ratios for mitigating vegetation destroyed that is greater than that allowed by the application of the Vegetation Retention Standard: (1) Locations that are within or contiguous with NRPAs, Conservation Lands or other Designated Areas ............................................................. 3:1 (2)Locations that are not within or contiguous with NRPAs, Conservation Lands or other Designated Areas ........................................................... 4:1 Cl3,rlL ENGINEEIL,~- . ~ DoveOpl/lO t & & ~., · · ../.. ~ Environmental Cor~sultants JUN 13 200! >age 37 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www,nasites.com/collier/ bo Criteria for restoration and will be further developed. Areas that will qualiJ~, include littoral zones appropriately designed and planted that exceed the County's minimum standards. Preservation Priorities Presently, staff recommends the following standards, in descending order of priority, be included: (2) (3) (4) Wetland flow-ways through the project shall be maintained. Natural areas, especially preserved wetlands, shall be interconnected within the site and to other wetland areas or wildlife corridors off-site. Wetland and upland areas known to be utilized by listed species or serve as corridors .for the movement of wildlife shall be preserved and protected in order to facilitate the movement of wildlife through the site. Upland habitat shall be part of the preservation requirement when wetlands alone do not constitute the entire requirement. Upland habitats have the following descending order of priority: (a) Any upland habitat that serves as a buffer to a wetland area; (b) Xeric Scrub; (c) Dune and Strand, Hardwood Hammocks; (d) DO, Prairie, Pine Flatwoo& and (e) All other upland habitats. Additionally staff recommends the following: U) (2) (3) (4) (5) Preserved natural areas shall be connected throughout the project area and to off site natural areas to the greatest extent possible. In order to maintain a rural appearance from arterial roadways, a minimum vegetated buffer and/or open water and vegetated buffer in combination of 200 feet shall be provided for all principal structures from any adjacent arterial roadway. This buffer area shall contain at least 80% native vegetation. Natural areas can be used for this buffer requirement. Passive uses such as nature trails are allowed in the preserved areas. All required preserve lands within the project or purchased as off-site mitigation, shall be protected by a permanent conservation easement setting standards to safeguard the site's special resources from negative changes. A management plan shall be submitted to identify required actions to ensure that the preserved areas will function as proposed including, but not limited to, exotic control and treatment, fire management, and maintenance of facilities that provide protection to listed species. ..11.. ~ · · .,/.. ~ Environmental Consoltants JUN 1 3 2001 Pa 38 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http ://www. na sites.corn/col lief/ (6) At a minimum, the proposed countywide standards for wetlands shall also apply in the Rural Fringe. ~' , :'. ....... ~ .... ~ L_ ~ The Committee has discussed these concepts on a number of occasions, but has taken no formal action to approve or endorse the staff recommended preservation priorities pending development and review of specific draft GMP language and polices for implementing such strategies. The Final Order requires the County to develop policies that "direct development away from wetlands and upland habitat to protect water quality, quantity, and natural water regime and to protect listed species and their habitat.''26 Protection measures, while they may vary from one area of the County to another based upon the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands, and habitat areas, must be applicable throughout the County. The proposed minimum standards should be used as a guide for the creation of wetland standards for the Fringe and for areas of the County not subject to the Final Order restrictions. In other words, while the Final Order identifies the Rural & Agricultural Assessment as the process by which these policies will be developed, protection policies must be applicable throughout the Count)', to the degree that the data supports these measures from area to area, in varying degrees. GMP amendments for the Rural Fringe Area should be accompanied by GMP amendments that apply in other areas of the Count)', which are not in the assessment area and thus not subject to the interim restrictions. Since the interim restrictions set forth in the Final Order will apply to the Eastern Lands Study Area until at least June 22, 2002, the Countywide minimum standards need not apply to this area at this time. Staff has developed a draft set of minimum polices for wetlands, vegetative communities and wildlife protection. Those standards are incorporated into this report as Exhibit "F." They represent an initial effort and are expected to be revised over the next several months leading up to the anticipated October transmittal hearing for Rural Fringe GMP amendments. Staff is currently working with the Rural Fringe Committee, the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) and with the public and stakeholder groups to finalize these concepts, and distribute them for additional review. 26 ACC-99-002 Final Order, June 22, 1999 · · ~.. ~' Environmental Consultants Pi JUN 13 200 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www,nasites'c°m/c°~lier/ Specifically, at this time the Committee recommends that staff should be given latitude to develop other criteria for countywide minimum standards and that that preservation will be included in the open space requirement amount. The Committee has expressed concern that the proposed Minimum Wetland, Vegetative Communities and Wildlife Protection Standards are overly restrictive as they are currently drafted. The Committee did not endorse these resource protection strategies, expressing concern that these policies constitute another regulatory permitting program at the local level which is not necessary given that the jurisdictional agencies (both State and Federal) have the legal obligation for protecting wetlands, listed species and their habitat. Required Wildlife Management Plans are proposed for projects exceeding a yet to be determined threshold located within Priority I and II Panther Habitat Areas. Areas within a project designated Priority I and II should be retained for preserve areas or otherwise restricted to protect Panthers and their habitat. Management of preserve areas should be developed to enhance habitat for panther pre), species. Required preserve areas should be located, designed and managed so as to promote the movement of wildlife through the project. Clearing standards should be established for habitat preferred by red cockaded woodpeckers in this subdistrict? Policies should direct more intensive O'Pes of land uses out of the Stud)' area and away from areas of potential RCW habitat in the North Belle Meade Subdistrict. These land uses should be directed to areas outside the subdistrict, adjacent to the North C~olden Gate Estates in the northern section of the Subdistrict. Collier Count)' should support panther crossings under 1-75 to the south, particularly in proximity to the North Bell Meade Study Area, and along East US 41 in the area of the South Belle Meade. 27 Logan, T.J., Eller, A.C., et.al., Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (1993), ~ 2s USFWS, South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (1999) l~l~ JUN 13 ', Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http : //www, nasites.com/collier/ Where the data indicates the presence of or habitat for, listed species within a specific project area, site-specific management plans should be developed fro projects exceeding a yet to be established threshold. Management plans should incorporate the following guidelines to protect listed species and their habitats.. 1. Utilization of required open space requirements to maintain buffer areas between important wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. 2. Facilitation of wildlife movement along natural trails by preserving appropriate areas and by utilizing fencing and walls that encourage wildlife to use natural corridors. 3. Locate roads away from identified and potential natural travel corridors used by wildlife. 4. Utilize appropriate roadway crossing and signage when it is unavoidable for roadways to cross wildlife trails. 5. Provide for the appropriate use offences, walls or other obstructions to encourage wildlife to use natural corridors or to separate wildlife corridors from areas of human activity. Specific staff recommendations for wildlife management and listed species protection can be found under Attachment "E" of this report (Growth Management Plan Objectives and Policies Addressing Countywide Minimum Standards for Wetlands, Habitats and Wildlife Protection.) The committee has ,,,-~ ...... but will be revie,.,~-- -,- """"~ o[ sta~i regarding Wildlife ~s ..... ~'", ~,~ rev~ewea --,,,g mere over the summer months "*,~-*gement Standards, There has been significant discussion over the past several years regarding the appropriateness of golf courses as permitted uses within the rural area of Collier County. It is important to note that the Rural Agricultural designation does permit golf courses in conjunction with residential development by right. Freestanding golf courses are conditionally Permitted (conditional uses). The Final Order prohibits new golf courses during the Assessment period. Environmental Consultants JUN 1 3 20[, P~ Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites, corn~collier~ ~~ Although the Final Order prohibits new golf courses during the assessment period, this should not be construed to mean that golf courses should not be permitted uses at the conclusion of the assessment period. Golf courses are an appropriate use within the Rural Fringe Area, if subject to specific standards, including but not limited to, restrictions as to number and location, environmental design criteria such as the Audubon Designation standards and enhanced wildlife management design criteria. Under the proposed policies, the majority of wetlands and existing natural areas in the Fringe will be preserved, development will be directed to areas with the least environmental value, and in these impacted areas significant preservation requirements and restoration opportunities exist. Under this scenario, staff believes that allowing golf courses as a permitted use in certain areas of the Fringe is appropriate. It must be restated that the conceptual plan outlined herein seeks to address the requirements of the Final Order in such a manner as to preserve natural resources and protect private property rights. Stephen Bortone, PH.D., a former Committee member and scientist with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, has indicated that the Conservancy staff is developing environmental design standards for golf courses. It is recommended that staff work with the environmental groups, developers and landowners, and other stakeholder groups to develop environmental standards for golf courses. .. Unilateral deletion of golf courses as a permitted use in the Rural Fringe may increase the likelihood of Burt J. Harris Act compensation claims. Conversely, allowance of golf courses subject to environmental design and locational standards will reduce the likelihood of a successful Harris Act claim. ~~J;~l~,~ The committee has not yet taken a final position regarding golf courses as a permitted use in the Rural Fringe, but has indicated strong support for achieving a balance between natural resource protection and privat~ property rights. The Final Order Requires the County to: Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible lands uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land ~ ~.. · · ..Z. ~ Environrnent~l Consultants Pag JUN 13 20 42 ~. :1 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites, co m/collier/ use planning techniques, including but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, cjustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. The Assessment shall recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to develop which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agricultural and other predominately rural land uses, and provide for the cost effective delivery of public facilities and services. 29[Underline added] The State of Florida defines urban sprawl in rule 9J-5 as follows: 'Urban sprawl' means urban development or uses which are located in predominantly rural areas, or rural areas interspersed with generally low- intensity or low-density urban uses, and which are characterized by one or more of the following conditions: (a) The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; (b) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area; or (c) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public services are currently provided. Urban sprawl is typically manifested in one or more of the following land use or development patterns: Leapfrog or scattered development; ribbon or strip commercial or other development; or large expanses of predominantly low-intensit3.,, low-density, or single-use development. Single-family development has always been permitted in the Collier County Rural Area at a base gross density of 1 dwelling unit per five acres. The County's GMP, establishing that base density in the rural lands, was approved by the DCA ~n 1989. Had the rural density and other uses permitted by the Growth Management Plan in the County's rural designated lands constituted urban sprawl development, the plan would not have been found in compliance at that time. The alternative land use scenario presented herein maintain or reduce that gross density, with due consideration of Florida's private property rights laws, but directs the development to areas that have the least environmental value and that are located proximate to the Urban or Estates designated areas of the County. The areas identified as being appropriate to receive this density are also located to 29 ACC-99-002 Final Order, June 22, 1999 30 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) 9J-5.003 Definitions. CIVIL ENGiNEEILS Developmont & e4e JUN 1 3 ..I- ~,- · · .J- ..11. EnvirOnmental Consultants Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites, corn/collier/ allow for the provision of central water and sewer and have excellent access to the County's arterial road network. The alternative land use scenarios set forth in this report, while still requiring refinement and additional analysis, encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques, including but not limited to, TDRs, PDRs, and preservation and restoration requirements and incentives, cjustering and open space provisions and mixed use development that makes provisions for collocating appropriate public services, schools, essential services and comtnercial and other non-residential uses. In summary, the alternative land use scenarios for the Rural Fringe area established in this report do not constitute urban sprawl. The committee will review the entire package of lands use tools and concepts in determining whether or not the final endorsed alternatives for the Fringe area exacerbate urban sprawl. A significant amount of additional research and evaluation is necessary to fully evaluate the impacts of these concepts on the factors set forth in the Evaluation Factor Matrix. Utilizing the Evaluation Factor Matrix, a comparison between the scenarios described in this report and the existing comprehensive plan will be conducted. This will identify, qualitatively, the degree to which these concepts address the noncompliance issues identified in the Final Order. Staff is currently developing a model that can be used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed preservation and develc~pment scenarios on water quality and potential impacts to ground water aquifer recharge areas. Additionally, staff will develop a projection of water consumption by future uses and for comparison to current water consumption and available supply. Assistance and input from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the Big Cypress Basin has been ongoing in this effort. An evaluation of the potential im on the existing and future (2025) transportation network within and in proximity Rural Fringe Area must be completed. The overall maximum gross density for the ~ ~ · · -/- ~, Environmental Consultants )acts ~,ur al~l?.~l~ JUN 1 3 2001 P; Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www.nasites.com/collier/ Fringe Area, approximately 20,000 dwelling units, will not increase and may decrease with the proposed TDR program. Thus, it is most important that an assessment of the potential impacts to the road network in the Rural Fringe Area and on nearby lands be conducted. The Collier County MPO is scheduled to conduct a mobility study in North Golden Gate Estates sometime in the next 12 months. This mobility study may result in recommendations that affect the Rural Fringe Area. It is recommended that the County Transportation Planning Department (or a qualified transportation consultant) conduct an assessment of the transportation impacts associated with the final draft alternative land use scenarios for the Rural Fringe. This data and attendant recommendations will be important in the Board's consideration of draft GMP amendments in October of 2001. Additionally, this analysis will provide necessary data to accompany the submission of these amendments to the DCA. The Committee has not reviewed data or staff recommendations related to Water Quality, Quantity, Flooding and Drainage; or for Transportation Infrastructure Impacts that may be anticipated from Fringe area alternative lands use scenarios. These issues will be considered when staff analysis is complete, and as part of the comparison of the elements and measures contained in the Evaluation Factor Matrix. There has been much discussion in recent years regarding the appropriateness of extending central sewer and water to serve areas outside the urban boundary. The preponderance of literature on growth management supports the premise that extension of central water and sewer and other urban services in an area facilitates growth and development of that area. Florida Statutes and the Collier Country Growth Management Plan discourage the extension of urban services such as central sewer and water into rural lands where such a provision would exacerbate urban sprawl or otherwise b_e untimely. The strategies proposed for the Rural Fringe Area collectively work to establish a transitional area between the urban lands to the east and the true rural lands farther to the east. A policy allowing for the provision of central sewer and water in limited areas within the Rural Fringe does not promote urban sprawl nor is it untimely. A basic tenant of these strategies is to provide a balance between natural resource protection and protection of private property rights. Provision of central sewer and water in limited areas within the Rural Fringe furthers this objective. From an environmental perspective, it is generally held that central sewer and water is preferable over well and septic. CIVIL ENGINEE~LS Development & JUN 1 3 2or" · .I-- ~ · · ~ ~ Environmental Consultants Pa: e 45 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www,nasites.com/collier/ Many of the natural resource protection strategies set forth in this report can be furthered with limited provision of central sewer and water. In particular, central sewer and water can maximize the application of TDRs, density blending, and cjustering to maximize site preservation and native vegetation protection. Limiting the identified receiving areas to well and septic effectively minimizes the benefits of cjustering and TDRs since a minimum development parcel of about 1/2 acre is required to locate and permit both a well and a septic tank on a single-family lot. Moreover, there is risk of ground water contamination due to leaching from septic tanks over time. Finally, extension of central sewer and water in limited areas of the Rural Fringe along the Immokalee Road corridor and the East US 41 corridor makes sense from an economy of scale perspective. These areas have generally been identified as receiving areas due to the significantly lesser degree of wetlands and habitat for listed species and the higher degree of altered lands. These areas contain a significant number of individual parcel owners. Finally, with respect to the Immokalee Road corridor, central sewer and water is supported in portions of the Big Corkscrew Rural Fringe District (Area A) and Immokalee Road Rural Fringe District (Area B), as the County is scheduled to take over the Orange Tree Utility Plant by 2011. The County is considering the purchase of additional lands that would allow for the development of a third regional treatment plant in this area. As such, it will make sense to connect this' ti}ird regional treatment plant to the existing North County Regional plant. That connection can occur along the Immokalee Road corridor. In this scenario, it would make sense to serve those lands along this corridor that have been designated as receiving areas. Along East US 41, adjacent to the Tamiami Trail Rural Fringe District (Area D), water lines and an underutilized pump station are already in existence extending out to Collier Seminole State Park. This infrastructure was installed prior to adoption of the current Comprehensive Plan when that portion of the County was within the Urban Area. With the installation of minimal additional infrastructure, the County can provide central sewer and water to designated receiving lands in the Fringe adjacent to US 41 in the Tamiami Trail Rural Fringe District (Area D). ~;~ The Committee has generally endorsed central sewer and water in connection with cjustering and with density blending. The committee has not yet discussed the specifics of where central sewer and water may be extended within the Fringe. ~ ~ · · .t.. ~ Environmental Consultants JUN 1 3 2001 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http ://www, na sites.corn/collier/ The degree to which hurricane evacuation times may be impacted by these strategies discussed in this report must also be considered. The degree to which additional shelter capacity may be available outside of areas that are likely to be inundated during storm events, as indicted on the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricane Map for Collier County (Map 4) must also be evaluated. Schools and other similar large buildings should be designed to provide additional shelter capacity if located in areas less likely to be inundated during storm events. Impacts on evacuation routes, if any, must be considered as well. Map 4: SLOSH Model An additional important emergency preparedness consideration is the potential threat from wildfires. This is of particular concern given the altered hydrology in North Golden Gate Estates and recent climatic trends. The Florida Division of Forestry, Forest Protection Bureau has been working with local governments to implement a wildfire risk management strategy to reduce the likelihood of loss of life and property in areas prone to wildfires.3~ The Florida Division of Forestry, the DCA Division of Emergency Preparedness, the Governor's Wildfire Response Mitigation Review Commission, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Wildfire Florida Division of Forestry Website: http://flame.doacs.state.fl.us ~'-- ~ ~. · · z, ~ Environmental Consultants CIVIL ENGiNEElt. S Development & P; Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www,nasites.com/collier/ Management Report all support the use of wildfire mitigation through project and site design and through various other techniques promoted by the National Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Program. Collectively these techniques are referred to as the Firewise program? The Firewise program was developed to reduce the danger from wildfire to people who live or vacation in fire prone areas. It is recommended that Collier County adopt these wildfire mitigation techniques for development in close proximity to conservation lands or in other areas subject to a high wildfire risk. ............. ' ": ....... i The Committee has not made final recommendations on emergency preparedness issues pending the development of final recommendations from staff. It is important to include a mixture of uses within or in close proximity to the areas designated for residential development within the Rural Fringe. As previously indicated, policies should direct intensive mixed-use type of land uses out of the Study area and away from areas of potential RCW habitat in the North Belle Meade Subdistrict. These land uses should be encouraged to be placed adjacent to the North Golden Gate Estates in the northern section of the Subdistrict. While technically not within the Assessment area, the Orange Tree Settlement Area provides a unique opportunity to allow for a mixture of uses that can serve the surrounding and nearby North Golden Gate Estates and the Northern Fringe Area. Some 1200 acres of agriculturally designated lands are under single ownership and located within the Settlement Area. This amount of land can provide for a well planned mixed-use development that includes schools, churches, 32 Firewise Website: www.firewise.org/ Map 5: Orange Tree Settlement Area IN Rel, to Rural Fringe and North Golden Gate ..I- ~ · · .J.. ~ Environmental Consultants JUN13 2001 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www, nasites, co m/collier/ essential services, commercial uses and possibly some employment generating uses. This should be reviewed as part of the Golden Gate Master Plan restudy. Within the Tamiami Trail Rural Fringe District (Area D), there exists the potential for mixed use development as well, providing for institutional uses such as schools and other government services, employment opportunities and a mixture of housing types, including workforce housing. Schools, if located in close proximity to an arterial roadway and to residential areas the school is intended to serve, are appropriate uses within the Fringe area. The concepts outlined herein will result in schools being Schools, directed away from wetlands and listed species habitat. Note: The Collier County District School Board staff has been an active participant in the assessment process. With respect to workforce-and affordable-housing, strategies that would strictly tie density increases in receiving areas of the Fringe through TDRs to workforce housing would work against the private property protection strategies outlined in this report. It should be noted that optimally, workforce housing must be located in close proximity to employment, transportation, and other infrastructure and urban services. Clearly there is opportunity to promote the development of workforce housing within certain areas of the Fringe, but only to the degree that employment; recreation and shopping opportunities are provided in close proximity. Absent these services, residents would be forced to travel significant distances, predominantly into the urban area, further exacerbating congestion on the County's road network. Accordingly, strategies should be developed to provide incentives to promote the development of workforce housing throughout the Urban and Rural Fringe Areas. Infill parcels exist throughout the Urban Area and offer excellent opportunities to meet this need. Policies must be developed to create a market attraction for the development of workforce housing. Primarily this can occur in three ways: 1) subsidizing the land cost for builders of qualified workforce housing; 2) increasing, by right, the density for qualified workforce housing, and 3) a combination of both of these incentives. The Count3' should develop a workforce housing impact fee that wouM provide funding to subsidize land cost for qualified workforce developers building such housing in the general area where the impacts occur. Additionally, the County could use these funds to purchase Development Rights from NRPAs in the Rural Fringe and create a bank of dwelling units that could be offered at no cost to qualifying workforce housing projects. The County, at no cost, could also acquire units when an existing development voluntarily reduces its approved density during a rezoning or PUD amendment process. A percentage of the reduced units could be transferred at no cost to the County to be CIVIL ENGINEEP,.S Development & .i- ~,. · · ..t. & Environmental Consultants P JUN ! 3 2001 Lge 49 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www.nasites.com/collier/ placed in the Workforce Housing Density Bank for distribution, at no charge, to qualified workforce housing projects. ~~~2 The Committee has discussed the need for essential services, commercial uses and other non.residential uses within and in close proximity to the Rural Fringe but has not taken a final position pending final recommendations from staff. The committee has discussed, on several occasions, the development of strategies to promote workforce housing as a component of Rural Fringe Assessment. In addition to allowing TDRs and cjustering within designated areas of the fringe, additional strategies include a policy that would allow for the transfer of a limited number of dwelling units from environmentally sensitive lands (NRPAs) within the Fringe to urban lands for qualified workforce housing and infill projects. As discussed, this should be structured as a "by right" process. The Final Order requires the County to consider the wildlife management plans, where they exist and are in effect for conservation lands within the assessment area, in developing protection strategies. Further, the County must consider the impacts of these strategies on these conservation lands. The County has coordinated with land managers for these conservation lands and provided these land managers with notice of Fringe meetings and copies of work products developed by the staff and the Committee. Additionally, all information is available for review on the Rural Assessment website. The landscape and site-specific strategies for natural resource protection outlined in this report are designed to minimize impacts and direct incompatible land uses away from publicly owned conservation areas as well as privately owned wetlands and habitat for listed species. _ This information provided in this report is intended to provide conceptual strategies for balancing natural resource protection and private property rights within the Rural Fringe Area. These strategies, at present, are conceptual in nature and thus require further refinement in order to be translated into Growth Management Plan Amendments. These strategies will achieve protection of the existing wetlands and critical habitat area for listed species. Incentives for restoration are provided which are intended to increase · JI-- ~1~ · · ./.. ~ Environmental Consultants JUN 13 2001 Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies http://www.nasites.com/collier/ the amount of wetland and upland habitat, and to improve the habitat quality of existing altered and degraded wetlands and uplands. To date, the Committee and staff have made great strides in their efforts to develop a balanced and comprehensive approach to addressing the requirements of the Final Order for the Rural Fringe Area. Yet there is much additional work to be done. Over the summer and early fall, final draft GMP amendments must be written to implement these strategies. A qualified economist should review and provide recommendations on the TDR and preservation incentive programs to ensure their market viability. A transportation impact assessment must be conducted. Most importantly, redoubled efforts to engage the public in this process must be undertaken. Individual property owners within the Rural Fringe Area were notified by mail of the Board's June 13, 2001 Special Meeting. It is recommended that a public workshop be held in the fall, preceding the October GMP hearing, allowing for additional public input and discourse on the proposed GMP amendments in a less formal setting. CI¥1L ENC~3.1NEEIL5 Development & ~ ~-- · · -/- ~ Environmentat Consultants