The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 08/18/2016 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 18, 2016 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., AUGUST 18, 2016, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR,3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES,FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 7,2016 and July 21,2016 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTSDED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PUDZ-PL20150001945: Vincent Acres RPUD, PUDZ-PL20150001945,An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a residential multi-family-12 district (RMF-12 (10)) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Vincent Acres RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 85 single family residential dwelling units or 118 townhouse 1 residential dwelling units on property located west of Collier Boulevard at the southwest corner of Davis Boulevard and Market Street in Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 16.8 +1- acres; providing for partial repeal of Ordinance No. 93-73; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA, Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS A. A Presentation of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District(RFMUD)"White Paper"to provide background, findings and initial recommendations for the RFMUD as directed by the Board of County Commissioners. [Coordinator: Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager] B. Deviations [Coordinator: Mike Bosi, Director,Zoning] 11. PUBLIC COMMENT 12. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-A CAT County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: AUGUST 18,2016 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDZ-PL20150001945, VINCENT ACRES (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT). APPLICANT/OWNER: AGENT: Habitat for Humanity of Collier County Ms. Ashley Caserta 11145 Tamiami Trail East RWA,Inc. Naples,FL 34113 6610 Willow Park Drive Naples,FL 34109 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida,by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Residential Multi-Family-12 District (RMF-12 (10)) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Vincent Acres RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 85 single-family residential dwelling units or 118 townhouse residential dwelling units, providing for partial repeal of Ordinance No. 93-73; and by providing an effective date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 16.8± acre subject property is located west of Collier Boulevard at the southwest corner of Davis Boulevard and Market Street in Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. (See the Location Map on the following page.) Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 1 of 20 S nta Barbara VD m o -it- r- A \i) x 0) v O� f. — Collier BLVD 11/ I / r ip Z '1 Z I .44-1._1.:-.1--' 0 8 Ny. Zoava11 p .iiily Mfitl�Y��r ; i 9 0 0• fl . 0 � V i"'PI \ 0 • A B .e 0. .9 t ! 0 fl 0 9' .y o Xi 0 + fl • .0 fl. .M i 0- N ill . ,.•98 �- 9 .9 O. . -(7... 9 ' -�' 00 ` _ 111. . 0 8 • -9( N 9 73 UNRRA ONV Lr r:�C _ ,cl) . 1 9, 9 Ig O. C -.°Y 119q0 fr 01 . O , 9I9ii I® ppp I I. c;;;998, jai k a:rr.� 4 z ,,asA J 4 �O h O C pOm ZO D'�pn n Or A rn _i, e It p, + Tnl <Gl yyF cow OO;�L�v gm"m pDnm'�'wvmo u'SD X. 7G q4 mlm D" 7o v'MA 7,0mm v D-a om0 I 70 m m 154:6\ .roDny < O[l° ,A, ?�°vApmm-1200 7O-iD mc'� 0 _, v.<cri A= nCD n m`� mx ZZrimcrnXIC7rrim72 -1 ! `m ITI .T. 0e1 0 T NO I + 70 -I-tmm mawmmp -1 v �8 tLC �^ m \ I N S Z TT7 i o ln 17 E-f, \ I " �- % MTM GD1 yg(off Z A r 0 7°GN % N K ZD mC A 1 g 1 1 \ ( 0-1 FT 1 1 ip 1 I ul If / i 1 y I /ID OI �_ OR 6a I I I 6Ilc G!m m I n`�z2 Km m1I :3f ��,� i ;i, �^n 00 )3.* .. vi m I o0 ‹3 � 0Z 4 R1� �� I I //; I a {z 3 Z 0 N-} 'a z I I 1 I I a, G z �Q z Ns 1 1 n I I I R OO DCm m T Ig / O OI „Z m N .,L,,= :,, € 1 II I q I ; m /. O1 D m§ I1 III • I , / 1 , ^ Z1I 1 1 0 ,, _ _e I m n O 9g =- a r I o�/ //// - - I 1-6 P vii tri .1: n -< l f$ � I © ,ter, 1 co D D D D 711 z ” ' I 1 D n n n fl �' Ili I I oDo H• H- !+ H• m I t ; I i a 171 ` I I O m I " : 1 ItI I XIi i Pd 0 pd . L 01 :i. 70. 111 1 1 mnv . _ L___ i +141 ' I W p `�I 1 {A I ,n ' .1L N W ;I' mm Ao4111 1 m <iA LI $Or. 1 �'-. - °'$ ... z ,+ZrnN I 'MC CVP 1 !� '/I Ii I 1 — ri Z.. K //° I ' �mm a ((• II ° O I. A v 1� I: co z 1° �' ' o a I II' m 44 i Ip " ti N m p ` r o 51 1" FO—�.� m Z :,-;::::.. In o aaznoa sinva o oZco 0 o rn A i z Om P I 1"10 "r"' HABITAT FOR HUMANITY JONA, ---- --- 14 T Ke VINCENT ACRES RPUO eNaNeElUN6 REEi Ti MASTER PLAN a»+r.r..e.0.. 9lww awn A u.eawrourormorn 7 u. NM% EXHIBIT C awmn. .1lw�nra r w7R.mu.cwaOwom Di i t i -- _____ ____ _ _ 1 '' f b t t N O G e.3 O £ C 5 O m 4 N Z -: Fill r'; 0 i .44 COLLIER BLVD. U r.2 . Com"" O OO n O vz 7ov0 -1762000 -n7oOe� 0 u+ N r $D >w—, 3DDO=r5zI fDmD 7on`-aA< 0vAG 2 pnOAz Pi ny !n myD �� Cmmox'i '7'-'15 ryr Onqd mSmd Oc �ZwppDp Zm7o ›V A 7.-4,q-oz AOOo �C rc mg3z mr"0=2 O CDD2 ;37,12 p M 000 m Mglm ZM m?! z ZmD-It7i, T<G Z'A - =Z(71.°CO W3NN y$�M m D=AOm ZOD 0, Z to a Stn Z-tn ym,nto 0 mm mZ,/,m yKz cm z • OCxtn T7Do�O m m0 m `2y—�1m mm zm nx&r1 ,— DM0 mm Q �-^ZZmm mOOmDm DOvv,n D 032m tn� m �m.oOpOQ -170 y m ^,Otn`2�i`n M•- 1..-n,,��n ImoI^^'�yo�ii rD-��^ m"lx�i' t^>CmC AZr^ x<r2„ Oz !n tn_D 0 Zm5,A A m mOnm O Zm^tmyp mm D �mO Ar Smy��= �'m�'22 m22O=m qrr- m z O-',2,0 I �'T'v zn �{,�OCm mm 1 rn rn 1 �'f1m Am zi-,0 A �Z.. (�''11p m D_lZa" 570 P OCm y0 m N Dmx�, *Am >oc m m-iim <Z rD cSmmm 3pD3a �m a gm7e7o CA 2Gzmmm OD- >'Rn, m0E0 v*F�O Zr;,.1D�O �'t zr�m0 DAO mf. v m -4Ers v ":D v� m O D O R F o 3 • 1.1O 3 mm 3 <W-D m e Z x m R R-2, rn7mdN3 p*Fp o,Ci, DCp CASoO DND G1�tn LD1Dp NcD ^2JF mrt�m O m Dmn m Omn g�vmtn tn�n 21--�DmzD Opo D.., A t^� n Z O$�m t'''/V2 m t^mOm Qpm DxKwOm HOZ ZZ OC r'"21'80 mmy,— z OO ~>rDO DmmO -IO z•-• Kim ADZ me O m O m D C m Z v,m$m Z n p m Z z m Z m c 0 n,m A >y 0 C g>5;732 ,-.Z Z m to mot, A'^a_V, mop V t- Awa z m_ n73 m 0- ',O• c,�m*mmm ,o mpcm �O"'m �LDaOi mm72n_�OA Dz zZ Mz=1,6 O Ta..mN S Om--la m00N v,,0+ mQA=CN zv, 00 9 C to zD,,,n. a �vW�N rD � 3...A z m03C. n, �m�D ?c D70 m O vi D otmnmz_m G1 ctnm.. A z <qt� 'OOmm�g <ODr` Q CQ' tmn ,nD-f-� $<Zz= 0-00030m mnonzm v�Z n to 7o� myOZm wm�,m ,mDv 3x^� riO$ D4 pOv, m mDOCD �o-_,-n-�tn m,nrn rn xOrA Ry10 mE; 0 0 y m4* , MpmDD qCO� mo-r^ au-4 Z, m < " O 0 O��i, m-Z Zm,Z mp03 7aTm �A.. z D x z xD m 0 m xy00 mTw,m m Z m m F mDCw mit;-(0 0<3 �7Do(�mm m Zm F r� Om y SO D D Cl2 a 00 mpm x O JrI o... HABITAT FOR HUMANITY YJw VINCENT ACRES IMIIIIM f 4 r.,d.icn�,1»,w�.mN..a �.. �� B I A' LOCATION MAP waw.wn wnmww+tn,•w• .1 ®® DEVIATIONS AND NOTES-EXHIBIT C w..v� R"°"� PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting a rezone from RMF-12(10) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The proposed RPUD will allow for up to 7 units per acre and will allow up to 118 townhomes or 85 single-family homes on a 16.8+acre undeveloped site. The Master Plan provided on the previous page of this Staff Report depicts the areas of residential and recreational area development, lake/water management, and vehicular circulation. The Master Plan also shows that 4.2 acres will be residential area, 0.6 acres will be an amenity area, 2.5 acres are lakes/water management areas, 9.5 acres will be right-of-way/buffers/other open space. A minimum of 10.08 acres or 60 percent open space will be provided. The petitioner proposes the following minimum development standards for the residential principal and accessory structures (except as noted by footnotes): - a residential lot area of 1,100 s.f. to 1,680 s.f.; - a residential lot width of 18 to 28 feet; - a residential front yard setback of 12 feet; - a side yard setback of 0 to 10 feet; - a rear yard setback of 5 feet; - a distance of 10 feet between principal structures; - a zoned building height of 35 feet; - an actual building height of 40 feet. The petitioner proposes the following development standards for the recreational area: - no minimum lot area and width; - a front yard setback of 15 feet; - a side yard setback of Y2 the sum of the building height; - a rear yard setback of 10 feet; - a zoned building height of 35 feet; - an actual building height of 40 feet; - an accessory front and side yard setback of 10 feet; - an accessory rear yard setback of 0 feet. There is a Developer's Contribution Agreement (DCA) (see attachment) between Collier County and the property owner where Collier County purchased a portion of the property to use for a water management pond. The DCA allows the native vegetation preserve requirement to be waived in exchange for the water management pond parcel. The petitioner is providing a 20-foot wide Type D right-of-way Landscape Buffer along Davis Boulevard. Along Market Street, the adjacent property owner has provided an existing 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer with a wall. Therefore,the petitioner is providing the required 10- wide Type A Landscape Buffer adjacent to it. The petitioner is providing a 10-foot wide Type A { Vincent Acres RPU),Pit DZ-P1.20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 5 of 20 Landscape Buffer along the Agricultural zoned property to the south and along the PUD zoned property to the west. The petitioner is seeking 5 deviations. For further information, see the Deviation Section of this Staff Report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Davis Boulevard, a 6-lane divided minor arterial road; Saddlebrook Village, a multi-family development with a zoning designation of PUD (Planned Unit Development) at 12.96 dwelling units per acre East: Market Street, a 2-lane local road and strip commercial businesses with a zoning designation of Westport Commerce Center MPUD (Mixed Use Planned Unit Development) South: a FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) owned water management pond with a zoning designation of RMF-12(10) (Residential Multi-family) and A(Agriculture) West: a preserve area within Cedar Hammock Golf and Country Club, a residential and golf course development with a zoning designation of PUD (Planned Unit Development), at 1.9 dwelling units per acre L. • ' • 4ij 1„: I r� x Yi R Subject Site (*al '—may n { 4 "' w mecca 76. ,M' K 3 11 (, • w% � \ lijawaiam jr I 3si414 AERIAL PHOTO Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 6 of 20 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), and is within a residential density band around the I-75/Collier Boulevard Interchange Activity Center, as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Relative to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential uses at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) and is eligible for a 3 DU/A density bonus for lying within a density band yielding a total eligible density of 7 DU/A) — as well as associated recreational uses and essential services. This PUD provides for residential uses at a density of 7.0 DU/A (85 single- family DUs or 118 townhouse DUs/16.8 acres),recreational uses and open space. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/intensities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis is to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties with regard to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location,traffic generation/attraction, etc.] In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The CommunityCharacter Planfor Collier County, Florida , promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [This site fronts Davis Boulevard and Market Street. Exhibit C, RPUD Master Plan, depicts a single, direct access to Market Street, a local road. FDOT controls Davis Boulevard and is the permitting agency regarding access on this segment. Direct access onto Davis Boulevard is not proposed.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit C, RPUD Master Plan, depicts a private roadway loop that runs inside the project, Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 7 of 20 along with connecting streets and alleys. All vehicular traffic accesses Davis Boulevard (SR 84)indirectly from a single access to Market Street.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The site abuts roads on two sides—Davis Boulevard on the north and Market Street on the east. A preserve area inside the Cedar Hammock PUD abuts the site along the west side, where no interconnection is proposed. A FDOT water management site abuts the site along the south side,again,where no interconnection is proposed.] Policy 7.4: The Countyshall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities, and a range of housing prices and types. [As to walkable communities, the PUD proposes a distinctive walkable design, with sidewalks located on only one side of certain streets. Exhibit E, List of Requested Deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC), requests a deviation from the County's requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the streets and offers an alternative sidewalk plan(Exhibit H). If allowed, this single-side sidewalk will be constructed on the inner perimeter of the loop street internal to the project,and on street-sides opposite recreational areas. Non-vehicular interconnections are not proposed with the abutting properties to the west and south. Pedestrian/bike connections are provided to Davis Boulevard and Market Street. As to a blend of densities and a range of housing prices and types, the PUD provides single- family, detached and attached,single-family zero lot line residences, and townhomes. Common open spaces and civic facilities are provided by more than 60 percent (10.5 acres) of open space including lakes,recreational areas,and other open spaces.] Transportation Element: Staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP) using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports(AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 8 of 20 F a. For links (roadway segments)directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " The proposed rezoning to allow a maximum of 85 single-family units on the subject property will generate approximately 91 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on the immediately adjacent roadway link, Davis Boulevard. The current zoning allows a maximum of 168 multi-family units on the property that will generate approximately 92 PM peak hour, peak directional trips on the adjacent roadway link. Therefore, the proposed 85 single-family unit development represents a net reduction of 1 PM peak hour trip. In addition, staff notes that Davis Boulevard is a six-lane divided facility and has a current service volume of 2,900 trips, with a remaining capacity of approximately 1,629 trips between Radio Road and Collier Boulevard, and is currently at LOS "B" (Level of Service "B") as shown in the 2015 AUIR. Staff finds that the proposed project does not significantly impact the adjacent roadway links. There is sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year transportation planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff reviewed the application and found that Developer's Contribution Agreement (OR 4187 PG 2310, see attachment) was approved allowing for the removal of the Preserve requirement for this project. Based upon the above analysis,the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.S., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Utility Review: Public Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and recommends approval. Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 9 of 20 Emergency Management Review: Emergency Management staff has reviewed the petition and has no comments. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and has stated that there is sufficient capacity within the elementary, middle, and high school concurrency service areas of the proposed development. This finding is for planning and informational purposes only and does not constitute either a reservation of capacity or a finding of concurrency for the proposed project. At the time of site plan or plat, the proposed development would be reviewed for concurrency. This is to ensure there is capacity within the concurrency service area the proposed development is located within, or within adjacent concurrency service areas, such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. An updated listed species survey was provided, which shows no recent use of the subject property by listed species. A preserve is not required on this site in accordance with Developer's Contribution Agreement (OR 4187 PG 2310) number 3, page 3, which states that "no further native preserve pursuant to the LDC shall be required on the remaining parcel." The project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, since it does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff finds this project consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Zoning and Land Development Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Staff believes that the proposed development will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. Staff offers the following analysis of this project: - The Density of 7 DUA (dwelling units per acre) is similar to the neighboring densities to the north of 6.7 DUA for East Gateway PUD and 8 DUA for Mac PUD and Triad PUD. While the density for the neighboring Cypress Woods PUD to the west is only 1.9 DUA, the residential areas are separated by a distance of at least 1,000 linear feet. Furthermore, the existing residential development to the southwest of the proposed development is separated by a preserve and golf course. The existing residential development to the south of the proposed development is separated by a stormwater management pond and vegetation. Additionally, the proposed development will provide a 10-foot wide Type A Landscape Buffer along the west and south property boundaries. Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 10 of 20 - The proposed building height is a zoned height of 35 feet, and an actual height of 40 feet, similar to the 35-foot building heights at Saddlebrook Village PUD, Westport Commerce Center PUD, and Cedar Hammock PUD. (Westport Commerce Center PUD can also achieve a height of 60 feet to accommodate architectural elements such as bell towers and Cedar Hammock PUD can achieve a height of 65 feet for multi-famly.) Unique to the proposed development are the location of alleys behind the residences, typical of Traditional Neighborhood Design. This Design element will allow for car parking behind the residences and on-street parking, creating a better pedestrian environment in front of the residences. REZONE FINDINGS: p LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning section has indicated that the proposed PUD rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management 1 Plan(GMP). 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the"Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" re ortion of this ort and discussed in the A p zoning review analysis,the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as multi- family residential, single-family residential, public use and commercial. Staff is on the opinion that the land uses proposed in this PUD petition will not create incompatibility issues. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above. Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 11 of 20 3 3 7: pF is 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The growth and development trends, changing market conditions, specifically the development of the site with residences, and the development of the surrounding area support the proposed PUD rezone. This site is located within an area of development with a mixture of residential and other uses. The proposed PUD rezone is appropriate, as limited in the PUD document and the PUD Master Plan based on its compatibility with adjacent land uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD rezone should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety. The proposed rezone represents a net reduction in the number of peak hour trips. Therefore, it will reduce impacts on the public roadway facilities. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of Site Development Plan(SDP) or Subdivision Platting (PPL)review. 1 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion this PUD rezone will not adversely impact property values. However, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 1 Vincent Acres RP UD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 12 of 20 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The property surrounding the subject site is partially developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed PUD rezone does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be developed within existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the county that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and these residential sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building permit process. Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 13 of 20 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts of the Level of Service will be minimized. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety,and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,and other utilities. The nearby area is located within a residential density band of a mixed-use activity center and is developed or is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all County regulations regarding drainage, sewer,water, and other utilities. In addition, the commitments included in PUD Exhibit F adequately address the impacts from the proposed development. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development plan approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 14 of 20 2 t 1 i 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and 1 policies of the GMP. i County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, 1 and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis,staff 3 is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 1 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed I project will be compatible with the surrounding area. 1 1 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the T development. The open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. I , I 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of x available improvements and facilities,both public and private. 1 The proposed rezone represents a net reduction in the number of peak hour trips. Therefore, it will have less impact on the public roadway facilities. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (Site Development Plan or Plat). Additionally, the project's development f must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. i 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. k If "ability" implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, then the subject property does have the ability to support expansion. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting x public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 1 This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for r' the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is seeking five deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 A). This criterion I requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes that the five deviations proposed can be supported, 1 Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 15 of 20 i i 1 t x 1 1 L finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that f "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." F Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviations. i Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking five deviations from general LDC requirements and has provided justification in support of the deviations. Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and provides the analysis and recommendations below: i Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, "Street System Requirements," which requires a minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet, to allow for a 50-foot right-of-way 1 minimum width for private streets. 1 1 Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is the size and the small-scale neighborhood character of this project. A 50 foot right-of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic while 4 accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The 50 foot right-of-way accomplishes traffic 1 calming to provide a safer transportation system within the neighborhood i 1 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Engineering staff has reviewed the proposed deviation along with the related cross section and recommends approval, as the petitioner has demonstrated that the required utilities can be accommodated within the proposed 50-foot right-of-way. Therefore, I Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that"the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community." The petitioner f has also demonstrated in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h. that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations" as it is applied to cluster housing developments such as this with 35 to 40 foot lot widths. i Deviation#2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, "On-Premises Directional Signs,"which requires on-premises directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10 feet from edge of roadway, 1 paved surface or back of curb, to allow a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of private roadway/drive aisle. 1 Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is that the deviation will allow locational flexibility for directional signage internal to the RPUD. A i unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. All directional signage will meet the Clear ! sight Distance requirements in accordance with LDC Section 6.06.05. i 1 Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 .2 August 2,2016 Page 16 of 20 1 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Sign permitting staff has reviewed the proposed deviation s and finds that the proposed 5-foot setback can be accommodated within a compact private residential community safely. Therefore, Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval fmding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has t demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least ft equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.05.D.2, "Trees and Palms", which requires that ft palms may be substituted for up to 30 percent of required canopy trees to allow for palms to be substituted for up to 50 percent of required canopy trees used to satisfy individual residential lot requirements(of LDC section 4.06.05.A.I). See Exhibit G, "Street Tree Plan." Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is that on November 19, 2015, Keisha Westbrook and Ashley Caserta of RWA had a meeting with Dan Smith ft and Nancy Gundlach at the County offices, along with the client. Ashley asked staff about a street tree program for Vincent Acres. Currently the plans are showing an 8-foot planting area in the ROW between the back of sidewalk and the utility easement. The water main will likely be located € under the sidewalk, and the street trees need to be planted 7.5 feet from the water main. That puts ft the tree on the edge of the planting area, near the utility easement. Dan proposed allowing up to ft 50% of the plantings in this area to be palms because of their smaller root system that would be less likely to impact the utilities and water main. The goal is the take the tree off of the individual lots and into the ROW. Having a street tree program will allow the sidewalk and street to be shaded by trees, and will still account for the one tree per residential lot requirement, with the tree being located in the ROW and not on the individual lots. The community will benefit from the tree- lined sidewalks and streets that will further enhance the walkability of the neighborhood and will allow for the trees to be maintained by the HOA. Staff agreed that a street tree program illustration should be included. See Exhibit G in the PUD document, Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, fmding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02,13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is � "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to Iiteral application of such ft regulations." Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, "Fences and Walls" which permits a maximum wall height of 6 feet in residential components of a PUD, to allow a maximum wall height of 8 feet along Davis Boulevard, and allow a 10-foot wall/berm combination along Davis Boulevard. The berm portion of the 10-foot wall/berm shall be a minimum of 2 feet in height. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is to allow for additional visual screening and noise attenuation from the significant traffic along Davis Boulevard Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the aesthetic appeal of the proposed community and general area. Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 17of20 �rr Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Planning staff has reviewed the proposed deviation and has determined that the proposed 2-foot high berm will reduce the mass of the wall and make it compatible with the internal and external community. Therefore, Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A, "Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements",which requires construction of a 5-foot wide sidewalk on both sides of local streets to allow the Alternative Sidewalk Plan. See Exhibit H, "Alternative Sidewalk Plan." Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is to create a pedestrian friendly neighborhood design. The project will have a sidewalk network that connects all of the units with several nearby open green spaces. Additionally, a loop sidewalk that will . surround the pond for a pedestrian amenity is proposed. Sidewalks will be provided on one side of the loop road Approximately 6,670 linear feet of sidewalk is depicted on the Alternative Sidewalk Plan, including the pond loop and sidewalks through the central green space. If the sidewalk is included around the main loop road, and omitted from around the pond, the linear feet would be approximately 7,560, or 890 linear feet less. Although there will be less linear feet of sidewalk, the neighborhood sidewalk network will be complete and keeps pedestrians internal to the project and near open green/pond space as opposed to walking on the outside of the loop road. Habitat for Humanity of Collier County desires to promote activity and interaction internal to the project by creating a vibrant pedestrian/social/community realm that is separate from the vehicular use areas. A higher degree of connection and potential for activity will be achieved with this alternative plan that is safer for pedestrians. The Alternative Sidewalk Plan provides a comprehensive interconnected network which allows residents to safely and easily get to and from and given points within the community. Coupled with the Street Tree Program, the Alternative Sidewalk Plan provides increased aesthetics and mobility. See Exhibit H Alternative Sidewalk Plan, which depicts the sidewalk network within the development. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on March 21, 2016. For further information,please see Attachment: "Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting." Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 18 of 20 COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDA-PL20150001945, revised on July 29, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20150001945 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance • Attachment B: Developer's Contribution Agreement Attachment C: Density Map Attachment D: Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting • { pa Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 19of20 PREPARED BY: 0 � 5 2OVO N CY G i� P L •H, AICP,PLA D TE PRINCIPA, r L ER ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 7 it RA 4 ' V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZON t DIVISION MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: -MES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD • DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ,r 8 f! /1(, / Y DAVID S. WILKISON,DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Vincent Acres RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150001945 August 2,2016 Page 20 of 20 iF ORDINANCE NO. 16- n AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY-12 DISTRICT (RMF-12 (10)) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VINCENT ACRES RPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 85 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS OR 118 TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND MARKET STREET IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 16.8 +/- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR PARTIAL REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 93-73; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZ- PL20150001945] WHEREAS,Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., represented by Ashley Caserta of RWA,Inc.,petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Residential Multi-Family-12 District (RMF-12 (10))to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)for [15-CPS-015041 69 +. Vincent Acres RPUD/PUDZ-PL20150001945 7/29/16 Page 1 Attachment A a project to be known as the Vincent Acres RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 85 single family residential dwelling units or 118 townhouse residential dwelling units, in accordance with Exhibits A through H attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance No. 93-73 is hereby repealed only as to the real property described in this Ordinance. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ,2016. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: l- Heidi Ashton-Cicko 04. Managing Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: Requested Deviations from LDC Exhibit F: PUD Commitments Exhibit G: Street Tree Program Exhibit H: Alternate Sidewalk Plan [IS-CPS-01504j 69 Vincent Acres RPUD/PUDZ-PL20150001945 7/29/16 Page 2 EXHIBIT A List of Permitted Uses Vincent Acres Residential Planned Unit Development Regulations for development of the Vincent Acres Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of applicable development order. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. MAXIMUM DENSITY: There shall be no more than 85 single-family residential dwelling units,or 118 townhouse dwelling units permitted on the± 16.8 gross acres,resulting in a maximum density of 7.0 dwelling units per acre. PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part,for other than the following: I. RESIDENTIAL A. Principal Uses: 1. Single-family, detached 2. Single-family,attached 3. Single-family, zero lot line 4. Townhomes 5, Temporary Model homes 6. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or Hearing Examiner,as applicable. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to swimming pools, spas, screen enclosures,private garages,and other recreational uses. 2. Gatehouses and other access control structures. 3. Project sales, construction and administrative offices that may occur in residential and/or temporary structures. Page 1 of 11 7/29/2016 revision Vincent Acres RPUD RWA File 050117,03.02 PUDZ-PL20150001945 it EXHIBIT A List of Permitted Uses Vincent Acres Residential Planned Unit Development 4. Mail Kiosks. 5. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA")or Hearing Examiner,as applicable. "t II, RECREATIONAL AREA A. Principal Uses: 1. Structures intended to provide social and recreational space for the private use of the residents and their guests. 2. Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, playgrounds, pedestrian/bicycle pathways, and water features. 3. Passive open space uses and structures, such as but not limited to landscaped areas, gazebos,park benches and walking trails. 4. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA")or Hearing Examiner, as applicable. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Passive open space uses and structures, such as but not limited to landscaped areas, gazebos,park benches and walking trails. 2. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA")or Hearing Examiner, as applicable. Page 2 of 11 7/29/2016 revision Vincent Acres RPUD RWA File 050117.03,02 PUDZ-PL20150001945 EXHIBIT B Development Standards Vincent Acres Residential Planned Unit Development Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for the land uses within the Vincent Acres RPUD, Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. 1. Guardhouses, gatehouses, access control structures, clock towers, columns, decorative hardscaping or architectural embellishments associated with the project's entrance features are permitted within the "R" designated area abutting the project's entrance or within the private roadway as depicted on the PUD Master Plan,and shall have no required setbacks; however, such structures cannot be located where they create vehicular stacking or sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians,and cannot exceed 35 feet in actual height. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES SINGLE- SINGLE-FAMILY RECREATIONAL FAMILY ATTACHED& AREA DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY TOWNHOUSE ZERO LOT LINE MINIMUM LOT AREA 1,680 S.F. 1,680 S.F. 1,100 S.F. N/A MIN.LOT WIDTH 28 FEET 28 FEET 18 FEET N/A MIN. FRONT YARD/ 12 FEET 12 FEET 12 FEET 15 FEET MIN.SIDE YARD2 5 FEET 0 OR10 FEET 0 FEET OR 5 %SUM OF FEET BUILDING HEIGHT 5 FEET MIN,REAR YARD' FROM 5 FEET FROM 5 FEET FROM 10 FEET from EDGE OF EDGE OF EDGE OF Perimeter Buffer or PAVEMENT LME PAVEMENT PAVEMENT , MIN. DISTANCE 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET %SUM OF BETWEEN STRUCTURES BUILDING HEIGHT i MAX. ZONED BUILDING 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET HEIGHT - MAX.ACTUAL BUILDING 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET HEIGHT SINGLE-FAMILY ACCESSORY SINGLE- ATTACHED& RECREATIONAL STRUCTURES FAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY TOWNHOUSE AREA DETACHED ZERO LOT LINE MIN.FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS 10 FEET MIN.SIDE YARD2 SPS 0 OR10 FEET2 SPS 10 FEET MIN, REAR YARD' O FEET from SPS SPS SPS Perimeter Buffer or ' 1 LME MAX.ZONED BUILDING 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET HEIGHT MAX.ACTUAL BUILDING 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET HEIGHT S.P.S. = Same as Principal Structure BH = Building Height (zoned height) LME = Lake Maintenance Easement Page 3 of 11 7/29/2016 revision Vincent Acres RPUD • All a Filo ACni 17 m m PUDZ-PL20150001945 '+ EXHIBIT B 1 Development Standards Vincent Acres Residential Planned Unit Development 1. Front yard setbacks shall be measured from ROW line and shall allow a 2-foot separation from the home to the Public Utility Easement. 2. If side yard setback is 0 feet on one side, the other side shall be 10 feet for a total building separation of 10 feet. 3. Garages may be accessed from the rear of the property and will be required to provide a minimum 5-foot setback to the edge of pavement. The garage may have a 0-foot setback to the ROW line and alley, tI 1 Page 4 of 11 7/29/2016 revision Vincent Acres RPUD RWA File 050117.03.02 PUDZ-PL20150001945 n i. 4 ;F q zA cwt;l7� m(1 ! t I 0 QO H �O.n�N07'1VDO >7'oo g 00R 1 O R�o Z r m C1 `�` O D '- n r s FAx _ T1 'z D +n vGA OWmP ?Q .i Ci 70g4ri rl�wQGo I�1D OTnQ � �A �o 'i-1200 z-*iAzr�*3 't = n r A „ NnZ ,\ Z mrnrL°m°7e°mm5 -Zi 1 rn A 0n [7t7*+ SD rr, ,i N O '�� g Z N v 2 r z s x v dq xQ'� •,,, 11. II ( ri2 Fri 9 I1 K _• D <G - c 7C C R �y+1 til. N V" 1n I I /� I 1 1t I ' m / o Ij V! 0X I I i I II / O — 2I t' 1 I I O / �+z1gn �ml M , l l I I " ' �� ; t 1z 11 i 11 I I II � Y/ � ' !! It' n 0O D ziI, " I ('� I i I I ° ao74 2p V1O n III 1 1 IZ g Z-'^2 n I G OI g3 1 �8' Z 0,10 > m �m9$ IIQ I W 3 ~I >r c`n rnrl/) qqsII QI O N K C 416 Y m O� C` 1______„, �nD Z I Y O I m --4 K 1 1 ; IIOyy 41 40,ito ..,_/, = „,,:i; , -A, , - _<›-,,X f ' II 1 p 1 1 I 'i rn 11 ' . h1 i . Y > P id O 7d g xll ' T ' r ii 9, U 1 I t X A I 11 1 1 f k Y ,; y I 't Q P`J1 l �t Q° ,y , ,„ " I nti �, I M . ;� I c .l3llV O .. q ll N N W ) ''" m m -- —-----—-- N � ' Q A ' I -� z. J II _ f› 0 5',-Ti ;ro Il �3 p2 SQS � 1 Fr A I t�oE-1 n: n o �I+ 2 Dm 3 I Ir i N_ o � 3 ' Y u _ j m XX G., rt p i 1 r m E^ II' Y III I 0 o n 1 1 al N m 1 I z Y „ 1 PY 0�� i n F F I ° D x n x 1 I Imp Hi1 Y 1 I O m = ,1 i �Y I O ,i Y Y 1 i m(t1 4 m Y YY n h. 9' 8 d Q :+ Yi N .......................................... - • �Z •$ Y FF F mos) ae is _.:_ M,• .. I Y .....=•�3aNn}osi gZf10S SIAda ,eco -A. N ,z0; o tarr Fri -ii 8 If t D '' S "`"` HABITAT FOR HUMANITY I jell! AA' "' '''"' VINCENT ACRES RPM) 8 t l� "°' MASTER PLAN YRYK-MPMW.IYYIYay.NNIM iCi..l.a.At..n.m.em - I FXHIRR C ow,.:wo...ft.......t1.rrn m,1 lea.,...:......1..am 10./.l W { 3 1 x V G E iTICAUR . i(` _ • 2 t .1., t "wyi rs k''' 411. i' t'-• I+ I " 644,491 ' 4"—.41, p r r* q >. 9 it, `k , V w, la .i- t1° � � A#3,1,,,-1.$,' * tet, ( �J ' jrY ? I r' n,, ynr ,, a tai y a:• w T �' � ��--�d'' „�,air e'� 3 i 471, t flHd Ifl liii PlO `" A N -�-..�� 5 G Q2O��AffQ77[i��nn>2 refit lii !!cm m mmD 0 7 pv0.➢-t-4$C C Az 0 GbA p tin>0-2— �1AvAnZipP � xmd , � OpA- Ocrn 0;+ 2To srgFT S�8,Og ayam bbo2'44, *AT H DogAmZG�l Rn rt�� n C ro s z..r Cm ri$DO*0 zmiYF-4° �" z"-'pg 2.K :4,62 OAz gP < gQ �.+ m -n➢p mbyzS �„0 r«cOy gmmc M ,,�,�, w` D�z 'I g o pm-I ^ to 3.�m �,��Vitn Dov+ 4Zu, ..,-, prmi "°j0O Z2 O m O n z m m2m m ➢m .r'i ➢ADmz '4,1 . .i.,., mGmz Q0gZ 7a z mmUN z rAl mc. hr :7,184 o8pO lam A1C Pz (,:lm 8pNE m 4 .m., 84 -9,(7,,,T4 x1 O� 7o<�nb tobd Qy �v{ ➢ G s Z m m. to➢ G n g< z z b ^' o a.> o am4` '^pp^+ by o N OOH °v Z-4 (""D �nrT, 4oC-+v >A• *mz �}7 m o �cc pGi Qp2o � z �DY o4ap� `A ,;ai!a"g vM� �� Ob m 2 o^ZZ't� AAsCj'� ➢z3 3'Glm Zn m -➢0 0 mbdC2 A ..„, m ,i -v '—v-x^..� y^-�O �^� O� r4.*gg Om}'°➢ ng00C mtntnr7R 3..t m P O O xcq vy➢izco xrbmro mS0� G',2vs'+ 3 Z^`ry z " O 4.0-m it ,- O➢ m r p w ri b mZr' r��pp Om p< ,,,,,,> ,.„-Ari- 0-{ mo. ➢ o -100 .m �r; °"'" HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 1 e E $ i y C E! " VINCENT ACRES ENlSINEEIUN6 i R� m LOCATION MAP asw..00iww �n n« ®a•me.urn.ew.w,++�wr. .u+�vv�� rie n.. .on«. Ims, I44i2,100 ain l'......"kmmue,rwmrsa�en�e DEVIATIONS AND NOTES-EXHIBIT C .w..«.✓......,. I 1 I 1 EXHIBIT D Legal Description t Vincent Acres Residential Planned Unit Development F I A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 3,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 3,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER(1/4) OF SAID SECTION 3,NORTH 89 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 32 SECONDS WEST FOR 1978.57 FEET,THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 31 SECONDS WEST FOR 102.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF MARKET CENTER, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 41, PAGES 60 k THROUGH 61,OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ALSO BEING THE POINT 1 OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID MARKET CENTER, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 31 SECONDS WEST FOR 1145.18 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE WEST LINE OF SAID MARKET CENTER, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST FOR 655.61 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF TRACT C2, CEDAR HAMMOCK PLAT, AS f RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 32, PAGES 91 THROUGH 108, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST TRACT LINE, NORTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 06 1 SECONDS EAST FOR 1057,37 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE;THENCE 1 EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE TO THE RIGHT, A DISTANCE OF 666.88 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,174,04 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 17 SECONDS AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 82 DEGREES 01 MINUTE 43 SECONDS EAST FOR 665.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN, I 4 1 i gt It � i i I i I [y[ni I 1 pp f i 3 Page 7 of 11 7(29/2016 revision Vincent Acres RPUD f RWA File 050117.03.02 PUDZ-PL20150001945 3 1 z EXHIBIT E t List of Requested Deviations Vincent Acres Residential Planned Unit Development 4 l Deviation#1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N,"Street System Requirements,"which 1 requires minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet,to allow for a 50-foot right-of-way minimum width for the private streets. t Deviation#2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5,06.023.5, "On-Premises Directional Signs", i which requires on-premises directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10 feet from edge of roadway, paved surface or back of curb, to allow a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of private roadway/drive aisle. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.05.D.2., "Trees and Palms",which provides that palms may be substituted for up to 30%of required canopy trees, to allow for palms to be 1 substituted for up to 50%of required canopy trees used to satisfy individual residential lot requirements (of LDC section 4.06.05.A.1). See Exhibit G, "Street Tree Plan." r t Deviation#4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02,C,"Fences and Walls"which permits a 1 maximum wall height of 6 feet in residential components of a PUD, to allow a maximum wall t height of 8 feet along Davis Boulevard, and allow a 10-foot wall/berm combination along Davis Boulevard, The berm portion of the 10-foot wall/berm shall be a minimum of 2 feet in height. 1 i Deviation#5 seeks relief from LDC Section 6,06.02.A,"Sidewalks,Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements",which requires construction of a 5-foot wide sidewalk on both sides of local streets to allow a 5-foot sidewalk on one side of the street where a front yard or a side yard abut a 1 street.No sidewalks are required along an alley. See Exhibit H,("Alternative Sidewalk Plan"). t t i i 1 f 4 i k t s i t 1 9 4 t i i } i Page 8 of 11 7/29/2016 revision Vincent Acres RPUD RWA File 050117,03.02 PUDZ-PL20150001945 1 1 i 3 EXHIBIT F PUD Commitments Vincent Acres Residential Planned Unit Development I t PUD MONITORING: 1 A. One entity(hereinafter the Managing Entity)shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval,the Managing Entity is Habitat for Humanity of Collier County,Inc. or its assigns. Should the Managing 4 Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity,then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the 1 successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity,but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the 1 PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 1 TRANSPORTATION: i A. The proposed development is limited to 92 unadjusted two-way PM weekday peak hour trips consistent with the TIS provided at the time of rezone. t I B. The owner, or its successors and assigns, shall pay to County its fair share of the cost of 1 any and all traffic signals at the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Market Street. The fair share payment shall be due at time of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plat approval. i i STORMWATER: 4 A. Owner shall convey to Collier County and FDOT a replacement easement for access to, and maintenance of,the FDOT-owned pond site located south of the PUD property, which will relocate the existing access easement created by the Easement Agreement recorded in OR Book 4353, Page 0445 of the Official Records of Collier County, in accordance with the Easement Agreement. The easement shall be a minimum width of 20 feet and conveyed to Collier County and FDOT at no cost to either entity, free and clear of all encumbrances, prior to SDP approval or plat approval,whichever is first. At the same time, owner shall extinguish the access easement in accordance the Easement Agreement. The replacement easement may be relocated outside of the PUD property upon approval of the County and FDOT. i i { t i Page 9 of 11 7/29/2016 revision Vincent Acres RPUD RWA File 050117.03.02 PUDZ-PL20150001945 'r i 0 10 20 40 10' UTILITY ESMT. iVW vr v4:11: s i t^5^ ' . t x " & rpir ->x` . a.. `S1 44 tz y r= 3 °r c a�„ ri.d< 4 r � a s "4 1- y 4- f , i � 1 � # i " :, d � xp ple Y 1 � t 0, Aa v T rs - .-4.1 T ` ,s., ,s rA1 14gii: Sk , sol -d x� t',t 11 ,r 1 w i : n gr ' €' 1 � r 'g; ' ' TLI 33 k m� r ?d r/It ,";,,„,,t:-.-. t � � r � Vrtq 1&. r'L ` ..r �e } ' , rs T • d i ., $w Y !s ,.k � -it . ^ ? f_ . n re 4 ! (s ' yX - gd ' ` tl lidelell 11r.: ',gel.AVSIE'm Jiff' UTIUTY ESMT. L LOT LINE MINA` 5'TYPICAL I 10'MIN. 1 I i i Mill T' 0 0 1� ✓ ,i�ii �i i�i. ►iiO4ii �iV %Mg 0ASS 'VIA SIN ASV 1 PIAt4, ♦�►O ,'I4,ISIIr "IIM,►�II IIII�I•404 w• 1 r� . � 'r'-'4-171f17- � � � `tri� � , � � -�, ,ds1✓�c >� , y'•33' y��"g ^� �r 2 y+4r� r� + �,, t ct},� �t- t +� -�' �� "7UR,M, '-. o �"4 4*'tr tt 4 ,._---# e ,,`�' i° �. , T. �t '. mrd : s• t0 � 1 4 +ty. «�I.d Y.'�`..Ari�t _' r ?�k � �.£-.4.,� l � � {I��' '3iJ � � 1 2' '� .rr p ,�� ,t' y��s� -4.,�r� p.�, ,4,--A, .G +isX- ,� Cdr' 9 e�" :1 P � , 4 ol... i s '- it,::-' .!+�' r•:Ei _ '3' qs+s r d t.a t r . t ftea.i, - AVW11 OP til► 0 4C��- a4 1%***%� ■ &w� %*****4t 4��&10eAeb%%%l%% " a��►iIWAA �,�t %�r ■��r€4 ;lio, AA‘N II *Alm 10 018 SAAAANA1 ASAANtAV 4 SSAW + SSSS` �40 1l;.0.0.,S��,04 1siiPAPar../Ii►~i IIVIIIII i#i1.0.0*i1i'�i' `INK#4i0s1i�i NOTE NOTE THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR ILLUSTRATNE PURPOSES ONLY. CERTAIN DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS MAY ZERO SIDE SETBACK VARY.THE INTENT IS TO DEPICT THE STREET TREE PROGRAM.MINOR CHANGES MAY BE MADE AT PPL ON THESE LOTS ' �°'" 1 • VINCENT ACRES ..se xw,.r.n wr..,sys.rDD "'"""'"i11. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY v»ssssans rARusgs»as» EXHIBIT G Irpiy frr6f.,n M hwwn.nbn Mn UJB ssMt' uwu "'t` TYPICAL LOT DETAIL I& RIVLSION PER COLUER COVNIY COMMENTS AM" MCP 5/11/16 a,r„o, S7REE7 TREE PROGRAM '° `ev. f o.... as , osanusu osouro5m M,a s K+R�osomm E7P.,�IAv./605lm1DW5 Cn PI 4 OW17JOW r.Al 0 r11 p t is 1' / II i it I 5; , • II ' ' til • , 1! Jz1 :ct1 II , I. f I; I it __..� 1 .. .. . , .., .ligimigli fn t 1. IC ZO 1�k ' ll ill I •i F a �c ti,N 1 g, I ! 1- f ! ( F p — �,,. ti 1. O > 32 I I: '.k � • l � ( 0) C C L (! .' .. \'• 1 i -, -i.i 1 I 1 ..� ____r _r Ate._ ...� kxC/1 .�.:.--y�-..�.._max_:�.n,..,,s-_�:�..,-.�. -. .._ Z a2mp .,1--L.,-_--;. I. , ,-; ..- L. - mi •�. ( ' ',___ m i. m -I C I I. .- L_1 ._.-;.- ( --1 i_ 1 _- -.l _L � 1 , L' map ��`; �'-, 1 : -(�_ L t r_i LI w t �_ 71 I�� l- 1 -I co (_ ( .-1.. `-( f ; ,, I_ L.� i -,...,1..11....-"...."—L. . I'y m ( 1 c '. i _�..-r~ b .. '��Ino slnv a :. I I Fri Q2I�IA S .. - i( , X C _ n Z vi c— Vo -n A n m m COCA mr "1pz z 3O > z m nc� z � 14 Q v b v 4 D •e o CD k J iI;i�1 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY r I a 5A ",' VINCENT ACRES iI HuN6 ll- .WI:,c,,N.sy�NMroOvatln 6 f "' ALTERNATIVE SIDEWALK PLAN . aws,m Rws us� muu mum[AWN EXHI8TT H , ..... iren..... u..m......, v+rmu 1 i l t. ti. DEVELOPER AGREEMENT v MYSTIQUE 1. THIS DEVELOPER AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is made and entered into this o20 of P.Ifvv , 2007, by and between WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE VII (hereinafter referred to as the "Developer"), with an address at 14627 Collier r Boulevard,Naples,Florida 34120,and COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of F the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "County"). All capitalized terms not defined herein a shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2001-13, as amended. 1= o RECITALS: i. �, WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of approximately 30.56 acres of land in unincorporated PO • Collier County, Florida, located on the south side of Davis Blvd. near its intersection with Collier Blvd.,which will be residentially developed(hereinafter referred to as the "Development"). A legal a description of the Development,together with a graphic rendering,is attached as Exhibit A; and I w � �" u WHEREAS,the Florida Department of Transportation("FDOT"), as part of the Davis Blvd. r `"' a c-v8 expansion project, has identified a 10-acre portion of the Development as a pond site, together with It :-21 ".'I the necessary easement to access the pond, and an easement for conveyance from Davis Blvd. to the p (C.21 pond site, which pond is necessary for the attenuation of storm water off of the expanded Davis o Blvd. A legal description and graphic rendering of this pond site and easement (hereinafter referred C° y °° 0to as the"Pond Parcel")is attached as Exhibit B; and mai 1" u i?. WHEREASn. , Developer had intended the Pond Parcel to be utilized for both future i 11 o development and native vegetation preserve pursuant to the County's LDC, and for wetland preserve N w credit through the Environmental Resource Permit process with the South Florida Water _ d 2 Management District, and Section 404, Clean Water Act permitting with the U.S. Army Corps of r cam-- b Engineers; and til g � f --- WHEREAS, to preserve the Davis Blvd. road project, and to reduce costs of future Lt Q o condemnation, when the presently undeveloped Pond Parcel would be developed, County has r offered to purchase the Pond Parcel for the sum of$3,000,000 in impact fee credits, consistent with li the County's right-of-way purchase policy; and d WHEREAS, Developer is willing to convey to the County the Pond Parcel for the sum of L �, $3,000,000 in impact fee credits,provided that the Developer by doing so will not be in violation of ; 04 any County ordinance or regulation with respect to the Development not having sufficient preserve area and other requirements or violation as a result of the conveyance; and Iti o Kam aa � E : a WHEREAS, the County acknowledges that by conveying the Pond Parcel to the County, a a n County shall not require the Developer to provide any native vegetation preserve on the remaining i 20+/-parcel; and M 4 WHEREAS,Developer is willing to freely donate, at no cost to the County, a 50-foot strip of 5 land adjacent to Davis Blvd. for use in the Davis Blvd. expansion project. A legal description and { jokr/i i i Attachment B 't' graphic rendering of this right-of-way strip(hereinafter the "ROW Parcel") is attached as Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Administrator has recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that the conveyance set forth in this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Plan") is in conformity with contemplated improvements and additions to the County's transportation network;and WHEREAS, after reasoned consideration by the Board of Commissioners, the Board finds and reaffirms that: a. The subject Proposed Plan is in conformity with the contemplated improvements and additions to the County's transportation system; b. Such Proposed Plan, viewed in conjunction with other existing or proposed plans, including those from other developers, will not adversely impact the cash flow or w liquidity of the County's road impact fee trust accounts in such a way as to frustrate c--- or interfere with other planned or ongoing growth-necessitated capital improvements co and additions to the County's transportation system;and c. The Proposed Plan is consistent with both the public interest and with the o comprehensive plan, including the most recently adopted five-year capital improvement program for the County's transportation system, the Long Range Transportation Plan and complies with the requirements of the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance. WITNESSETH: NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration exchanged amongst the parties,and in consideration of the covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. All of the above RECITALS are true and correct and are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully below. 2. On or before December 15, 2007, the Developer shall convey to the County both the Pond Parcel (with appropriate easements for access and maintenance) and the ROW Parcel. Both Parcels will be conveyed to the County in fee simple, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, made by executed Warranty Deeds provided to the Office of the County Attorney, suitable for recording, the general form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. County will pay the costs of any title work and searches, and Developer shall be responsible for all costs for promptly removing or curing any liens, encumbrances or deficiencies revealed in any title work. Upon receipt, the County shall record the Warranty Deeds in the Public Records of the County. Except as set forth herein, all costs of recording and conveyance shall be paid by the County. With respect to this provision,time is of the essence. It is acknowledged that Developer's failure to promptly convey the parcel to County, as set forth herein shall result in actual damages to County. In that actual damages are difficult to ascertain with substantial certainty, the parties agree that Developer shall pay to Page 2 of 8 OR: 4187 PG: 2312 County as liquidated damages the sum of$1,000 per day for each day past the deadline that the Warranty Deed is not delivered to County. Such liquidated damages will be paid in place of County's claims for actual damages. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, County shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to elect not to acquire the Pond Site, by giving Developer written notice of such election no later than December 14, 2007. All provisions of this Agreement shall survive closing and be enforceable by the County and Developer and their successors and assigns. 3. The Pond Parcel is being acquired for public use, in lieu of future condemnation. Accordingly, except with respect to preserve requirements, it is expressly agreed that the provisions of LDC §1.04,04.B (Ordinance No. 2006-07) shall apply to this Development and subsequent set- back for accessory structures shall be no less than 10 feet as shown on Exhibit B. With respect to preserve requirements, any preserve areas proposed by the Developer located in the Pond Parcel shall be mitigated off-site by the County within 1 year from the conveyance of the Pond Parcel to the County. A minimum of 7.3 acres and up to the full 10 acres, if required by South Florida Water Management District, will be mitigated for on a 1:1 basis with like for like habitat through the Conservation Collier or similar program. Following the acquisition, no further native preserve pursuant to the LDC shall be required on the remaining parcel. The Developer will be responsible for any mitigation for any listed species and wetlands impacts mitigation required by any permitting agencies on the northern remaining parcel. Any additional wetlands mitigation resulting from the conveyance of the Pond Parcel shall be the responsibility of the County. 4. Developer shall receive, at closing, as full compensation for the Pond Parcel and easements, the sum of $3,000,000 in Road Impact Fee credits which, consistent with the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, may be used by the Developer and any related joint venture party in the impact fee district of the Pond Parcel, and all adjacent impact fee districts. A copy of the Impact Fee Ledger, setting forth the amount of Impact Fee Credits granted pursuant to this Agreement is attached as Exhibit E. These Road Impact Fee credits may be assigned at any time to any another development within the same or an adjacent impact fee district provided that all parties to this assignment of impact fee credits comply with all then-current rules and procedures of the Collier County Impact Fee Administration section, and execute all then-current County approved assignment forms. 5. Developer hereby grants County an option to purchase up to an additional three acres adjacent to the Pond Parcel. This additional acreage contains the footprint for approximately 40 dwelling units. The purchase price for exercising the full 3 acre option shall be $2,000,000, or $666,666.67 per acquired acre. Should the County exercise its option to purchase less than 3 acres, the purchase price shall be calculated to equal the acquired land valued at $666,666.67 per acre. If exercised, the County shall use its best efforts to acquire a generally rectangular parcel. This option to purchase shall be exercised by County giving Developer written notice of such election no later than December 14, 2007. In no event may this option reduce the Development to less than 160 dwelling units. Should County exercise this option, the conveyance of this additional acreage to County shall be conducted in the same manner as set forth in Paragraph 2 above, except that payment for this additional acreage shall be in cash, and not in impact fee credits. 6. The credit for Road Impact Fees identified herein shall run with the Development and shall be reduced by the entire amount of each Road Impact Fee due for each Building Permit issued thereon until the Development project is either completed or the credits are exhausted or otherwise no longer available, or have been assigned by operation of or pursuant to an assignment agreement Page 3 of 8 OR: 4187 PG: 2313 with County. The foregoing reduction in the Road Impact Fees shall be calculated based on the amount of the Road Impact Fees in effect at the time the Building Permit is issued. The credits set forth herein shall be applied solely to Road Impact Fees, and shall not offset,diminish or reduce any other charges, fees or other Impact Fees for which the Developer, its successors and assigns are responsible in connection with the development of their lands. It is expressly understood that the Impact Fee Credits will be utilized in the order in which the Building Permits are reviewed by the Impact Fee Administration, irrespective of whether Developer assigns all or part of the Development. 7. The County will require an approximate 15-20 foot drainage easement to connect =' Davis Blvd. to the Pond Parcel and an appropriate 20-foot wide access easement to maintain the Pond Parcel, which easement must be approved by FDOT. This easement will be identified by the parties and dedicated to the County on or before December 15, 2007. It is anticipated that the likely site for this easement will be along the eastern boundary of the Development. To the extent possible, any required buffers or landscaping that will be within the easement boundary will not be installed until the drainage pipe has been laid along the easement. County or FDOT shall supply Developer with all necessary drainage pipes, fencing, and ancillary structures, which Developer, at its sole cost and expense, will install in the drainage easement during the earlier of the construction of the Development or within a commercially reasonable time following written demand by County or FDOT to meet the Davis Blvd. Expansion Project needs. The parties shall cooperate so that this provision can coincide with the Developer's site work. If for whatever reason Developer is not able to commence this work following such written demand,then County or FDOT, at their sole cost and expense, shall do the installation. County will pay the costs of any title work and searches, and Developer shall be responsible for all costs for promptly removing or curing any liens, encumbrances or deficiencies revealed in any title work. Upon receipt, the County shall record the easement in the Public Records of the County. Except as set forth herein, all costs of recording and conveyance shall be paid by the County. 8. It is anticipated that the Developer will need an approximate 15-20 foot wide drainage easement through the Pond Parcel to connect to its outfall. At Developer's written request, County shall promptly provide the Developer with such an easement through a mutually agreed- upon location. All costs associated with this easement shall be paid by Developer. 9. The County will provide the Developer with the ability to upgrade the fencing between the Pond Parcel and the remaining land at the Developer's expense. 10. The County will use its best efforts to obtain all required permits for the storm water pond to be located on the Pond Parcel to be excavated to a depth of at least 20 feet. In any event, on written notice by County or FDOT, Developer at no charge to County or FDOT will construct the storm water pond, in accordance with all plans and specifications provided to Developer. This provision is intended to coincide with the Developer's site work. As full compensation for this construction, Developer will be entitled to keep the excavated material,and will be allowed to utilize the excavated material within the Development. Developer will be responsible for removing and properly disposing of any excess, unsuitable or otherwise unwanted material excavated from the storm water pond. If for whatever reason Developer is not able to construct the storm water pond following such written demand, then County or FDOT, at their sole cost and expense, shall do the construction, and will keep the excavated material. Page 4 of 8 11. For a period of one year, commencing with the date first above written, sufficient development trips have been approved and reserved through the normal development review process. During this one year period, Developer may permanently reserve roadway capacity for up to 206 residential units. To exercise this right, Developer shall prepay to County one-half (1/2) of the County's estimated Road Impact Fees for the Development. Upon payment of these fees, Developer shall receive a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities ("Certificate") vesting the Developer's Project to construct up to 206 residential units solely for the purposes of meeting the County's Transportation Concurrency requirements, and unless specifically required by law, the County shall not thereafter withhold the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy based on the County Transportation Concurrency requirements. Final calculation of the remaining road and other impact fees due will be based on the impact fee schedule in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits for such units. Payment of these fees vests the Development entitlements for which the Certificate applies on a continuous basis for three (3) years unless otherwise relinquished, This initial 50 percent impact fee payment is non- ‘44 refundable after payment and receipt of the Certificate. CD cm. 12. Not later than 90 days prior to the expiration of the three-year period for the r-- Certificate, the County shall notify Developer via registered mail of the remaining balance due eoa for the estimated transportation impact fees up to 50 percent (50%), based on level of building permits already issued. The balance of the impact fees due will be calculated at the rate schedule then currently applicable. The Developer may elect to pay the balance of the estimated o transportation impact fees for the entitlements for which the Certificate applies or modify the Certificate to a lesser entitlement and calculate the balance of the transportation impact fees on the revised entitlements. The Certificate shall be modified to include only the entitlements for which the estimated transportation impact fees are paid. Once the balance of the estimated transportation impact fees are paid, those estimated fees are non-refundable. The Certificate runs continuously with the land in perpetuity after all estimated transportation impact fees have been paid. As building permits are drawn down on the entitlements, the estimated transportation impact fees already paid shall be debited at the rate of the impact fees in effect at the time of utilization. If the estimated transportation impact fee account becomes depleted, the Developer shall pay the currently applicable transportation impact fee for each building permit in full prior to its issuance. In the event that upon build-out of the Development estimated transportation impact fees are still unspent, the remaining balance of such estimated fees may be transferred to another approved project within the same,or adjacent transportation impact fee district,provided any vested entitlements associated with the unspent and transferred transportation impact fees are relinquished and the Certificate is modified to delete those entitlements. 13. The Developer may terminate this Agreement if the contemplated conveyance of the Pond Parcel significantly impacts the Developer's ability to develop the remaining land consistent with the conceptual development plan as shown in Exhibit "B" because of permitting restrictions resulting from the pending conveyance. Should Developer so terminate this Agreement, and should Collier County or any other government agency in the future, including but not limited to FDOT, seek to acquire the Pond Parcel through eminent domain proceedings as party of a road project, Developer will accept the sum of$3,000,000 as compensation for the Pond Parcel. The Developer A Page 5 of 8 reserves the right to make a claim for severance damages to the remainder parcel resulting from such condemnation. This provision shall survive any termination of this Agreement by Developer. 14. This Agreement shall not be construed or characterized as a development agreement under the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act. 15. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. Upon giving written notice to the County, Developer may assign all or part of the Road Impact Fee Credits, utilizing the County's then current form of assignment, to successor owners of all of part of the Development, or as otherwise provided for in the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance. 16. Developer acknowledges that the failure of this Agreement to address any permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve either the applicant or owner, or its successors or assigns, of the necessity of complying with any law, ordinance, rule or regulation governing said c'-' permitting requirements, conditions, terms or restrictions. r-- co 17. In the event state or federal laws are enacted after the execution of this Agreement, which are applicable to and preclude in whole or in part the parties' compliance with the terms of 1:4 this Agreement, then in such event this Agreement shall be modified or revoked as is necessary to comply with such laws, in a manner which best reflects the intent of this Agreement. 18. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall only be amended by mutual written consent of the parties hereto or by their successors in interest. All notices and other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sent by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, and addressed as follows: To County: Waterways Joint Venture VII: Harmon Turner Building Attn: Richard Davenport Naples,Florida 34112 15122 Summit Place Circle Attn:Norman E. Feder, A.I.C.P. Naples,Florida 34120 Transportation Division Administrator Phone: (239)352-6610 Phone: (239) 774-8872 Facsimile: (239) 352-1460 Facsimile: (239)774-9370 Notice shall be deemed to have been given on the next successive business day to the date of the courier waybill if sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery service. 19. Developer shall execute this Agreement prior to it being submitted for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This Agreement shall be recorded by the County in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, within fourteen (14) days after the County enters into Page 6 of 8 this Agreement. Developer shall pay all costs of recording this Agreement. The County shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Developer upon request. 20. In the event of a dispute under this Agreement, the parties shall first use the County's then-current Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure. Following the conclusion of this procedure, either party may file an action for injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Collier County to enforce the terms of this Agreement, said remedy being cumulative with any and all other remedies available to the parties for the enforcement of this Agreement. 21, Any future reimbursement for excess credits shall come from future receipts by the County of Road Impact Fees. However, no reimbursement shall be paid until such time as all development, as defined by the County Manager or his designee, at the location that was subject to %.o the credit has been completed. Such reimbursement shall be made over a period of five (5) years N from the completion of the Development. .5 22. An annual review and audit of performance under this Agreement shall be performed by the County to determine whether or not there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with o the terms of this Agreement and to report the credit applied toward payment of road impact fees and the balance of available unused credit. If the Collier County Board of Commissioners finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of this o Agreement, the Agreement may be revoked or unilaterally modified by the County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their appropriate officials,as of the date first above written. nt q,4, . Attest. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT F 1Bt.00K,`Clerk COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA (r ' Bty: / / By: .ice• �.•�% ,4(1/ Attest ieputyClerk J ;6.7 i •ww�►-a signitI Oil AS TO DEVELOPER: Signed, sealed and Waterways Joint Venture VII delivered in the presence of By: Waterways at Hibiscus, Ltd. Partner and by Waterways Develop ent, In as sole General Partner 1A • ..- ale,S By: !' Printed Name Richard avenport, as President of Waterways Development, Inc. fr Ie Gorza(€� PrintedName Page 7 of 8 STATE OF I COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 240Tt/ day of ru(lrt/ , 2007, by Richard Davenport,as President of Waterways Development, Inc., as General Partner orf Waterways at Hibiscus,Ltd.,which is a Partner of Waterways Joint Venture VII,who is personally known to me or has produced as identification. Notary Pu c I � Print Name: iTAc Ey LOP My Commission Expires: ur)Q R,2010 rte-. Cr) tV STACEY M,LOFTY if/0144;\ Notary Public•Stale of FIorldi Approved as to form _ Ifvly Commission Expires Jun 28,2010 1-g al ' e ciency: •� r•' Commission M OD 589291 9 " Bonded 8y National Notary Assn,co Je r -y A. ;k atzkow aM. :ging .; istant County Attorney LIST OF EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO AGREEMENT Exhibit A Legal description and graphic rendering of Development Exhibit B Legal description and graphic rendering of Pond Parcel Exhibit C Legal description and graphic rendering of ROW Parcel Exhibit I) Form of Warranty Deed Exhibit E Impact Fee Credit Ledger Page 8of8 1 1 TRIAD PUD SADDLEBROOK EAST VILLAGE GATEWAY PUD PUD s DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 64)� N r PROJECT ,j, EBH� ' 1 W �+ F uuttunn nnuu I Al ACV S �I 1 WCEDAR 1pOpto 1 d" ROCK ,t, I COMMERCE CENTER 4 Sr PUD , ,,,,i,ss , , c4171i • I. g = _I1II : i .1 j ;1 /anon annual uIUInn iuuuuI I 14 1 I I 1 I , 1 1. 1 CEDAR 7 HAMMOCK I PUD Jonuory J. 2007 11:28 AM 0:\2005\050117.00.O3 Mystique Engineering\0001 General Consultation\5001170003XA.dwg S i EXHIBIT A i i E d J SKETCH & DESCRIPTION N THIS IS NOT A SURVEY i, I , NORTH QUARTER CORNER, W --.. E SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST • S ti 500'07'06'W _ - - DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 84) ___ — 146.59' ---"...,. ____ - - _ _ 'J�►+ C1 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION t A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF c FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, LYING IN i is SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 c+7 .. EAST. AND BEING FURTHER BOUND AND o j N o^ o DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE WEST ONE HALF 1 co (W3) OF THE WEST ONE HALF (W4) OF THE C rn N NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER (NE4) OF SAID Q SECTION 3. LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERLY • E~ i v RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD- STATE ROAD 84; LESS THE FOLLOWING OHO �? DESCRIBED PARCEL: BEGINNING AT THE . e a SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE a, N QUARTER (NFi) OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE 1 04 w N00'07'06"E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID 3 - ;D FRACTION 707.03 FEET; 1 o !n THENCE LEAVING SAID FRACTION LINE I. n N89'34'06"E. 652.88 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE , o b EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION, t o z THENCE SOO'17'56"W. 704.31 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER (NE4) OF SAID SECTION 3, tl THENCE 589'19'38"W. 650.69 FEET; ALONG SAID I LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ; 1 ? • CURVE RADIUS LENGTH CHORD BEARING DELTA •N89'34'06"E 652.88'(P) C1 3224.04' 656.92' 655.73 582.10'25"W 11'51'08" I 653.00'(M) OTE: �\ d` u GAL DESCRIPTION AS SHOWN POINT OF BEGINNING \\\ ^o WAS TAKEN FROM A BOUNDARY LESS AND EXCEPT PARCEL 'R LESS AND EXCEPT\ SURVEY PREPARED BY { CENTER OF SECTION 3, 'o PARCEL\ ' o, CAROL E. NELSON, P.A. . DWG. #3T5OR26 • 9 TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH. ; o \ DATED 10-09-06 RANGE 26 EAST \oh` \589'19'38"W 650.69' k 3 M TJ January J, 2007 4.25 PM 0.\20:)5\050117.00 0) Mystique t:ngrneerinq\000? Generof Consullotion\30011 70003X4 1 o.g 1 EXHIBIT A-1 a 3: I i 1o 3 t� r iI • 1 i . • U 1 a� i"4' i 1 I 1 Ih CN $p" 1 -t,,gkkg ,Iili 11:1/ —A2l Nag R : F, � 141 . ';., [1 aa% +1. T =. • „ ! . i, f it. ,:,19 % j , , l it "i . all El diI a di , -, Qo ---__---die asavnbe A �4 d—._-_—•—_–_.------__ I s §2 9 3 6 1 N N.j , 0' r E S DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 84) _ 1 50' ROW PARCEL 11111 0 1w1 iwe. I8 r mi I 11111!11 ,a, • 4.i , it* i : atir r ~NOR C 0/ irisos,/ m. I i 11114111111110111111 a./ 4. Mg I P---- — ---, A E r— II*/ — /40 IMI NI W I 1�� r la — 1 1 c r _ r 1 t I 11 iI 1 t i I P *IP 7/ 14 I 7 ♦ January J. 2007 9:44 AM Q:\2003\090177.00.03 Mystique fngineering\0007 General Consultation\5001170003XC.dwg s EXHIBIT C t I SKETCH & DESCRIPTION N 3 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY W -- r.r ' E E . S t . i I c, • DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 84) -- -..-� J � ' CZ LEGAL DESCRIPTION s ' POINT OF BEGINNING A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, LYING IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND BEING FURTHER BOUND AND g DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE I CENTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, F THENCE NDOr07'06"E ALONG THE SAID CENTER 1 OF SECTION LINE 2630.33' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: I • THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTER OF SECTION LINE, NOO'07'06"E, 51,53 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 1 (SR 84) DAVIS BOULEVARD, • I • THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 1 ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE TO THE 1 RIGHT BEING CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH 666.92 I FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3224.04 FEET, o I THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11'51'08" iID n BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS c" N8210'25"E. FOR 665.73 FEET; W ; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE I M i— '— SOO'17'S6"W. 50.04 FEET; __......--1 THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE O TO THE LEFT, BEING CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH b 567.01 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3174.04 FEET, ,. i 2 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12'02'23" ANDE BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS I S82'02'41"W. FOR 665.78 FEET; TO THE POINT .>A t OF BEGINNING. ir--` I cc t A PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 0.77 ACRES I •MORE OR LESS C 1 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH CHORD BEARING I DELTA I Cl 5224.04 666.92' 665.73 NB710'25"E r11'51'08" I 02 3174.04 667.01' 665.78 S8702'41'11 i 1702'23' N POINT OF COMMENCMENT.' NOTE: LINE O'ST. — BEARING CENTER OF SECTION 3, LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS -L1 51.53' Na0 0706'E TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, PREPARED FROM A BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY; L2 50.04' 500"17'56"W RANGE 26 EAST CAROL F. NELSON, P.A. OWG, 3TSUI226 € DATED 10-09-06 i r Jonvory 3. 2007 4.28 PM 0:\7005\05OT17.00.03 t1 tigoe Enginecrin9\0001 Generol Cunsultobon\500T170003XC-1.dwg Ill EXHIBIT C-1 PROJECT t1AJi 1/ PARCEL NOP: ✓ PARENT MAGI FOUO NO. WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED made this day of 20 , by, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor). Whose post office box is;ADDRESS) to COLLIER COUNTY,a politica?subdivision of the State of Florida,its successors and assigns,whose post office address is 3301 Taman);Tran East, Naptos, Florida,34112 (hereinafter referred to as"Grantee"), (Wherever used herein the terms'Grantor and'Grantee'inctude all the parties to this Instrument and their respective heirs,legal representatives.successors and assigns.) WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,hereby grants, bargains, sells, awns, remises, releases, convoys and confirms unto the Grantee,al that certain land situate in Collier County,Florida,to Wit See Attached Exhibit'A"which is incorporated herein by reference. Subject to easements,restrictions,and reservation of record. This Is NOT the Homestead property of the Grantor. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and eppurtonances thereto belonging or In anfse sfçertalrWng. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD rteG7 same in too simple forever. 7c7 • AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is',awfully .4=0. seized of said tend in fee simple;that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to F _, Sell and convey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land cos and wilt defend the same against the Lawful claims of at persons whomsoever;and that said land is free of all encumbrances except as noted above. b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and rear first above written. tV 4 WITNESSES; r-`' Sy: _... ! (Signature) [GRANTOR NAME] _ I (Print Full Name) ( tum) (Print Full Na )me 1 EXHIBIT E DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDIT LEDGER • i k Mystique impact fee 4edgpr, , Beginning Balance $3,000,000.04 ;. DATE PERMIT* CREDIT AMT BALANCE COMMENTS 1 Beginning Balance 33,000,000.00 k } 1 • 0 2 00 Y W N ISM. • ab ,4- )4- ' frai- s rte, ' '.` 1. -i tVi l 1 1 l ". .! ,,. i g'- , ,' r i ` lw Bedzel CIR t1 1: iiii DA In . .'I:b ao,", .", -)-'D tI �- �'�-�' __ �u ,` L � ` _ 75/-� li o tar 1 ��; ,�,. c : 2 ?s" i ,-2--., _ 4 Sarecino CIR 1 `,' Radio LN - :\'\ , ` DAVIS BLVD " - ,?„„i:.,,A C-3 _,....4 ,,,,,:,;,---=_..0.,,;40er." / i c Fr L, PUD . r75/Collier Blvd, 1 i� / .inmere Center j+ / i/toe 'kl -.:. SUBJECT PROPERTY: `"7 � , VINCENT ACRES RPUD __ t�; DENSITY: 7 I . p N474111111 /411g4 1.16Piir4j4g- j 0 • stport ' , t ' `. i t Commerce 1=4"..-.,, �,."' ,,,-_,14,,' �` i ;al r..1 -rater i , N.�� , i(4:4,g. rvn, , _ _�"3�'''„ ` p t . y�{.0t1‘1",:‘,� .tom 1 4� i �-'"�f i '�. „� is ,'mak . S 1 CO +: ; m 11111 0- i )4, , 4, Zil p .lliP,rL ;gilt \ �„ 3' �� d Irtf $ ti ,, ( . ,fit, * . C1 ri `" �,,,, 1I. ',Yd. I t. , 11~._ate � :``0;0 ,,,',\%--- ;. .".T Saw9rass wAY �e g: GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) 0 15=3°° 600 900 N Feat FOR VINCENT ACRES RPUD AND /�a' WI{IG(CNV Prepared' a °,2 y Beth Yana.nMe* SURROUNDING PROPERTIES -...,......1-..e.--, Attachment C Vincent Acres RPUD Neighborhood Information Meeting Date: March 21,2016 Time: 5:30pm Location: New Hope Ministries Patrick Vanasse of RWA began the NIM meeting at 5:30pm Ashley introduced herself; Patrick Vanasse, Community Development Director with RWA, Inc.; Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services; Rebecca Paratore from Habitat for Humanity;and Nick Kouloheras from Habitat for Humanity. Patrick went over the purpose of Habitat for Humanity and their mission to provide affordable housing. He mentioned this will be a flagship project with lots of landscape,design and architectural features. Location is at the southwest corner of Davis Boulevard and Market Street The site encompasses 16.8 acres Currently zoned as Residential Multi-Family 12(10) Current Zoning allows for up to 7 units per acre Rezone request is to allow up to a maximum of 85 single family residential dwelling units or 118 townhouse residential dwelling units Patrick Vanasse went over the location using aerial exhibits, and neighboring zoning and briefly summarized the project. The allowed uses are single family detached, single family attached, zero lot line and townhouse units. We are not asking for multifamily in this project. The project will include amenities like a tot lot, interconnected sidewalks and a street tree program. Patrick displayed the Plats and Plans site plan. He informed the group that the PPL&Zoning applications are under review. The access point will be along Market Street with a large lake and buffer along Davis Blvd. and buffering all around.Over 60%of the project will be green space.There is a park area at the center that is intended to be the center of the community.We have created a circular road all the way around that will be 2 way traffic with some on street parking and we have created alleyways for loading. Each until will have 3 parking spaces and there will be plenty of overflow parking. We will also have a street tree program and single family homes versus the duplexes Habitat has used typically. As part of this the lots are a little shallow and we have created the street tree program.Trees along the roadways for shade for pedestrians and a nice aesthetic. As part of this project an HOA will be created for the community. The HOA will be Attachment D S9i Patrick-Yes the home and the lot are sold together. How much will the homes cost? Nick--We typically go based off of what it's appraised at. Our homeowners typically don't make enough for a$200,000 mortgage.They will take back a silent 2"d mortgage.The family will have the smaller loan amount but the sales price will be the higher market price. This is to prevent predatory lenders to come in. and protects the market rate of the surrounding homes. Ex.Cedar Hammock if someone was selling a home there and a real estate agent or appraiser wanted to do a comparison.We want to make sure we are protecting that market price.We want to take away the person who has the non-habitat home having an issue with reselling. Makes it all a level playing field. Rebecca-We sell our houses for our cost.To piggy back on Nick's answer. Q:You said the 2"d mortgage is forgivable? Nick - It's at the discretion of habitat for humanity. It has to be a compelling story. Then we go through the process to do our due diligence. Q:What kind of timeframe are we talking about? 0:(Nick)For public hearing or building? A: From Attendee—Building Nick-The intention is to break ground Jan/ Feb 2018. Infrastructure start 4-6 months before that June- July 2017.The site plan is for 79 homes. It would take roughly 12 months to build that. Q:What about the sign in the front? Nick-That's an excellent question.We haven't decided where the sign will go. Q:Will it say Habitat? Nick -All of our modern & newer signs even some retrofitted signs, we want the community to blend in with all of the other communities around. It will look a lot more like the signs for Toll Bros and other communities like that.Just no waterfalls or back lit or fountains.We want communities that are desirable to the people who live there and the surrounding community. Q:What type of architectural restrictions in the HOA? Nick-There will be architectural standards and guidelines to anyone who wants to make changes to the outside has to go through the HOA for approval.They can't even plant anything they want because of the landscape program. It's a management company for the homeowners as well. Q: I saw in Regal some people had brick pavers on some homes but not all of them? Nick-I live in a community where not all concrete driveways and paver driveways.Yes that's an option. I think it's a beautification. Q: If he (the homeowner)has a 2nd mortgage why is he spending money on pavers? Nick-It's not uncommon that after people get tax refunds they put money back into their homes. People have to do 500 hours of sweat equity to have a home with us. Patrick- One of the reasons why we support their mission is we have issues in this county dealing with affordable housing. It's not an easy one to come to grasp with. I personally respect the fact that habitat does this without going into taxpayer money. Q:But you are because of the impact fees? Nick-That doesn't come out of the tax payer's dollars Patrick—So this is not a government subsidized program.These are working people who put work in the community they have to put in those 500 hours and they have to pay for their mortgage.It's not a handout like you see in some other government housing. These are people who are trying to get ahead and are willing to work for it. Nancy-That impact fee doesn't go to habitat it goes to the buyer. Close of meeting. II AGENDA ITEM 10-A (5- tS` I lv C(PC) Co -ie-r Coi,tnty Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy White Paper Prepared by the Growth Management Department, Community Planning Section Staff Clerk's Office August'8, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 10-A MEMORANDUM TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 18,2016 RE: A PRESENTATION OF THE RFMUD RESTUDY "WHITE PAPER" TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND, FINDINGS AND INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT AS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS This White Paper provides a conceptual framework to address elements of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District(RFMUD)restudy.The RFMUD restudy is the first of four restudies focused on eastern Collier County,as directed by the Board of County Commissioners(BCC)on February 10,2015. The Community Planning staff in the Zoning Division of the Growth Management Department provides this document as a first point of direct contact with County officials to describe the history and status of the RFMUD(Section 2),the planning process including outreach and sources of data and analysis(Section 3),and initial recommendations(Section 4).The paper is supplemented by appendices of importance at this point in the restudy process. This presentation is somewhat analogous to an Evaluation and Appraisal Report in that there are no statutory guidelines directing the Planning Commission as Land Planning Agency or the governing body in its review.Moreover,staff views the procession through the White Paper and eventual Public Hearings as an evolution of ideas and values as expressed by the public and its representatives.The White Paper review process,following the series of public workshops earlier in the year,provides an opportunity to further our shared understanding into the complexities and subtleties of the RFMUD and move in the direction of opportunities that are presented. In light of the 2016 local elections and the inevitability of 3 new members serving on the BCC beginning in first quarter,FY 2017, staff anticipates bringing this paper back a second time to the CCPC and BCC,in the same or similar format.However, it will be important for current members of the BCC,as well as the members of the Planning Commission to provide comment and direction as appropriate, so that the 2017 BCC gains perspective from all possible quarters. Within a similar timeframe,staff will continue its public involvement phase for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan(GGAMP),the second restudy,which involves many overlapping and related elements,concerns and opportunities. The attached report provides a groundwork of information relating to the RFMUD,the Transfer of Development Rights(TDR)program and the ideas and perceptions of its stakeholders. It is,by design,more conceptual than quantitative.Many elements or ideas for change are complex and many are related to other program elements. Often,a change in one aspect of the program echoes in other program elements.By considering the breadth and scope of potential changes together,a �\ better understanding of these interrelationships emerges.Put another way,it is helpful in a 1 program area of this complexity to move from more general concepts at first to more specific proposals later. As understood by staff at the beginning of this restudy in 2015,the original goals of the program should be maintained,deriving from the Final Order in 1999,through the assessment period and adoption of elements and regulations from 2002 to 2004.With these program goals in mind,the restudy aims to improve the TDR credit system,secure appropriate means and methods to achieve long term maintenance of protected Sending areas,and improve the development outcomes and potentials in Receiving areas. Note that the Initial Observations and Recommendations in Section 4 are conceptual and contain changes that would be suitable for the Growth Management Plan(GMP),the Land Development Code(LDC)or both.Following feedback and direction from White Paper presentations and any additional restudy efforts, staff will arrange regulatory changes in appropriate locations for proposed program changes,and return first with specific amendment proposals for the Growth Management Plan. For convenience,the list of conceptual changes in Section 4 is provided below without explanation.Please see White Paper, Sections 1 through 4 for background,analysis and explanation of these initial recommendations: Summarized List of Initial Recommendations Sending Lands 1. Eliminate the minimum$25,000 price per base TDR. 2. Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property attributes. 3. Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to begin or expand a bone fide agricultural operation. In NRPA locations, only passive agricultural operations, excluding aquiculture, would qualify. Passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan. 4. Allow TDR participation for illegal non-conforming properties based on public policy goals, and waive requirements related to proof of LNC status if greater than 4.5 acres in size. 5. Allow landowner's who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. 6. Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base severance of dwelling unit rights, subject to any additional credits assigned. 7. Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements. 8. Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe 9. Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential Infill bonus provision. 10. Accommodate implementation measures recommended by the CWIP committee and the Watershed Management Plan that are consistent with TDR program success. 11. At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from potential buyers and sellers. 2 12. Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product required for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances, provided by County staff 13. The County should consider the appeal of a publicly funded TDR bank through polling or otherwise, to determine the likelihood of voter approval to support a dedicated assessment and bonding for the program. Board direction will allow a focused analysis including projected costs. 14. Continue to the next stage of a Feasibility Analysis to develop a Regional Offsite Mitigation Area/In-lieu Fee program (ROMA/ILF) with FDEP and ACOE in North Belle Meade. Explore options involving Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) parcels to achieve coordinated or umbrella management options for greater overall land management efficiency. 15. Establish a special TDR for the benefit of the County where no other entity has been established to take ownership. 16. Study the idea of a Green Utility Fee and consider whether it should be the subject of a County-wide referendum. 17. Provide a standard or model Land Management Plan for adoption by owners who wish to provide Restoration and Maintenance activities in return for TDR credits. 18. Staff should provide any data needed to the Property Appraiser's Office in support of its efforts to review tax assessments based on appraised land values and resulting tax assessments in Sending Lands. 19. County-owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for conditional use approval for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Definitions of"active" and"passive"recreation will require further vetting. Neutral Lands 1. Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual easements. 2. Remove the 40 acre minimum project size for clustered development. Receiving Lands 1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of Villages as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district (with exceptions) in locations with access to major collector or arterial roads. 2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park. 3. Explore designating Receiving areas as Innovation Zones. 4. Eliminate the maximum size of a Village. 5. Modify residential density standards: • Clustering—remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre • Village—increase density to 7 units per acre • Change minimum Village density to 4 units per acre 6. Development over 300 acres shall use the Village option. 7. Modify the TDR requirements: �-. a. Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily unit. 3 b. Change from.5 to 0 TDR for affordable housing. c. Density over 4 units per acre require 0 TDRs. d. New-0 TDR for industrial/business park uses. 8. Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands. 9. Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support Complete Streets and low speed. 10. Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business parks. 11. Develop a methodology for a Mobility Analysis including a standard of measuring a development's level of interconnectivity such as a"link-node" ratio, and the transit, bicycle and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project and surrounding destinations. 12. Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide greater certainty for developers 13. Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlays. 14. Allow industrial/business park uses (with exceptions) by right, and Hearing Examiner approval for proposals compatible with surrounding land uses and complying with industrial/business park zoning standards. 15. Initiate study to create an impact fee index for mixed-use. 16. Explore with Collier County Health Department the creation of Health Assessment Index. 17. Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employment zones and mixed-use development, suggest modifications to standards i.e.,remove greenbelt. 18. Develop further incentives for innovate features such as solar power, zero net water use, aquifer recovery and storage systems. REQUESTED ACTION: The purpose of this item is to provide information, suggest ideas for change and continue dialogue related to the RFMUD and the TDR program. Planning Commission comments and suggestions will accompany the White Paper to the BCC presentation, if desired by the Planning Commission. pm 4 Coer County Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy White Paper Prepared by the Growth Management Department, Community Planning Section Staff August 8, 2016 Co- .r Canty Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper Table of Contents Page Section 1: Introduction 1 Section 2: Background 5 Section 3: Planning Process 10 Section 4: Findings and Initial Recommendations 32 Appendix A: Public Outreach Appendix B: North Belle Meade Mitigation Feasibility Report Appendix C:TDR Bank Memo List of Tables Table 2-1 RFMUD Sending Parcel and Acreage Totals by Area 7 Table 2-2 RFMUD TDR Credits Processed of Pending Process 8 Table 2-3 Outstanding TDR Credits 8 Table 3-1 RFMUD Development Characteristics 23 Table 3-2 Measuring the Mix in the RFMUD Village and RLSA Village 27 List of Figures Figure 1-1 RFMUD Sending and Receiving Areas 4 Figure 2-1 Transfer of Development Rights(TDR)Transactions Sending Parcels to Receiving Projects.. 8 Figure 3-1 Sending, Neutral and Receiving Lands Recommendations Survey Results 13 Figure 3-2 Committed Highway Projects for Construction by 2020 17 Figure 3-3 Freight Activity Centers 19 Figure 3-4 Transportation Study Areas 20 Figure 3-5 Collier Well-Being Index 24 RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Cotte r Copt Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper Section 1: Introduction This White Paper provides a conceptual framework to address elements of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) restudy. The RFMUD restudy is the first of four restudies focused on eastern Collier County, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on February 10, 2015. Focus areas of all four restudies include complementary land uses, transportation and mobility, environmental stewardship and economic vitality. As the restudies unfold, relationships and synergies between the study areas are identified and maximized. The Community Planning staff in the Zoning Division of the Growth Management Department provides this document as a first point of direct contact with elected officials to describe the history and status of the RFMUD (Section 2), the planning process, including outreach and sources of data and analysis (Section 3), and findings and initial recommendations (Section 4). This paper is supplemented by appendices of importance at this juncture, final quarter of FY 2016. Appendix A contains summaries of public workshops as well as communications from stakeholders with their remarks subsequent to our distribution of a first draft of initial recommendations on July 13, 2016. Appendix B contains a memo from a TDR consultant on the provision of a County sponsored TDR Bank. Appendix C is the Phase 1 Feasibility Report for a Mitigation Bank in North Belle Meade. One reason to bring the RFMUD restudy forward in report form is to lay the groundwork of information relating to the RFMUD, the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program and the ideas and perceptions of its stakeholders. Another important reason is that, given the complexity of the elements within the RFMUD and TDR program, a conceptual approach should be a preferred way to begin. Many elements or ideas for change are related to many other program elements. Often, a change in one aspect of the program echoes in other program elements. By considering the breadth and scope of potential changes together, a better understanding of these interrelationships emerges. Put another way, it is helpful in a program of this complexity to move from more general concepts at first to more specific proposals later. As understood by staff at the beginning of this restudy in 2015, the original goals of the program should be maintained, deriving from the Final Order in 1999, through the assessment period and adoption of elements and regulations from 2002 to 2004. These include: • Protect wetlands, wildlife and habitat from unrestrained growth RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 1 of 60 • Protect agricultural land from premature conversion to other uses • Direct growth potential to appropriate locations • Utilize creative land use planning techniques, including new towns, satellite communities, clustering, mixed use and open space Along with retention of the original goals and the geographic (Sending/Neutral/Receiving) designations that were made, restudy goals also include: • Improve the TDR credit system o Achieve proper balance of credits (optimize supply and demand) o Incentivize preservation and stewardship o Ensure reasonable demand for and availability of credits in Receiving areas • Identify agencies or entities for long term ownership and maintenance • Review and improve development uses, regulations and standards, based on: o Community values o Sustainability o Economic development o Consistency with area needs, other sub-area needs and County policies Some of the coordination called for in the course of the restudy requires close collaboration with other County Departments or outside agencies, often at the expense of a strict adoption or implementation timetable. For example, planning for affordable housing, mobility, watershed and infrastructure require knowledge and recognition of parallel efforts, each moving along its own trajectory and timetable. Staff is mindful that interdepartmental and intergovernmental coordination help yield the optimal result. The RFMUD contains approximately 77,000 acres; lands designated RFMUD are not contiguous. One of the interesting observations that emerged early on in the restudy is that there are significant differences in the character and status of the four main Sending areas and the four main Receiving areas. For consistency, we have labeled the RFMUD sub-areas as follows (see Figure 1-1): Sending: • North • North Belle Meade- NRPA • North Belle Meade-West • South Belle Meade Receiving: • North RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 2 of 60 • West • North Belle Meade • South Note that the Findings and Initial Recommendations in Section 4 are conceptual and contain changes that would be suitable for the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the Land Development Code (LDC) or both. Following feedback and direction from White Paper presentations, staff, with consultation from the County Attorney's Office, will sort through the appropriate regulatory locations for proposed program changes, and return with specific amendment proposals for the Growth Management Plan first. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 3 of 60 Figure 1-1 RFMUD Sending aria~ Receiving ter,_- ry.. :744. Aq RURAL FRINGE . imm: LEERD E' X1E CI USE DISTRICT — N1rth ft* \ =,--4-<- „4-, North Sending CR858 West ., ri-: i I m i s uJ GOLDEN GATE BLVD * .Q North Belle 1 ' Meade , North Belle � North Belle ( Meade-West _ Meade NRPA ..../-- South Belle Meade RECEIVING t. SENDING F' South , A i- _- NEUTRAL ` Ft 00.51 2 3 4 RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 4 of 60 Cca , I~ r C014 h t.v Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper Section 2: Background In June 1999, the State of Florida Final Order, Case ACC-99-002, found the County's Growth Management Plan lacking in protection for environmentally sensitive areas, failing to adequately discourage urban sprawl and failing to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land. The Final Order required the following modifications to the GMP to address the issues within three specified areas. 1. Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas. 2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal species and their habitats. 3. 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 land uses away from 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, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. In order to address these concerns, the County created the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. The Growth Management Plan was amended in 2002 to include the majority of today's RFMUD provisions and the basic structure of the TDR program. It was amended soon thereafter, to include bonus TDR provisions and provisions incorporating an intervener agreement known as the North Belle Meade Overlay. The implementing Land Development Code (LDC) provisions, reflecting and implementing all of these GMP amendments were adopted in 2004. Only miscellaneous amendments have been made since that time. The RFMUD contains approximately 77,000 acres. It provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands, between the Urban and Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA), and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is separated into three specific areas, Sending Lands, Neutral Lands, and Receiving Lands. Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity. These sending lands generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. The uses within the Sending Lands are limited RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 5 of 60 to a narrow list of permitted and conditional uses. The current regulations allow for the maximum density of one (1) dwelling unit per 40 acres or, one (1) dwelling unit per lot or parcel of less than 40 acres, which was recorded on or before June 22, 1999 (and non- conforming lots <5 acres which existed as of October 15, 1974 or January 5, 1982, depending upon location). Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development units may be transferred from Sending Lands. These lands have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations. Within the Receiving Lands the base residential density allowable is one (1) unit per five (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum (non-village) density achievable in Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per acre, with a minimum project size of 40 contiguous acres. The RFMUD also allows Rural Villages in the Receiving areas. Rural Villages must be located where public infrastructure exists or is planned, including direct access to an arterial or collector roadway. With the creation a Rural Village, the sense of community and convenience can be increased, emphasizing mixed use, social and civic interaction and walkability. However, ,^ the current development standards for Rural Villages do not easily accommodate neighboring communities and Districts. Neutral Lands have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development. Assessment data indicated that Neutral Lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation, and thus higher habitat values, than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but these values do not approach those of Sending Lands. Therefore, these lands are appropriate for limited development, if such development is directed away from existing native vegetation and habitat. A lower maximum gross density is prescribed for Neutral Lands when compared to Receiving Lands: 1 dwelling unit per 5 gross acres (0.2 units per acre). The TDR program is a major component of the RFMUD, as it allows the transfer of development units from Sending parcels to Receiving parcels. The Collier program is somewhat unique in its structure, using a series of TDR credit types that can be sold and used for Receiving development. From a 5 acre area, an Owner might achieve 4 TDRs: Base credit; Early Entry credit; Restoration and Maintenance credit; and Conveyance credit. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 6 of 60 As noted in the Table 2.1, the RFMUD Sending land is comprised of thousands of parcels, mostly 5 and 10 acres in size. Sending Land acreage, although 40,973 in total, yields only 16,643 privately held acreage, capable of earning and selling TDR credits. Table 2.1 RFMUD Sending Parcel and Acreage Totals by Area Sending Area #of #of Owners Acres Parcels South Belle Meade 353 227 5,905 North Belle Meade -NRPA 760 340 6,451 North Belle Meade-West 373 271 3,074 North 60 45 _ 1,213 Private Owned Total 1,546 883 16,643 Government Owned 606 1 24,330 Private and Government Owned Total 2,152 884 40,973 Source:GIS rev.March 2016 Note: Government owned parcels stated separately;purchase or prior TDR Conveyance The program set a minimum price point for the Base TDRs at $25,000. The Early Entry expiration date was extended several times over the years, most recently to 2019. Although the concept of "conveyance TDRs" was intended to boost the number of TDR credits and transfer the property ownership into government hands, no governmental agency has been willing to accept Sending lands in North Belle Meade, or in Section 11 (T 48S; R 26 E) in the North Sending area. Despite these issues and the intervening economic downturn, there have been TDR transfers and redemptions in both the West Receiving area and in the Urban Residential Fringe. To date, several developments have used the cluster residential development option in the form of gated communities. In the RFMUD, non-village density is capped at 1 unit per acre and includes the communities of Twin Eagles South, Lamorada, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Golf Club of the Everglades. In the Urban Fringe, densities are generally capped at 2.5 units per acre and include entitled communities such as Naples Reserve, Hacienda Lakes, Lords Way, San Marino, Lido Isles and Rockledge. These developments have an approved total of 6,786 units; the majority of units are detached single family. As shown in Table 2-2, approximately 3,953 TDR credits have been processed. These TDR credits were generated from approximately 6,532 acres. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 7 of 60 Table 2-2 RFMUD TDR Credits Processed or Pending Process TDRs Base Credits Processed 1,326.10 Early Entry Bonus Credits Processed 1,326.10 R&M Bonus TDR Credits Processed 905.32 Conveyance Bonus Credits Processed 395.82 TDRs Pending Process 658.40 Total 4,611.74 As shown in Table 2-3, under the current system, approximately 10,947 TDRs remain to be processed. These TDR credits are associated with approximately 16,363 acres of Sending Land. The theoretical credits under the present system both processed and outstanding, total approximately 15,558. Of this total, approximately 25% have been issued. Table 2-3 Outstanding TDR Credits Outstanding TDR Credits Base TDR Credits 2,403.67 Early Entry Bonus TDR Credits 2,403.67 R&M Bonus TDR Credits 2,804.67 Conveyance Bonus Credits 3,335.02 Total 10,947.03 To date, approximately 2,129 TDRs have been redeemed to support the increased density found in the Receiving area development projects. These transactions between Sending Lands and Receiving Lands are shown on Figure 2-1. Given the activity that has occurred to date, the greatest development potential in Receiving Lands will be the North, North Belle Meade and South Receiving areas, where the majority of the changes adopted as part of the RFMUD restudy will occur. Based on the difficulty for Sending owners to generate the restoration and maintenance credit, or the conveyance credit, TDR supply under the current system is estimated to be far less than shown in Table 2-3. Staff's assessment estimates a more realistic credit supply of approximately 5,500 TDRs. The demand assessment prepared by staff assumes one village each in the North Receiving area, the North Belle Meade Receiving area, and the South receiving area, along with about 60 percent of the remaining vacant property using the cluster provisions. This scenario would require approximately 13,443 TDR credits. This significant difference between the TDR supply and likely demand demonstrates an imbalance in the program. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 8 of 60 _.r Figure 2-1 GAD.County TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) TRANSACTIONS SENDING PARCELS TO RECEIVING PROJECTS . 17, r-.0.00.0 - ►•4.4•.44.4.4•..4 occfr4.4.4..4.4.444.4444•x.' 04�►.4.4.4.444.44 A..v 414.4.4..4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4/ ��>444.444.4.4.4.444444444. 1�>4.•4.4.4.4•4•4.4.4.4.4•.� IMMOKALEE RD E $::.)::::::.•••:•% :►44.•��4•.4444•4.4.4.4.4•.K II:0 NO:4444,44.:444Z ,,4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4,4.4.4.4.4.4.. J LEE y COUNTY m l o c w $O alit i.♦iii 4444. -:t:•-7,- No,.4./ 9 W ♦••••4P Y ►44441 Z X+ ►..... U g 444..' — OIL WELL RD OIL WELL RD ►•44•.4.1. r mmE: `S ► 44.1. I l «E. E - �Ws` `� • / `• IMMOKALEfi Rrl l RANDALL BLVD IMMOKALEE RDI ,LAMINAE. 2 _N l 3 x LII z 1 ti o m c i l;.il►. N y G �1►44, 3. O m 11 O 1111,.•S \ ,V W W W \.\ \ ., \s, G•LD N GATE BLVD PINE RIDGE RD '1 \I S , o I I '\\\ ,\N ti!i4i4i i:O. GREEN BIND z ►4.4, . \` \ ,N \\N `n IV' \ m MONT ►'•'4 ,.f' 111 �' 11� i �A m w o �.:•:,• ` '• :q •� I1 ... r las ef- litt-::\,„1,NA,,,,1„111 \,,,,,\t„ 1 .- RF-Sending 0 RF-Receiving i RF Neutral,,,,f.,,..",1 Govt.Owned Parcels f .ice `9� r ‘111 At- SENDING PARCELS` ++' • i ry 1 , ,�1 RECEIVING PROJECT �� Mockingbird Crossing -Mockingbird Crossing r Y>/�:.9 ( (387 eq 95 credits) \ 9 HAMMOCK RD ES •yi t e I rf Lamorada Td, oraa r 4 ;l ® (538 ac,213 credits)� • es I,j + ,!> (2 542 ac 1,271 credits) /,'//' ' x:„, - „'p^ Golf Club of the Everglades '• .c "y, ,f ® (14 ac,44 credits) Mill Golf Club of the Everglades Hacienda Lakes ..„,,...„,..,t...,....._„_,:..,...,,„.,,..7_,.:_,, ,....„. -•'^ Hacienda Lakes ,'ii, ,- --^- 1 ® (252 ac,113 credits) „,,,�, ��.y Heritage Bay (Heritage Bay 41 w PEEfl°` .`^`a (84 ac,33 credits) 441 Naples Reserve ,,,Mi� (204 ac,40 credits) ! Naples Reserve �'. — - ®The Lords Way (1,100 ac,193 credits) ®The Lord's Way .44 . . x.444.0♦ T 'Credits shown are only those redeemed as of Jan.2016,and do not necessarily 4...4.9,y 14.❖.•.4.4��44,H _. represent all credits generated or needed for project buildout. •�•4.4.4.4.44•��r ! er ♦44.... .� `•».'.�,`+:....: ..4.44. ... y :^ 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 ♦444444444. '.4.'.&I.1'.4.4.x♦ °1'/09/2016iET hal§e of 60 •RFMUD Re laa.o,1 r:>:. J4��4.1 E,E TNAEN- DATE JANUARY Cv i :r County Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper Section 3: The Planning Process In early 2015, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) directed staff to initiate a restudy of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD), along with three other master plans east of County Road 951: Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP); Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA); and the Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP). To support the RFMUD planning effort, the BCC initiated the public participation process through the adoption Resolution 2015-111 establishing a 7 member Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC). The functions, powers, and duties of the GMOC are to aid and assist the public participation phase of the regulatory review. This includes: 1. Assist in determining the most effective venues and dates to hold the public presentations: 2. Assist in composing the information materials to be presented to the public at community meeting at various locations throughout the study area. 3. Assist in determining the agendas for public meetings; 4. Assist in providing consistency between the planning efforts. In reviewing proposals for program change, the GMOC scope will be "high level and non- granular, emphasizing consistency, sustainability and economic vitality." The GMOC set their schedule to meet quarterly throughout the restudies planning timeframe. They met three times through June, 2016 providing input to staff on community outreach schedule and presentation materials. With the guidance of the GMOC, this restudy process was a focused, stakeholder effort. All interested parties were encouraged to participate in public workshops, on-line surveys and in direct communication with staff. Public Outreach To engage landowner participation in the RFMUD restudy, letters were mailed to over 800 RFMUD property owners informing them of the restudy and the public workshop schedule. A total of six public workshops were held from January, 2016 through May, 2016. A summary of each meeting is attached as Appendix A, Public Outreach Summary. The first three public workshops were held during evening hours at the IFAS Center and focused on the RFMUD Sending Lands. Fifty to sixty people attended each workshop. During the first workshop there was strong sentiment among Sending Land owners that the program should RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 10 of 60 not have been devised in the way it was; many thought that the RFMUD governing provisions should be abandoned altogether. Through the public workshop process, some came to understand that the program was created as a result of litigation and the State's Final Order; that the program has been in place for over ten years; that TDR credits have been redeemed and converted to density; and that the County needs to move forward and not back. The public workshops for the Sending Lands focused on the important issues to the landowners including improving the economic viability of the program, promoting smarter development patterns and protecting natural resources. Staff continuously encouraged owner input on how to improve the program. Several techniques were used for this outreach: public presentations; comment cards; breakout group exercises; on-line surveys; telephone calls; and individual meetings. The public was encouraged to explore resources on the website, including a library of materials and video-taped meetings. The first public meeting was introductory in nature. Staff summarized the history and current status of the RFMUD and the TDR program. Participants were encouraged to express opinions on the rules adopted over a decade earlier, and staff outlined the anticipated progression of the study and the public involvement phase going forward. The meeting summary can be found in Appendix A, Public Workshop#1. The second public workshop focused on issues related to the Sending Lands in North Belle Meade. A panel of local experts was seated to discuss possible solutions for the Sending Lands long-term ownership and maintenance. The full discussion, questions and responses are found in Appendix A, Public Workshop#2. The third and final public workshop focusing on Sending Lands topics included two major components. First, staff provided an overview of the economic considerations involved in TDR transfers; and second, a list of changes suggested by the public was vetted using breakout group approach. Each group discussed the potential changes, ranked their agreement and reported back to the entire group. The full discussion, questions and responses are found in Appendix A, Public Workshop#3. In summary, through the public workshop process, Sending Land participants agreed upon the following: • Add TDR credits to all sending lands regardless of location or attributes, such as higher natural resource values or watershed improvement potential. • Eliminate the $25,000 minimum price for a base TDR credit. • Allow TDR Credits to be used outside of the RFMUD, but agreement to where to use the credits was not defined. • Reduce or eliminate TDR application fees. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 11 of 60 • County staff should offer free workshop assistance to complete TDR application process. • Improve the link between buyers and sellers through an improved listing or a TDR bank. • Create a TDR bank. • Allow TDR credits for agriculture preservation. • Allow additional family home if agricultural land owner has over 20 acres. • Collier County should be managing entity of Sending Lands. • Long term maintenance cost should be paid for by a County mitigation program. Following the Sending Lands workshops, staff focused on the Neutral and Receiving Lands. Approximately sixty residents attended the workshops, of which about half had not attended the Sending Lands workshops. Staff presented the future development potential allowed under the current program, including vacant land, allowed land uses, density and intensity. Break out groups were invited to provide feedback on several key questions including: specific issues and concerns about future development; improvements or changes for the Receiving Lands; what is liked best about the Receiving Lands; and opinions about the Neutral Lands. All responses to the questions are included in Appendix A, Public Workshop #4. Members of Collier County's consultant team, AECOM, wrapped up this workshop with a primer on different kinds of development models with a focus on sustainability. This presentation was well received by participants with many asking for copies of the PowerPoint slides. s-. The fifth workshop built on the previous workshop discussion of development potential and patterns. Participants were invited to vision future development through a "framework mapping" exercise. Two of the RFMUD Receiving areas were used as examples for participants. The exercise allowed participants to experience how these areas might be planned by identifying destinations, development areas, street networks and green infrastructure. The results demonstrated the values expressed in previous workshops: more village mixed-use development and less single-use gated community development. The mapping exercises are included in Appendix A, Public Workshop#5. The final workshop provided a forum for residents and stakeholders to review ideas provided by the public through previous workshops, surveys, and correspondence, which were incorporated into the staff's initial recommendations. Each initial recommendation was presented and discussed. Participants were then asked to rank each one from strongly disagree to strongly agree.The survey results are shown in Figure 3-1. In conclusion, the public workshops were dynamic and well attended. Participants were fully engaged in identifying issues, concerns and potential solutions. Many of the initial recommendations included in this white paper stemmed from public input. The survey results RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 12 of 60 Figure 3-1 ""'N, Sending and Neutral Lands Recommendations Survey Results 26-May, 2016 Reward Neutral Land owners with TDRs for preserving habitat or native vegetation under a conservation easement. Extend the same advantages to Neutral Land owners who want to commit to agricultural uses by offering TDRs. Eliminate the use of TDRs in urban areas if they come from RFMUD Sending Lands. Study recreational uses that could be compatible on donated lands that go beyond"passive recreation." Allow a second dwelling unit to dedicated farming operations of at least 20 acres. If a mitigation bank is not a feasible funding source,require a donation to the County with the land,equivalent to all or a portion of any additional TDRs issued. The County should finance maintenance of donated Sending Land through a mitigation bank,if feasible. „E The County should accept land that owners wish to donate,if no other agency is willing. :t Create a County-sponsored TDR bank that can buy credits from Sending Lands owners Reduce cost and complexity of applications. 11111111111111111 Improve the Buyer/Seller registries. I 1111111.11111111 Eliminate minimum pricing on Base TDRs. TDRs should be awarded also for owners who commit to keeping their , land in agricultural production _ Additional credits should be provided to those who entered the program early. Additional credits should not favor one Sending Land location over another. Additional credits should be provided to balance the anticipated - demand from Receiving Areas.Sending Land owners,if they participate,should benefit from additional credits. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% •Strongly Disagree •Disagree Neutral Agree ■Strongly Agree RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 13 of 60 Receiving Lands Recommendations Survey Results 26-May, 2016 Additional incentives for innovative green designs,such as solar power,zero net water,aquifer storage and recovery sites,etc. ill Currently no provisions for stand-alone commercial.Propose -1111111- .11 design guidelines(no strip)and use of TDR credits(ex,1 credit per 6,000 SF). -®--- Modify the TDR requirements to 0.5 credit for multi-family units and 0 credit for target industry/business park uses - I I � Hearing Examiner can approve business park proposals. --- Hearing Examiner can approve individual deviations. Developments complying with zoning overlays should get -- approval through simple BCC majority or Hearing Examiner process. Use overlays or optional design standards that promote greater certainty in review process. - Incentivize mixed-use developments by studying potential impact fees for mixed-use. 11,111111. - iall Reward projects that advance the greater public interest (examples:greenway connections,flowway connections). /*"."\ Allow TDRs in Receiving Areas for protection of native • vegetation/habitat or agriculture. Add requirements requirements for transit stops in large developments, business parks or villages. Consider roadway design standards that promote low speed and safety. I. ., `.1111 111111111 Enhance requirements for greater project connectivity. - - Analyze arterial roadway capacity issues. r - -- Increase density allowd in non-village development to 2 units per acre(TDRs required)and remove 40-acre minimum size Increase density allowed in rural villages to 4 units per gross acre • ---- (TDRs required) 1111111.1=1111111111111 Revise village rules to allow larger commercial and employment areas. Allow business park stand-alone uses to increase employment opportunities in research technology and other targeted businesses. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% •Strongly Disagree •Disagree Neutral •Agree •Strongly Agree RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 14 of 60 show, through the public outreach process, that consensus was reached on the initial recommendations put forward in the final workshop. In addition to public workshops, public outreach included numerous interviews, meetings and telephone calls with citizens, agency representatives, stakeholders and media. In fact, prior to public workshops, at least 15 one on one interviews were conducted to obtain factual information and initial opinion. Ultimately, staff met 3 times with the Rural Fringe Coalition (development group), and twice with representatives from Conservancy, Florida Wildlife Federation, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and Collier Citizens Council. Necessarily, horizontal communication within the County Managers agency was frequent. Data Analysis Staff was directed to address four major topic areas through this planning effort: 1) Environment; 2) Land Use; 3) Transportation and Mobility; and 4) Economic Vitality. Through the first several months of the planning process, staff gathered and analyzed data relative to the major topics from several sources with the intent to understand and coordinate major planning efforts, recent or on-going, in the County including, but not limited to: • Current RFMUD Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code sections • The Master Mobility Plan (2012) • MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (2015) • TDR Activity Log and Comprehensive Planning data (2016) • East of CR 951 Final Report (2008) • Collier Interactive Growth Model (2008) • Picayune Restoration Plan (2008) • Watershed Management Plan (2011) • North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Study(2013) • Utility Master Plans (2008, 2015) • Towards Better Places: Collier County Community Character Plan (2001) • Wellfield Protection Zones; Aquifer Recharge Areas • Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce "Opportunity Naples" (2014) • Current national planning studies During the past decade, many studies and efforts have addressed Collier County's environment, transportation, land use, and economic vitality. Many of the recommendations found in previous studies relate to and can be implemented in the RFMUD. National planning studies, RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 15 of 60 P""\ like those conducted in Collier County, continue to focus on implementing planning policy toward sustainability, smart growth and multi-modal principles. Environment The seminal documents relating to environmental issues are the very subject of this restudy: the Growth Management Plan RFMUD provisions and related LDC provisions. The RFMUD, as indicated in Section 2, Background, was designed following challenges to the County's existing and proposed plans for eastern Collier County, and was necessitated due to State action. Specifically with respect to Sending Lands downzoning and TDR incentives, environmental goals were intended to fulfill the directives of the Final Order: "Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats." The core RFMUD provisions, now nearly 15 years old, are a major area of focus in this restudy. In 2015 and 2016, Collier's RFMUD regulations were vetted through public meetings with residents and stakeholders, as described above. Feedback from staff and public resulted in the need to bring quantitative and technical analysis to bear on environmental issues. As watershed planning is one of the major components of environmental restoration in Sending Lands, the County's Watershed Management Plan (2011) emerges as a key source of data and analysis for environmental aspects of the RFMUD. In turn, that plan resulted in the appointment of the Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Plan (GGWIP) Technical Ad Hoc Advisory Committee and its successor, the current Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan (CWIP) Technical Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. RFMUD restudy staff has attended and participated in those committee meetings since September, 2015. There are many important issues centric to both RFMUD regulations and watershed improvement programs. For example, the RESTORE grant funding initiative presents a specific opportunity to balance water surplus and water deficits within the watersheds in RFMUD and Golden Gate Estates planning areas; staff has attended and participated in numerous meetings with Project Managers, state and federal agency officials and consultants. The RESTORE initiative informs priorities and coordination of effort within RFMUD Sending areas. In order to further incentivize TDR program participation and at the same time recommend sustainable long-term management and protection of environmentally important Sending Lands, a Phase 1 North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank Feasibility Study was commissioned. If feasible, adoption of a ROMA or similar program could allow a means for County ownership with long term funding that could favor transportation budgeting, and incentivize Sending owner participation. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 16 of 60 Collier County has had success in the past in mitigating its own impacts. The Caracara Prairie Preserve Conservation Bank (and successor Trust Fund) saved the County $346,100 (26%) in Panther Habitat Unit (PHU) costs, as compared to a private mitigation bank, in permitting its Resource Recovery Business Park in 2014. A discussion of the North Belle Meade mitigation bank concept is included in Section 4 and the Phase 1 Report is attached as Appendix B. Staff will look to the BCC for direction in carrying this study forward to its next phase. Related to all aspects of the major topic areas is the ongoing economic modelling that addresses the balance of credits from Sending Lands to Receiving Lands. Scenario modelling is applied to assure appropriate credit supply and demand so that additional credits can incentivize Sending participation and allow adequate credit resourcing for future development. It is understood by our consultant that additional credits will be recommended, but that the number of credits and their distribution rely on a myriad of factors, making scenario modelling an important tool in restudy data and analysis. These scenarios will become a part of the CCPC and BCC presentations and will ultimately help answer the quantitative question regarding additional credits within the system. Finally, additional consultation is underway with respect to TDR banks. TDR bank analysis will provide the pros and cons of entering into a banking system for the purpose of assuring confidence and liquidity in the TDR transfer system. The first deliverable is attached as Appendix C. The concepts are further discussed in this paper in Section 4, (C.3). Transportation Every day more than 116,000 auto work trips are completed within Collier County. Many of these trips are generated in eastern Collier County as residents make the commute to jobs in the coastal area. The Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is Collier County's guiding transportation document. The purpose of the LRTP is to assist Collier County in cultivating its transportation vision through the next 20 years. It identifies needed improvements to the network, and provides a long-term investment framework that addresses current and future transportation challenges. LRTP goals are: • Ensure the Security of Transportation System for Users • Protect Environmental Resources • Improve System Continuity and Connectivity • Reduce Roadway Congestion • Promote Freight Movement RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 17 of 60 • Increase the Safety of the Transportation System for Users • Promote Multi-modal Solutions • Promote the Integrated Planning of Transportation and Land Use The LRTP stresses, the key to enhancing mobility for users of the transportation system is to improve connectivity and continuity through the system, and especially across all modes. The MPO recognized the importance of prioritizing projects that enhance connectivity by including system continuity and connectivity as two of the several project selection criteria. Connectivity and continuity are also important for bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes. Users of the transit system rely on bicycle, pedestrian or park-and-ride facilities in order to "make the connection." Connectivity and system continuity is about advancing an interconnected multi-modal transportation system. The LRTP committed highway projects for construction by 2020 are nearly all located in eastern Collier County, and several are within Receiving Lands (Figure 3-2). Figure 3-2 Committed Highway Projects for Construction by 2020 0 _ 29 E3,ir;pa^€,f, North Nares f © �' 0 --436-4,, 951 -,.. F10/49P9/1910` 6 Naples 0,. .11 ici Municipal l n3rrrt spa xf 1 Lel za er,Say Nessie Marco World Executive Ow t,c.ver,Seamate .... State Psi , g, ;rtefSeCtiOnllnt&?rCtic3+ <1r mprovement Marcor �r Isand D Roccawoy improvement t Asizni c c:t F rif Island RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 18 of 60 Freight Activity Centers (FACs) and Network are also identified in the LRTP. The growing importance of freight movement has been reflected in the latest federal transportation authorizing legislation, MAP-21. Recognizing the contribution that the movement of freight makes to the State's economy, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) created the Office of Freight Logistics and Passenger Operations to establish policies and plans investments that enhance Florida's economic development efforts. As a result, special attention was given to freight movement and is reflected in the needs assessment. These FACs contribute to the economic well-being of Collier County. As shown on Figure 3-3, two Receiving Areas, which include significant mining and agricultural operations, are designated as secondary freight activity centers numbers 6 and 8. Figure 3-3 Freight Activity Centers CREW ,0 Fiat 291 ..r Oranyetree North rite 991j meyards 0Pews Nailer Golden fV Re fe Gmtr. 0 A =ort ted Pat: r armPststottvo Marco Freight Activity Centers(FAC) Execut f• rr r, Imo Stafe Park t0 The LRTP also identifies future study areas to further define and clarify the scope of improvements needed in the area. Three study areas were identified, and one serves the RFMUD. The Green Boulevard Extension/North Belle Meade Study Area extends eastward from CR-951 to surround the North Belle Meade Area from Golden Gate Estates to 1-75 and eastward RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 19 of 60 to Everglades Boulevard. The purpose of the study is to define future collector road network in this area. A number of corridors that would enhance circulation throughout the area have been identified, as illustrated on Figure 3-4. The study effort would determine the feasibility and preferred alignment for the identified corridors or alternatives that may be developed during the course of the study. Figure 3-4 Transportation Study Areas FcpaAnt9pon 29 4-1 } Naples 0 Mumcipa? A t roc rt `SEEmar__ 29 Slfaqd These:te M4rc>h..#4nd Executive4ort j ^} .±I F<r Study Area �. .1 Interchange Improvement Marro Additionally, in the North Belle Meade Receiving area, following the recommendations of the East of 951 Bridge Study, Collier County has programmed several bridges. Two bridges within the North Belle Meade Receiving Area are identified for construction. Bicycle, pedestrian and transit needs are identified within the LRTP, however these are specific to existing network infrastructure. Planning for multi-modal needs within the RFMUD will be guided by the Receiving Area development standards, along with the Collier County Master Mobility Plan (MMP). A major effort in understanding Collier County's mobility was the Master Mobility Plan (2011). The MMP considered six planning sub-areas, including the RFMUD. The MMP developed a long-term vision to aid in planning for the county's mobility, land use, and infrastructure needs RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 20 of 60 at population buildout. The primary goal of the MMP is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and traffic demands specifically by reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled while at the same time protecting habitats, environmentally sensitive lands and agriculture. The Board of County Commissioners on January 24, 2012, reviewed and accepted the MMP strategies developed in cooperation with the Collier County Planning Commission through an enhanced public involvement process. Related to the RFMUD, the MMP recommends a new multi-modal Mobility Analysis, done at the time of development application, to create the needed linkage between land use and transportation policy. A Mobility Analysis would expand the current methodology found in a Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) by addressing not only the automobile, but also including analysis of transit, bicycle and pedestrian mobility. Components of a Mobility Analysis measure the reduction in number or length of external automobile trips. Mobility Analysis Components Mixed Use Trip Generation Model (or similar technique)to calculate external trips (internal capture),external walk trips, external transit trips, etc. For single-use development, a demonstration of what VMT-reduction strategies/techniques are to be used An analysis of current and proposed transit access An analysis of local street connectivity An analysis of non-motorized travel suitability Further addressing the need for a multi-modal network, in 2014, the Florida Department of Transportation adopted a Complete Streets policy. The goal is to implement policy that promotes safety, quality of life, and economic development. FDOT specifically recognized that Complete Streets are context-sensitive and requires design that considers local land development patterns and built form. The overall intent of a Complete Streets policy is to provide safe access for all road users— pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users, and motorists—of all ages and abilities. Although design features vary based on local context, basic elements should include wide sidewalks, well- marked or raised crosswalks, traffic calming measures, protected bike lanes, and pedestrian safety islands. Complete Streets can help reduce costs and improve health by significantly reducing crash rates, injuries, and fatalities. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 21 of 60 Congested transportation networks are generally caused by low density, single-use development with sparse connectivity and the majority of users on the network during the same peak hours. Collier County's transportation planning efforts and FDOT are in agreement- to enhance mobility it is critical to plan for a multi-modal system that serves all users of all ages, is interconnected, and with continuity. Transportation planning efforts have identified several efforts within the RFMUD including new corridors, bridges, FAC designations, and areas for further study. This signifies considerable attention is being given to the transportation network surrounding the RFMUD. Land Use Growth is sustainable when it diversifies our economy, provides a more affordable lifestyle through housing and transportation choices, fosters design that encourages social, civic, and physical activity, and preserves a thriving natural environment and agriculture lands. The RFMUD land use policies support guiding sustainable principles, but as identified through the public outreach process and this restudy, there is room for improvement. There are three land use designations in the RFMUD; Sending, Receiving, and Neutral. The overall goal of the program is to protect the natural resources within Sending Lands by directing future growth to the Receiving Lands. Upon the full realization of the program, the Sending Lands will remain substantially undeveloped, supporting quality habitat for listed species and functioning to improve the watershed and quality of surrounding estuaries and bays. Neutral Lands will remain low density as large estates lots able to support some agriculture uses, open space and habitat. Receiving Lands, determined to be those most suitable to accommodate future growth, will be developed. The current RFMUD development standards, summarized in Table 3-1, allows for three development options: 1) base rights development; 2) clustering; and 3) mixed-use village. To date, several developments have occurred in the western Receiving area. Each of these developments, Golf Club of the Everglades, Mockingbird Crossings, Lamarado, Heritage Bay and Twin Eagle used the clustering option with 1 unit per acre. These developments are marketed as "active adult communities" or "private gated communities." Each development is generally single-family residential, was planned independently of the other, and has little or no connection to neighboring development. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 22 of 60 Table 3-1 RFMUD Development Characteristics Typical RFMUD Base RFMUD RFMUD Village Characteristics Rights Clustering Size Minimum 5 acres Minimum 40 acres 300-2,500 acres Residential Gross 1 unit per 5 acres 1 unit per acre Minimum 2 Maximum 3 Density units per acre Land Use* • Ag • Ag • Diversity of SF and • SF and MF • SF and MF MF with a • Staff housing • Staff housing minimum of 2 • Family Care • Family Care neighborhoods Facilities Facilities • Neighborhood • Farm labor • Farm labor Center max 10 housing housing acres, 8,500 SF • Sporting and • Sporting and leasable floor Recreation Recreation area/ac camps camps • Village Center max • Essential • Essential 10%total village Services Services area, 10,000 SF • Golf Courses Golf Courses leasable floor area/ac • Research & Technology park max 4%total village acreage • Civic and public parks min 10% total village acreage Recreation and N/A Min 70%of gross • 40%open space Open Space acres • Green belt 300' average width Transportation N/A N/A • Formal grid design • Pedestrian paths and bikeways for access and connectivity *Bold denotes required RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 23 of 60 During the public workshops, participants stated they prefer that the RFMUD develop with more mixed-use development and less gated communities as has been occurring in the RFMUD. Towards Better Places, The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida (2001) states, "creating new neighborhoods with interconnectivity and greater density is the only way to avoid the worst-case scenario presented by the sprawl approach. New neighborhoods should be based on a sound pattern of streets and lots. A wider variety of housing choices should be made available by reintroducing traditional neighborhood concepts as an alternative to balance the many gated subdivisions that have been built over the past 20 years." The body of national research on negative impacts of sprawl continues to grow. Studies have expanded beyond the interest of transportation and land use professionals to the Community Health Departments across the nation. A growing body of research indicates mixed-use, appropriate placement of buildings, easy-to-reach parks, multi-modal transportation have an extraordinary impact on community health. "One of the strongest health/land use correlations is between obesity and the automobile: one California study showed each additional hour spent in a car per day is associated with a 6 percent increase in body weight, whereas every kilometer (0.6miles) walked each day is associated with a 5 percent decrease, according to a study in British Columbia." Figure 3-5 Collier Well-Being Index This correlates with the local Blue Zones well-being assessment ofit Collier County where the lowest " well-being indicators were found in }l"q mom..: areas east of CR-951 surrounding ,;m.;,,; 15 the RFMUD including, Golden Gate Estates, areas of low density and longer commutes (Figure 3-5). V The Urban Land Institute, (ULI) has been using health studies to promote healthy communities Low High Well-being Well-being through design. Physical design . affects human behavior at all scales—buildings, neighborhoods, communities, and regions. The places in which we live, work, and play can affect both our mental and physical well-being. Our built environment offers both opportunities for and barriers to improving public health and increasing active living.' Page 24 of 60 RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 The Florida Department of Health in Collier County is also advocating healthy communities principles, striving to educate the community on the link between health and the built environment. They are working to promote community design that will increase active living and healthy lifestyles by advocating for a network of connected bike and pedestrian pathways, accessible transit and places where people can age in place. In ULI's Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places, they advocate "All comprehensive plans should incorporate health. It provides the opportunity to make explicit the connection between development and health, to elevate health among planning considerations, and to lay the groundwork for a healthy community for generations to come. A tool to use as a guide to measuring health impacts is the health impact assessment (HIA). An HIA helps evaluate the potential health effects of a plan, project, or policy before it is built or implemented. HIAs bring potential public health impacts and considerations to the decision-making process for plans, projects, and policies that fall outside the traditional public health arenas, such as transportation and land use. It is a "health lens" that can help increase positive health outcomes and minimize adverse health outcomes. San Francisco has been an early adopter of HIAs, using the tool on diverse projects, such as neighborhood plans, affordable housing, and highway projects. The development community, local government, or both in cooperation can develop HIAs. This guidance helps communities make informed choices about improving public health through community design." Collier County may consider the HIA as an option in measuring the effectiveness of developments increasing positive health outcomes. Mixed-use development has dimensions beyond land use. Healthy places are also found to provide for mix incomes, generations, and housing type. This relates directly to affordable housing. The RFMUD currently requires approximately 10 percent of residential units in villages to be affordable. The issue of the need for affordable housing within the RFMUD was clearly stated in Mr. William Poteet's letter to staff dated June 6, 2016, "The future Rural Fringe plans must include specific opportunities for affordable housing for our entire workforce, not just first time responders or those classified as "work force housing." Affordable housing must include a mix of apartments, multi-family and possibly single family opportunities." While, Collier County's current comprehensive affordable housing study may provide greater guidance on principles to include in the RFMUD, the program can be improved through this process through greater density and removing the TDR credits currently required for affordable housing. To meet the public's ideals of more mixed-use villages, the RFMUD should incentivize mixed- use development and villages using a variety of tools to entice desired mixes and densities. Incentives that are currently used include higher density, more intense uses, and bonus TDR5, however these incentives have not yet produced a village within the RFMUD. Current density RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 25 of 60 for a village is now limited to 3 units per acre. Density is arguably the most powerful tool controlled by Collier County to create a more sustainable development. Density that is well designed and assembled makes transit and retail more viable, and supports more services close to homes. Studies agree, density needed to support viable transit is 7 units per acre.2 Higher densities also make walkability possible, and great design makes it enjoyable. Density necessarily requires a high percentage of multifamily a "" homes in a neighborhood thereby providing a greater range of residential units, increasing affordable • housing opportunities. For k • _ .. • — rtt •= example, the image from the Lincoln Institute of Land 3 • Policy, Visualizing Density, shows a new project in `' � _ � 1 ` ` ' �? ; ' • Huntersville, NC. This new •. F r neighborhood is 6.3 units q � per acre and will offer a robust mix of residential units. Well-designed density is vital to a strong economic foundation in any neighborhood as it brings a critical mass of local employees and customers to support a variety of community needs. Increasing density in the RFMUD was well supported through the public outreach process. By strategically increasing the number of dwelling units per acre, Collier County will go a long way toward meeting the sustainable housing and transportation objectives within the RFMUD. In addition to higher density, incentives being used in other areas include a mixed-use impact fee index. The County's transportation impact fee consultants from Tindall Oliver shared with staff that this type of impact fee has been found to encourage mixed-use by lowering overall project impact fees by 10 to 30 percent. The measure for mixed-use villages is found to be different in Collier County's eastern lands. The RFMUD and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) have different standards for measuring the mix. Table 3-2 shows the RFMUD establishes guidance for maximum village center and leasable square feet, and a minimum size for civic and public parks. The RLSA measures the mix of uses with direct correlation of residential unit, such as goods and services minimum 25 square feet per residential unit. Another difference between the RFMUD and the RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 26 of 60 RLSA is allowed development patterns. The RLSA policies provide only for the village or town option, with the exception of a small 40 acre hamlet. The RFMUD has no such requirement so single-use, residential development can consume 40 acres or 4,000 acres. The RFMUD guidelines for measuring mixed-use and village size could be improved by bringing consistency between the standards found in these two TDR plans. Table 3-2: Measuring the Mix in the RFMUD Village and RLSA Village Typical RFMUD Village RLSA Village Characteristics Size 300-2,500 acres 100-1,000 acres Density 2-3 UPA 1-4 UPA Land Use* • Diversity of SF and MF with a • Diversity of SF and MF minimum of 2 neighborhoods • Goods and Services Minimum 25 • Neighborhood Center max 10 acres, SF/DU. Max FAR.5 8,500 SF leasable floor area/ac • Civic/Institutional Min 10 SF/DU • Village Center max 10%total village Max FAR.6 area, 10,000 SF leasable floor • Group Housing FAR.45 area/ac • Lodging 26 UPA net • Research &Technology park max 4% total village acreage • Civic and public parks min 10%total village acreage *bold is required The village option, over the sprawl option, will be far more beneficial to Collier County, including Golden Gate Estates. Villages will increase tax revenue, support jobs, goods and services needed in eastern Collier County, and reduce commute times for some now traveling to the coastal area. Research shows, "mixed-use, walkable downtown developments generate ten times as much tax revenue per acre, save almost 40 percent on up front infrastructure costs, and result in about 10 percent lower costs for service delivery than sprawl development.3 Economic Vitality Achieving prosperity in eastern Collier County challenges consideration for land use and transportation strategies to balance environmental, social and economic interests. Guidance for the RFMUD is found in Opportunity Naples (2014), an economic development strategy that will advance economic opportunity for all residents of Greater Naples. The process for Opportunity Naples leveraged the thoughts and opinions of Greater Naples residents and leaders. Public input and stakeholder perspectives, along with a thorough analysis of the Collier RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 27 of 60 County's competitive position, directly informed the process. Several identified challenges can be directly related to the RFMUD: • Workforce growth trends; • Site availability; and • Impact fees. Opportunity Naples found, "growth trends in Collier County's age dynamics risk the future sustainability of the local workforce. Collier County's 25 to 44 year old population is proportionally smaller than every comparison area except Sarasota County, as is Collier's percentage of 0 to 19 year old residents. Without an influx of younger workers migrating to the County or a spike in birth rates, Greater Naples could face a significant shortfall of replacement workers for future retirees. Likewise there will be an occupational shortage in Collier County if qualified workers aged 24 to 44 are not recruited to the area to replace retirees." This age group, and most specifically the millennials, is one of the most sought-after market segments. So how can Collier County's RFMUD land use policy support the attraction and retention of this demographic? Study after study shows millennials are increasingly choosing vibrant, healthy, walkable communities and rejecting the automobile-centric land use patterns of the generations before them. Further supporting mixed-use and integrating health into planning and development policy can become an economic development strategy—a tool to attract a skilled workforce and to build a sustainable economic base. Incentivizing mixed-use, healthy communities within the RFMUD is critical to attract the workforce needed to diversify and sustain eastern Collier County's economy. A mixed-use, healthy community can provide economic advantage by appealing to millennials who, as a generation, place more value on active lifestyles. In fact, The Rockefeller Foundation and Transportation for America commissioned a survey in 2014, through which 80 percent of millennials reported that they wanted to live in a walkable neighborhoods.4 Similarly, a 2011 AARP survey found that the vast majority of seniors want to live within a half mile of common daily goods and services such a grocery stores, drug stores and doctor's offices.5 Developers can create enduring value by meeting these demands. Mixed-use places will gain a competitive advantage, using healthy community design as a way to attract investment in the community, foster growth, and increase revenues. This point of view is backed up by serious research. Today, prospective office tenants prefer amenity-rich mixed-use centers (also known as "live-work-play" locations) over single-use office parks by a margin of 83 to 17 percent, according to a 2014 study by the NAIOP Research Foundation, which represents the commercial real estate industry in the US. The report's bottom line: "... RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 28 of 60 any company wanting to attract and retain young educated workers who prefer live, work, play locations needs to locate in a compact, mixed-use, walkable place, either downtown or in the suburbs." Countless other studies have explored how physical design and walkability impact the economic prosperity and growth of a community. For example, in Asheville, NC, it was found that property taxes for downtown mixed-use development projects yield an 800 percent greater return on a per-acre basis than large, single use projects near city limits.6 And, In the 30 largest metro regions in the U.S., office space located within the more walkable urban parts of the metro commands and average of 74 percent more rent-per square-foot than elsewhere in the metro.' Collier County has a limited supply of land available for new development and there is high competition for residential land uses. The development trend in the RFMUD has been gated residential communities. In fact, nearly all of the "West" Receiving area has built out in this pattern, leaving little room for future business uses. This is one of the largest challenges Opportunity Naples found to Collier County's economic diversity - "suitable, large-scale, pad- ready development sites." Under the current RFMU policies, businesses would only be allowed within the Village option. Therefore, at this time, any business willing to locate within the RFMUD would need to find residential partners to go through a rezoning process to create a Village in order for the business to locate within the RFMUD. For Collier County's competitive edge, land use policies within the RFMUD need to provide greater flexibility for business development. Allowing stand- alone business parks and light industrial uses that are designated in zoning overlays would provide more sites readily available for development. This would directly address the business community's identified barrier, a lack of certain in the rezone process. At the same time, by allowing businesses as permitted uses, shorten approval times may be realized. This can be accomplished through business park zoning overlays or by establishing criteria similar to the conditional use process where compatibility can be determined by the Hearing Examiner. The last item, impact fees, is always up for debate in Collier County. There are processes in place that can provide businesses impact fee credits or waivers and other incentives to address this issue. At the same time, as discussed under the land use incentives, a new mixed-use impact fee has the potential to reduce development impact fees within a mixed-use project by 10 to 30 percent. This type of impact fee may provide the reduced fees sought by the business community. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 29 of 60 To support economic vitality in the RFMUD Collier County needs to leverage the mixed-use, healthy community advantage to stay competitive and relevant to the new generations needed for the workforce. This means supporting land use policy that incentivizes mixed-use development and villages within the RFMUD. "Many businesses are increasingly making their expansion, relocation, and new business development decisions based on which communities are most walkable."8 The villages within the RFMUD should be designed to accommodate the desires of both businesses and their workforce — a focus on vibrant, mixed-use communities that support transportation choices and health lifestyles. While villages may take years to come to fruition in RFMUD, land use policy should also be able to rapidly respond to business opportunities that are ready to locate in the RFMUD. This is accomplished by allowing business uses outside of a village in appropriate locations, with approvals as promptly as possible. These steps will support the economic diversification of eastern Collier County. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 30 of 60 Footnotes 1ULI. 2013. Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places. h ttp://www.ul i.orq/wp-conten t/uploads/ULI-Documents/10-Principles-for-Buil dinq-Heal thy-Places.pd f 2 Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy. 2006. "Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence." Opolis:An International Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies.Vol. 2, Issue 1,Article 3. 3 Mariel Alfonzo. 2015. "Making the Economic Case for More Walkability."Urban Land. Urban Land Institute. http://urbanland.uli.org/sustainability/houston-economic-case-walkability/ 4 Global Strategy Group. 2014. Rockefeller Millennials Survey. Transportation for America. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.orq/about-us/news-media/access-public-transportation-top/ 5 AARP. 2012. 2011 Boomer Housing Survey. http://www.aarp.orq/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys statistics/il/2012/2011-Boomer-Housing-Survev- AARP.pdf 6 Badger, Emily. 2010. "The Simple Math that can Save Cities from Bankruptcy."The Atlantic: City Lab. http://www.cityla b.com/work/2012/03/s im ple-m at h-ca n-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/ 'Gary Pivo and Jeffrey D. Fisher. 2001. "The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Investments". Real Estate Economics 39.2. 185-219. http://www.u.arizona.edu/"'gpivo/Walkability%20Paper%208 4%20draft.pdf 8 Public Sector Consultants. 2016. Creating 21st Century Communities:Making the economic case for place. http://smartgrowth.org/creating-21st-century-communities-making-economic-case-place/ RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 31 of 60 Co* Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper Section 4: Findings and Initial Recommendations The findings and initial recommendation below emerged from the public engagement, data and analysis discussed in Section 3. These are initial recommendations and reflect an approach that begins with general principles. Once settled in broad concept, more specificity will be brought forward as the process moves to Growth Management Plan amendments and Land Development Code amendment processes. The issue topics discussed herein are organized under the areas of: SENDING LANDS: A. TDR Credit System B. Credits and Areas Outside of the RFMUD C. TDR Program Management D. Sending Land Management E. Other Program Suggestions NEUTRAL LANDS RECEIVING LANDS: A. Land Use and Economic Vitality B. Transportation and Mobility C. Development Standards and Process For ease of use, this Section includes different ink color. The different ink colors reflect: Issue identification and background Bold narrative is public input Staff's initial recommendations Impacts to stakeholder interests For simplicity, throughout this section, owners of parcels within RFMUD Sending Lands will be denoted as "Sending owners"; owners of parcels within RFMUD Neutral Lands will be denoted as "Neutral owners"; owners of parcels within RFMUD Receiving Lands will be denoted as "Receiving owners". RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 32 of 60 SENDING LANDS A:TDR CREDIT SYSTEM 1. Minimum Sales Price, Buyer and Seller One of the most frequently heard recommendations related to TDR credits is the elimination of the minimum $25,000 sales price for Base TDR credits. Since the adoption of the Bonus credit system in late 2004, there have been two classes of credits in the system: Base TDR credits, which are subject to the minimum sales price, and Bonus TDR credits, which are not. The TDR system was designed to be "market driven;" however, minimum pricing requirements interferes with willing buyer/willing seller free market principles. A true market rate should be maintained so that credit sale prices reflect actual market conditions. With the possible exception of a County TDR bank, market price should be left solely to market forces. The present requirement creates distortion in the market price of bonus credits compared to base credits, frequently selling for just a fraction of the base price. The Rural Fringe Coalition reports combining a base TDR with a bonus TDR results in a current market average price of $13,500 per TDR. A single market price for all credit types requires the elimination of separate treatment for base credits compared to bonus credits. A corollary of a unified TDR value is the elimination of any use restriction (based on TDR credit type) as presently interpreted in village development. (See staff recommendations: Receiving/Village). Staff initial recommendation: Eliminate the minimum 525.000 price per base TDR. All groups generally support this provision: the Coalition, Sending owners, interested citizen groups and environmental advocates have supported this elimination. In the opinion of staff, no interest group would be adversely affected by this change. 2. Additional Credits to Sending Owners An analysis of likely credit availability and likely (long term) credit demand reveals an imbalance between supply and demand. Under its "likely case" scenario, County staff estimated that demand would ultimately be more than double the supply under the current program structure. An economic analysis in underway that will provide scenario planning to address proper balance and suggest additional credits for Sending owners. Alternatives need to be considered because changes in Receiving Lands rules will also affect the balance. Use of credits RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 33 of 60 for incentivized development and increase in allowed density in Receiving Lands must be factored into the equation. It was suggested by some individuals that credit balance could be achieved by allowing the same credits to count more favorably in the hands of Receiving owners for development purposes. It is true that a mathematical application could result in the same economic balance by using this approach. On the other hand, by using a combination of approaches, a more tailored result is possible. Thus, TDRs can be used both as compensation to Sending owners and as incentives to Receiving owners. With respect to the application of additional credits for the benefit of Sending Land owners, a number of recommendations have been made by stakeholders, including prioritization (more bonus credits) for: NRPA lands; parcels that are 10 or 20 acres or greater; lands that require higher level of restoration; lands that remain in private ownership with agreements with Forestry Service for controlled burns; lands that remain in private ownership with agreements for flow ways across property; lands that retain agriculture activity; lands that are donated to accommodate flow ways; lands that are donated where habitat value is highest; or, all sending lands regardless of attributes. Many of these recommendations were made in the Rural Fringe Coalition's "White Paper" (January, 2015); many were echoed in correspondence, surveys and public meetings. Meeting participants were more favorable to the "all Sending Lands equally" approach than to all others listed above. Staff is highly supportive of this approach due to simplicity and equity in application. Staff also anticipates that this general preference may yield to some limited exceptions, such as a scenario in which no governmental or other entity can be established to own and maintain environmentally sensitive properties (see D.2, below). Additional TDR credits to add liquidity to the supply/demand balance is a central and fundamental change to the existing TDR program. By providing more potential credits to Sending owners, they will derive more compensation through the program than presently possible. At the same time, the additional liquidity will place downward pressure on TDR price, thus making credits slightly less expensive for development. The number of additional bonus credits will depend on adopted TDR incentives in the Receiving Lands, the minimum and maximum densities applicable to Receiving villages and non-village development, and additional or contingent incentives applied to specific areas within Sending Lands. A final true-up of the credit system, and therefore additional credit needs in Sending Lands, must necessarily await consideration of density scenarios in Receiving Lands. A "what if" scenario tool has been completed by a consulting economist, and will help inform the discussion. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 34 of 60 Staff is confident that overall credit demand from Sending Lands will not diminish due to adopted changes following the restudy. Therefore, staff is confident that at least two (2) additional TDR credits per 5 acres should be anticipated for Sending program activity; and that more may be possible, depending on support for recommended changes in the Receiving Lands. Staff initial recommendation: Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property attributes. The addition of 2 or possibly more credits available for Sending owner TDR participation will result in more affordable credits for development and a greater overall return to Sending owners. This was a fundamental tenant suggested by the Rural Fringe Coalition and well received by Sending owners in meetings and by survey. To the extent that a greater financial return incentivizes Sending owners to enter the program, conservation groups have been enthusiastic. All groups benefit from this proposed change. Sending owners had many different points of view on distribution of additional credits; the notion that all sending area owners would be subject to the same TDR availabilities was favored by five out of six groups in the Public Workshop break-out table exercise. Because of the nature of the various options, it is clear that "equity" is favored over parochial interests of owners. Thus, all Sending owners would benefit equally. Ultimately, it may prove beneficial to award a greater number of potential TDRs where Sending Land is not in an area with present availability for the conveyance TDR,that is, no governmental entity to take ownership. (See D.2, Land Management section, below). If that is the case, the allowance of one or more additional TDRs would be used to equalize Sending owner opportunity, rather than to enhance the return of one type of parcel attribute over another. 3. Agricultural Uses Under current rules, parcels located in Sending Lands are eligible for TDR severance credits. However, TDR severance is abated for 25 years "from any parcel, or portion thereof...cleared for agricultural purposes after June 19, 2002". The Final Order, dated June 22, 1999, directed the County to conduct assessments that included, at a minimum, provisions to "protect prime agricultural areas" and to "prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses" (p.11). In addition, uses remaining in NRPA areas were limited to single family dwellings per parcel and agricultural uses (p. 14). RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 35 of 60 There is no specific directive in the Final Order to encourage new agricultural uses other than the protection of "prime agricultural land" in general.The extent to which this language applies to RFMUD Sending Lands could be debated. On the other hand, nothing in the Final order would prohibit the County from removing disincentives, or in incentivizing appropriate agricultural activity. The RFMUD rules adopted in 2003 and 2004 discourage agriculture on Sending Lands by eliminating the possibility of creating TDR credits for any land put in agricultural use after 2002. The rationale for this provision may have been based on the concept that agricultural operations were more widespread and established in the RLSA; by comparison, a relatively small amount of agricultural activity was found in RFMUD Sending areas. However, there may be agricultural activities that are consistent and compatible with environmental goals. For example, land managers in the area have maintained that passive agriculture, specifically grazing, is a cost-effective way to reduce invasive plants. The suitability of the environment for agricultural activity beyond grazing is limited. It is possible that an owner will find that a non-NRPA property is suitable for growing certain crops or landscape materials given the specific location. Further reduction of density in western North Belle Meade may be a desirable trade-off for the allowance of more active agricultural uses in that location. However, an administrative or conditional use review may be appropriate to avoid conflicts with large scale land management practices such as prescribed burns or with water management initiatives. When asked about views concerning agricultural incentives, five of six groups at break-out table exercises (Public Workshop #2) concluded that TDR credits should be provided to incentivize agricultural activity in Sending Lands. Our first on-line survey indicated that a majority of respondents had plans to continue or commence agriculture on their properties. 76% of persons attending the final Public Workshop #6 agreed that TDRs should be awarded for owners who keep property in agricultural production. Staff initial recommendation: Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to begin or expand a bone fide agricultural operation. In NRPA locations, only passive agricultural operations, excluding aquiculture, would qualify. Passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan. Incentivized agricultural use of Sending Land provides a viable alternative to owners who wish to retain a beneficial interest in their properties. If compatible with environmental interests, including water quality, there do not appear to be negative consequences for any stakeholder interest group, so long as a review process is established to assure compatibility. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 36 of 60 rte. 4. Parcels smaller than 5 acres RFMUD properties smaller than 5 acres are eligible for the TDR program today if legally non- conforming (LNC). That is, a property less than 5 acres created before October 14, 1974, the establishment of the Agricultural Zoning District, Coastal Area, enjoys development rights and, as provided in the GMP, TDR incentives. For example, a full base TDR is available regardless of the size of the LNC lot. Conversely, illegal non-conforming lots enjoy no development rights and no TDR availability. In response to an individual petition in 2008, the Comprehensive Planning Department researched the extent of illegal lots and brought various options to the BCC for consideration. It found 189 non-conforming lots in Sending areas, of which 126 were deemed LNC; 51 were found to be illegal non-conforming and 12 inconclusive, due to lack of available data from Property Appraiser's Office. An integral part of the analysis concerning non-conforming parcels relates strictly to parcel size. Parcels slightly less than 5 acres can be determined to be legal lots, regardless of date of creation, if the owner can prove that a portion is attributed to ROW taking at some point in time. Of the 51 illegal non-conforming lots and the 12 inconclusive determinations, 24 exceed 4.5 acres in size. Illegal non-conforming parcels enjoy no development rights and this principle should continue. However, a cornerstone RFMUD program goal is the accumulation of parcels and ultimate ownership in a governmental (or other qualified) agency for long term environmental, unified stewardship. Proportional TDR availability would foster that result and provide a reasonable exit strategy for owners of such parcels. Documents associated with this transaction would clearly reflect the lack of current development rights and the public purpose for creating the TDR availability. For example, an owner of a 2 acre illegal non-conforming parcel would be eligible for 40% of the TDR credits otherwise available to a 5 acre parcel. When drafting the GMP amendment, a requirement of conveyance would be applied in order to achieve any TDR value from Legal non-conforming lots. Further, any property in excess of 4.5 acres should be deemed to be a 5 acre parcel for purposes of this program. Again, actual development rights to be exercised outside of the TDR program would require an LNC determination, as is presently the case. However, as an incentive to enter the program by eliminating a sometimes onerous or inconclusive determination, such parcel would be granted 1 full credit for each base and bonus TDR. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 37 of 60 Staff initial recommendation: Allow TDR participation for illegal non-conforming properties based on public policy goals, and waive requirements related to proof of LNC status if greater than 4.5 acres in size. This change benefits owners who do not have access or means to achieve proof of LNC status where the property is greater than 4.5 acres in size. It also benefits owners of non-conforming properties created after 1974, by allowing them an exit strategy. There are no known stakeholders who are adversely affected. 5. Retroactivity of Suggested Program Changes As discussed under A-2, Additional Credits to Sending Owners, 2 or more additional TDRs may be provided to further incentivize participation and balance supply with anticipated demand. Approximately one quarter of all Sending acreage has previously entered the program at the Base and Early Entry levels. Of the 6,532 acres where base rights have been severed, 1,979 acres (30%) have been conveyed to a governmental agency. Land owners who have previously entered into a Limitation of Development Rights agreement should be allowed to apply for any additional TDR credits made available as a result of program changes. This would provide an equitable solution to owners who entered the program earlier in time and have not transferred ownership. The supply side of the TDR credit system will be impacted to a significant degree: (1,376 credits times the number of additional bonus credits approved). This additional supply is added to the dynamic analysis at a macro level. Staff initial recommendations: Allow landowner's who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their rand to participate in any applicable program changes. The proposition benefits owners who faithfully earned Base TDR credits prior to the current restudy and economic analysis of overall credit needs. One possible inequity could be perceived by prior Sending owners who transferred properties to a governmental agency or third party in the past; they no longer have a nexus to the land. No other stakeholder group would be adversely affected. 6. Early Entry TDR Credits Early Entry TDR credits were adopted as part of the 2004 RFMUD Amendments providing bonus credits to help balance the system. At the time, the Early Entry Bonus was seen as a means to RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 38 of 60 jump-start the program: Sending owners who severed TDRs in the early years would be rewarded for their trust in the program and belief in the likelihood of a successful negotiation and sale. The Early Entry Bonus TDR, when first enacted, was set to expire in three years (2007). It has since been extended several times and is now set for expiration in 2019, 15 years after the start of the program. The time period associated with early participation expired a number of times. Incentives for participation should be monetary, and can fairly reflect the fact that the reference to "early" has become de facto permanent. Staff initial recommendation: Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base severance of dwelling unit rights, subject to any additional credits assigned as discussed in A.2, above. No stakeholders will be adversely impacted; this change provides more clarity to the program. The BCC would abandon one potential program "tool"- the potential of non-extension of the Early Entry Bonus credit that exists today. 7. TDR Credits from Receiving Land Within the Receiving Land there are opportunities to further the goals of environmental protection and agriculture preservation. In fact, some of the most valuable agriculture land in Collier County is located in the RFMUD Receiving Land. Collier County has had success in preserving agriculture lands through a system of TDR incentives in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. Additionally, there are some limited natural resources found in Receiving areas that are valuable for preservation. Recognizing this, and the need for greater incentives in the RFMUD, stakeholders support the ideas to allow Receiving Lands to generate TDR credits for the purpose of retaining agricultural uses/rights and where greater environmental protection is demonstrated. Staff initial recommendation: Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements. Preserving agriculture in Collier County will benefit the overall agriculture economy, and the stakeholders involved in agriculture operations. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 39 of 60 B:TDR CREDITS AND AREAS OUTSIDE THE RFMUD 1. Urban Residential Fringe and the One Mile Rule Development within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF), mile-wide buffer between the urban area and the RFMUD, has a base density for development of 1.5 units per acre. Given its location, the GMP describes its purpose: "to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area" to the east. Additional density can be added through the purchase of TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the URF. Up to 1 unit per acre can be added in this way, although specific properties were granted slightly higher allocations through private plan amendment petitions. Also as a result of private plan amendment petitions, the requirement of obtaining TDRs from Sending Lands within one mile, in order to increase density, was modified for the Naples Reserve PUD and the San Marino PUD. Private GMP Amendments have established the precedent to derive TDRs from the Sending Lands beyond 1 mile, reflecting Board direction. The vast majority of URF acreage is now entitled for Planned Unit Developments. Of the total 5,500 acres, only 371 acres remains undeveloped (agricultural zoning). Regardless of policy considerations for or against this geographical allowance, a change to the Urban Residential Fringe rules to reflect this Board direction would provide consistency for the remaining areas that have not been entitled and may wish to increase density through the TDR mechanism. Staff initial recommendation: Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe. This change favors the majority of Sending owners whose holdings are outside the one mile band, although the additional demand is very small. It negatively impacts Sending owners whose holdings are within the one mile band, and may have purchased such property in expectation of higher return for sale of those TDRs. Again, looking forward, this potential demand is very small. 2. The Urban Residential Infill Bonus Provision The Residential Infill Bonus (Density Rating System, Future Land Use Element) encourages infill within urban areas, outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area. Parcels less than 20 acres are RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 40 of 60 eligible, under certain conditions, for 3 additional dwelling units. The first of these must be derived from the purchase of a TDR from the RFMUD. This density bonus provision is intended to incentivize compatible in-fill development in the Urban Mixed Use District, but has been seldom used. Removal of the TDR component would eliminate a barrier to what is intended as an incentive to foster in-fill development; likewise, it would eliminate a minor demand uncertainty in calculating the supply/demand ratio in the RFMUD. Staff initial recommendation: Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential Infill bonus provision. The community at large would benefit from urban infill development at appropriate locations; no other stakeholders are significantly affected. 3. Golden Gate Estates TDRs for Environmental Protection Unlike allowable uses of TDRs outside of the RFMUD, no locations outside of the RFMUD currently provide additional sources of TDRs for use within RFMUD. The Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan (CWIP) Ad Hoc Advisory Committee (CWIP Committee) is currently studying the technical implications of various goals and strategies associated with wetland areas in Northern Golden Gate Estates. The Watershed Management Plan (2011) identifies an area within Golden Gate Estates as North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Area. This area, as well other low-lying areas in Golden Gate Estates could be considered as additional Sending locations related to the RFMUD TDR program. In-holdings within Red Maple Swamp and Winchester Head (managed by Conservation Collier) or other important areas could also be considered. The Ordinance creating the Growth Management Oversight Committee included within the Committee's scope an evaluation of consistency among restudies. Watershed issues are one of the topic areas where consistency and coordination have been frequently mentioned. Historically, the Rookery Bay watershed started in the North Golden Gate Estates area, sheetflowed through North Belle Meade and South Belle Meade, then outflowed into the Rookery Bay estuaries. The historic Rookery Bay watershed has been heavily influenced by the Golden Gate canal, and various stormwater projects have been identified by the Watershed Management Plan, accepted by the BCC in 2011, to address the problem. Diversion or attenuation of stormwater before it reaches the Golden Gate canal is one of those projects, and continues to be the subject of discussion at the CWIP Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 41 of 60 Any extension of TDR Sending credits to an area outside of the RFMUD must be cautiously considered. Additional Sending areas should be limited in acreage and prioritized for wetland or flowway preservation, as determined by the BCC. Staff recommends coordination and accommodation of this concept through various incentives and programs, including the TDR program, only for select and high value (wetland/flowway) parcels. By allowing a number of parcels to receive TDR credit allowance under the program, watershed goals can be more easily met. One important consideration is the volume of donations made possible through the TDR program within Golden Gate Estates. The RFMUD and its TDR program has been a relatively "closed" program, particularly from the Sending or supply side. It is important to consider the effect on value if additional supply is added. Staff believes, for example, that a program yielding 150 TDRs, or 188 acres in total, derived from property owners in the most valuable (from a watershed attenuation perspective) would be appropriate. It would be a roughly 3% impact in total supply, and could be considered de minims, according to an economic consultant for this restudy. It is important to note that this concept will be vetted in the context of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy as well. The TDR concept is related to, and will be affected by, a parallel initiative that would provide incentives for combining smaller lots into larger lots in North Golden Gate Estates- an initiative that will reduce some of the floodplain impacts of smaller lots and aid in aquifer recharge. Staff initial recommendation: Accommodate implementation measures recommended by the CWIP committee and the Watershed Management Plan that are consistent with TDR program success. C:TDR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 1. General Administration Under the current program, the Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division administers the TDR program. Administration includes the intake of applications and related requirements for severance of development rights (Base and Early Entry TDRs), Restoration and Maintenance TDRs, Conveyance TDRs, transfers of credits, redemptions of credits and lost certificates. Administration reflects the private sector basis of the program-willing sellers and willing buyers who plan and arrange their purchase and sale transactions. At the same time, it is designed to protect integrity and accuracy through a carefully maintained Activity Log, tracking each parcel RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 42 of 60 and related credits through time, including final use during the platting process where redemption of identified credits are recorded. In addition to these functions, the Division maintains both a Buyers List and a Sellers list, to facilitate identification for interested parties. While some new listings have occurred recently, the County understands that these lists have not worked well in the past. The Buyer and Seller lists have provided names, phone numbers and numbers of credits sought or available for sale. However, the listings typically lack an offering price by either buyer or seller. In addition, these lists have been difficult for some parties to easily locate on the County's website.There is room for improvement based on the needs of the parties. Staff initial recommendation: At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from potential buyers and sellers. County staff would not incur additional expense in improving communications for the benefit of all parties. No stakeholders are negatively affected. 2. Cost Components for Sending Owners Cost components for Sending owners include application fees as well as other out of pocket costs associated with obtaining Base and Bonus TDRs. • Application fees for Base TDR severance with early Entry Bonus: $250 plus $25 per TDR issued • Application fee for Restoration and Maintenance TDR: $250 • Application fee for Transfer of TDRs: $250 • Application fee for redemption of TDRs: $250 • Restoration and Maintenance TDR: Private Land Management Plan (LMP) requires surety bond • Professional work product: o Legal sketch and description (Base TDR) o Title search for CEs or other land use restrictions (Base TDRs) o Preparation of LMP, qualified biologist (Private R&M plan) o Title work, preparation of deed, doc stamps (Conveyance TDRs) o Title insurance (Conveyance TDRs) o Negotiation with Governmental agency(Conveyance TDRs) RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 43 of 60 o Potential brokerage fees for sale of the TDRs o "The County recommends that you consult with an attorney" (Base TDR application form) Application fees fall disproportionately on small Sending owners. An owner of a 5 acre tract would pay $775 in application fees for 5 acres, in order to obtain all 4 TDRs. This fee is in addition to professional fees associated with the work. To obtain Base and Early Entry TDRs, a title search is required, along with sketch and description. Legal advice is recommended in the process. More substantial work is involved in a private Land Management Plan for the Restoration and Maintenance TDR. Professional real estate services are typically required for the conveyance TDR, since the receiving entity will require a standard title search and documentary stamps will be required. There are limited possibilities for additional County staff assistance with some processes, in the future. For example, staff could supply a legal sketch and description through its GIS Section or other appropriate Division. A standard or model Land Management Plan could be developed by the Environmental Planning Section to reduce professional fees. Collier County devised a sophisticated and important program to protect environmentally sensitive lands in the RFMUD Sending areas, allowing Sending owners to "choose" to participate, but providing TDRs as an incentive and as just compensation for the change in FLUE designation and zoning. Costs and complexity to Sending owners cannot be eliminated; however, where possible, these should be reduced. The recommendation regarding a TDR Bank, below, would take this concept further. Staff initial recommendation: Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product required for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances, provided by County staff. The reduction or elimination of application fees would result in an impact to taxpayers, since the administration would not have an enterprise fund component. Likewise, additional work assignments for County staff would be borne by County taxpayers. Sending owners would benefit from these changes by reducing cost and complexity in the process of obtaining TDR credits. All stakeholders would benefit from increased participation by Sending owners. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 44 of 60 3. TDR Bank The recommendation for a TDR Bank may be the single-most powerful recommendation made by staff. As many important community members have expressed the concern that "the TDR system is broken," a bank would provide confidence in the system on many levels. It would demonstrate that the County is committed to the program and its success. It would provide assurance to small Sending owners that TDR severance will result in a monetary return within a reasonable timeframe, thus spurring program participation. It would provide assurance to the development community that TDRs will be available when needed, so that locating, structuring and executing numerous small transactions can be avoided. The current GMP provisions covering the TDR process state "...the County shall consider the feasibility of establishing a 'TDR Bank', to be administered by the County or some other not-for- profit governmental or quasi-governmental public agency established for this purpose" (FLUE, Designation Description Section: B.1 (D)(2)). In its White Paper dated January, 2015, the Rural Fringe Coalition included the recommendation to consider a TDR bank to help foster the program. Its rationale included the high cost to developers to aggregate smaller parcels to derive TDRs or to purchase from many uncertain sellers. Likewise, the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association recommends its use to facilitate the process. A TDR bank is an intermediary between seller and buyer, which can be designed in many different ways. Either a division within the County Manager's agency or a non-profit organization can serve in this role. It typically requires a substantial fund to allow purchase of land or purchase of credits from Sending owners. The fund becomes replenished through the sale of credits to Receiving entities at time of redemption in order to obtain a development order(plat or SDP). The creation of the initial fund may come from dedicated tax revenue, general revenue, sale of credits derived from County-owned property, TDRs provided to the County through the program, or other means. In his memo dated July 31, 2016, Rick Pruetz, FAICP, a nationally recognized TDR program expert, outlined the many possible ways to create a TDR bank in Collier County. His memo is included as Appendix C. In it he covers the advantages and disadvantages of using a bank in the context of the RFMUD program, noting that its chief importance lies in the fact that the County wishes to promote significant Sending land severance in the short term while expecting demand over a lengthy period of time. This "time lag" points to the importance of a bank in RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 45 of 60 achieving environmental success and Sending owner fairness; at the same time, it requires a significant holding period before the County could sell its inventory, costing taxpayer dollars. Pricing of Banked TDRs would support a separate market-driven (direct Sending/Receiving) exchange and price point. The bank would not purchase TDRs for more than the market rate, and should consider a higher resale rate so as not to frustrate non-bank sales. For reasons stated in his analysis, Mr. Pruetz favors a capitalization approach using bonded dedicated millage to create an account of sufficient size to purchase TDRs, holding them until demanded. Once a point of equilibrium is reached, the fund becomes self-sustaining-TDRs sold to the development community provide funds to purchase more. Other funding means are available, and could be supported without the use of public dollars for capitalization; however, none of these options addresses the "time lag" issues. These options include the use of County owned land to derive initial TDRs for the bank or the issuance of TDRs to the County as a component of the severance process (see related, D.2). Community support for a bank is vital. A fund created for its purpose may serve related purposes, such as funding restoration and management of lands that are not within a state acquisition or potential ROMA mitigation area. The community would need to recognize and appreciate the value of the conservation involved, opportunities for recreation and the value of publicly-owned preserves as a legacy for grandchildren. Staff initial recommendation: The County should consider the appeal of a publicly funded TDR bank through polling or ufherw se, to d` TTRrre the I1RCfrf rOVU of.voter approvalt'u support-a dectfeatect db5C55I rrr and bonding for the program. Board direction will allow a focused analysis including projected costs. As an indication of stakeholder impact, there was broad support for the TDR bank concept among Sending owners and the development community. A bank would shift some of the administrative burden to the County, and administration cost must be considered in addition to capitalization costs. D. SENDING LAND MANAGEMENT: Land management strategies for environmentally sensitive areas, including preserves and open spaces, can take several different forms. One point of agreement among environmentalists, RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 46 of 60 land managers and planners is that management does not happen by itself. As discussed by a panel of experts at Public Workshop #2, the prospect of a "do nothing" scenario following Restriction of Development Rights agreement and the issuance of TDRs, would result in much more extensive infestation of exotic plants and a compromise of viable habitat for important species. Ultimately, the cost to restore lands unattended for a long period of time can increase significantly. Private Land Management Plans are possible, but very difficult because of small and fragmented ownership patterns that do not support a coordinated effort. At the present time, the 4th TDR (bonus credit), "donation to a public agency", cannot be obtained in several locations, including North Belle Meade and Section 11 (T48S/R26E). For those locations, there are no public agencies that have stated an intention to accept donations. Staff had previously made inquiry to the Division of State Lands, FDEP, to determine whether the State could take title to, and responsibility for, donated parcels in North Belle Meade. The agency described the fact that this area was outside of its acquisition authority under the Florida Forever (Picayune Strand) acquisition program, even if the parcels were donated. In contrast, the South Belle Meade area is situated within the Picayune Stand State Forest acquisition area, where donated lands can be held by The Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF) and managed by Florida Forestry Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Here, Sending owners obtain the Restoration and Maintenance bonus credit along with the Conveyance bonus credit by donating the parcel(s) to the state along with a modest fee for restoration and perpetual maintenance. This serves the interests of the State because it is much easier to restore and manage large contiguous land areas than individual parcels. The fragmented pattern of ownership in North Belle Meade and Section 11 is similar to the pattern in South Belle Meade, prior to State acquisition. Again, the most effective means of long term management would be under a unified plan administered by a single agency (or coordinated agencies) for each geographic area. It is not practical or effective to encourage numerous small owners to create or implement plans to maintain or even restore 5, 10 and 20 acre tracts individually, particularly because plans may not be implemented in the same timeframe as neighboring properties. Eradicating and managing nuisance and exotic vegetation requires large scale coordination and timing. For this reason, coupling the Restoration and Maintenance TDR with the Conveyance TDR results in a more effective framework and a simplification for Sending owners. As presently structured in South Belle Meade, two TDRs can be provided for these dual purposes, simply by conveying the property along with an appropriate endowment sum. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 47 of 60 Finally, rehydration of parts of North Belle Meade has been on the list of priorities listed in the Watershed Management Plan (2011). The potential projects in North Belle Meade for wetland restoration or rehydration should be coordinated with restudy recommendations. Accommodation of such activity would be clearly demonstrated by maximizing the transfers of private parcels into public or quasi-public ownership, thus minimizing the potential for conflict with an otherwise successful watershed program in the future. Options to address this problem, by order of priority; also consider the combination of two or more options in concert: 1. Option One-North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank: During Public Workshop #2, a panel of subject matter experts was convened to discuss North Belle Meade land management in particular, given the lack of interest from State agencies and given the fragmented ownership pattern. The panelists indicated a preference for coordinated ownership and management by a single entity, and agreed that Collier County should take direct responsibility, if no other state or federal agency would accept ownership or management responsibility. Public-private partnerships were also discussed. It was noted that County ownership would provide some County benefits, such as potential recreational opportunities. More specifically, panelists discussed the advantage of creating a mitigation bank option in order to finance the restoration and long term maintenance. The same concept had been suggested previously by an informal scoping meeting with agency peers. In April, 2016, staff launched an initial feasibility study to determine the viability of creating a mitigation bank of any kind. The idea of using mitigation funds from the County's own transportation or other capital projects was part of the conceptual framework. If the County could act as project manager for a mitigation bank while saving money over an extended time period, this option would be feasible and program design could be recommended. The advantage of such a program would be threefold: (1) aid Sending owners in their efforts to obtain all available TDRs, including Conveyance; (2) provide a cost-effective means to County ownership of parcels; (3) provide a more cost-effective and coordinated long term approach for mitigation of County projects. The initial "Phase 1" Feasibility Study for the creation of a mitigation area is attached as Appendix B. Conceptually, such a plan would complement the existing mitigation activities in RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 48 of 60 this area under private ownership. The plan would be adopted by agreement of both state (FDEP) and federal (ACOE) permitting agencies, encompassing the necessary requirements of each. At this time there is a reasonable expectation of approval and financial viability of a ROMA/ILF program in North Belle Meade. Funding to provide restoration, maintenance and management of the ROMA area would come from required mitigation of County-owned infrastructure projects. Notably, the 2040 LRTP cost- feasible plan estimates approximately $11 million and $7 million for wetland mitigation and panther compensation units respectively, associated with construction of new or expanded roadways. The ROMA plan would allow for a competitive use of these mitigation dollars, in turn fostering the preservation and maintenance of parcels within the North Belle Meade Area. The threefold benefits are listed above. The Phase 1 study of the North Belle Meade area for potential use as wetland mitigation or habitat compensation indicates the area will not likely yield sufficient cost-effective wetland credits or habitat compensation to be competitive on an open market (sales to private interests). However, it concludes that a combined Regional Offsite Mitigation Area and In-lieu Fee Program (ROMA/ILF) "is potentially feasible and cost-effective, based on broad characterizations of North Belle Meade and a range of reasonable assumptions." Background data, for example, was derived from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). In short, the Phase 1 Feasibility report concludes that: "A Collier County single-user ROMA/ILF project within North Belle Meade appears to be a cost-feasible generator of wetland mitigation credits and panther habitat compensation if the ROMA/ILF is of sufficient size and properly located to assure long-term support for the Florida panther." Additional study is recommended that utilizes a site-specific evaluation tool as applied to specific parcels and select locations. Data derived from this "Phase 2" feasibility study will allow higher degree of certainty for purposes of: selection of all or portions of North Belle Meade for inclusion in the ROMA; further review and conceptual approval from federal and state permitting and review agencies; and, present-value financial analysis comparing all costs associated with the ROMA/ILF to costs of private mitigation banking as practiced over recent years. The ultimate viability of a ROMA/ILF project will depend on approval and support from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & .-. Wildlife Service, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Among other RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 49 of 60 o—. important considerations, the agencies will need assurance of carefully controlled recreational uses that are consistent with restoration goals. Staff initial recommendation: Continue to the next stage of a Feasibility Analysis to develop a Regional Offsite Mitigation Area/In-lieu Fee program (ROMA/ILF) with FDEP and ACOE in North Belle Meade. Explore options involving Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) parcels to achieve coordinated or umbrella management options for greater overall land management efficiency. County government would assume responsibilities inherent in a ROMA agreement, although the operation and administrative functions could be assigned under contract. County taxpayers could anticipate some cost savings in the use of a ROMA over more conventional mitigation banking approaches. Taxpayers would also be gaining an asset: ownership of large land areas, ecologically stable, that could be used for passive recreational purposes. Residents and visitors would gain from improved hydrological functionality, providing watershed gains and balances between sheds and in associated groundwater and aquifers. Sending owners in that area would be on equal footing with counterparts in South Belle Meade so as to enjoy the better availability of the Restoration/Maintenance and Conveyance TDR credits. The environmental community would gain assurance that this valuable resource is managed and protected, both for watershed and for important plant and animal species. Receiving owners would know that the number of TDRs necessary for future projects can be made more readily available, both through the additional credits and through increased Sending owner participation. To the extent that grant funding becomes available for structural rehydration projects in North Belle Meade, additional credits could be realized, resulting in further taxpayer benefits. 2. Option 2-Additional TDR for funding in North Belle Meade and Section 11: It is possible to design an additional TDR only for those properties intended for County ownership. This "County TDR" could supplement other funding. It could be used for "seed money" for purposes of the ROMA engagement, or could form a portion of the funds necessary to create an endowment for County owned and managed areas without a ROMA. Additional contributions should be required, similar to the program in South Belle Meade. For example, if the program changes include two additional TDRs for each 5 acres of Sending Lands, a third additional TDR could be assigned where other (non-County) governmental agencies will not take ownership. Instead, the County would assume ownership of the last TDR or equivalent, as part of the conveyance application to the County. Proceeds from the additional TDR would go to the County to partially fund the restoration and long term RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 50 of 60 maintenance of the property, to provide seed money for a ROMA/ILF bank and/or to provide seed money for a TDR bank. Along with the value of the last TDR, the County could assess a fee for donation roughly equivalent to that amount required, on average, in South Belle Meade by the Florida Forestry Service. In this way, there would be rough parity between owners in North Belle Meade, South Belle Mead and Section 11. Staff initial recommendation: Establish a special TDR for the benefit of the County where no other entity has been established to take ownership. This concept would be an exception to issuing additional TDRs to all Sending owners pro rata. North Belle Meade and Section 11 Sending land could be thought of as "favored". However, the end goal would be to put equal numbers of TDRs in Sending owners' pockets at the same expense. When considering the opportunity provided to South Belle Meade Sending owners by State acquisition, this provision would be in line with equitable treatment or rough equivalence. Sending Owners would benefit from knowing that the conveyance TDR is available to them, along with any other bonus TDRs. Receiving owners would benefit from the availability of TDRs in general, based on added market liquidity. Financial return to participating Sending owners would be equivalent regardless of location. 3. Option 3-Green Utility Fee An idea presented by a panelist at Public Workshop #2 was a "Green Utility Fee." This could be a fee determined on the basis of land use and applied Countywide. No doubt, it could be designed in many different ways. Its purpose, like the two Options listed above, is to provide a fund from which properties donated to the County could be restored and maintained. Staff initial recommendation: Study the idea of a Green Utility Fee and consider whether it should be the subject of a County- wide referendum. Given its close association with hydrology issues, the concept might simply be part of the Stormwater Utility Fee currently under study; revenue could apply to green infrastructure that benefits water quantity, quality, recharge or flood control. Alternatively, the green utility fee RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 51 of 60 might encompass a dedicated millage for both County-wide "green" initiatives and the TDR bank capitalization discussed at Sending (C.3). 4. Option 4-Model Land Management Plan and Private Ownership There are circumstances where a private Land Management Plan would be optimal. Some owners do not wish to give up ownership of their land, although they wish to engage in the TDR process up to that point. For example, land holdings are planned as natural amenities of nearby development areas in the western part of South Belle Meade, adjacent to the Urban Residential Fringe. Another example is land maintained for a hunting lodge, where TDRs have been severed from all but 5 acres to make it possible, but no conveyance TDR5 are issued. Although applicants for Restoration and Maintenance TDR credits would be required to submit or commission an environmental consultant, the basics of the Land Management Plan and required elements would be in place, eliminating uncertainty and reducing costs to the applicant. Staff initial recommendation: Provide a standard or model Land Management Plan for adoption by owners who wish to provide Restoration and Maintenance activities in return for TDR credits. Private owners would save time, cost and uncertainty in instances where they wish to maintain ownership in their Sending land and also participate in the TDR process. E. OTHER PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS 1. Adjust property appraisal for tax benefit on TDR severed lands. Staff reviewed the taxable values associated with Sending Lands where TDR5 have been severed. It was found that the land use code assigned to these lands, and the associated value, varies greatly. Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, a Constitutional branch of County Government, agrees in principle to review market value appraisals where base TDR5 are severed. Given the limitation of development rights on such privately maintained land, its lower market value may result in lower tax assessments. Staff has discussed this issue with the Property Appraisers Offices and stands ready to assist with any data needed by that agency. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 52 of 60 Staff initial recommendation: Staff should provide any data needed to the Property Appraiser's Office in support of its efforts to review tax assessments based on appraised land values and resulting tax assessments in Sending Lands. Improved assessment outcomes are favorable to Sending owners who have severed development rights but have not transferred ownership. No parties are adversely affected. 2. Allow County-owned(post-conveyance)Sending land to be used for recreational uses. Currently, approved Land Management Plans include only passive recreational uses, consistent with the permitted uses after severance in Sending Lands. The GMP could conceivably contain conditional uses that expand the range of recreational uses, where the County takes ownership, such as North Belle Meade. In general, permitted uses limit recreation to "passive parks and passive recreation uses". By definition, passive recreation is "characterized by natural resource emphasis and non- motorized activities". There may be appropriate instances where motorized uses are consistent with environmental preservation. For example, the County may wish to create a modest eco- tourism site for residents and visitors, allowing some off-road transport to and from different locations, or accommodating persons with disabilities to visit some locations. Staff initial recommendation: County-owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for conditional use approval for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Definitions of "active" and ..Ritmortmreettim dei::#seme further > County residents may enjoy greater use of and access to natural areas. No known negative impacts on stakeholder groups. NEUTRAL LANDS: 1. Allow for some participation in the TDR program as allowed in Sending area. Neutral Lands typically enjoy the same uses and restrictions under the RFMUD as were enjoyed under the base agricultural zoning prior to TDR program and RFMUD adoption. However, unlike Sending owners, Neutral owners have no ability to generate and sell TDR credits. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 53 of 60 Parcels in the Neutral lands can be subdivided into 5 acre parcels, allowing for greater residential density than would be allowed in the Sending Lands. Other non-residential uses are allowed, including agriculture and conservation. Permanent agricultural use or permanent conservation easements are appropriate in Neutral Lands where the quality of the conserved use is demonstrated. In fact, these additional reservations should be encouraged. County staff could make administrative review and approval of applications based on environmental criteria in the Land Development Code. Conservation areas would remain in private ownership and would require conservation easements. Likewise, agricultural uses can be encouraged on Neutral Lands by generating TDRs for permanent agricultural easements, as was suggested for Sending areas. Staff initial recommendation: Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual easements. Neutral owners of larger parcels would be provided with a viable choice in preservation or 5 acre development.The total additional TDRs generated from this change would be very small in comparison to all likely Sending TDRs, and so would not impact Sending owner expectations to any significant degree. 2. Minimum Project Size One additional right provided to Neutral owners within the RFMUD is the ability to "cluster" development. For example, a 40 acre parcel could be subdivided into eight 5 acre parcels; or, using the clustering rules, could place 8 dwelling units on the parcel in closer proximity to one another, fostering the possibility of greater efficiency in infrastructure, among other advantages. Like the recommended change within Receiving Lands, advantages to clustered development would appear to apply to parcels smaller than 40 acres. Efficiency in shared resources as well as social advantages are possible. No increase in overall density would result. Staff initial recommendation: Remove the 40 acre minimum project size for clustered development. This recommendation would benefit Neutral owners of properties 10 acres or greater by providing alternative design possibilities. No other stakeholder group is affected. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 54 of 60 RECEIVING LANDS A: LAND USE AND ECONOMIC VITALITY Growth presents a tremendous opportunity for progress. It also presents many challenges. What, where and how we build have major impacts to our community and resident's quality of life. The Receiving lands within the RFMUD totals 28,054 acres, of which, 14,531 acres remain vacant and undeveloped.This is where growth will occur in the RFMUD. Currently, the RFMUD provides for an increase in development rights with the use of TDRs within Receiving lands. Density can be increased using two forms of development, 1) cluster residential, and 2) villages. To date, the only development pattern occurring in the Fringe is cluster residential development in the form of gated communities such as Naples Reserve, Hacienda Lakes, Lords Way, San Marino, Lido Isles, Rockledge (in Urban Fringe at 2.5 units per acre), Twin Eagles South, Lamorada, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Golf Club of the Everglades (in RFMUD at 1 unit per acre). These developments have an approved total of 6,786 units, the majority single family. While these communities are attractive, this single-dimensional development pattern furthers Collier County's challenges of diversifying the economy, providing affordable housing and financing an overburdened roadway network. During the public workshops participants were clear; the preference for new development in the limited available land in the Receiving area is something different than gated communities. Participants were more favorable towards standalone business/commercial, and mixed-use development. They want to see employment, goods and services, and a mix of housing types in the Receiving areas. One of the most common suggestions for program improvement was to allow employment and goods and services outside of the Village concept. Currently, commercial uses in Receiving lands are limited to locations within approved Villages with a maximum of 10% of the total village area and 10,000 SF leasable floor area per acre. Consensus was found in the need to change the requirements to promote commercial uses within the Receiving lands, not only to support the residents within the Receiving lands, but also for the surrounding area. It was suggested that Rural villages envisioned within receiving areas don't provide sufficient commercial capacity, and the design and criteria for commercial locations within the villages isolate them from major transportation corridors making them infeasible. There should be greater incentives for employment, industrial uses, agriculture research,and technology development. While consensus demonstrated the RFMUD should better support commercial uses, it was also suggested by one commenter that the RFMUD plan is not compatible with the Golden Gate RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 55 of 60 Area Master Plan; it eliminates functionality because it creates lost commercial opportunities for the Estates in the RFMUD Plan. The members of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association expressed their thoughts by letter dated April 19, 2016 saying, it is imperative that changes in land use in the RFMUD which borders the Estates be permitted to provide services and employment to compliment the build out of the Estates. The RFMUD can also provide opportunities for employment economic development, and needed recreational activities to Collier County as a whole. In addition to the suggested changes to commercial uses, many participants expressed desired adjustments to residential uses. The RFMUD clustering provisions the currently requires a minimum of 40 acres to allow a density increase from 1 unit per 5 acres, to 1 unit per acre. It was suggested to increase base rights for properties less than 40 acres, or to all together eliminate the 40 acre minimum. Some participants thought base rights should increase to 1 unit per 2.5 acres for 5 acre tracts, others thought is should go up to 2 units per acre. Changes in Village density were also suggested and highly supported by the data and analysis referenced in Section 3 of this white paper. "Smart growth" principles support sustainable development patterns that are multi-dimensional, provide for a demographic mix, and support transportation choices; density should be a minimum of 7 units per acre. Increasing the density in the RFMUD will allow greater diversity in residential product, greater efficiency in providing infrastructure and services and lower development costs. Participants were supportive of increased density, and they were passionate about the need to address affordable housing saying, it needs to be a much higher priority in the discussion [of the RFMUD). The Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District plan must have a dynamic affordable housing component built into the plan to avoid both the affordable housing and future workforce crisis. Without it our community will suffer. Currently, the RFMUD addresses affordable housing only in the village concept; "A minimum of 0.2 units per acre in a village shall be affordable housing, which at least 0.1 units per acres shall be workforce housing." These units are required to use 0.5 TDR credits. Affordable and workforce housing is an on- going challenge for Collier County. Collier County has just initiated the first comprehensive housing plan to address the needs for affordable housing. This plan is reported to be completed by September, 2017. Community Planning staff will closely follow this planning effort and bring forward recommendations implementable through the Comprehensive Plan. Robert Hickey, Senior Research Associate at the Center for Housing Policy, suggested a few methods currently being utilized to work towards broadening housing affordability during a workshop sponsored by United Way. One of the suggested methods can be implemented in the RFMUD and that is "allowing mixed housing such as apartments/condos, manufactured homes, cottage housing and micro homes. This widens the diversity in housing markets, allowing RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 56 of 60 residents to have more affordable alternative options when looking for housing." Participants in the RFMUD restudy have supported the idea of a mix of housing with particular focus on reducing the required size of units. With the positive national trend in "tiny" or micro homes, the RFMUD can support affordable housing by promoting the acceptance of the size limitations of 600 sq ft. found in the residential zoning districts. Additional recommendations addressing affordable housing may be incorporated into the RFMUD amendments as influenced by the comprehensive affordable housing plan. Staff initial recommendations 1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of Villages as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district (with exceptions) in locations with access to major collector or arterial roads. 2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park. 3. Explore designating Receiving areas as Innovation Zones. 4. Eliminate the maximum size of a Village. 5. Consider new measures for mixed-use standards, such those found in RLSA 6. Modify residential density standards: • Clustering—remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre • Village—increase density to 7 units per acre • Change minimum Village density to 4 units per acre 7. Development over 300 acres shall use the Village option. 8. Modify the TDR requirements: a. Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily unit. b. Change from .5 to 0 TDR for affordable housing C tensity over 4 units peracre requ►re UTDRs. d. New-0 TDR for industrial/business park uses. "Opportunity Naples" is a report that heightens the awareness for the need to diversify the economy, particularly in eastern Collier County. The report found that Collier County needs more suitable, large-scale, pad-ready development sites. Collier County as a whole will benefit from recommended changes allowing business uses in the RFMUD. Increasing density, improving mixed-use requirements and adjusting the TDR credits will promote a diverse and more affordable community, expand mobility choices and engage a healthy and active lifestyle — the development trends sought after by employers, employees and baby boomers. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 57 of 60 B: TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY The RFMUD is served by a congested arterial network with limited funding for improvements. While development will help pay for impacts to the network, promoting a mix of land uses that shorten trips into the urban area, and is served by transit, will help offset the ever increasing roadway needs. A majority of public comments on transportation emphasized the need to increase roadway network connectivity surrounding the Receiving areas, at the same time keep speed low (< 36 mph). Low speed along with additional wildlife crossings is essential for wildlife preservation. Connectivity is important not only within the Receiving lands, but also connecting surrounding areas to destinations within the Receiving areas such as future employment, goods and services. Other transportation comments support including transportation alternatives such as bus transit. There is considerable attention given to transportation planning in eastern Collier County. The transportation study surrounding North Belle Meade will further inform the transportation network needed to support the RFMUD. Further consideration and implementation of the techniques identified in the Master Mobility Study will advance Collier County's goals to achieve a multi-modal community. Staff initial recommendations 1. Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands. 2. Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support Complete Streets and low speed. 3. ,add provisions for transit stops arid park and ride facilities - " irr Villages arid I osirress parks. 4. Develop a methodology for a Mobility Analysis including a standard of measuring a development's level of interconnectivity such as a "link-node" ratio, and the transit, bicycle and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project and surrounding destinations. The community as a whole will benefit from a multi-modal system that provides for all users, reduces trip lengths and supports greater efficiency in our transportation network. Stakeholders with development interests in the RFMUD should participate in the development of any new methodology created for a Mobility Analysis. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 58 of 60 C: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROCESS During the public workshops participants were clear; within the Receiving lands they want to create more than houses, a defined place, a live, work, play approach to promote thoughtful community design. Some were so specific to say limit gated communities. The finding of this report and the community input supports greater incentives for village development to promote mixed-use in the RFMUD. To incentivize mixed-use development and business park uses, the development community shared ideas that are process related. Overall, the idea is to find ways to reduce the risk associated with mixed-use development while also providing greater flexibility. Suggestions included, maximize opportunities to develop in Receiving lands through the mostly administrative SDP or Planning processes (subject to compliance with adopted design and development standards). Establish maximum flexibility and administrative or hearing examiner approval process for LDC deviations, and modify the process to follow the SRA designation process where an application for a Receiving Area Village is approved by simple majority vote by BCC. Other participants support the idea to ensure that the current public hearing process for approval of new development within the RFMUD is retained. Specific design standards should be kept to a minimum and should be placed in the LDC, only as guidelines or in some cases as baseline standards. Wherever possible, provide for incentives rather than regulations to achieve design objectives. Create opportunities for additional flexibility in designing mixed-use projects within receiving lands. Recognizing the distinct differences and potential for each of the Receiving Areas, participants support the idea to establish separate overlays for each of the four distinct Rural Fringe development areas, similar to the North Belle Meade Overlay which has its own set of development standards. This could be accomplished through Land Development Code amendments. At a minimum, specific design standards found in the Growth Management Plan should be moved to the implementing LDC, and the LDC standards should be carefully reviewed and amended to support the design concepts identified herein. Developers and industry leaders report that a hurdle to more intense, mixed-use development design is the added cost of impact fees. As stated in Section 3 of this white paper, other communities' successful implementation of a mixed-use impact fee has shown a ten to thirty percent reduction in impact fees. This reduction could be another strategy to incentivize the type of development desired in eastern Collier County. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 59 of 60 Staff initial recommendations 1. Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide greater certainty for developers 2. Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlays. 3. Allow industrial/business park uses (with exceptions) by right, and Hearing Examiner approval for proposals compatible with surrounding land uses and complying with industrial/business park zoning standards. 4. Initiate study to create an impact fee index for mixed-use. 5. Explore with Collier County Health Department the creation of Health Assessment Index. 6. Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employment zones and mixed-use development, suggest modifications to standards e.g., remove greenbelt requirement. 7. Develop further incentives for innovate features such as solar power, zero net water use, aquifer recovery and storage systems. The adoption of zoning overlays could allow both the developer and the public greater certainty in the development standards for Receiving Areas. Modifying some approval processes could allow complying projects to proceed with minimal delay. The intent of the modifications is to diversify the mix of uses including residential product, provide greater certainty, and to support economic development in eastern Collier County. RFMUD Restudy White Paper 08/09/2016 Page 60 of 60 Co�LI./ier County Appendix A Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Outreach January - May, 2016 Appendix A Page 1 of 63 Cofer C ouvxty Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Workshop #1 Introduction to Sending Land January 6, 2016 III 4 .. „iir, . : . .. _ Alijia 401, vE Irirtca �t .. N. Introduction: With the purpose to inform the public and become more informed by the public, Collier Community Planning staff, along with consulting partner AECOM, began a series of six public workshops, the first three centered primarily on the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD). This series preceded the workshops intended to discuss Receiving and Neutral Land uses, densities, development standards and the like. Letters were mailed to over 800 individual land owners informing them of the Restudy and upcoming meetings. Many owners live in other cities and states.Therefore, program specifics and opinions for this target segment were shared by telephone and email. Appendix A Page 2 of 63 -- Co ler County Our first outreach meeting drew over 65 attendees. These included individuals and families who have unimproved property in Sending areas, families who currently live or conduct agriculture operations on Sending land, and other stakeholders such as environmental interests, developers and consultants.The agenda included on overview of the RFMUD,TDR concepts and basics, history of the program and current issues as identified by staff. The public was invited to identify additional issues, either through the meeting format, through a dedicated e-mail address, or via website survey. Overall, there was strong sentiment from Sending land owners that the program should not have been devised in the way it was, and many thought that the RFMUDgoverning provisions should be abandoned altogether. Some came to understand that the program was created as a result of litigation and the State's Final Order, and given that compact, the County needed to move forward and not back. At the same time, most were grateful for a thorough discussion of how the program works today, so that they could add suggestions for improvement during the Restudy. Some initial concerns expressed by smaller land owners were the lack of a viable marketplace to sell TDR credits and the uncertainty of sale or sale price. 7+ Appendix A Page 3 of 63 Go -ier Gounty Meeting Summary: 1. Welcome and Meeting Objectives Greg Ault,AECOM, consultant for the County addressed the attendees noting the Board of County Commissioners has directed Staff to develop changes to the Growth Management Plan including the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD).The purpose of the meeting is to obtain public input on the areas designated as Sending Lands under the Program. 2. Overview and History of the Rural Fringe (RFMUD)TDR Program Mr. Van Lengen presented a Power Point "Rural Fringe Mixed Use District—Introduction for Sending Land Owners" and provided an overview and history of the Program noting: • The RFMUD was developed as a result of a 1999 Final Order stemming from litigation (by the Collier County Audubon Society, Inc. and the Florida Wildlife Federation) that addressed County land use planning issues including establishing the RFMUD. • The goals of the Order were for the County to adequately preserve wetlands, protect critical species and wildlife habitat from unrestrained growth by directing it to appropriate locations within the County. • One avenue implemented within the RFMUD District was a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which identifies sending and receiving lands administered through a program of density credits. • The restudy of the area will focus on the Program's goal of establishing smarter development patterns, economic viability for those affected and optimal protection of sensitive areas and species. 3. Introduction to Sending Land Issues Mr. Van Lengen noted the sending program encompasses the "North and South Belle Meade" areas of the County, in addition to other smaller sending areas farther north. The density credits available for transfer include base credits (1 credit for a 5 acre parcel or 8 for a 40 acre parcel), an early entry bonus, credit for restoration/maintenance and conveyance to a governmental entity(each on the basis of 1 per 5 acres). The differences in program specifics between North Belle Meade and South Belle Meade were covered in some detail. It was also noted that watershed planning and transportation planning both need to be considered in arriving at program changes. 4. Current Status of the Program Mr. Van Lengen reported: • The Board of County Commissioners established an Oversight Committee to review specific areas of the Growth Management Plan including the RFMUD. Appendix A Page 4 of 63 COY County • The Committee will be meeting on a quarterly basis. • Staff will be holding a series of public meetings to garner input on the issues so deficiencies in the Program may be addressed to ensure it functions as originally intended. • The endeavor is anticipated to last approximately 2 years, with a status report delivered to the BCC by the end of 2016, prior to the formal public hearing process. • A website has been developed by the County to facilitate the endeavor which will provide information on the Committee, ongoing activities, questionnaires for the public and contact information for Staff. • Owners are encouraged to provide input in any format they desire including writing letters and/or emails, calling Staff directly, participating in questionnaires and public meetings, etc. 5. Importance of TDR Program to Owners The restudy of the area will focus on important issues to the landowners including improving the economic viability of the program, ensuring smarter development patterns and protecting sensitive areas and species. Compensation to owners who elect to participate must be addressed. It is important to keep in mind that the TDR program is optional; staff if available to help explain the program so that individual owners can best satisfy their own interests. Aas a restudy, staff is interested in owner input on how to improve the program. During presentation and Question/Answer period, the following items were raised: • There may be increases to the density allowed in the Receiving Lands, however that concept requires additional stakeholder input. • Along with base and early entry density credits, the Program allows credits for restoration of sending lands with the owner developing and implementing a restoration plan, participating in mitigation through a State or Federal Government program, or linking to an existing approved restoration plan. • The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and other agencies participated in the original development of the Program and will be providing input on any proposed revisions to the Program.They also currently participate in the permit process. • Once an owner's density credits in the Sending Areas are transferred to a party,the sending land owner is free and clear of their use, with the receiving party bearing all responsibilities for use (or non-use) of the credits. Credits can be held for an indefinite period of time. • One option under consideration is developing a land bank for the credits to facilitate the owner's ability to transfer sending land credits to an outside party. Appendix A Page 5 of 63 DI • LIL7er County • The boundaries originally approved for the areas in question will remain unchanged; however the County is seeking to improve the Program with the assistance of the landowners affected by the land use requirements. • Consideration will be given to expanding the allowed uses in the receiving areas and increasing the number of credits made available from sending areas to help balance the program, given that there is likely a larger demand for credits than those available under the Program. • The County will be examining the land values and economic parameters of the Program with the recognition the current system does not reflect market values or a balance between supply and demand. Economists at AECOM will be assisting in this part of the endeavor. • Another aspect the County will be reviewing is the "exchange process" as they recognize under the current format it is a cumbersome endeavor for those involved in the Program. • The program will accommodate the principles adopted by the BCC in the Watershed master Plan. Interested citizens are reminded that they may wish to attend or monitor the Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Program (CWIP) ad hoc committee meetings to learn more. Commissioner Nance addressed the attendees noting he has owned property in the Program area since the 1980's and was not in favor of the settlement given the means the landowners rights were compromised. He is advocating the restudy and recognizes the Program is not functioning as intended. Commissioner Nance noted the Program was State Mandated and the County recognizes, at this point it is not feasible to propose eliminating the Program or changing the boundaries established.The goal is to increase equity in the Program and allow the owners with sending lands to obtain fair values for their properties. 6. Interactive Discussion/Activity and Questions Mr. Ault encouraged attendees to provide written comments on the cards provided at the meeting or communicate with Staff through any other means they feel comfortable. A questionnaire has been developed and available on the website which aid Staff in addressing concerns identified by interested parties. He requested the owners participate in this endeavor. It can be found at the interactive content button,via website: https://www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies. Appendix A Page 6 of 63 Cor County 7. Wrap-up and Next Steps Mr. Van Lengen noted the next public meeting is scheduled for January 27, 2016 at 6:30pm. The agenda will center on North Belle Meade and the need for long term ownership and maintenance for properties that use the TDR program. STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Tim Nance Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager(Staff Liaison) Mike Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant Appendix A Page 7 of 63 Co ler County Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Public Workshop #2 Focus on North Belle Meade Sending Land January 27, 2016 Introduction: This public workshop focused on the topic of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Master Plan (Plan) North Belle Meade Sending area, the associated issues, and generating ideas for potential solutions. Despite a heavy rain event through the afternoon and evening, over 50 people attended. Staff presented a brief overview of the Plan and highlighted the issues unique to the North Belle Meade Sending area (see panel questions, below), with explanations of each issue.The presentation also featured a summary of the public comments provided at the first workshop, and the comments provided from the on-line Sending area survey. Following the staff presentation, a panel was seated to discuss possible solutions to the North Belle Mead issues.The panelists were Bob Mulhere—Planning Director for Hole Montes, Nancy Payton—SW Florida Representative for Florida Wildlife Association, and Tim Durham —Senior Ecologist for Passarella &Associates. Five questions were asked for each panelist's response. aka 011111- 1r 10* MB Panel Summary: Five questions posed to panelists and their responses. In Sending areas (where development rights have been removed), what should the fulfillment of conservation goals as conceived in the Plan look like, say, in 20 years? Appendix A Page 8 of 63 -- Co Ter Couvit y Panelist 1. Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) will be under Collier ownership through conveyance/willing sellers and managed by Conservation Collier. NRPA will be rehydrated via Golden Gate Canal diversion, no reservoir. Wildlife crossings or land bridge to connect NRPA and Picayune Strand Forest. Currently listed species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker will be thriving. Collier County will be implementing a North Belle Meade Habitat Conservation Plan for public infrastructure (roads). NRPA becomes destination for passive nature-based recreation Panelist 2.There is a single management entity for Sending Lands, maybe best option Conservation Collier. There is hydrologic sheet flow. Public access for passive recreation.There is significant land connectivity. Panelist 3. Lands are available to public for active recreation such as horseback riding, camping, fishing, and biking. Landowners in Sending area received fair deal and were made whole. If the current pattern of fragmented ownership and maintenance continues, what issues would persist? Panelist 1. With lack of connectivity the same issues today will continue with hydrology and listed species. Exotics will continue to be a problem. If lands are fragments the Plan hasn't been successfully completed with fair compensation to land owners. Panelist 2.The issues continue with hydrology, economics of land management, and exotics. Panelist 3. Plan goals will not be met— Final Order settlement in question. Inability to manage — remove exotics, restore habitat, enforcement. Natural resource values and wildlife use will diminish What alternatives can you suggest to achieve the vision you first described? (e.g., ownership alternatives; management alternatives?) Panelist 1. Make sure adequate compensation is provided. Simplify the Plan; err on making the landowners whole. Panelist 2. Collier County must step forward to accept the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) conveyance lands. Accept land and bank TDR restoration/endowment money until management can be "conservation of scale;" in the interim, possibly a land trust. Swap program between NRPA and isolated western sending lands. North Belle Meade Habitat Conservation Plan - county mitigates infrastructure impacts in North Belle Meade to help secure large blocks of conservation land. Panelist 3. Increase the TDRs that Sending can generate. There are issues with the cost of restoration and what a landowner gets in return.The process for TDRs must be simple. Appendix A Page 9 of 63 Co w1CT County -� Consider allowing the use of TDRs to mitigate for urban area infill native vegetation requirements. Make it easier for landowners to sell credits. What funding mechanisms can you envision that might be feasible to allow consolidation of responsibility for restoration and maintenance? (e.g., more TDR credits, grants, mitigation banking, etc.) Panelist 1. Mitigation bank, or ROMA, may be relevant, but can have challenges. Need to put together the numbers for maintenance cost so it can be better understood what is feasible. Panelist 2. Revive Conservation Collier. Maybe a "green utility fee." Use mitigation for wetland and wildlife. Partner with downstream communities and agencies that benefit from North Belle Meade rehydration. Panther Refuge is interested in expansion.There are other plans and programs that could coordinate to get results. Panelist 3. Use TDRs in urban area for native vegetation mitigation. Do you have a preferred alternative for ownership and long term maintenance, among the ideas that have been suggested? Panelist 1. Ownership Collier County, and long term maintenance Conservation Collier. Panelist 2. Collier County is best alternative. Panelist 3. Preference is Collier County, would like to see State park with active recreation. Following the panel discussion, the audience provided their comments. Public Discussion Consider increasing TDR demand by decreasing the Receiving area minimum of 40 acres. Make Receiving areas more attractive to worldwide developers, like Celebration, FL. Concerns that the program is the big guy vs. little guy, and animals vs. people. Concerns that eminent domain is coming. Assessed value of land is more than the value of a TDR. No incentive to create TDR. To increase land connectivity and management efficiency, consider working with landowners that have established mitigation lands to convey them to Collier County, with their funds for maintenance. Big developers have their own Sending lands and credits so don't need to buy others. A non-regulatory R&M should be considered as part of the feasibility for mitigation- i.e. non- mitigation might be simpler and less costly overall. STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Tim Nance Appendix A Page 10 of 63 Cor ear County Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager (Staff Liaison) Mike Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant Panel Biographies Tim Durham—Senior Ecologist for Passarella &Associates Tim Durham has over 30 years experience as the lead environmental consultant for a variety of projects in Florida and the southeast U.S. He has extensive experience preparing local, state and federal permitting documents, providing listed species evaluations, and designing and permitting wetland mitigation and habitat conservation banking.Tim has a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering for the University of Florida and is a member of the Association of Environmental Professionals and Society of Wetland Scientists. Nancy Payton - Florida Wildlife Federation Nancy Payton joined the Florida Wildlife Federation (Federation) in 1994, the same year the Federation opened its Southwest Florida Office in Naples. The Federation was founded in 1936 and is the state affiliate of National Wildlife Federation. As the Southwest Florida Field Representative, she coordinates the Federation's Western Everglades rural lands and wildlife protection campaigns. These campaigns include growth management, native wildlife protection, land conservation, and habitat preservation. Bob Mulhere - Director of Planning for Hole Montes, Inc. Bob has more than 27 years of professional planning experience. Prior to employment at Hole Montes, Mr. Mulhere operated his own consulting firm. Between 1989 and 2001, Bob was employed by Collier County Government and was the Director of Planning from 1996 through 2001. Mr. Mulhere holds a B.A. in Political Science from St. Michael's College and a master's degree in Public Administration from Florida Gulf Coast University. In 2010 Bob was named a "Fellow" of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP). Appendix A Page 11 of 63 Cott- Gaunty Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Public Workshop #3 Sending Land: Economics and Ideas for Change February 16, 2016 efri s—� Introduction: The third of three initial public workshops, all focused on Sending issues, included two major components. First, staff provided an overview of the economic considerations involved in TDR transfers from a Sending Land owner's point of view. Second, a list of changes suggested by the public was vetted using a table-top group approach; results were shared with all attendees. Again, over 50 people attended; most had attended at least one previous meeting; for eight individuals it was first exposure to the Sending Land meeting series. Meeting Summary: After a refresher on some basic TDR rules as they exist, staff presented a number of facts and observations concerning the economics of transfer. First, the likely supply and demand under current regulations and under potential changed regulations was examined. Next, data derived from arm's length TDR credit sales (past three years) were compared with land sales over the same period of time, noting significant differences depending on location.The public noted that, depending on the geographic area of a Sending parcel, motivation to enter the program could be significantly different. Finally, staff introduced the concept of a TDR bank: types of Appendix A Page 12 of 63 c c:1 Per county banks created in various TDR programs nationally, and the pros and cons of doing so. Suggestions, questions and answers followed. Mr. Van Lengen presented a Power Point "Sending Economics and Ideas for Change"noting: • The RFMUD was developed as a result of a 1999 Final Order stemming from litigation (by the Collier County Audubon Society, Inc. and the Florida Wildlife Federation)that addressed County land use planning issues including establishing the RFMUD. • The goals of the Order were for the County to adequately preserve wetlands, protect critical species and wildlife habitat from unrestrained growth by directing it to appropriate locations within the County. • One avenue implemented within the RFMUD District was a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which identifies sending and receiving lands administered through a program of density credits. • The credits for a parcel 5 acres in size are 1 base credit, 1 early entry credit, 1 Restoration and Maintenance credit, 1 conveyance credit, total potential = 4 credits. • The credits for a parcel 40 acres in size are 8 base credits, 8 early entry credits, 8 Restoration and Maintenance credits, 8 conveyance credits, total potential = 32 credits. • The restudy of the area will focus on the Program's goal of establishing smarter development patterns, economic viability for those affected and protection of sensitive areas and species. • If you own a parcel platted prior to 1999 in the sending areas you may either hold the parcel, enter the TDR program, build a home, sell the parcel to someone else to build a home or use it agricultural purposes. • An owner is not required to participate in the TDR Program.There are many legitimate reasons not to participate. • Those in the program may sell their credits to willing buyers for a pre-established rate of$25,000 per base credit; a typical arm's length sale bundles a bonus credit at $3,000 for a total of$28,000. • Additional credits are available for restoration, maintenance and conveyance. • Arm's length transaction analysis (staff) shows that the true value of TDRs between willing sellers and willing buyers is approximately$13,500 per credit; the Coalition estimated an approximate value at$14,000. 1. Economics: Your rights; supply and demand; recent data; banking concepts Mr. Van Lengen reported a study has completed in the Belle Meade area identifying the following fair market land values: Appendix A Page 13 of 63 Co Lier County South -$6,000 per acre North East-$3,500 per acre North West-$12,500 per acre He outlined the following examples to determine the funds a sending land owner may derive from the sale of their land or entering the Program. The analysis is based on a 5 acre parcel. It was emphasized that these values represent median sale prices within the past 3 years;they do not predict the value of any individual parcel, as parcel values within these sub-areas vary considerably based on a great number of factors. South Fair market value - $6,000 per acre x 5 acres=$30,000 market value TDR Program - $27,000 per acre (base/early entry credit) + $27,000 restoration maintenance (- $10,000 restoration and maintenance costs) = $44,000 net proceeds. Economically viable/advantageous to participate in the TDR Program. North East Fair market value - $3,500 per acre x 5 acres = $17,500 market value. TDR Program - $27,000 per acre (base/early entry credit) + $27,000 restoration maintenance (-$30,000)for restoration and maintenance costs) = $24,000 net proceeds. Not economically feasible to participate in restoration maintenance aspect of the Program. North West Fair market value - $12,500 per acre x 5 acres = $62,500 market value. TDR Program - $27,000 per acre (base/early entry credit) + $27,000 restoration maintenance (-$30,000 restoration and maintenance costs) = $24,000 net proceeds. Not economically feasible to participate in Program. Appendix A Page 14 of 63 Co -ier County Mr. Van Lengen noted the following: • The means currently available for transfer is through a "Commodity Exchange." • The Exchange consists of Certificates issued by the County which may be held by the owner indefinitely and redeemed at platting. • The County does provide technical assistance to the owners. • One concept under consideration is a TDR bank where the banking entity would buy and sell the credits. • The bank would have the same attributes as the Commodity Exchange and would directly or indirectly set prices for credits. • It could be operated by the County or an outside agency. • The advantages would include ready buyer for the sending lands owner and stabilize the market prices. • The disadvantages include the upfront costs to develop and ongoing operating costs, economic risk to banking entity. • Property taxes are required by the landowner until the credits are conveyed. • Currently there is a registry list of sellers however the concept is not performing well. • Credits can be resold with no limit on the number of transfers. Under public comments the following was noted: • Concern the developer is being asked to protect lands under the concept and the current cost of a unit is not worth paying for given the return on investment. • Concern there is not a large enough quantity of receiving area for use of the credits—Staff believes there is large future demand. Timing may be an issue. • Concern on maintaining restored lands until conveyance -Staff reported the goal is to make the program more appealing by aligning the supply and demand for the credits. Following the economics portion, attendees participated in a review and ranking exercise, looking at several suggestions made by various stakeholders. Break Out Group Findings A: Credit Systems 1. (RANK) If additional TDR credits can be generated to enhance the returns of Sending Land Owners and make more credits available to buyers, rank the following in order of preference (1-6) as a basis for awarding more credits: a. Land where habitat value is highest Appendix A Page 15 of 63 Cor County b. Land that can accommodate a flow way c. Land that retains agricultural uses for a period of time d. Land that requires a higher level of restoration e. Land located in the NRPA overlay(excludes North Belle Meade-West) f. All Sending Land regardless of location or attributes • Five groups found F to be the most important o It incorporates all enhancements • There was no general consensus amongst groups regarding second and third credit priorities. • One group thought location/access/value of land should be an option 2. Should the $25,000 minimum price for a Base TDR Credit be eliminated? Why/Why not? • Yes because the price is average • No it limits sales, remove the set price • Yes because it is a minimum starting point for negotiation. However it should be per acre not per 5 acres. • No • Yes because it creates a free market. Assessment should be in sync with TDR value. Value needs a starting point. • No it's arbitrary. • Yes/No tie 3. Should credits be used outside of the Receiving Areas for any purpose?Where? Why? • No • Yes but only in urban areas • Yes to anywhere in Collier County deemed suitable for development. This will allow for an increase in TDR value. • Yes for existing urban areas. Credits should also be able to come from other areas. • Yes dependent on population growth. Perhaps Collier Blvd. • Yes at the Golden Gate Golf Course. Appendix A Page 16 of 63 CO ler County B: Program Management 1. (Y/N) Should application fees be reduced? • Yes • Defer cost until TDR is sold • Fees should be eliminated • Yes Eliminate fees • Yes, cheaper is easier • The TDR bank should be responsible 2. (Y/N) Should the County offer free workshop assistance to owners to complete the severance process? • Yes • Yes it is beneficial to everyone • Yes • Yes • Yes • Yes. Need to know the process/rights/values/benefits/risks. Also would like to be informed of the allowances prior to the TDR program as well as the intention of the program. 3. What should be done to link Sellers with Buyers of TDRs? • List is sufficient • List of buyers • Create a bank • Committee with decision makers • County acts as the facilitator • Improve the information website • Create a bank • Establish a County bank • There is an obligation by Collier County • Perhaps a website with multiple listings • Let buyers find sellers • County advisors should know who to call/contact • County facilitation through education and public outreach Appendix A Page 17 of 63 r County Got 4. Should a TDR"Bank" be established? Who/what agency? • Yes by a third party to ensure easy purchase of large quantities of TDR credits. • Yes by Collier County • Yes if the TDR bank is free and acts solely as a meditation/facilitation process. Collier County should be involved but there should also be a third party option. • Perhaps a not for profit bank • Yes because sender should not have the burden of cost • It would be easier if a TDR "Bank" were established • Developer • County • Who benefits? Profit/Non-Profit C: Sending Land Management 1. Where owners decide to use land for agriculture (with agricultural easement): a. (Y/N) Should the owner earn TDR credits? • Yes • No it seems to be a conflict of program • Yes because land is not being used for development • Yes under the condition that land has already been cleared or has no current habitat value. • Yes • Yes although depends on the location and type of agriculture b. (Y/N) If contiguous land exceeds 20+acres, should owner also qualify for one additional family home? • No, then seems no longer agriculture • Yes • Yes • Yes • Yes but should be on 5 acres instead of 20 2. Should Sending Land in TDR program be owned and maintained by numerous private owners, or by very few larger managing entities? (participating land owners) • The County should be NBM receivers • Program should be flexible enough to accommodate both • Yes • Coalition? Who maintains?To what extent of maintenance? • Numerous smaller entities Appendix A Page 18 of 63 Cotter County 3. If larger managing entities, do you prefer the County, a State agency or a private agency coordinate management? • Collier County • Property owner should be responsible for management • Collier County • One entity 4. (RANK) Should long term maintenance costs be paid for by: a. Donated land through a required contribution (from sale of credits) b. A County mitigation program (fees that come from road building, for example) c. A "green utility fee" paid by all County land owners (real estate tax) • All six groups identified B as the desired designee Additional comments received during break out session: • Additional use in Sending Lands, Full restudy of program • MSTU • Property owners on 5 acres with existing homestead structure should be entitled to .-. some sort of TDR credit for promoting native habitat on those parcels-even if they continue to occupy homestead Appendix A Page 19 of 63 CO ler COui4ty Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Workshop #4 Receiving and Neutral Lands: Future Development Potential March 31, 2016 Diseastba: 't Wire m #— tiff e 111 Introduction: Following three public workshops with the focus of the Sending Areas and the Transfer of Development Rights Credits within the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, the objective of the forth workshop was to engage the public in a discussion of the Receiving and Neutral Areas and the development potential within these lands. Approximately 60 residents attended the workshop; about half had not attended any of the previous RFMUD workshops. To open the meeting, staff presented an overview of the RFMUD plan and process including how development rights are transferred from Sending land to Receiving land. Information was then provided about the development potential of the Neutral and Receiving Areas including how much vacant land was in the different areas, and the allowed land uses, density and intensity.The participants were asked to discuss the information and provide feedback on several questions about the development potential. Appendix A Page 20 of 63 Cor C,ounty Meeting Summary: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Planning Manager, addressed the attendees, noting the Board of County Commissioners has directed Staff to develop changes to the Growth Management Plan including the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). The purpose of the meeting, the first of at least two Receiving focused meetings, is to look at the current rules and regulations of areas where TDR credits can be sent. Particular emphasis is on design and functionality of these areas in the context of the greater geographic area, including neutral and sending areas, as well as Golden Gate Estates and the Rural Lands Stewardship Areas. Mr. Van Lengen reviewed the scope of all four upcoming restudies, the process diagram indicating steps necessary to complete Comprehensive Plan changes, the role of the Growth Management Oversight Committee, historic goals of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, the outcomes of the first three meetings in 2016 involving Sending Land Issues and a timeline indicating a goal for September submission of conceptual changes to the Board of County Commissioners in advance of the formal Hearing process during 2017. Anita Jenkins, Collier County Principle Planner, presented a Power Point on Future Development Potential in Neutral and Receiving areas under current rules: • A review of the TDR exchange program • Density allowed before and after the program was first adopted over 10 years ago, when only agricultural zoning was in place. • 40 acres in Receiving areas are required prior to any increase in density via TDRs. • Uses allowed within the new designation of neutral, receiving and Village were illustrated- some uses are voluntary; some encouraged, some required. • Open space and transportation components of development were discussed. • An illustration of nine developments that have redeemed TDRs for increased density was presented. • Acreage and number of parcels for un-entitled land was presented to provide a sense of scale and potential for future development scenarios in Receiving areas. • Similar background was provided to show the quantities of Neutral Land in the program. Following Ms.Jenkins presentation, general remarks were made by attendees and scribed as follows: • Open space integration • How to regulate policy • Is there enough land to make a village? 100-200 Acres more ideal? • Village Regulation: Economic vitality • Opportunity to do something different • Private development dedication • Demographic and economic inclusion • Job creation Appendix A Page 21 of 63 Co ler County • Village Acreage: 200acres • Mix-use development • Proximity to urban area Greg Ault, Collier County consultant with AECOM, introduced a visioning session intended to engage workshop participants in discussing potential development and it's form and function. Participants were invited to discuss four questions with small groups, approximately 6 to 12 persons each. The majority of participants were land owners within the RFMUD Receiving areas. Break out questions with reports from the six groups resulted in the tabulation of responses below: 1. What are the specific issues and/or concerns about the future growth and development of the Receiving Lands Area? • Not liking it at all • Feel that support services and goods are close enough • Economics job creators outside of the Village to include scarce parcels • Availability of the TDRs and difficulty of acquiring-TDR Bank • Not much receiving land • Are we at capacity now?Ten years to build out? • 70%of land dedication to open space seems excessive �. • Travel commute times are increasing • Additional wildlife crossings are needed • Fear the minimum of 40 acres will increase to 60 acres o Prefer that the acreage minimum decrease instead of increase • Density increase • TDR limits development • No workforce or low-income housing available • No balance/variety in community design • The existing program caters to large developments, not to owners with small amounts of acreage • This program is not meeting the base unit development for Collier County • There is currently no benefit for properties in the base rights category of 1-5 acres • Process for public input: essential services such as utilities, fire, schools, shopping • Roadway capacity: concerns (increase network "connectivity") • Utility access • Quality of Life amenities • More than houses • Transition Areas • Increased population • Compatible uses • 6L's area potentially appropriate location for mixed use, business parks, non-residential -- Appendix A Page 22 of 63 Corner Govivity • TDR required purchase makes process non-voluntary • Pricing mechanism: more expensive as time goes on • Not enough credits or sending areas to purchase • Retain agricultural uses/rights • Property appraiser impacts • Do developers want to buy in the RFMUD 2. What are the improvements/changes you would like to see happen in the Receiving Lands study area? • Limit gated communities • TDR bank • Village regulation re-examined for economic viability • More density in concentrated area • Incentives with receiving area development for enviro protection • New definition of open space for public benefit • Develop some commercial uses in the east • Villages would be good but are there 300 acre parcels • Need more density per parcel • Villages should be 100 acres or 200 acres • 20 acre parcels for clustering • Mixed-use, balance development • Live, work, play approach • Private development dedications: parks, streets, etc • Lack of starter homes, would like workforce housing • Smart growth- bike/pedestrian community, interconnectivity • Research/tech development, i.e. ag • Standalone commercial development • A defined place or urban core • Amenities: placement/ integrated • Walking;/biking safety • Demographic mix • Senses/experiences • Sense of arrival connectivity • Re-evaluate size of villages using economic modeling/evaluation to determine appropriate village size • Smaller landowners need to be able to participate in the process, it is currently not happening as well as it should • More flexibility within the same public hearing process • Look at "visioning" for larger receiving areas and plan at the larger scale • Are cost credits appropriate/viable to utilization in receiving lands? If the credits don't work, we want to be able to get the development we want and need in receiving Appendix A Page 23 of 63 Gorier County • Reducing minimum acreage size to increase density. i.e. 1 unit per 2.5 acres for 5 acre tracts • Transportation alternatives such as bus/transit • More thoughtful community design • TDR bank • Allow some sending/receiving flexibility to allow worthwhile regional goals • Bridge access- North Belle Meade (NBM) 3. What do you like best about the Receiving Lands area? • Existing natural conditions • Low density • Close community • Concept of TDRs and trade off of open space versus development • Chance to do something different than current urban style of development • Do we increase size limits of village or multiple villages • Define types of development allowed in each village • Has the ability to be developed reasonably • Nothing • Lower lands have a subtropical climate which provides a better quality of life • Accessibility on the south end to Miami/Naples (mixed opinion) • Flexibility: land acreage • Concentration of development • Reducing sprawl • Buffer area • Keep development (new) to receiving • Most appropriate area for development • Opportunity because of proximity to coastal urban area • Transportation corridor in place 4. Do your same opinions about the Receiving Lands apply to the Neutral Lands? • Allow for incentives to develop • Re-evaluate neutral lands on a periodic basis • No- neutral and receiving lands must stay separate • Yes, in reference to "nothing" comment received for question three • No response for question four, no knowledge of neutral lands • No, concentrate development to receiving • Concerned how much sprawl may impact development • Neutral lands were designed to be a rural area/lifestyle • Leave neutral as is and allow for discussion later Andrew Sheppard, Collier County consultant with AECOM, wrapped up the workshop with a primer on different kinds of development models that are possible in the sub-urban environment. He discussed the Appendix A Page 24 of 63 Colter County economic, environmental and social elements that must be balanced to create sustainable communities. Development must provide a return on investment, but also can allow some job creation through a mix of uses. Environmental factors must balance the natural would and basic resources with human needs of the inhabitants. Social factors start first with health and safety, but include associations through families, churches, businesses and organizations. He defined neighborhoods as a % mile or five minute walk from a center point, noting that Villages can accommodate a number of neighborhoods within. Typically a central space with a unique feature(s) provide identity, structure and meaning. He also highlighted the advantages of a road network, rather than a single main corridor, for preserving walkable and enjoyable places that are more efficient for transportation. Compared to conventional models of development, these newer models provide more open space, social interaction, and health benefits.The attendees were asked to consider how they would like to live in a community, rather than simply asking what it would look like. At the end of the workshop Mr. Van Lengen noted the next public meeting is scheduled for April 26, 2016 at 6:30pm at the same location. A follow up for participation will be provided, so that viewpoints on the most important elements for community design can be provided by participants. Wrap-up and Next Steps Ms.Jenkins noted the next public meeting is scheduled for April 26, 2016 at 6:30pm. The agenda will center on Receiving lands potential development and form STAFF PRESENT: Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager(Staff Liaison) Mike Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant Appendix A Page 25 of 63 Co ger County Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Workshop #5 Receiving Lands Potential Development and Form April 26, 2016 I '� L if 14 -1" t '; "r•. � X P. Introduction: The purpose of this workshop was to engage the participants in visioning the future growth potential of the Receiving Areas. Participants gathered around six tables to work on illustrating a development pattern in one of two Receiving Areas, the northern area, or the North Belle Meade area. Meeting Summary: Community Planning staff together with the County's consultant, AECOM, provided a second meeting for residents and interested stakeholders to review and explore considerations specifically related to the neutral and receiving land uses in the RFMUD. A review of concepts related to currently allowed land uses was followed by a description of"smart growth" principles, leading to a visioning exercise by attendees. Approximately 65 interested persons attended. Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Section, opened the meeting. She greeted the attendees, previewed the agenda, and reviewed the concepts and feedback from the prior meeting. Appendix A Page 26 of 63 Co ler County Specifically, she covered citizen and stakeholder feedback on several high level questions that had been presented. At the last meeting, attendees provided their perceptions related to: • Concerns about future growth in the area • Improvements to the Receiving Land area rules • What they like best about Receiving Lands areas • Neutral Land issues and improvements Andrew Sheppard,AECOM, reviewed economic, environmental and social components of sustainable communities, comparing those values with the allowed uses under today's Receiving and Neutral regulations. He continued his observations with a focus on "smart" village attributes- 5 minute walk from clustered development area center to neighborhood center, diversity of housing styles and types, cluster of neighborhoods to create a village, and attributes of a village center. Aesthetics, function and mobility were key factors. Mr. Sheppard introduced the featured "table exercise" for attendees, called framework mapping.The purpose was to experience how a development might plan a large area by identifying destinations, development areas, street networks and green/environmental areas. The task involved group cooperation in identifying edges, landmarks, nodes, centers and connections, both green and roadway. Two of the RFMUD Receiving areas were used as examples-the Northern receiving area and the North Belle Meade receiving area. It was explained that this was hypothetical in the sense that presenters do not have information supporting actual Village boundaries due to multiple ownerships and assemblage considerations. Results of the group exercise are attached. Appendix A Page 27 of 63 Co ter Couvit ,.� y Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Workshop #6 Initial Recommendations and Feedback May 26, 2016 , 1 sl,10/4417: 14 .41. 11, r 1111 - ifig# Meeting Summary: Community Planning staff together with the County's consultant, AECOM, provided a meeting for residents and interested stakeholders to review ideas provided by the public through previous workshops, surveys, correspondence, interviews and telephone calls and to provide a list of initial staff recommendations. Approximately 39 interested persons attended. Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager reviewed the growth management study, amendment process and timetable. He provided an overview of the research, data and analysis still ongoing: economic analysis (scenario planning) and mitigation bank feasibility analysis for North Belle Meade. Initial recommendations were explained and grouped under the following headings: • TDR credit ideas affecting Sending owners • TDR program management • Sending Land management • Miscellaneous ideas The community asked and discussed whether increasing the value of credits in the hands of developers would be an alternative to increasing the number of credits issued to Sending owners. Comments were also made in support of agricultural preservation and to express the ongoing concern in the development community that the incremental cost represented by TDRs makes it difficult for adequate return on investment. The point was also made that TDRs should be considered for Northern GG Estates where watershed coordination can be effected. Appendix A Page 28 of 63 Coe-r County Individual surveys were distributed to and completed by the public, covering each of 15 program topics related to the Sending and neutral lands. A numerical representation of the results, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, is shown below. Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Section, reviewed the concepts previously discussed in the Receiving Land meetings, and provided explanations for the series of initial recommendations made by staff. These were included under the following categories: • Land use, density/intensity and economic vitality • Transportation and infrastructure • Environment • Development standards and process Discussion ensued regarding the process of allowing deviations to a zoning overlay, allowable locations for schools, Property Appraiser's Office valuations, the appropriate number of TDRs granted for excess native vegetation or habitat preserve on Receiving land, water and sewer availability, the relationship of Affordable Housing to affordable living concepts, and the need for the County to own the economic analytical tool under development. Again, individual surveys were distributed to and completed by the public, covering each of 18 program topics related to Receiving lands. A numerical representation of the results, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, is shown below. Workshop Survey Results: Survey questions asked respondents to rank each initial recommendation as strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. The percentages indicated below provide a percentage of agreement (agree or strongly disagree) to those who responded, without regard to "neutral"responses. Sending and Neutral Issues Additional credits should be provided to balance the anticipated demand from Receiving Areas. Sending Land owners, if they participate, should benefit from additional credits. Agree: 69% Additional credits should not favor one Sending Land location over another. Agree 70% Additional credits should be provided to those who entered the program early. Agree: 72% Appendix A Page 29 of 63 �✓D 7er County TDRs should be awarded also for owners who commit to keeping their land in agricultural production Agree: 76% Eliminate minimum pricing on Base TDRs. Agree: 75% Improve the Buyer/Seller registries. Agree: 81% Reduce cost and complexity of applications. Agree: 87% Create a County-sponsored TDR bank that can buy credits from Sending Lands owners Agree: 82% The County should accept land that owners wish to donate, if no other agency is willing. Agree: 63% The County should finance maintenance of donated Sending Land through a mitigation bank, if feasible. Agree: 75% If a mitigation bank is not a feasible funding source, require a donation to the County with the land, equivalent to all or a portion of any additional TDRs issued. Agree: 65% Allow a second dwelling unit to dedicated farming operations of at least 20 acres. Agree: 79% Study recreational uses that could be compatible on donated lands that go beyond "passive recreation." Agree: 63% Eliminate the use of TDRs in urban areas if they come from RFMUD Sending Lands. Agree: 60% Extend the same advantages to Neutral Land owners who want to commit to agricultural uses by offering TDRs. Agree: 76% Appendix A Page 30 of 63 •-. Co Ye-r Comity Receiving Issues Allow business park stand-alone uses to increase employment opportunities in research technology and other targeted businesses. Agree: 78% Revise village rules to allow larger commercial and employment areas. Agree: 76% Increase density allowed in rural villages to 4 units per gross acre (TDRs required) Agree: 81% Increase density allowed in non-village development to 2 units per acre (TDRs required) and remove 40- acre minimum size Agree: 78% Analyze arterial roadway capacity issues. Agree: 77% Enhance requirements for greater project connectivity. Agree: 78% Consider roadway design standards that promote low speed and safety. Agree: 75% Add requirements for transit stops in large developments, business parks or villages. Agree: 75% Allow TDRs in Receiving Areas for protection of native vegetation/habitat or agriculture. Agree: 71% Reward projects that advance the greater public interest (examples: greenway connections, flowway connections). Agree: 72% Incentivize mixed-use developments by studying potential impact fees for mixed-use. Agree: 70% Use overlays or optional design standards that promote greater certainty in review process. Agree: 81% Appendix A Page 31 of 63 Cottr County Developments complying with zoning overlays should get approval through simple BCC majority or Hearing Examiner process. Agree: 80% Hearing Examiner can approve individual deviations. Agree: 60% Hearing Examiner can approve business park proposals. Agree: 62% Modify the TDR requirements to 0.5 credit for multi-family units and 0 credit for target industry/business park uses Agree: 75% Allow stand-alone commercial. Propose design guidelines (no strip) and use of TDR credits (ex, 1 credit per 6,000 SF). Agree: 62% Additional incentives for innovative green designs, such as solar power, zero net water, aquifer storage and recovery sites, etc. Agree: 80% Appendix A Page 32 of 63 Co Ier Count Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Comments on First Draft of Initial Recommendations Distributed July 13, 2016 Appendix A Page 33 of 63 JenkinsAnita From: JenkinsAnita Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:06 AM To: VanLengenKris; RuralFringeRestudy Subject: FW: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations From: Barry Wood [mailto:b1wood@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 13, 2016 8:58 PM To: JenkinsAnita Cc: Barry Wood; Pete Wood Subject: RE: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations Dear Anita, Thank you for allowing me to respond to the draft findings and recommendations of the Rural Fringe Mixed- Use District White Paper. My son and I own a parcel in the receiving area described in your White Paper, Collier Parcel #00755800005. Unfortunately, we were unable to appear at your public meetings and provide input because we presently live outside of Florida. My comments are primarily directed to the top of page 24 of your draft. Specifically at the very top of that page, there is a discussion on allowing "mixed housing, manufactured homes, cottage homes and micro homes." Immediately following this discussion is the Staff Recommendations highlighted in red lettering. However, Staff makes no recommendation or other comment regarding whether to allow these alternative forms of housing. My family and I would like to place a residence on our 2 1/2 acre parcel (which was established as a lot in 1961, or well before the October 1974 date). We intend to begin this process as early as next year. However, we do not want or need a large, expensive "footprint" dwelling. We would be well satisfied with manufactured housing or possibly micro housing. We would be most satisfied with the least intrusive, least environmentally impactful method of all; namely allow placement of a small pad upon which to place an RV for 5 or 6 months of the year and we take the RV with us when we leave each year. I respectfully urge the Policy Makers of Collier County to please not keep regulations in place which force us and others to build large, expensive, excessive energy consuming structures. I therefore respectfully ask that your staff consider my input and include a recommendation which supports the placement of alternative forms of low cost affordable housing in the lands designated as receiving. I also urge the Policy Makers to consider allowing removable housing. Secondly, your draft just briefly mentions solar. I would respectfully ask you to consider a robust proposal which incentives the use of modern solar technology. Please contact me with any questions or if you would like more information. 1 Appendix A Page 34 of 63 Sincerely, Barry Wood From: AnitaJenkins@colliergov.net To: RuralFringeRestudy@colliergov.net Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:09:23 -0400 Subject: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations To all interested: Thank you for your continued participation in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District restudy. Attached hereto is a memo outlining the draft findings and recommendations of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper. We value your input and welcome your suggestions. This is an open, on-going collaborative effort. Final copies of the White Paper will be distributed prior to our first public hearing. We anticipate a presentation to the Collier County Planning Commission August 18, 2016, and the Board of County Commissioners September 27, 2016. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Anita Jenkins, AICP Community Planning Section Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8288 www.colliergov,nQt/GMPrestudies Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2 Appendix A Page 35 of 63 JenkinsAnita From: JenkinsAnita Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 7:48 AM To: VanLengenKris; RuralFringeRestudy Subject: FW: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations From: Ron Inge [mailto:ron@ingeandassociates.com] Sent: Saturday,July 23, 2016 10:23 AM To: JenkinsAnita Subject: RE: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations Thank you for the report summary, it is an excellent summary. I have the following comments: 1. Item 7-the language should be clear that it is not just agriculture preservation that is being encouraged, but also habitat protection. 2. Item 7-consider the addition of the ability to generate more than 2 TDR per 5 acres if the habitat preserved becomes part of a system or if there is a mechanism in place to encourage its maintenance. Thank you, Kris and staff for all the work on this. Ronald E. Inge 5571 Halifax Ave. Fort Myers, FL 33912 Phone 239-454-4999 Fax 239-454-2773 email: ron@ingeandassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT i he information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s)named above to whom this message was sent. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any review,dissemination,distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From:JenkinsAnita [mailto:AnitaJenkins a@colliergov.net] Sent:Wednesday,July 20, 2016 1:31 PM To: RuralFringeRestudy<RuralFringeRestudy@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations This is being resent to ensure everyone interested receives a copy. From: JenkinsAnita Sent: Wednesday,July 13, 2016 2:09 PM To: RuralFringeRestudy Subject: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations 1 Appendix A Page 36 of 63 JenkinsAnita From: Dennis P. Vasey[00215@embarqmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 5:35 PM To: VanLengenKris Cc: Mark Siverling - NRCS, Naples, FL Subject: Long-term Stewardship Calculator Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Kris, Collier Soil and Water Conservation District has about 25 parcels. Among the issues we grappled with were the long- term financial assurances required to perform initial treatment and then following a Best Management Practice without removing mitigation credits. The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) Long-term Stewardship Calculator was very helpful getting to real costs to accept a land donation. Costs associated with long-term stewardship are inherently difficult to predict and often underestimated. To help tackle this problem, TNC convened national experts to develop a calculator to estimate stewardship costs and to determine the amount that should be set aside to provide a secure source of future funding. Without sour grapes, when we respond to an offer, and there have been several, we always hear: "We're giving you the land! What do you mean we need to pay for accepting it?"When a businessman/woman offers you anything, they have already decided that it costs an arm and a leg to maintain property that doesn't generate revenue for their investors. In perpetuity is a long time and the taxpayer shouldn't have to bear that burden unless there is a cost-benefit and real return on the investment. Conservation and preservation land is a cost leader and it will run you out of money in a hurry. If the parcels can't be used to mitigate public buildings or civil works projects they're worthless. TNC has developed several products, including a spreadsheet for calculating stewardship costs, an accompanying handbook and quick reference guide, and a web-based portal for these resources. This accessible tool helps consolidate and highlight common expenses to improve the ease and accuracy of calculating costs. The calculator was designed to be used for both conservation easements and fee land, and is particularly valuable for use in calculating tong-term management costs for mitigation projects to ensure that the full cost of all the mitigation requirements is appropriately covered by permittee. It's available at no cost through www.nature.org/stewardshipcatculator. If the county is really serious about land ownership it should pursue a land trust that can function as a non profit and accept large and small donations. Duke Appendix A Page 37 of 63 1 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida M� OUR WATER,LAND,WILDLIFE,FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. July 25, 2016 Sent via Email Mr. Kris VanLengen Planning Manager, Growth Management Plan Restudy Growth Management Department Comprehensive Planning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Comments on Staffs RFMUD Draft Recommendations Dear Mr. Van i<1..V(Ad The Conservancy of Southwest Florida appreciates the outstanding job you and your staff continue to do in stakeholder engagement, public meeting coordination and data collection and analysis. Attached, please find the Conservancy's initial comments on County staff's Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) draft recommendations dated July 12, 2016. We hope you will find our feedback helpful as you finalize your recommendations to present at the CCPC, and we look forward to refining our comments as more discussion and information becomes available. In order to (hopefully) simplify your review of our comments, we are maintaining the same order in which the topic areas were presented in your memo. I look forward to meeting with you later this week to discuss the Conservancy's input. As always, please feel free to contact me at 239-403-4220 if you have any questions. Since ely, Nicole Johnson Director of Growth Management and Planning **** Conservancy of Southwest Florida has been awarded Charity Navigators prestigious 4-Star top rating for good .---... CHARITY NAVIGATOR governance,sound fiscal management and commitment to accountability and transparency.Charity Navigator is America's four Star Snafu largest and most respected independent evaluator of chorine. 1495 Smith Preserve Way I Naples, Florida 34102 1239.262.0304 I Fax 239.262.0672 I www.conservancy.org Appendix A Page 38 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 2 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations SENDING LANDS A: TDR CREDIT SYSTEM 1. Minimum Sales Price, Buyer and Seller Staff Draft Recommendation: Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports the elimination of the $25,000 price for the base TDR. Allowing the market to determine TDR value will likely result in additional TDR sales. 2. Additional Credits to Sending Owners County Staff Recommendation: Provide additional TDR credits to Sending Owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property attributes. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy is not opposed to the creation of additional credits for the Sending Lands, if it can be documented that such an increase will further the goals of the RFMUD, incentivize additional lands to participate in the program, and redirect development to Receiving Lands. The key is to ensure this availability of additional credits will have the intended result. During the RFMUD Transmittal Hearing before the CCPC, Robert Mu!here, acting as consultant to the County, stated, If we just go to the basics, supply and demand, you want to have more demand than you have supply'. Fourteen years later, the Conservancy is still in agreement with this statement. The County needs to ensure that an increase in credits will still maintain the appropriate balance between supply and demand. Because the feasibility of additional credits, and how many credits should be added to the system must be supported by your scenario analysis tool, we believe it is premature to assume that at least 2 additional credits will be recommended for implementation. The County cannot know the appropriateness of this recommendation until the "what if" scenarios are run and the results shared and vetted through the public process. 1 Minutes. Collier County Planning Commission. February 7,2002. Page 40. Appendix A Page 39 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 3 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations Within the Receiving Lands, the benefit of additional credits is perhaps less complicated — more credits equates to more development opportunity. However, on the Sending Lands side, the Conservancy believes additional credits are designed to serve a two- fold purpose. The first is to incentivize more landowners to participate and sever credits. The second is to encourage owners who have partially severed their credits to sever the remainder of credits attached to their land. In order to entitle a number of existing or already approved projects in Receiving Lands and the Urban Residential Fringe, development interests have purchased significant acreage within the Sending Lands, and severed between 2 and 4 TDR credits. What the Conservancy needs to better understand is what the result will be from increasing available credits to all Sending Lands, including those parcels with existing or pending credit severance. In addition, it is unclear what landowners would be required to do in order to gain these additional TDRs. Would these TDRs simply be added to the base TDRs? Would they only be available after the Restoration or Conveyance TDRs were generated? The County should be thinking strategically about what value added benefits could be tied to these additional credits. This concept requires additional clarification. -� Finally, the Conservancy sees merit in the idea of applying any new TDR policies across the board, versus targeting additional TDRs to specific areas. As we have witnessed in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program, the more complicated the system, the more chance for the unintended consequence of significantly more credits in the system than anticipated. In the case of the RLSA, this has resulted in more potential development that originally identified. In the case of the RFMUD, we are concerned it could result in an imbalance of credits supply and demand. 3. Agricultural Use County Recommendation: Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to begin, expand or increase intensity of a bona fide agricultural operation. Only passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy adamantly objects to this recommendation, as it is inconsistent and incompatible with the intent of the RFMUD. Appendix A Page 40 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 4 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations In many instances, agricultural activities can be compatible with environmental protection goals, especially with regard to the use of agricultural fields by listed species, such as the endangered Florida panther. However, it is imperative that staff understand the context in which the County determined, at adoption in 2002, that agricultural clearing was not consistent with the intent of the RFMUD and the program's environmental goals. The Final Order first and foremost required Collier County to direct incompatible uses away from wetland and upland habitats, and to protect listed species. While preservation of prime agricultural lands was also addressed, the County was very careful to ensure that the RFMUD policies were designed with ecological protection as the primary objective. As such, agricultural activities in Sending Lands were a central topic of discussion during the creation of the RFMUD, and were clearly documented in the transcripts of the CCPC and Board of County Commissioners during both the Transmittal and Adoption Hearings in 2002. Under staff discussion in your memo, it states, The RFMUD rules adopted in 2003 and 2004 discourage agriculture on Sending Lands by eliminating the possibility of creating TDR credits for any land put in agricultural use after 2002. Staff is unaware of any clear rationale for the provision, other than the possibility that agriculture was considered incompatible with environmental goals.2 A summary of the clear and unambiguous rationale for the 25 year prohibition of TDR severance for lands cleared for agricultural purposes can be better understood by reviewing the RFMUD 2002 Transmittal and Adoption Hearings transcripts. During the February 7, 2002 CCPC Transmittal Hearing, County consultant Bob Mulhere summarized the matter by stating, One of the major issues raised by some of the environmental groups, as well as the EAC in their deliberations, was this issue of whether or not the county could regulate agriculture in the sending lands.3 2 Van Lengen, Kris. Memo. Draft Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy White Paper Section 4: Findings and Recommendations. July 12,2006. P.6. 3 Transcript of Collier County Planning Commission RFMUD Transmittal Hearing. February 7, 2002. P.43. Appendix A Page 41 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 5 Collier County re Staffs RFMUD Draft Recommendations At the time, the environmental groups wanted agricultural activities regulated within the RFMUD Sending Lands, regardless of whether a property owner voluntarily participated in the program. However, based on County outside counsel's legal opinion that such regulation would violate the federal Right-to-Farm Act, the County chose to focus on policies in the RFMUD designed to disincentivize land clearing by prohibiting TDR severance on those lands for a period of time (ultimately 25 years was the timeframe adopted). Later in the Transmittal Hearing, Mr. Mulhere, in response to a point made during public comment regarding the fact that the Final Order included direction to the County to discourage premature conversion of agriculture responded by stating, I think Dr. Woodruff raises a very legitimate issue relative to the final order also talking about preventing the premature conversion of agriculture and, also, in a sense, trying to develop some concepts that would enhance or protect the economic viability of agriculture, a very important business in Collier County. As I've said to you earlier, there is a relatively small percentage of agricultural activities, when you look at the overall scale. And, in fact we have chosen to defer much of that to the eastern lands portion where there is extremely large agricultural operations going on. Having said that, when we identify the ecological value of the sending lands, we think that out, and given the constraints in the final order and trying to find balance, we think that outweighs in those areas the need to continue to allow those agricultural operations. So I understand his point; it's a very good point. We just would say that, looking at everything, in our opinion, it's more important to protect those ecological areas intact.4 The CCPC made their position know when they voted to convey to the BCC that they did not believe, The sending lands ought to be used for agricultural purposes once the TDR process is complete.5 4Ibid. P.59. 5 Transcript of Collier County Planning Commission Transmittal Hearing.P.95. Appendix A Page 42 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 6 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations The CCPC also voted in favor of the 25 year prohibition on utilizing TDRs if agricultural clearing occurred after the implementation of the program.6 This is a partial history on the origin of the 25 year prohibition policy. The Conservancy believed at the time such a policy was the proper thing to do in order to secure the ecological protection of the RFMUD Sending Lands, and we support maintaining this policy as it is currently written. While we understand that the County wants to explore additional options designed to maximize participation in the TDR program, we can't lose site of the overarching goal to protect and restore the ecological integrity of the Sending Lands. The Conservancy believes that rewarding land clearing for agricultural purposes within those same Sending Lands would be counterproductive. Agriculture is an important segment of our economy, and there are significant agricultural areas in both the RFMUD Receiving Lands and the RLSA that should be the focus of agricultural retention policies. 4. Parcels smaller than 5 acres County Draft Recommendation: Allow TDR participation for illegal non-conforming properties based on public policy goals, and waive requirements related to proof of LNC status if greater than 4.5 acres in size. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy does not object to the further consideration of such a modification. However, as the goal is to ultimately get these parcels into public ownership, the County may want to consider requiring severance of all credits at once, including the transfer credit, in order to ensure these parcels will be available for landscape level restoration projects in the future. 5. Retroactivity of Suggested Program Changes County Draft Recommendation: Allow landowner's who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. Conservancy Comments: County staff has not provided sufficient information on the ecological value added by this provision to make a determination about this concept. The only quantifiable benefit 6 Ibid.p.96. Appendix A Page 43 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 7 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations discussed in your memo is the fact that this will increase the supply of credits available to Receiving Land owners by 1,376 X the number of bonus credits allowed. The Conservancy needs to better understand how these bonuses will provide ecological benefits and ensure their creation will not result in a majority of the Receiving Lands being developed utilizing just these credits. The Conservancy is not averse to considering such a policy. However, we need to understand what additional benefits are anticipated from retroactive credits applied to these Sending Lands. In addition, see our comments under A-2 regarding additional credits. 6. Early Entry TDR Credits County Draft Recommendation: Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base severance of dwelling unit rights. Conservancy Comments: Implementation of the RFMUD was over a decade ago. The Conservancy concurs that the terminology of"Early Entry Bonus" credits is no longer appropriate. However, as the County intends to evaluate the credit system as a whole, the concept of the bonus second base credit should be included in the discussion. For example, if additional credits can be granted which correspond to additional value added elements, is the second base, or Early Entry, credit still necessary? 7. TDR Credits from Receiving Land Staff Draft Recommendation: Allow TDRs to be generated at 2 TDR credits per 5 acres from Receiving Lands for agricultural preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports agricultural activities in the Receiving Lands, as many of these properties have lower ecological value and are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes. Agriculture was allowed in these areas prior to the RFMUD and the RFMUD in no way limits agricultural uses on these lands. Due to the fact that agriculture is allowed in the Receiving Land, it is unclear why the County would be awarding credits for an existing, allowed activity. We need to better understand staffs rationale prior to taking a position on this concept. Appendix A Page 44 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 8 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations We also support protection of native habitat within the Receiving Lands. However, it is unclear how this proposed policy would impact existing Receiving Land requirements, which already mandate retention of 40% of onsite native vegetation, not to exceed 25% of the entire site as part of a development project. As protection of native vegetation is already required, additional TDR credits should not be awarded for simply following existing regulations. Additional clarification as to the intent and applicability of this concept is necessary. B: TDR CREDITS AND AREAS OUTSIDE THE RFMUD 1. Urban Residential Fringe and the One Mile Rule Staff Draft Recommendation: Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy does not object to this proposed change. 2. The Urban Residential Infill Bonus Provision Staff Draft Recommendation: Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential lnfill bonus provision. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy does not object to this proposed change. 3. Golden Gate Estates TDRs for Environmental Protection Staff Draft Recommendation: Hold for recommendation from CWIP Committee Conservancy Comments: Consideration of how the different planning areas overlap and impact each other is an important component of the County's Eastern Planning Area study process. The connection between the Estates and the RFMUD as it relates to hydrology and restoration potential is a key area meriting further review. Appendix A Page 45 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 9 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations The Conservancy appreciates that staff is deferring any recommendation until there is further coordination with CWIP. We recommend that this section be modified to acknowledge the opportunity for mutually beneficial collaboration between these two planning areas, but we do not encourage highlighting any specific potential policy change. At this point, it seems premature to single out the concept of TDRs to incentivize hydrologic projects within the Estates. C: TDR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 1. General Administration Staff Draft Recommendation: At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from potential buyers and sellers. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports design of an improved County system for connecting TDR buyers and sellers. 2. Cost Components for Sending Owners Staff Draft Recommendation: Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product required for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances, provided by County staff. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports making the TDR program more user-friendly and cost- effective for Sending Land owners. These proposed recommendations are a good starting point. 3. TDR Bank County Staff Recommendation: Follow consultant deliverable Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports the concept of a TDR bank and believes the County should be the governmental entity to create and administer this bank. Regarding the actual establishment of the TDR bank, we appreciate staff's recommendation to follow the Appendix A Page 46 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 10 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations consultant's deliverables. However, as budgeting for 2016-17 is currently underway, now is the time to secure seed money for a bank. Therefore, we encourage the County to include funding in the upcoming budget year, understanding the particulars will be forthcoming after the consultant finishes deliverables. In addition, it is unclear what is meant by funding a TDR bank through an 'in lieu' fee program. However, if this would result in the sale of TDR futures (where payment is received and TDRs are conveyed before they are actually in the bank), the Conservancy would object. D. SENDING LAND MANAGEMENT: 1. Option One— North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank County Staff Draft Recommendation: Develop a Regional Offsite Mitigation Agreement (ROMA) with FDEP and ACOE in North Belle Meade where financially feasible. Explore adjoining private mitigation banks conveying to Collier County with maintenance funds for greater maintenance efficiency. Conservancy Comments: The concept of a North Belle Meade ROMA merits consideration. Once additional details are available, the Conservancy will review and comment further on this concept. As an aside, it is ironic that the ROMA would likely be located in the very area the County proposes incompatible environmental impacts associated with the extension of Wilson Boulevard. Any mitigation value available through the creation of a ROMA would certainly be diminished by a major road bisecting the very ecological areas targeted for restoration and maintenance. 2. Option 2—Additional TDR for funding in North Belle Meade and Section 11 Staff Draft Recommendation: Establish a special TDR for the benefit of the County where no other entity has been established to take ownership Conservancy Comments: This seems to be a novel idea that the Conservancy needs more information on in order to provide substantive feedback. Additionally, it would need to be included in the County's scenario model to determine the effect of these additional TDRs on the delicate supply vs. demand balance. Appendix A Page 47 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 11 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations 3. Option 3- Green Utility Fee Staff Draft Recommendation: Study the idea of a Green Utility Fee and consider whether it should be the subject of a County-wide referendum. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports further study of the idea of a Green Utility Fee. 4. Option 4— Model Land Management Plan and Private Ownership Staff Draft Recommendation: Provide a standard or model Land Management Plan for adoption by owners who wish to provide Restoration and Maintenance activities in return for TDR credits. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports the concept of creating a standardized format for Land Management Plans. E. OTHER PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS r� 1. Adjust property appraisal for tax benefit on TDR severed lands Staff Draft Recommendation: Staff should provide any data needed to the Property Appraiser's Office in support of its efforts to review tax assessments based on appraised land values and resulting tax assessments in Sending Lands. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports this recommendation. 2. Allow additional family home(s) on parcels over 20 acres with agriculture operation and easement Staff Draft Recommendation: Allow an additional family home on a parcel at least 20 acres in size, where bone fide agricultural activities results in TDR severance for the agricultural portions of the property (see recommendation A-3). Appendix A Page 48 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 12 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations Conservancy Comments: As stated in our comments for Recommendation A-3, the Conservancy believes clearing for agricultural purposes is not appropriate for incentivization in the Sending Lands. Therefore, allowing a second dwelling to further incentivize agricultural activities in Sending Lands would also be problematic. Additionally, it is unclear how staff is defining the terminology "agricultural parcels with restrictive perpetual easement". 3. Allow County-owned(post conveyance) Sending land to be used for recreational uses Staff Draft Recommendation: County-owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for conditional use approval for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Definitions of "active" and "passive" recreation will require further vetting. Conservancy Comments: While the Conservancy supports the concept of providing additional passive recreational opportunities where appropriate, we do not find the County's recommendation that such uses expand to include active recreation to be compelling. If deemed consistent with restoration and management plans, uses included under the definition of passive recreation could offer a plethora of natural resources based opportunities, including hiking, mountain biking and potentially horseback riding. The Conservancy opposes the concept of allowing active recreation on County-owned Sending Lands where TDRs have been removed. NEUTRAL LANDS: 1. Allow for some participation in the TDR program as allowed in Sending area. Staff Draft Recommendation: Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual easements. Conservancy Comments: The RFMUD Neutral Lands classification was created in acknowledgement that certain areas did not exhibit sufficient ecological value for classification as Sending, but neither were they appropriate for designation as Receiving. Thus, Neutral Lands were essentially allowed to retain their pre-RFMUD uses, with some modifications. Appendix A Page 49 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 13 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations The concept of incentivizing agricultural retention in Neutral Lands through the ability to generate TDRs may be a concept worth exploring. However, the Conservancy cautions against including such a provision in any initial RFMUD amendments. There are already a number of considerations associated with increasing the available TDRs within existing Sending Lands, such as ensuring the increase in credits will maximize the amount of additional land participating in the program. The reliability of such analysis and modeling is increased when the credit system is essentially a closed system (i.e. it only includes RFMUD Sending Lands). The analysis may lose reliability if it now has to anticipate use by Neutral Land owners. With regard to opening up Neutral Lands to TDR generation for ecological purposes, such a concept creates a number of questions that the County needs to more thoroughly examine before taking this recommendation to the CCPC and BCC. It appears that implementation of this concept could result in a checkerboard pattern of participants and non-participants.' It is unclear how such an outcome would provide meaningful ecological benefits. The diminished ecological benefits associated with sporadic landowner participation on the part of Sending Land owners has been a topic of considerable discussion. Until this issue is resolved, it seems unwise to be expanding TDR incentives into Neutral Lands. 2. Minimum project size Staff Draft Recommendation: Remove the 40 acre minimum project size for clustered development Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy is not opposed to the concept of removing the 40 acre minimum. RECEIVING LANDS A. LAND USE Staff Draft Recommendation: 1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of Villages as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district(with exceptions) in locations with access to major collector roads. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy has no objection to this concept. Appendix A Page 50 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 14 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations Staff Draft Recommendation: 2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitations of the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy has no objection to this concept. Staff Draft Recommendation: 3. Designate Receiving areas as Innovation Zones. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy will need to research Innovation Zones before commenting on this recommendation. Staff Draft Recommendation: 4. Eliminate the maximum size of a Village. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy has no objection to the concept. Staff Draft Recommendation: 5. Modify residential density standards: a. Clustering — remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre b. Village — increase density to 7 units per acre Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy is supportive of increasing the allowed density if such density is gained through use of TDR credits. B: TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE Staff Draft Recommendations: 1. Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands. 2. Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support low speed. 3. Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business parks. Appendix A Page 51 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 15 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations 4. Develop a methodology for a Mobility Analysis including a standard of measuring a development's level of interconnectivity such as a "link-node" ratio, and the transit, bicycle and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project and surrounding destinations. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports the incorporation of transit and other alternative transportation concepts to decrease the demand on our roadway network. We are supportive of a multi-modal Mobility Analysis to expand the County's understanding of the future mobility needs within the RFMUD's Receiving Lands. However, transit and other non-automobile mobility options can only work if the Receiving Lands build out with a mix of development products. All of the existing and approved developments in the Receiving Lands have opted for intensification without creating a Village. If the remainder of the Receiving Lands builds out in a similar way, the transportation needs of this area will be vastly different than those of well-designed mixed-use projects and will be much more dependent on automobiles. Density Standards and Process Staff Draft Recommendations: Incentivize mixed-use development and economic diversity: 1. Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide greater certainty for developers. 2. Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlay. Conservancy Comments: There are two distinct ideas contained in Recommendation 1. One idea is to create design standards specific to the each of the Receiving Lands geographic areas. The Conservancy believes this concept has merit, since the various Receiving Lands have differing needs and opportunities. The second idea contained in Recommendation 1 ties to Recommendation 2 and seems to imply that the actual rezone should occur during the overlay adoption, instead of at the individual project approval. This is what was done, albeit the County did not understand it at the time, within the RLSA. The Conservancy is opposed to such a consideration. Within the RFMUD, the rezone occurs at the time a project within the Receiving Lands is brought before the Commission. As such, the approval as a rezone requires a supermajority vote, just as would be required for every other rezone project in the County. There is no reason to change the rules and lessen the current approval standard for the RFMUD. Appendix A Page 52 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 16 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations Staff Draft Recommendation: 3. Allow industrial/business park uses (with exceptions) by right, and Hearing Examiner approval for proposals complying with industrial/business park zoning standards. Conservancy Comments: Based on Recommendation 4, it appears the County is recommending that no TDRs be required for the construction of an industrial/business park. However, no data and analysis has been provided to demonstrate how allowing these uses in the absence of TDR conveyance will further the goal of the RFMUD restudy to increase Sending Lands participating. It is too much to assume that if an industrial/business park is approved, then a TDR-using project will necessarily follow. Therefore, Conservancy objects to this portion of staffs recommendation. Further, we have concerns about the approval of such potentially large, intensive and traffic-generating uses bypassing a full public hearing process. It is the public hearing process that allows the community the opportunity to provide input and for the applicant to work with the community on project improvements that may alleviate concerns and result in a better outcome for all stakeholders. Staff Draft Recommendation: 4. Modify the TDR requirements: a. From 1 TDR to .5 TDR for multifamily unit or workforce housing b. From .5 to 0 TDR for affordable housing c. New— 1 credit for each 3,000 SF of retail goods and services outside of a Village, and d. New— 0 TDR for industrial/business park uses. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy does not have the necessary data and analysis to be able to fully understand how staff determined these new TDR ratios. We are not opposed to adjustments in the TDR requirements, but we need staff to share the background information upon which their recommendations are based. (Regarding Recommendation 4.d., see comments above under Recommendation 3.) Staff Draft Recommendation: 5. Initiate study to create an impact fee index for mixed-use Appendix A Page 53 of 63 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 17 Collier County re Staffs RFMUD Draft Recommendations Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy does not object to such a study. Staff Draft Recommendation: 6. Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land Development Code (LDC) for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employments zones and mixed-use development. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports revisiting the design and development standards as contained in both the GMP and LDC. Review of the GMP demonstrates some unnecessarily specific policies that are better suited for the LDC. In addition, there are good opportunities to remove some of the specific regulatory language and replace it with greater flexibility, in order to incentivize a mix of development opportunities. Staff Draft Recommendation: 7. Develop further incentives for innovative features such as solar power, zero net water use, aquifer recovery and storage systems. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports further exploration of these concepts. Appendix A Page 54 of 63 r.. August 4,2016 Kris Van Lengen,JD,MCP Community Planning Manager Zoning Division,Collier County 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Re: Staff Recommendations Regarding the Reassessment of the RFMUD Dear Mr. Van Lengen: We are very appreciative of your efforts to engage all stakeholders in this restudy process and to develop a list of improvements to the RFMUD that will result in furthering the original policy intent by creating a balanced market driven approach. We fully understand that the issues of this reassessment are complicated and applaud the broad approach you have used in addressing the Reassessment and the prudent but necessary utilization of experts on various components. With respect to the preliminary draft of the staff recommendations set forth in the July 12, 2016 staff Memorandum,we offer the following comments for your consideration: SENDING LANDS: A: TDR CREDIT SYSTEM: 1. Eliminate the $25,000 minimum sale price per base TDR credit. RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property attributes. RFC supports this recommendation. 3. Make TDR credits available to Sending owners for new or expanded bone fide agricultural uses. Only passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan. RFC supports this recommendation. 4. Allow TDR participation for illegal non-conforming properties based on public policy goals, and waive requirements related to proof of LNC status if greater than 4.5 acres in size. RFC supports this recommendation. 5. Allow landowner's who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. RFC supports this recommendation. 6. Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base severance of dwelling unit rights. RFC supports this recommendation. 7. Allow TDRs to be generated at 2 TDR credits per 5 acres from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection. RFC supports this recommendation and its application on Neutrals lands as well. B: TDR CREDITS OUTSIDE THE RFMUD: 1. Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe. RFC supports this recommendation. Appendix A Page 55 of 63 2. Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential Infill Bonus provision. RFC supports this recommendation. 3. Golden Gate Estates TDRs for Environmental Protection. The RFC supports, in concept, allowing for TDR generation (and transfer to Receiving lands) in limited locations within Golden Gate Estates. Locations would presumably be identified as part of the GGAMP Restudy or may be identified by the CWIP Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. Staff analysis indicate the impacts to the RFMUD TDR program de minimis, the additional TDRs will also enhance availability and market cost per TDR, and Collier County will benefit through perpetual protection of such areas through watershed protection, flood control enhancement,and wetland and habitat protection.The number of credits and/or ratio to be generated per acre may differ from that in the RFMUD Sending Lands. C:TDR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: 1. At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from potential buyers and sellers. RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product required for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances, provided by County staff. RFC supports this recommendation. 3. County-run or County-sponsored TDR bank. RFC supports this concept. This was a recommendation of Dr. James Nicholas (the County's original TDR expert) and it would be a significant benefit to RFMUD Sending and Receiving Landowners to be able to purchase and sell TDRS using such a bank. If structured properly the bureaucracy can be minimized. D: SENDING LAND MANAGEMENT: 1. Develop a Regional Offsite Mitigation Agreement (ROMA) with FDEP and ACOE in North Belle Meade where financially feasible. Explore adjoining private mitigation banks conveying to Collier County with maintenance funds for greater maintenance efficiency. RFC supports this recommendation.This could be a significant benefit to the County in terms of mitigating for environmental impacts associated with County Roadway projects. 2. Establish one additional TDR for the benefit of the County, where no other public agency is willing to accept donation of land or land management. RFC supports this recommendation but suggests there should be some consideration as to whether 1 TDR is sufficient to offset perpetual land management costs. 3. Study the idea of a Green Utility Fee and consider whether it should be the subject of a County- wide referendum. The RFC cannot support this recommendation at this time without additional information as to the estimated costs of such a fee. 4. Provide a standard or model Land Management Plan for adoption by owners who wish to provide Restoration and Maintenance activities in return for TDR credits. RFC supports this recommendation. E: OTHER PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS: 1. Staff should provide any data needed to the Property Appraiser's Office in support of its efforts to review tax assessments based on appraised land values and resulting tax assessments in Sending Page 2 of 5 Appendix A Page 56 of 63 Lands. RFC supports this recommendation. It is critical that taxable values be adjusted to reflect the reduced or limited uses that may be applied to Sending lands in general and more specifically where such lands have severed all or a portion of the development rights. There may also be application on Receiving or Neutral designated lands, where the use of such property is significantly restricted as a result of agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection. 2. Allow an additional family home on a parcel at least 20 acres in size, where bone fide agricultural activity results in TDR severance for the agricultural portions of the property (see recommendation A-3). RFC supports this recommendation. 3. County-owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for conditional use approval for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Definitions of"active" and "passive"recreation will require further vetting.RFC generally supports this recommendation, subject to understand what those additional uses might be. NEUTRAL LANDS: I. Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual easements.RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Remove the 40 acre minimum parcel or assemblage size for clustering development. RFC supports this recommendation. RECEIVING LANDS: A: LAND USE 1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of Villages as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district (with exceptions) in locations with access to major collector or arterial roads.RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor arca limitation of the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park.RFC supports this recommendation. 3. Designate Receiving areas as Innovation Zones.RFC supports this recommendation. 4. Eliminate the maximum size of a Village_RFC supports this recommendation. 5. Modify residential density standards: a. Clustering—remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre; RFC suggests additional density in Non-Village (or non mixed-use)Receiving areas, especially related to: (1) clustering which results in increased preservation of native vegetation and habitat (perhaps in the form of bonus units); and (2) higher density for multi-family development(perhaps allowing a higher maximum density (i.e.3.0 DUs per acres) and a higher base density (i.e. 1 DU per acre) for multifamily. This would still require the same number of TDRS for multi-family to achieve 3.0 DUs per acre as would be required for single-family to achieve the 2.0 unit per acre maximum. b. Village—increase density to 7 units per acre. RFC supports this recommendation. Page 3 of 5 Appendix A Page 57 of 63 B:TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES I. Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands.RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support low speed. RFC supports this recommendation assuming this refers to slow speeds within the development or on adjacent local roadways. 3. Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business parks. RFC supports this recommendation. 4. Develop a methodology for a Mobility Analysis including a standard of measuring a development's level of interconnectivity such as a "link-node" ratio, and the transit, bicycle and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project and surrounding destinations. Perhaps some form of incentive could be developed for employing a design that results in a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Examples include a one or two DU bonus on top of the base density (effectively reducing the number of TDRs that would need to be purchased), or adopting a discounted impact fee for projects that, through a mobility analysis, demonstrate a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. C: ENVIRONMENT 1. Allow TDRs to be generated at 2 TDR(or more) per 5 acres from Receiving and Neutral Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection. RFC supports this recommendation,but would suggest including flow ways or other hydrologic restoration or enhancements that have regional benefits or provide for greater capacity or connectivity. D: DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCESS 1. Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide greater certainty for developers. RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlays. RFC supports this recommendation. 3. Allow industrial/business park uses (with exceptions) by right, and Hearing Examiner approval for proposals complying with industrial/business park zoning standards. RFC supports this recommendation. 4. Modify the TDR requirements: a. From 1 TDR to .5 TDR for multifamily unit or workforce housing b. From .5 to 0 TDR for affordable housing c. New- 1 credit for each 3,000 SF of retail goods and services outside of a Village,and d. New-0 TDR for industrial/business park uses. RFC supports recommendations a., b. and d, but is concerned that c.,which would require TDRs for retail goods and services, will work against the goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled from outside the urban to the urban area for necessary goods and services and will discourage mixed-use development. 5. Initiate study to create an impact fee index for mixed-use RFC supports this recommendation. Page 4 of 5 Appendix A Page 58 of 63 6. Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employment zones and mixed-use development. RFC supports this recommendation. 7. Develop further incentives for innovate features such as solar power, zero net water use, aquifer recovery and storage systems. RFC supports this recommendation. Additional RFC recommendations: 1. RFC recommendation Eliminate or significantly revise the greenbelt that is required around a Rural Village or provide TDR generation or bonus density for retaining the greenbelt in preserve or for bone fide agricultural uses. 2. Golden Gate Estates: The RFC supports, in concept,allowing for TDR generation(and transfer to Receiving lands)in limited locations within Golden Gate Estates. Locations would presumably be identified as part of the GGAMP Restudy or may be identified by the CWIP Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. Staff analysis indicate the impacts to the RFMUD TDR program de minimis, the additional TDRs will also enhance availability and market cost per TDR, and Collier County will benefit through perpetual protection of such areas through watershed protection, flood control enhancement, and wetland and habitat protection. The number of credits and/or ratio to be generated per acre may differ from that in the RFMUD Sending Lands. Please note that we may have additional comments pending receipt of the economic analysis and recommendations. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work with staff and to comment on these recommendations and we look forward to continued collaborative efforts as this process moves towards completion. Sincere (/ David Tor RFC Steering Committee Chair cc: Anita Jenkins,MCP,Collier County Community Planning Section David Wilkison,P.E.Administrator,Collier County Growth Management Division Nick Casalanguida,Collier County Assistant County Manager RFC Steering Committee Bruce Anderson,Cheffy Passidomo,P.A. Tim Hancock, AICP Stantec Bob Mulhere, FAICP, Hole Montes Mike Timmerman,CRE, FRICS, SRA MJT Realty Economic Advisors Page 5 of 5 Appendix A Page 59 of 63 August 2, 2016 Kris Van Lengen Planning Manager, Growth Management Plan Restudy Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Comments on Staffs RFMUD Draft Recommendations Dear Mr. Van Lengen: Thank you for your outreach to the public on this important endeavor to study and recommend changes to the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. Please consider the comments below on some of the Collier County Planning Division (CCPD) draft recommendations, as you finalize the white paper. SENDING LANDS A. TDR Credit System I. Additional Credits to Sending Owners Here and throughout the paper, there are many recommendations for finer it TDR credits. How do you know that there is a need for so many additional credits to incentivize owners to participate in the program? There isn't an analysis of what the result will be from increasing credits to all sending lands. How do you prevent excess credits from being awarded, so that supply and demand is balanced? Also, what happens to excess credits? Once rights are given in terms of TDR credits, landowners will demand a return. If they can't sell or trade credits—who is on the hook? There needs to be more analysis and justification for awarding all the additional credits discussed here and throughout the paper. Appendix A Page 60 of 63 3. Agriculture Use The CCPD staff recommends that TDR credits be made available to Sending owners who wish to begin, expand or increase intensity of a bona fide agricultural operation. The County should not adopt this recommendation. The RFMUD rules currently eliminate TDR credits for any land put in agricultural use after 2002. The purpose was to disincentivize clearing of these environmentally sensitive lands. These rules and policy should remain in place. The Sending lands are so designated because their ecological value for such things as water quality, protecting water flow-way, and preserving wildlife and wildlife habitat. A goal of the TDR program as established was to protect and restore the ecological integrity of the Sending lands. Expanding agriculture uses to begin or expand row crops, or to intensify agriculture use are incompatible uses for the environmental goals for these lands. Intensifying agricultural uses could adversely affect Picayune Strand State Forest downstream of the RFMUD area. In Agricultural use areas, wetlands are often destroyed. Agricultural lands are not conservation lands. In the RLSA, developers are claiming that areas where there are Ag uses such as row crops are disturbed land, of less value to wildlife. Therefore developers claim that there should be no problem developing such land because of their lower ecological value. To grant credits for beginning, expanding or intensifying agriculture uses is to start a downward path beginning by reducing the ecological value of the Sending lands. 5. Retroactivity of Suggested Program Changes CCPD staff recommends allowing landowners who have generated TDRs but not yet conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. The CCPD has not articulated what additional benefits are anticipated from retroactive credits. As discussed above, there needs to be an analysis or explanation on the effect of granting so many additional credits. 7. TDR Credits from Receiving Lands 2 Appendix A Page 61 of PP63 CCPD staff recommends allowing the generation of 2 TDR credits per 5 acres from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection. It is not clear why this change is needed. There should be an articulation of what "agriculture preservation" and "habitat protection" entails. What would the criteria be for each of these concepts? D. Sending Lands Management There isn't sufficient information for me to understand fully how the different options put forth will work. The idea of a green utility fee appears to be worth considering. E. Other Program Recommendations 3. Allow County-owned Sending land to be use for recreational uses. CCPD staff recommends that County-owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Please reject this idea, other than perhaps to consider expanding passive recreational opportunities where appropriate. Sending lands are environmentally sensitive lands, important for water quality, water flow-way, preservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Passive recreational uses are currently allowed where appropriate; these uses can be compatible with the environmental goals_ I urge you_to reject expansion of the range of allowed recreational uses, especially reject any motorized activities. Once you open the door to motorized use, the county may want to allow a golf course, or may be pressured into allowing ORV use—a use clearly incompatible with wildlife and water resources. Allowing expansion of recreational uses could have a negative impact to the ecological integrity of these lands and especially make the land unsuitable for the wildlife it is meant to sustain. RECEIVING LANDS B. Transportation and Public Infrastructure Density Standards and Process 3 Appendix A Page 62 of 63 CCPD staff recommends considering adoption of zoning overlays so as to give developers more certainty and to allow a simple BCC majority to approve a project when complying with the overlay. The only benefit appears to be to allow development to proceed faster. The County should not adopt this approach. Given the rapid development of Collier County at this time, there is a lot of public concern now by many residents about growth occurring too rapidly and degradation of the quality of life. For this reason, the County should continue the practice of requiring a supermajority vote for a rezone,just as is required for every other rezone project in the County. \iro..ococ,„0 4 Appendix A Page 63 of 63 Colter Count Appendix B Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy North Belle Meade Mitigation Feasibility Study Appendix B Page 1 of 59 NORTH BELLE MEADE MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY July 2016 Prepared For: Collier County Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 (239) 252-7268 Prepared By: Passarella &Associates,Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 Project No. 16CCG2467 Appendix B Page 2 of 59 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An analysis of the potential mitigation values versus costs of utilizing the North Belle Meade for wetland and species mitigation was performed. In the absence of sufficiently detailed data regarding site-specific characteristics (hydrologic conditions, levels and locations of infestations by exotic vegetation, and wetland versus upland acreages) for most of the 1,133 individual parcels comprising the North Belle Meade, this analysis was based on generalized land characteristics. The numerical analysis of the value of potential wetland credits, potential values of uplands for species mitigation (habitat compensation), and the costs associated with the generation of these values were calculated for several hypothetical situations with various combinations of the results presented in graphic form. Without a significant effort to improve the existing hydrologic conditions for more than small areas, analysis data indicates that a particular type of wetland mitigation program known as a single-user Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area (ROMA)/In-Lieu Fee (ILF) provides the most positive cost-benefit ratio. Sufficient wetland credit and habitat compensation demand to warrant consideration of the ROMA/ILF concept is found in Collier County's 2040 Needs Assessment for future road projects where the projected money needed for wetland mitigation and panther habitat units for Cost-Feasible Roads is $11,058,000 and $6,932,000, respectively. The actual cost to Collier County of the projected transportation-related mitigation/compensation needs could be significantly lower on a per unit basis by using a ROMA/ILF project to generate all or a portion of the needed credits and habitat compensation. Additionally, the funds spent internally purchasing the mitigation/compensation could be used to expand and operate the ROMA/ILF program. A Collier County single-user ROMA/ILF project within the North Belle Meade appears to be a cost-feasible generator of wetland mitigation credits and panther habitat compensation if the ROMA/ILF is of sufficient size and properly located to assure long-term support for the Florida panther. This initial feasibility study concludes that a ROMA/ILF program is potentially feasible and cost-effective, based on broad characterizations of North Belle Meade and a range of reasonable assumptions. To further refine the analysis results and increase the level of certainty regarding the feasibility of portions of North Belle Meade to serve as cost-effective mitigation, further steps are recommended. A more site-specific mitigation evaluation tool, based on the methodology used in this analysis, is currently being developed to allow for efficient evaluations of specific areas within North Belle Meade. This site-specific evaluation tool will allow the input of data gained from limited site reconnaissance of particular parcels or areas to generate site- specific data regarding potential mitigation values and associated costs. The results of this type of analysis, based on more site-specific data, will result in a higher degree of accuracy and allow Appendix B Page 3 of 59 for a higher degree of certainty regarding the potential for a specific area or areas to serve as feasible mitigation value generators. ii Appendix B Page 4 of 59 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Analysis Purpose/Goal 1 3.0 Analysis Constraints 1 4.0 Overview of Wetland Mitigation Programs 2 4.1 Permittee Responsible Mitigation 3 4.2 Wetland Mitigation Banking 3 4.3 Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area 4 4.4 In-Lieu Fee 4 5.0 Habitat Conservation Banks 4 6.0 Regulatory Agencies 5 6.1 FDEP/SFWMD 5 6.2 COE 5 6.3 USFWS 5 7.0 Mitigation Programs—Applicability to North Belle Meade 6 7.1 PRM 6 7.2 Wetland Mitigation Bank 6 7.3 ROMA/ILF 6 7.4 Habitat Conservation Bank 7 8.0 Mitigation Analysis Framework 7 9.0 Mitigation Numerical Analysis and Results 10 9.1 Wetland Credit Generation 10 9.2 Upland Credit Habitat(Compensation) Generation 13 Appendix B Page 5 of 59 Table of Contents (Continued) Page 10.0 Mitigation Values 13 11.0 Credit Generation Costs 14 11.1 Cost Assumptions 14 11.1.1 Land Costs 14 11.1.2 Implementation Time Period 15 11.1.3 Initial Exotic Treatment Eradication 15 11.1.4 Treatment Costs 15 11.1.5 Funding of Perpetual Maintenance 15 11.1.6 Prescribed Burning 15 11.1.7 Program Administrative Cost 16 11.2 Implementation Costs 16 11.3 Total Credit Generation Costs 16 12.0 Mitigation Value and Costs Comparisons 17 13.0 Discussion of Numerical Analysis Results 20 13.1 Areas of Hydrologic Enhancement, Exotic Eradication, and Land Management 20 13.2 Areas with Exotic Eradication and Land Management 20 13.3 ROMA/ILF 21 14.0 ROMA/ILF Program Considerations 22 15.0 Permit Process 25 16.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 26 17.0 Recommended Next Steps—Assuming ROMA/ILF Option 26 iv Appendix B Page 6 of 59 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Exotic Infestation Scenarios 10 V Appendix B Page 7 of 59 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Wetland Credits without Hydrologic Enhancement 12 Figure 2. Wetland Credits with Hydrologic Enhancement 12 Figure 3. Mitigation Value without Hydrological Enhancement 13 Figure 4. Mitigation Value with Hydrological Enhancement 14 Figure Series 5. Mitigation Value versus Cost 17 Figure Series 6. Wetland Value Only versus Cost 19 Figure Series 7. (Combined) Mitigation Value versus Cost 23 vi Appendix B Page 8 of 59 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. UMAM Worksheets E1-1 Exhibit 2. Mitigation Value Tables E2-1 Exhibit 3. Implementation Costs E3-1 Exhibit 4. Credit Generation Cost Tables E4-1 vii Appendix B Page 9 of 59 1.0 INTRODUCTION Under Collier County Contract No. 15-6397/Purchase Order No. 4500167795, Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) has been requested to perform an analysis of the North Belle Meade — Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) for the potential to generate wetland credits and/or wildlife habitat compensation units. The project includes the areas designated as the North Belle Meade West area at approximately 3,100 acres in size and the North Belle Meade NRPA area at approximately 6,500 acres in size. The overall North Belle Meade is comprised of a variety of upland and wetland habitat types. While much of the area is relatively undeveloped, areas of agriculture, pasture, residential, and other land uses exist within the overall North Belle Meade boundary and in the Belle Meade West area in particular. Portions of the North Belle Meade are known to be used by red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), and other species under the protection of state and/or federal laws. The long-term use and value of lands within the North Belle Meade for listed wildlife species is highly dependent on future development patterns and land conservation programs. A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program with areas eligible to send development rights from and areas eligible to receive additional development rights is currently in place for significant portions of the North Belle Meade. This TDR program awards sending unit credits for various limitations on land use with the greatest number of units awarded for removal of all development rights and habitat restoration with the restored lands placed under some form of governmental ownership. 2.0 ANALYSIS PURPOSE/GOAL The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the potential values of lands within the North Belle Meade for wetland mitigation and/or wildlife habitat compensation versus the costs associate with generating any wetland mitigation or habitat compensation values. The primary goal of this analysis is to provide useful information to decision-makers regarding the potential options for long-term management of conveyed or acquired lands within the North Belle Meade. 3.0 ANALYSIS CONSTRAINTS At a combined size of 9,600± acres with 1,133 distinct parcels, parcel-specific habitat evaluations within the North Belle Meade are not possible within the scope of this analysis. The primary available land cover/land use mapping and data sources are the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Of the two sources, the SFWMD Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) mapping provides more accurate and current mapping identifications of existing land uses and land cover. Both the NWI and the SFWMD mapping rely on photointerpretation of high level aerial photography. A limitation of this methodology is the limited ability to identify levels of 1 Appendix B Page 10 of 59 infestation by exotic and invasive vegetation species unless the infestation is clearly visible at vegetation canopy height. Without more specific data regarding the extent, type, and locations of exotic vegetation infestation levels, this analysis must rely on hypothetical exotic infestation scenarios as explained in the Mitigation Analysis Framework section. Another constraint of NWI and FLUCFCS mapping is their limited ability to ascertain the hydrologic conditions on sites where the presence or absence of hydrology is not easily discernable from aerial photography. Many areas within North Belle Meade have been subject to hydrologic impacts, primarily from interruption of surface flows or drainage resulting from the Golden Gate canal system. The mapping of over-drained areas that register as wetland based on a mapping of canopy cover types may not accurately capture the fact the area no longer has sufficient hydrology to qualify as wetland. Because the available land use/land cover mapping may not accurately identify wetland versus upland areas, a range of possible upland versus wetland habitat percentages is used in this analysis as more fully explained in the Mitigation Analysis Framework section. 4.0 OVERVIEW OF WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAMS The concept of wetland mitigation is derived from existing state and federal regulatory programs that protect wetlands and replace lost wetland functions through the restoration, enhancement, and protection of existing wetlands or through the creation of new wetlands. Both the state and federal programs contain regulatory language regarding each type of mitigation programs. Wetland mitigation is primarily used to offset the loss of wetland functions resulting from the direct or indirect impacts of projects on state and/or federal jurisdictional wetlands. Elements common to current state and federal wetland mitigation programs include: 1) Goal of no net loss of wetland functions 2) Clearly defined ecological goals and mitigation plan 3) Use of an acceptable wetland functional assessment methodology to assess wetland functions lost by impacts and the replacement wetland functions gained through mitigation 4) The landscape context of any mitigation should be relevant to the wetlands impacted 5) Mitigation must have clearly defined and verifiable success criteria tied to wetland functionality 6) A conservation easement that limits land uses and activities inconsistent with wetland and habitat preservation goals 7) Financial assurances are required to assure mitigation plan implementation 8) Financial assurances are required to assure sufficient funding for perpetual mitigation site management and protection 9) Monitoring and reporting to regulatory agencies This analysis does not provide a detailed breakdown of each program but rather focuses on the key components of each program relative to the North Belle Meade (credit generation and constraining elements of each program). 2 Appendix B Page 11 of 59 4.1 Permittee Responsible Mitigation The approach of Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) was once the main form of mitigation, where the applicant proposing a wetland impact would also propose project- specific mitigation to offset any wetland functional loss. The success of PRM was highly variable and PRM is now much less common than the use of mitigation banks or other large scale mitigation programs under both the state and federal wetland regulatory programs. Some parcels within the North Belle Meade have been used for PRM, but the PRM concept involves a case-by-case permitting decision and is not applicable to this analysis. 4.2 Wetland Mitigation Banking Wetland mitigation banking has gained widespread support throughout the country and is now the preferred form of mitigation for both the state and federal regulatory programs. To permit and operate a wetland mitigation bank, the bank site must be clearly defined under the ownership or control of the project sponsor. Wetland mitigation banks are typically large enough to benefit the environment on a landscape scale and are run as businesses with the wetland mitigation credits being the commodity to be sold on the open market. Following a detailed and thorough permitting process, wetland mitigation banks implement a mitigation plan and earn credits for various levels of implementation completion and for verifiable levels of ecological success. Wetland credits can be sold to offset wetland impacts from projects within a prescribed "service area," typically a defined watershed of combination of watershed. Ideally, the wetland functional assessment methodology used to evaluate project impacts must be the same as the methodology used to assess the wetland functional gains at the wetland mitigation bank site. The State of Florida and the federal government each have their own mitigation banking requirements and regulations, which are similar in many ways. One primary difference is the application of the wetland functional assessment methodology, whereby Florida's application tends to yield more credits than the federal application. For the purposes of this analysis, the more conservative number of credits likely to be generated under the federal mitigation banking program is used for credit generation calculations. Projects proposing impacts to wetlands in Southwest Florida typically require permit approval under both the state and federal regulatory programs and, therefore, require wetland credits acceptable under both the both state and federal regulatory programs. Local governments or state agencies can establish and operate a wetland mitigation bank. However, to maintain a level playing field with private commercial mitigation banking for credit pricing, government mitigation banking is required to use a "full cost accounting" methodology when calculating the cost of generating credits. Among other things, full cost accounting requires that the fair market value of land be included as a credit generation cost. The end concept and relevance of full cost accounting is explained in more detail later in this document. 3 Appendix B Page 12 of 59 4.3 Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area (ROMA) is a defined program under the state of Florida regulatory program for wetlands. The ROMA program is currently available to local governments and some qualified non-profit organizations. ROMA projects (typically referred to as "ROMAs") have been initiated in several locations around Florida, with varying levels of ecological success. The concept of ROMAs was born out of the desire to consolidate the efforts and funds expended on minor, smaller, and/or disjointed mitigation projects into more cohesive and meaningful mitigation efforts with benefits on a landscape sale. ROMAs have been used to collect funds in a type of early credit sale basis with the defined goal of using the funds to purchase/acquire land and implement a mitigation plan. The sale of these early or "prospective" wetland credits has become an area of regulatory concern because some ROMA projects can take many years to actually implement any mitigation plan elements that produce actual "lift" to existing wetland functions. Credits generated by ROMAs may be sold on the open market, subject to full cost accounting of credit generation costs. 4.4 In-Lieu Fee The federal In-Lieu Fee (ILF)program is similar to Florida's ROMA program with many of the same benefits and constraints. The ILF program allows for early credits, the collection of fees for land purchases and planned work, and does not always require that the entire proposed ILF area be under the ownership of the applicant. As in wetland mitigation banking, a permit separate and distinct from the state's permit is required under the federal program. Both ROMA and ILF project areas can include land not yet under a single ownership or control. In addition, ROMAs and ILF projects may be composed of multiple, distinct, and even widely separated parcels, provided the various parcels share an ecological commonality in a landscape context. While both ROMA and ILF programs are primarily for wetland mitigation credit generation, upland areas may be included and their value to listed species can be accounted for within a ROMA/ILF using the same principles discussed under the Habitat Conservation Bank section below. 5.0 HABITAT CONSERVATION BANKS Habitat Conservation Banking involves the long-term management and preservation of existing wildlife habitats for the benefit of specific protected species. Unlike wetland mitigation, which is intended to replace wetland losses (no net loss of wetland function as its goal), habitat conservation is used to protect existing habitat values, where no such protection currently exists as compensation for direct or indirect habitat impacts elsewhere. The terms "compensation" and "habitat compensation" are used throughout this analysis to differentiate units and values derived 4 Appendix B Page 13 of 59 from benefits to listed species habitat versus "mitigation" which is used for increases in wetland function. Habitat conservation banks typically provide species-specific compensation units that can be used to offset impacts to other habitat used by a given protected species. Habitat Conservation Banks can be used for more than one species when the bank site has appropriate habitat types and when the required land management and habitat goals of the different species are not in conflict. As with wetland mitigation banking, a habitat conservation bank has a defined service area, specific ecological goals, and requirements for financial assurances for implementation and long-term management. 6.0 REGULATORY AGENCIES For permitting of wetland impacts and associated mitigation requirements in Southwest Florida, the State's wetlands protection program is administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the SFWMD, and the federal program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The program for permitting of habitat conservation banks is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 6.1 FDEP/SFWMD The FDEP typically permits wetland mitigation banks where a given state water management district has an operational role, financial interest, or other potential conflict. The FDEP solicits and considers input from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) regarding wildlife issues. The SFWMD typically permits all other wetland mitigation banks and also utilizes comments and input from the FWCC. ROMAs are typically reviewed by the FDEP with FWCC input. 6.2 COE Federal review of wetland mitigation or ILF applications involves multiple federal agencies with COE typically taking the role of lead agency. The assigned COE project manager leads a multi-agency team known as an Interagency Review Team (IRT). For a proposed wetland mitigation bank or ILF in the North Belle Meade, the primary IRT participants are most likely to be the COE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the USFWS. 6.3 USFWS Federal review of habitat compensation banks involves the USFWS with input from the FWCC. 5 Appendix B Page 14 of 59 7.0 MITIGATION PROGRAMS -APPLICABILITY TO NORTH BELLE MEADE 7.1 PRM PRM is project and parcel-specific and not currently encourage by regulatory agencies. As such, a PRM project is not considered in this analysis. 7.2 Wetland Mitigation Bank The establishment of a wetland mitigation bank within the North Belle Meade is compared as an alternative within this analysis. Challenges inherent with wetland mitigation banking include the need for property ownership or control from the onset of permitting, and a well-defined time schedule for implementation and full success. 7.3 ROMA/ILF For the purposes of this analysis, ROMA and ILF project requirements are considered jointly with the most restrictive element of each program dictating for specific requirements or criteria. A ROMA/ILF project could only be proposed by Collier County or by a qualified non-profit entity for the North Belle Meade. A ROMA/ILF project appears to be a closer fit to the current conditions, opportunities, and constraints of using the North Belle Meade for possible wetland credit and habitat compensation units based on the following elements common to both programs. The proposed project area does not need to be in single ownership or control at the time of project permitting or at the time of initial implementation on areas or phases under permittee's ownership or control. Early credit sales can be used to acquire land and/or fund implementation of mitigation plan/activities. Required time frames for mitigation implementation and project phases tend to be more flexible with ROMA/ILF projects than with wetland mitigation banking. Open Market ROMA/ILF wetland credits generated by a ROMA/ILF project could be permitted as available to be sold on the open market if the full cost accounting method for credit generation cost is used as the basis for the pricing of credits (explained in more detail in Numerical Analysis Section of this report). Single User ROMA/ILF- An alternative to an open market ROMA/ILF is the single-user ROMA/ILF project. This approach would identify Collier County as the user of the wetland mitigation credits and habitat compensation units from a ROMA/ILF sponsored and supported by Collier County. Under this approach, the hypothetical costs of generating the credits (the full cost accounting methodology) are not required as a basis for credit pricing. This analysis provides the costs to generate credits with and without land costs to differentiate between an open market ROMA/ILF (or wetland mitigation bank) and the single-user ROMA/ILF alternative. 6 Appendix B Page 15 of 59 r.. 7.4 Habitat Conservation Bank The use of appropriate lands within the North Belle Meade for habitat compensation, as either a separate distinct habitat conservation bank or as a component of a ROMA/ILF project would add a valuable component to a ROMA/ILF project. The North Belle Meade is home to, or used by, a number of state and federally-listed wildlife species including the Florida panther, wood stork(Mycteria americana), and red- cockaded woodpeckers. For the purposes of this analysis, habitat compensation needs and habitat compensation units for the Florida panther are used to represent the potential value of uplands. A more detailed breakdown of other species compensation opportunities is possible but beyond the scope of this analysis. The use of panther as the driver of habitat compensation needs/values is reasonable given the prevalence of panther in the North Belle Meade and the prevalence of panther compensation needs throughout significant portions of Collier County. The permitting of habitat compensation banks for panthers falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the USFWS with concurrence from the FWCC. For lands to be acceptable as compensation they must typically be either reasonably contiguous with a large area of existing conservation lands or large enough to provide a significant percentage of an adult panther home range habitat needs; not located where proximate or regional impacts may occur that would diminish the lands functionality for, or availability, to panther; and able to be actively managed to enhance and protect habitat values important to panther in perpetuity. In the past, the USFWS has expressed reservations regarding the use of smaller and/or disjointed parcels in the North Belle Meade as for panther compensation. Also, concern exists over County road alternatives under consideration and the potential long-term land use patterns. The establishment of wetland mitigation bank or ROMA/ILF project area could potentially allay USFWS concerns. 8.0 MITIGATION ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK The following analysis is based on evaluating the potential value of wetland mitigation and upland habitat compensation versus the potential costs to generate those values for a given area. In this analysis, Wetland Mitigation Value is used as the number of wetland credits generated times the current market per-credit price. Similarly, Upland Mitigation Value is used in this analysis as the number of habitat compensation units generated times the current market price per unit. The concept of Combined Mitigation Value is used to represent the combined values of wetland credits generated (based on market value) plus the value of panther compensation units (based on market value). This can be equated as: Mitigation Value ($) = (#of credits x credit market price) + (#of panther compensation units x compensation unit market price) 7 Appendix B Page 16 of 59 Wetland credits are primarily awarded for verifiable increases in wetland functionality and the long-term management and protection of wetlands. The increase in wetland functions is often referred to as "lift." The primary drivers for ecological lift of wetlands in the North Belle Meade are will likely be the removal and ongoing control of exotic and nuisance vegetation plus the placement of lands into a single, cohesive program for long-term protection and management. Lands with exotic infestations levels too high to reasonably expect wetland revitalization following exotic removal will be cleared and subject to a wetland replanting program. The potential does exist for significant ecological lift if hydrological enhancements can be made to improve the duration and/or depth of water within the hydroperiod wetlands. Much of the North Belle Meade has experienced hydroperiod alterations/impacts from past surface flow and ground flow alterations. Meaningful hydrologic enhancements would involve large scale water routing alterations that would require significant studies and permitting. This analysis includes results for wetland benefits both with and without hydrological enhancements, not to show that hydrological enhancement are probable, but to show the benefits of hydrological enhancements relative to credit/value generation should they occur as coincidental to any large scale hydrology improvement projects in the North Belle Meade. The state's methodology for assessing wetland functions and wetland functional lift directly credits uplands for wetland functional lift. The methodology accepted by the COE only does so indirectly, consequently the federal program typically assigns lower lift scores than the state for a given area when uplands are present. Because most wetland impacts in Southwest Florida require mitigation under both the state and federal regulatory programs, only wetland lift generated by wetland areas (credits acceptable to both the state and the COE) are considered in this analysis. Upland areas are valued in this analysis based on a key assumption that a given area will be determined to be acceptable for panther habitat compensation by the USFWS and the FWCC. Panther habitat compensation units are given as Panther Habitat Units (PHUs)and the number of PHU a given acre can provide is determined by a USFWS-approved methodology whereby habitat scores ranging from 1 to 10 are assigned based on habitat types (tied to preference of use by panther). For a given area, the total PHUs are the sum of each habitat's score times the acreage of that habitat type. For the purposes of this analysis, a conservative PHU habitat score of 7 units per acre is assigned to each upland acre. Wetland acreages also provide PHUs in the USFWS methodology and wetland mitigation credits often carry a number of PHUs with them. However, because this analysis is evaluating the potential combined mitigation value of areas, the market price of wetland credits is assumed to include the imbedded PHU value associated with wetland credits. In other words, the value of PHUs from wetland areas is treated as covered in the wetland credit prices. The numbers of wetlands credits that can be generated in many areas within North Belle Meade, absent any hydrologic restoration, are primarily driven by the amount of exotic vegetation present. Currently, available mapping of land cover types in North Belle Meade (National Wetlands Inventory Mapping and SFWMD FLUCFCS mapping) do not including mapping of exotics or their levels of infestation. Without mapping of the location, extent, and relative levels of exotic infestations, an overall analysis of potential credit generation must rely on generalized characteristics of the area. 8 Appendix B Page 17 of 59 Should a specific portion(s) or area(s) of the North Belle Meade be defined for mitigation use, site reconnaissance could be performed to estimate exotic levels, and a more detailed site- specific analysis of credit generation potential and credit generation costs could be performed. Absent a clearly defined discrete area(s) for evaluation, the following analysis utilizes four potential scenarios for levels of exotic vegetation typical for the North Belle Meade. Numerical and graphed results in this analysis are normalized to a hypothetical 100-acre parcel size to facilitate visualization and understanding. Fundamentally, the mitigation analysis framework can be given as: • Determination of potential wetland credits generated by wetlands (without hydrologic enhancement) on a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of potential wetland credits generated by wetlands (with hydrologic enhancement) on a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of potential wetland credit generation costs for a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of potential upland habitat (compensation) value for a hypothetical 100- acre parcel for varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of Combined Mitigation Value as the value of wetland credits plus the value of upland compensation for a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of the costs to generate the above, both with and without land costs. • Comparison of Cost of Mitigation Generation versus value of: Wetland Mitigation (without hydrologic enhancement) Wetland Mitigation (with hydrologic enhancement) Wetland Mitigation (without hydrologic enhancement)plus Upland Mitigation Wetland Mitigation (with hydrologic enhancement)plus Upland Mitigation 9.0 MITIGATION NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 9.1 Wetland Credit Generation As indicated in the Mitigation Analysis Framework section, four representative scenarios for exotic vegetation infestation levels are used to approximate a range of habitat conditions typical of the North Belle Meade. These same infestation level scenarios are 9 Appendix B Page 18 of 59 used consistently throughout this analysis, including the analysis of costs. The four scenarios used are presented below in tabular form. Table 1. Exotic Infestation Scenarios* Scenario 1 - Generally low levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 80 Minor 0-25% (El) 20 Moderate 25-50% (E2) 0 High 50-75% (E3) 0 Severe 75-100% (E4) 0 Total 100 Scenario 2 - Generally moderate levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 30 Minor 0-25% (El) 30 Moderate 25-50% (E2) 20 High 50-75% (E3) 20 Severe 75-100% 0 Total 100 Scenario 3 - Generally moderate to high levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 20 Minor 0-25% (El) 15 Moderate 25-50% (E2) 20 High 50-75% (E3) 35 Severe 75-100% (E4) 10 Total 100 Scenario 4 - Generally very high levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 0 Minor 0-25% (El) 10 Moderate 25-50%(E2) 15 High 50-75%(E3) 35 10 Appendix B Page 19 of 59 Scenario 4 (Continued) Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Severe 75-100%(E4) 40 Total 100 *Note: Using a weighted average approach for each infestation scenario with El acreages weighted by 1,E2 acreages by 2, E3 acreages by 3, and E4 acreages by 4, and the resultant sum divided by 10 (1+2+3+4) yields a weighted average of 2, 13, 20, 30, indicating a reasonable distribution of infestation scenarios The wetland functional assessment methodology required by the state and primarily used for permitting through COE is the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM). For wetland credit calculations for each land cover type and in general terms, UMAM assigns scores on a per acre basis for existing conditions and for the proposed conditions should a proposed mitigation plan be implemented and successful. The difference between scoring of the existing conditions and the scoring of the with-mitigation conditions is calculated as the ecological lift (also called the "delta"). Factors for "Risk" (based on the likelihood the proposed wetland mitigation will ultimately succeed) and "Time Lag" (the anticipated time difference between when a wetland impact occurs and the associated mitigation reaches a high level of functionality) are selected and used to modify the lift number to arrive at the per acre credit number for that land cover type. To get the total wetland credits, each land cover type acreage is multiplied by the per-acre credit number for that land cover and the results are summed. For this analysis, where the primary credit generation is exotic eradication, the Risk and Time Lag factors are assumed to be negligible because the process of exotic eradication is known to be a successful tool and the ecological benefits begin immediately. The total number of wetland credits that a given area can generate is a function of the number of wetland acres within the area. For areas comprised of both uplands and wetlands, the total wetland credit number must be adjusted down based on the percentage of the area that is upland. For this analysis the following hypothetical upland/wetland ratios are used to provide a range of possible condition as the y-axis on graphs: • 10 Percent Upland/90 Percent Wetland • 25 Percent Upland/75 Percent Wetland • 50 Percent Upland/50 Percent Wetland • 75 Percent Upland/25 Percent Wetland • 90 Percent Upland/10 Percent Wetland 11 Appendix B Page 20 of 59 The total number of credits a given area can generate is a function of the UMAM scoring tables for the four infestation level scenarios based on a hypothetical 100+ acre parcel size is given in Exhibit 1. The results from the UMAM calculations (Exhibit 1) for the representative upland/wetland land percentages are presented below(Figures 1 and 2). Figure 1 - Wetlands Credits without Hydrologic Enhancement Wetland Credits w/out Hydro 14 - „, 12 - • 10 - 8 - Scenario 1 m 6 _ Scenario 2 4 `„� Scenario 3 2 .�� — Scenario 4 0 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland%of 100 Acres Figure 2 - Wetlands Credits with Hydrologic Enhancement Wetland Credits w/ Hydro 14 ` —- N 12 10 u 8 —Scenario 1 a co 6 Scenario 2 4 —Scenario 3 2 Scenario 4 0 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland%of 100 Acres 12 Appendix B Page 21 of 59 r"\ 9.2 Upland Credit Habitat(Compensation)Generation Upland credit generation is calculated as the acreage of uplands times an assumed average PHU score of 7 per acre. 10.0 MITIGATION VALUES In order to estimate mitigation values,the following assumptions were used for this analysis: • Wetland Credit Value (per market)_ $75,000.00/credit • PHU value=$650.00/PHU • Average PHU Score per acre in North Belle Meade= 7+ • PHU values for wetland credit is already accounted for in wetland credit value • Combined Mitigation Value Equation: Combined Mitigation value= Wetland Mitigation Value+ Upland Mitigation Value = (number of wetland credits x credit value) + (number of upland acres x 7 PHU/acre x value per PHU) =(number of wetland credits $75,000/credit)+(number of upland acres x $4,500/acre) Exhibit 2 contains the tabular applications of the Combined Mitigation Value equation with the assumed values for the infestation scenarios and representative percentages of wetlands versus uplands for a 100 acre parcel size. Graphing of the resultant data for the mitigation with and without hydrological enhancement is presented below as Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 -Mitigation Value without Hydrologic Enhancement Mitigation Value w/out Hydro $600,000 $500,000 a j $400,000 - Scenario 1 c $300,000 Scenario 2 $200,000 g Scenario 3 $100,000 Scenario 4 $0 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland%of 100 Acres r\ 13 Appendix B Page 22 of 59 Figure 4 -Mitigation Value with Hydrologic Enhancement Mitigation Value w/ Hydro $1,600,000 $1,400,000 S' $1,200,000 Hydro Scenario 1 > $1,000,000 g $800,000 o`4c $600,000 Hydro Scenario 2 2 $400,000 Hydro Scenario 3 $200,000 Hydro Scenario 4 $0 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland%of 100 Acres 11.0 CREDIT GENERATION COSTS For the purpose of this analysis and to reduce the number of analytic variables, the costs of generating wetland credits and PHUs are combined as "Credit Generation Costs." As such, except when denoted otherwise, the term "Credit Generation Cost' can be the considered as the /'h cost to generate a given Mitigation Value. Under the Full Cost Accounting methodology required for mitigation banks selling credits on the open market,the following cost elements must be considered: • Land cost • Implementation costs which include: - Initial exotic treatments/eradication - Five years of ongoing treatment of regrowth - Replanting - Funding of perpetual management - Prescribed burning-where/when appropriate - Program administration cost 11.1 Cost Assumptions For the purpose of this analysis, the following cost assumptions are used. 11.1.1 Land Costs Although per-acre land prices vary within the North Belle Meade, for the purposes of this analysis, an assumed fair market value of$2,250/acre is used. rm 14 Appendix B Page 23 of 59 11.1.2 Implementation Time Period The implementation time for mitigation activities is assumed to be five years (typical of most mitigation plans). This analysis uses this five year implementation period to calculate implementation costs for any given phase or discrete area, after which long-term maintenance and management will be funded from the perpetual management account. 11.1.3 Initial Exotic Treatment Eradication For initial exotic treatment, it is assumed that there will be reasonable access to areas requiring treatment, primary treatment methodology will be treat-in-place with minimal off-site removal of material, and treatment areas will be 50 acres or greater. 11.1.4 Treatment Costs For areas with less than 25 percent exotic/nuisance infestation- $500 per acre. For areas of 25 to 50 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $1,000 per acre. For areas of 51 to 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation- $1,500 per acre. For areas of greater than 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation- $2,000 per acre. Ongoing nuisance/exotic treatments (5 Years) Minimum of 2 treatment events per year will occur for first 5 years. For areas with less than 25 percent exotic/nuisance infestation- $25 per acre/year. For areas of 25 to 50 percent exotic/nuisance infestation- $50 per acre/year. For areas of 51 to 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation- $75 per acre/year. For areas of greater than 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $125 per acre/year. Replanting - assume replanting of areas with initial exotic infestation levels at or greater than 75 percent at $3,500/acre. 11.1.5 Funding of Perpetual Maintenance Funding of perpetual maintenance will be $1,025 per acre. 11.1.6 Prescribed Burning $1,500 per 100 acres for initial burn. $600 per 100 acres for second/follow-up burn. Program Administration - assume 8 percent of implementation costs per year as is typically required through permitting process. 15 Appendix B Page 24 of 59 11.1.7 Program Administrative Cost Typical administrative costs for ROMA or ILF programs run about 8 percent of implementation costs per year (including land costs) for the implementation period (five years). The actual program costs will be greatly affected by the actual implementation costs. The current environmental conditions in the North Belle Meade vary greatly. Of the various infestation level scenarios and upland/wetland habitat composition combinations given above, the conditions and resulting implementation number for Scenario 3 (moderate to high levels of infestation on Table Q2 (25 percent uplands and 75 percent wetlands) is chosen as a reasonable expectation of potential mitigation lands. The combined implementation cost for these parameters is shown as $244,863 per 100 acres. By rounding this number to $245,000 and adding in land cost of$225,000 per 100 acres then multiplying the sum by 0.08 yields the administrative cost as: ($245,000 + $225,000) x 0.08 = $37,600 Administrative Cost per 100 acres This cost is for an assumed 5-year implementation period. On a per-year basis,the cost would $37,600/5 = $7,520 per 100 acres 11.2 Implementation Costs The implementation costs in wetland areas, for the purpose of this analysis, are considered as the cost of initial treatment of exotic and nuisance vegetation species, five years of ongoing treatment of exotic/nuisance species, clearing and replanting of areas where exotic infestation levels meet or exceed 75 percent, prescribed burning, and funding of the long-term management fund. The costs for all except the funding element are highly dependent on the levels of exotic infestation and the relative percentages of upland versus wetlands for a given site or area. Any upland within a mitigation bank or ROMA/ILF grogram area must also be managed and maintained. The wetland implementation cost plus upland implementation cost are combined to give the combined implementation cost for each situation. The wetland implementation costs, upland implementation costs, and combined implementation costs for the four infestation scenarios under a range of potential upland/wetland ratio situations is found as Exhibit 3. 11.3 Total Credit Generation Costs The Total Credit Generation Costs can be generally described as: Land cost + Combined Implementation Costs +Administration Costs Using the combined implementation costs from the tables in Exhibit 3, and adding the 16 Appendix B Page 25 of 59 assumed per 100 acre values for land cost ($225,000) and administration costs ($37,600) yields the total credit generation costs to compare against Mitigation Values for each infestation level scenario across a range up upland/wetland land composition ratios. The data for this numerical operation is provided as Exhibit 4. 12.0 MITIGATION VALUE AND COSTS COMPARISONS Graphically, the cost results from Exhibit 4 can be added to the results for Mitigation Value for each scenario as shown below. The label "hydro scenario" denotes the use of the wetland credit generation scoring used for the "with hydrologic enhancement" condition. The dashed red line indicates to total credit generation cost minus the assumed land value of$2,250/acre. Figure Series 5 -Mitigation Value versus Cost Infestation Scenario 1 - Low Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 1 Mitigation Value vs Cost $1,400,000 01 $1,200,000 > $1,000,000 n c $800,000 Scenario 1 $600,000 fa °D $400,000 Hydro Scenario 1 2 $200,000 Cost(w/land cost) $0 10 25 50 75 90 — —Costs(w/o land cost) Wetland Infestation Scenario 2 -Moderate Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 2 Mitigation Value vs Cost $1,400,000 3 $1,200,000 715 $1,000,000 c $800,000 Scenario 2 $600,000 °D $400,000 Hydro Scenario 2 E $200,000 — — Cost(w/land cost) $0 10 25 50 75 90 — — Costs(w/o land cost) Wetland 17 Appendix B Page 26 of 59 Infestation Scenario 3 - Moderate to High Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 3 Mitigation Value vs Cost $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 > $1,000,000 g $800,000 Scenario 3 $600,000 —Hydro Scenario 2 $400,000 ---- — _ $200,000 - — Cost(w/land cost) $0 — — Costs(w/o land cost) 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland Infestation Scenario 4 - High Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 4 Mitigation Value vs Cost $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 > $1,000,000 c $800,000 Scenario 4 a $600,000 Hydro Scenario 2 2 $400,000 - - Cost(w/land cost) $200,000 — $0 Costs(w/o land cost) 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland The concept of combined Mitigation Value combines the value of wetland credits with the upland values for panther (or other species) habitat compensation. Should a proposed mitigation banking or ROMA/ILF project area not be approved for species compensation or if a sufficient market does not exist for habitat compensation, then the adjusted actual Mitigation Value would be the value of the wetland credits alone. Graphing of data for wetland credit values only and their associated cost yields the following: 18 Appendix B Page 27 of 59 Figure Series 6 -Wetland Value Only versus Cost Infestation Scenario 1 - Low Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 1 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost $1,500,000 a, ..... .Scenario 1-Wetland �' $1,000,000 value only L $500,000 Hydro Scenario 1 $0 Cost(w/land cost) 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland% — —Costs(w/o land cost) Infestation Scenario 2 -Moderate Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 2 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost $1,500,000 a• $1,000,000 Scenario 2-Wetland > value only a $500,000 Hydro _`tee 10 25 50 75 90 Cost(w/land cost) Wetland Infestation Scenario 3 -Moderate to High Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 3 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost $1,500,000 � kScenario 3-Wetland ai • $1,000,000 value only �—Hydro Scenario 2 a $500,000 - = IT al" Cost(w/land cost) $0 10 25 50 75 90 — Costs(w/o land cost) Wetland 19 Appendix B Page 28 of 59 Infestation Scenario 4 - High Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 4 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost $2,000,000 — -- siim•sanScenario 4-Wetland $1,500,000 _ ipprippw--- value only Y $1,000,000 Hydro Scenario 2 F2 $500,000 1,•. ��s�' Cost(w/land cost) $0 IWO a. 10 25 50 75 90 — — Costs(w/o land cost) Wetland 13.0 DISCUSSION OF NUMERICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS With a goal of establishing a mitigation program within the North Belle Meade that is cost- neutral or cost-positive to the Collier County, the following information is reflected in the above results of the numerical analysis: 13.1 Areas of Hydrologic Enhancement, Exotic Eradication, and Land Management For areas where hydrologic enhancement will occur, the potential Mitigation Value is significantly higher than costs under all infestation scenarios and all upland versus wetland land composition combinations where at least ten percent of the site is wetland (Figure Series 5, all infestation scenarios). This is due to the more significant increase in wetland function than can be achieved by rehydration than by exotic eradication and land management alone. The projected costs for any hydrologic enhancement are assumed to be part of other drainage basin restoration initiatives and are, therefore, not reflected in the cost numbers. For the purposes of this analysis, and in particular to remain conservative regarding potential values, the balance of this discussion will focus on analysis data that does not include results from hydrologic enhancements. The benefits and value of any hydrologic enhancements, should they occur, would be additive to the Mitigation Values discusses below. 13.2 Areas with Exotic Eradication and Land Management For areas that would generate wetland functional increase through exotic vegetation eradication, replanting in certain high infestation areas, and land management only (no 20 Appendix B Page 29 of 59 hydrologic restoration), the amount of wetland credit generation and, therefore, the overall Mitigation Value is significantly less. For areas of low and moderate infestation levels (Infestation Scenarios 1 and 2 — Figure Series 5 and 6)the overall mitigation value actually declines with increased percentage of wetlands on a given area, indicating the area has more value as wildlife compensation than wetland mitigation. For areas of moderate to high infestation levels (Scenario 3 — Figure Series 5), the overall Mitigation Value is relatively unchanged as a function of wetland percentage indicating such areas have about equal wetland Mitigation Value and upland compensation value. Only in Scenario 4 of Figure Series 5, where high levels of exotic infestation is represented, is the value of the land for wetland mitigation higher than it is upland habitat compensation. Under the open market concept(Wetland Mitigation Bank) where the full cost accounting approach is required to set credit prices on an open market, the cost sum that includes land cost ("Cost (with land cost)" line on Figure Series 5 and 6) would need to be applied. For minor, moderate, and even moderate to high levels of exotic infestation (Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 — Figure Series 5 and 6) mitigation lands that contained approximately 30 percent or more wetlands would have a negative net value (Mitigation Value minus Cost)when land cost is accounted for. 13.3 ROMA/ILF Unless hydrologic enhancements can be assured for a sufficiently large given area, the above results indicate a commercial wetland mitigation bank is not likely to yield a financially neutral or positive outcome. Under a single user approach (ROMA/ILF type program) where the land cost does not always need to be a consideration for credit pricing, the numerical analysis shows that a net positive number (for Mitigation Value minus cost) is theoretically possible across a broad range of infestation levels and upland/wetland composition levels. For projects proposed by Collier County (i.e., Collier County Transportation Department, Collier County Utilities Department, or Collier County Parks and Recreation Department) that include wetland impact and/or listed species habitat impacts requiring wetland mitigation and/or habitat compensation, the use of ROMA/ILF credits generated from a portion or portions of the North Belle Meade could represent a net cost savings to Collier County. The County's current 2040 Long Range Transportation Program needs assessment for cost-feasible future roadway projects indicates an anticipated need for 180 wetland mitigation credits and 6,900 units of panther habitat compensation at projected costs of $11,058,000 and $6,932,000, respectively. Per-unit costs used in the Needs Assessment were $70,000 for wetland credits and $1,000 for panther compensation (PHUs). The actual cost to Collier County of the projected mitigation/compensation could be significantly lower on a per unit basis by using a ROMA/ILF project to generate the 21 Appendix B Page 30 of 59 needed credits and habitat compensation. Additionally, the funds spent purchasing the mitigation/compensation could be used to expand and operate the ROMA/ILF program. The concept of establishing and operating a single-user ROMA/ILF project within a portion or portions of the North Belle Meade does appear to be financially feasible based on this analysis. 14.0 ROMA/ILF PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS Historically, ROMA and ILF projects have been permitted and operated with highly varying degrees of success. In a number of cases, monies have been collected under such a program with long delays, and even failure, in actual implementation of the mitigation plan measures. As a result, regulatory agencies have legitimate concerns about the mitigation plan implementation and timely success of proposed ecological benefits. A thorough and accurate tracking and accounting of dollars coming into and out of any ROMA/ILF will be important for a proposed ROMA/ILF project. The concept of a critical mass in terms of land area that can be reasonably - expected to become part of any proposed ROMA/ILF project will be an important consideration. The necessary minimum land area is typically decided with the regulatory agencies on a case-by-case basis. For an area such as North Belle Meade, the FDEP and the COE could conceivable ask for 500± or even 1,000± acres as a minimum project size. A significant advantage of the ROMA/ILF program is the total of the proposed project area does not need to be in the applicant/permittee's ownership up-front. Ideally, an applicant would own some of the necessary land area and be able to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the balance of the necessary land areas to attain the critical mass can/will be attained in some manner, including the use of collected monies for land purchase. Within the North Belle Meade are a number of land parcels that have already been used for wetland mitigation and are, therefore, not available for further credit or upland compensation; however, the parcels could be counted towards the critical mass consideration. Also, land management of these parcels could possibly be accomplished by a ROMA/ILF project, under a separate agreement, with the projected funds typically spent by the entities responsible for each of the existing mitigation parcels going to the ROMA/ILF (or related entity) in exchange. Within the NRPA portion of North Belle Meade, lands that have not already been used for some form of mitigation and are available for full credit potential total over 2,000 acres. For mitigation banking projects, funding assurance is required for the implementation work (minus the funding of the perpetual management account) during the first five years of the project, or a phase/geographic area of the project. Such assurances take the form of performance bounding or a specialized insurance policy. Alternative assurance options may be available for county governments implementing a ROMA/ILF. 22 Appendix B Page 31 of 59 Funding of the long-term management fund has been included in the implementation cost calculations in this analysis in order to conservatively simplify the analysis. Typically, long-term management accounts may be funded to a large degree from funds received from ongoing credit sales over time, rather than as an initial expense of mitigation implementation. While project or project phase implementation is typically a five year period, credit sales may occur over a longer than five year period. Funding of the long-term management account may be spread out over more than five years. The potential ecological benefits of conservation easements are a critical factor an all forms of wetland mitigation or habitat compensation programs. To the degree conservation easements can be shown to eliminate the potential for alternate, less environmentally beneficial land uses, the placement of conservation easements over project lands is valuable. The existence of the County TDR program and the associated limitation on development potential for lands in the TDR program will need to be addressed with the FDEP and the COE. The placement of significant areas of land into a ROMA/ILF program can be reasonably expected to make such lands acceptable to the USFWS and the FWCC for habitat compensation, subject to the landscape context of such lands for long-term panther use. The relative value of upland compensation to the overall (Combined) Mitigation Value is significant in this analysis. This can be demonstrated by graphing the value of wetlands and uplands and wetland mitigation only, versus costs for each scenario on a 1,000± acre hypothetical project size as shown on the Graph Series 7, below. Figure Series 7—(Combined)Mitigation Value versus Cost Scenario 1 —Low Exotic Infestation Levels Scenario 1- Low Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost $5,000,000 n $4,000,000 To c $3,000,000 I iiScenario 1-Wetland and $2,000,000 Upland Value I OM OA sub 11 Costs(w/o land cost) $1,000,000 goo ego $0 IMMO Scenario 1-Wetland Value 10 25 50 75 90 only Wetland 23 Appendix B Page 32 of 59 Scenario 2—Moderate Exotic Infestation Levels Scenario 2- Moderate Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost $5,000,000 $4500000111111 Q $4,000,000 i�� $3,500,000 �� $3,000,000 E. amillWidlin Scenario 2-Wetland and .2 $2,500,000 - Upland Values ra $2,000,000 MME� NM $1,500,000 Costs(w/o land cost) minmis $1,000,000 Cm $500,000 EMUScenario 2-Wetland Value $0 only 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland For 1,000-Acre ROMA/ILF Area Scenario 3—High Exotic Infestation Levels Scenario 3- High Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost $5,000,000 $4,500,000 mmw —rte_—' S $4,000,000 im-mlips Ws $3,500,000 $3,000,000 imminimi -- Scenario 3-Wetland and c $2,500,000 Mammopipligi Upland Values $2,000,000 +, $1500000 =i Costs(w/o land cost) 2 $1,000,000 $500,000 � . Scenario 3-Wetland Value $0 10 25 50 75 90 only Wetland 24 Appendix B Page 33 of 59 Scenario 4—High Exotic Infestation Levels Scenario 4- High Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost $6,000,000 I I I I w $5,000,000 $4 000 000 inScenario 4-Wetland and ' Upland Value c• $• 3,000,000 I "0 I amon Costs(w/o land cost) .Y $2,000,000 Ir $1,000,000 IMMO Scenario 4 Wetlands only 1 $0 1 10 25 50 75 90 — Wetland For 1,000-Acre ROMA/ILF Area If the use of project uplands for panther habitat compensation is not acceptable to the regulatory agencies, then this analysis suggests ROMA/ILF will only work for: • Areas of low exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 70±percent wetlands • Areas of moderate exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 55 percent wetlands • Areas of moderate to high exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 45 percent wetlands • Areas of high exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 60 percent wetlands 15.0 PERMIT PROCESS The typical process for the permitting of a wetland mitigation bank or ROMA/ILF project basically involves the following steps: 1. Site identification and ecological studies 2. Surveying and preliminary mitigation plan design 3. Pre-application meetings with the FDEP and the COE 4. Prospectus development and submittal 5. Site inspections by regulatory agencies 6. State and federal agencies do, or do not, deem the site and proposed project "appropriate" 7. State and federal application submittals 8. State and federal application reviews 9. Legal reviews 10. Permit issuance 25 Appendix B Page 34 of 59 From the time of site identification to permit issuance, the overall process can take two to four years. 16.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions are based on the assumption hydrological enhancement is not an available option. A Collier County single-user ROMA/ILF project within the North Belle Meade appears to be a cost-feasible generator of wetland mitigation credits and panther habitat compensation if the ROMA/ILF is of sufficient size and properly located to assure long-term support for the Florida panther. A Collier County single-user ROMA/ILF project within the North Belle Meade appears to be a cost-feasible generator of wetland credits for a site(s) if exotic infestation levels are relatively high and the percentage of wetlands on the site(s) is high. To further refine the analysis results and increase the level of certainty regarding the feasibility of portions of North Belle Meade to serve as cost-effective mitigation, further steps are recommended. A more site-specific mitigation evaluation tool, based on the methodology used in this analysis, is currently being developed to allow for efficient evaluations of specific areas within North Belle Meade. A selection of potential ROMA/ILF areas should be performed. Then limited site reconnaissance coupled with the use of existing aerials could yield more refined information regarding levels of exotic infestation and the extent of wetlands for each selected area. Information gained from such efforts should be input into the new analysis tool to gain more site-specific results. This site-specific evaluation will allow the input of data gained from limited site reconnaissance of particular parcels or areas to generate site-specific data regarding potential mitigation values and associated costs. The results of this type of analysis, based on more site-specific data, will result in a higher degree of accuracy and allow for a higher degree of certainty regarding the potential for a specific area or areas to serve as feasible mitigation value generators. 17.0 RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS -ASSUMING ROMA/ILF OPTION As indicated previously, this analysis relies on certain assumptions and anticipated regulatory agency positions regarding certain issues, including the use of North Belle Meade lands for panther compensation, the impacts of the County's TDR program on potential credit generation, scoring of wetland functions, and possible alternatives for financial assurances. Discussions and/or meetings with the FDEP, the COE, and the USFWS with the overall North Belle Meade as the initial focus should occur to discuss and resolve issues related to the TDR program's potential impact on wetland credit generation and the appropriateness of certain portions of North Belle Meade for panther compensation in a ROMA/ILF project. A clear 26 Appendix B Page 35 of 59 understanding and agreement on these issues would significantly aid in the selection of appropriate lands for consideration for placement in a conceptual ROMA/ILF. Sites identified for potential inclusion in a ROMA/ILF conceptual plan could then be assessed on a more site-specific basis and the analysis tools developed by this analysis could be used to evaluate the potential value and costs for each site. 27 Appendix B Page 36 of 59 EXHIBIT 1 UMAM WORKSHEETS Appendix B Page 37 of 59 i. a. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M 0 0 0 N N N co O O M N N O O O M la V ,D O O O O O V1 O O O W. M M 0 0 0 'o ,D -- O O O 00 N O O O O M LN 0 6 0 6 M (V 6 0 0 0 f`1 -- 6 6 6 6 .0 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 c5 (6 °D O 2 M M M (- N O M M N N O M M N N O M M N N O M M N N O M M �° 1p O M M ,D VD O M M �° �° O M M \° �° O M M ,D ,D O Z O O O O -- O O O O -- O O O O O O O O O O O O -- 01 �j O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O as O a oom x Q ^g ) w C W • ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ 0 z v zzzzz zz zzz zzzzz zzzzzzzzzz a W w Q U a . o 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .7._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J A L z 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O OO O —,--. .0 M M N N O M Mt---N O M M N N O M MM N O M M N r-.. O o M MVD OD O M MVD ,D O M M ,D ,D O M M .D VD O M M ,D \D O O O O O -- O O O O O O O O -7 O O O O -. O O O O -- ,17 r: A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V 'a Y. N M M M M M V; M M Mm M VIM M M M M . M M M M M n M M M MN O C O M M M M M M M M M M —, NM M M M 7 M M M M M — M M MN M N N h N N N h N N N c. N N N h N L. N N N N N N h N N r"--- , G 0 6 6 6 6 5 0 6 6 6 6 c 6 0 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 c 6 6 6 6 6 Ly S o N _ .CA fir _� C. _— _ G G W v� z O ,, \ eo ° _ — A F O �.. C O O N h M O O N N M ^ O O h N M O O OD OD M N O O ,D VD M 0 0 ,D VD M 0 0 'D VD M 1 C' 0 OD VD M Q W .. F — m " N N VD VD VD T N N VD OD OD --- N N Vr VD 'C N N VD OD 'C N N VD VD AW V L W e 00000 : 66666 60000 7 60000 7 60000 W W x 3 — z m0 � Ox e w :, F E 0 N ' kr, cQ 00 CON N Vr CO CO N N V 4, 00 00 N N VD yy,,+ CO CO N N VD 00 CO N N VD F p, Q x ^ U 3 - .. ... ZW H O -. AUO < `o Q t < 4 WS vitt i V) ,n 'n 'n Z 'n In 'n V) vi n v, In ' .n 'n Z 7- .nn .nn v ' . , -, 'n vi Vn 'n C ' . r :r 1 n W - cCD .' D, o, °, D, o, D, o, D, D, Cr C' C' C' C' CTCCTCTC rnrn0` CTrn O u • 00 m o0 ao 00 00 W c 3 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o 0o 00 oa o0 oa o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0. z Ol' aa ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ ¢F a zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz a W ��-++ z F . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OCD rh d y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O C./ G'i V N 00 6 O Vi O O C O N O O O Q N 0 0 0 O O O N d. 0 0 0 N N F 0. A u g Fe U W 6 u 6' X W W F x N M 7 x N ,r ,t O O Z Wy W W W W W W W W W W w W W rx� EV W W G [.T. W W W W > 4 c 77 ° 7747777 ° 7777 ° -7 .777 -7Q ' aZz 0z7777d .a a a F -om ., y y a> ai 'U 8 '° .,01 c1 a) Z 3 53333 53333 53333 53333 83333 a Ti 3 3 3 3 G.. d z m as 's w c o c .D o 'o o .o+ c .° o ^o o yo. RS do 0 -c ° o a L U 'O N .o+ a .D O -0 a w c un un cc cc cccc Oa A C C O O C O V1 Vi C O O O C o r s o rn Vl ,n M M O N C O M M O N ,�-- CT. O, N N O N N N 0 0 0 Vl V1 Vl VD VD O M N N M M O r. ^ ^ ,-.^ 0 7 Cr E O O '- O 7 O O -- -- O M O O O O O N 06 0 0 0 .4 O O O6 O C It U 0 rn co M M N N O M M N N M M N N O M M N N O M M N N M M M O M M `D M M O M M O M M M C) Lr. O O O C -- O O C C V? O O O O - O O O O --. O O O O O cC 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 a m x_ a Ci C ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ d ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ d ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a) L zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz a P. Y o o C C C O C C O O O O O O O C 0 0 C C O O C C C O C O O C O O O O O O O O C C C O O O O O O O O O L 4- O O O C O O O C O O O O O O O O C O C O O O O O C `d C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O C O O E^ w M M N N O M M N N N M M N N 0 M Cl N N C M M N N M M M ,O VD O M M VD VO O M M VD VD O M M VD VD O M M VD '0 M o C 0 0 0 .- O O O O V? O O C O - C O O O -- O O C O O A O C O O C O O O O '7 O O O C O O O C O O O O O C O V. 7 M M M M M ( M M r''1 ,1 ,1 . M M M M M L M M M M M J M M M M M mZ y MM M M M 3 M M Cl M Cl . M M MM M '+,f M M M M M .Z NM M M M ^ O O O O O ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 C O O C C C G \ p _ bD e�1 ..�. O g O O VD VD M N C O VD VO C C O VD 'D M C O VD VO M--- ax O O 'O O --- h o, N N s '0 b j N N '0 '0 M N N '0 '0 ' N N 'O ,C) ,I) t N N '0 VD N .4: W -' 6 C 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 C N 7: O O C O O O6 C O6 C 0 0 0 0 O = = = = Cyd Cd U CJ CJ N ,...` e: a� •� 00 00 00 00 00 .. W o0 00 00 00 I 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 oo W o0 00 a 3 \ '1..i.! W C = C V: C "1 O C o0 00 N N ,n 00 00 N N VD „ 00 00 N N VD N 4. 00 00 N N VD y 00 00 N N 00 :C U 3 :0 C C7 •• N N N N N .... , ,- V1 V1 Vl V1 Vl .�.. V1 V1 Vl V1 Vl V1 Vl V) V1 V1 , V1 V) V1 V) V1 w./ Vl V1 V) V1 Vl c < 43 < < < < 7 W+ 3 V1 V1 V V1 ,n Z V1 V1 V1 V1 , L V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 L V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V) V1 V V1 V1 G = O, D\ or rn O, co co co co C' co co co C, C' C' U CT C, D, C' CT C' CT C' 3 C U O O �.] 3 00 00 a0 OO OO OC 00 GD 00 00 OO 00 00 W aC DD 00 00 00 CO 00 DD GD DD 00 n ¢ ¢_ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢_ ¢ ¢_ ¢_ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢_ ¢ ¢_ ¢_ < a ¢ ¢ ¢ 0. z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z O O O O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O C O V1 vi O O O O O O C O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m-, L O O O V1 V) C O O O C O O O C) t` V1 V1 O. N V1 V1 • V, O O Vi Q N N N o0 00 ON^ C O., N N -- O h ^ C 1� [� V1 V1 O N M M N N O �C cu L 1 , ,../ xU 6 - U .V. W - N M X N M 7 X N 4 ,r X N M 7 X N M .71- el N W Cil W Cil W W W W W W W W W 117 W W W W W W W W W W W W 4. C y 0 70 4 4 77 D 'O 'D 'O "O O 77 4 .b .O 0 'O ,ti b 'O D 'O b 'O 'fl o Y > z g c c c z c c c c Z c c c c g c O Z mE. d . O ^3 R . A R 0 R un Fa 77 N 8 7D E) 'Cl') y N N O N N 'O o N N N N N N i 3333 8333 g3 � 33 83333 X<14 3333 XX 3 3 3 3 3 L ST. 0 0 OCO A V 'D CJ CO+O-� A 0 'O N w0+ R .D U 'O N +0•+ 0 ..0U 'O 0 w O '0 0 'O C) e0+ < ODD L L O d A un a un t. Pte.. i5 O V1 O O C Vi C 00 O Vt O M M en r r O N r 00 M 00 lel b r V1 M Cl O 00 VVD 7 N ,--� Cr N v, M0 N " M N VD v) Q, ,-- M Vt N 7 C O -, N ,-, V7 O O -. N O V76 O -- O 7 6 6 C ,- O C1 6 6 6 C 6 ,, 6 6 0 6 6 C m LoO O C. V C. en M r r C M M r r r en m rn VD VD VD M r r 0 rn VD VD CD M M r r 0rn Cn VD VD CD M M r r 0 fn Cn VD VD CD CD 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O C O O C C O O ^ O O O O N O O C C O O O C O O C O O C O O O O O C O C C O O d CO X u A55 W < Q Q <d d < d « < < < d < « Q « « < d < N cl L Z Z Z Z Z ZZZ ,ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZ �,ZZZ a F. Q Y C O O C O C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O C O O C O O O C O C O O C C O O O O O O O O C O O C O C L O O O C O C O C O O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 M M r r C M M r r r M M r r 0 en M r r C M en r r 0 M M lD ,D O M M ,D ,D ,o M M ,D ,n O M M 'C O M M 'C ,CD O ; C C C O ^ O O O C O O O O O ,-- O O O C — O O O O ,- A C O O O C O C O O O O O C C O C O C O O C O O C O li 'O en en en en M va enM enen M V. M M M M en z, en M M M M Vi M M M M M " = M M M M M "a M M M M M 'g M M M M M '+,3 M M M M M ^a M M M M M = r r r r r = r r r r r = r r r r r. [ r r r r t-- = r r r r r cC cP CCCCC = CCCCC cy CCCCC „ 66666 ,,t CCCCC O"! o 0 0 = E.! 0 pp C C r r en N O O r r r 0 0 r r M r- C O r r to , O O r r M Or em-'- O ,oD l° 2 „ C O 'C 2 'C O C 'C 'C M 0 0 O D M r C C oD M ,, ',1 s. 00000 - 00000 7 66666 4 00000 7 CCC CC Wo 0 0 �.-•. U U :J :J U .:.' „,t5M C 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO CO CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 CO CO 00 I 00 00 00 00 00 \ C 'C'1, 1 =Cki _ kri 0 t` ^ V00 00 r r ,D ,b., 00 00 r r r y co o0 r r 'C 00 CO r r 'C 00 00 r r ,° M M M M M ”' vi vi vi ,t'', ../1 v� vi vi in vi ,n en vi 0 en en vn vi en � .a < < < < r.4 3 , enhkk Z vi v, een Ln L v, envivivi r, Z vi envie, Z v, vikr) vie, .0 ❑ " a, D. a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, O, a, 0, 0, a, a, a, a, °, a, a, a, a, C .2 '3 V U O O . 3 00 00 co 00 00 W 00 00 CO 00 00 pO CO CO CO CO 07 CO CO CO CO 00` DD 00 DD R < < ¢ < Q < < < < Q Q Q < < < < < < < < Q Qf Q Qf c< sy z z z z z Z Z Z z Z Z Z z Z Z z Z z z z z z z z z O O O O O: O V1 O Vt O O O O O O y O Vl O Vt 8 O O N C N O C O Vl O O C to C Vt O O O C O O C O ew _ O O r O r Vt O Vt O V1 O Iv, U 00 -- 00 O -, -- ^ V1 C O r C el Qi M G1� �-+ N r r. r V1kr, vi M Vi GD N N. N N M ,� M 0 0 U 0 O C J K U V W x N M 7 X N M d' x -- N V 7 K Nr,-, V x -- N M d' N W W W W W Ca) LTJ F.T. W W W W W W W W W W W W C.T. [,U W W W W 4.O 0. > Z° a 4 'O C ° tiz c, O C °lj' D 'O 77° w ti a 'a ° •o '9 'D 77 "' 12 m W u u m a u u u amu m a v v a a� v .15 t XX8wX s 3 wa 3 1-,-., Z. 3 0 a m .n a Ca 42, a U a m au ro A u a u .D u a CD 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Vt V1 0l O kin O N O N O M 0 00 Ln 00 O N O M O M O N .meq O M Q, YO C, O Cl N N O N O ^ O 00 O O N .n O Ch O O Cl V r- C) L O O O N M Vi, O C O M V1 0 0 0 — N M 0 0 0 0 .-40 0 0 0 0 0 Lc U 0 v ',:::i M C.C., N O M M N N O M M N N O M M N N O M M N N O Co C. M ,D O M M ,D �O O M M VD ,D O M M .O ,D O M M ,ID �D O a') w• 00 0 0 — O O O O '- 0 0 0 0 -- O O O O — O O O O -- Co C 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Q. CO x_ u a < Q ¢ ¢ d d ¢ Q d ¢ d 4 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ d ¢ ¢ d ¢ ¢ a L zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz Qa o. h0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L -. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O UO O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O w � , F LE `g:', M N 0 M M N N 0 M M N N 0 M M N N O M M N N O M ,`-,-s yr O M N ,D O M M ,D �D O M M �D �D O M M ,O VD O 0 O O O O — 0 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 — O O O O -- G O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ii h O 4 M M M M M . M M M M M M M M M M ur M M M M M Z M M M M M ^J NNNNNM 7 M M M M M -0 M M M M M +,may M M M M M = NNNNN C 0 N N N N N N N N N N C N N N N N C N t r- N N = N N N r- r- .,,% .� g. O O O O O C 0 0 0 0 0 ;C 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ;C O O O O O G 4 G G <_ o 0 0 0 .... tt NrC FO O N'C NVD M O O VD VDN MM ( 0 0 VDNNM 0 O NVDN'C M ^ O 0 N'CN'C M .D k s. O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 j O O O O O W © = C yate.. 0? w. •c 00 00 00 00 00 i 00 0o m o0 0o o0 00 m co m i o0 00 0o m co i o0 07 00 00 00 c 3 eo 0 o w k 5 E0 0 00 0o N N V im„ 0000 N N ,D kr-, 00 00 N N ,C 00 00 N N .D - co 00 N N y T 7 - 1 • Y Y '7 h N LV v k 0 � V 0 " v.) v., V1 V. L 00 V N < a < < < < j , Q.-, V) V) V.) v) V) 0 , 0 :", ,n k.,) Vn 0n ..e") '.7.' v) v� �n v, v, ', v) , v1 v1 kr, V: .0 f f :r :r. 3 0 - 0 0 .4 — 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 I 1 o x U tQ Q Q Q Q Q ¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q < Q Q < Q Q o a. zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz .� 0 P O O 0 0, 0 0 O O N N 8 oh O O Ot On Oo O O � [2 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 v UO .D OO 1MD\ O -^ NO :A O Vl t� O O O N M a0 O N O M V ti C C c :,, U U U U U L •- W ..i N M V x N M V x N 'r 7 ,‹ N M V X x — N M V C N W WW W W WW W W W W W WW W r.] W W W W W W W W W 0 4.. a. 7, D 'O ti 'O 'b C -d 77 77 73 O 41 73 73 7 D 73 'a 'v '6 O - '3 TS 77 w 0 s w 3333 83333 83333 j 3 3 3 3 X3333 o - 3 3 3 3 3 N c w 3 ao z Co CO 3 a L a a. z i.., ." 0 0 0 0 O g D 0 0 0 0 C' r- S O O O M M M O 00 N M M O O O h O O O O .en CD O O 'C O O O M M .0 0 0 0 .., M M 0 0 0 'C L N M 0 0 0 '4O N 0 0 0 1N,•i Vf -- O O O 00 M 0 0 0 0 7 -- O O O O -- up 0 N N O O M N N O O M r- ,f) O O M N N O O M [— N O O M �O .7...SO O M O O M O O M 'C 'C O O M 'C 'C O O M N �WW"J - -n N N N --, -- N N N ^ -- N N N N N N -- N N N @ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O C 0 0 0 0 0 d z Cx F w Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q d Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a) Q W a ZZZZZ ZZzZZ Z 'ZZZZ ZZZZz Z22Z2 Q W �7 Fl m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q. Q. C Q C a W x Le a Q -+ 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z H . w 0. Li r,.-• N O O M N N O O M N N O O M N N O O M [� N O O M Fy �O O O M �O �O O O M AO AD O O M AD �O O O M MAD VD O O M a] ^' N N N N N N -- N N N �-- N N N -- -- N N N A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C N = = 7 O O I-.. = 3 = N 3 ol , N N 'C 'C N N N N N N N N C.N N N. N N G N n N N N G N r N N N OO 'O 'O ^l0 'O OO .O ' 'C 'C .o 'O ::'.:i OS OS OS 'C 'C 'C .O OS W C ° C CJ 6 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .d C C C C C C C C C C •w g = o o 00000 e 60000 CCA rFr__'. .O_ Q' ��VV N i f. 4 I��1 \ moi f es/ i T N x w 4z en = M 77 M C 0 O O [-• 'C M 0 0 'C [- M C O O T [- M 0 0 [- r M C O O T M 3 � CO = O ,4) ,ID V r. O O `O 'C vvD '0 ti N N AD AD VD AD -- O O AVD VD rn D b VD - N CD CD AD AD AD Uit ,5 O O O O O ; 0 0 0 0 0 Cd O O O O O :J O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 x v o r o „� A - •g .3 aaaaa l- aaaaa -tt:.6- as N aaaaa -. aaaaa .0 '+ -k O °00 00 N N 'C -x .0 co N N .O CO 00 00 N N 'C CO o0 0o N N ' 4, 00 0o N N OO x w .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 00 00 00 00 Z .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 Z c 3 Z Z a Wo ._ w G' ` > `� Ci Coal a o w — ,. vi v, r J v, vi v) v, z vi vi vi vi f vi vi Q, vi cA vi vn vvv1^ x N N ,ft/ N o O Q = .3 a a a a a gl a a a a a = a a a a C CZ a Cr a a. a = a a a a a za _ a w c o z 0 g, ¢ QQQQ ¢ ¢ QQQ QQQQ ¢ QQQQ ¢ QQQQ a ZZZZz zzz2z ZZZZZ zzzzzz zzzzz w z w O O C O O C. O O C O C O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N .0 C O 4 O O C O 4 C Q a 0 0 0 O O O r O O O N N Vi O O O [.-� 00 N O O O 'y GTx ^ ice! 00 U U U 01 z X N M . X N M 1- k N X N M 7 k N M 7 Q w W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W [z] W W W W [i7 W W W 7 77 77 73 F t ro CS g Z 5 ,!_ ro Z a m G Z ro gtg g Z c9 gs c9 ,9 W ck a •n E -o = E b 9 m ' b 7E 7,71. 7E 7i -v li w3333 83333 X33333333 53333 3 3 3 3 O ea O c -O U -D N C m .0 C) -O N $.... 16 .S] U 'O0 CO+�-' .O U -O C) '0- CO SD V -a N .. QC C GC C� 0Ln A. ;,a 0 0 0 0 0 0 v1 'C O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 vi .4, 0 0 0 0 O O O o 0 0 v) vl VO VD O N N N 0 0 0 u1 ut O O O O N N 0 0 0 N .4, v1 7 7 0 00 0.) �� L 7 7 M M 0 '43, M M M M O „M„ N N N N O Qn --' ^ ^ 0 . O O O O O •y L(; O co V U ',.5 N O O M N N O O M N N co O M N N O O M N N O O M �D O O M �D O O M �O VD O O MCA �D O O M D VD O O M CD (T. .- .-. N N N ^ ^ N N N — ^ N N N ^ — N N N ^ ^ N N N N g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 m x_ u 7 c Q Q Q Q d Q d d ¢ d d ¢ ¢ Q Q Q Q Q ¢ d ¢ Q d Q ¢ C LI 2 -2Z22ZZZZ2 ZZZZ2 ZZZZZ 2ZZZ - Q Ofl co O co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O z L y0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O o 0 O O O o 0 • O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W F . N N O O M N N O O M N N O O M N N O O M N N O O M 1. VD VD O O M VO 'D O O M VD VO O O M VO VD O O M VD VD O O M y ^ N N N ^ N N N ^ N N CO ^ N N N ^ N N N CC O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 7 7 7 7 71. N N N N N N N N N N r. r- N N N N L. N N N N N N N N N N ? y d VD VD VD 'C 'C 70 D VD D V 'C C"'C 'C 'C 'C 'o .D VD VD VD f—V VD VD VD VD 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 :+ CO 00 o0 00 00 .+ CC 00 00 00 00 —. 00 00 00 00 00 L 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 C C O \ N 17r C\ 7 op7 7 7 7 • C o O N N M C O O N N M C co co N N M C O O N N M = O O N N M :Q O O VD VD M :C O O 'D VD M ,. O O VD VD M 0 O O CD VD M0 O 0 VD 'D M co .- N N VD VO VD r... N N VD VO VD — N N VD VD VD - N N VD VD ,D N N VD VD VD U i! 'f0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U o 0 0 0 0 U O O O o 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 o i i O O O C_ ,,C) �, C1 •1. 6 Or O, Or O, Or r• O, O, O+ O, Or if rncrrnO` cr N 0,. ONOr6O. -- OrO, O, O, O, W C- O := N E o N N N N ▪ O o0 00 N N 'C 0< 00 00 N N 'C 0< 00 00 N N 'C 0< o0 00 N N VD ^ 00 00 N N VD AA • >, r C. x 00 ▪ bL 00 00 00 00 00 I 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 , W 00 00 00 00 t co oo 00 00 00 z o 3 7 7 7_ Z O nv� ,n vi V. vi vi vi "J, vi vi vi J vi vi vi ut vi J vi v, Le, vn ,am, 'J ai el L C a. O� Q\ Q` — Dr 6r Or D` O`. —i Q\ Q`. Q` Q` P r P D` d`• Q, Q` eh OC C Cr u 0 0 .] + 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Q ¢ ¢ ¢ d d ¢ d ¢ d Q Q Q Q Q ¢ ¢ Q ¢ Q ¢ ¢ d Q Q a ZZZZz zzzzz zzzzZ zzzZZ ZZZZZ 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o O O O o O o d 0 000000 vivi0000 000000 000000 00000 _ C L O O O Vi vi O O O O O O O O S. U NA, h o0 0oN N vi vi V1 vi v,-;l O O co V1 N N ^ ^ OC O � N N ^ ^ O N ^ ^ ^ ^ o „ 1� r vi vi O N M M N N O U ",;u Q 7 C_ CC N M ,r X N M V X ON V V X X ^ N M 'Q N M 0- C W C.L. W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Liz W W Cil W W W W W y.. Or T, ZO '7 7 -a O 6 'O -6 'O 17 D b 7 .D .Q O 7 7 'O 'O O .D 7 6 'd C F > „ oCC Z 0 = 0CZ0 11 g c = Z ozocmc ^s a oca 15 T/j 'O N y 8 N 7) I; N y 4J '6 N N N 'D ii N N N 7D N N N N d 83333 83333 3333 X3333 3333 s 3 3 3 1.74 CD 3 3 L W 0 c z O c6 U b 00 a6+ c6 9 U '6 N w N .0 U '7 N aha c A U '6 N az 0 .D C) -o N 2 b0 O O O L .O 5 f= t� toun cuo :� Q.1 .+.. a.+ O Vl 0 0 0 O 00 O 9 O N V) M -+ N V1 00 C N hM VND N O O N. V0 2.2 M O N V0l 01 M N 7 NO NM N,' L M N M ,D N N -- M V1 .-. N M W 01 O C — W O 7 C O O C O ti cn U O u n N O O M r- 0` O C M r- r O O M n r C C M r- r- C O M W V vD C O M .0 Vr O O M VD VD O O M VD VD O O M '+D VD O O M N N N N Cl Cl -- -- Cl N N -- -- N N N -- .-- N N N c 04 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 GO u / a W Q Q <Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q N ZZZZZ ZZZZZ ZZZZz ZZZZZ Z Z Z Z Z n 0. Q x 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C O o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O C O o 0 C 0 0 O C C O C o C O C C O C 0 0 0 o C o O C C o 0 C 0 L O U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F y N N O O M N N O O M N N O O M 0` 0` O C M N N O C M vD VD O O M VD VD O O M ,D VD O O M VD V° O C M VD VD O O M U --' -- N N N -- -- N N N ----- N N N -- -- N N N -- -- N N N C O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O C C 0 0 0 0 = 3 a C a O 00 00 00 00 00 _ 00 00 00 00 00 -- 00 00 00 00 00 ;.i 00 00 00 00 00 .., 00 00 00 00 00 C4 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 4= L0.2 _ a o nV N i!, O\ i rr J � ,, 72 Ok77 C O O N V, M = O O h l- M C O O n r M C O O I- N M C O O 0` 0 M SO O VD VD M CC, O O 'D VD M � O C VD VD M = O O '0 VD M '� N N VO VD VD N N VD VD VD C- O O VD VD M C.1 YC 5 O O O O O v 6 0 0 0 0 t� 0 0 0 0 0 tom.) 0 0 0 0 0 U O O O O O 3 eN a, cr '00a, r- rno, rn0' o ir', rncra, rncr N o, rna, C' rn -- '0Co, 0rn ° 3 _ W ea M E O M M M M 5 - 00 00 N N V ^ 00 00 N N VD k 00 00 N N V V 00 00 N N V •^ 00 00 N N V i m 00 00 00 0o 0o t 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 : C 00 00 00 00 00 f 00 00 00 00 00 Z z z ° �3 7 7 s° 00 0 v, 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 0 U 00 0 v, 00 0 : ;a O C 0 0 0 O Vl V, v, Ur) O M C O N N O N V, Vl M .4 O N O O M O O v, N M N- C N N N O 0 00 on v, \O O V N N M N O -- M N O, r. fi L O — N ,D 00 O -- N vi N .�. O O ,--� M ' C O O O -- N VN l O O C O O Lr C O LoV C. ','1; N O O M N N O O M N N O O M N N O C M N N C O M a) ,D O O M '0 ,D O O M ,O ,D O O M ,D ,D O O M ,O 00 O O M CD WN N N N N N O-- N N N ^ N N N N N N a) g 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 d CO x a u c .I < < < 1 < ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ d ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a) zzzzz ZZZZZ zzzzz ZZZZZ zzzzz Q d ..JI O C O O O O O O O C C O O O C O O C C O O C C O O O O O O C C O O O O O O O O O C O O O O C O O C O = L 2 O O O O O O O C O C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O O O O C O O O O OC O O O O O O O O O O O C F :QN N M N N O O M N N O O M N N O O N N N O O M ,D ,D O O O O M ,D ,D O O M ,D ,D O O M ,D ,D O O M ,O ,O O O M y -- •- N N N ^ -- N N N O ^ N N N ^ N N N -- - N N N G O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O C O O O O O O O C O O O O C 77 77 7 :74 CD 0 0 a) VD VD VD 00 00 00 00 00 00 VD VD VD VD VD 0 V VD 00 00 00 00 C 00 00 V -.„ 00 00 00 00 00 ..df 00 00 00 00 00 .., 00 00 00 00 00 .d 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 6 0 0 0 0 . o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 O Fr kr, C N w. N 73 OL 7 7 7 7 _ C d C O 00 N M ^ 0 0 00 00N M ^ 0 0 '0 h M =+ O O '0 00 M O O 'N0 N M - O O ,D ,D M .. 0 0 ,D ,D M . 0 N ,D ,D M Z N O ,D ,D M :C O O ,D ,D M 0J Y! 5 O O O O O :d O O O O O :.? O O O O C U O O O C C I.) C 0 0 0 0 li 33 o 00 c )0 v, c v; c .3 D O O o a r a rn a CO' V Cr. a Cr. Crr Cr, N a Cr. Cr. rn a o rn a a m W T o Y "f T rt O 00 00 N N 0 * 00 00 N N 00 * 00 00 C N VD * 00 00 1. N 00 '* 00 00 N N VD eWO _ o0 00 00 00 00 `. 00 co 00 00 00 co m oo ao 00 oD m o0 00 00 `' o0 00 00 m 00 zai zZ z z clJ C ,..I ,..� ,J 1 Le v, v, ' v, u, I f 00 v, v, In v, '/_ v, v, v, I' v, v, Le v, v a^i 3 " d., cy r .s r %- r =5 - 0 0 0 3 0000000000 00 00000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 p , I 5- 5 w ¢ ¢ Q < ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ Q ¢ < < < < < < < < < < Po z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z c 45 0006 v, v, 00 006 00 3 L O O U, ul O O O /C, CI. O O CV, OO. O O, � gO O O 0 0, 0, 0 0 v _ C ,A OCO ,, • OO• Cn • O - DMhOv, N ^ N VO N Mo2NO - - M V pp c o T - Y ^ 0 G O x U V 4 J W .2 >Df N M .r N en ,r X N V V O N M 7 D N M 7.1r 0 W pj W W W W W W W W W « N W W W W W W W W W W W W [Jr]W w P. 7,7, D -o •3 ,Il 77 D '7 '7 •7 •7 - 7 '7 •, -7 .7 0 -7 -7 -7 07 '7 '7 -7 y d 00 .a 'o 0 i 5 . 17 0 0 0 •.. m m a� -O k ¢i 0 40 w 53333 53333 53333 X3333 X3333 -0 .o � U v 0 3 3 pow .4 3 3 3 NSM o we z a "ii x o j2 WI 10 00 0 'O N .a c0 ..0 U'O U .yOC 10 00 0 •D 0 10 an 00 0 •O U 10 00 U 'D U rig al U1 Vl V1 o.maz EXHIBIT 2 MITIGATION VALUE TABLES Appendix B Page 46 of 59 NORTH BELLE MEADE MITIGATION VALUE TABLES Mitigation Value Tables without Hydrology Lift Scenario 1 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Credit Upland ($/per Upland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Value Acres Upland Value($) Value (per 100 Generated Value Acre) (per 100 acres) acres) ($/Credit) 10 0.33 75,000 $23,750 90 4,500 $405,000 $428,750 25 0.83 75,000 $62,250 75 4,500 $337,500 $399,750 50 1.67 75,000 $125,250 50 4,500 $225,000 $350,250 75 2.50 75,000 $187,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $300,000 90 3.00 75,000 $225,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $270,000 Scenario 2 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Wetland Upland ($/per Upland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit (per 100 Generated Value Value Acres Upland Value(5) Value acres) ($/Credit) Acre) (per 100 acres) 10 0.47 75,000 $35,250 90 4,500 $405,000 $440,250 25 1.17 75,000 $87,750 75 4,500 $337,500 $425,250 50 2.33 75,000 $174,750 50 4,500 $225,000 $399,750 75 3.50 75,000 $262,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $375,000 90 4.20 75,000 $315,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $360,000 Scenario 3 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland of Wetland Credit Wetland PHU Value Total Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Upland ($/per Upland Mitigation (per 100 Generated Value Value Acres Upland Value(5) Value acres) ($/Credit) Acre) (per 100 acres) 10 0.58 75,000 $43,500 90 4,500 $405,000 $448,500 25 1.46 75,000 $109,500 75 4,500 $337,500 $447,000 50 2.92 75,000 $219,000 50 4,500 $225,000 $444,000 75 4.38 75,000 $328,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $441,000 90 5.25 75,000 $393,750 10 4,500 $45,000 $438,750 E2-1 Appendix B Page 47 of 59 Scenario 4 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Wetland ($/per d U lanpUpland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit p (per 100 Generated Value Value Acres Upland Value(5) Value acres) ($/Credit) Acre) (per 100 acres) 10 0.77 75,000 $57,750 90 4,500 $405,000 $462,750 25 1.92 75,000 $144,000 75 4,500 $337,500 $481,500 50 3.83 75,000 $287,250 50 4,500 $225,000 $512,250 75 5.75 75,000 $431,250 25 4,500 $112,500 $543,750 90 6.90 75,000 $517,500 10 4,500 $5,000 $562,250 Mitigation Value Tables with Hydrology Lift Hydro Scenario 1 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Wetland Mitigation Upland ($/per Upland Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Value (per 100 Generated Value Value Acres Upland Value($) (per 100 acres) ($/Credit) Acre) acres) 10 1.67 75,000 $125,250 90 4,500 $405,000 $530,250 25 4.17 75,000 $312,750 75 4,500 $337,500 $650,250 50 8.33 75,000 $624,750 50 4,500 $225,000 $849,750 75 12.50 75,000 $937,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,050,000 90 15.00 75,000 $1,125,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,170,000 Hydro Scenario 2 A BCDEF GH Percentage Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Wetland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Upland ($/per Upland Value (per 100 Generated Value Value Acres Upland Value($) (per 100 acres) ($/Credit) Acre) acres) 10 1.80 75,000 $135,000 90 4,500 $405,000 $540,000 25 4.60 75,000 $345,000 75 4,500 $337,500 $682,500 50 9.00 75,000 $675,000 50 4,500 $225,000 $900,000 75 13.50 75,000 $1,012,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,125,500 90 16.20 75,000 $1,215,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,260,000 E2-2 Appendix B Page 48 of 59 Hydro Scenario 3 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland Total PHU Value of Wetland Credit Wetland Upland ($/per Upland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Value Acres Upland Value(5) (per 100 Generated Value Value Acre) (per 100 acres) ($/Credit) acres) 10 1.92 75,000 $144,000 90 4,500 $405,000 $549,000 25 4.79 75,000 $359,250 75 4,500 $337,500 $696,750 50 9.58 75,000 $718,500 50 4,500 $225,000 $943,500 75 14.38 75,000 $1,078,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,191,000 90 17.25 75,000 $1,293,750 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,338,750 Hydro Scenario 4 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland Total of Wetland Credit Wetland PHU Value Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Upland ($/per Upland Value (per 100 Generated Value Value' Acres Upland Value($) (per 100 acres) ($/Credit) Acre) acres) 10 2.10 75,000 $157,500 90 4,500 $405,000 $562,500 25 5.25 75,000 $393,750 75 4,500 $337,500 $731,250 ' 50 10.50 75,000 $787,500 50 4,500 $225,000 $1,012,500 75 15.75 75,000 $1,181,250 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,293,750 90 18.90 75,000 $1,417,500 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,462,500 E2-3 Appendix B Page 49 of 59 EXHIBIT 3 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Appendix B Page 50 of 59 NORTH BELLE MEADE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Implementation costs for wetland areas can be considered as the cost of the following for a 5- year period: Initial treatment/eradication of exotic and nuisance vegetation Five years of ongoing treatment of exotic and nuisance vegetation Replanting of areas with 75 percent or greater levels of exotic vegetation Prescribed burns where and when appropriate Funding of the long-term management fund For the purpose of this analysis, the need and/or cost for prescribed burning of wetland areas during the five year implementation period is assumed to be negligible relative to other costs. Implementation Cost for Wetland Areas by Infestation levels For areas with less than 25 percent(El) exotic/nuisance infestation Initial treatment $500/acre Five years of ongoing treatment(5 x $25) $125/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre Total $1,650/acre For areas with 25 to 50 percent(E2) exotic/nuisance infestation Initial treatment $1,000/acre Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $50) $250/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre Total $2,275/acre For areas with 51 to 75 percent(E3) exotic/nuisance infestation Initial treatment $1,500/acre Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $75) $375/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre Total $2,900/acre For areas with greater than 75 percent(E4) exotic/nuisance infestation Initial treatment $2,000/acre Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $125) $625/acre Replanting $3,500/acre Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre Total $7,150/acre E3-1 Appendix B Page 51 of 59 For areas with no exotic or nuisance vegetation present Initial treatment N/A Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $125) $60/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre Total $1,085/acre The above information is presented in tabular form below. Table E3-1. General per acre Implementation Costs Summary for Wetland Areas Infestation Level Implementation Cost Per Acre None $1,085 Minor(El) $1,650 Moderate (E2) $2,275 High (E3) $2,900 Extreme (E4) $7,150 The actual implementation costs for any given area will greatly depend on the range of initial initial habitat values (primarily exotic/nuisance infestation levels). Use of the four infestation level scenarios described above to calculate the probable implementation costs for different degrees of exotic infestation yields to results shown in Table E3-2, below. Table E3-2. Implementation Costs by Scenarios (Per 100 Wetland Acres) Scenario 1-Low Infestation Levels Unit Cost per 100 Percentage of Land Infestation Level with Infestation Implementation Cost Acres of Wetlands Level None $108,500 80 $86,800 Minor(El) $165,000 20 $33,000 Moderate (E2) $227,500 0 0 High (E3) $290,000 0 0 Extreme (E4) $715,000 0 0 Total $119,800 Scenario 2—Mostly Low to Moderate Levels of Infestation Unit Cost per 100 Percentage of Land Infestation Level with Infestation Implementation Cost Acres of Wetland Level None $108,500 30 $32,550 Minor(El) $165,000 30 $49,500 E3-2 Appendix B Page 52 of 59 Scenario 2—Mostly Low to Moderate Levels of Infestation (Continued) Unit Cost per 100 Percentage of Land Infestation Level with Infestation Implementation Cost Acres of Wetland Level Moderate (E2) $227,500 20 $45,500 High(E3) $290,000 20 $58,000 Extreme (E4) $715,000 0 0 Total $185,550 Scenario 3 -Mostly Moderate to High Levels of Infestation Unit Cost per 100 Percentage of Land Infestation Level Acres of Wetland with Infestation Implementation Cost Level None $108,500 20 $21,700 Minor(El) $165,000 15 $24,750 Moderate (E2) $227,500 20 $45,500 High(E3) $290,000 35 $101,500 Extreme (E4) $715,000 10 $71,500 Total $264,950 Scenario 4 - Mostly High Levels of Infestation Unit Cost per 100 Percentage of Land Infestation Level with Infestation Implementation Cost Acres of Wetland Level None $108,500 0 0 Minor(El) $165,000 10 $16,500 Moderate (E2) $227,500 15 $34,125 High (E3) $290,000 35 $101,500 Extreme (E4) $715,000 40 $286,000 Total $438,125 Implementation Costs for Upland Areas Exotic and nuisance vegetation commonly occurs in both wetlands and uplands in Southwest Florida. The costs presented for the four scenarios above are primarily representative of treatment costs for wetland systems. Treatment costs for upland areas are typically less because prescribed burning can be used as an effective management component of any exotic vegetation eradication program. Prescribed Burn Costs The cost to burn land is highly variable depending on the amount of fuel load present, the linear feet of burn lines that need to be established, the size of the area to be burned,the types of habitat present, and other factors. For the purposes of this analysis, an assumed cost of $850 per 100 E3-3 Appendix B Page 53 of 59 acres of uplands will be used for the initial burn event and $600 per 100 acres for the follow-up burn likely to be required during the five year implementation period. Prescribed burns are also a useful management tool for certain types of wetland habitats. The use of fire in wetland areas often reduces the need to treat exotic and nuisance species; therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, the cost of burning wetlands, where appropriate, is assumed as accounted for in the costs for ongoing treatments of exotic/nuisance vegetation in wetland areas. The costs for implementation for upland areas can be generally defined as: Initial Burn Cost + Follow-up Burn Costs +funding perpetual management fund Using the assumed estimated cost numbers for 100 acres this equation yields: $1,500 + $600 + ($1,025/acre x 100 acres) x = $104,600 per 100 acres for upland implementation costs Combined Wetland and Upland Implementation Costs For a given 100-acre area,the combined implementation costs can generally be calculated as: (Percent Upland x $104,600) + (Percent Wetland x Implementation Costs for given levels of infestation) The following tables give the combined implementation costs for the four infestation level scenarios for a 100-acre area with upland/wetland ratios of 10/90, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, and 90/10 to represent a range of upland/wetland land composition types. Table E3-4. Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 10 Percent Uplands/90 Percent Wetlands Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 10 Percent Uplands/90 Percent Wetlands Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Wetland Combined Acres AcresCost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $107,820 $10,460 $118,280 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $166,995 $10,460 $177,455 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $238,455 $10,460 $248,915 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $394,312 $10,460 $404,772 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Wetland Combined Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $89,959 $26,150 $116,109 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $139,163 $26,150 $165,313 E3-4 Appendix B Page 54 of 59 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands (Continued) Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Wetland Combined Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $198,713 $26,150 $244,863 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $328,594 $26,150 $357,744 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 50 Percent Uplands/50 Percent Wetlands Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 50 Percent Uplands/50 Percent Wetlands Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Wetland Combined Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $59,900 $52,300 $112,200 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $92,775 $52,300 $145,075 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $132,475 $52,300 $184,775 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $219,063 $52,300 $271,363 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 75 Percent Uplands/25 Percent Wetlands Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 75 Percent Uplands/25 Percent Wetlands Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Wetland Combined Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $29,950 $78,450 $108,400 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $46,388 $78,450 $124,838 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $66,238 $78,450 $144,688 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $109,532 $78,450 $187,982 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Wetland Combined Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $11,980 $94,140 $106,120 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $18,555 $94,140 $112,695 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $26,495 $94,140 $120,635 E3-5 Appendix B Page 55 of 59 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands (Continued) Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Wetland Combined Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $43,812 $94,140 $137,952 E3-6 Appendix B Page 56 of 59 EXHIBIT 4 CREDIT GENERATION COST TABLES Appendix B Page 57 of 59 NORTH BELLE MEADE CREDIT GENERATION COST TABLES The total cost to generate Mitigation Value is the combined costs of: Land+Implementation+Program Administration Land value is assumed at$2,250 per acre= $225,000 per 100 acres Program administration cost is assumed as $37,600 per 100 acres over a 5 year period The following table gives the total costs for the four infestation level scenarios for a 100± acre area with upland/wetland ratios of 10/90, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, and 90/10 to represent a range of upland/wetland land composition types. Table E4-1. Total Credit Generation Cost Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation 10 Percent Upland/90 Percent Wetland Levels Combined Administrative Total Credit Implementation Land Cost Cost Generation Cost Cost Scenario 1 $118,280 $225,000 $37,600 $380,880 Scenario 2 $177,455 $225,000 $37,600 $440,055 Scenario 3 $248,915 $225,000 $37,600 $511,515 Scenario 4 $404,772 $225,000 $37,600 $667,372 Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation 25 Percent Upland/75 Percent Wetland Combined Levels Administrative Total Credit Implementation Land Cost Cost Generation Cost Cost Scenario 1 $116,109 $225,000 $37,600 $378,709 Scenario 2 $165,313 $225,000 $37,600 $427,913 Scenario 3 $244,863 $225,000 $37,600 $507,463 Scenario 4 $357,744 $225,000 $37,600 $620,344 Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation 50 Percent Upland/50 Percent Wetland Combined Levels Administrative Total Credit Implementation Land Cost Cost Generation Cost Cost Scenario 1 $112,200 $225,000 $37,600 $374,800 Scenario 2 $145,075 $225,000 $37,600 $407,675 Scenario 3 $184,775 $225,000 $37,600 $447,375 r. Scenario 4 $271,363 $225,000 $37,600 $533,963 E4-1 Appendix B Page 58 of 59 Table E4-1. (Continued) Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation 75 Percent Upland/25 Percent Wetland Levels Combined Administrative Total Credit Implementation Land Cost Cost Generation Cost Cost Scenario 1 $108,400 $225,000 $37,600 $371,000 Scenario 2 $124,838 $225,000 $37,600 $387,438 Scenario 3 $144,688 $225,000 $37,600 $407,288 Scenario 4 $187,982 $225,000 $37,600 $450,582 Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation 90 Percent Upland/10 Percent Wetland Combined Levels Administrative Total Credit Implementation Land Cost Cost Generation Cost Cost Scenario 1 $106,120 $225,000 $37,600 $386,720 Scenario 2 $112,695 $225,000 $37,600 $375,295 Scenario 3 $120,635 $225,000 $37,600 $383,235 Scenario 4 $137,952 $225,000 $37,600 $400,552 E4-2 Appendix B Page 59 of 59 Goiter County Appendix C Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy TDR Bank Memo Appendix C Page 1 of 19 TDR Bank Memo Date: July 31, 2016 To: Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager, Collier County, FL From: Rick Pruetz, FAICP RE: TDR Bank Options At your request, this memo discusses TDR banks and related mechanisms in the context of Collier County's Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD). The concept of a TDR bank has received attention during the ongoing restudy of this program. TDR banks are entities officially authorized by a community to acquire, hold and sell TDRs for ultimate use in TDR receiving site projects. Many TDR banks are run as an additional task of local government or as a separate public agency established by that government. However, some TDR banks are managed by separate organizations, such as non-profit conservancies, using policies and procedures established by the government in question. As detailed below, TDR banks can perform many functions. But they are most helpful as a means of offering sending area property owners an alternative means of selling their TDRs, particularly when developer demand for TDRs is slow. For this reason, a TDR bank appears to be an attractive option for the RFMUD, where sending owners are concerned about the pace of developer demand for TDRs in the near-term future. As another benefit, adequately-stocked TDR banks assure developers of a readily accessible supply of TDRs in the event that they have difficulty buying TDRs directly from sending area property owners. Despite the fact that RFMUD developers have acquired and redeemed 2,129 TDRs to date, concerns have been expressed that TDRs will become (or perhaps have become) harder to buy, thus jeopardizing the success of the program unless a ready source of TDRs can be assured. There are other ways of providing that assurance, such as allowing developers to achieve bonus density via a legislated Density Transfer Charge (DTC) which is basically a cash-in-lieu payment. But there are pros and cons to both of these methods as discussed below. The RFMUD restudy is also examining the issue of funding perpetual land management primarily in North Belle Meade where no non-county agencies are currently authorized to accept title from sending area property owners who may wish to convey title in order to sell their title-conveyance TDRs. The county is currently examining the possibility that establishment of an environmental mitigation bank, or Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA), for properties in North Belle Meade as a cost effective way for the county to mitigate the impacts of its transportation and other infrastructure projects as well as a solution to funding perpetual land management and the ability of the county to accept title to sending area land in North Belle Meade. This memo continues to explore possible means of using TDR to address the conveyance-of-title hurdle in the Appendix C Page 2 of 19 event that the ROMA alternative does not materialize. However, if ROMA does materialize, a TDR bank could focus on the primary concern in the RFMUD: finding a way to reimburse sending area landowners for selling their TDRs in the near-term while receiving area developer TDR demand grows over the long term. Throughout the restudy meetings, both sending site landowners and the development community have seen a TDR bank as a promising solution to this so-called "lag time" concern. Section A below briefly addresses the pros and cons of TDR banks to organize a detailed examination of these issues in later sections of the memo which include: B) Options for Stocking a TDR Bank; C) Density Transfer Charges, D) TDRs Granted to County for Accepting Title, E) Surcharge and F) Next Steps. A) Should Collier County Form a TDR Bank? Advantages Al) During the RFMUD Restudy meetings, sending area property owners reported that there currently are an insufficient number of TDR buyers due to a large inventory of entitlements in the receiving areas. A TDR bank could buy TDRs from sending area owners in the short term and sell them during the period of time needed for additional TDR demand to materialize in the receiving areas. A2) When TDR banks sell their holdings, the original expenditure is recouped and can be used for further acquisitions and/or to achieve other public goals such as ongoing operations and maintenance of preserves. In other words, an effective TDR bank converts what would otherwise be a one-time public expenditure into a perpetual revolving fund for preservation. This can be an important feature in the effort to secure public funding to stock the TDR bank rather than use those tax dollars for many other competing public programs. As detailed in Disadvantage Al below, full disclosure is advisable if a TDR bank is expected to hold TDRs for a long time period before selling and reusing the proceeds. However, given the number of TDRs already purchased by receiving area developers, this may not be a serious concern. A3) TDR banks allow receiving site developers an alternative to finding and negotiating TDR purchases directly from sending site owners. If the bank is stocked with a sufficient number of fairly-priced TDRs, developers should be able to buy the TDRs needed to achieve desired densities. The existence of a TDR bank does not in and of itself guaranteed that it will be holding a sufficient number of TDRs to satisfy any level of developer demand. An inadequately stocked TDR bank might be a concern in a new program with no track record. However, the RFMUD program has operated without a bank for many years and developers have managed to buy and retire 2,129 TDRs to date from private sellers. Furthermore, if future developers have trouble buying TDRs from either land owners or a TDR bank, the County can consider allowing compliance via Appendix C Page 3 of 19 Density Transfer Charges (Section C) as a means of keeping this difficulty from jeopardizing the program. A4) TDR banks tend to stabilize TDR prices, creating more certainty about the amount that sending area property owners can expect to receive when they consider whether or not to pursue the TDR option. Price stabilization also allows developers to perform economic analysis of projects at the conceptual stage with less concern that wildly fluctuating prices might cause unforeseen costs in the distant future when they have to buy the TDRs for these projects. A5) Banks often perform additional program marketing, administration, transaction facilitation and other functions that produce more successful programs. These functions can and do occur in many programs that do not bank TDRs. But governments that go to the trouble of buying, holding and selling TDRs are logically more likely to protect that investment by ensuring that these functions have adequate resources and personnel. A6) The formation of a TDR bank signals to sending area landowners and receiving area developers that a government is serious about building a successful TDR program. The commitment demonstrated by the formation of a bank may motivate more sending area property owners in particular to investigate the TDR option rather than taking a wait-and-see posture. Disadvantages Al) Public funding can be a hard sell given intense competition for limited public dollars. As discussed in Advantage A2, TDR banks resell the TDRs they acquire, creating an ongoing fund for preservation from what would otherwise be a one- time use of money. This gives TDR banks a potentially effective selling point in the battle for tax dollars. Logically, the extent of this competitive advantage is related to the length of time the bank holds the TDRs before selling them and the level of public support for the land protected by TDR bank acquisitions. a) Holding Time— If a TDR bank experiences no sales for a long time period, the program could be criticized, particularly if a promise of fast sales was used to promote the public expenditures needed to stock the bank and if the prospect for some near-term TDR bank sales is questionable. Fortunately, 2,129 TDRs have been redeemed to date by the RFMUD program. Assuming the pace of redemptions has not declined significantly, it would appear that a RFMUD TDR bank would not have to wait an inordinate amount of time to experience some sales activity assuming it offers TDRs at or near market value. Nevertheless, it is advisable to avoid making overly-optimistic promises about how fast the bank will be revolving the original capitalization. b) Preservation Support— It is possible for TDR banks to hold TDRs for a very long time without criticism if average citizens support the preservation of the land secured by those TDRs. For example, King County, Washington and Palm Beach County, Florida have stocked their TDR banks with TDRs severed from Appendix C Page 4 of 19 land that ultimately became parks, nature preserves and open space. If governments would have purchased land or conservation easements with or without the potential to recoup those costs via TDR, they face less criticism if a long time period is needed to sell those TDRs. This consideration may not be essential in Collier County since a RFMUD bank is likely to experience sales in the short term as discussed above. However, the public will logically be more likely to support public funding of a TDR bank if citizens Countywide foresee an attractive public benefit from the preservation itself in addition to the monetary return from TDR bank sales. A2) A TDR bank may not have enough capital on hand to immediately buy every TDR that sending area property owners want to sell. In other words, after a TDR bank is formed, there may still be calls for additional capitalization. However, very few programs attempt to fully fund total immediate acquisition. Furthermore, sending area owners are more likely to be patient if they see TDR bank sales generating funding for additional TDR purchases. Because the RFMUD program has retired 2,129 to date, a RFMUD bank should be able to provide a reasonably reliable sales option for sending area property owners. B) Options for Stocking TDR Bank A major hurdle to forming a TDR bank is securing the funding to stock the bank with TDRs. This section begins with a list of TDR bank funding approaches used in various programs throughout the US followed by a more detailed evaluation of one approach for the reasons stated below. • State governments have established TDR banks, often in the form of state agencies, that buy and sell TDRs from sending sites in more than one jurisdiction located within a planning area where preservation is of statewide significance such as the New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Bank, the New Jersey Highlands Development Credit Bank and the California Tahoe Conservancy which buys and sells various forms of marketable rights for the TDR program of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. • State governments can grant or loan money to local jurisdictions and agencies that buy, hold and sell TDRs within individual jurisdictions. The California Coastal Conservancy, a state agency, created a satellite non-profit organization, the Mountains Restoration Trust, with a $300,000 grant under provisions that require the Trust to reimburse the Conservancy over time via the sale of TDRs within the Malibu TDR program operating in then- unincorporated Los Angeles County. Similarly, in the late 1980s, the California Coastal Conservancy loaned $275,000 to the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County to buy and sell TDRs, a revolving fund that succeeded in creating a nature preserve in San Luis Obispo County over the course of two decades. In the New York Central Pine Barrens program, the Central Pine Barrens Clearinghouse received $5 million as part of an environmental mitigation settlement in 1995; by 2009, the Central Pine Appendix C Page 5 of 19 Barrens had repaid that money to the State of New York while still retaining a clearinghouse balance of$3.2 million. • Local governments can stock TDR banks by partnering with land preservation programs that traditionally restrict land with generic conservation easements rather than TDR easements. Pennsylvania's leads the US in the amount of preserved farmland largely due to the incentives provided by the state's purchase of development rights program, funded by a voter approved $100- million bond and cigarette taxes. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, with 85,510 acres protected as of 2010, leads the nation in preserved farmland using a combination of grants from the state and by appropriating almost $1 million of County tax dollars per year for several years to farmland preservation. In most Lancaster County townships, state, county and local taxes buy traditional easements and then wait for future cash infusions. In contrast, Warwick Township partners with Lancaster County (and/or the Lancaster Farmland Trust) to fund TDR easements and the County allows Warwick to bank and resell the resulting TDRs with the stipulation that all TDR sale proceeds be applied to additional land preservation. To date, Warwick's TDR program has preserved more than 1,560 acres of farmland, which is over 12 percent of the township's total land area. • The voters of local jurisdictions can approve conservation bonds. Rather than use this money once for traditional acquisition of land or easements, some communities sever the TDRs from land they preserve and resell them in a TDR bank. In Palm Beach County, Florida, voters approved a $100 million bond that was used to acquire 35,000 acres of environmentally-sensitive land. The 9,000 TDRs severed from this land are sold by the Palm Beach County TDR bank at commissioner-established prices ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 each with sale proceeds dedicated to expansion and maintenance of the nature preserve system. At a more modest level, Burlington County, New Jersey started its bank by the issuance of a $1.5 million county bond; the TDRs banked by this bond were instrumental to the success of Chesterfield Township's award-winning TDR program. • Local governments can devote general fund money to capitalizing a TDR bank. King County, Washington started its TDR bank by including $1.5 million in its 1999 budget. Manheim Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania stocked its TDR bank by buying TDRs with general fund money and holding them for resale. • Local governments can dedicate a portion of tax revenues to acquire TDRs in the course of buying parkland and protecting nature preserves. These TDRs then constitute the inventory of the government's TDR bank. In King County, Washington, the revenue dedicated to open space, called Conservation Futures, has been used to buy TDRs for its TDR bank. In a single transaction, King County used $22 million of Conservation Futures funding to protect 90,000 acres of forest east of Seattle, with the resulting 990 TDRs placed in the TDR bank for resale. To date, TDR acquisitions have preserved 141,500 acres in King County. Appendix C Page 6 of 19 • When state statutes allow it, TDR programs can stock TDR banks by deed- restricting qualifying land purchased for public ownership, severing the TDRs and depositing them in the TDR bank. Before the recording of the TDR easement, these sending sites should not be previously restricted from development by prior conservation easements or any limitations imposed by the funding mechanism used to acquire them. Some jurisdictions, like Milton, Georgia, only allow severance of TDRs from sending sites acquired after the adoption of the TDR program. In Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, TDRs can only be severed from land acquired by the city after incorporation. It should be noted that some TDR programs allow the severance and holding of TDRs from any qualified, unrestricted public land regardless of when it was acquired. For example, Madison, Georgia allows city-owned parks to qualify as sending sites, including parkland acquired prior to adoption of the TDR ordinance, and the City severs and sells these TDRs under its TDR program. No restrictions appear to limit the land from which TDRs can be severed from city-owned land in West Valley City, Utah. Seattle, Washington's TDR program promotes a wide range of public improvements including open space, performing arts centers, historic structures, landmark theaters and affordable housing; by severing and reselling TDRs from these properties, Seattle has succeeded in helping to finance several important public projects including a concert hall and sculpture park. At a smaller scale, Morgan Hill, California bought a 43-acres of open space and offers the resulting TDRs to developers at $75,000 each. Collier County owns roughly 300 acres of land in RFMUD sending areas that were purchased for other reasons but would qualify as sending sites under the TDR program. The county could itself become a seller of TDRs severed from these properties and use the sale of these TDRs as initial capitalization of a RFMUD TDR bank. The advantage of this approach is that it could jumpstart a TDR bank in the event that other methods of capitalization fail to materialize. However, this method, like similar methods relies on TDR sales to create and maintain working capital for the RFMUD bank; these sales compete with private transactions. Consequently, special restrictions would likely be needed to minimize impact on the private market. One technique noted above would be to limit the TDRs severed from these 300 acres to a supply that was sufficient to allow the county to start buying TDRs from private sending site owners without dominating the entire market. Even then, this option has the near-term problem of generating revenue entirely from TDR sales at a time when demand for TDRs is sluggish. • Collier County could put a referendum before the voters asking for approval of using a small portion of property tax to fund the acquisition of TDRs from the RFMUD and possibly other areas in need of preservation in Collier County. If the county used this tax revenue to finance a bond, a substantial amount of money could become available in the near term future to buy and hold TDRs for resale when the receiving area entitlement is depleted and demand for TDRs increases. As these banked TDRs are sold, the proceeds could be used again to preserve additional land (and bank additional TDRs) and/or Appendix C Page 7 of 19 fund the restoration/maintenance of the preserved land. The ability of TDRs to recycle an initial amount of public money may make this technique more appealing to voters than typical open space bond measures. In addition, this new program could set aside sufficient money for an endowment fund to assure restoration and perpetual maintenance of land conveyed to the county by the TDR program if money is needed for this purpose because the mitigation bank or ROMA has not materialized. Rather than attempt to discuss all of these options in detail, this section evaluates the pros and cons of the last option discussed above, which allows some discussion of the pros and cons of all the options. Specifically, the option in question involves voter approval of the dedication of a portion of property tax revenue, possibly a quarter mill of property tax revenue per year for perhaps a 10-year period, which would be comparable to the Conservation Collier referendum approved by 60 percent of voters in 2002 for the Conservation Collier program with another referendum adopted by 82 percent of the voters in 2006 removing limits on the total amount that the program could generate before the quarter mill tax expired in 2013 The goals of this referendum might be confined to the RFMUD or funding of an RFMUD TDR bank might be part of larger, perhaps county-wide conservation program. Either way, the referendum would expressly allow the RFMUD program to sever, bank and resell TDRs from land in RFMUD sending areas (and possibly future sending areas in other parts of the Collier County.) A portion of this potential new levy could also capitalize a long term management trust fund to pay for restoration and perpetual maintenance of land preserved within the RFMUD as well as other preserves countywide. Since public support must be strong to assure voter approval, this scenario assumes that the referendum will emphasize that preserves in the RFMUD will be accessible to the public for hiking, nature study and other activities compatible with conservation. Advantages B1) This option can start preserving RFMUD sending sites as soon as levy money is available. Consequently, this option may result in a greater amount of near-term preservation/acquisition of RFMUD sending sites than options that rely entirely on cash from the sale of banked TDRs. For example, some of the other options listed above involve severing and banking TDRs from previously- acquired public land, a process that stocks the TDR bank but cannot buy new TDRs until the banked TDRs are sold. B2) The near-term availability of a large amount of funding from a multi-million- dollar bond would generate more money for near-term RFMUD sending site preservation than appropriations from the annual County budget. As discussed in Disadvantage A2 above, a larger near-term capitalization of a TDR bank increases the number of sending area TDRs that can be acquired. With the larger source of funding from a bond, the TDR program would be better able to address the concerns of MFMUD sending area landowners. That said, if approval of a new bond is unlikely, even modest budget appropriations for TDR Appendix C Page 8 of 19 acquisitions would demonstrate willingness to fund at least some additional near term relief for these landowners. These near-term appropriations might ultimately be superseded by a bigger funding source. For example, King County, Washington started its TDR bank by including $1.5 million in its 1999 budget. But by 2004, King County was able to deposit 990 TDRs in its TDR bank using $22 million from its Conservation Futures fund, the portion of property tax revenues dedicated to open space preservation. B3) Any of the above options that work would address receiving area developers' concerns about being able to acquire TDRs when they need them. However, this paper argues that a large amount of county bond funding may be superior to options that require new state funding or some retooling of existing state programs because these state alternatives are unknown at this time and outside the control of Collier County. In other words, near-term funding from a referendum-approved bond would put more TDRs in a TDR bank and therefore give receiving area developers greater certainty of being able to find TDRs when needed. B4) TDR banks allow jurisdictions to target acquisitions of the highest priority land. However, if Collier County prefers to avoid prioritization, it can establish acquisition procedures that treat sending area properties equally in some or all respects. B5) This scenario assumes that voter-approved bond funding would use all or a portion of the proceeds for a long term management trust fund or endowment fund in the event that the ROMA mitigation bank does not materialize. Consequently, in addition to buying sending area land/easements in advance of demand and giving developers the assurance of being able to buy TDRs, this scenario addresses a third concern about how the county would pay for ongoing management of properties conveyed to a RFMUD preserve in parts of the RFMUD where other agencies will not accept conveyance of title. Disadvantages B1) As discussed above in Disadvantage Al), getting voters to agree to tax themselves for open space preservation can be difficult particularly after many people are still recovering from the Great Recession and its effect on property values, interest rates and trust fund income. However, Collier County voters might respond positively to the ability to recycle funding by buying and selling TDRs, potentially giving a TDR-enabled bond a better chance of voter approval than a bond that involves only one-time use of funding. However, as discussed in Disadvantage Al), it seems advisable to avoid creating expectations of rapid repayment and instead portraying a TDR bank as a way of creating a perpetual revolving fund for preservation that operates over of long time period. Given the uncertainty of getting voter approval for open space bonds, jurisdictions would logically prefer to fund TDR banks using state grants and loans or by retooling current federal/state preservation programs in a way that allows the local Appendix C Page 9 of 19 jurisdiction to keep, hold and resell TDRs (the first three options discussed above). It goes beyond the scope of this paper to investigate the extent to which opportunities exist for getting funding from higher levels of government. It would be well worth the effort to explore these possibilities. But, unless and until these opportunities materialize, it may be advisable to pursue options directly under Collier's control rather than rely on getting funding from some other source. C) Density Transfer Charges In most TDR programs, developers must retire actual TDRs if they choose to exceed baseline densities in receiving zones. However, at least 24 US programs allow developers to exceed baseline by making a cash payment in lieu of submitting actual TDRs, an option referred to as a Density Transfer Charge or DTC. The program then uses DTC money exclusively to preserve qualified sending sites (with a small fraction often retained to cover program administration.) In six of the 25 programs mentioned above, DTC is the only way developers can exceed baseline. However, this memo focuses on those programs that offer developers both options for exceeding baseline in receiving areas, actual TDRs and DTC. Some programs with TDR banks also offer developers the option of using actual TDRs or DTC. However, the information readily available suggests that almost all programs that offer DTC as a developer option use DTC revenues to purchase easements or land without generating actual TDRs to be held in a TDR bank for resale. (A 1995 report about the Malibu TDR program asserts that DTCs were used in the late 1980s to buy TDRs but this may have been a figure of speech and it is now difficult to confirm that 20-year old claim.) Jurisdictions apparently do not buy TDRs with DTC revenue because DTC primarily serves as an alternative solution to the benefits provided by a TDR bank: DTC gives developers another way of exceeding baseline without buying TDRs in the private market. In addition, the accumulation of TDRs in a bank could conceivably slow the pace of sending site preservation since the sale of the banked TDRs are competing with the more direct acquisition funding that occurs when DTC money is available to buy land/easements immediately upon payment of the DTC. For these reasons, this memo assumes a traditional DTC approach, meaning that DTC funds are used to buy only land or easements but not actual TDRs for resale via a TDR bank. This section assumes that the DTC is established at a higher amount than estimated private TDR sales prices. This is done to assure that the DTC is not setting an artificially low ceiling for private TDR sales. This higher value is also aimed at paying for some or all of the administration needed to buy sending area land/easements with DTC revenue. In addition, a small portion of the DTC revenue could also be applied to a land management endowment fund to pay for perpetual maintenance of an RFMUD preserve formed from land conveyed to the county in areas not served by non-county conservation agencies. However, care Appendix C Page 10 of 19 should be taken to not set the DTC value so high that developers cannot profitably use it. Consequently, the setting of this value should be based on economic analysis. Also this number must be updated to adjust for changes in real estate values. Some programs make these adjustments upon the recommendation of staff while others prompt jurisdictions to adjust this amount annually based on yearly government real estate statistical reports. Advantages C1) This option addresses the concern that the program could languish if developers cannot find actual TDRs in the private market and decline to exceed baseline. With a reasonably-priced DTC, developers know they will be able to comply without the cost, delay and uncertainty of having to find and negotiate TDR purchases from sending area property owners or intermediaries. C2) Because the DTC amount is known in advance, it allows developers to plan for their cost in advance, ideally when they first begin to conceive and perform financial analysis on a project. To the extent that developers in Collier County decline to exceed baseline in order to avoid the uncertainty of TDR cost, the DTC option could raise demand for DTC and consequently accomplish more sending area preservation, a result that addresses the concerns of many sending area landowners. C3) The ability to comply via DTC should particularly appeal to smaller developers and developments who lack the time, personnel or resources to pursue purchases of TDRs in the private market. Charlotte County, Florida allows compliance via actual TDRs or DTC. A review of nine Charlotte County TDR receiving area projects between 2003 and 2005 reveals that the six largest projects (ranging in size from 45 to 605 dwelling units) opted to buy and retire actual TDRs while the three smallest projects (needing only one or two bonus units) opted to comply via DTC. However, even larger developments may choose DTC when finding TDRs on the private market is particularly difficult. For example, even with the DTC set at almost $50,000 per bonus single-family residence, developers in Livermore, California paid roughly $1,576,000 as of 2010 for more than 30 bonus units, primarily within a single large development. If the DTC option is motivating new developers and developments to exceed baseline, this represents an increase in demand which further translates into additional sending area preservation that might not otherwise occur. C4) The cash generated by DTC programs is easier to combine with other funding sources and has the potential to leverage more preservation. For example, DTC revenue can be readily offered as matching funding for federal/state grants and other preservation programs including money from private non-profit conservancies, an approach offered by the DTC program in Gunnison County, Colorado. Consequently, the greater ability of DTC cash to leverage additional funding could increase the money available to preserve sending area properties in Collier County. Appendix C Page 11 of 19 it C5) A limited portion of DTC revenues can be used to defray the cost of TDR/DTC program administration. C6) As long as the DTC amount does not become prohibitively expensive for developers, the county could deposit a small portion in a land management endowment fund. This could allow the county to accept title to sending area land located in parts of the RFMUD not served by non-county conservation agencies. This would allow sending area properties throughout the RFMUD the ability to convey title if that is their preference. Consequently, DTC has the ability to address multiple concerns: the ability to convey title throughout the RFMUD as well as provide greater certainty to developers and potentially increase demand for sending area preservation by making it easier for developers to exceed receiving area baselines. Bear in mind that the need to use DTC revenues to form a land management endowment fund for North Belle Meade may not be needed if the ROMA mitigation bank materializes. C6) As with a TDR bank, DTC allows the jurisdiction to target high priority acquisitions. However, if Collier County prefers to avoid prioritization, it can establish acquisition procedures that treat sending area properties equally in some or all respects. Disadvantages C1) Some attendees at the RFMUD restudy meetings voiced opposition to the DTC option. They may be concerned that the DTC amount will not be set high enough, thereby depressing the price that sending area property owners could receive for their TDRs on the private market. However, if the County sets the DTC above average market value, the DTC should not reduce the average market value of TDRs. Some properties in the sending area have a higher market value and their owners may feel entitled to get a higher than average market value price for their TDRs. It should be noted that these property owners will have trouble getting more than average market value for actual TDRs under the current program since developers will logically be looking for the least expensive TDRs. Also RFMUD restudy meeting attendees seemed disinclined to make distinctions between properties with different market values. Throughout the restudy meetings, commenters called for equal treatment of sending area properties regardless of differences, including market value differences. C2) Perhaps there is concern that Collier County might not use DTC revenue exclusively to acquire sending area land/easements, program administration and contributions to a land management endowment fund. If so, this concern should be reduced or eliminated by the fact that TDR/DTC program is fully transparent on the County's website. C3) Perhaps there is concern that DTC could allow a jurisdiction to establish procedures allowing a DTC fund to pay more than average market value for Appendix C Page 12 of 19 sending area land or development rights. For example, if the DTC fund pays more than the average market value for some properties, less sending area acreage would be preserved and fewer landowners would be able to receive DTC money. This could generate disagreements about when it is appropriate to spend more than average market value on a property. If so, the county could adopt a policy of using DTC money to buy land and easements sending area land with a wide range of market value. C4) Perhaps there is concern that a DTC fund might pay less than average market value for certain sending area parcels (because these parcels have lower-than-average market value and their owners are willing to accept less than average market value). In this scenario, the owners of average or higher-than — average market value sending area property might worry that they may have less of a chance of getting DTC funding. In response, these property owners will still be able to offer their TDRs directly to developers. Secondly, as mentioned above, the county could adopt a policy of using DTC money to buy land and easements from sending area properties with a wide range of market values. C5) The DTC scenario evaluated in this memo would allow the county to use a small portion of DTC revenues for program administration and contributions to a land management endowment fund. Some sending area property owners might oppose this under the assumption that it means that less money would be spent on sending area land preservation. In response, the county might adopt a policy that the portion of the DTC spent on land or easement acquisition be no lower than the average market value of TDRs and that the portion of the DTC used for administration and endowment be limited to the amount that the DTC exceeds average TDR market value. The economic study would help the county develop a DTC that meets these objectives while avoiding the adoption of a DTC that is too expensive for developers to profitably use. As another response to this concern, it should be noted that the availability of DTC may generate activity from developers who might otherwise avoid exceeding baseline due to apprehension about the time, cost and uncertainty of buying TDRs directly from private land owners. If so, this increased demand would generate more purchases of TDRs from sending area landowners. D) TDRs Granted to County for Accepting Title For each five acres of sending area land, the current RFMUD TDR program issues one TDR for recordation of an easement plus one so-called early-entry TDR, one TDR for restoration and one TDR for conveyance of land title to an authorized conservation agency. This formula will be revised following an ongoing economic analysis. The revised formula aims to adequately compensate sending area property for achieving three community goals: permanent restriction of development potential, cost of restoring degraded land and conveyance of title to an approved conservation agency. Appendix C Page 13 of 19 Collier County planning staff has raised the idea of creating a county TDR bank that would sever, hold and resell TDRs from land conveyed to a county RFMUD preserve that functions in those parts of the RFMUD where non-county conservation agencies cannot accept title. As mentioned above, the RFMUD restudy is examining the possibility of forming a county mitigation bank or ROMA (Regional Offsite Mitigation Area) which would solve the current inability for landowners in North Belle Meade to receive TDRs for conveying title. There are potential opportunities to include a TDR feature within a ROMA. But to avoid making an already complex discussion even more complex, this memo assumes that if the ROMA materializes, the TDR bank would not have to include the funding of a land maintenance endowment fund and could concentrate entirely on buying TDRs from sending area owners in the near term while receiving area demand for TDRs grows. However, the discussion in Section D of this memo assumes that the ROMA does not materialize and that a TDR bank would attempt to address the monetizing of a land management endowment fund for North Belle Meade as well as the lag-time issue. Because the RFMUD program aims to maximize choice, owners of land that can be conveyed to non-county conservation agencies could opt to do any of four alternatives: 1) decline to participate; 2) only record an easement; 3) record an easement and restore their land themselves; or 4) restore the land themselves and convey title to the non-county applicable non-county conservation agency. Owners of sending area land that cannot be conveyed to a non-county conservation agency might have five alternatives: 1) decline to participate; 2) only record an easement; 3) record an easement and restore their land themselves; 4) restore the land themselves and convey title to a future county RFMUD preserve; or 5) convey title to unrestored land to a future county RFMUD preserve. It should be noted that land should ideally be restored by the county if title to that land is ultimately conveyed to the county since a consistent and coordinated approach to restoration is more likely to result in successful long- term management. However, this memo assumes that the county will continue to allow landowners to restore their properties themselves even when these landowners plan to ultimately convey title. The forthcoming economic study will inform decisions about the appropriate number of TDRs to grant under each of these options presumably with the goal of offering average market land value to sending area property owners who convey title. In addition to the TDRs issued to the sending area property owners, the county would sever, bank and sell TDRs from the land conveyed to the future county RFMUD preserve. The number of TDRs issued to the RFMUD bank will be informed by the economic study. But, as a hypothetical example, four TDRs per five acres of sending area land might be shared between the landowner and the RFMUD TDR bank. If landowners choose to restore their land before conveyance, they might receive three TDRs and the RFMUD bank might receive one. If landowners choose to convey unrestored land to the RFMUD preserve, the owners might get two TDRs and the RFMUD bank might get two. Appendix C Page 14 of 19 There are at least two sub-options: one in which the RFMUD TDR bank sells its TDRs to fund TDR purchases from sending area landowners as well as capitalizing a RFMUD land management endowment fund and a second sub- option in which the TDR bank uses its TDR sale proceeds simply to finance the land management endowment fund, discussed as follows. • In one of many possible permutations of this option, the sale of RFMUD bank TDRs would initially be used to buy any kind of TDRs from any part of the RFMUD. This initial period would last for a finite number of years meant to supplement purchases of sending area TDRs in a near term time period in which private developer demand for TDRs is sluggish due to the large inventory of existing entitlements. When that time period ends, proceeds from the sale of all RFMUD bank TDRs would be deposited to an RFMUD land management endowment until an adequate endowment funding level is reached to assure perpetual maintenance for the land in the RFMUD preserve (meaning the land conveyed to the county in areas not served by other conservation agencies.) Once adequate endowment fund levels are achieved, some proceeds from RFMUD sales could be used to buy TDRs from sending area property owners as long as enough proceeds are deposited in the endowment fund to maintain a sufficient level of funding. However, there appear to be few benefits to using RFMUD TDR bank sale proceeds to buy TDRs from sending area property owners. This occurs because the amount of funding during the near term time period is likely to be small since a privately-financed TDR bank would have to sell its limited supply of TDRs to receiving area developers before it can buy TDRs from sending area property owners. In this near-term period, developer demand may continue to be sluggish and the proceeds of TDR bank sales may produce only a modest acquisition fund for the bank. Even a small acquisition fund could be useful in the event that developer demand for TDRs takes a downturn. But it is expected that developer demand will increase once entitlement inventory in the RFMUD receiving area is depleted. Consequently the amount that the TDR bank assembles in the near term may be too small to provide a significant benefit in terms of buying TDRs from sending area property owners. As a result, this memo focuses instead on the following option. • In this sub-option, the RFMUD severs TDRs from land conveyed to the RFMUD preserve and contributes the proceeds to a land management endowment fund to finance the perpetual maintenance of the RFMUD preserve. Advantages D1) This option allows the county to acquire TDRs at no public expense, hold them in a TDR bank, sell them to receiving area developers and deposit the proceeds to a land management trust fund that maintains a future county- operated RFMUD preserve with land accumulated when sending area land owners convey title to their properties to the county. The biggest advantage of Appendix C Page 15 of 19 this option is that it allows the county to start an endowment fund to maintain sending area land conveyed to the county without the difficulty and uncertainty of convincing voters to approve a referendum dedicating property tax dollars to support a bond or some other way of funding a TDR bank with public money. D2) This option addresses the current roadblock that prevents landowners in some parts of the RFMUD from being able to receive conveyance TDRs because no conservation agency is currently authorized to accept title. Consequently, it should motivate the participation of RFMUD sending area landowners who have declined to sell any TDRs without the ability to ultimately convey title. (Bear in mind that Section D assumes that the North Belle Meade ROMA mitigation bank does not materialize.) D3) When this TDR bank has a sufficient number of TDRs on hand to sell, it gives developers assurance that they will be able to find and buy TDRs when they need them without the time, expense and uncertainty of buying TDRs from sending area property owners. Disadvantages D1) Private purchases of TDRs are needed to launch and sustain the advantages of this option. For example, a developer would have to buy TDRs from a sending area landowner who conveyed title to the RFMUD preserve before the RFMUD bank could sever its TDRs. And the RFMUD bank would then have to sell those TDRs to a receiving area developer in order to obtain the money to contribute to a land management endowment fund. There will be a delay between the time that RFMUD preserve accepts title to a particular property and the time that the proceeds from the resulting TDRs is deposited to the endowment fund. In other words, the county would be accepting responsibility for managing a property in advance of the funding needed for that management. In contrast, an option involving a significant infusion of public money could create a larger land management endowment fund in a shorter period of time, thereby assuring the county of its ability to maintain the RFMUD preserve. D2) Owners of RFMUD sending area land served by a non-county conservation agency may object to this option since they already have an organization that will accept their land and the TDRs sold by the RFMUD TDR bank compete with their TDRs when developers are in the market to buy TDRs. However, at the RFMUD restudy community meetings, sending area landowners repeatedly proposed equity in the treatment of sending area property owners. This option essentially gives all sending area property owners the same opportunity to sell all of their TDRs if that is their preference. E. Surcharge At least one TDR program and probably more require that developers pay a surcharge to the jurisdiction for every TDR the developer redeems in the course Appendix C Page 16 of 19 of getting project approval for a project involving bonus development. At one time, the City of Los Angeles required a "Public Benefit Payment" to the City of $35 per square foot of transferred floor area to be used for affordable housing, open space, historic preservation, public transportation and public/cultural facilities. The amount required under the Los Angeles Public Benefits Payment has changed but it is still a highly effective means of generating funding for improvements in downtown Los Angeles. (More examples could probably be found if Collier County has any interest in further exploring this concept.) In Collier County, the county could use the revenue from a hefty surcharge for multiple community benefits in the RFMUD which might involve capitalizing a TDR bank and/or making contributions to a land management endowment fund to pay for perpetual care of North Belle Meade sending sites acquired by the county (assuming the ROMA mitigation bank does not materialize to pay for this ongoing maintenance). The RFMUD is in the enviable position of having substantial demand for TDRs in the long term. Consequently this program can increase the ratio of TDR allocations to sending area property owners to completely offset any reduction in the per-TDR payment that developers pay to sending area property owners. This would allow developers to pay a reduced cost per TDR to sending area property owners plus a substantial surcharge and still experience an affordable total expense for both the TDR purchase and the surcharge. Advantages El) Like Option D, this option allows capitalization of a TDR bank using private rather than public money. E2) A TDR bank could use surcharge money to buy TDRs from sending site property owners as soon as developers redeem TDRs to get approval for receiving site projects involving bonus development. The readily-available cash from a surcharge gives this option an advantage over certain options in Sections A and D of this memo which require the TDR bank to sell TDRs severed from county land before any money is available to acquire more TDRs from sending area landowners. E3) Administration of a fund generated from surcharges is likely to be simpler to administer than options, like those in Section D of this memo, which require the TDR bank to sell TDRs before cash is actual available for use. E3) To the extent that this option results in a well-stocked, adequately-capitalized TDR bank, it would offer the advantages of a privately-funded TDR bank: ability to create a perpetual revolving fund for preservation; assurance that developers would be able to secure TDRs when needed; TDR price stabilization; and the possibility of improved administration for benefits like stakeholder transaction assistance. Appendix C Page 17 of 19 Disadvantages El) In this option, surcharges do not generate revenue until developers redeem TDRs to get approval for projects involving bonus density. While the RFMUD TDR program has resulted in the redemption of 2,129 TDRs to date, near term demand is slow, consequently meaning that the benefits of surcharge revenue will also be slow to materialize. Consequently, it does not appear to be a robust solution for the lag-time problem. E2) As with the DTC option, some stakeholder could be concerned that Collier County might not use surcharge revenue exclusively for the TDR program. However, as discussed in Disadvantage C2, this concern should be reduced or eliminated by the fact that RFMUD program is fully transparent on the County's website. E3) Because the surcharge generates cash, some stakeholders may be have concerns that are similar to those discussed in in Section C because DTC also generates cash. The details of these potential concerns and possible responses are comparable to those found in Disadvantages C3, C4 and C5 above. F) Next Steps This memo suggests that a TDR bank funded by a large input of public money would achieve the greatest number of program goals including the following: • A near-term, substantial amount of money could buy a large supply of TDRs from sending area property owners and hold these TDR for eventual sale to receiving area developers as demand materializes in the long term, thus addressing the all-important lag-time issue. • In the event that the mitigation bank, or ROMA, does not materialize, a large infusion of public money could also be used to capitalize an endowment fund for the perpetual management of a new county reserve that allows North Belle Meade sending area property owners to convey title to the county. • An adequately-capitalized TDR bank will be likely to have enough TDRs in stock to assure developers of an alternative source of acquiring readily- available TDRs at a known price when they need them. This assurance may cause more developers to use the TDR option, leading to additional demand which ultimately translates into increased purchases of sending area TDRs. In contrast, some of the options discussed in this memo do not require public capitalization. Some of these "bootstraps" options rely on TDR sale proceeds to generate revenue that can then be used to buy TDRs from sending area landowners. For example, Section B discusses the possibility of capitalizing a TDR bank by selling TDRs from land the county already owns and Section D discusses the creation of special TDRs that only a county TDR bank can sever and sell from the North Belle Meade sending area land conveyed to the county Appendix C Page 18 of 19 (in the event that the mitigation bank or ROMA does not materialize), These options seem inferior to options in which a TDR bank is publically funded because time would be needed to sell the TDRs in the bank and thereby generate the cash needed to buy new TDRs; this problem would be compounded by the fact that near term demand is slow. The surcharge discussed in Section E does not require public funding nor does it require time for TDRs to be sold before cash is available to purchase TDRs. However, the surcharge is dependent on the pace at which developers redeem TDRs in order to get approval to proceed on projects involving bonus density. So, the surcharge would also be unlikely to equal the amount of capital for a TDR bank to buy a substantial number of TDRs in the near term, which is when capital is needed to address the lag-time issue. If this summation seems reasonable, the county should consider the likelihood of publicly funding a TDR bank. Following County Board direction, polling could be conducted to estimate the chances of voters approval of a small portion of property tax to support a bond (with the understanding that proceeds from the eventual sale of the TDRs acquired with this bond could be used over and over to accomplish additional preservation and maintenance). Public funding from federal, state and other non-county sources (as briefly sketched in Section B) should also be investigated. If both the county referendum and non-county public funding sources seem dubious, the county can also consider budgeting enough money to fund an initial round of TDR acquisitions as mentioned in Section B. Although this amount will create a fraction of the start-up money likely to be generated by a sizeable bond, it would nevertheless demonstrate the advantages of using TDR to recycle limited funding and could ultimately lead voters to approve a steady source of funding as in the King County, Washington example discussed in Section B. In the event that none of these public resources materialize, the county can consider the bootstrap options with the understanding that they will likely have less ability to address the very important lag-time issue because they generate revenue only when developers either buy TDRs or redeem TDRs, activities that currently occur but occur so slowly at the moment that they are likely to be less effective in solving the major concern about the RFMUD program. Appendix C Page 19 of 19