The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 05/11/2017 W (Master Plan/Rural Fringe Mixed Use District) BCC Workshop Meeting (Master Plan Update & Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District) BACK-UP DOCUMENTS May 11 , 2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners a a', l I tt 441P r Ato>110* (if i WORKSHOP AGENDA MASTER PLAN UPDATE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT DECISION POINTS Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East,3rd Floor Naples,FL 34112 May 11,2017 1:00 PM Commissioner Penny Taylor,District 4-BCC Chair Commissioner Andy Solis,District 2-BCC Vice-Chair Commissioner Donna Fiala,District 1; CRAB Co-Chair Commissioner Burt Saunders,District 3 Commissioner William L.McDaniel,Jr.,District 5;CRAB Co-Chair Notice:All persons wishing to speak must turn in a speaker slip.Each speaker will receive no more than three(3)minutes. Collier County Ordinance No.2003-53 as amended by Ordinance 2004-05 and 2007-24,requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities(including but not limited to,addressing the Board of County Commissioners), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. WORKSHOP TOPICS 2.1. Introduction and Overview 2.2. Receiving Lands Development Pattern 2.3. Sending Lands:Public Ownership 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. ADJOURN Inquiries concerning changes to the Board's Agenda should be made to the County Manager's Office at 252-8383. Teresa L. Cannon From: Patricia L. Morgan Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 3:43 PM To: Minutes and Records Subject: FW:Joint Meeting and Workshop materials Attachments: Final BCC 2017 05 11.3.pptx Backup documentation for this afternoon's workshop. Thank you, Trish From:WilligGeoffrey [mailto:GeoffreyWillig@colliergov.net] Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2017 3:35 PM To: Patricia L. Morgan <patricia.morgan@collierclerk.com> Cc:JenkinsAnita<AnitaJenkins@colliergov.net> Subject:Joint Meeting and Workshop materials Trish, Anita Jenkins may have already reached out to you regarding the materials for this afternoon's workshop.There was an update to the PowerPoint presentation from what had been uploaded to the website. I have attached the updated presentation for you if Anita has not already provided it to you. Please let me know if you need any of the materials for either the Joint Meeting this morning or the Workshop this afternoon. Everything except the attached PowerPoint have not changed from what was uploaded.You were copied on the emails that I sent announcing the agenda and materials for these meetings, and should have access through the Collier County Meeting and Agendas page http://colliercountvfl.igm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx. However I wanted to ensure that you have everything that you need. ...Thank you. Geoff Willig Operations Analyst - Collier County Manager's Office geoffrevwillig(a colliergov.net 239-252-8369 CAT County 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. 1 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) Restudy Direction Board of County Commissioners Workshop May 11, 2017 Zoning Division/Community Planning Section Growth Management Department Collier County | Florida Today’s Discussion RFMUD Decision Points 1.Receiving land future development •Number of villages •Density of villages •Density of cluster development (non-village) 2.Sending land future ownership 3.Questions on “Initial Recommendations” list 1. Receiving Land Development Pattern Given Collier County’s strategic objectives, what development pattern should be encouraged in the RFMUD Receiving Lands? Receiving Land Development Pattern The current plan provides for three choices: 1.Large lots 2.Cluster development (non-village, gated communities) 3.Mixed-use village The Strategic Vision: To be the best community in America to live, work and play Public Outreach Complementary Land Uses Housing Affordability Transportation and Mobility Environmental Stewardship Economic Vitality and Diversification Incentive-Based Approach Financially Feasible The land use planning process and considerations Commissioners’ interests Population growth The environment and water resources Integrating the environment into development Transportation impacts of potential development Plan for the future and changing preferences Housing affordability What we heard at the first BCC workshop What we’ve done since the last workshop Scenario Testing Baseline Scenario Non-village 1 unit/acre Village 3 units/acre Mid-Range Scenario Increase non-village density to 2 u/acre Village areas a minimum 4 units/acre High-Range Scenario Increase non-village density to 2 units/acre Village areas at maximum 7 units/acre All scenarios set aside 10 percent of total units for housing that is affordable Current Receiving Land Development Pattern The Western Receiving Area Heritage Bay Twin Eagles Lamorada Mockingbird Crossing The Golf Club of the Everglades Does it accomplish the objectives? Complementary Land Use Housing Diversity/Affordability Transportation and Mobility Economic Vitality and Diversification Scenario Testing began with Public Outreach Consider all development options •Large lot •Gated communities •Mixed-use villages Consensus For receiving lands, stakeholders prefer mixed- use village development Using the CIGM The Scenario Assumptions Land aggregation: Less than 40 acres = 1 unit per 5 acres 40 acres to 299 acres = cluster development 1-2 units per acre 300 or more acres = mixed-use village development 3-7 units per acre Residential uses: CIGM, 3 units, 4 units and 7 units per acre Non-residential uses: Retail -CIGM/ULI standards Industrial -CIGM fixed Office -CIGM standards Schools -Collier County Public Schools South Receiving Area Scenarios South Receiving Area Scenarios CIGM Buildout Total area 8,765 acres Residential units 6,549 Gross density 0.74 Industrial 731,808 SF Retail 248,185 SF Office 272,231 SF 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Affordable Housing Apartments Condos and Townhouses SF Detached South Receiving Area Scenarios Baseline Total area 8,765 acres Residential units 19,196 Gross density 2.5 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Affordable Housing Apartments Condos and Townhouses SF Detached Estimated Residential Taxable Value $7.1 Billion South Receiving Area Scenarios Mid-Range Total area 8,765 acres Residential units 26,010 Gross density 3.3 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Affordable Housing Apartments Condos and Townhouses SF Detached Estimated Residential Taxable Value $9.1 Billion South Receiving Area Scenarios High-Range Total area 8,765 acres Residential units 44,304 Gross density 5.7 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 SF Detached Condos and Townhouses Apartments Affordable Housing Estimated Residential Taxable Value $13.7 Billion South Receiving Area Scenarios A Comparison at Buildout Does it accomplish the objectives? Complementary Land Use Housing Diversity/Affordability Transportation and Mobility Economic Vitality and Diversification Taxable Value:$7.1 Billion $9.1 Billion $13.7 Billion Internal Capture:24% -63%24% -64%24% -70% External Trips:88,000 -157,000 113,00 -213,000 179,000 -351,000 Population Range:45,000…………………………………………………….......105,000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Baseline Mid-Range High-Range Affordable Housing Apartments Condos and Townhouses SF detached Transportation Analysis Greater mobility, with modal split between cars, pedestrians, bicycles and transit, will generally increase with density and mix of uses due to proximity of goods, services and jobs. Internal interconnections are important to mobility and to mitigate impacts to arterial network. Each future project will be required to provide a mobility analysis to determine network impacts and how the project meets the mobility objectives. Receiving Land Development Patterns Measure each proposed development to the objectives Huntersville, NC 6.3 units/acre Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Land development designed to accomplish the objectives Complementary Land Use Housing Diversity/Affordability Transportation and Mobility Economic Vitality and Diversification Awarded Best Neighborhood Design in America by the National Association of Home Builders 275 acres 8.3 acre town center with 22 store fronts 650 single family homes 350 multi-family homes Gross density 3.6 Village Minimum Size? Habersham, SC Receiving Land Future Development RFMUD Decision Points Number of villages –staff recommendation, remove limit of one per receiving area Density of villages –staff recommendation 4-7 units per acre Density of cluster development (non-village) – staff recommendation 2 units per acre 2. Conservation Collier Ownership of Sending Land Should Conservation Collier accept ownership of donated Sending Lands if no other public agency is willing? Should the County continue to work toward state and federal mitigation bank applications for portions of the donated land? Sending Land: No Donee Today North Belle Meade NRPA North Belle Meade West “Section 11” Why Public Ownership Matters Final order, 1999 Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat Protect listed animal and plant species Address via community-based “Assessment” RFMUD assessment: •Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program TDR Structure in Sending Lands Incentivizes removal of development rights and active preservation of the highest value environmental lands, through: Base and early entry credits Restoration and maintenance credits Conveyance credits Example to Consider: South Belle Meade State Acquisition Area R&M and Conveyance via land donation and $ = cost effective management approach Potential Funding for Conservation Collier Ownership Donation of funds along with land Additional TDR to County Mitigation bank for some areas Conservation Collier budgeting Phase 2 Mitigation Bank Feasibility Study NBM -NRPA 6,600 Acres NBM -West 3,245 Acres Identify focus area within North Belle Meade Pre-application discussions with agencies Refine cost and revenue projections Study Focus Area Focus area within Eastern North Belle Meade is feasible because: Larger undeveloped areas Higher percentage of wetland areas Potential for future rehydration Nexus of private mitigation parcels (PRMs) High habitat value 6,600 acres 4,400 acres 2,200 acres net of PRM Mitigation Bank Logic Transportation project Mitigation of CIP impacts ($) Private mitigation bank, or County mitigation bank Satisfies habitat and wetland mitigation Supports County asset Mitigation Bank Balance Sheet Per 100 Acres: Projected Mitigation Costs: $ 465,000 ($4,650/acre) Projected Credit Values:$ 484,000 ($4,840/acre) Estimate of seed money to avoid negative cash flow through year 7: $57,000 to $71,000 per 100 acres* *OMB estimate under Report assumptions Dollar Logic Supplementary revenue needed because: •Mitigation bank viable only in a portion of North Belle Meade •Conservation Collier level of service Supplementary revenue sources: •Donation •County TDR •Conservation Collier budgeted funds Technical Requirements Update Conservation Collier Ordinance •Accept donations; no individual parcel evaluation •Adjust land cost/maintenance % accordingly GMP must not require R&M by County, except via Mitigation bank Risks Given Phase 2 Feasibility Study with high probability of program success Federal and State Agencies may decide not to approve Permitting approval will not be known for several years Agencies may limit County’s recreational land use Conservation Collier Ownership of North Belle Meade Sending LandIf YES: TDR severance incentivized Restoration and maintenance coordinated at landscape scale Larger management areas are more cost effective Additional hydrologic improvement potential Opportunity for public/private partnership Passive recreation areas Funding sources required If YES: Potential funding: Outside of Mitigation Area Monetary donations with all conveyances to County County TDR with all conveyances to County Conservation Collier budgeting Conservation Collier Ownership of North Belle Meade Sending Land If NO County Ownership: Sending Owners in those areas ineligible for conveyance credits Greater likelihood of higher degradation/infestation Greater likelihood of owner retention, development Rehydration less likely under private ownership But, County avoids potential long term costs Potential “Plan B”: Enhance base credits to incentivize removal of development rights County Ownership of Sending Land Development Areas: NBM-NRPA Conservation Collier Ownership of Sending Land Direction Requested Should Conservation Collier accept ownership of donated Sending Lands if no other public agency is willing? Should the County continue to work toward state and federal mitigation bank applications for focus areas in North Belle Meade? 3. Questions and Comments Initial Recommendations List