Agenda 06/20/2017 W (Master Plan & Rural Fringe)COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
WORKSHOP AGENDA
MASTER PLAN UPDATE
RURAL FRINGE MIXED-USE DISTRICT WORKSHOP
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
June 20, 2017
9:00 AM
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.A. List of Initial RFMUD Recommendations - with emphasis on: (a) Agriculture
Incentivization; (b) TDR Bank; (c) County ownership of Sending land; (d)
Development pattern options
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.
1
Planning & Zoning Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Kris Van Lengen, JD, AICP, Community Planning Manager
Through: Mike Bosi, AICP, Zoning Director
Re: Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy: Workshop 3, June 20, 2017
Date: June 14, 2017
Introduction and Objectives:
At its May 11, 2017 Workshop, members of the Board of County Commissioners (Board)
requested a review of all Initial Recommendations. Accordingly, the progression at this Workshop
will include a brief exploration of all recommendations, with emphasis and supporting materials
geared toward the Board’s questions and directives on primary decision points.
Primary decision points include:
Sending Lands and Credits: Agricultural incentives, TDR Bank and County ownership of
certain Sending areas
Receiving Lands: Village and non-village design, including acreage requirements, number
of Villages, densities, regulations versus incentives and LDC overlay concepts
By their nature, each primary decision point has implications for the other primary decision
points, as well as secondary (Transmittal) decisions.
Included in the Board packet is a list of “Initial Recommendations” that have been highlighted to
indicate the immediate importance of each.
Green: Items that enjoy broad consensus or uncomplicated repercussions
Yellow: Items best suited for Transmittal discussion due to dependence on key decision
points
Grey: Items that are most fundamental to the architecture of the Restudy amendments,
noted as primary decision points
The list also indicates whether the item is a Growth Management Plan (GMP) change or a Land
Development Code (LDC) change. Each item includes a page number reference to the White
Paper (included in the January Workshop books and available through the link below).
2.A.1
Packet Pg. 3 Attachment: Memo BCC Restudies Workshop 06 20 17 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
2
Background:
On January 3, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) convened a Workshop to discuss
the four area restudies, with emphasis on the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). Staff
presented the RFMUD White Paper, which describes the public process and rationale for the
Initial Recommendations for changes to the Growth Management Plan. The White Paper can be
found on the Restudies webpage, specifically within the: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Library.
The concepts and recommendations within the White Paper derived from objectives set by the
Board in 2015 and reflect ideas and broad consensus among citizens and stakeholders who
donated time energy and creativity to the process. A list entitled RFMUD Restudy Objectives,
attached, reflects the Board’s goals and objectives of this restudy as understood by staff since
2015.
The January 3rd Workshop discussion centered on three pivotal decision points put forward as
part of the initial recommendations:
Whether to increase village and non-village density in support of public goals in Receiving
Lands;
Whether to pursue a “TDR Bank” as a catalyst for the TDR program;
Whether to accept donations of Sending Lands parcels if no other governmental agency
is willing to accept them.
At that time, the Board directed staff to discontinue any further consideration of a TDR Bank. It
also directed staff to provide further data and analysis related to Receiving Lands de velopment
patterns and Sending Lands donations so that additional direction could be provided.
The May 11, 2017 Workshop included additional data and sc enario testing and analysis related
to land development patterns for the Board’s consideration. Comparisons of build-out scenarios
at different densities were provided , noting strong public support for mixed-use compact
development. Baseline, mid-range and high-range scenarios provided a basis for comparison of
housing diversity, retail, business and institutional uses, mobility impacts and taxable values.
Receiving area “decision points” such as number of villages and density ranges were supported
by a narrow majority. The Board requested further input and discussion related to infrastructure
impacts and a better understanding of the allowable dwelling units both before and after the
2002 RFMUD Growth Management Plan Amendments.
Additionally, the May workshop provided an update on the viability of a mitigation bank to
support County Ownership of Sending Lands, which cannot be conveyed to another
governmental entity. There was narrow support for County ownership and for a mitigation bank.
Staff was tasked to provide additional information on agricultural uses, TDR bank alternatives
and costs for conservation land management.
2.A.1
Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: Memo BCC Restudies Workshop 06 20 17 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
3
Staff Request: (see Direction Requested, attached)
1. Staff seeks direction for RFMUD Growth Management Plan amendments as to acceptable
density patterns
2. Staff seeks direction on the Board’s willingness to incentivize agricultural uses through
the TDR credit system, create a TDR bank and accept ownership of Sending Land parcels
from willing donors.
3. Staff would like to entertain comments and questions related to any of the items included
in the Initial Recommendations list.
2.A.1
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Memo BCC Restudies Workshop 06 20 17 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
RFMUD Restudy Objectives
What we heard from Board of County Commissioners beginning in 2015
Public Outreach:
Engage residents, landowners and stakeholders under guidance from the Growth
Management Oversight Committee through meetings, website content and surveys
Coordinate with parallel community efforts including Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee, Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan Ad Hoc Committee,
Opportunity Naples
Complementary Land Uses:
Improve the mix of uses in Receiving areas
Consider adjoining Future Land Use areas such as Golden Gate Estates
Improve housing diversity and affordability
Limit “sprawl” development in favor of a more sustainable development pattern
Maintain the existing Sending, Receiving and Neutral boundaries
Transportation and Mobility:
Incentivize development that could provide goods, services and jobs to reverse and
shorten auto trip lengths within RFMUD and Golden Gate Estates
Consider development pattern that supports viable public transit along with pedestrians
and bicyclists
Leverage Board accepted work products such as the Master Mobility Study, 2012
Environmental Stewardship:
Prioritize the protection of the Sending areas
Assure sufficient demand for TDR credits
Assure sufficient compensation for Sending Land owners via TDR credits
Identify agencies for short term and long term maintenance
Embrace simplicity where possible to help owners of small Sending parcels
Leverage Board accepted work products such as the Watershed Management Plan, 2011
Economic Vitality:
Balance the TDR credit system so that buyers and sellers find appropriate supply and
demand
Promote economic development and a diversified economy in eastern Collier County
Support community character and sense of place
Favor incentives over mandates
2.A.2
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Board Objectives RFMUD Restudy (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Board of County Commissioners
Rural Fringe Workshop: June 20, 2017
Direction Requested and Options Presented
Staff requests Board of County Commissioners direction on the following items related to the
Initial Recommendations:
Agriculture Incentives:
Should TDR credits be available in return for a perpetual easement, as an incentive in:
o Sending Lands, to continue and/or expand agricultural operations?
o Receiving lands, to continue agricultural operations?
o Neutral lands, to continue and/or expand agricultural operations?
TDR Bank:
Should the TDR Bank concept be included in the Growth Management Plan Amendment
transmittal documents?
Does the Board recommend any additional data or analysis related to a TDR Bank?
County Ownership of Sending Lands:
In light of additional information provided, should Conservation Collier accept ownership of
Sending Lands if no other agency is willing?
Should the County continue to work toward state and federal mitigation bank applications for the
identified focus area in North belle Meade?
Receiving Lands Future Development Pattern Initial Recommendations and Options:
1. Should the Receiving Areas development potential be maintained at density/population
neutral?
Option – Cap the total number of residential units within the RFMUD at the current level 42,100
2. Should the village size and number be eliminated?
Option 1
Maintain current program size and number of villages:
1 village, 300 - 1,500 acres in the North receiving area
2.A.3
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Direction requested (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
1 village, 300 - 1,500 acres in North Belle Meade receiving area
1 village, 300 - 2,500 acres in South receiving area
Option 2
same as option 1, and
1 village, 300 - 1,500 acres, allocated to the West receiving area, but not developed, can
be utilized in North Belle Meade receiving area or the South receiving area
3. Should residential density standards be modified?
a) GMP Clustering – remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre (higher
density for affordable/workforce only projects)
b) GMP Village – increase maximum allowable density to 7 units per acre.
c) LDC Change minimum Village density to 4 units per acre.
d) LDC Development over 300 acres shall use the Village option.
Option - Maintain 40 acre minimum for increased density
Option - Maintain current density of 1 unit per acre for non-village, cluster development
Option - Consider affordable housing density bonus (maximum of 4 units per acre) in areas
outside a village, no acreage minimum
Option - Modify village density to 3-7 units per acre
Option - No acreage maximum for 1 unit per acre development
4. Should the County establish zoning overlays on the Receiving Area, adopted by super
majority, and allow proposed projects complying with the zoning overlay be approved with
simple majority?
Option - Provide development guidelines and standards in the LDC and require project approval
through PUD rezone with super majority vote.
2.A.3
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Direction requested (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
1
Summarized List of Initial Recommendations
GMP or LDC emphasis on changes to documents
Page references to White Paper
Highlighted: General Agreement Transmittal Stage Primary Discussion Area
June 20, 2017
SENDING LANDS
A. TDR Credit System
1. LDC Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR. p.33
2. GMP 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. p. 33
3. LDC 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
aquaculture, would qualify. Passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and
Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan . p. 35
4. GMP Allow TDR participation for illegal non-conforming properties based on public policy
goals, and waive requirements related to proof of legal non-conforming status if greater than
4.5 acres in size. P. 37
5. GMP Allow landowner’s who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to
participate in any applicable program changes. p. 38
6. GMP 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 . P. 39
7. LDC Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native
vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements. A permanent easement
in favor of Collier County would be required p.39
8. GMP NEW Expand concept of donation to a governmental entity to include a not -for profit
or land trust if specifically approved by the BCC.
2.A.4
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: List of recommends colors 061317 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
2
B. TDR Credits and Areas Outside of the RFMUD
1. GMP Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural
Fringe p. 40
2. GMP Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential Infill bonus
provision. p.41
3. GMP NEW Extend TDR demand to urban area where additional density is requested through
GMP amendment process above density otherwise provided through the density rating
system.
4. GMP Accommodate implementation measures recommended by the CWIP committee and
the Watershed Management Plan in Golden Gate Estates that are consistent with TDR
program success. Where TDRs are used as an incentive, limit the number of credits for critical
wetland parcels to avoid significant impacts to the TDR credit system. p. 41
C. TDR Program Management
1. Admin At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from
potential buyers and sellers. p. 43
2. Fee Ord. Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product
required for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limit ed instances,
provided by County staff. p. 43
3. GMP The County should consider the appeal of a publicly funded TDR bank and a dedicated
assessment and bonding for the program, based on an evaluation of costs and benefits. p. 45
D. Sending Land Management
1. GMP Adopt a standard whereby Collier County agrees to take clear title to land donated by
Sending owners in locations where no other public agency is available and willing to take title.
2. GMP Prepare applications to state and federal permitting agencies for a County to County
mitigation bank program (ROMA/ILF), to establish a successful mitigation program that can
benefit the TDR program, the County environment and capital spending. Explore options
involving Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) parcels to achieve coordinated or umbrella
management options for greater overall land management efficiency. p. 47
3. GMP Establish a special TDR for the benefit of the County where no other entity has been
established to take ownership. Also require donors of Sending Lands to convey a sum of
money along with title to partially fund long term endowment. p. 51
2.A.4
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: List of recommends colors 061317 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
3
4. Ord. Study the idea of a County Environmental Fund (Green Utility Fee) and consider whether
it should be the subject of a County-wide referendum. Allow various complementary uses of
the Fund to support County environmental initiatives. p. 52
5. LDC 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. p. 53
E. Other Program Suggestions
1. Admin 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. p. 54
2. LDC 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. p. 54
3. GMP Allow large land owners to cluster dwelling units, retaining the one unit per 40 acre
standard, but also allowing 1 unit to be clustered for each additional 40 acres of contiguous
land retained. p. 55
NEUTRAL LANDS
1. LDC Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by
perpetual easements. p. 55
2. GMP Remove the 40 acre minimum project size for clustered development. p. 60
RECEIVING LANDS
A. Land Use and Economic Vitality pp. 22-31, 56-59
1. GMP 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. LDC Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the
Village Center and the Research and Technology Park.
3. Ord. Explore Receiving areas as Innovation Zones.
4. GMP Eliminate the maximum size of a Village.
5. LDC Consider new measures for mixed-use standards, such as those found in the RLSA.
6. Modify residential density standards:
2.A.4
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: List of recommends colors 061317 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
4
GMP Non-village – remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre (higher
density for affordable/workforce only projects)
GMP Village – increase maximum allowable density to 7 units per acre.
LDC Change minimum Village density to 4 units per acre.
7. LDC Development over 300 acres shall use the Village option.
8. GMP Modify the TDR requirements:
a. Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily unit.
b. Change from .5 to 0 TDR for defined affordable housing.
c. Density over 4 units per acre requires 0 TDRs.
d. No TDRs for industrial/business park uses.
B. Transportation and Mobility pp. 17-22, 59-60
1. GMP Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands.
2. LDC Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support Complete
Streets and low speed.
3. LDC Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business
parks.
4. LDC 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.
C. Development Standards and Processes pp. 22-31; 60-62
1. LDC Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide
greater certainty for developers
2. LDC Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlays.
3. LDC Require housing analysis within Village application to determine employment related
demand within the Village and housing accommodation of such employees within the Village.
4. Ord. Consider an impact fee index for mixed-use.
5. LDC Explore with Collier County Health Department the creation of Health Assessment Index.
6. LDC 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.
7. LDC Develop further incentives for innovative features such as solar power, zero net water
use, aquifer storage and recovery systems.
2.A.4
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: List of recommends colors 061317 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD)
Restudy Direction
Board of County Commissioners Workshop
June 20, 2017
Zoning Division/Community Planning Section
Growth Management Department
Collier County | Florida
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Today’s Discussion
RFMUD Discussion of Initial
Recommendations and Options
Primary Focus areas:
A.Agriculture preservation
B.TDR bank
C.Sending land future
ownership
D.Receiving land future
development
2
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Public Outreach
Engage residents, landowners and stakeholders under
guidance from the Growth Management Oversight Committee
Coordinate with parallel community efforts
Complementary Land Uses
Consider adjoining Future Land Use areas
Improve housing diversity and affordability
Limit sprawl development
Maintain the existing boundaries
Incentive based
The RFMUD Restudy Objectives 3
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Transportation and Mobility
Incentivize development that could provide goods, services
and jobs to reverse and shorten auto trip lengths
Consider development pattern that supports viable public
transit
Environmental Stewardship
Prioritize the protection of the Sending areas
Assure sufficient compensation for Sending Land owners via
TDR credits
Identify agencies for short term and long term maintenance
Embrace simplicity where possible to help owners of small
Sending parcels
The RFMUD Restudy Objectives 4
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Economic Vitality and Diversification
Balance the TDR credit system
Promote economic development and a diversified economy
Support community character
The RFMUD Restudy Objectives 5
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
What We’ve Done Since the Last Workshop
Additional data and analysis related to primary decision points
Continued discussions with Commissioners
Develop alternative options to meet objectives and maintain density/population neutral
Evaluate additional cost data of County ownership and maintenance of Sending Lands
Provide additional information on TDR Bank concept
6
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Review of RFMUD Initial Recommendations
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
A.TDR Credit System
1.LDC Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR.
2.GMP 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.LDC 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
aquaculture, would qualify. Passive agricultural uses may be
considered for Restoration and Maintenance TDRs through an
approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan.
Sending Lands Initial Recommendations 8
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
A.TDR Credit System
4.GMP Allow TDR participation for illegal non-conforming
properties based on public policy goals, and waive
requirements related to proof of legal non-conforming status if
greater than 4.5 acres in size.
5.GMP Allow landowner’s who have generated TDRs but have
not conveyed their land to participate in any applicable
program changes.
6.GMP 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.
Sending Lands Initial Recommendations 9
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
A.TDR Credit System
7.LDC Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for
agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat
protection beyond minimum requirements. A permanent
easement in favor of Collier County would be required.
8.GMP NEW Expand concept of donation to a governmental
entity to include a not-for profit or land trust if specifically
approved by the BCC.
Sending Lands Initial Recommendations 10
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
RFMUD
Recommendations: Sending Lands
A. TDR Credit system
Agriculture Credits
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Agriculture TDR
Recommendations
Sending Lands: Allow Ag TDR credits as
alternative to standard TDR program
Limited locations
Review process
Receiving Lands: Allow TDR credits for
preservation of existing uses
Limited allowance
Neutral Lands: Allow TDR credits for
Agriculture similar to Sending option
ALL LOCATIONS: Permanent Easement
12
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Agriculture Today
PAO Classifications
13
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
RLSA: FLUCS Imagery 14
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
RFMUD:
FLUCS
Imagery
15
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Sending
North Belle Meade NRPA
Passive Agriculture Incentive via TDR
•Unimproved pasture (cattle grazing only)
•Limited benefit for owners
16
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Sending
North Belle Meade West
Active Agriculture Incentive via TDR
•Land values
•Existing operations approx. 400 acres (nurseries,
horticulture)
•New operations: review process for TDR consideration
•Recent research suggests wildlife compatibility
17
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
South Belle Meade Receiving
High quality/high volume
crop production
Reduction in
development area
Limit on TDR credits-
avoid impacts to Sending
owners
18
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Neutral Lands
Over 1,000 acres now in
active agriculture
Permanent easement
option
Could add to TDR supply
19
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
RFMUD Agriculture
Direction Requested
Should TDR credits be available as an incentive in:
Sending Lands, to continue and/or expand agricultural
operations?
Receiving Lands, to preserve a portion of agricultural
land?
(subject to a maximum number of credits)
Neutral Lands, to continue or expand agricultural
operations?
20
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
B.TDR Credits and Areas Outside of the RFMUD
1.GMP Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must
be derived for Urban Rural Fringe
2.GMP Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the
Urban Residential Infill bonus provision.
3.GMP NEW Extend TDR demand to urban area where
additional density is requested through GMP amendment
process above density otherwise provided through the density
rating system.
4.GMP Accommodate implementation measures recommended
by the CWIP committee and the Watershed Management Plan
in Golden Gate Estates that are consistent with TDR program
success. Where TDRs are used as an incentive, limit the
number of credits for critical wetland parcels to avoid
significant impacts to the TDR credit system.
Sending Lands Initial Recommendations 21
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
C.TDR Program Management
1.Admin. At a minimum, an improved exchange program should
be designed with input from potential buyers and sellers.
2.Fee Ord. 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.
3.GMP The County should consider the appeal of a publicly
funded TDR bank and a dedicated assessment and bonding for
the program, based on an evaluation of costs and benefits.
Sending Lands Initial Recommendations 22
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
RFMUD
Recommendations: Sending Lands
C. TDR Program Management
TDR Bank
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
TDR Bank
“County shall consider” (Current GMP)
Broad stakeholder support
“Intermediary”
o Sending owners compensated and incentivized
o Large lag time before development demand
o Fosters program goal of environmental
protection
o Liquidity
o Bank funds recycled and repaid
Should the County create and fund a TDR Bank?
24
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Costs
Capitalization
Early years, general or dedicated funds
County chooses level of funding
Funds are recycled for future purchases
Funds are repaid to County over time
Operation
Estimate of FTE equivalence
Functions overlap current administration
25
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Capitalization
As described in January and in White Paper
Plenary Bank-100% TDR activity through bank
50% of all “likely” TDR credits funded within 5 years
$16M per year for 5 years
1/2 sale proceeds are recycled for future purchases
1/2 sale proceeds repaid to County
Repaid over 30 years
Use for conservation program or return to taxpayers
$20M cost of funds
26
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Parallel Bank Concept
Parallel Bank-encourage private market
Capitalize a lower percentage,
Use mark-up between purchase and sale of credits
Accelerate pay-back schedule
Example
25% of all “likely” TDR credits funded within 5 years
Mark-up of TDR $9,500 purchase to $10,500 sale
$ 39M cap cost
Cost of funds around $9M
27
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Operation Costs
Personnel Costs
Estimate of 2.5 FTEs based on similar
program
County’s current administration: .5 FTE
Maintains registry
Records all transactions
Creates certificates
Records easements
Marketing and outreach needed: .5 FTE
Net increase: 1.5 FTEs
Purchase and sale of credit certificates,
legal assistance, Board interaction
Audit controls
28
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
TDR Bank
If YES:
Avoids 5 acre sprawl development before private
market demand emerges
29
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
TDR Bank
If YES:
Signals commitment of County to Sending
owners, providing timely monetary return
Signals commitment to conservation goals by
encouraging early participation
Funding:
o Capital outlay in early years
o Repayment in later years
o Could be part of multi-use Environmental Fund
30
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
TDR Bank
If NO:
Owners wait for private sector purchases:
o Of credits, or
o Of Sending parcels
Time lag issue:
o Owner uncertainty
o Low maintenance of conservation land
o Development pressure on conservation
land
31
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Multi-purpose Special Fund
(examples)
o TDR Bank
o Conservation Collier
restoration and maintenance
o Watershed/ rehydration
o Other environmental
purposes
BCC allocates funding annually
TDR Bank
Concept -County Environmental Fund
32
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
TDR Bank
Direction Requested
Should the TDR Bank concept be included in the
GMP Transmittal documents?
Does the Board wish to examine or explore any
particular aspect of a TDR Bank?
33
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
D.Sending Land Management
1.GMP Adopt a standard whereby Collier County agrees to take
clear title to land donated by Sending owners in locations
where no other public agency is available and willing to take
title.
2.GMP Prepare applications to state and federal permitting
agencies for a County to County mitigation bank program
(ROMA/ILF), to establish a successful mitigation program that
can benefit the TDR program, the County environment and
capital spending. Explore options involving Permittee
Responsible Mitigation (PRM) parcels to achieve coordinated
or umbrella management options for greater overall land
management efficiency.
Sending Lands Initial Recommendations 34
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
D.Sending Land Management
3.GMP Establish a special TDR for the benefit of the County
where no other entity has been established to take ownership.
Also require donors of Sending Lands to convey a sum of
money along with title to partially fund long term endowment.
4.Ord. Study the idea of a County Environmental Fund (Green
Utility Fee)and consider whether it should be the subject of a
County-wide referendum. Allow various complementary uses
of the Fund to support County environmental initiatives.
5.LDC 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.
Sending Lands Initial Recommendations 35
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
RFMUD
Recommendations: Sending Lands
A. Land Management
County Ownership
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
2. Conservation Collier Ownership
of Sending Land
Should Conservation Collier accept ownership of donated Sending Lands if no other public agency is willing? (YES, 3-2)
Should the County continue to work toward state and federal mitigation bank applications for portions of the donated land? (YES 3-2)
37
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Sending Land:
No Donee Today
North Belle
Meade NRPA
North Belle
Meade West
“Section 11”
38
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
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
Water Issues:
Ever increasing awareness of water issues
39
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Potential Funding for Conservation Collier Ownership
Donation of funds along with land
Additional TDR to County
Mitigation bank for some areas
Conservation Collier budgeting
402.A.5
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Potential Costs for County Donations
Implementation Costs (5-6 years):
Per acre estimate: $2,790
High donation acreage: 5,080
Low donation acreage: 2,948
“Likely” donation acreage;4,014
“Likely” implementation cost:$ 11.2
(Range $8.2M to $14.2M)
Transaction costs:$ 1.6M
Total Implementation costs $ 12.8M
41
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Potential Revenue for Implementation
Under County Ownership
1. Monetary Donation with Land
$2,000 per acre x 4014 acres =$ 8.0M
2. TDR issued to County per 5 acres
Est. $10,000 x 803 credits = $ 8.0M
3. Mitigation Bank credit values
$4,837/acre x 1771 acres = $ 8.6M
Potential Revenue $ 24.6M
Worst Case Scenario: (1) $8M; (2) $4M (3) $0 =$ 12.0M
42
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Costs and Revenues for County Ownership
Revenues should cover Implementation costs
Economist review prior to transmittal
Long Term Maintenance via ad valorem
$560,000/year approx. 3% of ¼ mil
43
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
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
442.A.5
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
If NO County Ownership:
Sending Owners in those
areas ineligible for
conveyance credits
Greater likelihood of higher
degradation
Greater likelihood of owner
retention, development
Rehydration less likely
County Ownership of Sending Land 45
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
County Sending Land Ownership
Direction Requested
Should Conservation Collier accept ownership of
donated Sending Lands if no other public agency is
willing?
46
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
E.Other Program Suggestions
1.Admin. Code 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.
2.LDC 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.
3.GMP Allow large land owners to cluster dwelling units,
retaining the one unit per 40 acre standard, but also allowing 1
unit to be clustered for each additional 40 acres of contiguous
land retained.
Sending Lands Initial Recommendations 47
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
1.LDC Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses
where the uses are secured by perpetual easements.
2.GMP Remove the 40 acre minimum project size for clustered
development.
Neutral Lands Initial Recommendations 48
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Receiving Land Future Development
How should the three remaining
Receiving Areas develop?
49
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
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
What We Heard at the Last Workshop and During
Follow-up Meetings
502.A.5
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Density –Sprawl to Sustainable
Arranging 350 units in different density patterns
1 unit per acre
Golf course community
6 units per acre
Downtown Naples
3 unit per acre
A Walk community
Low Density………………………………………………………………....…Medium Density
High Coverage ………………………………………………………....…..Medium Coverage
Sprawl………………………………………………………………........…Sustainable
51
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
A. Land Use and Economic Vitality
1.GMP 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.LDC Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and
leasable floor area limitation of the Village Center and the
Research and Technology Park.
3.Ord. Explore Receiving areas as Innovation Zones.
4.GMP Eliminate the maximum size of a Village.
5.LDC Consider new measures for mixed-use standards, such
as those found in the RLSA.
Receiving Lands Initial Recommendations 52
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
A. Land Use and Economic Vitality
Receiving Lands Initial Recommendations
6. GMP Modify residential density standards:
a.GMP Clustering –remove 40 acre minimum, increase
density to 2 units per acre (higher density for
affordable/workforce only projects)
b.GMP Village –increase maximum allowable density to 7
units per acre.
c.LDC Change minimum Village density to 4 units per acre.
7. LDC Development over 300 acres shall use the Village option.
8. GMP Modify the TDR requirements:
a.Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily unit.
b.Change from .5 to 0 TDR for defined affordable housing.
c.Density over 4 units per acre requires 0 TDRs.
d.No TDRs for industrial/business park uses.
53
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Options to maintain density/population neutral,
discourage sprawl and incentivize villages
Potential
Residential Units
Prior to 2002 –Ag
designation
Potential
Residential Units
Post 2002 –
Current RFMUD
Potential
Residential Units
RFMUD initial
recommendations
Maximum
Allowed
15,500 +/-42,100 +/-84,100 +/-
Option –cap the total number of residential units within the
RFMUD
54
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Options to maintain density/population neutral,
discourage sprawl and incentivize villages
4.GMP Eliminate the maximum size of a Village.
Option 1
Maintain current program size and number of villages:
1 village, 300 -1,500 acres in the North receiving area
1 village, 300 -1,500 acres in North Belle Meade
receiving area
1 village, 300 -2,500 acres in South receiving area
Option 2
same as option 1, and
1 village, 300 -1,500 acres, allocated to the West
receiving area, but not developed, can be utilized in North
Belle Meade receiving area or the South receiving area
55
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Options to maintain density/population neutral,
discourage sprawl and incentivize villages
6. GMP Modify residential density standards:
a.GMP Clustering –remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2
units per acre (higher density for affordable/workforce only projects)
b.GMP Village –increase maximum allowable density to 7 units per
acre.
c.LDC Change minimum Village density to 4 units per acre.
7. LDC Development over 300 acres shall use the Village option.
Option -Maintain 40 acre minimum for increased density
Option -Maintain current density of 1 unit per acre for non-village, cluster
development
Option -Consider affordable housing density bonus (maximum of 4 units
per acre) in areas outside a village, no acreage minimum
Option -Modify village density to 3-7 units per acre
Option -No acreage maximum for 1 unit per acre development
56
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
B. Transportation and Mobility
1.GMP Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues
surrounding Receiving Lands.
2.LDC Review roadway design standards and suggest changes
if necessary to support Complete Streets and low speed.
3.LDC Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride
facilities within Villages and business parks.
4.LDC 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.
Receiving Lands Initial Recommendations 57
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
C. Development Standards and Processes
1.LDC Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area
design standards to provide greater certainty for developers
2.LDC Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with
zoning overlays.
3.LDC Require housing analysis within Village application to
determine employment related demand within the Village and
housing accommodation of such employees within the Village.
4.Ord. Consider an impact fee index for mixed-use.
5.LDC Explore with Collier County Health Department the
creation of Health Assessment Index.
Receiving Lands Initial Recommendations 58
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Options to maintain density/population neutral,
discourage sprawl and incentivize villages
C. Development Standards and Processes
1.LDC Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate
area design standards to provide greater certainty for
developers –zoning overlay approval requires super
majority
2.LDC Allow BCC simple majority approval when
complying with zoning overlays.
Option 1
Provide development guidelines and standards in the LDC
and require project approval through PUD rezone with super
majority vote.
59
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
C. Development Standards and Processes
6.LDC 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.
7.LDC Develop further incentives for innovative features such
as solar power, zero net water use, aquifer storage and
recovery systems.
Receiving Lands Initial Recommendations 60
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)
Questions? Further Discussion?
Zoning Division/Community Planning Section
Growth Management Department
Collier County | Florida
2.A.5
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Staff Presentation BCC 2017 06 20 (3285 : RFMUD Recomendations)