Loading...
Agenda 09/14/2021 Item # 9B (PL20190001620/CPSS-2020-2 Blue Coral Apartments)Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting September 14, 2021 Add-On Item 12.A.: Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the Long-Term Lease and Operating Agreement for the Golf and Entertainment Complex (the “Lease”) with CCBSG Naples, LLC (“BigShots”) to Extend the Financing Contingency Period. (Commissioner Saunders’ Request) Continue Item 9A: *** This Item to be heard no sooner than 2:00 p.m. *** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve 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 an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as Blue Coral Apartments RPUD, to allow development of up to 234 multi-family rental units, of which 70 will be rent restricted as affordable. The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately 1000 feet west of Juliet Boulevard, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.35± acres; and by providing an effective date. (PL20190001600) (This is a companion to Item PL20190001620 Agenda Item 9B) (District 2) Continue Item 9B: *** This Item to be heard no sooner than 2:00 p.m. *** An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89- 05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series by adding the Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill subdistrict to the Urban, Mixed Use district to allow development of up to 234 multi-family rental units, of which 70 will be rent restricted as affordable. The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately 1000 feet west of Juliet Boulevard, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.35± acres; and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. [PL20190001620/CPSS-2020-2] (This is a companion to Item PL20190001600, Agenda Item 9A) (District 2) Note: Time Certain Items: Item 10A to be heard at 9:30 am –The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Collier County, Florida Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study Item 10B to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm –Lake Okeechobee System Operating Manual being developed by the Army Corp of Engineers, and a letter supporting Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation/Lee County’s position. 9/14/2021 8:26 AM 09/14/2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series by adding the Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill subdistrict to the Urban, Mixed Use district to allow development of up to 234 multi-family rental units, of which 70 will be rent restricted as affordable. The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately 1000 feet west of Juliet Boulevard, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.35± acres; and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. [PL20190001620/CPSS-2020-2] (This is a companion to Item PL20190001600, Agenda Item 9A) OBJECTIVE: To approve (adopt) the proposed small-scale amendment to the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and approve said amendment for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. CONSIDERATIONS: Petition PL20190001620/CPSS-2020-2 is submitted as a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. As such, per Florida Statutes, the request is heard only once by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the Board. If approved by the Board, the petition is transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). If denied by the Board, the petition is not transmitted to the DEO. This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series of the GMP to create the Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict. The Subdistrict text and maps proposed by this amendment are depicted in Ordinance Exhibit A. Staff’s analysis is provided in the Staff Report to the CCPC. Note: A companion PUD rezone petition is scheduled for this same hearing. • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government’s adopted Plan. • County Resolution 12-234 provides for a public petition process to amend the Collier County GMP. • Per Chapter 163.3187, Florida Statutes, limitations are in place for this type of small-scale amendment, as identified below, followed by staff comments in [brackets]. a. The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The proposed amendment pertains to a ±9.35-acre property.] b. The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small scale future land use map amendment are permissible under this section. [This amendment involves text changes that relate directly to a site-specific Future Land Use Map series change.] c. The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004 (3), and is located 9.B Packet Pg. 138 09/14/2021 within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1) [The subject property is not within an Area of Critical State Concern.] • Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177 [Internal consistency will be maintained if the GMP amendment is approved.] • The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the “local planning agency” under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held its Adoption hearing for this petition on May 20, 2021. The staff and CCPC Adoption Hearing recommendation are presented further below. • This Adoption hearing considers an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). No opposition was voiced at the CCPC Adoption hearing; however, staff received two (2) letters of opposition prior to the CCPC hearing - one (1) letter from a resident/owner within the Bermuda Palms development to the west, opposing the amendment due to ingress/egress, traffic, public utilities, project layout, and density concerns; and, the other opposition letter with twenty-six (26) petitions from the Bermuda Palms Association President and residents objecting to ingress/egress to/from Bermuda Palms and the project density at 30 dwelling units per acre. [Note: The original request was for 30 DU/A (280 DUs) but was revised to 25 DU/A (234 DUs) at the CCPC hearing.] The proposed amended Subdistrict text, as recommended by the Petitioner, is depicted in Ordinance Exhibit “A.” Based on the review of this small-scale GMP amendment petition, including the supporting data and analysis, staff makes the following findings and conclusions. • There are no unacceptable environmental impacts resulting from this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • Transportation Planning staff finds this petition to be consistent with Transportation Element Policy 5.1 regarding traffic impacts to the abutting segment of Immokalee Road. • There are no utility-related concerns caused by this petition and no concerns regarding impacts upon other infrastructure components. • The petitioner’s market demand analysis concludes there is a demand for the proposed rental apartment project in their primary market area. • Of the rental projects approved through the public hearing process over the last several years that committed to provide some Affordable Housing units, almost all such DUs were for higher Affordable income levels, typically >100% of AMI. The subject petition proposes 35 units out of 234 DUs at <80% of AMI (15% of the total DUs) and 35 units out of 234 DUs at 80% - 100% of AMI. • Based upon site location (infill and frontage on Immokalee Road) and surrounding property approvals and development, affordable housing proposed by this petition, market justification, and development restrictions and enhancements, a density of 25 DU/A appears appropriate though not consistent with the proposed County-initiated GMPA for affordable housing given 9.B Packet Pg. 139 09/14/2021 that the project does not comply with all provisions of that GMPA, including providing housing for very low-income levels. The proposed County-initiated GMP amendment and companion LDC amendment would allow, under multiple scenarios, a maximum density of 25 DU/A, subject to compliance with several provisions. • Based on permitted building heights to the east for commercial development of 60’ and 35’ built to the west and south (residential), a building height that transitions between the two - with increased setbacks and enhanced buffering from the residential development - could be justified. • The proposed density of 25 DU/A is 56% higher than the maximum density of 16 DU/A allowed by the FLUE’s Density Rating System. There are other apartment projects within larger PUDs that have a “net” density of about 20 DU/A, but do not provide an affordable housing commitment. Thirty percent (30%) of the total units in the proposed project are income and rent restricted units. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Community Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234, as amended. The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: “plan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” 163.3177(1)(f), FS. In addition, s. 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area, as applicable including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. Th need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. i. The discouragement of urban sprawl. j. The need for job creation, capital investment and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. And the FLUE map amendments shall also be based upon the following analyses per Section163.3177(6)(a)8.: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires an affirmative vote of four for approval because this is an Adoption hearing of the GMP amendment. 9.B Packet Pg. 140 09/14/2021 FISCAL IMPACT: Petition fees account for staff review time and materials, and for the cost of associated legal advertising/public notice for the public hearings. Therefore, no fiscal impacts to Collier County result from the adoption of this amendment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Adoption of the proposed amendment by the Board and its transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity will commence the Department’s (30) thirty-day challenge period for any affected person. Provided the small-scale development amendment is not challenged, it becomes effective (31) thirty-one days after Board adoption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20190001620/CPSS-2020-2 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for adoption and transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies, subject to limiting the project density to 20 DU/A. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition at their May 20, 2021 meeting. One (1) registered speaker (online), inquired about Collier County Public School impacts, buffer requirements, monitoring of affordable housing units, and site “net” acreage for actual development, but did not voice objection to, or support for, the petition. The CCPC recommended that the Board adopt PL20190001620/CPSS-2020-2 and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required agencies, with the following changes: 1) reduce density from 30 DU/A to 25 DU/A; 2) reduce the zoned and actual building height from 55 feet and 60 feet respectively to 50 feet; 3) revise the notice requirement for advertising the affordable housing units from 30 days to 45 days; 4) increase the rent restricted affordable housing units from 35 to 70 units; and, 5) provide an enhanced Type B buffer on the project’s western property line. (The building height and buffer provisions are addressed in the companion PUD only.) (vote: 5/0) The CCPC deferred to staff to draft the language in the Ordinance Exhibit to reflect their motion. Consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, staff proposed, and the petitioner agreed, to modify the affordable housing text to add “Notwithstanding paragraph d.1 above” so as to clarify that the seventy (70) units provided would be income and rent restricted for a period of thirty (30) years; these seventy (70) units would be offered first to Essential Services Personnel (ESP), and if no ESP renter enters into a rental lease agreement within the advertised period of 45-days then the unrented units would be offered to non-ESP (general public) - at those same income and rent restricted categories. This clarifying language is reflected in the Ordinance Exhibit A and shown below. d. The RPUD shall provide the following: 1. Thirty percent (30%) of the total units (70 units) will be rented to Essential Services Personnel (“ESP”). ESP means natural persons or families at least one of whom i s employed as police or fire personnel, a child care worker, a teacher or other education personnel, health care personnel or a public employee. Any time that a unit becomes vacant, assuming that less than 70 units are occupied by ESP, the next available unit will be offered to ESP. In the event that no ESP rents the available unit within forty-five (45) days of advertisement of its availability, then the unit may be offered to the general public. This commitment to ESP shall remain in effect for a period of time that is 30 years from the date that the development receives its final certificate of occupancy. 2. Notwithstanding paragraph d.1. above, the seventy (70) units will be income and rent 9.B Packet Pg. 141 09/14/2021 restricted. Of the seventy units (70), thirty-five (35) of the units will be designated for those households whose incomes are less than 80% of the AMI for Collier County and thirty-five (35) of the units will be designated for households whose incomes are between 80% and 100% of the AMI for Collier County. These uni ts will be committed for a period of 30 years and AMI rent limit adjustments will be made on an annual basis according to the most recent Collier County Board approved Table of Rental Rates for each income category and the number of bedrooms in the unit. The CCPC’s recommendation includes a requirement to provide an interconnection to the properties to the east and west, as reflected in the petition submittal materials and as presented to the CCPC. Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner stated they could no longer commit to provide an interconnection to the east as that landowner objected to the interconnection. Additionally, at the CCPC hearing, and subsequent to it, the landowner to the west objected to the interconnection with their property. Instead, the petitioner has proposed language to provide interconnections to the east and west, only if the landowner(s) agrees to the interconnection(s). RECOMMENDATION: To adopt and transmit petition PL20190001620/CPSS-2020-2 to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required agencies, as recommended by the CCPC, except staff supports the optional provision of interconnections and the inclusion of the affordable housing clarification language. Prepared by: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division ATTACHMENT(S) 1. 00. Ordinance & Exhibit A - 081621 (002) (PDF) 2. 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (PDF) 3. 01.1 BCC Objection Letter from Gaspar & Juliet Rd. Associations (PDF) 4. 01.1a. Removal of Objection to Development from Gaspar & Juliet Rd. Assoication (PDF) 5. 01.2 BCC Comment & Objection Letter from Bermuda Palms (PDF) 6. 01.2a. BCC Add'l. Comment and Objection Letter from Bermuda Palms (PDF) 7. 01.2b BCC Objection letter from Bermuda Palms Resident (PDF) 8. 01.3 Interconnection Memorandum from Petitioner to Collier County Planning Staff (PDF) 9. 01.4 Blue Coral TIS Update Summary Letter (PDF) 10. [Linked] 01.5 Blue Coral Apts GMPA-PUDZ TIS (rev)_certified (PDF) 11. 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (PDF) 12. 01.7 BCC Sign Posting (PDF) 13. [Linked] 02. Draft Transcript CCPC_05-20-21 (PDF) 14. [Linked] 03. GMPA Application and Support Documents (PDF) 15. [Linked] 04. Opposition Letters & Petition (PDF) 16. [Linked] 05. Draft GMP & LDC Housing Initiatives (PDF) 17. 06. Project Site Plan & Profiles (PDF) 18. 07. Collier Apartments0819 (PDF) 19. 08. Sign Affidavit and Posting (PDF) 20. 09. NIM Affidavit and Related Documents (PDF) 9.B Packet Pg. 142 09/14/2021 21. 10. CCPC Ordinance and Exhibit A (PDF) 22. legal ad - agenda IDs 17456 and 17458 (PDF) 9.B Packet Pg. 143 09/14/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.B Doc ID: 17458 Item Summary: *** This Item to be heard no sooner than 2:00 p.m. *** An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series by adding the Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill subdistrict to the Urban, Mixed Use district to allow development of up to 234 multi-family rental units, of which 70 will be rent restricted as affordable. The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately 1000 feet west of Juliet Boulevard, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.35± acres; and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. [PL20190001620/CPSS- 2020-2] (This is a companion to Item PL20190001600, Agenda Item 9A) Meeting Date: 09/14/2021 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 08/10/2021 6:48 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 08/10/2021 6:48 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Lissett DeLaRosa Growth Management Department Completed 08/11/2021 1:18 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 08/12/2021 2:00 PM Zoning James Sabo Additional Reviewer Completed 08/18/2021 9:28 AM Growth Management Department Trinity Scott Transportation Skipped 08/18/2021 11:14 AM Growth Management Department James C French Growth Management Completed 08/18/2021 6:10 PM County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 08/26/2021 8:47 AM Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 08/26/2021 8:50 AM County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 08/26/2021 10:43 AM Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 08/27/2021 8:49 AM County Manager's Office Amy Patterson Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 09/08/2021 9:52 AM Board of County Commissioners Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending 09/14/2021 9:00 AM 9.B Packet Pg. 144 9.B.a Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 00. Ordinance & Exhibit A - 081621 (002) (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.a Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 00. Ordinance & Exhibit A - 081621 (002) (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.a Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 00. Ordinance & Exhibit A - 081621 (002) (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.a Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 00. Ordinance & Exhibit A - 081621 (002) (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.a Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 00. Ordinance & Exhibit A - 081621 (002) (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.a Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 00. Ordinance & Exhibit A - 081621 (002) (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.a Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: 00. Ordinance & Exhibit A - 081621 (002) (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.a Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: 00. Ordinance & Exhibit A - 081621 (002) (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 12 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: May 20, 2021 RE: PETITION PL20190001620/CPSS-2020-2, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to RPUD- PL20190001600) [ADOPTION HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Agents: Patrick Vanasse, AICP RWA, Inc. 6610 Willow Park Drive, Ste. 200 Naples, FL 34109 and Jeff E. Wright, Esq. Henderson & Franklin Pelican Bay Financial Center Naples, FL 34108 Applicant: David Bastos (Contract Purchaser) CIG Naples, LLC. Cincinnati, OH 45202 Owner: William C. Scherer Trust 2375 N. Tamiami Trail, #206 Naples, FL 34103 9.B.b Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 12 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, a ±9.35-acre parcel, is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately 1000 feet west of Juliet Boulevard and 2,500 feet west of I 75, and approximately 900 feet east of Livingston Road, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, within the North Naples Planning Community. (see subject site below) Project Site Project Site 9.B.b Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 12 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM), specifically to establish the new Immokalee Road Interchange Infill Subdistrict, affecting fewer than ten (10) acres, by: 1) Amending Policy 1.5 A. Urban – Mixed Use District, to add the Immokalee Road Interchange Infill Subdistrict; 2) Amending Urban Designation provisions to add the new Subdistrict name where various Subdistricts that allow residential uses are listed; 3) Amending the Urban – Mixed Use District to add the new Subdistrict provisions; 4) Amending the Future Land Use Map Series listing to add the title of the new Subdistrict map; and 5) Amending the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict; and adding a new Future Land Use Map Series inset map that depicts the new Subdistrict. The proposed amended/added text and maps are depicted on Ordinance Exhibit A’s. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting a Growth Management Plan Amendment to create text and a map for a new residential Subdistrict (Immokalee Road Interchange Infill Subdistrict). The amendment is necessary in order to allow residential development of a maximum of 280 multi-family rental dwelling units at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre and related accessory uses. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Property: The +9.35-acre subject site is undeveloped, zoned “A”, Rural Agricultural District, and the Future Land Use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map is Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and is located within a Residential Density Band. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Immediately to the north (across Immokalee Road, a six-lane, divided arterial roadway and canal easement) are 2-story residential multi-family units, zoned Carlton Lakes Planned Unit Development (PUD) at a density of 3.4 DU/A. To the north and further west of the subject site is the Carlton Lakes PUD commercial tract comprising of +7.0 acres, developed with Oakes Farms Seed to Table Market and an outparcel with a Dunkin Donuts. The Future Land Use designation as shown on the FLUM is Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. South: Immediately adjacent to the south are 2-story residential multi-family units, zoned Livingston Lakes PUD at a density of 6.99 DU/A, and designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the FLUM. 9.B.b Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 4 of 12 East: Immediately adjacent to the east is an undeveloped tract, zoned Commercial PUD (CPUD), Germain Immokalee – approved for a new and used luxury automotive dealership at a maximum intensity of 80,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, and designated Urban, Commercial District on the FLUM. Further to the east are parcels developed with retail, carwash, hotel use, restaurant, and storage uses, zoned Gaspar Station CPUD, and designated Urban, Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center (#4) Subdistrict. Further east beyond these commercial uses and across Juliet Boulevard, is a Walmart Super Center zoned Donovan Center PUD and within the Activity Center. West: Immediately adjacent to the west are 2-story residential multi-family units, zoned Eboli PUD (a/k/a Bermuda Palms) at a density of 8.92 DU/A, and designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the FLUM. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan (GMP) Amendment Criteria in Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3187: Process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, followed by staff analysis in bracketed bold text. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The proposed amendment pertains to a 9.35-acre site.] (b) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment is for a site-specific Future Land Use Map change and directly related text change.] (c) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. [Internal consistency will be maintained if the GMP amendment is approved.] Background and Considerations: The subject property is one of two parcels remaining to be developed along the south side of Immokalee Road, between Livingston Road and I-75, and both are less than 10 acres in size. The parcel directly to the east of the subject property is proposed to be developed as a luxury car dealership according to the recently approved rezoning (Germain Immokalee CPUD). East of that site is the I-75 Interchange Activity Center with a mix of commercial intensities ranging from retail and restaurant use to a Walmart Super Center. Properties adjacent to an Activity Center (AC) are intended to transition from the higher intensity uses allowed there to lower intensity uses. The transition from the parcels within the AC to the proposed Germain Immokalee luxury automotive dealership site provides for a lower intensity traffic generating commercial project but does not significantly provide a lower intensity transitional commercial use. The density and intensity of uses currently allowed on the subject site, consistent with the Urban Residential Subdistrict FLUM 9.B.b Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 5 of 12 designation, include residential uses and non-residential uses, such as an assisted living facility, church, childcare center, essential service uses, etc. The applicant proposes to create a new Subdistrict to allow residential multi-family rental development at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre (280 units). The maximum allowable density that could be achieved on this site through the density rating system of the FLUE is 16 dwelling units per acre (150 DUs). The proposed text for the new Subdistrict allows these dwelling units at a maximum height of 60 feet (actual). Residential density, building height and compatibility (including appropriateness of the location) for this project are identified by staff as the main areas of concern to address. Density: This petitioner is proposing 280 multi-family rental units with thirty-five (35) rent restricted units for Essential Service Personnel (ESP). Comprehensive Planning staff reviewed the FLUE’s density rating system to determine residential density eligibility for the site. Residential density within the Urban Mixed Use District is limited to (capped at) 16 dwelling units/acre. The maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre can be achieved with the base density and a combination of the density bonus provisions of the Density Rating System, as identified below. Base Density: 4 dwelling units/acre Potential Density Bonuses: Residential Infill 3 dwelling units/acre Activity Center Density Band 3 dwelling units/acre NW Transportation Concurrency Mgmt. Area 3 dwelling units/acre Affordable Housing 12 dwelling units/acre Maximum Permitted Density: 16 dwelling units/acre The requested 280 DUs would be a density of 30 DU/A (280 DU / 9.35 Acres = 29.94 DU/A), which is 14 DU/A higher than that allowed by the Density Rating System. Additionally, the requested density is over 21 DU/A higher than immediately surrounding project densities. Proposed Site North South East West Project Name Blue Coral Apartments Carlton Lakes Livingston Lakes Germain Immokalee (Undeveloped) Bermuda Palms (Eboli PUD) Density 30 DU/A 3.40 DU/A 6.99 DU/A Commercial 8.92 DU/A Land Use Multi-Family Residential 280 DUs Multi-Family Residential 800 DUs Multi-Family Residential 230 DUs Commercial/Luxury Motor Vehicle Dealership (new & used) Multi-Family Residential 80 DUs Zoning RPUD PUD PUD CPUD PUD Because this is a request for a new Subdistrict, it is not limited by the Density Rating System - the petitioner may request 30.00 DU/A (or any other density). 9.B.b Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 6 of 12 Height: The subject multi-family residential development proposed at a maximum height of 60 feet (actual) is +25 feet higher than the height of the surrounding, 2-story multi-family residential projects to the south (Livingston Lakes) and west (Bermuda Palms) at approximately 35 feet in height. The future Germain Immokalee car dealership to the east can develop at a maximum height of 60 feet, consistent with the proposed project’s height. Proposed North South East West Project Name Blue Coral Apartment (Undeveloped) Carlton Lakes Livingston Lakes Germain Immokalee (Undevelop ed) Bermuda Palms (Eboli PUD) Height Zoned 55’ Actual 60’ 35’ (PUD – 35’) 35’ (PUD – 3 stories above min. flood elevation) Zoned 55’ Actual 60’ 34’ (PUD - 35’) Bldg. Stories Not Provided 2 2 (PUD - 3 stories above min. flood elevation) Undeveloped 2 Compatibility: FLUE Policy 5.6 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, a compatibility analysis might include a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding properties as to the 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. There are commercial and residential multi-family uses in the area surrounding the Subdistrict. The commercial uses range in intensity from an automotive dealership proposed adjacent to the subject site and further east an Interchange Activity Center with a full range of commercial uses and intensities – including a hotel, and Walmart Super Center, to 2-story multi-family units immediately to the south and west of the subject site. The FLUE encourages development to transition from higher intensities to lower intensities. Use intensities should diminish as development moves from the commercial lands to the east towards Livingston Road to the west on this section of Immokalee Road. One purpose of the transition of uses is to ensure that residential developments are not located next to high intensity uses. The proposed multi-family residential use and related uses within this Subdistrict help produce this type of transition; however, the density proposed at 30 DU/A along with the zoned building height of 55’ (60’ actual), increases the use intensity of the site. A challenge to developing a more intense residential community, such as the one proposed, is the protection of living conditions in adjacent communities, especially preserving the residential character, privacy, and access to natural light. To ensure these communities are not significantly impacted, appropriate setbacks, screening, and buffers should be established. 9.B.b Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 7 of 12 Potential impacts from the proposed multi-story development adjacent to the two-story, lower density, communities to the west and south will likely be from two sources – ground level impacts, such as vehicular movement, parking, and other development related services, e.g. deliveries and waste collections; and, upper-level impacts that affect natural light, privacy, noise and visual quality. Potential impacts from the ground level are typically addressed with screening, which may include a solid masonry wall with mature trees that are in excess of two-stories – 20 to 25 feet tall. Trees at this height (of the appropriate species) can screen views into and from area residences’ second story windows. Potential impacts from upper-level units, such as loss of privacy, may be mitigated with greater separation between buildings on the project site and the adjacent two-story multifamily buildings. Planning principles indicate a greater building setback – possibly 40’ for buildings above 35’ – with substantial screening with mature trees would be needed to address privacy issues within the adjacent communities, and without enhanced screening the building setback should be significantly greater. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed at time of zoning, and may include building height and size limitations, setback and buffer requirements, etc. Note: There is a companion zoning petition to this GMP amendment petition. Aside from specific compatibility considerations, the density and use intensity of abutting and nearby properties may identify the character of the area. As noted, the surrounding residential properties are zoned for significantly lower densities than that which is proposed, and the subject site potentially could qualify for the maximum density allowed under the Density Rating System - 16 DU/A. Given that the maximum residential density allowed is 16 DU/A in an Activity Center, in addition to the full array of commercial uses, a conclusion can be made that commercial zoning has a residential density equivalency of 16 DU/A. Although the property to the east is not within an Activity Center, it is commercially zoned (CPUD – Germain Immokalee) so it could be viewed as having an equivalency of 16 DU/A. As such, a density of 16 DU/A on the subject property could generally be thought of as conforming to the character of the abutting and nearby properties, whereas the requested 30 DU/A may not. Staff acknowledges: the proposed county-initiated GMPA to increase density from 16 to 25 DU/A in Activity Centers (and other scenarios, such as Transit Oriented Development), all subject to conditions, could result in a change to the residential equivalency of commercial development to 25 DU/A; there is some demand for apartments in the subject market area at the price points proposed, by 2024; this is an infill parcel on a 6-lane divided road proximate to commercial development to the east and northwest; the affordable housing proposed, though only 12.5% of the total units (35 out of 280 units), is subject to a 30-year commitment; and there are other apartment complexes located within larger developments (PUDs) that if density was calculated based on the site of the apartments rather than the entire PUD, the density would be around 20 DU/A. Affordable Housing: The proposed project of 280 rental apartment units commits to providing 70 DUs for ESP (essential service personnel) and 35 (12.5%) of those for Affordable Housing income levels. However, only 10 of those 35 DUs are for those earning <80% of Area Median Income (AMI). There is a need for additional housing within all Affordable Housing income levels; however, projects typically do not commit to the lower income levels of affordability. Many of the rental apartment projects approved over the last few years through the public hearing process that included DUs committed to Affordable Housing were for higher income levels, typically gap housing (in excess of 100% AMI). 9.B.b Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 8 of 12 Justifications for Proposed Amendment: The petitioner states, “The proposed subdistrict is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, ULI’s Housing Affordability Recommendations and proposed Housing Affordability LDC amendments in that it complies with or implements the intent [emphasis added] of these documents.” In the project narrative submitted with the GMP amendment the petitioner asserts that the provided details and summary support this statement. Additionally, the petitioner submitted a market study with the GMP application that indicated there is a demand for multi- family rental housing that would be supported at this location. The County contracted with Johnson Engineering to prepare amendments to the Growth Management Plan (and Land Development Code) to implement Affordable Housing initiatives in the 2017 Urban Land Institute Study. These draft Affordable Housing amendments to the GMP (and LDC), briefly identified below, and detailed further below, followed by staff comment in brackets, propose to: • increase density in Activity Centers from 16 to 25 DU/A when providing housing that is affordable [N/A, subject site is not within an Activity Center and petition proposes >25 DU/A]; • create Strategic Opportunity Sites to allow for mixed use developments at a density of up to 25 DU/A which integrates non-residential land uses with high degree of employment opportunities, such as corporate headquarters or business campuses [N/A, such sites have not yet been identified, the proposed project is not mixed use and proposes >25 DU/A]; • increase density opportunities along bus/transit lines through the creation of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) up to a maximum of 25 DU/A [N/A, proposed project does not qualify as TOD and proposes >25 DU/A]; and, • streamline conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning when providing for housing that is affordable [N/A, subject site is not presently zoned commercial (and only commits to provide 12.5% (35 DUs out of 280) within the County’s affordability range]. The petitioner’s project narrative refers to two Housing Affordability initiatives (GMP and LDC amendments) with which the proposed project aligns. 1. Initiative Three – Housing that is affordable within Activity Centers; would allow a density increase from 16 DU/A to 25 DU/A. Per the proposed policy, the Affordable Housing commitment for a rental community is that 2/3 (67%) of the bonus density must be made available to the low or very low income levels (as identified in LDC Section 2.07.03A.1.). For the subject site: 16 to 25 DU/A = 9 DU/A bonus. 9.35 Acres x 9 DU/A = 84 DUs X 67% = 56 Affordable Housing units required (out of 234 DUs total). [Subject site is not in an Activity Center; proposes >25 DU/A (30 DU/A); proposes <67% of the bonus units as Affordable Housing (16 DU/A to 30 DU/A = 14 DU/A bonus. 9.35 Acres x 14 DU/A = 131 DUS X 67% = 88 Affordable Housing units required (out of 280 total) versus petition proposes 35 Affordable DUs.); only 10 of the 35 proposed Affordable Housing units are within the specified affordability level.] 2. Initiative Five – Increase density along transit corridors; maximum allowed density when providing Affordable Housing may be increased from 16 DU/A to 25 DU/A. The proposed provision includes several conditions, including: the project provides for a transit stop along the project’s frontage or is within one-quarter mile of an existing transit stop; the project complies with the transit oriented design standards contained (proposed) in chapter four of the LDC; maximum density shall not exceed 25 DU/A. [No transit stop exists or is proposed along the project’s frontage nor is there an existing transit stop within ¼ mile; the project does not comply with all of the proposed standards (exceeds the building height limit, there is no transit stop within ¼ mile, there is no commitment to provide 2/3 (67%) of all DUs above 13 DU/A at the low and/or very low income affordability 9.B.b Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 9 of 12 levels (30 DU/A – 13 DU/A = 17 DU/A x 9.35 Acres = 159 DUs x 67% = 106 Affordable Housing units required out of 280 total versus 35 Affordable Housing units proposed by petitioner with most of those not in the specified income levels); the project’s proposed density is >25 DU/A.] The firm of Vogt Strategic Insights prepared a market demand analysis for the proposed project. The firm established a Preliminary Site Market Area (PMA) that is bounded: on the north by Bonita Beach Road and an easterly extension (partially along the Collier/Lee County lines but mostly extending one mile into Lee County); on the east by Collier Blvd. (CR 951) but jogging to the east to include all of Heritage Bay PUD; on the south by Golden Gate Parkway then moving slightly north on US 41 before continuing west to the Gulf of Mexico; on the west by the Gulf of Mexico. The demand analysis is based on population projections for renter households by year 2024 with targeted household incomes of approximately $45,000 and higher within the PMA. The preliminary study findings conclude there is a demand for approximately 281 rental housing units in the PMA. This demand number, however, should be slightly lower with the inclusion of the La Costa Apartments’ inventory of 276 units that was overlooked in the inventory on the Site PMA Renter Demand Tables. Additionally, comparable market rate projects, currently under construction (The Crest at Bonita Springs – 264 units and Versol – 160 units) will provide additional inventory within the PMA when the units are built. Based on the information provided in the petitioner’s market study, staff finds the conclusions reasonable. However, staff questioned the selected PMA boundaries, but no additional explanation of the project boundaries were provided. Environmental Impacts: The site contains potential habitat for several listed species. However, no listed animal species or cavity trees were observed on site. The proposed project is located within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation area for Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) and within a core foraging range for one wood stork colony (Mycteria americana). Consultation with the FWS may be needed to mitigate any potential onsite impacts. Plant species observed on site include, stiff- leaved wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata), inflated wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana), and Florida butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), all listed as “Less Rare Plants,” and will be protected in accordance with Land Development Code Section 3.04.03. Additionally, a preserve area of no less than 1.18 acres will be provided on the south side of the project to satisfy the native vegetative preservation requirements for the project. Public Facilities Impacts: The project is located within the regional potable water service area and the north wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. The developer has provided commitments in the RPUD to complete a minimum 8” County water main loop between the Germain Immokalee CPUD to the east and the Eboli PUD to the west or an alternative water connection/extension to the 20” water main on the north side of Immokalee Road. Transportation Impacts: The 280 multi-family residential development will generate a projected total of +/- 119 PM peak hour, 2-way trips on the adjacent roadway segments of Immokalee Road. Site ingress and egress will be on Immokalee Road via a shared access with the adjacent site to the east (Germain Immokalee CPUD), and a future connection point to the west is proposed with Bermuda Palms to potentially provide cross access between properties. Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the project can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. 9.B.b Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 10 of 12 Criteria for GMP Amendments in Florida Statutes Data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below. Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.: 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. 9.B.b Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 11 of 12 g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Also, the state land planning agency has historically recognized the consideration of community desires (e.g. if the community has an articulated vision for an area as to the type of development desired, such as within a Community Redevelopment Area), and existing incompatibilities (e.g. presently allowed uses would be incompatible with surrounding uses and conditions). NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), was duly advertised, noticed, and held on August 25, 2020, 6:00 p.m. at New Hope Ministries, 7675 David Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this small scale GMP amendment and the companion Planned Unit Development rezone (PUDZ) petition. The applicant’s team provided introductions and gave an overview of the project. The overview generally included references to a +250 foot separation between buildings on the subject site and buildings to the south (Livingston Lakes PUD); a 170 foot-wide preserve between the subject site and southern site (Livingston Lakes PUD); a 200 foot-wide separation between buildings on the subject site and those to the west (Bermuda Palms); buffering and lighting to be addressed in overall project design; connectivity to Juliet Blvd. to be provided to alleviate traffic on Immokalee Road; and, zoned building height of 55 feet. At the conclusion of the presentation, the applicant’s team provided an opportunity for questions. A total of two members of the public attended on Zoom; no members of the public attended in person. There were no questions raised by the public and the meeting concluded at 6:15 p.m. A copy of the NIM summary and related documents are included in the back-up materials. 9.B.b Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 12 of 12 FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • There are no unacceptable environmental impacts resulting from this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • Transportation Planning staff finds this petition to be consistent with Transportation Element Policy 5.1 regarding traffic impacts to the abutting segment of Immokalee Road. • There are no utility-related concerns caused by this petition. • There are no concerns regarding impacts upon other infrastructure components. • The petitioner’s market demand analysis concludes there is a demand for the proposed rental apartment project in their primary market area. • Of the rental projects approved through the public hearing process over the last several years that committed to provide some Affordable Housing units, almost all such DUs were for higher Affordable income levels, typically >100% of AMI. The subject petition proposes 10 out of 280 DUs for <80% of AMI (3.5% of the total DUs). • Based upon site location (infill and frontage on Immokalee Rd.) and surrounding property approvals and development, affordable housing proposed by this petition, and market justification, density greater than 16 DU/A appears justified but not the density proposed by the County-initiated GMPA for affordable housing (25 DU/A) given that the project does not comply with all provisions of that GMPA. • Based on permitted building heights to the east for commercial development of 60’ and 35’ built to the west and south (residential) a building height that transitions between the two – with increased setbacks and buffering from the residential development – could be justified. • The proposed density of 30 DU/A is 88% higher than the maximum density of 16 DU/A allowed by the FLUE’s Density Rating System. There are other apartment projects within larger PUDs that have a “net” density of about 20 DU/A. • The proposed density of 30 DU/A may be considered out of character with the density and use intensity of abutting and nearby properties. • There is a proposed County-initiated GMP amendment and companion LDC amendment to allow, under multiple scenarios, a maximum density of 25 DU/A, subject to compliance with several provisions. The subject GMP amendment is requesting a density greater than the 25 DU/A and does not comply with all provisions in any of the scenarios of the County- initiated amendments. LEGAL REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on May 11, 2021. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20190001620/CPSS-2020-2 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for adoption and transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies, subject to limiting the project density to 20 DU/A. 9.B.b Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: 01. Adoption CCPC Staff Report - Immokalee Rd. Interchange Infill Subdistrict Final (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road 9.B.cPacket Pg. 165Attachment: 01.1 BCC Objection Letter from Gaspar & Juliet Rd. Associations (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential 9.B.cPacket Pg. 166Attachment: 01.1 BCC Objection Letter from Gaspar & Juliet Rd. Associations (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential 9.B.cPacket Pg. 167Attachment: 01.1 BCC Objection Letter from Gaspar & Juliet Rd. Associations (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential 9.B.dPacket Pg. 168Attachment: 01.1a. Removal of Objection to Development from Gaspar & Juliet Rd. Assoication (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road MEMORANDUM TO: Josephine Medina, Michele Mosca Zoning Division Collier County Planning Commission FROM: Diane Doherty President, Board of Directors Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Association, Inc. Linda Durkee Owner and Resident, Bermuda Palms Naples, FL 34109 DATE: June 11, 2021 RE: Questions and Concerns Regarding Draft Exhibits of Changes to Blue Coral Apartments Plan Following are our questions and concerns regarding the proposed Blue Coral Apartments. Thank you. * ACCESS – The Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Association, Inc. on May 5, 2021 submitted a petition to the Collier County Planning Commission expressing opposition to “the use of Bermuda Palms for ingress and/or any other entity, including Germain Lexus, and for any other purpose.” Bermuda Palms needs a definitively positive statement that there will be no such ingress and/or egress in the PUD for Blue Coral Apartments or any other entity or for any other purpose. Uncertainty remains. There was testimony on May 20 , 2021 that there was a potential interconnection with Bermuda Palms should the association want it. The association has stated it does not. It was maintained that such a use of Bermuda Palms property would not create additional traffic at its entranceway. It would. The draft schematic for Blue Coral Apartments, post hearing, still shows an access point through Bermuda Palms – with the notation: “FUTURE ACCESS (SUBJECT TO NEIGHBOR APPROVAL.)” This overreach is not acceptable. Bermuda Palms needs and insists on certainty that its property will not be an access point for Blue Coral Apartments or any other entities or any other uses. The access point on the schematic must be eliminated. There is also uncertainty about access through Immokalee Germain Lexus. The Transportation section says, “Access to the project will be via a shared access with the property to the east on the eastern property line of this project.” It goes on to say, “If the shared access split by the property line is not granted, access will be 9.B.e Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: 01.2 BCC Comment & Objection Letter from Bermuda Palms (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential afforded on the subject property only and will not accommodate cross access to the property to the East.” The outcome of this access point is left hanging. Number 7 of the draft Transportation section leaves another use of Bermuda Palms access point unclear. It says, “Vehicular and Pedestrian interconnection will be provided to the abutting properties on the east and west to allow access to all connection points with the shared project access along Immokalee Road and across the abutting property to the east to Useppa Way and Juliet Boulevard.” It says, “The final location of the access point will be coordinated with the adjacent property owner and a cross-access easement will be provided, or an access easement for public use.” Bermuda Palms needs and insists on a positive statement that its property will not be the focus of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. * PUBLIC UTILTIES – Uncertainty remains regarding the use of the water main serving Bermuda Palms. Despite testimony by the applicant at the May 20 , 2021, hearing that it does not want to connect through the water main serving Bermuda Palms, the draft Exhibits appear to call for this use unless it is deemed infeasible. The operative word is shall. [Boldface added for emphasis.} The document says, “The developer shall compete a minimum 8” water main loop between the adjacent Eboli (AKA Bermuda Palms) and Germain Immokalee PUDs. The water main shall connect the existing 8” water main servicing Bermuda Palms to a future 8” water main to be extended through Germain Immokalee from an existing 8” water main stub-out at Useppa Way.” These statements are followed by two important Ifs. “If there is no point of connection at Germain Immokalee at the time of project development, the water main shall be terminated at the property line.” It then says, “If a connection to the existing 8” water main service Bermuda Palms is deemed infeasible by Collier County staff at the time of project development, the developer shall instead connect to the existing 20” water main on the north side of Immokalee Road.” Blue Coral Apartments would be a large rental development. Bermuda Palms is a small condominium development. The rebuttable presumption is that the applicant would use the water line serving Bermuda Palms, and this use would be dropped only if the County staff deems it infeasible. There needs to be clarification on this point and certainty for Bermuda Palms. * DENSITY – Serious reduction in light and air to Bermuda Palms, as highlighted in the staff report, was linked to the building height, high number of units per acre, and the elongated building design of Blue Coral Apartments. This large-scale development, which would include an intensive urban parking garage, would still be overly dense and out of scale with neighboring properties despite changes made. 9.B.e Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: 01.2 BCC Comment & Objection Letter from Bermuda Palms (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Staff agreed to the developer’s offer to increase the number of units dedicated to affordable housing from 35 to 70 on the basis that the number of rental units allowed per acre be increased from 20 to 25. It had sought 30 units per acre. The resulting total number of units now would go from 280 to 234. This is still too dense for the approximately 9.35-acre parcel. But what is the actual acreage used to make the calculation of allowable units per acre? The total of 9.35 acres includes a dedicated preserve of 1.18 acres, bordering on the southern border with Livingston Lakes. If the 1.18 acres of preserve are subtracted from the 9.35 acres, the Blue Coral developer would still end up with approximately 28.64 units per acre – 3.64 more units per acre than the Planning Commission agreed to and much closer to the 30 units per acre sought. The building height was changed from 60 to 50 feet. This height is still out of sync with neighboring properties, including Bermuda Palms, which have two stories. The upshot is that Bermuda Palms will effectively underwrite the additional affordable housing units by receiving less light and air. * TRAFFIC –- The proposed 234 rental units in Blue Coral Apartments would be restricted to “119 two-way PM peak hour net new external trips.” The community needs assurance of how this limit would be monitored and enforced. The cumulative trips from this dense development would add to the already highly congested Immokalee Road corridor and burden public access to and from I-75, with adverse impacts of mobility, pollution, and noise. This traffic situation will only worsen with ongoing and projected development in the area, especially east of I-75. * LANDSCAPING – The high-density development needs adequate landscape to mitigate the adverse effects on Bermuda Palms. The plan, even with recently proposed changes, would not be adequate, leaving Bermuda Palms with the visual impact of a long, high building and parking garage right up to its property line, curtailing light and air for residents. The buffer on the western side of the property is described as “enhanced,” but this word refers to plantings and not to an increase in setback. It remains at 15 feet from Bermuda Palms. This is too close. Table I – Development Standards in the Draft Exhibits document stipulate 80 feet for principal uses from the West and 25 feet from the East. Could you please clarify where these 80 feet involving Bermuda Palms are located and for what purpose. Importantly, has the developer requested a variance of any kind from County regulations for a change in setback and/or related requirements? If so, we request a copy of any such variance and associated discussion. 9.B.e Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: 01.2 BCC Comment & Objection Letter from Bermuda Palms (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential On the buffer zone vegetation, the proposed canopy trees would be in a single row, apparently in clusters and would have significant gaps. There would be no plantings in the portion of the buffer with slope easement. How big would such gaps be? The proposed hedge, 60 inches high with #4 shrubs spaced four feet on center at the time of planting, would be located 10 feet from Bermuda Palms. This also is too close. The heights of trees proposed would vary from 12 to 20 and 25 feet at the time of planting. Old-growth trees already there are much higher and denser. Yet it appears they will all be removed. In contrast, the schematic shows a 25’ setback along the property line with Germain Lexus, including a 15’ wide type B buffer. The 1.18-acre preserve abutting Livingston Lakes is highly generous compared to the apparent 15-feet boundary with Bermuda Palms. * CONCLUSION – The PUD needs to expressly state that there will be no ingress or egress through Bermuda Palms for Blue Coral Apartments, Germain Immokalee, or any other entity. It needs to expressly state that there will be no use made of the water main servicing Bermuda Palms unless approved by the County. It needs to provide for a plan to monitor and enforce traffic restrictions. It needs to enhance further the buffer between Blue Coral Apartments and Bermuda Palms by increasing it. 9.B.e Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: 01.2 BCC Comment & Objection Letter from Bermuda Palms (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Collier County FROM: Diane Doherty President, Board of Directors Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Association, Inc. DATE: August 18, 2021 RE: Blue Coral Development This is a follow-up to Ms. Durkee’s Comments on August 17, 2021. We are in agreement that all of the comments present very legitimate concerns regarding the Blue Coral Development that need serious consideration by the Board. Just to elaborate on a few of her concerns: * ACCESS – It is unclear that the developer has a “green light” for Ingress/Egress into Blue Coral other than depending on the Germain Lexus Car Dealership for this access. The Developer needs to come up with a separate plan that does not include Bermuda Plans for access. * LANDSCAPING – There is a natural buffer that currently exists between Bermuda Palms and the proposed Blue Coral Development. Why not capitalize on what already exists and add to it as appropriate. Mature 23’ trees are not going to mask the view of a 50’ buildings. Thank you for your consideration. 9.B.f Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: 01.2a. BCC Add'l. Comment and Objection Letter from Bermuda Palms (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange 1 MedinaJosephine From:Babette Densmore <jbdensmore@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 11, 2021 5:34 PM To:MedinaJosephine Cc:LINDA DURKEE; Diane Doherty; Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Dennis Lively; John Shupeniuk Subject:Blue Coral Apartments EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Ms. Medina, I live in Bermuda Palms which is next to the property where Blue Coral Apartments are slated to be built. First I'd like to thank you for your time to communicate with my neighbor, Linda Durkee as she has asked many good questions about how Blue Coral will affect our lives over here in the tranquil Bermuda Palms Condos. There is concern over Blue Coral usurping some of the property from Bermuda Palms to be used as an access to Blue Coral. Certainly this would have a negative impact on me as a resident of Bermuda Palms and perhaps for the other residents here as well. (The trees coming down are also disheartening and the size of the proposed buildings/structures is shocking. I bought in Bermuda Palms because it was quiet and peaceful. This is all about to change.) I drove up and down Immokalee Road and made note of some of the single access entries into condos and businesses. Most all have 9.B.g Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 01.2b BCC Objection letter from Bermuda Palms Resident (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 2 only one entrance/exit. I'm baffled as to why Blue Coral would be so unique as to require more than one entrance/exit. Single entrance/exits on Immokalee include but definitely not only these: SW Health Park, Veterans Commons Park, Southwind Estates, Stonebridge Country Club, Regent Park, St. Croix, Windsong, Bermuda Palms, Tarpon Bay, Faith Bible Church, Eagles Nest Worship, Saint Monica Episcopal, The Strand, and Seed to Table. I am voicing my concern in hopes this will make it into the documents that are reviewed and taken into consideration at the upcoming meeting. I am against the use of Bermuda Palms Property as an entrance/exit for Blue Coral Apartments. Thank you again, for your help with this matter. Respectfully, Babette Densmore 4985 Sandra Bay Drive #105 Bermuda Palms Condominiums Naples, FL 34109 Living God's Love 9.B.g Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 01.2b BCC Objection letter from Bermuda Palms Resident (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Memorandom to Collier County Planning Staff Date: July 29, 2021 From: Gregg A. Fusaro, Capital Investment Group, Applicant RE: GMPA and PUD Application As part of the GMPA and PUD applications for Blue Coral Apartments the applicant proposed a shared single access point for its property and for the adjacent property to the East, which is currently scheduled to be developed as an auto dealership by the Germain Auto Group. Additionally, the applicant agreed to and indicated that it would provide a vehicular interconnection between its property and the Germain property with the idea that residents living at Blue Coral would be able to access Useppa Way through the Germain property and thereby get to the traffic light at Juliet Boulevard and Immokalee Road. The applicant also proposed interconnecting with Bermuda Palms Condominiums to give its residents the same ability to access the traffic signal at Juliet and Immokalee. Applicant’s basis for providing this interconnection was input that was received from Agnoli Barber and Brundage (ABB), who, at the time, was the planner and engineer for both the Applicant and Germain. ABB indicated that Germain was in agreement to this interconnection. Additionally, the traffic consultant for the Applicant, Trebilcock Consulting, was also the traffic consultant for Germain, and he indicated that Germain was agreeable to both the shared access and the vehicular interconnection. This input was received by Applicant during the latter part of 2019. Based on that, the traffic study performed for Applicant and the Applicant’s GMPA and PUD applications reflected this agreement with Germain. To memorialize this agreement, Applicant drafted a shared access development agreement and drew up easements for the shared access. These documents were approved by the Applicant’s land owner and later submitted to Germain’s law firm, Coleman, Yovanovitch and Koester. Negotiation of the terms and details of these agreements continued over many months. In June of 2021, after applicant had submitted its final revised GMPA and PUD applications and had appeared before the Collier County Planning Commission, applicant was notified by Norm Trebilcock that Germain had reversed its position and was not willing to allow interconnection. Mr. Trebilcock had been told this by Flavio Galasso who we have been told is the director of operations for the Germain dealerships in Naples. This was a total surprise to Applicant as Applicant had been working with Germain’s attorney for several months to get all the necessary agreements signed. Additionally, shortly after notice from Germain, Applicant received notice through Collier County planning staff that Gaspar, LLC, the entity that controls the association that owns both Useppa Way and Juliet Boulevard would be opposing Blue Coral project unless the Applicant removed the interconnection language from its applications. The Gaspar owner representative, Grover Matheney, told me in no uncertain terms that the only property that he was required to give access to was the Germain property and that based on what he would charge Germain for that access would force Germain to abandon that idea. He also stated that his obligation to provide connection to Germain did not obligate him to provide access to the Applicant’s property. Both Germain (through Rich Yovanovitch) and Gaspar (through Grover Matheney) have subsequently indicated to the Applicant that if the interconnection requirement is deleted from its applications, that 9.B.h Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: 01.3 Interconnection Memorandum from Petitioner to Collier County Planning Staff (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road the objections to the development would be removed. Additionally, Rich Yovanovitch has indicated to the Applicant that Germain will sign the shared access agreement once he has seen the revised application language as approved by Collier County Planning staff. 9.B.h Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: 01.3 Interconnection Memorandum from Petitioner to Collier County Planning Staff (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA  2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200  Naples, FL 34104 Phone 239-566-9551  ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz  www.trebilcock.biz July 25, 2021 Patrick Vanasse, AICP RWA Engineering, Director of Community Development 6610 Willow Park Dr, Ste. 200 Naples, FL 34109 P 239.438.4355  M 239.398.2016 E PVanasse@consult-rwa.com Subject: Blue Coral Apartments Transportation Impact Statement (TIS--6/23/2021) for Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) Applications Dear Mr. Vanasse: The propose of this letter is to summarize the findings of the TIS dated 6/23/2021 that we submitted for the subject project. Staff requested that we provide an updated TIS reflecting two items: 1--The May 2021 Collier County Planning Commission recommended approval with a reduction of project peak hour trips (100 vph) and 2—Traffic impacts of not having interconnects with the adjacent projects to the east and west (single project access used). The submitted TIS reflects the recommended modifications, which results in a reduction of proposed units for the project (234 mf units now proposed) to meet the recommended trip cap and a development scenario where 100% of the project traffic utilizes the single Immokalee Rd access point (right in/right out). Based on the results of our traffic analysis, the proposed project is not a significant traffic generator for the roadway network. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed development without adversely affecting the adjacent roadway network level of service. Sincerely, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. President 9.B.i Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: 01.4 Blue Coral TIS Update Summary Letter (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.kPacket Pg. 179Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 180Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 181Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 182Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 183Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 184Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 185Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 186Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 187Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 188Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 189Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 190Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 191Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 192Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 193Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 194Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 195Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 196Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 197Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 198Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.kPacket Pg. 199Attachment: 01.6 Fully Executed Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill 9.B.l Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 01.7 BCC Sign Posting (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.qPacket Pg. 201Attachment: 06. Project Site Plan & Profiles (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.qPacket Pg. 202Attachment: 06. Project Site Plan & Profiles (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.qPacket Pg. 203Attachment: 06. Project Site Plan & Profiles (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.qPacket Pg. 204Attachment: 06. Project Site Plan & Profiles (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.qPacket Pg. 205Attachment: 06. Project Site Plan & Profiles (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( IMMOKALEE RD SANTA BARBARA BLVDI-75I-75LOGAN BLVDGO LDEN GATE P KWY COLLIER BLVDTAMIAMITRAILE RANDALL BLVD RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD COLLIER BLVD10 19 66 69 62 70 71 72 74 73 75 76 77 IMMO KALEE RD OIL WELL RD LIVINGSTON RDTAMIAMI TRL NSR 29 NDAVIS BLVDGOODLETTE RD NPINE R ID GE R D EVERGLADES BLVD NRADIO RD DESOTO BLVD NVANDERBILT BEACH RD GOLDEN GATE BLVD EVANDERBILT DR9TH ST NAIRPORT PULLING RD NCORKSCREW RDB A L D E A GL E D R N BARFIELD DR N 15TH STGREEN BLVD LAKE TRAFF ORD RD N COLLIER BLVDS BARFIELD DRS COLLI ER BLVDBONITA BEACH RD NE W MARKET RD W W MAIN ST G O ODLAND DR SE A GATE D R BLUEBILL AVE 9 7 6 8 5 4 3 2 1 61 60 59 57 56 55 51 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 2625 24 23 22 21 20 17 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 64 63 67 65 68 GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG, AICPOPERATIONS DEPT./GMDFILE: COLLIER APARTMENTS.MXDDATE: 08/2019 !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(61 60 59 5857 56 55 54 53 52 48 51 50 49 ® CR 846 LAKE TRAFFORD RD SR29NIMMOKALEERDMAIN ST SR 29 N E W M A R K E T R D LAKETRAFFORD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 £¤41 £¤41 £¤41 0 2 4 61Miles (Data Source: Best available data from Growth Management Department & Public Services Department as of 08/19) C O L L I E R C O U N T Y R E N T A L A P A R T M E N T I N V E N T O R YCOLLIER C O U N T Y R E N T A L A P A R T M E N T I N V E N T O R Y GULFOFMEXI COIMMOKALEE INSET MAP LEE COUNTY LINE LEGEND COLLIER COUNTY EXISTING/BUILT RENTAL APARTMENT!(COLLIER COUNTY RENTAL APARTMENT IN PROCESS!( M ap ID N ame Addre s s City Units1Bear Cre e k 2367 Bear Cre e k Dr Naple s 1202Belvedere260 Qua il Fore st Blvd Naple s 1623Berkshire Re serve 3536 Winifre dRow Ln Naple s 1464Bermuda Island 3320 Bermuda Isle Cir Naple s 3605Brittany Ba y I & II 14815 Triangle Bay Dr Naple s 3926Bryn Mawr 7701 Da vis Blvd Naple s 2407College P a rk 6450 Colle ge pa rk cir Naple s 2108Coral P a lms 4539 Cora l P la ms Ln Naple s 2889Goodlette Arms 950 Goodle tte -Fra nk Rd N Naple s 25010Heritage -Me rSoleil 4250 Je ffe rson Ln Naple s 32011Heron P a rk - P oint a t Na ple s 2155 Gre a t Blue Dr Naple s 24812Ibis Club 8210 Ibis c lub Dr Naple s 13413Jasmine Ca y 100 Ja smine Cir Naple s 7214La Costa 3105 La Costa Cir Naple s 27615Laguna Bay 2602 Fountain Vie w cir Naple s 36316Malibu Lake s 2115 Ma libu La ke s c ir Naple s 35617Meadow Lakes 6472 Radio Rd Naple s 25218Naples 701 3531 P lanta tion Way Naple s 18819Naples P la c e I-III 4544 Sunse t Rd Naple s 16020Noah's la nding 10555 Noa hs Cir Naple s 26421Northgate Club 4300 Atoll CT Naple s 12022Oasis -Arbor Wa lk 2277 Arbour Wa lk Cir Naple s 21623Ospreys landing 100 Ospre ys La nding Naple s 17624Meadow Brook P rese rve - Turtle Creek 1130 Turtle Cre e k Blvd Naple s 26825River Reac h 2000 Rive r Re a c h Dr Naple s 55626Sabal Ke y 1600 Wellsley Cir Naple s 20027Saddlebrook Village 8685 Sa ddle brook Cir Naple s 14028San marino-Aventine 9300 Ma rino Cir Naple s 35029Shadowood P a rk 6475 Se a Wolf Ct Naple s 9630Somerset P alms - Arbor Vie w 15995 Arbor Vie w Blvd Naple s 16831Summer La ke s I 5520 Jonquil Ln Naple s 14032Summer La ke s II 5600 Jonquil Cir Naple s 27633Summer Wind-Arium Gulfshore 5301 Summe rwind Dr Naple s 36834Tuscan Isle 8680 Weir Dr Naple s 29835Villas of Capri 7725 Ta ra Cir Naple s 23536Waverley P la c e 5300 He mingway Ln Naple s 30037Whistler's Cove 11400 Whistle rs Cove Blvd Naple s 24038Whlstler's Green 4700 Whistle rs Gre e n Cir Naple s 16839Windsong Club 11086 Windsong Cir Naple s 12040Aster Lely Resort 8120 Ac a c ia ST Naple s 30841Sierra Gra nde 6975 Sie rra Club c ir Naple s 27042Collier Housing Alternative s 4211 Thoma sson Dr Naple s 1043George Wa shington Ca rve r Apt 350 10th St N Naple s 17644Housing Alternatives Of Sw Florida 3401 21st Ave Sw Naple s 1245Leawood Lakes 474 Le a swood Cir Naple s 4246Orchild Run 10991 Lost La ke Dr Naple s 28247Gorden Rive r 1400 5th Ave N Naple s 9648Crestview P a rk 2903 La ke Tra fford Rd Immoka lee 20849Crestview P a rk II 715 Cre stvie w Dr Immoka lee 9650Cypress Run 550 Hope Cir Immoka lee 4051Eden Gardens II 1375 Boxwood Dr Immoka lee 4152Farm Worker Villa ge 1800 Fa rm Worke r Wa y Immoka lee 36553Garden Lake Apts 1022 Garde n La ke Cir Immoka lee 6654Heritage Villas Of Immoka le e Ltd 1109 Hickoc k Ln Immoka lee 4155Immokalee Apts 601 W De la ware Ave Immoka lee 10056Oakhaven580 Oa kha ve n Circ le Immoka lee 16057Sanders P ines 2449 Sa nde rs P ine s Cir Immoka lee 4058So Villas Immoka le e 1802 Custe r Ave Immoka lee 3559Summer Gle n 1012 Summe r Glen Blvd Immoka lee 4660Timber Ridge of Immokale e 2711 Wilton Ct Immoka lee 3461Willowbrook P la c e 1836 Ash Ln Immoka lee 4262Inspira at Lely Re sort 7425 Inspira Cir Naple s 30463Milano Lake s 3713 Milano La ke s Cir Naple s 296TOTAL12,346 COLLIER COUN TY EXISTIN G/B UILT R EN TAL APAR TM EN T M ap ID N ame Parce l#City Units64Springs at Sa bal Bay 71750000402 Naple s 34065Ave Maria Apartment 227004009 Naple s 25066Briarwood Apartme nt 24767504003 Naple s 32067Legacy Na ples New Hope Ministrie s 399760006 Naple s 30468Addison P lace & Addison P la ce Expa nsion 188360002 Naple s 29469Pine Ridge Commons 240280606 Naple s 37570I-75/Alligator Alley P UD 21968000121 Naple s 42571Courthouse Shadows P UD 28750000523 Naple s 30072Livingston Rd/GG P a rkway Reside ntial Subdistrict 38100120001 Naple s 38273Allura RP UD 150280000 Naple s 30474Hammock P a rk 416720000 Naple s 26575Vanderbilt Commons 79271800044 Naple s 5276Alligator Alley Apa rtments a t Na ples 21968001120 Naple s 32077Pelican Apartme nts 192360001 Naple s 400TOTAL4,331 COLLIER COUN TY RENTAL APAR TM EN T IN PROCESS 9.B.r Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 07. Collier Apartments0819 (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.s Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 08. Sign Affidavit and Posting (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.s Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 08. Sign Affidavit and Posting (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.tPacket Pg. 209Attachment: 09. NIM Affidavit and Related Documents (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.tPacket Pg. 210Attachment: 09. NIM Affidavit and Related Documents (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.tPacket Pg. 211Attachment: 09. NIM Affidavit and Related Documents (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.tPacket Pg. 212Attachment: 09. NIM Affidavit and Related Documents (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.tPacket Pg. 213Attachment: 09. NIM Affidavit and Related Documents (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.tPacket Pg. 214Attachment: 09. NIM Affidavit and Related Documents (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.u Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: 10. CCPC Ordinance and Exhibit A (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.u Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: 10. CCPC Ordinance and Exhibit A (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.u Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: 10. CCPC Ordinance and Exhibit A (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.u Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: 10. CCPC Ordinance and Exhibit A (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.u Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: 10. CCPC Ordinance and Exhibit A (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.u Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: 10. CCPC Ordinance and Exhibit A (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.u Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: 10. CCPC Ordinance and Exhibit A (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.u Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: 10. CCPC Ordinance and Exhibit A (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) 9.B.v Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: legal ad - agenda IDs 17456 and 17458 (17458 : PL20190001620 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill GMPA) TPODIICOCR planning-enoineerine Traffic Impact Statement Blue Coral Apartments Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) Prepared for: RWA, Inc. 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 Phone: 239-597-0575 Collier County, Florida 06/23/2021 Prepared by: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee* — $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee* — Maior Study — $1,500.00 Fee Note — *to be collected at time of first submittal Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. This item has been electronically signed and sealed by Norman J. Trebilcock, P.E., State of Florida license 47116, using a SHA-1 authentication code. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed, and the SHA-1 authentication code must be verified on any electronic copies. `GENS�. C'O�: 20 No 47116 :0� -33 STATE OF 44, :441`OR N Digitally signed by Norman Trebilcock DN: c=US, st=Florida,l=Naples, o=Norman Trebilcock, cn=Norman Trebilcock, email=ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Date: 2021.06.23 16:17:52-04'00' Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 2 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —June 2021 Table of Contents ProjectDescription.......................................................................................................................................4 TripGeneration.............................................................................................................................................5 Trip Distribution and Assignment.................................................................................................................6 BackgroundTraffic........................................................................................................................................ 8 Existing and Future Roadway Network.........................................................................................................9 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -Link Analysis.......................................................................... 10 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis.................................................................................................................... 11 ImprovementAnalysis................................................................................................................................13 Mitigationof Impact................................................................................................................................... 14 Appendices Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan........................................................................................................15 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting).................................................................18 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations and Land Use Code Descriptions......................................25 Appendix D: Collier County Northwest TCMA...........................................................................................35 Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits.................................................................................................38 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 13 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Project Description The Blue Coral Apartments project is located on the south side of Immokalee Road (County Road 846) between Livingston Road (County Road 881) and I-75, and lies within Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The subject property is approximately 9.35 acres in size. Refer to Figure 1— Project Location Map and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. 9 ^ R Commlunary Cwmtry C uh � e. hpMQ eiYcmria Park gPMlv'a�uy=.M1Go�l Uuh M Figure 1— Project Location Map Project „]Psp _� v n .,.,... n,. nLN Iran L—,,Q- n+�rorMsrm�. ,. �Elememary Raooi i "Go gle �n9aM1c.k LaY.V� SvsipM1[sr . e� � �SPosi Gip Fa, — -,e,p Fxs Aperture seal Csu e 9 Tmr, "9 ®n I�M1�u �o kes p Map data ©2020 1000 ft k The purpose of this report is to document the transportation impacts associated with the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and the associated Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ). The project site is vacant and is currently zoned "A" — Agriculture. The subject project is a proposed residential development that will consist of up to 234 multifamily dwelling units. Traffic generation associated with the proposed development is evaluated generally based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 101h Edition and ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. The proposed ITE land use designations are determined based on the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) descriptions and are intended to provide the highest and best use trip generation scenario with respect to the project's proposed development parameters. The proposed development parameters are illustrated in Table 1. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 14 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Table 1 Proposed Development Program Development Land Use - [SIC Codes] ITE LUC Size (dwelling units) Residential Multifamily— [N/A] 221— Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 234 For the purposes of this report, the future planning horizon year is assumed 2026. The project proposes to connect to Immokalee Road via a shared access with the adjacent development to the east, Germain Immokalee PUD. In addition, proposed development will provide an interconnection to the residential property to the west, Bermuda Palms. Both interconnects are subject to adjacent property owner acceptance. Conservatively, the link analysis assumes the adjacent interconnects not being in place and 100% of the project traffic using Immokalee Road (right in/right out). A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on March 13, 2020, via email. Refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting). This report is consistent with the notes illustrated in the approved methodology and provides updated traffic impacts in reference to the most current 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and extends the horizon year to 2026. In addition, based on the meeting with County Staff on June 23, 2021, this report reflects a development intensity reduction (234 multifamily dwelling units) per the Collier County Planning Commission recommendation. Also, the evaluation of impacts of Useppa Way or the adjacent Bermuda Palms development are made based on from those adjacent developments. Trip Generation no interconnection to input received recently Consistent with the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines and Procedures, traffic generated by the proposed development is estimated using the latest ITE Trip Generation Manual. The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software), most current version, is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE rates and equations are used for the trip generation calculations, as applicable. The ITE — OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations and Land Use Code Descriptions. Based on ITE recommendations and consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, no reductions for internal capture or pass -by trips are considered for this project. The trip generation associated with the proposed build -out conditions is summarized in Table 2A. Table 2A Project Trip Generation — Build -out Conditions — Average Weekday Daily Two -Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Traffic 1,274 21 58 79 61 39 100 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 15 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 In agreement with the Collier County TIS guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net external traffic) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2020 AUIR, the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM peak hour. Based on the projected traffic illustrated in Table 2A, the maximum total daily trip generation for the proposed development is 100 two-way PM peak hour new trips. The site operational analysis reflects projected AM and PM peak hour traffic. Since the proposed connection to Immokalee Road is a shared access with the property to the east (Germain Immokalee PUD), a trip generation evaluation for Germain Immokalee PUD development is provided in Table 2B. For the purposes of this report, the Germain Immokalee PUD will allow development of a car dealership building with up to 80,000 square feet in size. The proposed site plan for this project is illustrated in Appendix A. For trip generation details refer to Appendix C. Table 2B Germain Immokalee PUD — Build -out — Trip Generation — Average Weekday Daily Two -Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Traffic 2,227 110 40 150 66 100 166 Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the proposed project is assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated within the methodology meeting. A potential median opening located at the project access is analyzed in the operational section of this report. Conservatively, traffic distribution reflects no median improvements at this location. The site -generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3 and it is graphically depicted in Figure 2 — Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour. Table 3 Proposed Development —Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour Roadway Link Collier County Link No. Roadway Link Location Distribution of Project Traffic PM Peak Hour Project Vol.* Enter Exit Immokalee Rd 42.1 Airport Rd to Livingston Rd 25% EB — 15 WB — 10 Immokalee Rd 42.2 Livingston Rd to Project Enter/Exit** EB — 61; WB — 48 Immokalee Rd 42.2 Project to Juliet Blvd Enter/Exit*** EB-39; WB-48 Immokalee Rd 42.2 Juliet Blvd to 1-75 40% WB — 24 EB —16 Immokalee Rd 43.1 1-75 to Logan Blvd 10% WB— 6 EB-4 Livingston Rd 51.0 North of Immokalee Rd 15% SB — 9 NB-5 Livingston Rd 52.0 South of Immokalee Rd 20% NB —12 SB — 8 Note(s): *Roadway segment peak hour, peak direction is taken from the 2020 AUIR; Project peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold. ** WB = 60% Exit + 40% Enter; EB = 100% Enter; *** WB = 60% Exit + 40% Enter; EB = 100% Exit; Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 16 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —June 2021 Figure 2 — Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour ^ PratlllClien iai �v y vQusll Village Gprl Club Carp PIOEV=ts of 51� as01„ } ungsM1ore uahyQ Exit+ 40% Enter .. E8100%Enter .: -: p Q r clubmolae ev,n ee Project Trip Distribution ILAcRks°°°„BV - . �. Absor lion NI, by Percentage ,5% § N P � . r �.� � 30% © dla Ic,� amnrawPO 25% 40% us Pea Q — w sar s© �' H H H Ea9popal rnppb .� 5unclue r � �' cpr e ©§ .. 9 rM e© 9 ©a•� _ ..�..Q „Q Q S '•••• Spouts Farmere Merk,v L a ' a � n'-%Ara Pellpen MarsM1V Cpumry Cluti� j, i p% J s 9 QiGM Ma.b „ Lamlrtmify g. q� s Gdisanq Clnl Lakes spar ..n„ sa,ui, PMk / •. _- ° Mpaeamprlvaaies® VJB SO%Exit+40%Enter tp ! E8100% E0 earG �Mtl�""�' Cmnmwlly Peck ]] R PB<(t MVIclpria Perk�� �i "n s Q ....-.- � voara Pon Na:.:a-,' oceanr n e-°u•�s, �Pellpn Marsb © cants MtGaHPluk.' t ���t _ 1--,�Google e � N Cres Real Estatev Trpnsyortaupnv ©w ls3'� L°n 8 hsspoa,ion es " 3 Brentla's Floral Bes qnr Q Map data ©2020 1000 ft k ' k. . 7 F� Vlil ounldnr,Q ,rce Project Trip Distribution W,LLB°°„BY EB si. ncaes FN B--51 Nauneepaar® , by PM Peak Hour sB s " WB 25 �� IlPlrer. ., nm 5 � � • IJ$Pps, �1 � marwpa,be� EB 16 to 7 osn I. �. rk Bagels ° F v E� E acp Ithurckv rm QWB 1� : '.i .... �.. Sprouts Farmale Markel t E8 15 Q EI maul: cemmam smnaurrapaQ jt�E12 WB 23+25=48 — Park „ I, EB 39 8 g 0 [ommunity Pa,k _-r°jtprwapd Perko [4ic[Plia Perky "-a ®Pellcpn Mersn Gell Llub .m.µ, P vl!a•e>'por,s Avsery �Llemwilary S; nV of 'Go gle nn Coiner Pegipna, Park Spbba�l 011ie QBmiilu Naples Mal EstalaQ ®W'I°Mre tykes �"•"' Association CJ Map data ©2020 1000 ft ! Q Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 17 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures requirement of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from peak hour peak direction volume (estimated from 2008 through 2020), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2020 AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. The higher of the two determinations is used in the roadway network Level of Service (LOS) analysis. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour, peak direction traffic volume for the build -out year 2026. Table 4 Background Traffic without Project (2020 - 2026) 2026 Projected 2026 2020 AUIR Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Projected Pk cc Pk Hr, Pk Dir Traffic Background Hr, Peak Dir Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Background Annual Growth Traffic Volume Trip Background Link Link Location Traffic Growth Factor** w/out Project Bank Traffic Volume ID # Volume Rate (trips/hr) w/out Project (trips/hr) (%/yr)* Growth (trips/hr) Trip Factor** Bank*** ort to IImmRodkalee 42.1 Av p g ton Rd 2,360 2.00% 1.1262 2,658 11 2,371 I Livingston Rd to IImmRodkalee 42.2 3,020 2.00% 1.1262 3,402 30 3,050 I Project IImmRodkalee 42.2 lto�Juliet 3,020 2.00% 1.1262 3,402 30 3,050 I ImmRodkalee Juliet Blvd to I 42.2 3,020 2.00% 1.1262 3,402 30 3,0501-75 I 175 to Ldogan IImmRodkalee 43.1 2,620 3.18% 1.2066 3,162 490 3,110 I Livingston North of Rd 51.0 Immokalee Rd 1,410 2.58% 1.1651 1,643 86 1,496 Livingston South of Rd 52.0 Immokalee Rd 2,220 3.03% 1.1961 2,656 22 2,242 Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate — Historical Growth Rate or 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1 +Annual Growth Rate )6. 2026 Projected Volume = 2020 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2026 Projected Volume = 2020 AUIR Volume +Trip Bank. The projected 2026 Peak Hour — Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 18 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the Collier County 2020 AUIR and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5-Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five- year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements were identified in the Collier County 2020 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build -out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions 2020 Peak 2026 Peak 2020 Minimum Dir, Peak Hr 2026 Dir, Peak Hr Roadway Link CC AUIR Roadway Link Roadway Standard Capacity Roadway Capacity Link ID # Location Condition LOS Volume Condition Volume (Peak Dir) (Peak Dir) Immokalee Rd 42.1 Airport Rd to 6D E 3,100 (EB) 6D 3,100 (EB) Livingston Rd Immokalee Rd 42.2 Livingston Rd to 61D/81D E 3,500 (EB) 6D/8D 3,500 (EB) Project Immokalee Rd 42.2 Project to Juliet 6D/8D E 3,500 (EB) 6D/8D 3,500 (EB) Blvd Immokalee Rd 42.2 Juliet Blvd to 6D/8D E 3,500 (EB) 6D/8D 3,500 (EB) 1-75 Immokalee Rd 43.1 1-75 to Logan 6D/8D E 3,500 (EB) 6D/8D 3,500 (EB) Blvd Livingston Rd 51.0 North of 6D/4D D 3,000 (NB) 6D/4D 3,000 (NB) Immokalee Rd Livingston Rd 52.0 South of 6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D 3,100 (NB) Immokalee Rd Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D = 4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service; Dir = Direction. Based on the information illustrated in the Collier County Current Planning Studies webpage, The Immokalee Road Corridor Congestion Study is currently underway. The study will evaluate the future levels of congestion in the Immokalee Road Corridor between Livingston Road and Logan Boulevard. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 19 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which are evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future horizon year 2026. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates the LOS traffic impacts of the project to the area roadway network. Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) — With Project in the Year 2026 2026 Peak peak Hour, 2026 Peak % Vol Min LOS Min LOS CC Hour, Peak Peak Dir, Hour, Peak Capacity exceeded exceeded Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Dir Project Dir Traffic Impact without with Link Link ID Location Capacity Traffic with Project by Project? Project? # Volume Added** *** Project Yes/No Yes/No (Peak Dir)* Immokalee Airport Rd to 42.1 3,100 (EB) EB — 15 2,673 0.5% No No Rd Livingston Rd ImmRodkalee Livingston Rd to 42.2 3,500 (EB) EB — 61 3,463 1.7% No No ImmRodkalee Proje 42.2 3,500 (EB) EB-39 3,441 1.1% No No BIVodJuliet Immokalee 42.2 Juliet Blvd to 3,500 (EB) EB-16 3,418 0.5% No No Rd 1-75 Immokalee 43.1 1-75 to Logan 3,500 (EB) EB— 4 3,166 0.1% No No Rd Blvd Livingston North of 51.0 3,000 (NB) NB— 5 1,648 0.2% No No Rd Immokalee Rd Livingston South of 52.0 3,100 (NB) NB —12 2,668 0.4% No No Rd Immokalee Rd Note(s): *Refer to Table 5; ** Refer to Table 3; ***2026 Projected Volume = 2026 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added. Based on the information illustrated in Table 6, this project does not create any significant impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2026 future traffic conditions. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. As illustrated in Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Chapter 6.02.02 — M.2., once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segment using Collier County TIS criterion, the development's impact is not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 10 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 In agreement with the Collier County Growth Management Plan — Transportation Element — Policy 5.2, project traffic that is 1% or less of the adopted peak hour service volume represents a de minimis impact. With the exception of Immokalee Road segment from Livingston Road to project access, the projected traffic impact is de minimis on all other analyzed roadway segments. With the exception of Immokalee Road segment from 1-75 to Logan Boulevard (Collier County AUIR Link ID #43.1), the analyzed roadway segments are located within the County's designated Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA). The TCMA's designations are provided in Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element. In agreement with Policy 5.7 of the Transportation Element, the TCMA concurrency is measured on a system -wide basis such that each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards. Based on the information contained in 2020 AUIR, the Northwest TCMA percent lane miles meeting standard is 97.2%. The Northwest TCMA map and the associated percent lanes miles meeting standard in the year 2020 are illustrated in Appendix D. As illustrated in Policy 5.8(d) — Transportation Element, no impact will be de minimis if it exceeds the adopted LOS standard of any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA. Any impact to a hurricane evacuation route within a TCMA shall require a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment provided the remaining LOS requirements of the TCMA are maintained. It is noted that Immokalee Road is a designated hurricane evacuation route as depicted in Collier County Transportation Element — Map TR - 7. Site Access Turn Lane Analysis The project proposes to connect to Immokalee Road via a shared access with the adjacent development to the east, Germain Immokalee PUD. Residential traffic may potentially access Juliet Boulevard via Useppa Way. In addition, the proposed development will provide one interconnection to the residential property to the west, Bermuda Palms. Refer to Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. This report presents operational traffic impacts with and without the interconnection to Useppa Way. The project accesses are evaluated for turn lane warrants based on the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook for Work within the Right -Of -Way (Collier County Resolution No. 2016-136), Section III: (a) two-lane roadways — 40vph for right -turn lane/20vph for left -turn lane; (b) multi -lane divided roadways — right -turn lanes shall always be provided; and (c) when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left -turn lanes. Required turn lane improvements are considered site related. As illustrated in the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook for Work within the Right -Of -Way, Section III, if existing County ROW is utilized for these improvements, compensating ROW must be provided. Turn lane lengths required at build -out conditions are analyzed based on the number of turning vehicles in an average one -minute period for right -turning movements, and two -minute period for left -turning Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 11 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 movements, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 feet and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet. Turning movement projections are illustrated in Appendix E. Immokalee Road (CR 846) is an east -west urban divided arterial roadway under Collier County jurisdiction, has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project and has an Access Management Classification of 3. Access management is the design of access between roadways and land development. It promotes the efficient and safe movement of people and goods by reducing conflicts on the roadway system. The latest adopted Access Management Policy for Collier County is depicted in Resolution No. 13-257. Consistent with a Class 3 designation, the established access management criteria are as follow: 660 feet connection spacing; 660 feet directional median opening; 1,320 feet full median opening; and 2,640 feet (0.5 mi) signal spacing. Based on our review of the Master Plan, the proposed shared access point does not meet connection spacing standards for a Class 3 roadway. Given the unique site geometric conditions, the proposed shared access location is considered a reasonable compromise for a non -conforming connection location. Consistent with the adopted median opening spacing standards, a directional median opening is allowed at this location. For the purposes of this operational analysis, 2 configurations are considered for the proposed access: right-in/right-out and right-in/right-out/left-in. Consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 2021 Florida Design Manual (FDM), Chapter 212, Exhibit 212-1, design speed of 45 mph — urban conditions — the minimum turn lane length is 185 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. The site operational analysis reflects projected AM and PM peak hour traffic. Since the proposed connection to Immokalee Road is a shared access with the property to the east, turning movement projections are provided for both developments (Blue Coral Apartments PUD and Germain Immokalee PUD), as illustrated in Appendix E. Scenario 1A — Shared Access Right-in/Right-out Connection without Interconnection A dedicated eastbound right -turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi -lane criteria. The developments are expected to generate 131 vehicles per hour (vph) and 127 vph eastbound right - turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. By rounding to the nearest 25 foot increment, at the minimum, the eastbound right -turn lane should be 235 feet long (185 foot deceleration lane with taper and 50 feet of storage). Scenario 1B — Shared Access Right-in/Right-out Connection with Interconnection As previously mentioned, a dedicated eastbound right -turn lane is warranted. The developments are expected to generate 105 vph and 102 vph eastbound right -turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. By rounding to the nearest 25 foot increment, at the Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 12 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 minimum, the eastbound right -turn lane should be 235 feet long (185 foot deceleration lane with taper and 50 feet of storage). Scenario 2A - Shared Access Right-in/Right-out/Left-in Connection without Interconnection A dedicated eastbound right -turn lane is warranted at project access location. The developments are expected to generate 79 vph and 77 vph eastbound right -turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. By rounding to the nearest 25 foot increment, at the minimum, the eastbound right -turn lane should be 210 feet long (185 foot deceleration lane with taper and 25 feet of storage). If a directional median opening is allowed, a dedicated westbound left -turn lane is warranted as the project meets the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook criteria. The developments are expected to generate 52 vph and 50 vph westbound left -turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. By rounding to the nearest 25 foot increment, at the minimum, the westbound left -turn lane should be 235 feet long (185 foot deceleration lane with taper and 50 feet of storage). Scenario 2B - Shared Access Right-in/Right-out/Left-in Connection with Interconnection A dedicated eastbound right -turn lane is warranted at project access location. No changes to the eastbound right -turning traffic illustrated under Scenario 2A are expected under the proposed Scenario 2B assumptions. As such, the minimum length for the eastbound right -turn lane should be 210 feet. A dedicated westbound left -turn lane is warranted as the project meets the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook criteria. The developments are expected to generate 26 vph and 25 vph westbound left -turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. By rounding to the nearest 25 foot increment, at the minimum, the westbound left -turn lane should be 210 feet long (185 foot deceleration lane with taper and 25 feet of storage). A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of a Site Development Plan or Development Order application to determine turn lane requirements, as more accurate parameters become available. Improvement Analysis Based on the results illustrated within this traffic analysis, the proposed project is not a significant traffic generator for the roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2026 future buildout conditions. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed development without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 13 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 With the exception of Immokalee Road segment from 1-75 to Logan Boulevard, the analyzed roadway segments are located within the County's designated Northwest TCMA. This report concludes that concurrency standard is maintained for the Northwest TCMA. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of a Site Development Plan or Development Order application to determine turn lane requirements, as more accurate parameters become available. The maximum total daily trip generation for the proposed development shall not exceed 100 two-way PM peak hour new trips based on the land use codes in the ITE Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval, as applicable. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 14 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 15 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —June 2021 Blue Coral Aoartments PUD ►i'i'++OD000OOOOOOi'A�i � ��+d'++mod•+++•+•+'++�•+d.•+�•+ ad'i+i�i+i+i ►++0�•OD++i ►i+i+++i�i+i+i, . • 4•++i+i�i+i� �•i++•i�ii'i� dddddd� ►•O�d+OO j .. ►❖.•r/ / oddd _ •,•+odd•,• .-W-9Od • Ddd �•Oi�ii�i+i� •dd•DOO.� ►+i+i�ii+i+i! Oii•ii'i'i� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 16 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —June 2021 Germain Immokalee PUD • n�iiiiiiiiiiiiii�''ii•� '� �OOOOOOOOOO�pppppp�, ►OO�OOOO.00OO�OOOO�p., ........................... t M..►�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i� NOW OO 00�00�0000�00�0��00�0� ►Oi�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i DOpO�0000�00�0��00�p�� III II III Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 17 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 18 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply, or N/A (not applicable). Date: March 13, 2020 Time: N/A Location: N/A — Via Email People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) Michael Sawyer, Collier County Growth Management Division 2) Norman Trebilcock, TCS 3) Ciprian Malaescu, TCS Studv Preparer: Preparer's Name and Title: Norman Trebilcock, AICP, PE Organization: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Address & Telephone Number: 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200, Naples, FL 34104; ph 239-566-9551 Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name & Title: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager Collier County Transportation Planning Department Organization & Telephone Number: 239-252-2926 Applicant: Applicant's Name: Capital Investment Group, Inc. Address: 226 East 8th St, Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone Number: 513-246-1985 Proposed Development: Name: Coral Blue Apartments — Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and the associated Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) Location: On the south side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), between Livingston Rd (CR 881) and 1-75 (refer to Figure 1) Land Use Type: Residential — Multifamily ITE Code 4: LUC 221 — Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) Description: The property is approximately 9.35 ac and it is currently vacant land. The proposed GMPA/PUDZ would allow for the development of up to 280 multifamily dwelling units. Project will connect to Immokalee Rd via a connection shared with the adjacent development to the east. In addition, development will provide interconnects to the commercial site to the cast and to the residential property (Bermuda Palms) to the west. As such, generated traffic may access Juliet Blvd via Useppa Wa . Page 1 of 6 Note: Based on the meeting with County Staff on 6/21/2021, TIS report reflects a development intensity reduction (234 multifamily dwelling units) based on the Collier County Planning Commission recommendation and evaluation of impacts of no interconnection to Useppa Way. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 19 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —June 2021 Figure 1 — Project Location Map v. r7 ....0 w.00. 0 Project a 0 0„..�,,..,�.,.__. ._- ,•.,,...•..,0.0 i i Google m.v Map data @2020 1000 rt a Zoning Existing: Agricultural (A), future PUD application Comprehensive plan recommendation: GMPA Requested: approval for new dcvelopment- Findings of the Preliminary Study: Studv tvpe: Since proiected net external AM or PM proiect traffic is ereater than 100 two-way peak hour trips, this studv qualifies for a Major TIS — significant roadway and/or operational impacts. Proposed TIS will include trip generation, traffic distribution and assignments, significance test (based on 2%/2%/3% criterion). Trip Generation — based on Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures, ITE Trip Generation Manual, loth Edition and ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. In agreement with ITE procedures and Collier County TIS guidelines, internal capture and pass -by traffic are not considered. The TIS will determine if there is consistency with the Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. The report will provide existing LOS and document the impact the proposed change will have on designated arterial and collector roads. Roadway concurrence analysis — based on estimated net external PM peak hour traffic. The TIS shall be consistent with Collier Countv TIS Guidelines and Procedures. Most of the analyzed roadway segments are located within the County's designated Northwest Transportation Concurrence Management Areas (TCMAs). Page 2 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 120 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 The TCMA's designation is provided in Policv 5.4 and 5.6 of the Transportation Element — Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). To maintain concurrency, TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the adopted LOS standard. Site Access — The applicant proposes one shared access connection on Immokalee Road — review compliance with adopted Collier Countv Access Management Policy. Immokalee Road — segment from Livingston Road to I-75 — Access Management Class 3, Posted Speed — 45 mph, Design Speed — 45 mph. Operational site access — turn lane analysis is based on proposed project build -out conditions AM -PM peak hour generated traffic — to include projected traffic from the property to the east (up to 80,000 sf automobile dealership). Study Type: if not net increase, operational study) Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS ❑ Major TIS Study Area: Boundaries: Adjacent Street —Immokalee Road Additional intersections to be analyzed: N/A Build Out Year: 2025 Planning Horizon Year: 2025 Analysis Time Period(s): Concurrency—PM Peak Hour, Operational—AM/PM Peak Hour Future Off -Site Developments: N/A Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10t' Edition, ITE Handbook 3`d Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: N/A Pass -by trips: N/A Internal trips: N/A Transit use: N/A Other: N/A Horizon Year Roadwav Network Improvements: 2025 Methodology & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estimates: Collier County traffic counts and 2019 AUIR Site -trip generation: OTISS — ITE 10 h Edition Trip distribution method: Engineer's Estimate - refer to Figure 2 Traffic assignment method: project trip generation with background growth Traffic growth rate: historical growth rate or 2% minimum Turning movements: Ingress Traffic — 60% from Immokalee Rd via proposed shared access and 40% via east interconnection — Useppa Way. Page 3 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 121 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 n n Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 122 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPAIPUDZ — TIS —June 2021 Special Features: from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: N/A Sight distance: N/A Queuing: N/A Access location & configuration: N/A Traffic control: MUTCD Signal system location & progression needs: N/A On -site parking needs: N/A Data Sources: CC 2019 AUIR; CC Traffic Counts Base maps: NIA Prior study reports: N/A Access policy and jurisdiction: N/A Review process: N/A Requirements: NIA Miscellaneous: N/A Small Scale Study — No Fee Minor Study - $750.00 Major Study - $1,500.00 X Methodology Fee $500 X Includes 0 intersections Additional Intersections - $500.00 each Allfees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign -off on the application. SIGNATURES Normaw TrebUooc�,_ Study Preparer Norman Trebilcock Reviewer(s) Applicant Page 5 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 123 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review, Analysis Review, and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. Methodology Review - $500 Fee Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement, including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s), distribution, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study" determination, written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement, and written confirmation of a re -submitted, amended methodology statement, and one meeting in Collier County, if needed. "Small Scale Study" Review - No Additional Fee (Includes one sufficiency review) Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concurrency determination, site access inspection and confirmation of the study compliance with trip generation, distribution and maximum threshold compliance. "Minor Studv Review" - $750 Fee (Includes one sufficiencv review) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: optional field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, distribution, and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of off -site improvements within the right-of-way, review of site access and circulation, and preparation and review of "sufficiency" comments/questions. "Major Studv Review" - $1,500 Fee (Includes two intersection analysis and two sufficiencv reviews Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, special trip generation and/or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of traffic growth analysis, review of off -site roadway operations and capacity analysis, review of site access and circulation, neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates, and preparation and review of up to two rounds of "sufficiency" comments/questions and/or recommended conditions of approval. "Additional intersection Review" - $500 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the "Major Study Review" and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the "Major Study Review" "Additional Sufficiency Reviews" - $500 Fee Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. Page 6 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 124 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations and Land Use Code Descriptions Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 125 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —June 2021 Blue Coral Aoartments PUD Land Use: 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) Description Mid -rise multifamily housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors). Multifamily housing (low-rise) (Land Use 220), multifamily housing (high-rise) (Land Use 222), off -campus student apartment (Land Use 225), and mid -rise residential with 1 st-floor commercial (Land Use 231) are related land uses. Additional Data In prior editions of Trip Generation Manual, the mid -rise multifamily housing sites were further divided into rental and condominium categories. An investigation of vehicle trip data found no clear differences in trip making patterns between the rental and condominium sites within the ITE database. As more data are compiled for future editions, this land use classification can be reinvestigated. For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available, there were an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available, an average of 95.7 percent of the total dwelling units were occupied. Time -of -day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the eight general urban/suburban sites with data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and 4:45 and 5:45 p.m., respectively. For the four dense multi -use urban sites with 24-hour count data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:15 and 8:15 a.m. and 4:15 and 5:15 p.m., respectively. For the three center city core sites with 24-hour count data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 6:45 and 7:45 a.m. and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., respectively. For the six sites for which data were provided for both occupied dwelling units and residents, there was an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which data were provided for both occupied dwelling units and total dwelling units, an average of 95.7 percent of the units were occupied. The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the five center city core sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.84 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.94 during Weekday, AM Peak Hour of Generator • 2.07 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.59 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator "W Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2: Data - Residential (Land Uses 200-299) 71 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 126 Blue Coral Apartments - GMPA/PUDZ - TIS -June 2021 The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 32 dense multi -use urban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.90 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.90 during Weekday, AM Peak Hour of Generator • 2.00 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.08 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 13 general urban/suburban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.56 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.88 during Weekday, AM Peak Hour of Generator • 1.70 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.07 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), British Columbia (CAN), California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ontario, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Source Numbers 168, 188, 204, 305, 306, 321, 357, 390, 436, 525, 530, 579, 638, 818, 857, 866, 901, 904, 910, 912, 918, 934, 936, 939, 944, 947, 948, 949, 959, 963, 964, 966, 967, 969, 970 72 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition • Volume 2: Data -Reside ntia I (Land Uses 200-299) ,"_ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 127 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Project Nartre: Date: 8tatelProvince: Country: Analyst's Name' Blue Coral Apartments 5/28/2021 SIZE 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (General UrbanlSuburban) 234 Reduction Internal Pass -by Non -pass -by Total Total Reduction Total Internal Total Pass -by Total Non -pass -by (1) Dweaag Umfa Entry 637 0 0 0 637 637 0 0 0 637 No: City: Zip/Postal Code: Client Name: Editlon, Exit 637 0 0 0 637 637 a 0 0 637 Trip Gen Manual, 10th Ed + Supplement AM PEAK HOUR Entry Exit 21 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 56 21 56 a 0 0 0 0 0 21 56 PM PEAK HOUR Entry Ill 61 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 39 61 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 39 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 128 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name: Daily Project Name : Blue Coral Apartments No: Date: 5/2812021 City: State/Province: ZiptPostal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Trip Gen Manual, 10th Ed + Supplement Land Use Independent Variable Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total 221 - Multifamily Dwelling Units 234 Weekday Rest Fit (LIN) 637 637 1274 Housing (Mid -Rise) T = 5.45 (X)+-1.75 50% 50% (General Urban/Suburban) TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Land Use Ennduction Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 0 % 637 0 % 637 EXTERNAL TRIPS Land Use External Trips Pass4)y% Pass -by Trips Non -pass -by Trips 221 -Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 1274 0 0 1274 ITE DEVIATION DETAILS Weekday Landuse No deviations from ITE Methods No deviations from ITE. External Trips 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 129 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name: AM Peak Hour Project Name : Blue Coral Apartments No: Date: 5/2812021 City: State/Province: ZiptPostal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Land Use Independent Size Time Period Method Variable 221 - Multifamily Dwelling Units 234 Weekday, Peak Rest Fit (LOG) Housing (Mid -Rise) Hour of Adjacent Ln(T) = 0.98Ln(X) (General StreetTraffc, +-0.98 Urban/Suburban) One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Trip Gen Manual, 10th Ed + Supplement Entry Exit Total 21 58 79 27% 73% Land Use Entry on Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit Redued 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 0 % 21 0 % 58 Land Use 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rlse) EXTERNAL TRIPS External Trips Pa"4)y% Pass -by Trips Trips s by Trips 79 0 0 79 ITE DEVIATION DETAILS I Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Landuse No deviationsfrom ITE. Methods No deviations from ITE. External Trips 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 130 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name: PM Peak Hour Project Name : Blue Coral Apartments No: Date: 5/2812021 City: State/Province: ZiptPostal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Land Use Independent Size Time Period Method Variable 221 - Multifamily Dwelling Units 234 Weekday, Peak Rest Fit (LOG) Housing (Mid -Rise) Hour of Adjacent Ln(T) = 0.96Ln(X) (General StreetTreffic, +-0.63 Urban/Suburban) One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Trip Gen Manual, 10th Ed + Supplement Entry Exit Total 61 39 100 61% 39% Land Use Entry on Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit Redued 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 0 % 61 0 % 39 Land Use 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rlse) EXTERNAL TRIPS External Trips Pa"4)y% Pass -by Trips Trips s by Trips 100 0 0 100 ITE DEVIATION DETAILS I Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Landuse No deviationsfrom ITE. Methods No deviations from ITE. External Trips 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 131 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —June 2021 Germain Immokalee PUD Land Use: 840 Automobile Sales (New) Description A new automobile sales dealership is typically located along a major arterial street characterized by abundant commercial development. The sale or leasing of new cars is the primary business at these facilities, however, automobile services, parts sales, and used car sales may also be available. Some dealerships also include leasing options, truck sales, and servicing. Automobile sales (used) (Land Use 841) and recreational vehicle sales (Land Use 842) are related uses. Additional Data Time -of -day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the six general urban/suburban sites with data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 11:15 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. and 1:45 and 2:45 p.m., respectively. The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia. Source Numbers 260, 271, 280, 328, 414, 424, 427, 438, 440, 507, 571, 583, 612, 715, 728, 880, 881, 936, 974, 975 172 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition • Volume 2: Data • Retail (Land Uses 800-899) W Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 132 Blue Coral Apartments - GMPA/PUDZ - TIS -June 2021 Project Information Project Name: Germain Immokalee PUD No: Date: 3/20/2020 Edition: Trip Gen Manual, 10th Ed Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak PM Peak Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit 840 - Automobile Sales (New) (General Urban/Suburban) 80 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA 1114 1113 110 40 66 100 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non -pass -by 1114 1113 110 40 66 100 Total 1114 1113 110 40 66 100 Total Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totallnternal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tota I Pass -by 0 0 0 0 0 a Total Non -pass -by 1114 1113 110 40 66 100 PERIOD SETTING DATA PROVIDED BY ITE Specify the Independent Variable, Time Period, and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis. To record any notes, click - Add Notes above. PROJECT NAME: GERMAIN IMMOKALEE ROAD ANALYSIS NAME: Weekday f_AND USE INDEPENDENT SIZE LOCATION' TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL VARIABLE ((�� 840 - Automobile Sales (New) 1000 Sq. Ft GFA • 0(0) General Weekday Average 'r`�(114 1113 2227 UrbanlSuburban 27.04 I(0) indicates size out of range_ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 133 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —June 2021 PERIOD SETTING ,/ DATA PROVIDED BY ITE Specify the Independent Variable, Time Period, and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis_ To record any notes, click • Add Notes above. PROJECTNAME: GERMAIN IMMOKALEE ROAD ANALYSIS NAME: AM Peak Hour LAND USE INDEPENDENT SIZE VARIABLE 840 - Automobile Sales (New) 1000 Sq. Ft GFA • 0 LOCATION TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY UrbanGeneral era weekday, Peak Hou Average ' "r110 1.67 PERIOD SETTING EXIT TOTAL. 40 150 DATA PROVIDED BY ITE Specify the Independent Variable, Time Period, and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis. To record any notes, click - Add Notes above. PROJECT NAME: GERMAIN IMMOKALEE ROAD ANALYSIS NAME: l PM Peak Hour N!D USE INDEPENDENT SIZE VARIABLE 840 - Automobile Sales (New) 1000 Sq. Ft GFA • D LOCATION TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY General Weekday, Peak Hou Best Fft (LIN) �66 Urban/Suburban EXIT TOTA 100 166 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 134 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Appendix D: Collier County Northwest TCMA Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 135 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 LU � Q LU p ZLIJ `e } I Uj p j R OI U - o W --=� --� - a N OAIB NV901 LU j O, �1 Q I m J_ m V as Nol80r��n3� 0 G� z C as SNmna iaodMVLU - U V ��— z w c� LLI LLJ a,Da 0 cc MWJzI-3113I00 �H! a` a00 � —z— Z F F• � a R Li d �asllrers3aNt+n � r � 0 Z H Z M a n U g ¢ W N z n 2 �y r 4� OrrGU o W 0iz m o ~ t[7 3 {{ ,� E Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 136 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —June 2021 @� o 0 O M N 10 O 1° N r m oD O N oD m m O a0 0 N O O M 0 M W 0 0 O O N M O C U O m T K 0 N m lD L6 CV IV N 6 N J � ID m C N J ti 6 r C7 M 0 N r C4 07 0 r M i 7 CV fV N m m N. N N N N... h oil M N M (O ro (J f0 (O fO (0 fp N -3 f0 t0 N N N N N i h r C7 N O C7 V1 O n n EO a0 F7 W N 1� O 1O N 0 W N r r W COo] CO N l+5 r O a r r a W r I� r W r VI 7 r +0 ID O 10 l0 r r N r r M r r .0 7 N 0 r l0 7 r 0 M r r r r O ❑ a U❑ E a IE❑ v E o It v > v o 16 ° a KaN o lc a mOm a �On 6 O T Y Al41 H LLC CYiL d [C b O v C a C E m l6 c S o E$ v E W 10 - Y'p1 EL c S c 0 '61 E E Gl N c 5 c r r E e- IC c O C O a m R ° �$ - J m d 'Ep/ 0 a J a r~ Q J 1� U a rt K❑ K° o N f a K❑ u E m>> 'c --�� s a o° a a N 0 t 3"' 'E ° o _ c: v a o a 0 t>> of y a a EO mv 8, Yi 01 ° v $ w W O Q m vW N LL° rrd cT Nm LL FD o ° Y ea o Em o ECo'm o d n Yd o a E v E n_ v ' E m �_ Q- .� v -n E y r _�' Q O c 9 w 75 E m _a j O v c m a E O E} O r OM F� 0 0 E E v ->> a U O 0 ° N v w J- E a c C7 U' h 0¢ 0 W m a¢ } O � U, C7 N O ir IaC N O O K� v Z a Z a a a v a a a a a m m a a m m° L L C Y 0 L L C C 0 0 L C 0 IY ro K w w a v v U>> 0❑❑ E a {y O O v p Y O C Y Y> C C❑ d d K K K K O D O CL fY Q Z Z —--. Z Z Z .G U s .>` .c C C ❑❑ E E ro Zi CC 0_' K N N N N N N N N N Y C 2 C C . YI N a a W 41 a a 16 l0 R l0 N N 16 l0 1l 41 tb lD _ H O O Y� 0 LL 0 dl LL LL dl dl ?> L Q Q ltl N ltl 0 ltl 7Il 0 0 YII YI ❑ W a a a a F F H 3 F m m m 1 m m 2 e LL O O di rn¢¢ E• e' e' N ti v N 'v N'v -5 ._.• V' .L.• r E r E E E E E c E > ' E C C '> > ' J J 2 0 v y 0 0 c Ql Ql c c @ m m mc m Q 0 O 0 6 O O ____ p, G. 0.. Q. IEa F F F F F m tad m L' O H O ? > > > > O O N N O c o N N a c a o o a o o r o 0 0 0 o O N N o 0 0 0 0 o z a 7 `tl' N vt lCl tD tD cfl N ro to m W O O r O O O O — -— - - - y ffi c Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 137 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 138 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 v �a 0 E oO a n ny d m E �a E o U 0 ¢ r c IB z a v O y a�© t a C m E — U v tie o' a Iz O rU ©p d V~ a = LL M © R® 4 LCf^ c 7 K tyrand 9lvd � .]uiley ONd aNe P-W g, V yU Pw co ti O � "iY�■■■ E (A = w ■■■■■■■..■■■■ ■ r 1 ■ 0(0) + O .... Q ? ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ M + + O W O U o CAW II II = o 0 a E Windsan9 [ir O UQa z _m E s — m' = �;� U u mE co = Wlnas°c oe v a Livi stun RE Livingston Rd ^g v Livingston i+'I s Lwing n Rd LO o ® 0 N N o eY LO COD II II II II C9�0 + It CA + + + o + + (Y) ti SOL", e or d 9 V O V O 8 �.:�,ili�y LeMed 000V Q II u 0�(Y) ¢ n u �s 03 U Q a as ¢ a O �j - Si GTolx Ln E = Asian cerden: wey A ­ or Arran or Asranw — caYm car Q i a� �a a � � C�C L+YinG'" C � Y Q O Q EC a) C 7 = m 'C6 (0 E U CD II II Q0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 139 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 E E 7 N E ®- p V a d� LL E >s OON. 00 E E E. ® (D U) ON N N Mews safoaaivd « Jodi B"a !1 II U (V M PNq Pue45 + N r iU ." c © O N A Fi N !I II 8 V � UQa . qN v_ v Lf5 CA'nn — Z � — — — — — —� 00 0 O E13Y�ra � W ■rrrrrr••rrr' li II IE U ■ C� oo M O U ■ + OD Ln Q ■ a .�a, q D o + + tir•uOE ■••rrrr•rr••� m 00 U) 0 U I I m 0- 0 (D U< a 131 d F Ea w i= E c wise°4 �m na '� 3 Livi ston Rd a Livingston Rd -- Livingston Rd � ^g 3 Living n Rd ' v fO � WaY LD LO E ® O ti n ON N N E W u u u C9!I NM U` LDO + N — + LO V + + o + + o�� 0�m �22 Q !I II II II O' i m m � U Q a UQa LJi a" p 00� 5 � m GOh Ln E �� Allan Dardfnf Wry m An wr Dr 4, 1i. q— Dr Aafan p O O N Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 140 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —June 2021 V va, a v �•Ye� �Oh m° o E �Ea L 0.2 o o O 0 �U � W O :E _ C > N i® C O (0 U N O T• Q)� o _ U M co u o v z O �L-pQ a 3_ — A 3 cn N (� 66 a© U a) C Q W� ©� V U� o �® E o v L •� 31 y jullel E`"'` Junes 6��d (14 O m© Z Z ale �Mz Dr Lf-) LO m 3 II II C? -,:r t0 L~L C7 LLI co CO, + N + + O N - E a3LIJL- 9 i II II < 1E Y U Q d IP °` a nsI ■ ■ ■ %■■■M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r Q �� fi�'ni] Du11.n Lake Li O C7(oo a $ F C►+ (mvgg i O _ \ + + 0 Windsm9CA v- r (O r fh E Ym m' = II II m - E o m winas� U < d a"a Livingston Rd Livi nRd9 Uvirc: ston Livingston Rd _ - Livin on Rd - �' o o O ~ } sY _ II II 0 (O O F�M64,, + O V o + + c M �s Q II II a U Q a a � Qa O E = Ij 51 CTOV Ln Dl Aston tx eE A. -Gardens Wey — Aston A11on C. Cn Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 141 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —June 2021 N E U o .,,,„"a` >s O (D Lf) � 9 CO- _ ON N N — II II snana vi��i jod� a U N M "s + N o x o 0 (0 Ln � �© 0 IN N L'1 m N r' II II Q II II B C9Ncri m�� + N+ I U Q a m + + o (V II II m x m YeO 71, � P ■ C7 W CA i o ■ J o 61 I� (n • •M.��rvre au i. Lak°D O ti ti ti■■■■ W ■■■■■■■om Q (D Q () sv d ° enr o, m II II LU O C) U C9 (00 Q + (O a 0 _ � 0 C I T � _ � L }f 4— C L 0 CO E O U a _ o o a� i U in a- -c-- a) C � I C � 0 O M VJ a a) NQ� Q (D C tU •� nnO L 1 - U I..L co r M a � Wv+dsrnq[Ir Q U Q u a x�co m i U Q a = c Q. winaeo4 a Livingston Rd i d Livingston Rd Lwa9ston R Umng ston 0 3 Livin an Rd ' c- E `t E° E® � ��I� ecA *War _C m (a 11 II E C9 (� o - c`c + to � o + + p N U 0 l'7 f— m O22 II II Q 11 II bi Q g� U 3 m UQa as p 00. t j � st 0,.N Ln �;. E N� Aslan axdfnf Wry A°Woc+a q— D' A.— p COVE V CII O O N O N O N (6 CID Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 142 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 20, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: le % Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (attended remotely) Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Christopher ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN FRYER: Greetings everyone. Welcome to the May 20, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik has requested that we vote to permit him to participate remotely. And, Mr. County Attorney, I think we're still within the bounds of -- MR. KLATZKOW: As long as we're under the local and state emergency orders, it will be permissible. Once the orders expire, that will be the end of it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. May I have a motion to allow Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make that motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Good morning, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER FRY: This is where you say hello, Robb. MR. SUMMERS: We've got some audio issues. Hold on one second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we've got a quorum. Will the secretary please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Still working on Robb. Okay. We have four in person and I believe one virtual, to be confirmed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And Mr. Vernon and Mr. Schmitt both have excused absences. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any changes to the current agenda as it's been provided to you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: I do. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, we do have -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Good morning. Anita Jenkins, Zoning director. We do have one item that we would like to add under new business, and that is to discuss the evening meetings for the LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I was going to talk about them at the next item, if that's all right with you. MS. JENKINS: Okay. Anywhere you would like to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. In line with what we talked about on Tuesday. Well, thank you. MS. JENKINS: That's my entry music COMMISSIONER FRY: It's late. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Now, our next meeting is Wednesday, May 26th. It's a special meeting. As I will say more about in a moment, we will not be here for the evening portion, but we will be here -- we are requested to be here for the daytime portion of that special meeting on the 26th. Does anyone know if he or she cannot be in attendance? COMMISSIONER FRY: I cannot -10 - COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that at 9:00 a.m.? 40* CHAIRMAN FRYER: 9:00 a.m., yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: I cannot tell you at this point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Business commitments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we will hope that we have a quorum. I don't believe Commissioner Schmitt is going to be here on the 26th. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, he is. He said the 26th meeting was a day he was going to be here. 116 CHAIRMAN FRYER: He did? All right. Okay, good. Okay. Our minutes to be approved. First we have those of our attempted April 15, 2021. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ah, good morning, Mr. Klucik. We were worried about you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, I've been connected. I'm sorry. I didn't hear any -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you've been approved for participation, so we're delighted to have you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, great. I'm sorry. I caught you right when you just said we're having a problem with Robb, and that was the first I heard, you know, even though I've been logged in. So there you go. So I guess I really haven't missed anything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, you haven't. COMMISSIONER FRY: That was a rhetorical statement, Robb. Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Quorum of five. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. So our attempted minutes of April 15, and that meeting, as you know, failed for a lack of quorum, but we need to take action on those minutes to create a record of why there was no substantive meeting and that it was at that time continued to a later date. So may I have a -- any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Then we have the minutes of the meeting to which the 15 April meeting was continued, and that's April 19. Any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. BCC report, recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: On the May 1 lth Board of County Commissioners there were no land -use items presented at that meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Now let's -- before we get into our substantive agenda, let's talk about the need for an evening meeting to deal with certain LDC amendments, and the Chair recognizes Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. Again, Anita Jenkins, Zoning director. We are requesting an evening meeting to hear those LDC amendments either June 3rd, is the preference for that date, or the second meeting in June, which I think is June 17th. So we needed to continue those items from your special meeting on the 26th, and hopefully we can get those scheduled for you on the 3rd. Currently, our projections are only to have one other item on the meeting of the 3rd, so we could start that later, but on the 26th we can see how we're going and how many items maybe continue, what kind of time you may need, but we'd like to request for an evening meeting on June 3rd. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Commissioners, anyone have a conflict, inability to be there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Everybody seems to be willing and able to be there on June 3rd. So by consensus our evening meeting will be on June 3rd beginning at five minutes after 5:00. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask for a clarification? Are you saying that if there are only one or two items on the normal meeting for the 3rd, we might start later in the day rather than 9:00 a.m.? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. I think that you would want to consider, you know, starting in the afternoon if you only have a couple items, because we do have to start the meeting at 5:05 for the LDC amendment. So we wouldn't want to have to bring you in and then have a break. And so we'll just help you work through that as we get closer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would be welcome. Thank you very much. MS. JENKINS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. ***We're going to public hearings. And the first matter is PL20200002234. It's the RFMUD Growth Management Plan amendments here to us for recommendation on transmittal. And the Chair recognizes Ms. Mosca. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with Zoning Division staff. And I'm not sure how to get the screen turned over. Thank you. Okay. So, Commissioners, this is the fourth restudy. There were four directed by the Board of County Commissioners, and this is the fourth. The other three have all been approved. The last you heard was the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, and that's been approved as well moving forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: By the way, during this pause I'll just indicate that the reason we didn't ask for witnesses to be sworn in or for disclosures is because this is legislative in nature. Sorry. Go ahead. MS. MOSCA: No, that's correct. And this is the transmittal hearing so, Commissioners, you'll have another shot at this after it goes to the state agencies for review and their comment. So what I'd like to say, this review and preparation of the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use Districts, this has been a team approach. You'll see on the screen multiple disciplines were involved including Planning, Transportation, Stormwater, Housing, and Planning. I think I said that. V So today -- I know that Commissioner Homiak was here when we had the approval, I believe, of the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District, you know, at the beginning with the plan amendments, but I think for the rest of you, you may or may not be familiar with them. So what I'd like to do in today's presentation is to include an overview and a history of the existing Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District of the Future Land Use Element, take you to the proposed Growth Management Plan amendments, a transfer of development rights, or what we call TDRs. So you'll hear that acronym, so Transfer of Development Rights means TDRs. So we'll take you through a credit analysis based on the proposed amendments. Future development, we'll talk about the future development and infrastructure needs in the North Belle Meade, and that's NBM on the screen in the Belle Meade area. We'll also talk about some general discussion items, and those will include public comment. We had a period of time, approximately two weeks, when these amendments were drafted and sent out for comment. Then, finally, we'll talk about staff recommendations. So just to give everyone an idea of where these -- where the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District is located, it's generally located -- and I'm trying to get this mouse to work. Yep, here we go. So it's generally located east of the urban area, and that's those areas in yellow right here, and west of Golden Gate, Golden Gate Estates, and that's that area here. So the rural fringe is approximately 73,000 acres in size. The receiving areas noted here in this teal color, that consists of approximately 22,000 acres. And so here is the receiving areas, these areas here. And we'll go into further detail and discussion about those areas. Your sending areas, which are identified here in orange, here's the Belle Meade area, and that's south of I-75, and then your North Belle Meade area here, and then you have some other smaller sending areas throughout here. And these are approximately 45,000 acres in size with more than half of the acreage in private ownership and the remaining acreage in public ownership. And the neutral areas or these hatched areas that you can see here, there's some throughout, those consist of approximately 9,500 acres, and we'll talk about all of those areas as we move forward through the presentation. I just want to let everyone know, we probably have somewhere around 28 to 30 slides. Not all substantive information, but just wanted to give you an idea of where we're headed. So let's talk a little bit about the history of the RFMUD, Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. If you could just switch to the slide --previous slide. I have one quick question. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So if you're on Immokalee Road, you have a tan or peach colored box. MS. MOSCA: This here? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. What is that? MS. MOSCA: That's Orangetree. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's Orangetree, okay MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So that's just an existing development. That's why that's highlighted? MS. MOSCA: Yes. It's a settlement area, yes. It has higher densities -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Oh, sure. Okay. So back to the history. So in the 1990s, there was a requirement to conduct a comprehensive study of our Comprehensive Plan or our Growth Management Plan, and that occurred every seven years under state law. The evaluation would typically result in amendments to the plan. In 1997, the county adopted these amendments based on this evaluation which were ultimately found to not be in compliance with state laws. So after administrative law hearings in 1999, the Governor and cabinet issued a final order which included a requirement for, within a three-year period the county had to address deficiencies within the final order for the rural lands. So these are listed on the slide, and they include protections of prime agricultural land, direct incompatible land uses away from -- and their habitat -- and their listed species away from development, habitat, and protect the environmental lands, and also provide measures to curtail urban sprawl. So to address some of these deficiencies, the county adopted the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District, which includes both regulations that restrict uses and residential density on sending lands, and there's a voluntary TDR program or, again, the Transfer of Development Rights program that provides for residential development rights to be transferred from sending lands. These areas, again, in orange. So to transfer the development rights from these areas to receiving areas. So these areas in this bluish color here, which is the compensation mechanism for sending landowners for their presumed loss in property value caused by the reduction in density as well as the land uses. So for owners of sending lands that choose to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights program, here is a sample calculation of the potential TDRs that can be generated from a 40-acre sending -lands parcel. There are four potential TDR credits. The base credit, calculated at one TDR per five acres, an early -entry credit to encourage participation in the program, restoration and maintenance credit for creating and implementing a plan to restore the property's environmental integrity, and the conveyance credit for the property to be conveyed to an approved agency for long-term maintenance. So all these credits are calculated at a rate of one TDR for each five acres or legal lot of record. So in this scenario, an example of a 40-acre parcel utilizing all TDR credits, it would generate 32 Transfer of Development Rights credits. MR. EASTMAN: Michele, do you know how much a credit goes for, roughly? MS. MOSCA: It ranges. The base credit is still required to be 25,000. A lot of times they are a package deal, so an individual credit could come anywhere from 15- and I heard as high as 18,000. So 15,000 to 18,000 is what I've heard. So I don't know definitively, but I'm sure when someone gets up as a member of the public, they may be able to give you some additional information, but we do have record of the 25,000 requirement. So looking at the receiving lands, at a landscape scale, receiving lands have the least environmental value and, therefore, suitable or most appropriate areas to receive density that may be transferred from these sending lands. Again, so these are these areas here, so we have four of them. So the four receiving areas are labeled on the map, and they're going to be very relevant when we're discussing the proposed amendments. Agricultural uses within these areas have been expanded and density increased to one dwelling unit per acre for parcels 40 acres in size or larger. So there are three development scenarios on receiving lands. You can have your baseline conditions, and that's one dwelling unit per five acres. You can participate in the TDR program at one dwelling unit per acre via TDR credits, and a mixed -use development called a rural village. So the rural village can be developed in each one of these four receiving areas. So, again, these areas here. The villages must be a mixed -use development. Rural villages development allows for the highest density, roughly -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If you would, the technical folks -- yes, I haven't been able to see it. So if our speaker is, you know, referencing her presentation, if you could please have it up at that time. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. I'm not clear what he's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner, are you able to see what's on the screen? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I was, and then for the last 30 seconds or one minute I wasn't just because they just had it -- I got to see all of my fellow commissioners' shiny faces, and then as soon as I started speaking, someone switched it to the view of the presentation. So that's all. If you could just make sure, if our speaker's referencing their presentation, just make sure it's on the screen so I can see it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Let me just go back over the density for the rural village. So the rural village development allows for the highest density. That's two to three dwelling units per acre and various intensity of uses allowing a full range of commercial, industrial, and business uses. For owners of receiving lands that choose to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights program, here is a sample TDR redemption calculation on a 40-acre receiving lands parcel and a 1,500-acre rural village. Thirty-two TDRs would be needed to develop a 40 -- I'm sorry -- 40 residential units on a 40-acre parcel. A maximum -- and you can look at the math. The maximum of 2,700 TDRs would be required to develop a 1,500-acre rural village. So there's going to be no difference. You'll see the two -- sorry. You'll see the two DUs per acre and the three DUs per acre. So there's no difference in those calculations for TDRs because if you're a rural village, there's a density bonus that's granted for each TDR that's acquired to achieve the minimum density of two dwelling units per acre. So, really, you get the third dwelling unit as a freebie. So let's talk a little bit about neutral lands, the hatched areas. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't know if it's just me, but I did not --I understood the first half of that slide, but I didn't understand the bottom portion. I understand there was a way to get the third unit per acre, but I didn't catch the jump from the 40-acre example down to the 1,500-acre example. So the 40-acre example is just showing that right now they could do eight if they didn't participate, because that's their base density? MS. MOSCA: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then if they used the credits, they could go up to 40 units on those 40 acres, one per acre? MS. MOSCA: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But if you have the same -- if you want to do a bigger project, that's how the density increases. MS. MOSCA: Through the rural village, correct. And so it's the same calculation. It's just at a higher rate and a higher density. So you'd still have -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is that -- is that density, then, for all 1,500 acres you're able to build three homes? MS. MOSCA: Three dwelling units per acre, so 4,500 dwelling units. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Homes, okay. MS. MOSCA: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. Next, we'll talk about the neutral lands. So from an environmental perspective at the landscape scale, again, the neutral lands have native vegetation habitat for listed species but do not have the same value as sending lands. Neutral lands are what we call neutral to the TDR program. Currently, TDR credits cannot be sent or received. Density is allowed at one unit per five acre, and the permitted and conditional uses of the agricultural zoning district remain unchanged. So now we're going to switch over to the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District amendments, or the acronym RFMUD. So in 2015, the Board directed staff to conduct a restudy of four program areas of which the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District is one. The Board appointed a citizen committee to have a high-level oversight of the restudy process. The Board identified the four listed objectives for the restudy, and these are addressed: Complementary land uses, economic vitality, transportation mobility, and environmental stewardship. The restudy included community outreach. It included a website and workshops within the community. The restudy process culminated with staff preparing a white paper that included a summary of public comments and a summary of recommendations from both the staff and the public. The white paper was presented to the Board, and the Board of County Commissioners gave staff direction to proceed with certain amendments. These are the amendments that are in your resolution, Exhibit A, with some exceptions, and we'll go over those later. So for the sending lands, some of the most significant amendments include providing additional TDR credits to sending lands owners, replacing early -entry bonus with two base credits, allowing sending lands owners to participate in program changes if the land has not yet been conveyed, provide conveyance of land to a not -for -profit or land trust by board approval, provide clustering provision for large sending land parcels, and implement the Belle Meade hydrologic enhancement overlay, and this is a comprehensive watershed improvement plan program. So some of the most significant amendments for the receiving lands was to eliminate development standard requirements in the rural village for research and technology parks; providing TDRs for existing agricultural uses and preservation; providing new mixed -use standards for rural villages, and this is similar to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area standards; require all projects greater than or equal to 300 acres utilize rural village provisions to incentivize rural village development; provide greater opportunities for affordable housing projects at higher densities; and the opportunity to include commercial component to the project; and, finally, incentivizing employment centers outside rural villages by allowing business industrial uses identified as Florida qualified target industries. And you probably remember that from the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. These are your manufacturing, trade, finance and insurance, and some of those, and corporate headquarters. For neutral lands, currently owners cannot participate in the TDR program. This amendment would allow participation for existing agriculture and conservation uses. Clustering would also be allowed by this amendment without an acreage threshold. Currently it's 40 acres. For urban designated lands, the amendments would eliminate the requirement to use TDRs for infill properties, and that's a provision within the Future Land Use Element; eliminate the requirement for sending lands' TDRs for development of those properties to be located within one mile of the urban area; and then increase residential density in the urban fringe and require TDRs to be used to increase density through a Growth Management Plan amendment. Rural Fringe Mixed -Use amendments that were not proposed by staff, increase density from one dwelling unit per two dwelling unit per acre outside rural villages and all receiving areas. So if you remember, there were four receiving areas. The original proposal or direction was to provide two dwelling units per acre within all of those receiving areas outside of rural villages, and we'll discuss that further as we go along. Another one was to increase rural village density. Staff recommended that the density in the rural villages remain at two to three dwelling units per acre, and this will allow for additional study within the Belle Meade and the North Belle Meade areas where we'll see the majority of growth in the future. Eliminate the size of the rural village; staff recommended retaining the existing size of these villages for further study. And the elimination of the greenbelt; so staff recommended reducing the greenbelt to maintain the transition of uses and maintain the rural character of the area. So now we'll shift to supply and demand of TDRs based on the proposed amendments. Now, this is one scenario. I mean, there's multiple scenarios based on participation. So in the north receiving area -- let me see if I can -- this area here, this currently is the site of the Immokalee Road Rural Village. That came before you -all. If adopted, it will encompass the entirety of the privately owned receiving areas, so all of -- I'm losing my mouse here -- all of these areas. This area now outside of this sending area just north and south, those are now owned by the state, and so that color on the map will be changing. For the northwest receiving area, this area within here, staff believes it's unlikely that a rural village will be developed based on ownership patterns and existing development. So for a rural village, no TDRs will be counted in that scenario. Now, for nonrural village development, the assumptions are based on the white paper, that there's possibly 60 percent of the landowners would participate, and, again, this could be higher or lower. So let's talk a little bit about the North Belle Meade area in here. This is the receiving area in the North Belle Meade area, and this is north of I-75. And then this is the Belle Meade area south that abuts Tamiami Trail East. The North Belle Meade area in here, the assumption is that one rural village will be developed at the maximum size of 1,500 acres, so that would be up to 4,500 dwelling units, and 2,700 TDRs would be needed for that. For the Belle Meade area the assumption is that the rural village will be developed at the maximum size of 2,500 acres, right in through here, and up to 7,500 dwelling units and 4,500 TDRs would be needed to entitle development. So for nonrural village development -- that's the development outside of the rural villages -- the assumption, once again, for this scenario was based on 60 percent of the landowners participating, and we retained the 40-acre threshold. And so the north would be roughly 1,103 dwelling units, and the south would be approximately 2,514 units. So the total -- based on this particular scenario, there would be a total of 20,530 dwelling units in all of these areas and possibly 11,139 TDRs to entitle that development. Shifting to the supply side. The existing sending lands database that's maintained by staff at the county was used to determine the supply. The participation rate of plus or minus 50 percent was applied to the total possible TDRs. That was for the base, the early entry, environmental restoration, and maintenance and conveyance TDR bonus credits, and these are, again, consistent with the assumptions in the white paper. The total yields approximately 6,278 TDRs based on that applied assumption. And, again, this could be higher or lower depending on the participation rate. Now we want to look at supply of new credits through these abatements. So the new supply is based on the proposed amendments, and they include the Belle Meade flowway TDR bonus credit, and this is for the Belle Meade area. This is south of I-75 for that Belle Meade hydraulic enhancement overlay, and we'll discuss that further as well. And we assumed 100 percent participation or 560 new TDRs coming online. So the next one is sending lands existing agricultural TDR bonus. We assumed 80 percent in the north sending lands where there -- excuse me -- where there are existing groves, 30 percent in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas where there's a limited amount of lands in agricultural use. So this is the calculation here, so that would be roughly 446 new TDRs coming online from an estimated 1,407. The neutral lands existing agricultural TDR bonus, staff assumed 10 percent utilization, and that would come online at approximately 126 TDRs. So you see that staff was very conservative going through these additional TDR credits. And then the final one is the receiving lands existing agricultural TDR credit. Staff assumed 50 percent of the 6L Farms, and that's on the Belle Meade side and that -- again, that area is located at Tamiami Trail East. So we're looking at the total supply, then, of 8,021 TDRs, and the TDR potential demand of l l,139 TDRs. So the estimated deficit, again, based on this scenario would be roughly 3,000 TDRs. I know that's a lot of information; we can discuss that further if you'd like. So the next area we'd like to talk about is the North Belle Meade or NBM and the Belle Meade areas. Again, north of I-75 is the North Belle Meade. South of 75 is the Belle Meade area. So staff mentioned early in the presentation that we're not recommending amendments to be applicable to the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas due primarily to infrastructure concerns. Existing development is and has been on Immokalee Road where infrastructure is available or planned. The greatest future development demand will be in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade receiving areas. Again, this map identifies the two areas, so here's the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade areas. So I believe, Eric Fey is here. Eric Fey from the utility staff will talk about water and sewer availability, followed by Michael Sawyer who will talk about the transportation network that's available in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas. MR. FEY: Thank you, Michele. For the record Eric Fey, principal project manager, Public Utilities. The slide on screen here presents an overview of the RFMUD along with our existing treatment plant and major structure facilities within the water/sewer district. The table represents the potable water and waste wastewater demands, respectively, for each of the four receiving areas. Underneath those demands -- and that is -- by the way, those numbers are the additional demand from what exists today, not the totals. The percentages, on the other hand, underneath those demands are the impacts of the staff -proposed amendments on those demand forecasts. As you can see, with the northwest receiving area being the only one with the density increase, we're looking -- using the assumptions beneath the table, and some of the assumptions Michele stated earlier in her presentation, we're anticipating a 10 percent impact to that receiving area overall, which would be a 35 percent increase in forecasted demand. And some of those assumptions, as she stated, include a 60 percent participation rate. And I think she identified 788 eligible acreage -- acres within receiving area. I want to just go ahead and discuss briefly how we intend to serve these various receiving areas. As you know, the north receiving area is Immokalee Road Rural Village. We are already in the process of extending services, including potable water, wastewater, and irrigation quality water services to that anticipated village. There are existing mains already along 39th Avenue Northeast, and we do anticipate extending new mains up Immokalee Road to their entrance. The next receiving area, the northwest receiving area, is, you know, partially developed today, and the existing developments all receive service from large transmission mains that we extended along Immokalee Road somewhere around 2005, and those mains are of adequate size to serve the increased density in the northwest receiving area. The North Belle Meade receiving area, as you can see from the yellow arrow, that's the original route that was anticipated to extend water and wastewater services to North Belle Meade. In 2003 the Board passed a resolution expanding the water/sewer district to serve all of the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District, and that was the anticipated route. Unfortunately, we do not have a force main along Collier Boulevard. So it would be necessary, if we take that route, to extend wastewater services down to the Golden Gate wastewater treatment plant. Because of that, another alternative that we would prefer is to extend services along Wilson Boulevard. As I'm sure you're aware, that roadway is anticipated for widening and improvement in the Long -Range Transportation Plan, I believe, in the CIP. Trinity Scott could speak to that. But when that road is expanded, we'll look at the possibility of extending mains along with that roadway project. The last receiving area is the Belle Meade in the south part of the water/sewer district. We presently have a 40-acre site on Manatee Road that was contemplated for the southeast regional water treatment plant, and new mains would be extended down Tamiami Trail to serve the Belle Meade receiving area. We're also in the process now of doing a real estate search for a future southeast regional water reclamation facility. Based on our master planning efforts, we're not the sure that those are the best alternatives, but, you know, we will serve the Belle Meade area either with those new plants or with our existing plants and extending or expanding our transmission mains accordingly when Six L's Farm starts to develop in the next 10 to 20 years. So that concludes my presentation. Any questions for Utilities before I walk away? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. Are you providing service to the rural fringe areas by bringing the water and wastewater back into the main system, or are you using any of the new facilities on Oil Well? MR. FEY: Not on Oil Well, but the Immokalee Road Rural Village will be served by the new northeast utility facilities. The other receiving areas, northwest and North Belle Meade, you know, those would be served from our existing plants with -- in the case of the northwest, existing pipelines. In the case of North Belle Meade, we'd have to extend new pipelines from our existing facilities. And the Belle Meade area's a bit of a toss-up. You know, we have contemplated new facilities in the southeast part of our service area to serve that future development. That's not a certainty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Eric, are you confident that, from the standpoint of water and reclaimed water, that the infrastructure will be available, that it will not be an issue to serve these areas, these receiving areas? MR. FEY: It will not be an issue. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. On your North Belle Meade, you showed a possible route, and then you showed an alternative route which you preferred, which was an expanded Wilson Boulevard. Where is that -- it just showed an arrow. It ended at Immokalee Road. Where is it actually ending up? MR. FEY: Like I mentioned for the northwest receiving area, we've got large -diameter transmission mains, including a 36-inch water main and a 16-inch water main that were designed to serve all of the northeast service area in combination with the northeast utility facilities, so there's plenty of capacity in the northeast to provide service to North Belle Meade. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So you're hooking up to the northeast going up Wilson -- MR. FEY: At Immokalee Road, correct. If we go that route instead of going west, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. FEY: Thank you. Michele is just suggesting that I clarify the timing. You know, we're doing our master planning effort right now. It should be done next month, and when we provide the 2021 AUIR, that master plan will be an attachment, and we'll address timing of those improvements in the master plan. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Fey, you may not know, because it's not really directly in your area, but what about electrical service out there? MR. FEY: Yeah, I can't speak to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll ask Ms. Mosca. Thank you. Mr. Sawyer. MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. In front of you, you see the 2045 Long -Range Transportation Plan. Just as a refresher -- and you've heard this a number of times more recently -- but the MPO bases the future population growth on the median population estimate. That population is distributed around the county based on the county's interactive growth model. And we do understand that the world doesn't end in 2045. That's one of Trinity's lines. But that is how far out we work with our transportation plan. The model runs that are used, those are what are reviewed, and that is what we use to come up with our cost feasible plans which, again, is what you've got in front of you, and that is what is adopted by the MPO board and incorporated into the county's planning process. We can go over the specifics as far as potential roadway improvements that would be feeding into the North Belle Meade as well as the Belle Meade areas that we've been talking about. It is our -- it is Transportation Planning's position that any further addition of density should be thoroughly studied to determine the impacts to the transportation network and what additional facilities might be necessary as well as a proper mix use -- proper mix of uses that will support a maximum internal capture and shorter trip lengths. What that's basically trying to say is that we -- any additional density that we would be looking at in, again, the North Belle Meade as well as the Belle Meade area really needs to be looked at from a transportation standpoint, the infrastructure. If we properly plan it so that we have requirements that have implications where we have fewer trips out onto our road networks, in other words, we try and capture as much of those internal trips as we possibly can, the better we're going to be. COMMISSIONER FRY: By that you mean having sufficient commercial services in those areas so the people don't have to leave the area? MR. SAWYER: Absolutely, yes. I do have information as far as specific links that we could possibly talk to. I don't know how far you want to get into that. Mostly what we're talking about as far as servicing these two areas is going to be the extension of Wilson. And I can give you time frames if you really want those. They are within the 2045. We also have Benfield/Wilson, which would be serving further south into the Belle Meade area. And, again, I've got time frames on those. The other issue is certainly 41. And there are plans within the 2045 from FDOT to make improvements in a stretch that would be right in front of the Belle Meade area. But, certainly, we would want, if we're looking at additional densities, to certainly bring in -- FDOT into those discussions. Because right now their plans are just like ours. They're looking at the current densities that have been proposed previously. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is FDOT -- what do they have in mind in that section of 4 1 ? Expanding it? MR. SAWYER: It would be expanding from two lanes to four. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. SAWYER: Similar to what they've already done further north and west. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That was it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: That's all I've got. I believe Michele is next. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Sawyer. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask a quick question? Maybe it's for ourselves. I assume we have a fiscal -neutrality requirement on the receiving areas as well? CHAIRMAN FRYER: In the RFMUD materials, they're there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's the same, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would also tag onto that, if I may. There are provisions elsewhere in the Growth Management Plan calling for self-sufficiency, which points to the need to look at and to try to regulate the nature of the commercial uses being deployed within developments like these. What is your take on the importance of us considering self-sufficiency and the particular commercial uses in developments -- villages and other developments? MR. SAWYER: From a transportation standpoint, as many trips as we can contain within individual developments is a direction that we would want to go, because that means we don't have to make as many or as large of improvements into our existing facilities. We may be able to do additional lanes on existing segments on existing corridors instead of looking at new corridors, for instance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: I apologize. Michele also wanted me to point out that Benfield is not fully funded at this point, even in the 2045. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But this gets back to the same issue we have every time something comes up. So you're planning for growth, and you're building it into our capital budget. So the only way you can prove fiscal neutrality -- we've already paid for it and built it into our budget. So if our impact fees cover the costs, I guess that's the only way that it's fiscally neutral. It just gets very complicated, because we're doing all the planning right now for this growth, and now they're going to come in as individual developments, and we have to look at them as to whether they're fiscally neutral or not, but yet we've already put in the budget the highway system to support them. It's confusing to me as a commissioner as to how you get to fiscal neutrality when we're planning for that growth and the residents are paying that money now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Impact fees are certainly an important part of that, but so is property taxes, gas taxes, and other user fees. They never really quite add up, though. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, can you show us on that, I'll call it small and, on my monitor, blurry map, Benfield. Is it Benfield/Wilson? Is it a hyphenated name that's anticipated? MR. SAWYER: I believe that's current nomenclature that we're using, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Where that would actually -- MR. SAWYER: We're kind of just calling it Benfield currently. That would be this link through here. That is the portion that is projected as far as being funded, 2045. It would also extend further south basically along that line right there. COMMISSIONER FRY: To serve Belle Meade? MR. SAWYER: It is serving future growth, yes, at the estimates that we currently have, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for Mr. Sawyer? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Mosca, could I begin by asking you the same question I asked of Mr. Fey. Florida Power & Light, are they in the process of getting electricity out there, or is it already there? MS. MOSCA: Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that, but we could get you the answer, and we could send an e-mail. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: I don't know the status. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. That's a private undertaking. It's not part of the Public Utilities, but it's certainly very important in the totality of infrastructure that we would be providing to new occupants. MS. MOSCA: Sure. I'll find that out for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Sure. So the next area I'd like to talk about, and I'll have Liz Goslin from stormwater staff just come up and tell you about this exciting project that's just south of 1-75. Again, I've mentioned it earlier. It's the Belle Meade hydrologic enhancement overlay and that, again, has that TDR credit attached to it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. French? MR. FRENCH: Commissioners, good morning. Jamie French. I'm your deputy department head for Growth Management. Very quickly, on your electric utility, that service territory is defined and decided by the Florida Public Service Commission. The area's currently under Florida Power & Light, but you do have a privately owned utility that acts as a co-op. That's Lee County Electric Co-op. That area --and I just looked at the map from the Florida Public Service Commission. I believe the area's going to be served by LCEC on that one, but that is defined by the Florida Public Service Commission. It's not done on a local government level. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Recognizing that we don't have control over that, should we, nonetheless, be making our decisions about new growth based upon when these other entities can come forward with the resources that we need? MR. KLATZKOW: No. No. MR. FRENCH: Right. There's statutory language that defines that, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: We've got criteria. That's the criteria that the Planning Commission weighs. If the state elects not to provide electricity, which is what the southerner states, quite frankly, and how the state killed the southerner states, that's a state issue, not ours. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MS. GOSLIN: Good morning. For the record, Liz Goslin with Stormwater Management. So the comprehensive and watershed improvement plan is a very large project that proposes enhancements of hydraulic conditions to the natural areas immediately east of Naples between U.S. 41 and I-75. This project will be restoring natural flows to rehydrate approximately 9,000 acres in the Picayune Strand Forest area. Again, the project will provide an opportunity to balance freshwater flows to Naples Bay and Rookery Bay. Freshwater flows will be reduced in Naples Bay, which will provide additional water quality. The project will increase freshwater flows into Rookery Bay, which will help to rehydrate those habitats. So the overall project, in summary, it will withdraw water from the Golden Gate Main Canal and then discharge it into I-75 canal and then picking it up again from I-75 and making it flow south through the green area on the screen. Eventually, after some infiltration and evaporation losses, the remaining flow will keep flowing south through some residential communities and eventually reaching the Rookery Bay at the very south of the -- of the project -- of the project area. That's a very general summary of the project. If you have questions about this project, I can answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I'm confused. Technically, where's the water coming from, say, for the I-75 pump station? I didn't quite get where you're pulling water from, and then you're pumping it down the hydraulic area -- hydrologic area. MS. GOSLIN: On the little -- on the map you have a northern pump. Do you see it on the map? You have a northern pump station. So we will have a pump station there that will pump water from the Golden Gate Canal, and then we're going to dump it into I-75 and then picking it up again south of I-75, making it flow south. We'll have another pump station just south of I-75. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you're moving it from one canal over into the hydrologic -- MS. GOSLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that all within the -- is the yellow boundary on the outside of that, is that generally the Belle Meade area, or is -- is this just -- this is a part of the Belle Meade -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- receiving area. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Right here. MS. GOSLIN: Yes. I'm assuming, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the green area, is that now -- is it saw grass? Is it -- what is it? Is it Everglades? MS. GOSLIN: That's the Picayune Strand Forest. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. GOSLIN: And about 9,000 acres of that forest will be rehydrated with this project. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. It's exciting. Thank you. MS. GOSLIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But there will be homes in the areas, too, right? MS. GOSLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: There are homes in those areas. They're just at a very low density. MS. GOSLIN: Right. Yes, and that's why the project is asking to provide one TDR bonus for those affected property owners so they can have some balance. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. _ MS. GOSLIN: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Michele Mosca, again, for the record. So now we want to get into talking about some of the -- before we get into the public comment, talk about some of the outstanding issues that we've heard. We've talked to the development community. We've talked to sending lands owners. Some of the concerns that keep coming up as part of the rural fringe program. So, again, there's three outstanding issues, and staff believes it requires further evaluation and study. And this would also include the study of the TDR credit analysis as well, because there's that fine balance. So you always want more demand than you do the supply. So these include sending lands restoration and maintenance credit, the conveyance TDR credit, and a mechanism in which to connect the buyers and sellers. So those sellers of the sending lands, we're trying to compensate them for the loss of uses and intensity on their property. So when the base, early entry, and TDR credits are severed, the property is protected from development but doesn't result in the management of the property, such as maintaining the property free of exotics. The restoration and maintenance credit provides for a plan to restore these properties; however, at times it's expensive and not financially feasible for the one TDR credit per the five acres. So those landowners that have a five -acre piece. Additionally -- and this is a big one -- the long-term maintenance is at issue if the property is not conveyed to an entity to manage that property long term. So the North Belle Meade area, again, that area north of I-75, there's very limited entities accepting properties. So there have been suggestions to increase restoration TDRs, those are the restoration maintenance TDRs, from two to even three credits per five acres. But staff believes, again, this will require further study on the credit system and the discussion of long-term maintenance of these properties. The third issue is connecting the buyers and sellers of these TDRs. Currently, the county maintains a buyers and sellers list, and we roughly have maybe 4- to 500 TDRs available on that list now. We need to adjust that for changes in the last year or so. And the community has suggested a single entity be responsible for those transactions such as a Transfer of Development Rights bank, and many of you may have heard of that; however, the Board did not direct staff to pursue that as an option. So we believe that we need further study and discussion on that topic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Within that time frame -- and it's undoubtedly going to take some time -- there will be applications filed for development, and once they're filed, presumably, the developer would have a vested right in being able to proceed under the current rules rather than what might be more restrictive. Would you indicate what, if anything, you know about the future timeline and whether these studies could come forward before rights get vested in the more relaxed rules. MS. MOSCA: Well, what we've done by, you know, retaining the existing conditions for the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade, again, those are the areas we're going to see the greatest development possible. What we've done as part of these amendments is to suggest that we initiate a study within two years. So we're really looking at a comprehensive approach to planning these areas so we can address infrastructure, we can address the mix of uses, and that includes the capture rate that Michael talked about. So we want it to be sustainable. We want it to be, like -- I know you all don't maybe perhaps like the term "smart growth," but you want to offer multiple modes of transportation. We want to look at the possibility of increasing residential density, for example, what was proposed as part of these amendments, four to seven dwelling units per acre. And it may be, in fact, doable, but we would really rather include all the stakeholders in that process and plan it correctly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm one who likes the term "smart growth." Of course, I have my own definition of it, as we're all entitled to. And it seems to me that the restudy recommendation of four to seven would have been optimal. And I understand staffs response that we don't have the infrastructure yet to serve that kind of density. I just --I'm thinking out loud here. Maybe it's a legal question. Is there some way to lay down a zoning in progress so that -- so that if the rules are changed after someone files an application they would be subject to those new rules? MR. KLATZKOW: No. Unless you're expanding their development rights. It's like the conversation we had at the last meeting where Mr. Yovanovich is asking to be excluded from this but allowed to do that. If you want vested rights, you can have vested rights, and they're determined at the time of the application. But afterwards it's -- unless you're expanding developmental rights, no, it's -- you can't limit people. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it's a conundrum. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's an economic investment. I mean, I make an investment in a parcel of land based on the developmental rights. The government can't come in and then just, like, strip me of my benefit of that investment. That's what Bert Harris is all about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood completely. It's just a point of frustration for me, and I think the solution is for our already overburdened staff to work even harder to get this study completed so that we can put the new rules in place with respect to smart growth, and in this case density, in time to catch all the new developments that are going to come in. Just an expression of hope. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Michele, it's, I think, a good time to take this to a point of being less esoteric to being a real -life example. So let's say that I'm a -- first of all, I guess in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area there are eight main property owners that own a lot of that land. What is the makeup of the ownership of the sending lands in the RFMUD? Is it a small group of people, or is it a very large diverse group of people? MS. MOSCA: It's actually a very large group of people. A lot of the property owners have five acres, less than five acres, 10 acres, and then you have your trusts that have multiple five -acre parcels. So there's many, many, many more property owners in the sending lands. And I thought I had that number for you as an estimate, but I don't have it in front of me; whereas, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area has few. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're talking about a lot of individual decisions by property owners to participate in this program. So we started with an example of a 40-acre parcel that generated 32 TDR credits. So maybe a -- maybe a more realistic example is a five -acre parcel -- you said there are a lot of those -- that's owned by one person. So they have the opportunity to earn four TDR credits. So I want to just go through what this actually looks likes in real life. So I have a piece of land. I haven't built on it, but it's got preservation value, so we want to preserve it, and I'm willing not to build on it. So I do the -- I can earn a base credit. I can earn a credit for early entry currently. MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Or it will be two in the future -- MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- for base credits. Then I have to create a plan to restore it if I have nonnative vegetation on it and to maintain it, and then I get another credit for that. And then if I convey, which means -- I guess I want to know exactly what that means. I'm going to say, okay, Collier County or somebody else is going to take care of it into perpetuity. So I really have no more use of the land. Do I even own the land anymore? i% MS. MOSCA: If you convey it, no, you don't own it. COMMISSIONER FRY: You're actually giving up ownership of the land? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I've got these four credits. I have invested some money for a maintenance and restoration plan, I would assume, and I'm going to sell these for 15- to $18,000 each? Is that the -- is that the current -- MS. MOSCA: Whatever the market rate is, the first -- again, the base credit right now is 25,000, but part of these amendments, the proposal has been to eliminate that, and that's in the Land Development Code only. It does not appear in the Growth Management Plan. So there is that proposal currently to eliminate that base credit cost. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it becomes market rate? MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Market rate on that? MS. MOSCA: Yes. I do want to make one point of clarification. So, for example, if you have the restoration and maintenance credit that you want to achieve, let's say you're in the Belle Meade area south of I-75. The state is, in fact, purchasing or seeking properties. So the state already has a restoration and maintenance plan. So what I've been told is that the individual would not have to create that restoration and maintenance plan. That would go under the state plan, and they would convey that property to the state. So it really depends on the area. The biggest challenge, what I've been told, is the North Belle Meade area, those areas north of I-75, and the limitation on the number of entities accepting conveyance. So that was what I said in the last slide, some of those challenges with the program. So looking at the Belle Meade area, in the North Belle Meade area as a whole, how do we address those? And that's something we really need to target and process and get through and understand how we can help that five -acre -parcel owner get those benefits. That's what the program's about. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we had -- I've been here two -and -a -half years, I think, and we've had one RFMUD development come through where a developer had to go out and buy TDRs for -- and I can't remember the name of the development, but it was Immokalee. MS. MOSCA: Ventana? COMMISSIONER FRY: Ventana Pointe. And I remember in speaking with him that it was an arduous process to find and buy those credits. And that was, as I understood, the only time we actually had a different entity that was buying the credits and supplying the credits; that the other developments in the RFMUD had all been the same property owner, had the sending land and had the receiving land, and they just --so it was an easy transfer. Do we have evidence that this program has actually worked to date or is workable in its current form or even the modified form? MS. MOSCA: We do. I mean, I don't have the map in front of me -- and I can provide that to you all -- but there have been transfer of smaller properties to other areas along Immokalee Road. I'm trying to think of some of the names. Ray, maybe you can help me out. They're just escaping me. Do you recall? Bent Creek, right. So some of those properties in that area have utilized TDRs. So it -- I mean, to say -- I mean, it is working. A TDR program takes a long period of time. This is not something that happens overnight. COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe with Ventana Pointe we had to actually make some concessions in terms of density to make it work for the developer in that case. So as a property owner that had five acres, I'm really looking at more or less selling that property for whatever I can get for four TDR credits. Is that -- MS. MOSCA: You can do that, or you can retain the property and have the existing -- let's say you have an agricultural use on the property, so you can do that as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MOSCA: But the objective really is to compensate those sending lands owners. So the receiving lands owners are receiving that benefit of increased density. So I mean, really, we need to target those sending lands owners and connecting those buyers -- I mean, those sellers with the buyers in the receiving land, and that's another issue that I mentioned identified that we really need to kind of target as one of our objectives during that additional study. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're here today saying -- you're recommending that we approve these current amendments while saying that there are areas that need to be addressed with further study, correct? MS. MOSCA: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: And there is a base level of development, right? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Sothis is just like RLSA. If the program works, and we're trying to make it work, mazel tov. If the program doesn't work, you still have the base density for people to develop. In the RLSA you've got large property owners, so it's much more easier to accumulate the different rights than it is here where you have five -acre, five -acre, five -acre, five -acre. The worst that happens is the program fails, which is okay because you've still get the base density that hasn't been changed. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. But it's got to make economical sense for the property owner that has a five -acre parcel. MR. KLATZKOW: And it may not. It may not. I mean, we're going through condemnation proceedings along the VBR corridor and, you know, acreage is going in excess of $100,000 an acre. So if that starts getting there, you know, and these acreages start getting towards, like, a half a million dollars for five acres down the line, I don't know how you separate. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah, 100,000 in TDR credits is not going to -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's not going to happen. It's just a question of economics. But that's okay. I mean, we do have the base density. We're just trying to create a smart growth alternative for the area that may not work because of just the ownership pattern. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: So Anita placed the spaghetti map strap -- map -- that's a tough one to say. So here are all of the TDR severances that have entitled. So here are your severances here and here that have been entitled development, right. They're along Immokalee Road. So you can see that the program is working. People are severing their TDRs. So I just want to provide that additional information. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's a bit of a miscellaneous assortment of properties that are dispersed all over the place that are being -- their credits are being aggregated into these receiving lands. MS. MOSCA: True. Yeah. What I've noticed just from the short time that I've been working on this program is that there are a lot of land trusts out there that seem to be doing a lot of the transactions. Again, that's why I wanted to bring to the forefront that there is that need to address those property owners that have just the five acres. So they don't hold, you know, hundreds and hundreds of acres. So I just wanted to mention that as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, what is the general nature of these land trusts that you're referring to? Tell me how they come about and who owns them. MS. MOSCA: We have a database of all of the sending lands properties. We have a couple of land trusts that own, you know, five -acre parcels, 10-acre parcels, and so forth. And what they do is they either sever the TDRs themselves, or they sell the property, such in the case of Ventana. That was through a trust, and that trust owns many parcels throughout the sending lands in the North Belle Meade area, and that's how Ventana Pointe was able to acquire the TDRs to entitle their development. COMMISSIONER FRY: So these are business ventures where they are acquiring properties with the intention of severing rights and selling the TDRs? MS. MOSCA: Well, I think some of the trusts have owned the properties for a long period of time, so I can't say that is necessarily true. I just don't know. COMMISSIONER FRY: A combination of the value of the land plus severing TDRs when strategically profitable for them. MS. MOSCA: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: So what I'd like to address now are the stakeholder comments. And I know we have a couple members of the public that will likely want to discuss these as well. We had a two -week period after staff prepared these amendments, sent them out for review by the stakeholders, and they provided us some comments. Some of these comments include increasing -- and I mentioned this earlier, increasing TDRs for restoration and maintenance. And, again, the concern from staff would be, sure, we could increase those TDRs, two TDRs, three TDRs, four TDRs per five acres. The property owner's required to move -- let's say, remove the exotics, okay. So they achieve that level, and then what happens a year from now? Two years from now? Sometimes those exotics -- I mean, they have a restoration maintenance plan. They have to come in and, you know, address the removal and so forth. But from a staff perspective, we're really looking at the long-term maintenance, and if we just throw out three TDRs for restoration, we really need to make sure we have the correct balance in the TDR system. Another one is to increase density outside of rural villages from one unit to two units per acre. So where we have the infrastructure is in the north part of the county. So in the north receiving area and the northwest receiving area, we have the infrastructure. So we have suggested going ahead and allowing the two dwelling units per acre outside of those rural villages. And there's not a lot of development that can occur in here. So from a staff perspective, transportation, utilities, and so forth, it's something that is, in fact, doable. But then we look down here in the Belle Meade area, in the North Belle Meade, we don't have the infrastructure; we just don't. Soto increase to two dwelling units per acre, that potentially could impact the infrastructure. And we don't want to put that on the books until we fully study those two areas. Then another was expand affordable housing opportunities to neutral lands. We all like affordable housing, but the intent was never to increase residential density within the neutral lands. So we are proposing an increase in the receiving lands where we feel it's appropriate. So I'll leave it at that. And then provide TDR incentives for public benefit. Certainly, that's something that we can think about, but we do need to address the overall TDR system and make sure we have a balance, and that's supply and demand. And then we had another individual that wanted to expand industrial uses along the East Trail. So right now we have this area right here. It's rural industrial, and it's outside of the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. And, sure, you know, we're looking at opportunities to increase employment. I spoke with the gentleman that owns property here. I'm not sure exactly what he'd like to do with the property. He did mention outside storage. Now, we've recently gone through -- and I don't know if you -all are familiar with the East Naples Community Development Plan. They're opposed to any new outdoor storage. So we have concerns about expanding this. It might be necessary for the individual to come in with a Comprehensive Plan change so they can identify the types of uses or if, in fact, an expansion in this location of industrial uses is appropriate. We just don't know that at this point. Is there a demand for industrial uses? Probably. But is this the location for that? Okay. And then we also have -- one of the other ones was eliminate TDR usage for increased densities with the Growth Management Plan amendments. So you'll see that in the resolution itself. So in order to create a market for additional TDRs, there's a recommendation to require TDR usage if, in fact, a developer comes in and says, I want to increase residential density. So we could keep that, and we could make exceptions to the rule as projects come in. I mean, that can be done a number of ways. Finally, let's talk about some of the recommendations. So staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward these amendments to the Board with a recommendation to transmit to the state as provided in the resolution, Exhibit A, adding the Belle Meade hydrologic enhancement map and text to initiate the Belle Meade study within the two-year period, and that's identified on Page 8 of the staff report. And I know, Mr. Chairman, we had some additional discussions. I wasn't sure how -- we're supportive of those recommendations. I wasn't sure if you wanted to go through the resolution itself, or do you want to make those recommendations now, or would you like staff to bring them up? I don't want to put you on the spot. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you. I was prepared to bring them up when we ask our questions, but if staff would prefer to address them proactively, that would be fine with me as well. MS. MOSCA: Okay. I can do that. So we met with Commissioner Fryer. He had an exception to the usage of TDRs for Growth Management Plan amendments to increase residential density. He asked about affordable housing. So within the urban area currently we have the density bonus provision that would allow for increased affordable housing opportunities. So we can make that exception to affordable housing. So if, in effect, a developer wanted to come in and increase that above 12, we would make that exception. And then on Page 22 -- I'm sorry. This is on the resolution. I'm going back and forth. So with the greenbelt, as part of these amendments, there was a recommendation from the public, I believe, to eliminate the greenbelt. What staff did, because we believe that it's necessary to provide that transition, that we would add an averaging, which is -- and we can get to the resolution, which we would ask to put 100 feet in there, and then there was some additional language -- Commissioner Fryer, if you can help me out, there was some language in that same paragraph that was incorrectly struck through, so we need to add that back in. And, again, if you -all want to go to your resolution, or we can go to that afterwards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. When I have my comments, we'll cover it. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Sure. So in addition to the proposed Growth Management Plan amendments, staff will also be preparing Land Development Code amendments following the adoption hearings to implement the Growth Management Plan amendments and to improve program processes and procedures. After that, here are our next steps. So these transmittal amendments will be going to the Board in September. They'll be transmitted to the state, and typically that's a 30-day review period. Then you'll get a second look at these amendments. And we're hoping to get those to you by the end of the year, and then the Board of County Commissioner adoption hearings likely at the beginning of next year, and then we'll see a compliance finding, hopefully, by the state. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why so long to go to the county commissioners; four months? MS. MOSCA: Well, we talked about -- there's, obviously, the month off in August. We do have a backlog of planning petitions. So if we can get to them sooner -- there's only one meeting in July and there's no meeting in August. And so we're kind of trying to address the petitions that are in the pipeline now. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: So with that, that completes or concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Who has questions? Comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'll go through mine. Overall, I'm quite pleased with this work. I think it's a significantly -- significant improvement over what we have now, and I commend staff for your work. My first question is on Page 3 -- I'm going to use the numbering of the staff report, because my other numbering, I've got Packet Page 2482, but that's a previous packet, because the current packet only goes up to 2208. So on Page 3 -- MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Is this Page 3 of the staff report or the resolution? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. And it's Roman IIB, captioned Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. And this is just a point of clarification. It was answered to my satisfaction on Tuesday, but I wanted to raise it so that we make a public record of it, the reason why the 93,000 acres was reduced to 77- and some change. And if you could just give us a short reply to that, Ms. Mosca, along the lines of what you told me, that would suffice. MS. MOSCA: Happy to. So the original study area was over -- what was it, over 90,000-some-odd acres. There were some areas around, for example, Corkscrew that are not included in the actual district. So it's just the difference of the original study area versus the actual Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District acreage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Were there some state lands that were -- MS. MOSCA: There are some state lands within there as well, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But that's what accounts for the difference in the acreage. MS. MOSCA: Yes. And, you know, Commissioner Fryer, I'm sorry. My numbering is different, so I'm going to sort of struggle through this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, I apologize. MS. MOSCA: Nope. That's okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then my next one is on, I guess it's Page 4, the very next page of the staff report where the language currently says, any Comprehensive Plan amendment to increase residential density within any of the subdistricts in this district shall only provide for that density increase via utilization of the Transfer of Development Rights program. And I think it's your intent to also include the opportunity to increase density through affordable housing. And I just wanted to be sure that we made that clarifying point. And it could be made in a variety of language changes, very simple things, which I'd be happy to suggest one. That's the intent of staff, correct? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That affordability also be among the roster of things that would lead to increased density. And away of --perhaps the easiest way of accomplishing this is just putting the phrase, except as otherwise provided elsewhere, comma, or elsewhere herein. MS. MOSCA: I just have a clarification. So when you say "except as otherwise provided herein," so there's already the exception for up to 12. Were you proposing -- maybe I misunderstood yesterday -- or Tuesday. Were you proposing to increase affordable housing beyond 12 without the utilization of TDRs? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. I'm trying to cure what I see as a conflict in the language. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it could also be addressed -- excuse me. I'm losing my voice. It could also be addressed by adding the expression at the end, "via utilization of the Transfer of Development Rights program or through affordable housing." Maybe that's an easier way; fewer words. MS. MOSCA: I understand your objective. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anybody have an objection to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Hearing none. All right. Then -- and it should be pointed out -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would like to see exactly where that's inserted -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- and what the insertion is going to be. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: Is it -- Commissioner Fryer, is it easier to go to the resolution, maybe, where we had the strikethrough and underline? Would that be easier to follow? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, yeah. Let's do it that way. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Where is that in our agenda packet? MS. MOSCA: It should be under the resolution in Exhibit A. Does anyone have the full agenda packet that could provide a number? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Conceptually, Commissioner, it says that -- right now in this discrete section it says, the only way that you can get additional density is through transfer of TDRs, and I want to add "and affordable housing," because the plan provides for that in other provisions, but it is contradictory when it says "the only way." MS. MOSCA: Well, I actually liked your verbiage where you said, except as otherwise provided herein. I think that's clear and succinct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine, too. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. That makes sense "except as provided," because then it -- whatever it is that we put in there, we're not limiting that, so that makes sense. MS. MOSCA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's fine. I mean, I don't need to see more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. It's 10:28. Let's take a 10-minute -- let's take a 12-minute break to 20 minutes of 11:00, and maybe we can find that citation at that point. Thank you. We're in recess. (A brief recess was had from 10:28 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's reconvene, please. And where we were is I was asking questions and so, by your leave, I'll continue doing that. There is a reference -- and this is on Page 22 of the staff material. And it has to do with the deletion of the greenbelt. I, for one, would prefer to see that language remain in there, but I don't know how others feel. MS. MOSCA: Well, what staff has done -- and we've worked with environmental staff, and we think it's reasonable that the greenbelt not be less than 200 feet, averaging 100 feet in width, and then the struck -through language on Page 22 to add that back in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does anyone object to that? COMMISSIONER FRY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Which one are we at; the open space environmental protection? I V CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is E1 on Page 22. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then I go back. I'm backtracking a little bit. Also at the top of Page 22 in little Arabic B it says, goods and services required, minimum of 53-square-feet gross building area per dwelling unit. I mean, I think quantitatively, that's good. I mentioned self-sufficiency a little while ago. And I'm not sure whether this commission or staff or the BCC would have any appetite for expanding this substantively, but I wanted to raise the point anyway and see what people thought. When we require commercial uses, right now we don't require specific commercial uses or we don't say commercial uses in order to enable the village or town or whatever to be reasonably self-sufficient. And knowing the problems we have on our roads, the concept of self-sufficiency, I think, is important and I, for one, would like to see a reference to some language in Sub B or elsewhere that would require a developer to give some thought -- and I know I've got to be careful because it could be a slippery slope. And I'm not saying that every development should have its own Publix or whatever, but I just think the concept of self-sufficiency is already embedded in other places in this -- in the Growth Management Plan. And I'd like to see some words dedicated to it in this. What do other commissioners think? COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess my question is, the term "self-sufficiency" means different things to different people. So can we give it -- how do we give it some teeth? You're looking for what exactly? CHAIRMAN FRYER: My objective is to get more cars off the street so that people can satisfy their basic commercial needs to a greater degree, not completely, but to a greater degree, within their community. And I don't have exact language to offer, and I recognize the slippery slopes and the ambiguity, but I just thought I would speak out for the concept, maybe not here, maybe not now. But in so many cases, our roads, we are constrained. We can't -- you know, it's impossible -- it would be impossible to widen roads. Eminent domain would be ridiculously expensive. We couldn't do it. So we have to find other ways to get people off the road. And that's where I'm coming from. Yes, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, what I was going to say, if it's a recommendation of this commission, what we could do, as part of the Land Development Code amendments, define that term, and you'll see that again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that would be -- that would be quite satisfactory to me. What do others think? Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: I think your idea is excellent about having more commercial and more business options available so that people don't -- we reduce vehicle miles traveled. I think the use of the term "self-sufficiency" is potentially dangerous. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's already in the Growth Management Plan elsewhere, but I'm not embracing it. MR. EASTMAN: It seems like a tab to pull on for this, like economically viable for people objecting to the development or whatever. And it maybe --it maybe better to just allow greater options for commercial and business uses and go that path because, ultimately, your goal is an excellent goal, to reduce the vehicle miles traveled, and when these new developments happen people can get goods and services closer to them is really what you're saying, in essence. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a consensus that we ask staff to consider putting this in the LDC? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, when Mike Sawyer was up there, he expressed for Belle Meade and North Belle Meade especially that internal capture be maximized for exactly that purpose, because we didn't necessarily have the road infrastructure available. He didn't seem as concerned for the north receiving area and the northwest receiving area. But would the term internal -- "maxing internal capture" or something like that be kind of a little more succinct? He's talking about -- and I guess self-sufficiency, to me, seems to be a rather general term. But I'd like it also to be something that we can really work with in the future and have some teeth. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Two communities. You have a community. It's the same thing. One -- in the first situation, it's all populated by retired folk. It's easier to keep them there if you provide essential goods and service near by. If that same community is with working people, they've got to commute to work. So here you are planning the same community not knowing who's actually going to buy a house in there, and you will have two completely opposite results depending upon who moves in there. So I really don't know how a plan for 2045 we can figure out how we're going to put in any factor that will affect the commutability of this thing, impact on roads, or anything else. Those are going to have to be measured at the time we get development orders. And, again, it's going to depend upon who's living there, modes of transportation, 2045. I mean, I get 90 percent of my stuff off of Amazon now. I can't remember the last time I went out to a department store. That's changed. It's -- I would caution to put -- be very careful about defining these things at this point in time from a planning perspective. We just don't know what the world's going to be like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I take your point. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: More deliveries. More warehousing. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're talking about essential services. You can't plan for whether people will be commuting to work or not, because that depends on who buys. But all people do share certain basic needs for groceries and basic services, which would be a little bit more of a finite list that you might work with. I don't know the answer, but I'm just thinking out loud. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would it be acceptable to the Planning Commission if we asked staff to think about this and see if there might be language that would accomplish the objective sought without creating unintended consequences? And it may well be that there is no such language. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You can't force commercial, though. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's market driven. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's market driven. That's it. If nobody's going to support it, it's not going to be there. MR. EASTMAN: But if it were just an option. Greater choices available. MS. MOSCA: Well, staff can look at that. We'll work with Transportation staff, and we can come back to you with something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I went into this knowing that there were potential pitfalls, so I -- but I wanted to mention it and see what others thought and see whether we couldn't -- MR. KLATZKOW: The key focus is to figure out how many people we want here, right? We're at that early enough stage of development. So how many people do we want populated here, all right, understanding that you've got a base density? And once you figure out how many people are going to be here, we start planning for the infrastructure: The water, the roads, everything else. That's where we are right now. And the focus should be is how many people do we want here, all right, and then we can plan everything else around that. Tom can plan the schools, you know. Eric can plan his water and sewer facilities. So how many people do we want out here? And where we run into problems is that -- and I've seen it in the RLSA -- we keep increasing and increasing the density there, and you can't plan when you do that. It just falls apart because you can only put in so many roads, you can only put in so much infrastructure to begin with, and you come up with plan. How many people do you want? And then stick with it. The commercial will come. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Point taken. Thank you. Anything further, ma'am? MS. MOSCA: No, sir. 'WiL -**h16, CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything -- any further questions from staff? I really do believe that this is an excellent piece of work that you've brought forward, and thank you for that. If staff has presented all it wants to in its initial presentation, it would be time for us to hear from the public, I believe. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have any members of the public who wish to be heard? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers from the public. The first one is Bob Mulhere followed by David Torres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. And Mr. Mulhere has requested additional time, and I have granted it because he's representing several owners. Go ahead, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Don't start the clock yet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a brief presentation. Michele has answered some of the questions, so I won't spend a lot of time on those where I've gotten some answers. I just wanted to say at the outset that, I don't know, I think it was in 2012 or 20131 and Bruce Anderson -- some of you know Bruce -- we worked together on behalf of a Rural Fringe Coalition, that was a group of landowners, to prepare a white paper. Not the white paper Michele referred to, but a white paper on behalf of those landowners. We made a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. They accepted the white paper. Didn't really address any of the 24 recommendations we made. They supported some verbally but said, look, we accept this, and we think we should do a restudy. That restudy on the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District morphed into four restudies, and here we are at the end of the line -- even though we started the process -- seven years later now finally looking at the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. So I thought I'd give you a little bit of history. When we talk about doing a study in two years, add 10 to it, unless it's very specific. So let me just say, I represent a number of landowners out there. Some of these I'll tell you who I'm specifically representing, because they really apply. For example, Lipman Family Farms; Jamie Weisinger is in attendance. And in other cases, I do want to disclose that there actually is -- the county has hired Tindale Oliver to do an assessment of alignment and land uses and other planning issues in the North Belle Meade. So where Wilson Boulevard will come down, it had been planned to come straight down. Perhaps it may go further west at an earlier point to serve that area. And I am a sub -consultant to Tindale Oliver. So I won't speak to any of those issues because, obviously, I'm working on behalf of Tindale Oliver who's working on behalf of the county, but I did want to disclose that. So the first recommendation that concerns me is this limitation on private -property rights here, which is this policy that says any comprehensive plan amendment to increase residential density within the subdistricts in this district shall only provide for that density increase through the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights. I think that that is -- that can be decided as a particular GMP amendment is submitted. If there is a proposal to not use TDRs, you can make a decision -- a recommendation, and the Board can make a decision not to support that; however, if we look at one that you've looked at for transmittal recently, which was the Immokalee Road Rural Village, the environmental -- the nongovernmental environmental groups have supported a bonus for restoring the farm fields, the 80 or 90 acres of farm fields, which you agreed with and which the Board agreed with, at least at transmittal. So there are going to be examples where there are public benefits, significant public benefits, that may warrant some density increase that may not be exactly tied to a TDR. So I think this is an overreach in my opinion. And you can look at it on a case -by -case basis. This is another, I think, potentially problematic recommendation which is the requirement that -- well, I mean, it depends on whether or not there's support to really look at in a relatively short period of time or to commence a restudy or a further study -- excuse me. I don't want to overuse that term "restudy" -- in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas. So to suggest that you start that study maybe in two years means we're talking five to seven years. I can tell you that Lipman Family Farms is interested in moving forward on an expeditious path. Now, sure, they may continue to farm for some period of time, but they also may elect to convert some of their land to another use that's allowed for under the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. They are willing to participate if the county is interested in sharing the cost for that assessment. You heard Eric Fey say the county will provide water and sewer. They have to plan for it. That's what we do. That's what the county always does. They look at where -- as Jeff said, they look at where the population's going to go, and then they plan for that. And there is always an opportunity for a public/private partnership in that -- at least in my opinion, in that process. Whether it's fronting some of the costs for the infrastructure improvements, whether it's providing for stormwater management within the system for roadway widening, but you see that all the time, so there is that opportunity. So if that's going to happen expeditiously, we would more than willing -- I'm speaking now on behalf of Lipman Family Farms -- to participate in that process either financially -- certainly we'll participate, but even financially, because there will be some costs for that assessment. COMMISSIONER FRY: What are you asking for specifically, Bob? MR. MULHERE: I'm just asking for a very certain time frame to commence that, and I think two years is too long. I think commence it within 12 months, and let's get moving on it, because what was two years before has turned in -- to be seven or eight or nine years now. COMMISSIONER FRY: And you're addressing that to North Belle Meade? MR. MULHERE: I'm addressing that to the Belle Meade and the North Belle Meade. They've already started a study in the North Belle Meade. As I said, Tindale Oliver's been engaged to do that study. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The language that you quoted is the same language that I had -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- raised with respect to affordable housing and -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and we added a proviso for that. What if -- and this may not work legally, and so, obviously, I want to know what the County Attorney says as well as other commissioners, but what about adding language that would say, except as otherwise provided herein or in furtherance of public benefit or something like that? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what I suggested. And I have a slide that talks to that. There are -- I'll show it to you in just a minute. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, staffs recommendation not to increase the non -village density from one to two except along Immokalee Road, I see no reason why you couldn't increase it to two. You must demonstrate that there's adequate infrastructure. We have a process for that. That's what we go through. That's either a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a rezone. If there isn't adequate infrastructure, you can't go forward. You can entitle your land. You simply can't go forward. It's called concurrency. So, I mean, I do understand the recommendation that we don't have enough information and we should do a restudy but, again, that goes back to my suggestion that that be in a time -certain and it be done pretty quickly, not extend it out over a long period of time. It will take a couple years to do that analysis, which I understand, but let's start it sooner than two years. This is, I think -- this recommendation, I think, has a lot of potential unintended consequences. So the idea that anything that's 300 acres or greater must be a rural village means that anything that's 300 acres or greater will have to have commercial uses, and I understand the basis for that. But you could have -- you could have a commercial -- a neighborhood commercial development that was always intended to serve the surrounding lands as well. If you look at the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District and you see the locations of those receiving lands, they are surrounded by -- on the east by Golden Gate Estates, and those were always intended to serve those communities as well. So there's not going to be a market for the requirement of neighborhood commercial in every single development in the RFMUD that's 300 -- that's 300 acres or greater. It makes no sense. You could certainly require it for a higher number, maybe 1,000 acres. Right now there's no requirement. It's a voluntary program. But if you want to require a project of a certain size be required to provide commercial, 300 acres is too small. So you're not going to get what you want. And if you did get it, it likely would not succeed in the marketplace, which was already mentioned by some of you. You know, there has to be demand for that use; otherwise, you're asking somebody to build something that's not going to succeed, and then you're forcing them to come in and develop a whole bunch of 299-acre non -village developments as opposed to maybe a larger development that could be served by some commercial that's in that area. So 300 acres is way too small in my opinion. I could support looking at providing commercial services for projects that exceed 300 acres, but requiring it doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe that becomes an item that you can consider on a project that's 300 acres or greater. So just looking at this map here, I think as Michele said, you know, the northernmost receiving lands, assuming that the Immokalee Road Rural Village goes through and that's, you know, still in the works, it's still being reviewed, it will have to come back for adoption and rezone, that whole receiving area will be spoken for. And the next one, which is -- let's see. I can't find the -- well, right here, that one has been developed through the use of TDRs, and it's been developed in other than a village. There's really no room left to develop that, so you won't get one there. You will get one here potentially in the North Belle Meade. But, again, I agree, there has to be further assessment because right -- and that's going on right now, again. The initial part is going on with the county's engaging Tindale Oliver to look at corridors and land use in that area. So down here, again, if we're going to look at that, it's a very large area, thousands of acres. And if you require a minimum of 300 acres to have commercial uses, you're probably going to have a whole bunch of projects in here that will be -- that will not be sustainable in the marketplace at that 300-acre level. Better to plan it more holistically. You're still going to reduce the vehicle miles traveled and external trips, but you can't be completely self-sufficient. As Jeff said, people have to work. Maybe not everybody, but a lot of people have to work. And they're going to leave the development for various reasons, unless you can import the beach and all the employment into one location. Let's talk about this ag preservation TDR bonus. I think that requires a lot more assessment. One TDR per five acres. Would you give up perpetually all of your future development rights for $20,000 on five acres? No one's going to use this. It's not sufficient. If you want someone to agree to do an ag easement and limit the use of land, you either need to consider, which is done in some places, a time frame -- it's not perpetual; 20 years -- or there has to be more than one TDR per five acres. You might as well not -- it's not going to happen. There's not enough value in 20- or- 22- or 25,000 on a five -acre ag parcel. In sending, because of the environmental value, you're giving up to four TDRs. So, you know, ag has a lot more economic generation of value to the landowner. So there's not enough incentive there. It's not going to happen. It needs more study. Come up with something that works. MR. KLATZKOW: What you're saying is it needs more density. MR. MULHERE: Or some other value, yes, yes. I mean, it's -- if we want to preserve ag, it's a worthwhile policy objective, but if it's not going to work, then we're going to be back here in five years saying, how come this didn't work? Let's do a little more time to analyze that. Sothis slide here --unfortunately, I haven't done a good job. I did this last night at 4:00. But the ag -- the rural industrial area that Michele references right here and, technically, that's not part of the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District, because it's designated industrial. And as Michele said, she's got language to encourage locating targeted industries in the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. But I'm here to tell you there are a ton of small businesses that can't find place to locate their business that aren't qualified uses under the state statute definition: Subcontractors, contractors landscape companies. All of these people, they call my office all the time. This is anecdotal, I realize, but for the last 20 or 30 years, we've been talking about expanding industrial -zoned land in this county, and it hasn't happened. So the proposal here was to allow in the Comp Plan a policy that would allow for expansion of this rural industrial area to adjacent lands. Michele's concern is a valid one. It has to be compatible with the other adjacent lands if you're going to expand it. My point is, why not put a policy in that allows for that? You're still going to have to -- and require a PUD zone or a rezone to industrial. You're still going to have the opportunity to look at that as part of the rezone. You're going to be able to determine whether or not that rezone has appropriate uses and has other elements that will make that expansion of the industrial area through a PUD or straight industrial zoning compatible with surrounding lands. The property owner still has to go through a rezone. It still requires a supermajority vote at the Board of County Commissioners. It just doesn't take as long as a full-blown Comprehensive Plan amendment to do that. And right now you're probably talking about 12 to 15 months to get a rezone. If you're doing a Comp Plan, it's probably two years. So I don't know why we wouldn't allow that when you have the ability to look at that on a site -specific basis. And this is the only place where you have that rural industrial in the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. This is the only location. The client that I represent, Keith Basic, owns this TTRBC zoning right here and would like to expand that. Now, sure, he can submit his own Comprehensive Plan amendment, but I don't know why -- it doesn't make sense to allow that by policy in the Comprehensive Plan and then look at the details of compatibility of uses. That's what you do during the rezone process. So some general considerations or concerns that I have -- and I think the staff did a very good job. It's comprehensive. You know, there are things that are difficult. That's why they haven't been addressed. There are some issues that are very difficult to get your arms around. For example, the balance of sending credits and receiving. Look, if in the marketplace a developer, if you want to use that term, wants to develop land in the rural fringe but he can't make it work because he has to acquire these TDRs and the cost of that just doesn't make sense at one unit per acre outside of a village -- we know that's the case -- and you increase the density, then you also need to increase the amount of credits, of sending credits. You have to remember that a principal objective of the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District was to make the sending landowners whole to compensate them for the loss of value. I don't know -- it wasn't said, but sending landowners had their density reduced from one per five to one per 40 as part of this process. They lost significant value, except that if you owned a parcel that was less than -- or five acres or -- it was less than 40 acres, you could still develop, you know, one unit per acre even if you had two acres or five acres. But the density was reduced to one per 40. And to compensate in a legally supportable fashion, the county adopted the TDR program. So if there's no demand for these TDRs, then you are not compensating those sending landowners. They've lost value, and they haven't been compensated. So really the -- MR. KLATZKOW: How have they lost value if they retained the base development rights? MR. MULHERE: They don't retain the base. They went from one per five to one per 40, Jeff. They lost value. That's why the TDR program was adopted. So there was a loss of value. That's why it was adopted. So it has to be -- it has to work. And it's a difficult -- it is a difficult thing to consider; whereas, in the RLSA you're 100 percent correct; it's purely voluntarily. This was labeled as a voluntary, too. Well, it wasn't voluntary to reduce the density on sending lands. It was mandated. And I was involved and part of the process to write those. So I can tell you, it was a reduction in density and uses; a lot of uses were taken away as well. And it's appropriate because that's highly valuable environmentally sensitive land. You saw the map. Those are protected. But if it doesn't work -- if there's not interest in the receiving lands to acquire those TDRs, then they will not -- they will not be compensated. So I think there's a little bit more in terms of understanding how many TDRs will be necessary. The staff evaluation of how many will be necessary assumed that only 60 percent of, for example, the Belle Meade -- which is not only the Lipman family, but there are other significant landholders in the Belle Meade. I disagree with that. Over the long period of time, it will be 100 percent -- a desire to use 100 percent, whether that's to entitle 100 percent of that land. That's going to require a lot more TDRs than are available. So I think that there needs to be a little bit more study in the amount of TDRs. You know, keep in mind, we keep saying that you can get four TDRs, but right now it's very difficult to get four. That fourth TDR, that conveyance credit, is very difficult to get. Now, there are some locations where the state is willing to acquire the land, and there's some locations where the county even has acquired the land but, for the most part, it's difficult, especially on the smaller parcels. Nobody's interested in buying five acres isolated here or even having it gifted, because they have, then, the ongoing maintenance costs. So that -- I don't think you can -- when you do an assessment, you can't count, you know, that fourth TDR as something that's even achievable. So I do think -- you know, and I'm happy to get with staff between now and the next meeting or even between now and adoption. I don't know if you'll approve these today. If you do, then I'll be happy to get with them before the BCC meeting. Let's see. I'm closing up now. I appreciate the extra time. Mr. Chairman, you asked about the public benefits. I said here in the second bullet, why not include TDR incentives for significant public benefits? I say, regardless of the designation, really, it mainly applies to the receiving lands. Some examples include providing easements or fee simple title to land that can be used for public benefits such as flowways. There's long been a desire to have some flowway improvements in that Belle Meade to let that water that traditionally runs north to south go under Tamiami Trail, and that could have habitat value as well, depending on the width of it. So that's one. Restoring disturbed lands. We talked about the farm fields in the Immokalee Road Rural Village as an example. You have that situation. Maybe -- when the Belle Meade develops, maybe there's an opportunity to create some sending lands, to create some lands that -- it's a very large -- it's 10 or 12 sections of land, maybe more. Providing public trails, pathways. There's enumerable possibilities. So I think there should be a policy added and quantified that talks about providing TDRs for public benefits and enumerates what that is. And maybe you do that through the LDC, but you just have a policy that says, you know, you're going to provide TDR incentives for public benefits. COMMISSIONER FRY: Additional credits, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes, yeah. I've suggested increasing that environmental restoration bonus. I just want to make sure you're aware, if I own five acres or 10 acres or 15 or 20, I come in, first of all, I've got to pay for the application to have the TDRs severed, reviewed, and there is a legal review. There's a staff review. You've got to pay for that. And then I have to pay to have that land, you know, restored, and then there's a maintenance cost to that. So I'm a small landowner. I've got to spend some money. How much? I don't know. Minimally 20,000; probably quite a bit more. Now, what am I getting back? Let's say it's a five -acre parcel. It costs me maybe $20,000 to do the environmental restoration, and I can generate probably only three credits. So let's say -- let's just give 20,000 a credit. That's 60,000. It cost me 20,000, minimally. So now I have a return of 40,000. There isn't -- people are not seeing a perceived value there. They'd rather hold onto their five acres and maybe build something or sell it for more value other than the 40,000 net gain that I might get through this TDR process. So we have to look at increasing the number of credits, because even though the value may come down -- if you increase the number of credits, the value per credit may come down, but if I can get more, what I get as a return will be higher. That concludes my presentation. I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for a little bit extra time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And you might stay up here while we decide how we're going to deal with this. You raised a half a dozen points or so. My first question is, have you discussed these with staff? Has this been fully -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. I actually sent a letter. Everything I raised here, I believe -- Michele will correct me if I'm wrong -- but I think everything that I raised here, other than suggesting to you -- because we just discussed it. I just discussed it with Jamie Weisinger from Lipman Farm -- the willingness to participate in this process now and to have a certain time frame within which that study should commence, and participation -- and we can figure that out. Whether it's helping to offset the cost of that assessment -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- that was new. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to ask a member of staff to come up as we attempt to decide how we're going to proceed with this. One thing we could do is -- Mr. Mulhere's raised about six points. We could hear from staff on each of those or if -- COMMISSIONER FRY: What about the other public speaker? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I know. I know. But just dealing with these points for now. Also, another way that we could approach this is if we don't believe that it's been fully thought out and talked through, if there could be progress made by having staff sit down with Mr. Mulhere and his clients and bring something back to us that would reduce the number of these objections or concerns, that's a possibility, too. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ned, I just have a question. There's only one other public speaker registered, I believe. And I'm wondering if we let him speak and then we kind of have all the public comment. Maybe he had something that we want to bring staff in, and we could do it all at once after this one other person speaks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm fine with that, yeah. Okay. We'll do that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I have a question. I mean, just before you move on, but that's fine. I don't want to interrupt what you're discussing now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do we just have one more public speaker? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our final speaker on this item is David Torres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. So I just have areal basic question, and I don't think, you know, our last speaker mentioned this. But I'm trying to figure out, so I thought this was kind of a long process, and we're near the end of it, and I'm just trying to figure out why -- why is this coming up now as, like, an addenda that we're patching onto something? And, fine, maybe it has been something that was raised all along and, you know, the staff has just, you know, chosen to not include it in their recommendation. But I would like to know -- you know, to have staff answer that question as well as the last speaker. You know, I don't understand why we're patching something onto something that seems like it was already in a form that had been vetted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's exactly why I wanted to get staff up here and find out to what extent, if any, these issues have been fully argued and it's coming to us now in a point of clarity where we can see the differences and make decisions or whether we need to send it back for some more discussion, but we haven't heard from staff yet. MR. MULHERE: So, Mr. Klucik, it's Bob Mulhere. I was the previous speaker. I'll give you my perspective, and then staff can give you theirs. You know, we received the draft -- the proposed draft amendments, I don't know, several months ago, two months ago. There was about a two -week period to reply, and I think Michele mentioned that. There were a bunch of public meetings -- when you say it was a long time, yeah, there was four or five years of -- you may recall Kris Van Lengen who was with the county doing public meetings and having studies. But we did not receive these draft amendments until about two months ago. I replied on behalf of several clients in writing to Michele, which was requested within that two -week period. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Just let me, like, ask a real basic question. So are you saying that what you're presenting today is really -- you wouldn't have had a reason to present it previously; it really is -- it's responsive to the draft? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's correct. And I did have a couple a -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Full disclosure, I did have a couple of conversations with staff, telephone conversations, maybe a couple of chitchats in the hallway. I mean, there wasn't any real discussion or change or opportunity to further discuss. There was basically "thanks for your input." So, obviously, I have an obligation on behalf of my clients to raise these issues at this public forum. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Did your client participate in the process and, you know, did they go to all those meetings? MR. MULHERE: Oh, yes. We were the ones that started the process seven years ago with the white paper that we presented to the Board of County Commissioners with 24 recommendations. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But are you saying that what we have in front of us today as the recommendation, you know, was novel, and so you wouldn't have known that this was going to be in there and these weren't issues that had been discussed? Because what's not fair to us, in my view, to me, as a commissioner, is to have a process come forward -- and we did it last -- at our last meeting, and I don't like the idea that that's a regular thing, because then it -- then we're passing something on, and it just doesn't seem like the process is supposed to work that way, and that's all. And it doesn't allow us to make, you know, a prudent and measured analysis. You know, we're voting on the fly on something that you're bringing before us. I mean, I realize, you know, you put stuff in, and, you know, you submitted it -- MR. MULHERE: Well -- I'm sorry, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. And that's --it's just frustrating tome as someone who is then asked to vote on this. I just -- I don't appreciate -- and I'm not saying that it's your fault. I'm just saying I don't appreciate that this is the process, because I don't think it's fair to us. You know, we're supposed to be making wise decisions, and I don't know as this is a process that leads to wise decisions. MR. MULHERE: And I don't disagree with your comments, but the -- there were some -- I wouldn't say everything is novel, and I don't have problems with everything. In fact, I'm not necessarily disagreeing. I'm offering what I believe, on behalf of my clients, would be better solutions to some of the recommendations. So, I mean, before I saw those draft recommendations, I never saw a proposal to require a rural village for any project over 300 acres. Before I saw those recommendations, there was always, leading up to this since Ventana was approved, an agreement on the part of staff and a suggestion by the Board that two units per acre would be appropriate. Now, I fully understand staffs suggestion that they would withhold that in a couple of areas until there is an assessment of the necessary infrastructure to support that. What I'm suggesting is that should be more defined and more expeditious. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to go back to my original idea, if I may, Planning Commission, and ask for Mrs. Mosca to come up and give us the -- we're at a process point here. We're not ready to decide what to do with the substantive issues. But I just want to know, you know, to what degree staff had a full conversation with Mr. Mulhere and his clients on all of these points. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, Mr. Chairman, if I could, just to Mr. Mulhere, I certainly am not impugning Mr. Mulhere or his client as the reason, you know, for the frustration. I'm just expressing that, you know -- and I don't know if fellow commissioners share the concern. I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think we do. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This seems to be the point to bring -- at which -- you know, it would be appropriate to bring up the frustration, and I certainly -- it does not at all mean that I think it's Mr. Mulhere's fault or his client's fault. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. And so we'll hear from Ms. Mosca, and we'll certainly get to the other speaker before we get into doing anything substantive. Go ahead, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: Again, Michele Mosca, for the record. So I just want to address a few of Bob's points, and he does have some valid points. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, first of all, I want to step up a few thousand feet and look down. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the question is, is have you had full discussions with him and his clients on these very issues? IV, MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have? MS. MOSCA: Yes, except for Bob mentioning the shared expense of an assessment. We haven't discussed that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All the other -- MS. MOSCA: But we've had discussions in the past, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And in the course of those discussions, did you make any changes that were favorable to his client that are baked into what you brought forward? MS. MOSCA: We did not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But it was based upon the thoughtful consideration that after hearing him you were satisfied with what you had? MS. MOSCA: Well, I believe so. But to take it a step further, I think with that recommendation to study the area further, both the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade areas, I think we can address a lot of those concerns. Again, most of the development is, in fact, going to occur in the future in those two areas. So I think we can address that. If the Board provides for that year time frame, staff is okay with that time frame. We'd be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, again, I'm groping for the way -- the best way to proceed here. And if -- I see two possibilities. One is is that we continue this for further discussions at the staff level, but that may be duplicative of discussions that have already been had. And if that's the case, if things are fully baked, we could get the staff representative and Mr. Mulhere up here and do a point and counterpoint and hear his objection and hear the response and try to make a decision on these issues and try to get it resolved today. Obviously, after hearing the other speaker. So what do you all want to do? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I like what you said, point/counterpoint while we're here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So we'll ask you, then, ma'am, to stand down for the moment -- MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and we'll bring you back up. And now we'll hear from the other speaker. MR. TORRES: Hi. I'm David Torres with Hacienda Lakes of Naples. We are a large landowner in the program areas. I would guess that we are probably the largest company that has severed TDRs and that has used them. So we've been participants of the program. You know, I'd like to start saying, I mean, I thank Michele and Anita for driving this forward. I mean, it's been a long time. I mean, I served as president of the Rural Fringe Coalition that Bob referred to before. I mean, that it's been seven, eight years. So I'm glad that we're here; however, I'm not glad with what we're coming out. You know, the program has -- it has no liquidity. I mean, there's not enough TDRs. There's not enough demand. I mean, there's got to be more demand and more supply. It's just difficult to get things done. I mean, like you said, the guys at Ventana Pointe, it's true. I mean, anybody who's kind of used the program, it's been like our situation. We have both sides of it. So, I mean, I am not a fan of another study. I mean, I don't think we need it. I don't think we need an outside consultant. I think Eric is fully capable. There's a lot of staff that's capable on the infrastructure side. If staff would only kind of listen to the owners, I mean, we could get something better done now without having to hope that another study gets done and we wait another five, six years. No And it's not that -- we've sent comments as well. It's not that they haven't been talked to with staff. It's more that I think staff decided this is the way they're going forward, and they're going forward without any changes. And I truly believe that some of these things can be talked to. The Belle Meade cannot wait. I mean, it's ready to get developed now. I mean, it would be a big miss to wait; another study, wait for years. And even though on the sending side it's difficult that you have a lot of small owners, you know, those owners want more TDRs. They want more value. You know, they feel -- that's when they're going to go into the program. On the other side, the receiving side is easy. The Belle Meade has two big guys, the Lipmans and another company called Agri Serves (phonetic), and then there is some scattered acreage. But for the most part, it's not that hard to get a couple people in a room and see if something can be vetted out with staff without having to do another study. So I guess that's my comment. My comment would be, it would be nice if we could -- if we could talk for the next 45 days and try to come up with something without really having to wait for another study that is going to turn into another set of changes five years from now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: Question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm curious about your response -- your level of agreement or disagreement with the points made by Mr. Mulhere as representing another ownership group. MR. TORRES: Yeah. I'm in agreement with many of the comments that Bob's brought to the table, but I don't want to say that I'm not in agreement with some of the programs that the county wants to put in place. I mean, I think some of them are good. I think we just have to go the whole way is what I mean. I think it's just -- we've waited too long to do these too small of changes in my opinion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Your main point is you'd like to see the -- Belle Meade or North Belle Meade? MR. TORRES: I'd like to see a resolution on the Belle Meade, personally. I think the study's a mistake. I see us creating this two classes of receiving lands now. The guys on Immokalee Road got preferential treatment. They get to go to two, and the guys on 41 get to stay at one per acre. I don't see it. And traffic's worse up there. I don't see -- yeah, maybe utilities and stuff for the south side, but I would say the road infrastructure's better on the south part of the county. I may be mistaken, but -- And then on the other side, I think we just need --we need a lot more TDRs. I don't buy this whole basis that we create the program with less supply in the TDRs than there is demand. It's just too hard to get them. And there are some good programs that they need. I mean, if they truly need this Belle Meade flowway and everybody's excited about it, then give more TDRs for it. And then give more for the exotic removal. It costs money. It doesn't make sense currently right now, so... AL CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, sir. I'm going to ask now for staff in the person, I guess, of Ms. Mosca or Ms. Jenkins, and Mr. Mulhere take the other mic. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chair, may I interrupt, because we've got people outside waiting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. MR. KLATZKOW: Richard has a request to make. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. The Comp Plan amendment and the zone requests for the corner of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, there's a lot of people here who are interested in that petition. We have met with them outside. We would like the opportunity -- we have some proposed changes to the petition, but I think it would be more effective if we can meet with them. And so we're asking for a continuation -- or a continuance to the second meeting in June. We may -- they want to have some time to analyze what we're proposing. We may come back to you and say we still need a couple more weeks, but we're asking for a continuance till the second meeting in June so we don't have to sit around, and I don't think it's fair to them or us to drop this on you -all for the first time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That makes sense. Any objections to a continuance for the Santa Barbara -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it's a great idea. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why would we ever reject a request like that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection, continuance granted. COMMISSIONER FRY: I want to say thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do we need a motion? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I am on the board. MR. KLATZKOW: Could we make a motion, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. Is there a motion for continuance? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to continue those two items till -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Second meeting in June. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Second meeting in June. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second meeting in June. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Perhaps if we could start, Mr. Mulhere, by going back, and I think there were about six of them, roughly, to -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. JENKINS: Mr. Chair, before we do that, Anita Jenkins, for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, ma'am. MS. JENKINS: I just wanted to clarify that this process is no different than all the other restudy processes that you've had before you in that you have other interested parties providing different ideas to you. So this is no different. And I wouldn't suggest that we need to continue this to work things out. I think that we can do that here today and work through these. But this process is no different. It's just a -- it's not an environmental concern. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I agree insofar as what you're saying is that we ought to get this resolved today. And I'm hopeful that your responses to his issues can be succinct and stated in a brief and clear and persuasive fashion so that we can deal with them and get to a point where we can vote. MS. JENKINS: Will do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Yep. So I think the first thing I raised was the outright prohibition on any Comprehensive Plan coming forward to increase density unless it utilizes the TDR program, which I think is fine. We do want to use the TDR program, but I think that there are going to be unintended consequences. I just --I just don't know that that's necessary. You know, a property owner has a right to come in and ask for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and they can amend the language that prohibits them from doing this. So, really, those things are addressed on a case -by -case basis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I interrupt in the name of brevity? MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think you're suggesting that in addition to the affordable housing method of getting TDRs that I suggested that there also be language that provides for an applicant the privilege of arguing for a public benefit. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there objection to that? MS. MOSCA: There's no objection, because the Board will look at that anyway with a Comprehensive Plan change. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: So I don't object to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Next point. MS. MOSCA: The next point is the minimum size of 300 acres. If you're 300 acres or greater, you must be a rural village. Now, what that means is that you must then provide -- you absolutely must then provide neighborhood commercial and other uses based on the formulas that are in here: 53 square feet per dwelling unit. And I do understand that, but -- the benefits from a traffic perspective of internal capture and of reducing demand, but I don't think it's going to make sense in every circumstance. So my suggestion is you increase that acreage to 1,000 but you allow for consideration of whether or not that makes sense on projects between 300 and 999 acres. So you are going to look at it. If it makes sense, it can be requested or even required but not absolutely required on projects that are 300 acres or above. It just doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Bob, you're saying there are -- what percentage of cases do you think a 300-acre development would come in without commercial by preference? MR. MULHERE: By preference? Most. COMMISSIONER FRY: Most? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. But I think a 500- or 600-acre or 700-acre project or 1,000 or 2,500 or 3,000, those will have the benefit. They can serve those smaller -- you're going to have a bunch of 299-acre non -village developments, two or three right next to each other with no commercial. It does not make sense. COMMISSIONER FRY: We've experienced that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we have. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- in the RLSA with villages versus towns. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I ask Ms. Jenkins to reply, any other lanning commissioners want to weigh in? (No response.) low" CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: So when we first started looking at this, the requirement right now provides for a village from 300 acres to 1,500 acres or 2,500 acres in some cases, but that's the standard now. So a minimum to 300 and a maximum to 1,500 -- or 2,500. So that's what we were looking at. So the establishment was already there. So when we looked at the restudy, we said, well, does 300 really work? We were asking the same question. So the research that we did led us to what you see on your screen right now as one example, and that's Habersham, South Carolina, and it's exactly 300 acres, and it's been nominated as, you know, one of the best neighborhoods in America by the National Builders Association, and it is a 300-acre development that does provide commercial and a multitude of different types of residences. I will also say that that thought of requiring 300 acres was tied back to the white paper where we were suggesting an increase of density, right. So I think when we're saying that if we're not increasing the density until we look at this more specifically to look at the internal captures, then maybe that requirement doesn't happen until we get to the more specific of the receiving areas, because those two things were tied together; that if you are going to do a receiving area and if you are going to do four to seven units, then you could support more neighborhood commercial in 300 acres. But if we're not changing the density right now and we're leaving it at one unit per acre, then that's, you know, 300 or 600 units in a 300-unit -- or 300-acre project. So I think that we need to consider if we're going to increase density, 300 acres may work. If we're not going to increase density right now, that amendment might be more acceptable during the re -- or during the study of the specific areas for receiving and how that would all shape out at that time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: May I just respond very quickly? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. MR. MULHERE: I have no doubt that you can design and develop an award -winning mixed -use project on 300 acres. That's not my point. My point is that requiring every project that's 300 acres does not make sense. You can look at it on a case -by -case basis. I think over a larger minimum size probably does make sense. I agree with Anita. What she said makes sense. Since we're not going to -- we're not going to increase the density as part of this and we're going to look at that, if this policy is removed and we look at it as part of this next assessment, that works, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: This next assessment being the one that starts -- MR. MULHERE: Ina year. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- within a year -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We hope. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- partly funded by the Lipman Family Farms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that, actually, was your next point, was it not? MR. MULHERE: Well -- yeah. I mean, I heard what David said, and I think -- and I think Anita agreed, too, that we don't necessarily -- that we can hash these things out now. But I agree this is the process. You know, the staff gives us a draft. We review the draft. We make comments. They don't have to agree to them. I mean, we know that, and that's what we come here for, to discuss why we think one idea's better than maybe what they've suggested, and it's not -- it's not that -- I think they've done a great job, as David said, moving these things forward. The majority of it is fine. There are just a few points that we disagree with. So, I think -- you know, again, if the Board, Planning Commission and the BCC, is inclined to go with this process of looking at those two areas differently, which they've already commenced in the one area, North Belle Meade, again, Tindale Oliver, it should be an expedited; very time -certain to get started. I mean, you can't predict when you'll be done, but you can certainly predict when you'll get started. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Can we establish a sooner start date? MS. MOSCA: Yes. We'll bring that forward to the Board. The Board will have to agree to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Really? MS. MOSCA: As a recommendation? Sure. We'll bring the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff is in support of the 12-month period, but the Board will have to fund it, provide funding for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Okay, all right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that a 12-month period to bring this to a conclusion -- MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Start. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- or just to start it? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: It's my understanding. MR. MULHERE: It's going to take longer. It will take longer. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wow. MR. MULHERE: Look, the wheels of government move slowly, but a couple of years -- it may take -- to start it. It could take year to complete it, maybe a little bit longer. I mean, to get it right, it's worth the time. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why can't we start it next week? MR. MULHERE: Well, I've got to defer to -- it says within a year. It doesn't say you couldn't start it sooner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It needs funding, and that's why it's got to go to the BCC. MS. MOSCA: Staff will support the 12-month initiation, so that's not at issue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Next point, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Well, I do have a concern. I think it was very good to have the ag -- because part of the state's final order was to look at ag preservation. They used the word "prime agriculture," which actually is tied to soils. We don't have prime agriculture. You find that in deltas. But we do have unique agriculture, and we all eat, so I understand, you know. But I don't know if it just was, sort of, let's throw out one TDR and see what we get. My opinion is that requires a little more consideration, because I don't think you're going to get anybody giving up their perpetual development rights for $20,000 for five areas. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that part of the 12-month -- is that part of this restudy we're talking about that starts within 12 months? MS. MOSCA: I think it should be. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess I'm trying to be clear on which of Bob's points are covered under this -- MS. MOSCA: I think all of them. I think Bob agreed to the 12-month for all of them. I mean, it seems appropriate that we would. As you can recall, as I went through some of the tables, even staffs evaluation of the Board -directed amendment for the additional credit. We were concerned who really would use it, we were very conservative, and it was a very low number, if you can recall going through that table. MR. MULHERE: So, you know, one thought. Really, the largest agricultural production area of all of this, assuming you recommend and the Board agrees they're going to do an assessment, is the Belle Meade by far. I mean, it's not even close. And as David said, there's just a few landowners in there that have the largest amount of those holdings. So if we're going to look at an ag preservation TDR bonus and whether it should be perpetual or for some period of time and what the numbers should be, why adopt something like this right now? Why not let that be part of this assessment as well, you know? And I think that's what Michele said, in fewer words. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's something that is going to take place in the next restudy. Okay. All right. Next point. MR. MULHERE: I'm just looking right now. MS. MOSCA: I think it was rural industrial. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well -- and, again, that also is surrounded. So that rural industrial designated area, there's a -- three's a road aggregate. My client doesn't own that portion, but there's a portion that has some road aggregate construction type stuff out there, and then there's a lot of these smaller business owners that are leasing space in the current area that have these kinds of uses that aren't targeted industries by definition. And so perhaps, because it is surrounded by the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District, we could, you know, consider that. I mean, I still think it makes sense to allow an expansion to the adjacent parcel within -- and within 300 feet of the existing boundary. You're going to get the more thorough review as part of the rezone. You're going to get the traffic analysis. You're going to get the compatibility. You're going to get the use analysis, and you're going to require a supermajority vote. So what are you doing by putting this policy in there? The only thing you're doing is you are making that process a little faster and a little more supportable as part of that rezone process. So, I mean, I know staff is not supportive of it, and I just think that it would make sense to put it in as a policy. MS. MOSCA: And Bob's correct; staffs not supportive of that. In the past there were two previous Comprehensive Plan amendments requesting for some additional uses in that area. And I think as part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, this is really site specific. And the residents around that area who opposed the expansion in the past really should be able to provide input as part of that process. So to me this is not really part of the amendments to the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. It's more in line with a site -specific Comp Plan amendment. MR. MULHERE: And I understand. So, you know -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: -- the one piece of good news is there is a proposed bill in the legislature to increase the size -- minimum size for small-scale amendments. So that might make it a little less painful. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Those are all the points that I recorded. MR. MULHERE: That was it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I got it? Okay. Planning Commission, any comments? Questions? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just clarifying one of his points was the limitation of expanding to two dwelling units per acre only along Immokalee Road. The decision on that is part of this restudy, or -- MS. MOSCA: For the expansion to the -- to allow that within the one to two dwelling units per acre. To allow that within the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade areas would be part of that assessment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But the current amendments would allow that, but that was only -- that's along Immokalee Road outside of rural villages only. N* MS. MOSCA: Right. And it's minimal. Unless the Immokalee Road Rural Village comes in, they don't do a village, then you're talking about, what, 4,000 units. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Commissioner Shea, do you have -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just have --there was a discussion --I think Bob mentioned something about public benefits, TDRs for that. Is that something we already agreed would go -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to try to categorize where I think we are. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because I didn't hear him talk about that or increased credits on the maintenance side. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to try to deal with that when I summarize. Anything else? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Here's where I think we are. And please correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe, first of all, we agreed to add the affordability and the public benefit language for the increase in TDRs. Second, I think we want to recommend that the next study or restudy commence within 12 months and that it include reexamination of the 300-acre minimum, and the ag preservation of one TDR per five acres, and other issues that are to be discussed. And so I think that's really where we've come down. MS. MOSCA: I just have a point of clarification, if you wouldn't mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: On that first one, that was related to increased density for using a -- utilizing TDRs through a Comprehensive Plan amendment, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So unless I've misstated it, are we ready for a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Would anyone care to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So let me ask a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the motion is to approve staffs recommendation subject to these conditions or CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, and that's a good point. This would be action on recommendation for transmittal, because it's coming back. And we need to ask ourselves, do we want -- do we want to put this on consent for our meeting on the 26th so we see how the language has been prepared, or simply rely on staff to get it right? I think it's pretty straightforward: Affordability and public benefit. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, one more point of clarification before you provide for your vote. So you also had a few recommended changes regarding the greenbelt and so forth, so that would be incorporated into all of that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Yes, it would. Good point. Thank you. Should we bring this back on consent, or should we let it go? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't think we need to bring it back. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I agree. Let it go. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So we're ready for a motion, then. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to recommend transmittal with all the changes that you just listed and Michele just spoke of. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we -- are we satisfied that we have clarity? COMMISSIONER FRY: Michele, do you feel we have clarity on what exactly -- the changes and verbiage you're going to generate? MS. MOSCA: Yes, I do. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is nine minutes of noon. It seems to me we'd be best served by starting our lunch a little earlier than starting another matter. Without objection, we will take an hour and nine minutes for lunch and return at 1:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, that means Karl might make it back. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We're in recess until 1:00. (A luncheon recess was had from 11:51 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, it's 1:00. Let's reconvene, please. ***Our second petition today is PL20190001489, the Lawmetka Plaza CPUDA. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please raise your hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Disclosures starting with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record, meetings with staff, communications with the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing for me. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Meeting with staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. All right. The applicant is here. MS. CLARK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed, ma'am. MS. CLARK: Thank you. My name is Kellie Clark. I'm a civil engineer with Kimley-Horn, and I'm here to speak today to Lawmetka Plaza. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, you might want to pull that -- if you're going to speak -- yeah, either speak into the mic or move the mic to yourself. MS. CLARK: Do you want me to repeat that for the record? THE COURT REPORTER: (Shakes head.) MS. CLARK: Okay. You got it. All right. This is the project location. It's located along Wiggins Pass and 41. This lists the applicant and agent, which is myself, and the property location. Before I go any further, I'd also like to note that we did have a neighborhood informational meeting, and we did have public participation in that and have had public comments. And we've reviewed those, and we do have our transportation engineer here today to speak to some of those items as well. So I'd just like to walk through some of the proposed changes -- or the proposed changes that were -- that are in front of you. The first is regarding the property ownership. This is more of a cleanup item as it relates to changing the name from Benderson Development Company to Benderson Properties, Inc. So more of an initial name change. The next is regarding the access. So this is proposed to go from two access points along Wiggins Pass Road to three, which would then change the total access points from four to five. With this change, there's also the proposed language to limit the eastern access to right -in, right -out only and the western access to service and delivery vehicles only, and also there's the language at the last sentence in this that talks to Collier County reserving the right to install, modify, or close medians in its sole discretion for road safety and capacity. I'd also like to hit on one additional -- or one deviation at this time, because it's also related to the transportation item, and then I'd like to turn it over to our transportation engineer. So this is the first deviation, Signage Deviation No. 1, which is seeking relief from the LDC to allow one additional directory sign, and this one would be located at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Wiggins Pass. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Christopher Hatton. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. HATTON: Thank you, Kellie. Good afternoon. My name is Christopher Hatton. I'm a registered professional traffic engineer with Kimley-Horn. I have been conducting traffic studies and operational analyses for over 29 years and conducted the traffic analysis that resulted in these improvements. I'll go ahead and turn it to here. These improvements consist of, as Kellie had mentioned, adding a third driveway, which is going to be a right -in, right -out only onto Wiggins Pass Road while limiting the existing driveway to be used by service vehicles and delivery vehicles only. And this is an important point. The right -turn deceleration lanes will be constructed at both the new driveway as well as the middle project drive, which is the main driveway. As Kellie mentioned, we did have a neighborhood information meeting. There were some safety questions that were brought up by some of the folks there, so I'm going to try to point out how our improvements -- try to address those safety concerns. So let's take a quick look at each of these improvements and see how these enhance the safety operations along Wiggins Pass Road in regard to the proposed project. First, the addition of a right -in, right -out only driveway as you could see up here -- it's not showing with the pointer, but I think you see it's located on the slide very easily. And this will be located east of the full access driveway, and this provides for project dispersion of project traffic into the development and actually reduces the amount of turning traffic at the main project driveway which subsequently helps reduce both conflicts and delay. Secondly, by providing the right -turn deceleration lanes at both the new proposed driveway as well as the main driveway, safety is going to be enhanced by removing turning vehicles from the through -lane traffic. So that, therefore, you're removing the vehicle friction as we call it, which would -- which had previously been there, which reduced the capacity of Wiggins Pass Road when vehicles had to slow down in the through lane to turn into the project. They will now have their own individual turn lane from which to do that. And, lastly, separating out the service volumes or the service and delivery vehicles to a specific driveway to the west, this, obviously, improves safety by separating out the service and delivery trucks keeping them separate from the smaller passenger vehicles. But as Kellie mentioned as well and as always is the consideration, in the event of an unforeseen issue, Collier County reserves the right to either install, modify, or close medians based upon the road safety and capacity and, of course, this provides an extra layer of safety coverage for citizens. Now, as Kellie mentioned also, the first deviation -- in regards to this Deviation 1, as you can see, for the addition of additional signage at the corner of 41 and Wiggins Pass, which is shown on the slide now. And then, really, the main justification for this is to alert patrons that were traveling northbound on U.S. 41 of the new driveway so that they may position themselves in that easternmost northbound left -turn lane so that they can have easy, convenient, and safe maneuvering into that driveway so they basically position themselves ahead of time. And this sign deviation addresses some of the safety concerns that we heard at the neighborhood information meeting regarding kind of the positioning and the location of the new driveway and some of the benefits that are seen by alerting them to the project driveway, and it's one of the things in my -- in all my years, that effective signage can always play a role in improving safety, so -- and I'll turn it over to Kellie. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Hatton before he steps down? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the middle driveway there, or the one that says right -in, right -out only, that was formerly a full, all directional -- no? MR. HATTON: No, there's just two -- well, unfortunately, this doesn't show that well. The one on the west was existing, and that's now just going to be only for service and delivery, and the one that's right in the middle between the right -in, right -out, that is the main driveway. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's the new one. MR. HATTON: Well, no. The new one is actually the one that's got the right -in, right -out. That is the new one on the east. I'm sorry. I should have kind of given that as an overview before I started. COMMISSIONER FRY: So there's a median in Wiggins Pass Road so you cannot turn left out of there. MR. HATTON: Yes, there will be one constructed as well as with the deceleration lanes. COMMISSIONER FRY: And then is it easy -- so if you want to exit on Wiggins Pass Road but you want to go back to the light and head north or south, you have to go and make a U-turn, make a right out and then -- MR. HATTON: Well, basically what I would do -- and it's certainly driver -- you know, either -- you know, expectancy would be knowing that if you're shopping in the shopping center, that the full -- basically, you would see the median, so you would probably do it -- I would do it in the shopping center. I would go to the main driveway and take a left just so you don't have to do a U-turn from that perspective. COMMISSIONER FRY: Main driveway being the one that says service -- no, main driveway on the other -- on the U.S. 41 side? MR. HATTON: This right here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, okay. . MR. HATTON: This one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That one wasn't marked, so I missed it entirely in that exhibit. MR. HATTON: Yeah. I apologize. I noticed that. I tried to use the laser pointer, but it's not showing up on that, so -- and I could have done that better, so sorry about that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That clears it up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. HATTON: Thank you. MS. CLARK: Our next item is regarding the landscape deviation, and this is seeking relief from the requirement of a 20-foot-wide Type D buffer down to the minimum 10-foot-wide Type D buffer, and because there is the reduction, we are proposing enhanced landscaping at this location. This is due to compensating right-of-way that occurred at this location, so an existing condition that exists in this location. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Jen to speak a little bit more about what that enhancement looks like and what that Type D buffer would look like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. CLARK: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Daoulas. I'm a professional landscape architect. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your last name again? MS. DAOULAS: Daoulas. _ CHAIRMAN FRYER: Spell, please. MS. DAOULAS: D-a-o-u-l-a-s. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: You're welcome. As Kellie mentioned, we're seeking deviation from a typical Type D buffer. The Type D buffer is specified to be 20 feet per the width of the existing right-of-way. A Type D does allow fora 10-foot. It would just --we're minimizing, and that's what we're asking in the deviation. It doesn't minimize the amount of planting that we're proposing. We'll still be meeting the Type D buffer requirements, and the deviation actually exceeds those requirements by adding taller trees five feet taller than the required 10, and then from a 30-foot on -center spacing to a 25-foot on -center spacing. The existing material out there, there are some existing oak trees and royals that count towards those shade requirements that meet that height, and then we would come in and supplement as required per the deviation along that buffer. Do you -all have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRY: There's one thing I didn't pick up on in the packet is why -- so you have an existing 20-foot buffer now? MS. DAOULAS: Yes, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you want to reduce it to 10 feet but make it more dense? MS. DAOULAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why do you -- why are you doing that? MS. DAOULAS: Because we're adding the turn lane in, and so adding the turn lane would move that sidewalk over. It would move it right on the edge of the -- I guess I can't move the mouse, huh? COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's to accommodate the turn lanes? MS. DAOULAS: Yeah, and it would move the sidewalk on the edge of that existing hedge row. So the goal is to maintain the existing hedge. We'll supplement as needed with any impacts from construction or any, you know, vegetation decline to bring the buffer back up to the required plus the deviation requirements. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments for Ms. Daoulas? (No response.) MS. DAOULAS: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. 0 MS. CLARK: And then the last part of our amendment is regarding the master concept plan, and these -- this master concept plan is being updated to reflect the items that we've gone through, so it's to show that third access point as well as to show those deviations on the master concept plan. So it's related directly to everything that we've already covered. And that is it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for Ms. Clark? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you so much. MS. CLARK: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff presentation, please. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner. And staff is recommending approval of the Lawmetka PUD amendment, as it is consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. So if you have any questions, it would certainly be our pleasure to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions for Ms. Gundlach? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Nicely done. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Do we have any members of the public who wish to be heard on this? COMMISSIONER FRY: A bit wordy. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I love Nancy's reports. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have the actual applicant that is present that filled out a speaker form. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does the applicant wish to be heard? MS. CLARK: I think they asked us to fill out those forms because we were upstairs. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Any other speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir. We have Doug Fee. He will be our only speaker on this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Fee. MR. FEE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Doug Fee, and I live up in the Wiggins Pass area. I've lived up there for around 20 years. And there's a lot on this PUD change, okay. On the surface it sounds pretty easy; just add an access. One of the things that we have to look at is the safety of the roadway and what you are approving. This right -in, right -out entrance, which will be the third one on Wiggins Pass Road, it's confusing right now as it is. There's two entrances already; one on the back of the building, which is supposed to be for trucks but, in fact, lots of people go through there. You could go this way and this way and exit, and there's no ability to stop the traffic. Two, you have the second entrance which was built not long ago that -- there was a proposed market, Lucky's Market. It went out. It's no longer there, although it has Lucky's on top. And there -- you also have two lanes that come off of 41 and go down the street, Wiggins Pass, you have a north and a south. And, in fact, the northbound lane is the turning lane to go into the plaza, okay. So you have vehicles that are having to go into a single lane, and they will race down the road, and one will try to get in front of the other. There's no medians. And I appreciate that Mr. Fry asked the applicant on the record, how are you going to make it a right -in, right -out? Because that is one of the keys to this. In the deviation language, in the transportation language, in fact, it says it's a right -in, right -out. Today, if that were built, lots of the people could come out with a right -out and circle back around and go out to 41. So be careful, because they're suggesting that you make it a right -in, right -out, but they're also saying in the language that the county has or the applicant has 24 months to do those improvements, make the turn lanes, and whatever the county decides on its policing powers, that's what's being decided, unless you as Planning Commission say, in order to approve this entrance, we want a median, okay. Now, what I'd like to do, if you'll give me just a moment, is I have two pictures that I'd like to put up here that are from the county's traffic camera. The camera looks west from 41. I don't know if you can see it. What you're viewing is from the light pole of 41 looking west. What I want to point out is there are three lanes that come east, and many times the northbound lane, you can see, it stacks. It goes way down and, in fact, shuts off traffic to go over 41 to the east side of Wiggins Pass, and it also stops southbound traffic. Now, what you're also seeing here, in the sidewalk you can see the little bend. Well, right there is where the new entrance will be. It may be safe to do this if you put a median so that, in fact, you don't get traffic that circles back around. But right now you have to say whether this applicant is involved in putting a median, because right now there is not, okay. The other thing I'll point out, okay, this is another picture of that same, and in season it is amazingly busy. And I know all intersections in the county are busy. But when it backs up, you really have a hard time. There are some communities that have streets, Center Street, West Street. They're on the south side. They do not have turn lanes. There are people that have to turn. And when you are in the double lane and you're turning, they will stop and, in fact, the through traffic that comes off 41, they have to maneuver around because there's no turn lanes, okay. Germain has trucks. They unload their vehicles in the middle stripe of this section. There's no median. It happens on a daily basis. It's not monthly. And, in fact, in their PUD, which is on the south side of the road, they have loading zones. The neighborhood has contacted Germain numerous times, and their answer is, we don't direct the carriers who drop off the cars. So not only do you have 30,000 cars or 20,000 cars going through intersection -- mind you it's an activity center -- they're -- these people don't know. So it's already an unsafe condition, okay. What I'm saying to you is, you need to look at a median that separates out the traffic. There should have been a median a long time ago when they built the two. The applicant has asked the county in a separate process, a Site Development Plan, to approve the turn lanes and sidewalks, bike shoulders. That's in a separate application. And, in fact, when I went to the neighborhood information meeting and the applicant themselves mentioned this Site Development Plan, the staff member at the county said, stop, we can't go into that. That's something down the road. Well, you have to go into it because it's part of the PUD language that you are approving today, which is right -in, right -out. So you have to figure -- and I'm telling you the people up at Wiggins Pass, though they may not be here, in fact, they know this is an extremely risky situation, okay. So we're relying on you. The turn lanes would help to go in. But with the turn lanes and the compensating right-of-way, what you will find is right now, as it's been built, the sidewalk is only, like, five feet off of Wiggins Pass Road. So you have dual lanes coming. There is no setback to the current sidewalk that's there. So when they put their turn lanes, how are they going to put the sidewalk to make it safe for the pedestrians? That's got to be a consideration. The landscape deviation. I'm not in favor of reducing a 20-foot at an activity center. We at Wiggins Pass have a neighborhood, and we like the aesthetics. I understand why they need to do it, okay, but this -- I don't know how many acres. It might be 34 acres. So why would you reduce the buffer to a big plaza like this? So please consider that. The signage that they are suggesting out at Wiggins Pass and 41, originally they had a main sign, at that second main entrance and also at 41, so there were two main signs, and those signs are big. They're regulated. They took down the one sign on Wiggins Pass Road, and now there isn't one. So I can understand having it at the corner of Wiggins Pass and 41. But I don't know if they're planning to put another big sign on Wiggins Pass, meaning three large signs. Most developments have them at the main entrance, or they'll have it at the intersection corner. Question would be, could you do a smaller sign at one location and not have the -- I don't know how tall they are, but they're a regular plaza sign, okay. Mike Sawyer, the transportation person, I directly e-mailed him a few months ago, and I said, is it your requirement in the PUD that the developer do the turn lanes and make it right -in, right -out, and he said -- I said, is the reason because of safety? Why are you doing that? And he said, yes, we are making the developer do that. But at the same time in the e-mail he said; however, it's the policing powers of the county to decide whether or not they will put a median or do any of that and that we don't put it in the PUD language, okay. Now, I've been involved with PUD amendments for many, many years. In fact, with this one, 20 years ago or 15 years ago, there's specificity in that the developer had to build turn lanes off of 41. There's a turn --there's actually two turn lanes, one to the main and one to the middle, and that was in the PUD. It was very specific. I'm not sure why one would go away from that. If you feel it's a safety issue and, in fact, this landowner should put those turn lanes -- and to be honest with you, it's already in there. It was from the original. But the way they did the turn lane was they said, well, we'll make two lanes go around the corner, and that northern lane will be the one that is considered the turn lane in. So imagine you driving around the corner and you're in the northbound, and you don't realize that in order to go west you've got to get in the southbound, because eventually it goes into one lane. So you're in this second, and you stop, and it confuses the traffic that's coming out of the plaza. It wants to turnright going out towards 41, and a lot of times the older folks -- and I mean that with respect -- they'll drive right into that second lane, and you have to stop, okay. So this is a section of road -- and in activity centers, many times you have medians. I can point to Immokalee/111, where there's a McDonald's and the Walmart. In fact, at that corner is a median that I cannot come out of the plaza. I have to go down to the Walgreens -- or the Walmart entrance way down, and be able to turn. It stops that traffic pattern, and it makes it safer, okay. I just want you -all to understand that the residents of Wiggins Pass might support a third entrance, but we're not going to be supportive of the safety issues if you do not do something on this straightaway, and I say that with all sincerity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you very much. I'm going to want to hear from Mr. Hatton and Ms. Gundlach or staff but first, before that, does any commissioner wish to ask a question of the gentleman who just spoke? COMMISSIONER FRY: I did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. Would you return, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: The podium right here. Just making sure I understand. I see looking at it, with the information I have, pluses -- maybe a positive and a negative to you. A positive being that you have two lanes, and the right one is a turn lane, and now you'll have three lanes and the right one will be a turn lane. So you'll actually have two lanes going straight. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Of course, you will have to merge, I'm sure. It still will go down to one, but you won't be competing in that second lane with the turn traffic. MR. FEE: I totally agree. COMMISSIONER FRY: So to me that would be a plus. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I'm also sensitive to the fact that you think a median would be important to ensure and cement the safety benefit from a right -in, right -out. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct? MR. FEE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: The buffer -- I guess they're giving up some land for the turn lane, so they want to put the same amount of vegetation in a narrow buffer which, I guess that aesthetically affects you a little bit but not functionally the way the traffic moves, correct? MR. FEE: Not a deal killer. COMMISSIONER FRY: Not a deal killer, okay. MR. FEE: Not a deal killer. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just wanted to make sure I have an accurate understanding of your perceptions of how this whole thing works. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that accurate? MR. FEE: And if you don't mind, can I just give to the court reporter these pictures so they can be submitted? CHAIRMAN FRYER: You may. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. MR. FEE: Okay. I just have one more picture to give. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And stand down, sir, but don't go too far, because we might want you to speak again. Mr. Hatton, go ahead. MR. HATTON: Yes. And I appreciate all the information and, certainly, we had a really good conversation with Doug as part of the neighborhood information meeting. So some of these -- just like, Commissioner, you had mentioned in terms of where -- and I think this hopefully is a very good diagram of, again, the two lanes that are now headed westbound enable -- which I think was a big, you know, part of the improvements -- those dual northbound lefts to now travel in a through lane, and if you are going into the actual development, you now can just easily move into the right -turn lane. So that was a big improvement. But this also addresses, you know, the issue of the median, and that is being proposed. Now, Kellie can address why it's not officially in this language, but it is being proposed. We've got plans that we're already doing, so it's going to be done just as the turn lanes are going to be done. So that safety issue in terms of right -in, right -out where it's being positioned because of the traffic, when you have a right -in, right -out, if you put one in and you do a deceleration lane, you basically -- again, we're enhancing the safety or moving the turn lanes out of the -- or the turning vehicles out of the through lane. So that's what we're doing here. So hopefully this graphic can show it a little. And I can answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's going to take some time for a median to be put in and, in the meantime, what do we do for safety? MR. HATTON: I mean, from a perspective, I'm not sure exactly of the timing of all of this with the PDI and stuff like that. MS. CLARK: Yeah. The median would be put in at the same time as that eastern entrance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. MS. CLARK: So these improvement plans that are shown here, they're the proposed plans that would occur if we get approval of this third entrance, and it shows the right -turn lanes in as well as that median, and that would all occur at once. So the third entrance will not be constructed without these additional improvements, because we agree those are safety concerns and that they need to be addressed to be able to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Good. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Gundlach, you, our staff. Is Mr. Sawyer here? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, he is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: My main concern, sir, is safety issues, but speak to whatever you would like to speak to. MR. SAWYER: Yeah. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. We have worked with the applicant on both the turn lanes as well as the other, as you're requesting, the safety concerns. AD The reason that you have the turn lane specifically spelled out in the PUD language is because those are what we were actually looking for. When you add an access point to an existing PUD, what makes part of the requirement for a PUD amendment is if you're increasing access points, which is what's being proposed. So in a nutshell, one of the reasons that this is coming in as an amendment as opposed to an insubstantial change is because they're adding the access. That's why we've got -- again, that's why we've got the language that outlines the turn lanes. As far as a median separator in this particular area, that requires an operational analysis, and that comes in with the SDP itself to make sure that we're looking at the entire operation of the improvements being proposed. We certainly don't have any problem. In fact, we would certainly endorse having the median separator in there. You're so close to 41 in this location, and we do know that we do have challenges in this particular intersection. We would want to have that median separator to prevent any left -outs at the first access point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So you're satisfied that what we have before us will be safe? MR. SAWYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: And you're able to look Mr. Fee in the eye and say, you'll have your median when these improvements are made? MR. SAWYER: I can look anybody in the eye and say, yes, it will happen. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a question. Are you comfortable with, on that drawing, the location of the median? Is it long enough? I see the service entrance still is left -out. If you're coming out of that entrance with a truck, you can still take a left, right, which I assume is why the median stops short of that entrance? MR. SAWYER: Correct. And you also have the middle access point which is the full opening. That also is -- you don't want to have the median in that location; otherwise, you would be forcing all of the traffic to go west instead of allowing potentially some of that traffic to go back east again. Hopefully that makes sense. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, do you have something? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, it just looks like there is a --am I seeing a driveway from the south right at the right edge of the median that could go left or right? Am I interpreting that correctly? MR. FEE: That's Germain. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's Germain. So that's actually -- is that a painted stripe to the right of the median? Is that just simply a marking on the road? MR. SAWYER: I believe that's the case currently, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So someone could exit Germain and make a left turn across the eastbound lanes to go west on Wiggins Pass. MR. SAWYER: To go west, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Sawyer. Any other public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any persons who are present who haven't signed up but wish to be heard on this matter, now would be the time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If not, Planning Commission, are we ready to close public comment? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public comment is closed. And we will deliberate. Who would like to start? COMMISSIONER FRY: I will. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I think -- for Mr. Fee, I mean, I think when people come and speak at these meetings -- you said you've done this before -- you know, you want to hear that you're listened to and not just discarded and the residents' and the neighbors' viewpoints don't matter. And so I think from my standpoint, definitely, I came from a neighborhood association, so I do want to listen. But when I look at all the facts here, it seems to me that this is actually a safer system for you and a more efficient system for you, the residents to the west, because now you have two lanes to go straight, and the turn lanes are segregated, and you will have a median. I think we've established that. So I guess I'm -- and I don't know if you can -- I don't feel like there are any major unaddressed issues that you presented that have not been addressed through this -- through this presentation, and I don't know what you're holding up there, but -- MR. FEE: Just language. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just the language. Oh, okay. Your concern was the language of the timing of the median, I believe. Can we clean that up? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds like the median will go in at the same time that the right -in, right -out goes in. COMMISSIONER FRY: But according to Mike, that's part of the SDP, not the PUD? Can we address his concerns with the language in this in a way that is not out of character with the process? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can throw a condition in to that effect. MR. SAWYER: What will be required as part of SDP -- because they'll need to get that SDP done as soon as the PUD amendment is finished and approved. They'll need to do the SDP. Part of the SDP requires a right-of-way permit. That right-of-way permit will require all of those improvements to be done at the same time; otherwise, the access itself won't be able to be opened. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you telling us that there is no need -- no point in adding a condition at this point simply stipulating that the median will go in at the same time as the improvements? MR. SAWYER: I don't believe so, but perhaps Matt McLean would want to weigh in on that from the SDP standpoint. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, Jesus, just put it in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What? MR. KLATZKOW: Just put it in, and we're done. COMMISSIONER FRY: When Jeff speaks, I tend to listen. So how about we just put it in? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll just add that condition, if you don't mind. MR. SAWYER: Not a problem by me. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Jeff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. McLean, did you want to be heard? MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, director of Development Review. It's very easy if you guys, as Jeff said, put that condition in that at the first Site Development Plan all this will be taken into consideration and put in that permit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, if you just spoke up earlier at every meeting, we'd be out of here by noon every day. MR. KLATZKOW: But I like your company so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd entertain a motion at this point. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll move that we approve for transmittal. Oh, not -- it's a PUD, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, it's a PUD. COMMISSIONER FRY: I move for approval with the additional condition that the median be part that -- the median be implemented at the same time as the improvements. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear Commissioner Klucik. MR. BELLOWS: Is Mr. Klucik participating this afternoon? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. Commissioner Klucik, did you vote on that, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. Okay. It's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ***All right. The next two applications are companions under the heading of Blue Coral. And I'm not sure if it's Blue Coral or Coral Blue, so my first question is going to be, which do you want to be? Because I saw it both ways in the material. These are companion items. PL20190001620, the small-scale Growth Management Plan, and that's here for transmittal and adoption, and its companion PL20190001600, which is an RPUDZ. Awl So, Mr. Wright, let me first ask, if there are any persons who are wishing to be heard in this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, meetings with staff, and communications with the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr. -- I spoke to Patrick, Greg, and Jeff. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Staff materials, staff meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Wright, you have the floor. MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson Franklin law firm here on behalf of the applicant. We have our team with us. With the applicant representative, Gregg Fusaro is here; Patrick Vanasse with RWA is our planner; we have Ciprian with Trebilcock; and Bethany Brosius with Passarella here today. We are here seeking your recommendation of approval of an application to rezone property from ag to residential PUD to allow the construction of an apartment complex with 280 units on 9.35 acres. The property is on the south side of Immokalee Road east of the Livingston Road intersection about 2,500 feet from 1-75, and it's between commercial uses to the east, along with 1-75, and residential uses to the west. There's a look at the situation of the adjacent properties. You see that Bermuda Palms, that's a residential development to the west, and Germain, the auto dealership, to the east. We have reviewed the staff reports, and we agree with their recommendations of approval. There's two staff reports, obviously, because we have companion items. Staff is recommending approval on both. We agree with them. We agree with all the conditions of approval that they've proposed, and we're not proposing any deviations from the LDC. But as to the Growth Management Plan amendment, we do agree with staffs recommendation of approval, but there's one very important point of disagreement I want to highlight, and that's the density. Growth management staffs recommendation related to the density is 20 units an acre, and our project as proposed is 30 units an acre. So there's a delta there. Even though they're recommending approval, we are off on that number. So we have recently talked to staff today, and we're trying to reach a point that we can get an agreement with them on that density number. And one thing that came up today is, as proposed and as it's presented in the staff report right now, there would be 10 out of the 280 units devoted to low-income housing. We've since bumped that number up by 350 percent to 35 would be dedicated to low, 80 percent or below AMI. So we have 35 units that we're willing to commit to low, 80 percent or less, and 35 additional affordable units between 80 and 100 percent of AMI. So that is something that we just presented to staff today, and I wanted to make clear on the front end that the numbers that you see, we're willing to make a greater commitment than is maybe written in front of you today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask you to repeat the second 35? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir. The second 35 would be that AMI between 80 percent and 100 percent of AMI. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: So together, 35 plus 35 is 70. That's a quarter of the project with a firm commitment to affordable, less than 100 percent of the AMI. Now, staff -- right now there's an LDC amendment going through relating to density in interchange activity centers, and this is very close to an activity center, and Patrick will get into some of that. But it's literally one parcel away from the activity center. So the new LDC amendments that are coming through would allow for 25 units per acre. Like I said, we're looking for 30; staffs saying 20. We feel like being so close to this activity center is a real plus for us because there's an LDC amendment in the works to change the number to 25 there. And, obviously, it's --there's some hoops you have to jump through to get that maximum number. But that's kind of what's guiding us. Really important, we feel that the unique location of the project -- it's close to I-75. There's a smooth -- what we're proposing is a smooth graduation of intensity as you go from the residential to the intersection of I-75. So we have, as you can see from this picture, apartments, residential to west and commercial to the east. And as you got closer to the highway it gets more intense, and as you get farther away from the highway, as we're proposing it, it would get less intense. And we would be, essentially, the buffer between Germain, the commercial, and the existing residential. The property right now is vacant. And it's always possible that somebody could come in there and put commercial. We feel like our project is more compatible with the neighbors, particularly to the west where there's residential. And we always hear about the demand for housing, and the market's been crazy over the last year or so, as we all know. We feel like this project meets a critical demand for housing. We've heard Naples and Collier County say that a lot of their employees get on the highway and move up to Lee County or live in Lee County because they can't afford to live here. So this does meet a critical demand for housing, a commitment to affordable housing, and we'll put housing within reach for essential services personnel. We also have a commitment for all of those 70 affordable units to be offered to essential services personnel, put the housing within reach for lower income residents, and will allow Collier workers to stay in Collier. As I mentioned, I have Patrick and our team with me today. Patrick's going to focus on the planning considerations. And I'll turn it over to him next. We also have Bethany Brosius for our environmental issues; Ciprian with traffic; and Gregg, our project manager, is here to address the project itself and economics, if that does come up and if there are any questions in relation to that. We appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I'll -- at this point I'll turn it over to Patrick. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Wright. Commissioner Shea first. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just -- I'm looking at, what is the density of the Bermuda Palms? MR. WRIGHT: Between 10 and 11 units per acre. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And what's the density of Windsong Apartments? MR. WRIGHT: We have this all on a chart. 16.8 for Bermuda Palms. MR. VANASSE: Windsong. MR. WRIGHT: Windsong, excuse me, 16.8, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you're not really transitioning to a higher density back towards the activity center. You're actually reversing it. You're going to a higher density as you move away from the activity center. MR. WRIGHT: Well, there's no residential up to where we're proposing. So the idea there was it's commercial -- the highway, you have a bunch of commercial, and then you have us, and then you have those two residential to the west of us. If that answers your question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it's more of an observation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. N6 COMMISSIONER FRY: So did staff concur with 25 as a compromise, or where are you at with that discussion? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'm encouraged by how it went, but I don't want to speak for them. I think there's probably a pretty good chance, if we're willing to put that commitment in writing, that they would be willing to change their number, but I don't want speak for them -- Michele to make that call. COMMISSIONER FRY: The justification for 30 units or 25 is what? MR. WRIGHT: Well, originally -- COMMISSIONER FRY: The affordable housing, is that -- MR. WRIGHT: Pretty much. You know, we could say it's good planning and the graduation of uses, but the bottom line here -- and we've heard this before -- that in order to get an increased density, you've got to give up something. You've got to provide a public benefit. And so what we did, between yesterday and today, is we focused specifically on that public benefit we were looking to provide, and we fattened it up, and hopefully that will be enough to make staff and the commission pleased with our project. COMMISSIONER FRY: What if you only got approval for 20 or 25 units, what would that do to your affordable housing commitment? Would it still be 25 percent of the total units? Is that the idea? MR. WRIGHT: Well, we're willing to, you know, work within this process as it goes along. For example, if you just recommended approval at 20, we would probably --we would probably move forward with that and continue to seek a higher number, but really, in order to make the project economics work, we've really tweaked all the numbers in the different categories of AMI to make it work. It's pretty close and we don't -- 20 -- 20 won't work. Thirty is the number that everything that we've done for the last two years has been based on, and 30 is the number that our affordable commitment is based on. So unless we have some sort of a major change, that's really what we're looking to do, 30. If you were to recommend approval of 25, we would move straight ahead, and we would be very happy to get your recommendation of approval in any event. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Wright, there's a 30-day provision that would be offered to the certain categories of tenants. Would you be willing to consider 60? MR. WRIGHT: Is that the one where the essential services personnel are given the offer first? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, yeah. MR. WRIGHT: I am -- I'd be willing to consider that. This is -- I want to pull up the specific language that they had in the staff recommendation. And this is just for your reference. I'm reading from Packet Page 1261 where it says there's an essential services personnel commitment, and it says in the event that no ESP rents available within 30 days of advertisement of its availability, then it's offered to non-ESPs. Is that the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the provision I'm talking about, yeah. MR. WRIGHT: And I'm not -- I'm going to ask Gregg real quick, if I may. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. WRIGHT: It's not a showstopper, but we'd like to, you know, be able to advertise before we open to make sure that we get a jump on that if we are going to give a 60-day window. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What do the other members of the Planning Commission think about an increased period of time? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think 60 days is kind of too long, when you're a rental, to wait. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other thoughts? MR. EASTMAN: It's certainly appreciated by the school district, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could we -- could we close it out at 45 days? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any objections from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. MR. VANASSE: Good afternoon. For the record, Patrick Vanasse with RWA. It's a pleasure to be hereto talk about this project with you. We're excited about this project for several reasons. One of the things is, it's providing a unique new offering to this market. They're providing rental apartments that are a very high quality, and the level of amenities that they're providing within this complex is above and beyond anything I've seen locally. And we have pictures of projects, one that they just finished building in Orlando, and you'll see the great pictures of the amenities that they do provide. So they're providing a high -quality property, but you've got a private market -rate developer coming forward and making a commitment, a solid commitment to provide true affordable housing. And what I mean by true affordable housing is a lot of the projects we see in Collier County when they're asking for additional density tend to be what we call gap or workforce housing, and those tend to be 100 percent of AMI or above. And what is being offered here is affordable housing that falls within the moderate and low categories. So, again, a private developer coming forward with no government subsidies and making that commitment. And, again, it's a very site specific Comp Plan amendment, very site specific rezone with a lot of detail. So this is not going to be speculative. We're not asking for multiple use. It's not going to change. We're only asking for multifamily rental units. So from that standpoint, we think it's a great project. We also think the location is an ideal location. And what I mean by that is if you look at that quadrant of this activity center, this is the last remaining 10 acres that are undeveloped or unentitled. And we know exactly what's in that area and what to expect. We know that next door to us on the east is going to be a Germain car dealership approved for up to 60 feet. We also know that you've got intense commercial activity where the Walmart center is. There's a hotel there. There's a self -storage there. And we are creating that transition between higher intensity commercial and lower intensity residential. And, again, I don't think it's all that important that we look at the exact number of density. It's more of we've got an apartment use that fits really well between commercial and residential and creates that transition. And we've worked very hard to develop a site plan and to develop a building that creates the biggest setbacks that we can, that minimizes the massing and is at a scale and at an architectural look and feel that is in keeping with the area and fits well with the area. We're asking for a maximum of four stories. Staff has asked us to reduce the overall height, the actual height to 50 feet. When we started this project, we had no architects, we had no engineers that had actually looked at ground elevation, how much fill would be needed, how much of a box we would need to fit those four stories. We have done that in the last few months. We know that we can fit within the 50 feet, so we are pleased to say, yes, we can accept that condition. And also with regards to density, some of the comments that were made, the reason why we went from what we were initially offering to what we have offered now is we talked to staff and we talked to some of the Planning Commission members. We were asked to revisit that. The pro formas that the applicant put together were six months to a year old, and they were really looking more so at the construction costs escalating and what they could possibly do. But what they've done just in the last week is go back and look at other rental communities close by and what those rents were, and they've been amazed at how quickly the rents have gone up elsewhere at, you know, 10 to 15 percent increases. So what that does for them is the portion that is not affordable, that they're not setting aside for affordable, that's where they can make a nicer margin and then provide more affordable. But the only way the amount of affordable works is predicated on that 30 units per acre. Anything less than 30 units per acre makes it that they can provide less of that affordable. So that's why, even though staff is recommending 25 -- and we're very happy -- well, I'm not going to speak for them. I think -- I think we have support from them at 25, I will say -- we'd still like to pursue 30 because, again, the more we get on the density, the more affordable we can provide, and there's a direct relation there. So that is -- that is why we're going to keep asking for the 30, and we think there's some enormous benefits from quality of project and also the affordable housing component. And as you'll see from the pictures, when we're talking about the quality of project, I would like to talk about the project a little bit. So it's luxury apartments. They're going to very well-appointed units, highly amenitized, parking garage on site. They are targeting young professionals and empty nesters. The units tend to be smaller units but of a much higher quality so they can still get the rents that they would like, but it's a smaller envelope, and it allows them also to keep their buildings at a scale that is appropriate for the area where they can keep the buildings a little smaller. We think it's a great location. And when we started this, the intent was to try to look at what the ULI housing study had put forward and to develop a project that was consistent with some of those recommendations. And the ULI study talks about finding appropriate places along major thoroughfares, activity centers. So these -- we're just outside an existing interchange activity center. So if we look at landscape -wide for Collier County, those nodes are the nodes that we've identified as the areas where we see the highest intensities and densities in the county. The infrastructure's there, the roadway system is there, and we've identified those areas as mixed use. So people that buy there or live there know that these are mixed -use activity centers. Higher intensity, higher density is expected. So we think that's a great location. It's right by 1-75, provides easy access for Southwest Florida, and we believe that location, again, with this idea that we're an infill project in an area where we know exactly what the uses are around, it makes it where it's a great location. So some of the GMP amendments and LDC amendments related to housing affordability that are going to be coming forward, staff has taken some of the ULI recommendations. And ULI was recommending possibly up to 30 units per acre, and the ULI folks have seen this in resort communities throughout the U.S. that, yes, you need higher densities for market -rate developers to be willing to build and offer affordable housing. So those experts provided 30. The recommendation right now that staff is putting forward is 25. But the 25 would apply to all activity centers throughout the county, and some activity centers may have more residential, a little less diversity when it comes to commercial, maybe a little less intensity. This one is a major interchange. We know exactly what's there. So while 25 units per acre in some places might be more appropriate, we think that this one, knowing exactly what those uses are and what the compatibility issues are, I think it's an appropriate place for 30 units per acre. And the other thing is, as you went through your hearing this morning about the rural fringe, these amendments sometimes take a very long time to be heard and get approved. You have someone today willing to make that commitment. So moving on, I'll talk about compatibility issues. I'll try to keep it brief. I know that our biggest issue here is density. But I do want to touch upon the design and the compatibility concerns. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. No MR. VANASSE: So as I said, when it comes to the quality and the luxury, these were renderings that were in the application when we started the project. You'll see we have pictures of the actual built project in Lake Mary outside of Orlando, and the final product is even better than the renderings are. But this is a level of amenity, as you can see, dog park, high -quality finishes in the units, internal/external recreation, gyms, that type of activity. This just touches upon the ULI study. And one of the things that I want to point out is when it comes to housing affordability, ULI makes a very important point that transportation combined with price of housing is crucial. And you've all heard about driving to qualify, that type of thing. So being in a good area close to transit is very important. Walmart has a transit stop. The regional park, very close by, has another big transit spot right there. So we have shopping, we have services, we have recreation, we have all the amenities close by, which will promote walkability and transit use. This was the initial commitment. As Jeff mentioned, we are upping this, and the full 70 units would be in the affordable category. That talks about the unique location that we have. Again, infill project, very site specific. This does not set a precedent for other properties throughout the county. Another important issue that we are proposing is when it comes to transportation, we've done our TIS, we have no significant impact on the adjacent roadway system. But what we've done is we've teamed up with Germain next door, and we're providing one access point for both projects, limiting the curb cuts and access points along Immokalee, creating a safer configuration having one turn lane for both projects, that type of thing. One thing that I'd like to point out also is the folks at Bermuda Palms, we're showing a potential interconnection. That's completely up to them if they want that connection or not. We think it could be a benefit to the residents because we're going to have a frontage road leading to Juliet Street [sic] and leading to the commercial activity center there so they wouldn't have to go back onto Immokalee to just go for errands, or when it comes to going west, they could go straight to Juliet Street where it's a signalized intersection to get to Immokalee and go west. So we think it's a great benefit. One thing that we hadn't committed to in our writeup or our application initially, and it's a no brainer for us, is that if they want to connect, we'll make -- they can make that a gated access point, and it can be one way. So none of our traffic would use their entrance, but they could completely go through our project and use that frontage road all the way to the Walmart Super Center, for example. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vanasse, do you know how far along Germain is? Have they broken ground? MR. VANASSE: I drive by it. The only thing I can tell you is I haven't seen anything driving by. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. VANASSE: Next slide shows that frontage road. So as you can see in blue, the gray area is our subject property showing the building footprint, and that frontage road crosses our property, crosses the future Germain auto dealer, connects to Useppa and goes to Juliet Street. Juliet is where the signalized intersection is. So not only is that going to create a better configuration for traffic, but it's also going to promote bike/ped activity. All these folks, once they come home, if they need to run a quick errand or if they want to go to Seed to Table to have a drink and have dinner, they can easily walk there or bike there. Again, I think that's a great benefit to our transportation system. We promote that, but we see very little of that in Collier County. And, again, you're seeing private developers willing to do the right thing and commit to this. COMMISSIONER FRY: Patrick, can you leave that slide up for a second. A couple questions. MR. VANASSE: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the access road you're showing, looking at your property, you actually showed going up to Immokalee and then back down to connect to Germain, but you don't really have to do that, correct? MR. VANASSE: So our access point is right here, if you see my cursor. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. MR. VANASSE: That's a joint access point. We're showing that should Bermuda Palms want to connect, this is their access point. They could connect through our project and make it all the way to Juliet Street. COMMISSIONER FRY: So they can -- where that line goes across your -- that line right there, that goes right ahead into Germain's property? MR. VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. All right. That was Question No. 1. Question No. 2, is there a crosswalk at Livingston to go north across Immokalee Road to Seed to Table? You mentioned it's easy for them to get there, but that's six lanes plus -- MR. VANASSE: The easiest thing in my mind would be to cross at Juliet, go to the other side of the road. COMMISSIONER FRY: Then walk back? MR. VANASSE: Then walk along the northern side along the canal. I'm not exactly sure what the crosswalk configuration is there. Maybe transportation staff would know, or Ciprian. There's a -- so Ciprian, who's our transportation consultant, will answer the question. I think he's saying there is a crosswalk. MR. MALAESCU: Good afternoon. Ciprian Malaescu, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. There is a crosswalk -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Can you speak into the microphone? MR. MALAESCU: I'm sorry. There's a crosswalk over there. It's a signal at Livingston and Immokalee Road, signalized intersection. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What was your name again, sir? MR. MALAESCU: Ciprian Malaescu. MR. VANASSE: So he works with Norm Trebilcock. Norm, unfortunately, this week is out of the area. So Ciprian has decided to chip in and help us out, and if you've got some more transportation questions, he can address those. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. MALAESCU: Thank you. MR. VANASSE: So when it comes to density, again, I think, you know, I made it clear that it's crucial for the provision of affordable housing and also to provide the quality project that they want to provide. But when it comes to density -- and as planners we talk about this all the time -- that people react to form, and what I mean by that is how buildings look, the scale, the aesthetics, and they don't necessarily react to numbers. So if you tell someone 16 units per acre or 20 or 30 units per acre, it's such a nebulous term that people have trouble understanding what that means. And every project is a little different. So sometimes you're going to get a little more open space or you're going to get a little more landscaping, and people are really swayed by the aesthetics and the feel and how it looks. So there's a lot of things that we can do to make a project compatible and to basically mitigate for our density and our intensity of use. IM& So, obviously, the aesthetics are important, the massing is important, and what we've done with this building -- and I've got an exhibit showing that -- is we've broken up the building where it faces Bermuda Palms creating courtyards so they don't see one big, massive building. They see just kind of the ends of some of the wings, and they see a lot more landscaping, a lot more courtyard, greenery, and the recreational areas. We've also enhanced the buffer. So where we abut residential, we enhanced the buffer along Bermuda Palms. And where we abut Livingston Lakes on our backside, that's where we've located our preserve, and that's 100 feet -- 150 feet wide plus or minus, which creates a significant buffer. So the setbacks, the buffering, the aesthetics are all things that we really considered, and I'll go into that with some exhibits. And then the other thing was, I've got this slide kind of showing that, you know, we've got higher -density projects in Collier County. We don't have a ton of them, but we have them. And typically those higher -density projects are from existing larger planned -- PUDs where there was some density left over and they clustered it, and they typically clustered it along a major thoroughfare, and that came on the tail end of the project. But what I've got here is pictures of Orchid Run. It's been an extremely successful project. This is the --it's a residential rental multifamily project that I believe, from the applicant's research, has probability the highest rents right now in Collier County, and it's higher density, it's clustered density that was part of the PUD, and it's very attractive and very popular. But we've got other examples. Bayfront, Naples Square, Magnolia Square, Addie's Corner, and Mooring Parks at Grey Oaks. And I know that Mooring Parks at Grey Oaks is assisted living mostly, so that's a bit of a different animal. But I'm sure you've all driven by it. With the right landscaping and the right architecture, it's a great looking project, and it's a benefit to this community. So this is what I meant by the massing and where we've located the building. So as you can see, we put the majority of the building as close as we could to our eastern boundary, really, where that's where the commercial use is and the more intense use, to provide separation, as much separation as we could to the residential. And then we've broken up the building where we provide courtyards, and there in the middle is a parking garage, and the parking garage is going to be lower than the rest of the building. The parking garage is going to be three stories. The rest of the building is four stories. So we've very carefully designed this, and we provided those enhanced buffers. And just to give you some examples here, with the current LDC, I believe that required buffers between industrial and residential use with straight zoning is 50-foot setbacks. And on here, I think the closest we have from a separation to a residential building is 190 feet. And our setback on our property, we have 80 feet. So they have some space on their side, and we have space on our side, but we far exceed any code requirements. And if you look where we abut Livingston Lakes, where our preserve is on the backside, we have over 270 feet to the closest residence. So we've put a lot of care into making this compatible. And as staff indicated in their staff report, they feel that from a compatibility standpoint we're pretty much there. They just wanted to reduce the height, and we've agreed to that. We can reduce the height. So from that standpoint, we think we have staff support from a compatibility standpoint. We've gone through great efforts to make it compatible from a design standpoint. So we think it's in keeping with the area. It's not going to impact the neighbors. And the 30 units per acre, again, being 25 units per acre or being 30 units per acre is not going to change the way the building looks or how it feels. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Patrick, I can appreciate the U-shaped buildings and what impact that -- how that minimizes impact to the Bermuda Palms people. Can you go back one slide? MR. VANASSE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: In the center you mentioned it's a parking garage. I mean, either that's the top level of a parking garage, or that is a parking lot. It looks to me like it's a parking lot. MR. VANASSE: It's the top level. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's the top level. So that's actually a solid building there. So they do see a solid structure throughout the entire center of that -- of your development. Do you have elevations showing what they would see from there? MR. VANASSE: Not from that side. We do -- I believe I may have had. In your packet -- I don't have it as a slide, but in your packet, we have a rendering that was taken from this Lake Mary project that has a parking garage as part of it. So in that packet -- and I think I put a note on there that that would be subject to change, and the design would be slightly different for this project. But that rendering kind of gives you a bit of a feel of what that parking garage would look like. So -- and I'm not going to belabor this. I can go back to any of those line -of -sights exhibits. But we looked at the massing and the size of our project versus other projects, the separation, the distance. Again, I think from a massing standpoint, we fit in very well. We create a good transition. The only thing to point out is adjacent to us on the eastern side, we have vegetation here. That's going to be that auto dealership at 60 feet. So -- and we dropped down to 50. And then from a line -of -sight, this is from Livingston Lakes. What this line -of -sight rendering shows you is that they should just see our preserve and not see our building on the other side. This is from Carlton Lakes across Immokalee. Closest homes are at about 630 feet, I believe, away. Again, very long distance. They're going to see a lot of roadway, median landscaping, and they might get a glimpse of our top -- the top of our project. And keep in mind, all those renderings were done at maximum 60-foot actual height, which, again, that's going to be brought down to 50 feet. And this, the closest folks to us is Bermuda Palms, and this is a rendering from Bermuda Palms. Again, as I mentioned, we kept as much separation as we could from them. We're providing that enhanced buffer. We talked to staff about looking at existing vegetation along the boundary and trying to save some of the mature trees that are there. That's certainly something we'll go back and look and talk to our environmental and engineering folks, but trying to keep as much of that mature vegetation as we can. I've got -- the two next slides are just associated with trip data but, basically, unless you've got questions, I'm just going to go real quickly through those. The TIS conclusion is we have no significant impact on the roadway system and that for most segments we actually have a de minimus impact and that our project will not negatively affect Immokalee in front of our project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody want to hear more about traffic? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. VANASSE: So with that being said, I'll turn things over to the applicant. He will tell you a little bit about what their intent is, why they do this, what they have to contend with when it comes to cost and market demand, and he'll show you that great project in Orlando that I mentioned. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. FUSARO: Good afternoon. I know you guys have been here a long time. I appreciate the time. My name is Gregg Fusaro. I'm with Capital Investment Group. I'm a partner with the company. We're actually headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, but we've realized over the last few years that it's a lot nicer here in the winter. So that's why we've been actually focused on a lot of different developments in different Florida markets. I wanted to let you know a couple of things about us is that we are generally -- we build, we develop, we own and manage our assets. So, historically, we have been long-term holders of properties, and we manage everything that we build. So it's us. It's not -- we don't turn it over to a third party. We manage all of our assets. More recently, we have sold some properties just because the market has -- the markets have been just crazy. But historically, we put long-term debt on our properties, and we hold them for the long-term. I just wanted to point out a couple of things, I think, and that is that one of the exercises that we've been going through in the last few days related to affordability, and the reason that we're able to kind of upgrade the number of units that we can provide at a lower -- to lower median incomes is based on just kind of continually researching what's going on in the marketplace, and what's happening here is that because of the lack of supply, rental rates across the board, but particularly in the higher end, which almost everybody has to build today, those rates have gone up extreme -- I mean, I was shocked at how quickly they've gone up. And one of the ways to work with that supply -and -demand issue, if the supply continues to be limited, demand continues to go up, which is happening in this market, prices have to go up. If you add some more supply, it will have a mitigating effect on overall rental rates. We've seen that in Cincinnati in a big way, not necessarily for the good of folks like us who have properties and modeled certain rents, and we've seen those rents, you know, go up very quickly and then kind of tail back down as more and more product has come on the market. So in our urban core downtown, we had rents that, in some new projects three or four years ago, started out about $1.90 a square foot and ramped up to about 2.30 a square foot, and everybody thought, well, gee whiz, I can come in and do that, too, and get those rents. Well, the additional supply has actually pushed rents back down, and so that average now is around 2.05 a square foot, so it has mitigated because of the additional supply. In terms of this site and this location, one of the reasons that it's -- it's great, not only for us but we feel for the neighborhood and the immediate market area, is because it does provide what we always look for, which is walkability. And it's not maybe the same as being right downtown on Fifth Avenue or something like that, but you've got walkability to the Strand, you've got walkability to the hotel, you've got walkability to the bank, to Seed to Table and, just as importantly for our residents, is the park that's right around the corner. And so, you know, those are the kinds of things that we look for in development sites and one of the reasons -- one of the reasons why we think this is a great site for this product. The other being that we do feel it's just a great transition from the car dealership to the residential to the west. And as Patrick said, we've tried to push everything away from the residential as much as possible. In terms of rental rates versus mortgage rates to our neighbors to the west, the rents at this development will be comparable or more than a mortgage payment would be today if you purchased one of the units in Bermuda Palms. So there's, I think, great compatibility there in terms of not only cost but the kind of resident that you'll have in the makeup of that neighborhood. But the walkability is very important to us. We also are pleasantly surprised at the -- while, again, we know we're adding traffic, the impact is minimal. And I think our team did a great job in working with the Germain group to provide one access point for both developments and to provide the service road through to Juliet, which is a big plus for our residents. So we're really excited about that. We believe that -- and where do we go here? _ So this is a project that we just finished in the Lake Mary area of Orlando, and I just wanted to show these to you because it's -- while no two projects that we do are identical, it conveys kind of the concept that we would envision here. This is a four-story building, all elevator served, and it does have a parking garage. This slide shows some of the interior finishes in the common areas, so all of our developments have very extensive common areas and really recreation opportunities for our residents. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, sir. You said a parking garage is below ground? MR. FUSARO: No, no, no. I'll show you. This is an aboveground garage similar to what we would -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is four stories over parking? MR. FUSARO: No, no. This is four-story with an attached parking garage, excuse me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Gotcha. Thank you. MR. FUSARO: I'm sorry. This just shows you some of the interior features that we try to incorporate into every development. The one on the left is our -- is part of the clubroom, pool table area. We have a fitness center, obviously, in every development that we do. This is one of the courtyards in that development with putting green, jacuzzi, swimming pool. Every property we do today has a pet spa, and generally we have a golf simulator room in every development, and we really encourage that interaction between residents on site. This just shows you the interiors of some of the units. They're condominium quality. Everything we do today is like that. And the summary, basically, I've already talked about. One thing I do want to make sure that I mention is this development has a two -level garage, not four or five. I think Patrick said three. It's actually just two levels. on grade and one level above that, and there's actually no roof on that building, so that will be open on the second floor. So it's not a three-story structure. It's actually one story above grade. COMMISSIONER FRY: So from Bermuda Palms as they look across at your development, they will see the ends of the U-shaped buildings, and then in between those two buildings they will see a two-story parking garage that fills kind of a central courtyard area. MR. FUSARO: Correct, correct, yeah. So I appreciate your time. Happy to answer any questions if I can. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. No one has lit up on their deliberator. Therefore, seeing as it's 25 minutes after 2:00 -- well, before we recess, let me ask how many, if any, registered speakers do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have three registered speakers online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody in the room? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And then, of course, we have staff. All right. So let's take a 14-minute break to 20 minutes of 3:00. We're in recess till 20 minutes of 3:00. (A brief recess was had from 2:26 p.m. to 2:41 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's return to session. Mr. Wright, anything further from the applicant? MR. WRIGHT: No, sir. That concludes our presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. WRIGHT: We're here if there's questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission, any questions for the applicant? It appears not. Thank you. All right. We'll hear from staff. Is this going to be Mr. Sabo? No. MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with Zoning Division staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: You look familiar. MS. MOSCA: Maybe from this morning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe. MS. MOSCA: Okay. So before we start talking about the zoning petition, we're going to address the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and it is a small-scale, so this will be an adoption ordinance, so you won't have a second shot at this one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. MS. MOSCA: So when Comprehensive Planning looks at a petition, we always ask, should this plan amendment be approved? Because without the plan amendment, you can't get the zoning. So just make sure everybody's aware of that. So there's always a lot of focus given to the zoning petition without a lot of discussion about the county's vision for the growth plan as well as its policies. So what are these policies? The first policy within the urban area, the vision and the plan is to allow a maximum density of up to 16 dwelling units per acre except in the mini -triangle area of the Gateway/Bayshore CRA. One area of the plan that allows 16 dwelling units per acre is the activity center, and you heard the applicant mention the activity center. Density provisions of the plan provide a transition, that is the higher densities in the activity center in intensities to the lower densities to be further removed from the activity center. The subject property is not within an activity center nor is the Germain Immokalee property to the east, which was subject to a recent Growth Management Plan amendment. The second policy, as mentioned by the applicant, is the proposed affordable housing initiatives. So you all haven't seen those initiatives yet, but those provisions will be reviewed by the Board, most likely reviewed by the Planning Commission. But those are to allow a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre, and these are specific provisions for affordable housing, a targeted type of development. I'm going to skip this slide. We know about the site conditions already from the applicant. So two areas of concern that Comp Planning staff has with this petition: Density as well as compatibility. The eligible density under the existing plan provision is 16 dwelling units per acre. The base eligible density is four dwelling units per acre, and the eligible bonuses to target certain types of development, such as affordable housing, is available up to 16 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is requesting 30 dwelling units per acre. That's 14 more dwelling units per acre than what the plan allows currently. The density is out of character with the surrounding densities on adjacent properties, and you can tell in the slide; take a look around the surrounding areas. So as you can see from the activity center far over to the east, you see that the densities gradually go down. They go up a little bit by the -- I'm sorry -- the intersection of Livingston and Immokalee Road, and those all received eligible bonuses for either infill or affordable housing or residential density band, because that's the intention, to transition. So in the activity center, 16 dwelling units per acre. As you go further out, there's that opportunity for the residential density band of up to three additional dwelling units per acre. So the project is requesting a higher density than what is being proposed by the affordable housing amendments that you'll see in the future. It does not provide the number and type of affordable units identified in those affordable housing provisions. The second area of concern is compatibility. And the applicant has done a significant --tremendous job to address compatibility with adjacent properties. They have done that. Comprehensive Planning staff typically defers the compatibility analysis and review to Zoning staff so they can review the project in its entirety. But what I've provided here is Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6. And, again, this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment. This is not a project that can come in today and request the 30 dwelling units per acre. So what we look for is that any new land uses be compatible and complementary to the surrounding land use. The evaluation typically looks at the building location, orientation, height, buffering, and other factors to determine compatibility. So I'm going to show you the different heights in the area. So to the west is a 34-foot two-story building; to the south they're 35-feet two-story buildings; to the west, that's the undeveloped Germain Immokalee project, and that's 55 to 60 feet; and then to the north, 35 feet, two-story buildings. Now, I want to state that the applicant has provided a greater buffer than required on the western side, I believe also on the southern side, which goes a long way to addressing compatibility; however, we do recommend that the Type B buffer that they're proposing, that perhaps maybe they can add enhanced buffering, maybe some mature trees or retain the trees that are in that area presently. Additionally, perhaps enhanced building perimeter plantings to soften the look of the garage structure as well as the building itself. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we ask a question on that last slide? MS. MOSCA: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Where is Germain's at 55 to 60 feet? It seems like that would be pretty compatible with what they're asking for. MS. MOSCA: Right. And, typically -- and typically we would require a transition downward. Maybe that got in under the radar; I don't know. But typically we would have suggested a lower height, and perhaps they won't come in at 55 feet, 60 feet. I'm not sure what they've developed in the past for, you know, the heights. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That came before us, and we granted it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What's that? We did? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: These are actual heights, right? We're not getting into the zoned height? MS. MOSCA: No, those are actual heights. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sixty is actual. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Actual. MS. MOSCA: Right. For the surrounding properties, those are the actual heights of those two-story buildings. So I just wanted to address the project justification. So the applicant's justification for the 30 dwelling units per acre were the commitments for essential service personnel. And, again, the discussion staff had with the applicant during the lunch hour, they go a long way to addressing the affordability portion. So now they've increased the 35 rent -restricted to 70 for ESP, as they mentioned. So 35 of the units will be 80 percent and lower, and 35 units will be greater than 80 percent to 100 of the AMI. And for those of you who are not aware of the 2021 AMI, that's 84,300. So just to keep that in perspective. So the proposals under the affordable housing amendments, those are the initiatives that the applicant has talked about, the initiatives that I spoke about earlier. Initiative 3, which is affordable housing in the activity center, that requires two-thirds of the bonus, so that's two-thirds of the bonus between 16 and 25 would be the proposal to be available to low and very low income. Now, they haven't proposed any low income in this project. That would mean 88 out of the 280 units would need to be affordable. Initiative 5, which increases density along transit routes, again, requires two-thirds of the bonus, and in this case above 13 dwelling units to be available to low and very low. Again, the project is not proposing any very low. And that would require 106 of the 280 units. So let's talk about some of the density that they believe is comparable to the other projects. So we take a look at the pictures. There's three examples here that the density is not comparable, and context is different. So we'll look at -- first we'll look at -- the top right corner is Magnolia Square. It's at Goodlette-Frank Road. This is actually -- and I believe Patrick had mentioned this. This is part of a larger Planned Unit Development, although the density itself, the 10.5 acres, roughly 290 units at, again, roughly 30 DUs per acre. But this is a very different project. This project is in a mixed -use development. So surrounding it are commercial. To the north, there's office buildings, to the east, industrial, and the school and some additional retail, and then across Goodlette-Frank Road to the west, Pine Ridge Road Estates, and those are hundreds of feet away. So just a different context to keep in mind. The Orchid Run development, which Patrick mentioned, at Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway, both of those are six -lane divided highways. This piece is part of a larger Planned Unit Development, Grey Oaks, and it's an isolated piece. So there really isn't any additional residential around them. There is a golf course and some units further away. And this is at a density of 12.87 dwelling units per acre, roughly 21.91 acres. And then lastly is Addison Place. That's at Immokalee and Collier Boulevard. And, again, that's at 15 dwelling units per acre. The next item is demand for rentals units in the market. There is, based on their market study, a demand in the area. Additionally, within this same market area, you'll see another apartment complex coming forward, and this is at the corner of Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road, and they're asking for an approval of 30.3 dwelling units per acre. So the concern here would be this approval could be the new level of accepted density at 30 dwelling units per acre. So staff is recommending from the Comp Planning side that we reduce the density to 20 dwelling units per acre for a total of 187 dwelling units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you say 20 or 25? MS. MOSCA: Twenty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Twenty. MS. MOSCA: I'll touch on that in a moment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And then also reduce the building height in the PUD rezoning petition and require taller plantings in the Type B buffer along the western property line. Given all the information that we received at lunchtime, they are -- the applicant is getting closer to the initiatives that are being proposed by the Housing Department, and so staff would be able to support 25 even though it's not comparable to all of the requirements of those initiatives. So with that, I conclude, and I will have Josie talk about the zoning portion. MR. KLATZKOW: So we're basing our recommendation based on an LDC amendment that the Board hasn't approved yet? MS. MOSCA: Yes. But it's -- you know, it's consistent with the direction that we're moving forward with. So we can get to that level. Right now it's 16 dwelling units per acre, and staff could, in fact, justify the 20 because they were providing affordable housing, and they were making a commitment for 30 years. So that's why we were able to support 20. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. MS. MEDINA: Josephine Medina, principal planner with Zoning Division, for the record. So when staff is evaluating RPUD, residential -- or any PUD rezone, to echo what Michele was saying, we do evaluate FLUE Policy 5.6, development compatibility and complementary surrounding land uses. We also review LDC Section 10.02.08.17 for rezoning -- for our rezoning findings as well as for the PUD findings, LDC Section 10.02.15.B.5, which I'm sure you guys are aware of. So we evaluate this based on the maximum and minimum development standards that the -- and development commitments. This evaluation, I guess I should have mentioned as well, was also based on the reduced -- the recommendation of reduced density to 20, when I was looking at the compatibility extent. So the main portion that -- the main property that would be affected is definitely, as mentioned, Bermuda Palms Condominiums. This is the one that we've also received 27 signed petitions in opposition as well as one letter requesting a reduction in density. So if we look at the property itself, what the developer is proposing is 80 feet setback from their property line as well as a 15-foot-wide Type B buffer which, as they mentioned, is enhanced because the LDC would require only a 10-foot Type A buffer. And we are also looking at the 35-foot two-story building right here to the right. If you look to the left, then you would see what you -- from the second story, what Bermuda Palms actually is looking towards. Right now, obviously the undeveloped property, I believe the agent said that the trees about -- are about 65 feet tall. And this is an estimate, so it obviously might not be the exact height. But I just wanted to get you an idea of what they would be looking at. COMMISSIONER FRY: If the building is 50 feet tall, as we discussed, and these trees are 65, are you saying that the Bermuda Palms people would not see? MS. MEDINA: Well, these trees are what are existing on the undeveloped. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh. So those are coming down, replaced with a Type B buffer? MS. MEDINA: I guess it would depend on what's exotic, what's not, and if they're willing or able to save. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MEDINA: So it's really not --I wouldn't be able to say. But just kind of a feel, because since it hasn't been built, I can't really say. And to the north, Carlton Lakes -- Carlton Lakes. Minimum 150-foot setback from Immokalee Road is what's being proposed, LDC required Type B buffer. The amount of impact, especially with the reduced height, I don't think it would be as much. Like I said, mostly what we're seeing and how the site is located with it being long, it would definitely be more towards the west where you're seeing the majority of the impact. To the south, as you can see, this is what's, again, existing. There is a commitment to 1.18 acres designated along the southern side of this. And so if you can see, these are two-story -- I believe they're condominiums on the south. Depending on what happens with the amount of exotics that are there in the preserve, we don't see much of an impact also with the degree of -- I believe they said about 150-foot setback. I don't see much of an impact as well. They are required -- they can use the preserve as their landscape buffer, but it if there are a degree of exotics that are found, they do also have to meet the LDC requirements to beef that up a little bit. And, Commissioner Fryer, to answer your question about where Germain Immokalee is right now, right now the last -- I think Tuesday they had a pre-app for SDP. We didn't learn much from that, so that's where we are. So this is why I'm showing you what was approved in the ordinance as their master plan so you can kind of get an idea. Proposed setback from Immokalee -- from Germain Immokalee is that 25-foot setback and the required Type B 15-foot-wide buffer and, again, that ingress and ability to access Juliet through the site. No And to address the why we went to -- requested a reduction in height, so staff reviewed the surrounding heights just to get an idea of what the impacts would be. So I think Michele went over this, two-story, 35 to the north; 30 feet, two-story Windsong; and then Eboli (phonetic) -- or Bermuda Palms is 34 feet. There was an approval to the south, it could either be multifamily or an ALF. It was approved for a zoned -- for, I'm sorry, an actual height of -- and that's wrong right there, but an actual height of 47 feet and a zoned height of 40 feet. And then we have to the south two stories, 35 feet. And then Germain Immokalee 60 feet and 55 and we -- as the applicant had said. The point was for this to be a transition, and usually transitions you don't go neck and neck. It's something where we want there to actually be a visual transition as you're going down the road, even for Carlton Lakes, something like that. So the other point I wanted to make is these are two-story structures but they're also divided into various buildings. So all of the multi -families we have around here are not just --and, yes, there has been some work to allow for the courtyards and the smaller parking garages, but there's still something to do with being able to divide a building and letting that light truly come in. So the areas of concern that staff had when reviewing the evaluation criteria were the proposed change that would seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. That being said, the applicant did mention that it's a visual thing for density, but when you're living next to something, it's also more noise and more light. More people creates that. So I just wanted you to keep that in mind as well. So -- but they did really work on creating orientation where their setback was beyond what is permitted -- what is required for MF -- RMF-16, and their conceptual building envelope identified in the master plan definitely showed their concern with being able to break up the massing. They also identified the preserve location for that south -- southern portion to mitigate. They also had the buffer increase from a Type A to a Type B, which did mitigate to some extent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. So are you saying that you have a concern about the massing of the building? It's really one -- you have the -- it's really one long, continuous building not with the parking garage in the middle. So from Bermuda Palms, you're seeing a long, massive building with no gaps in between, or am I -- am I missing something? MS. MEDINA: I mean, yes, there is some concern with that, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MEDINA: So -- and there was a request for a reduction to the actual -- maximum actual height to help with that. But, again, as density increases, you get more light; you get more activity happening. We were also -- I was also concerned with the request being out of scale for what the neighborhood needs. Again, it's surrounded by two-story multi -families to the north, south, and west. So a reduction to the maximum actual height would create more of an appropriate transition from the commercial to the east. So staff went ahead and did a whole bunch of field surveys. I wanted to get an idea of what the actual impact might be. There's not really something in the county where I could compare as much just because of how tight this site is. The best width l could find of comparability was Orchid Run. It's 351 feet wide, four stories, density of about 2.87 [sic] dwelling units per acre. Obviously not the same density. Also, they have different stories. So if you go towards Golden Gate Parkway, they actually have two-story buildings/apartments instead of the four-story over here. So also different context along major thoroughfares. They have a canal. They have industrial zoning over here. Livingston Road divides them from Estates zoning. They also have a golf course where the major impact really is. Another field study survey that was done was Addison Place Apartments. As you can see, again, a little bit more isolated, have more preserves and dry retention areas as well as to the south will be commercial. And it's a big -- bit wider site. It has less of -- it's divided into multiple buildings as well. And they do also have enhanced buffers along the eastern portion of it; Type B buffers that have been enhanced with more mature trees. They've also made them different widths, depending where it is. If it's the amenity center, they have increased the width to 20-foot or 20-foot-wide. So they have varying degrees of Type B buffers depending on what type of use is at the location. And they are at about 15 dwelling units per acre, 51 feet actual, and four stories. With that, staff recommends approval subject to the following: Reduction to the maximum actual building height to 50 feet, and a revision to the master plan -- and this is just a correction for cleanup -- to identify a 25-foot setback along the eastern property line as has been identified in the residential PUD development standards. Other than that, I guess, like Michele, since there were changes that might increase the density, staff does have some concern with the amount of light and noise that might come from the development with a higher density, so it's in agreement with Michele regarding her request for an enhanced buffer facing Bermuda Palms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Those three examples you showed, do they do anything with affordable housing? MS. MEDINA: I do not believe so. I don't -- I didn't research that, to be honest. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What is staffs official recommendation with respect to dwelling units per acre? MS. MOSCA: I would defer to Michele. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Again, Michele Mosca, for the record. It's really challenging for staff to go from 20 to 25 and then up to 30, again, with the proposal for the additional affordable housing at those lower levels. It's ultimately a Board policy decision, but staff could be supportive of the 25 dwelling units per acre if, in fact, they provide for the mature trees and the Type B buffer, just so you provide those safeguards and protections for the adjacent property to the west. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And are you talking about if they do the 35 and 35 on the affordable? MS. MOSCA: Yes. Now, mind you, that second tier, 80 percent and below, likely you'll get 80 percent. So you may not see all the way down to the 50 percent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: At 187 -- oh, what would 25 units per acre be, then; 235 or so? MS. MOSCA: Is your math better than mine? COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, I don't know. So we're now above 25 percent. We're now at 30 percent or so affordable units out of the total if we did 25; seventy units out. MS. MOSCA: Two eighty. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, it's not 280 at 25 units. It would be 235 or so. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Is there a way to quantify the additional buffering request that you're making? Meaning Type -- you know, we have Type A, B, C, and D. You're talking about mature trees. Is that a -- is there a more tangible or quantifiable way of requesting the additional buffering? MS. MOSCA: Patrick has a good idea. Because, you know, we were just thinking mature trees. So at time of planting, Patrick is saying that they could provide for certain diameter, and I guess it would be. I'm sorry. MR. VANASSE: So in talking with -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: State your name, sir. MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. In talking with the applicant, I think his intentions are very good. He was saying, well, we could possibly tag existing trees and keep them there. Part of the complication is when we develop a site in Southwest Florida, most of the site has to be filled, and we have to put berms. So it makes it very difficult to preserve existing trees. What we can commit to -- and I'm not a landscape architect. But before we go to the Board of County Commissioners, we can have something very specific as to size of tree. So minimum planting height and minimum caliber, so how big around the tree would be. So that's not a problem. We'll get our landscape architect to give us some advice on that, and we can certainly have a solid commitment by the time we get to the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else from staff? MS. MEDINA: Well -- and I'm not sure if this is -- just to make sure the commitment for the two-story parking garage and four-story principal building is also something that the applicant's willing to commit to. It is not on the development standards and was one of the letters that we received that there wasn't clarity in that from -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fifty feet and four stories, right? MS. MEDINA: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe that's what I heard them say. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, again, Jeff Wright, for the record. I think Mr. Fusaro has a comment that he would like to make on that particular commitment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: By all means. MR. FUSARO: Thank you. For the record, Gregg Fusaro. So I guess from our perspective, if we can make 25 units per acre work, without giving you any detail, because I haven't really thought through it, but with the less units we can either reduce the height of part of the building or all of it. We can probably reduce the number of parking spaces in a parking garage. Whether that means a whole level comes off, I don't know. But either way, the reduction in units from 30 to 25 gives us flexibility to create, I'll say, just a better outcome visually in terms of building height either for part of it or all of it, and as far as structured parking goes. And so we would do that, you know, whatever would work the best from a feasibility standpoint. But either way, it will be a reduction in mass. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would you still commit to the 70 affordable units at 25 units per acre? MR. FUSARO: I haven't run those numbers, but I'll say, yes, we'll figure out a way to get it done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? . (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything else from the applicant? MR. WRIGHT: Well, first of all, I want to thank staff, because they put in a lot of time and effort, and they have truly worked with us on this one. I don't think that our project presents a new level. We've set forth reasons why. It's a unique location and graduation of uses and also the ULI and Board of County Commissioners policy makers have kind of encouraged this type of density on these major arterial roadways that are near intersections. So we don't feel like that's a new level we're creating. One thing I owed you, Mr. Chairman, it is Blue Coral. I know that's clear now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Blue Coral, not Coral Blue. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. We ran into a problem with addressing, because Coral is a very common way to name a development, but blue is not, surprisingly. And as far as the -- well, we agree with staff s conditions -- proposed conditions of approval, and thank you for your time. Here for any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We'll hear from staff, unless there are questions -- not staff, public. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question, I think, for the applicant team is, with the reduction in units, we talked a little bit about massing and having one continuous building that entire length of the building. Is it -- do you think the reduction in units might allow a break between buildings to allow some light through? MR. FUSARO: Sure. I think we can look at that. The -- part of the concept initially was that those units that are kind of in the center, which gives you on the east side a continuous building face, would have direct access to the garage, but there may be a way to -- assuming that those were the units that we kind of got rid of, then we could look at a way to have the two buildings on the end kind of on the end of the barbell have direct access into the garage and maybe those units along the east side that are against the garage aren't there. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess, putting myself in the shoes of Bermuda Palms people, I'm not sure whether they would prefer -- if that reduction in units allowed a reduction of a story from four to three, my opinion is they probably would prefer that over a break in the center of the structure. But do you have a -- do you have a sense of that from past experience and what they might appreciate most? MR. FUSARO: It's --yeah, that's a tough one. I think if we asked 10 people we'll get five one way and five the other. I think that probably what we ought to do is just go back and maybe look at a couple of different options and see what just works the best overall and achieves -- again, yes, based on the actual setback from that property, I don't think the four stories is really going to be an issue. I mean, that's a lot. But I think we can certainly look at both options, because it's a finite number of units that we have to reduce. So the question is maybe -- I think one of you might have mentioned or somebody mentioned earlier a building that's maybe three stories with a four-story section, we're doing that on a development right now, or do you just try to take -- open up that center area so that you have a direct line of sight, and you're only looking at a story -and -a -half, really, that you have to look over to see, you know, further to the east. Now, you might be looking at Germain's building when you look through there. But that's a valid question, and I think we would go back and play around with a couple of different options. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think we have, what, three speakers virtually for this or am I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Three or four. COMMISSIONER FRY: Three or four virtual speakers, and I don't know what the neighborhood sentiment is yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we may hear. COMMISSIONER FRY: But I would think before the County Commission the more you can walk in with agreement with your neighbors in terms of the aesthetics of it and -- MR. FUSARO: And I did speak with the woman who's president of the HOA association the other day. We had a good conversation. I just wanted to clarify the issue with respect to us having access into Bermuda Palms, which we had -- we do not want or need, but I said if they wanted it, great, or some kind of, you know, situation there. And then somebody had indicated that they thought we were tapping into their private water system, which was misinformation that came from somewhere, and I assured her that we were not doing that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Registered speakers. Who's first? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, for Item 9A5 we have Mr. David Jordan. Mr. Jordan, are you with us, sir? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Jordan, if you could unmute yourself. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe we come back to him. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yeah. For Item 9A6, we have two speakers. First one is Diane Daugherty followed by Charles Berry. Ms. Daugherty, are you with us. (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right Mr. Berry, are you with us, sir? MR. BERRY: I'm on. Can you unmute your microphone for us, please. We'll come back to Ms. Daugherty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Berry? MR. BERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed, sir. You have five minutes. MR. BERRY: Thank you very much. I am a resident of Bermuda Palms, and I have several questions. I was curious as to the proposed breakdown between one-, two-, and three -bedroom units. And the reason for that question was that if we don't have an accurate headcount, how can you do an effective traffic study? May I go on to my second point? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. BERRY: Is the developer -- and I think the question was answered. But is the developer using totally private funds, or does he have some subsidiary money coming from government that might support the low-income housing? And third question: The stated area is 9.35 acres. If they took away 15 percent of the available land as proposed for use as buffering, this leaves them 7.9 acres. Does that really work into the dwelling -units -per -acre calculation? Fourth question is, there was no report from the school district, and I'm wondering if this ultimately has an effect on what we're doing here. And my fifth question, which is more a concern, is if this goes through with the acceptance of the ratios of low-income and essential service personnel housing, how does that get policed in the future? If this is a 30-year commitment, who's watching all of this? And my final comment is: I hear them suggesting that this development will provide a nice buffer between us and the commercial areas, and we think the green trees and the nine acres that are there now present a pretty nice buffer for us as it is. And that concludes my comments and my questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. We can get answers to those questions right now, and I think it's kind of a blend of staff and the petitioner. Question about the TIS calculation, let's start with that one. MR. MALAESCU: Good afternoon, again. My name is Ciprian. I'm with Trebilcock Consulting Solutions on behalf of Norm Trebilcock in support of the project. I think the question was if the TIS was based on the number of persons living on the project. We follow a national standard in ITE, Institute of Transportation Engineers. It's an accepted standard in Collier County. And we have data that show number of units. So the ITE does not have a headcount for a development. They do traffic surveys all over the country. In this particular case, multifamily, they have many studies, over 501 would say, for each time period they studied. So basic analysis -- basic traffic analysis is really based on the number of units for the development. That's all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And that has always been a point of frustration for me, but you don't use persons per household when you're calculating; you use the ITE number. MR. MALAESCU: That is correct, but the data should be the same, because it refers to the number of units. It is covered in the ITE. So the number of units are the same. ITE covers the number. In our case, 280. So it's within the range of data that ITE has. So it really doesn't matter how many people are living there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I anticipated your answer. I was just pointing out that it's a point of frustration for me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, as an engineer, I don't understand that. I mean, if you had 280 three -bedroom units, you're going to have a lot more traffic than 280 one -bedroom units. MR. MALAESCU: And there will be more traffic for -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But your study won't reflect that. MR. MALAESCU: It will, absolutely. If it's one unit more, we'll have more traffic. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No -- yeah, but if they're both 280 and one is all one -bedroom and one's all three -bedroom, you're saying they're the same, and I don't agree with that whether it's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think so. The IT associates a number of automobiles to the size of the unit. COMMISSIONER SHEA: When you say the "size," you mean the square footage or you mean the number of -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Bedrooms. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Bedrooms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Isn't that right? MR. MALAESCU: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So bedrooms are taken into account? MR. MALAESCU: Not in the ITE perspective, no. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you just said -- MR. MALAESCU: It's based on the number of units -- it's based on the number of units. There's no difference between a one -bedroom or two -bedroom. They have their own. Maybe -- MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. I think from a non -transportation engineer's perspective, my understanding of ITE manuals is they do studies and they look at comparable projects, and they take averages. So the one thing that we have going for us in Collier County is their persons per household tends to be lower than a lot of places in the country, but it doesn't -- like I said, it's an average of multiple projects and multiple locations throughout the country. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Regardless of number of bedrooms? MR. VANASSE: Correct. MR. FUSARO: For the record, Gregg Fusaro. Let me clarify just to answer your question a little bit. Our unit breakdown is about 9 percent studios, 51 percent one -bedrooms, about 31 percent two -bedrooms, and just under 9 percent three -bedrooms. So we're 60 percent one -bedroom or less. So from a traffic perspective, actually, the traffic studies generally, based on this type of unit, proportion mix, don't do us any favors, because it shows more traffic generation than we actually generate. The other comment, just as a point of fact from the developments that we've done in the last three or four years, they're mostly like this. They're kind of an urban landscape development within the suburb -- you know, very kind of urbanized suburban environment. And I won't say that we don't have any, but we have very, very few school -aged children in our developments. And based on that, the traffic that we actually generate is significantly lower than their studies will show, because with fewer school age, you just have fewer trips; not going to the soccer field three times a day, you know, that kind of thing. There was a question with respect to the buffer that's there now, and we get that, but if not us, probably commercial development on that site, and that's, you know, why, from our perspective, this is a great transition from that more intense development to the residential. What was the other question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: The caller asked about a government subsidy. MR. FUSARO: Oh. No, I haven't -- nobody from Collier County has volunteered any dollars. No, we don't have any government subsidy. It's all conventionally financed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thanks. MR. FUSARO: Yes, sir. '1� CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then the question about the reduction in acreage. You calculated it at seven acres and some change. MR. FUSARO: But I believe, and the staff may correct me, density's always calculated on total acreage. But I will point out that the 1.18-acre is a -- is required in the development, and that is a pretty substantial buffer between us and Livingston Lakes to the south, and that's a required untouched area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And his final question, I believe, had to do with who polices. MR. FUSARO: So I don't know the answer to that 100 percent, but I believe there are reporting requirements for Collier County with the neighborhood housing folks. MR. KLATZKOW: Staff does. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney, thank you. MR. FUSARO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ned, may I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: When we were reviewing an apartment proposal for Courthouse Shadows, the developer said that they developed studio units in other areas but that they could not develop studio units in Collier County because they were too small; that Collier County had a minimum square -footage requirement per unit. And I just wondered, is that --that was an issue for them, and that's why they weren't building studios. But we have studios proposed here. Is there any -- what is the minimum square footage of your units? MR. VANASSE: I'll have to pull that from my binder and the minimum size that we have identified. But with regards to PUDs, you have the flexibility of asking for a certain minimum size. So I don't know if that really applies to us, and I don't know the circumstances of that project. COMMISSIONER FRY: I hope not because, personally, I believe there are a lot of young professionals that would live in a studio in order to have affordability, especially in nice luxury units. So I hope it's not a limitation. I just brought it up because it was an issue on that other development. Maybe, Ray, you can talk to it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There were a couple sites in that area where they were proposing some studio. One was in a PUD that had existing larger unit developments, and they were opposed to the studio being part of that community, so that was an issue. There was an issue in Bayshore with another apartment -type complex where the residents there didn't want a studio associated with an affordable housing project as well. And I think there was one other one with court -- or, yeah, Courthouse, but I wasn't -- I'm not sure what the reasoning was on that case. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have any other public speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have one more speaker. We'll go back to Mr. David Jordan. Mr. Jordan, are you with us, sir? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't think Mr. Jordan is with us anymore. That concludes our speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Does anyone object to us closing public comment? Well, I'll ask the applicant if he has a rebuttal. MR. VANASSE: Patrick Vanasse, for the record. Just to answer the question, our Development Standards Table does provide minimum floor area for a studio, we are at 450; for one -bedroom, 600 feet; and two -plus bedrooms, 750 square feet minimum. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: As long as that's okay with the county, it's certainly fine with me. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The staff doesn't object. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Closing public comment. It's now time for us to deliberate on this application. Who'd like to start? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I guess at this point I could see moving forward with -- since we've come to an agreement, I think the affordable housing is always an appealable part of it for me, and the staff being willing to accept the higher density, I would recommend -- I would approve that modified application. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thirty or 25? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I wasn't making --I was just giving comments. I wasn't making -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I can if that's what you want. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, it would be nice, if you wouldn't mind. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I propose that we accept the modified proposal that the staff has concurred with for the lower density and -- MR. BELLOWS: At 25? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess we don't need to address -- excuse me? MR. BELLOWS: At 25 units per acre? COMMISSIONER SHEA: At 25 units. And we don't have to address the percentages committed to on the affordable housing; is that something we have to put in it or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we do. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's in the record, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: It seems to me that these are the factors that we need to deal with: First of all, the number of units that will be offered for less than 80 percent of AMI; the number of units for 80 to 100 percent of AMI; then the DUAs; and the building height. I think those are the -- and the buffering. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the buffering. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those are the four features that I think need to find their way into our -- COMMISSIONER FRY: It was 35 units at 80 percent and below; 35 units at 80 to 100. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Thirty-five units below 80, and 35 units 80 to 100 percent. COMMISSIONER FRY: Twenty-five dwelling units per acre. MS. MOSCA: Twenty-five DUs per acre, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And actual height of 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Fifty feet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And more dense -- B buffering plus more density. MS. MOSCA: Those would be mature trees, and we'll have to come up with some language. COMMISSIONER FRY: To be defined and presented to the BCC. MS. MOSCA: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Can we permit a little bit more discussion? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. COMMISSIONER FRY: I feel like in a way -- and I think Jeff made a point -- that they have not approved these new development standards for the 25 units for affordable housing. We've said we've come a little bit short of what they were requesting as part of what they're considering; however, we have -- to your point, Mr. Vanasse, we have had -- most applications that have any affordable housing are that gap -- have been that gap. So here we are really in the city -- or in the main area of Collier County we have some really, you know, affordable moderate and low affordable housing. So I feel like in a way we're kicking the can down the road to the BCC to have them more or less confirm that intention of the 25 dwelling units per acre. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. This is still a GMP amendment. So they're establishing the density through the GMP amendment. And I also want to clarify you were talking about lower the actual height, but we also want to make sure we address the zoned height as well. And I think, Josie, do we have a reduced zoned height as well? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Forty-five, maybe? MS. MEDINA: Yeah. They were requesting 55. I'm not sure what -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, 50. MS. MEDINA: For the zoned height? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fifty actual. MS. MEDINA: No. They were requesting 55 previously -- well, all right. Fifty is actual. Previously they were requesting 60 actual and 55 zoned is what I was saying. MR. BELLOWS: So do we want 45 zoned? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fifty actual, 45 zoned. MR. VANASSE: Patrick Vanasse, for the record. We looked at both the actual height and the zoned height. Like I said, we had our engineers look at the fill requirements and where our finished floor would be. We also looked at the adjacent roadway for actual height; that's how it's measured what the height was and differential with us. What staff was suggesting to us was 50 zoned height and 50 actual height. And we can make it work within that envelope, but 45 zoned height, I don't know if we can -- if we can completely make it work at this time. That's not something we studied. We looked at 50 and 50 for zoned and actual, and we can live with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anyone object to 50 and 50? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's what it is. Someone from staff, is there clarity on what our -- what we're about to vote on? MS. MEDINA: Yes, I believe so, because there is also, as far as when we're looking at the parking structure, should they desire to put something underneath, there is a note that I believe we will change as well to be two stories, and also, should they desire to put under -- parking underneath, then it would still be limited to that actual height of 50 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely, absolutely. MS. MEDINA: -- which we did address in one of the notes in the development standards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'd like to bring up one other issue just to put it on the table is the -- with the reduction in density, the possibility of reducing it from four stories to three stories, and I wondered how my fellow commissioners feel about that as a condition for approval. MR. KLATZKOW: No, you already approved 50 feet, right? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I think the height -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let them do what they want within -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Let them do what they want with 50 feet? MR. KLATZKOW: What's the difference if it's three stories of 50 feet or four stories of 50 feet? COMMISSIONER FRY: That's a reasonable point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Last point I'd like to make, to compliment the applicant. This is, I think, a great proposal from the standpoint of affordability, and you're to be thanked and complimented. I think this is absolutely in line with what the Board of County Commissioners has been looking for. And so I'm delighted to be able to support this. So thank you very much. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Wait. We have to do the Growth Management Plan first. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, we'll do GMP first. On the Growth Management Plan -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's changes to it. MS. MOSCA: Yes, and I'm clear on the changes to the subdistrict text with the limitations that were already provided by the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do you have clarity, Vice Chair? Do we have clarity? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm looking. So you're just changing the 30 to 25. Well, 25 percent won't be -- MS. MOSCA: So it's going to be 70 rent -restricted, and then we'll list the categories in the subdistrict text. So it will be 35 units less than 80 percent and then 35 units above 80 to 100 percent for the ESP. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right? Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is on the GMP. All in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. Ise ` CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? 4h, (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear Commissioner Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You didn't hear who? THE COURT REPORTER: Commissioner Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Commissioner Klucik, we didn't hear you vote. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I said "aye." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. All right. Is there a motion on the -- MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, I apologize. We -- actually, the number of days that the public notice ESP. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. MS. MOSCA: That's also -- and I apologize. That's also within the subdistrict text of the Growth Management Plan amendment. So we need to address that going from 30 days to 45 days, which was recommended by the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Without objection, can that be part of the motion that we just passed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's unanimously approved. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Now -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I wouldn't think we would need a roll call on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, will you please call the roll? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Not a roll call, but a vote, you know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All those in favor of the original motion and the conditions and then the additional condition with respect to 45 days, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Now, on the Land Development Code -- rather the PUD, may I have a motion on that? COMMISSIONER FRY: Move for approval subject to the conditions that have been discussed. COMMISSIONER SHEA: All the conditions that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? e,' (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? \ (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. MR. VANASSE: Thank you. ! CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just add, I think, I appreciate just the flexibility, kind of on -the -run, very fair, I think, responses from the applicant and flexibility and concessions while we were in the meeting. So I do wish it worked like this more often. MR. VANASSE: Well, thank you very much. I told you we had a good project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Thank you. Well done. Well done by all. Okay. That takes us to old business. I don't believe we have any. New business, one small matter. Let's discuss the need for a July 1st meeting. I've consulted with Ms. Jenkins, and she tells me there is nothing scheduled for that day. I think for our planning purposes, it would be nice if we could give ourselves a day off on July 1st. What's the wish of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second that motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would that have been a formal normally scheduled meeting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, anybody object to that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Without objection, then -- unless a vote is demanded, without objection, we will cancel our July 1st meeting. Obviously, if emergencies come up, then we have to reconsider, but the record will show going forward that our July 1 meeting has been canceled. Any further business? Any public comment to come before the meeting before we adjourn? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, without objection, we're adjourned. Thank you. 'A& There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:43 p.m. These minutes by the Board on COLLI R COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-,Nr 61 , EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER: DATE RECEIVED: PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE: 8-16-19 DATE SUFFICIENT: This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Growth Management Department, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252- 2400. The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Name of Applicant _David Bastos Company _CIG Naples, LLC. Address 226 East 8th St. City _Cincinnati State OH Zip Code _45202 Phone Number 513 246-1985 Fax Number (513)241-9390 Name of Agent * Patrick Vanasse (See Attached Additional Agent) • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company_RWA, Inc. Address 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 City _hInples State Zip Code _34109 Phone Number (239)597-0575 Fax Number (239) 597-0578 C. Name of Owner (s) of Record William C. Scherer Trust Address 2375 N Tamiami TRL #206 City Naples State Phone Number (239)571-1991 Fax Number Zip Code 34103 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. II. Disclosure of Interest Information: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Capital Investment Development Group, LLC. 100% Alexander Bastos 31.67% Kathleen Bergen 31.67% David Bastos 31.66% Gregg Fusaro 5.00% Date of Contract: 6/18/19 F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired ( ) leased ( ): Term of lease yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: 6/18/19 and date option terminates: 1 /10/21 , or anticipated closing: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION _30 48 26 W'/z of E'/z of NW'/4 of NW 1/4 , Less N 100ft R/W See Exhibit III.A B. GENERAL LOCATION South side Immokalee Rd. between 1-75 and Livinaston Rd. C. PLANNING COMMUNITY Urban Estates D. TAZ 161 E. SIZE IN ACRES 9.35 F. ZONING AG G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN_PUD, ROW, AG H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S)_Urban Residential Subdistrict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Traffic Circulation Sub -Element Aviation Sub -Element Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Solid Waste Sub -Element Recreation/Open Space Mass Transit Sub -Element Potable Water Sub -Element NGWAR Sub -Element Drainage Sub -Element Capital Improvement Element CCME Element X Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S) _50, 510520148, 149 OF THE Future Land Use ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use - o identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: See proposed GMPA Language (Exhibit IV.B.1 C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM _Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict TO Mixed Use District, Immokalee Road Interchange & Residential Infill Subdistrict D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED: _Creation of Immokalee Road Interchange & Residential Infill Subdistrict Inset Map V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I" =400'. At least one copy reduced to 8-1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE V.A.1 Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. V.A.2 Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. V.A.3 Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION V.113.1 Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL V.C.1 Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native V.C.2 habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE V.C.3 CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. V.C.4 Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological El communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.). Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference F.A.C. Chapter 163-3177 and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). 1 . INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? IF so, identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? See Exhibit V.D.1.3 Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1) (c), F.S. ? Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County -wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). 1 yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. See Exhibit V.D.1.4 Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. E. PUBLIC FACILITIES l . Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: V.E.1 &V.E.3 Potable Water V.E.1 & V.E.3 Sanitary Sewer V.E.1 & V.E.3 Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS V.E.1 & V.E.3 Drainage V.E.1 & V.E.3 Solid Waste V.E.1 & V.E.3 Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. V.E.2 Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. 3. V.E.1 & V.E.3 Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: V.F.1 Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). V.F.2 Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable N/A Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION N/A $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) X $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus, proportionate share of advertising costs) X.A.1 Proof of ownership (copy of deed) X.A.2 Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) Y 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the complete application will be required. X.A.3 Traffic Impact Statement X.A.4 Market Study X.A.5 Market Study Addendum X.A.6 Well Fields Map X.A.7 Preserve Connectivity Map X.A.8 LIDAR Map X.A.9 Water and Wastewater Demand X.A.10 Preserve Property Map X.A.11.a Height Massing Comparison X.A.11.b Setbacks Exhibit X.A.1 l.c Line of Sight - West X.A.1 l.d Line of Sight -South X.A.1 l.e Line of Sight - North X.A.12 PUD Exhibits A-F X.A.13 Exhibit F Dev Commitments X.A.14 Lexus Cross Mutual Grant of Easement * If you have held a pre -application meeting and paid the pre -application fee of $250.00 at the meeting, deduct that amount from the above application fee amount when submitting your application. All pre -application fees are included in the total application submittal fee. Otherwise the overage will be applied to future proportionate share advertising costs. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1 "=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre -application meeting. M ADDITIONAL AGENT Additional Agent Jeff E. Wright Company Henderson & Franklin Address Pelican Bay Financial Center Naples, FL City Naples State FL Zip Code 34108 Phone (239) 344-1371— Office FAX: (239) 344-1508 Email Jeff.WriRht(@henlaw.com LETTER QF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Tom Barber (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property idAntified in this Application. t� Signed: � a�Q� r s of Recordl ����1y I hereby certify that ^IGhave the authority to take the foregoing appiication, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowiadgo. Signature of Applicani Gregg Fusaro, Capital Investment Group, Inc. Name - Typed or Printed STATE OF (M Ie.hqA �-- ) COUNTY OF Sworn to subscrib refore Me this ._ 1 day of by MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Pu C U LAURAG IcM- CHOOSE ONE Of THE FOLLOWING: l who is personally known to me, who has produced and did take an Oath did not take and Oath 1 G€ARY KKIC, STATE or?A COLKI Y OF WAYICE A Aff COWAMM WE�7 PIRES 31, 2= _as iden'ification NOTICE - 6E AWARE THAT- Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Offiicial Law states That: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a Fine to a maximum of %500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." RESOLUTION 12 234 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. WHEREAS, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires local governments to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 (Section 163,3161, et seq., Florida Statutes) mandates certain procedures to amend adopted Growth Management Plans (Section 163.3184 and Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes); and WHEREAS, in order to provide adequate notice, it is necessary to set forth the requirements and procedures to be followed by petitioners, the general public and Collier County in processing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan consistent with the requirements of the Florida Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: I . Subject to prior Board approval, staff will implement three amendment cycles during which applications for amendments to the Collier County Growth Management PIan or one of its elements ("GMP") will be processed. Additional GMP amendment cycles can only be implemented by approval of the Board. Such approval shall be by majority vote. 2. All amendments must strictly conform with the Florida Growth Management Act, including, but not limited to, Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, for amendments in general, and Section 163,3187, Florida Statutes, for adoption of a small-scale comprehensive plan amendments. 3. Art amendment may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), any department or agency of the County, or any private person, provided, however, that no such person shall propose an amendment for a land use designation change for property which he or she does not own, except as an agent or attorney for the owner. 4. All required copies of the application to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plant and supporting documentation along with the required filing fee must be submitted to the County Manager or his designee prior to the deadline established by the Board for each adoption cycle. Following the requisite submission: A. Prior to submittal, a pre -application conference shall occur between the petitioner and appropriate County staff to ensure that the amendment procedure is understood and adhered to. B. Staff shall perform an initial review of the proposed amendment application to determine whether additional information is necessary to enable stag' to conduct a formal review and whether other amendments of the Growth Management Plan will be necessary to preserve the internal consistency of the Platt, Within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline, the staff shall notify the petitioner in writing, that: (i) staff has determined that the petition is adequate for formal review; or 00 the application is inadequate for formal review and the notice shall set forth in detail the additional information deemed necessary for formal review of the petition. C. If the application is deemed insufficient, the petitioner shall have 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of staffs letter of insufficiency to supplement the application in response to the initial review. A second 30 day time period to respond to the insufficiency may be requested by the petitioner. D. County staff shall review the application and may consult with other County Departments or agencies as it deems necessary to evaluate the proposed amendment and shall prepare a report with a recommendation, E. The Public Hearings schedule and State Agency review time frames will be those as established by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, "Process for adoption of comprehensive plan or plan amendment.", or Section 163.3187, Florida Statute, "Process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment," as amended from time -to - time. Adoption of an amendment to the Growth Management Plan must be by Ordinance and shall require four affirmative votes of the Board of County Commissioners. 10 S. This Resolution supersedes and repeals Resolution 97-431, as amended by Resolution 98-18, relating to prior Growth Management Plan Amendment procedures. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote favoring same, this 13th day of November, 2412. ATTEST:. DWIGi 'F.: BROM.5 CLERK By: , Doput er Attest � tsa {�It'*6 f iciency: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: FRED W. COYLE, CHAIR A Colfier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION www.colliergov.net ADDRESSING CHECKLIST 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Department at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre -application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) 0 OTHER GMP-A LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) 30 48 26 W 1/2 OF E 1/2 NW 1/4 OF NW 1/4, LESS N 100 FT R/W FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 00198000006 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) N/A • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) CIG MIXED USE (Not approved at this time.) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP - or AR or PL # PL-20190001620 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Return Approved Checklist By: 0 Email Applicant Name: Tom Barber Phone: (239)597-3111 ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Email/Fax: tom.barber@abbinc.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 00198000006 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: r'� //� Date: 02/19/2020 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED ) - ) - ® f CL >- _ 2 E§ N 5ƒ/ �� o0 > o EM o=: J ^LL : I % tLu § 2 § CL 3 - g , L. ow o .. ° c 1 A. i 2 k 2 k k §• ■ � FL FL [9 'T| E s I I yy S 02'0518" E 1184.83' a uwi l 0 O 8 z z I l )C w ail Il yis� a Q a ggE r vuna N 02'05'43" W 1184.80' I 11 N m 111III _o P_ wN "< ` HLtlON 0330 w o� U N I � I �k �a I xo Md w A m �o n B N ? u D7 rn I o to U _ — W=CRe=El.4uw1 I' IM N I� _ IN I pig LNINGSTON ROAD A k� �8 ri z w< C 6 Lg o � m• � � 4C oo�m E iH N m >YN ag€a33 o; � INk Sau E Z� x�3 = k Tg F A �� E $ Zg o€Uai nip 21 M- 2 o ���mc € Vv ��.� Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: (w;m ?A Date and Time: $ - 6-19 1: 30/" Assigned Planner: )>&%'d t,)eGk,l Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): —' Project Information Project Name: Tt�►w. o PL #: z o t 16)001 v life Property ID #: P01180,9m06 Current Zoning: Project Address: City: TT State: Zip: Applicant: ��Pitiivrlfrw.t �+�p j'�c . Agent Name: Agent/Firm Address: Phone: City: State: Zip: Property Owner: Wt &M L• fa/., r rr vft ck E"d A4(''r4d' - Please provide the following, if applicable: Total Acreage: Proposed # of Residential Units: 4. 2ro�v V ".1 Proposed Commercial Squar otage: . 7 r lie f . For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: Dv//9 V. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: &%V'f ��r/gh�P 7r°�%Cct Updated 7/24/2018 �l�w' L f7 L� G A"'J ? °r" f - � JA'f r`r Page 1 1 of 5 Co*.r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note — link is https://www.colliergov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. revs oy&'45 - C4. 14 3. 7-761) . MIA) 2 • rOV/46 44 A f vDimr - 1� C �t7�!`r/bn �41GI-K%Iv Susva.,w.: z!� he c{P�Onf�r� jjc (/P rh1,14SL %hvCnte�y Pr A-jo-j fWeAtl � &4w /) 4,h.,9 /%i^,A //vf /l /'lemet e A . �U_Pn �7tc_4 0/, N rl Vir-WWWAA'/ Cvif�yu% r-GsoWItJ- LA gvA)-c. Af-Aftrvct�-/-e fV f&-vee" He vfef Cp.- pA-7cj1e r S v►�-v�,�Q:.� �f'� - ct,�t; n� aM�P ally w� ate . St 44Ad 61" T re- -1➢P /n cG f in, C9` im" tf A e A 14;.f- eP ' 1��IFrtlf��/s �nvintiorY/�'1�A Tvnc ' hC:/�%-�Br�u.Yle �OvS�i,o L9nf4ci' /i'1►. L9�h+kL G�'�%1y� /�9�r.HaIr�- (i[h.,.��.�.r„fr l `'(vMRn �ti-Vr`ccJ l�r`vil�oHf 239,2-S2 -2- 1 Or �vr�a�. y,l/,�!✓cv�li'{.co�.,�fyF/.9�,v . • K"» 441 f3' ki/p► d bb beAJi� Ra�%n� ffisfu� r� %L��' it `lam u1i9 Sieti�' CtA lets praPofa. it, G[.herk� �Grr.S kn /,���fvr,es,f co,"DJex IF/o»/`� ule 9&'ve% 7� ►v �"a age SGrV/Gel et�.�'�oyho f B4>Dor ++%fks 7S' "i 1D / �i"I'Aa r-PC{-+ "yeay, aykc"AfiDnnew, S►` R ��1 i f�Cf ,Fo, 7 MAi� sGi� l G �rNl/n /97^zC,� .�, tw 7� {r L�` `A 3. 31 r 7, F. S. • �Qr p, 'TrevjL.ie na,»e• #Acres+ JatAfi -4„I�-rccf rt�C"A Purpy t � r� i �tittA/ ' SfA'%t k//BwAl<<yJcj w+Je �QE«rif:G1 isfehl�T/'GJ , ehLat�.t..r A- I-40,'0ir¢ Q "or tik tA tl hnf /Yi4s/l,wit 't., . p)+ y"W `teJ l hG�✓Qt A.h G4�ve(vp�t.,f St�� t — tyli � �t�„'fYa j�'�ier ftkfe f �e zg�;•y �1�e f Disclaimer: Infafmation provided by staff to app is nt dunn/g the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. t,v; ! t ry vi e, 5fitAw & tD 1��,,rC G9w►PP-6 bi li/r. Updated 7/24/2018 Page 1 2 of 5 MEETING NOTES COLLIER COUNTY **** DEVELOPMENT SERVICES D', DATE TIME NOTES BY TOPIC OF MEETING ATTENDANCE(print name clearly) ****✓o)P FS /i^S 41 gireo KEY POINTS/UNDERSTANDINGS/CONCLUSIONS 2. 0 V f 2 .4 if D V14 `•• � 1 — 1'Gt G . 2- 1° r ho f L f /? ?A/ jo iyp ..SAD s74v -tv Iry mx 37 �}v�.+i�►`�s %�d��( Sp`�,c flh l st �I�.. (:.� �fiPao,- e� � - Id�'i f�s1�'�t iy �f /�►iV�� •ff '��- � ��� f� k i�`f � f c, �iaf I�. An.?I a ca'"i•4- Y3, C L La r-w iw1f*.tiv4, q _' 77 .014 ram -it- DES Z..S� $ op .y o IOWa two& ' l by av; ( i Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict "4t a.k.a. BLUE CORA A P A R T M E N T S 1 im Project Background: The subject property is approximately 9.35 acres of undeveloped agricultural zoned land located on the south side of Immokalee Road, just west of Juliet Boulevard and east of Livingston Road.Zoning for the property to the west is a residential PUD, the property to the South is the LivingstonLakes Residential PUD, the land to the North is the Immokalee road right of way and the propertyto the east is currently undergoing GMPA/PUD rezone that would propose a luxury automotive dealership. The subject property lies within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and is within the Immokalee Interchange Activity Center Density Band The current zoningforthe property is agricultural zoningand currently qualifies to be rezoned to residential. Request: The purpose of thisapplication is to amend the Growth Management Plan (GMP) to establish the Immokalee Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict. This subdistrict is intended to allow a higher density multi -family rental development that is consistent and compatible with and complementary to the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict and advances Housing and Transportation goals, objectives and policies outlined the Growth Management Plan. Moreover, the proposed subdistrict is consistent with and implements numerous recommendations of the ULI Advisory Services Panel Report on Expanding Housing Affordability in Collier County. 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 2 - The proposed subdistrict will accommodate the development of an urban -style luxury rental community that will offer studio, one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom residences. This project will be required to go through the Planned Unit Development (PUDZ) rezoning process to obtain approval. The proposed project is in an ideal location for increased density. It is along a major thoroughfare, in close proximity to the Immokalee 175 interchange, and almost immediately abutting Mixed Use Activity Center #4, which is home to a mix of uses and significant commercial intensity. The resulting project will provide an excellent transition from the high intensity commercial use proposed on the property directly east of the subject property and the residential condominiums directly west of the subject property. 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 3 - PROJECT NARRATIVE & EXPLANATION/JUSTIFICATION OF GMPA Reauest Protect Description: The proposed Blue Coral multi -family residential development will bring a much needed residential product to the market serving the Northwest Collier County sub -market. The development will include 280living units in a highly amenitized urban style community that will respond to the needsof the Collier County workforce that currently commutes from more affordable residential areas totheir jobs in the County. By design, the development will incorporate unitsthat are smaller in square footage to create workforce affordability. The Developer will work with the Collier County Housing Authority to create subsidies to allow a percentage of units to be affordable to residents making less than 80%; 80% to 90%, and 90%-100% of the average median income. Developer is proposing to offer twenty-five percent (25%) or 70 of the total units to be rented to Essential Service Personnel, of which 35 will be households earning between <80-100% of the Adjusted Median Income (AMI) for Collier County. Preference for these units will be given to Essential Service Personnel (ESP). These are individuals or families where at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a childcare worker, a teacher or other educational personnel, health care personnel, a public employee, or a service worker. These "affordable units" will be offered for a period of 30 years after completion of construction. 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 4 - To assist in creating affordability, we are proposing a density of 30 units per acre. While this density is higher than permitted under the existing Growth Management Plan, this density is standard in manyother Florida markets and is significantly lower than densities permitted in Sarasota, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami and Tampa. More importantly, higher density is appropriate when a project is adjacent to or in close proximity to an interstatehighway and on a major thoroughfare. Traditional thinking suggests that this type of densitycreates a burden on highways and infrastructure, but the reality is that these "urban type" developments actually reduce the numbers of tripsmade on a daily basis. Additionally, this location provides walkability to a variety of commercialestablishments, not the least of which is the newly opened Seed to Table grocery and lifestyle market. The proposed development incorporates a significant number of smaller units (studios and one bedroom units) ranging from 550 square feet up to approximately 750 square feet. Based onthe smaller size of these units, the gross rent is less, thus providing greater affordability. With the documented influx of younger workers and two income families into southwest Florida, this more urban development located adjacent toan activity center and in walking distance to essential services makes perfect sense. Much of the current roadway congestion results from workers employed in Collier County having to commute to other areas to find quality housing with full amenity packages at a reasonable price. Many of these workers are commuting from Estero, Ft. Myers and Cape Coral because they cannot find any affordability in the Collier County area. 'Jill goo r �� •fig ' -� s r � � � r �. • : � • •� r • � F � � - 1 I A 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 5 - The proposed development will offer a rangeof amenities, both in the living units and in community spaces. Every unit in the developmentwill include stainless steel appliance packages, granite or quartz countertops, vinyl wood plank flooring, washers and dryers, walk in closets, designer lighting and cabinetry, nine -foot ceilings, upscale bathroom finishes, patios or balconies inselect units and cell phone app control of basic home functions. Amenity use by residents will notrequire any additional parking than what is required for the residential units. Access and use of the community facilities is private for residents and their guests only. Other than the leasing office, the proposed development will not require any additional parking spaces beyond the de- mand that from residents. All residents in the community will enjoy development amenities. Some of these will include the following: two saltwater swimming pools, Jacuzzi, an expansive club room with TV's and entertainment stations and a community kitchen, game room, golf simulator, business center with computers and printer, fitness center with aerobic equipment and free weights, a pet grooming spaand dog park, covered parking, electric vehicle charging stations, and an outdoor grilling area and kitchen. This amenity package will encourage residents to spend more time at the community, encourage walking to nearby services and vendors, and generally reduce the amount of automobile traffic in the immediate vicinity of the development. This higher density development will utilize the nearby areas of commerce, which is the antithesis of historical urban sprawl. ■l n� s� +r t b Z IL. I+8i FIX 10 IL F 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 6 - Justification: The proposed Immokalee Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict and the proposed higher density is appropriate for the area and can be justified for the following reasons: Appropriate Location The proposed location is in the urban area, in close proximity to a major Interchange Activity Center, in a density band, along a major transportation corridor, and close to public transit. The proposed subdistrict and the proposed car dealership east of the subject property represent a natural extension of Activity Center 4. As stated in the Affordable Housing LDC Amendments that will soon go to public hearing, Activity Centers in the Urban District are areas where the greatest densities and intensities are anticipated. This location represents areas where the transportation system and public infrastructure are available. Moreover, those areas are mixed -use nodes that encourage and support higher densities since they provide goods, services and entertainment in close proximity to the residential units. These nodes encourage transit and through proper interconnection also promote and support bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation. Page 27 of the ULI report recommends to "Target Certain Activity Centers for Significantly Higher Density with the Provision of Mixed -Income Housing." Further, page 26 of the report states that, "Although difficult to develop, projects in the urban areas of the county can yield great benefits by placing residents near existing transit, employment, shopping, and other daily needs and by reducing strain on existing infrastructure." Infill Project The proposed subdistrict and companion Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) represents an infill project for which the Growth Management Plan allows a density bonus recognizing that smaller lots can be challenging to develop and that infilling appropriate areas provide benefits from an urbanization, public infrastructure, transportation standpoint. Additionally, the proposed subdistrict sits between the proposed car dealership and commercial uses to the east and multi -family residential to the south. This infill project provides a favorable land use intensity transition from the more intense commercial uses to the less intense residential communities. As stated on page 25 of the ULI report, "...infill sites in already developed areas of the county are challenging to consolidate, may need to address adjacent uses and neighborhood concerns, and often require additional density to make the financially feasible." The subdistrict will limit future development to residential multi -family only and will provide assurance that more intense commercial uses will not be developed on the property that abuts existing multi -family to the south. The PUD will also include setback, buffering height limits and landscaping that will ensure compatibility with adjacent properties. 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 7 - Affordable Housing Commitment The proposed density of 30 units per acre is consistent with ULI's Report on Expanding Housing Affordability in Collier County published in 2017. Page 27 of the report recommends strengthening the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Program as a means of making it financially feasible for market rate developers to provide affordable housing in site. "...the number of residential units allowed per acre should be significantly increased. For example, 30 units per acre may be a more realistic maximum density to properly incentivize market rate developers to provide affordable housing." The proposed subdistrict provides a clear commitment to provide affordable housing for 30 years and preference to Essential Service Personnel, which is consistent with the ULI report that emphasizes the need to provide housing affordability for Collier County's workforce in order to have a sustainable economy and great quality of life. As stated on page 8 of the report, "housing affordability affects all segments of the community..." and on page 18, "Local employers will continue to have difficulty hiring and retaining employees in the county, which will create a "brain drain" out of the community...." Moreover, the ULI report sees an overwhelming need for affordable rental units, which is mandated by this subdistrict. The report also explains how providing "multifamily rental housing is the most cost-effective way to provide housing that is affordable to the average working person" and as such, recommends greater densities as an incentives to the development community. Transportation Benefits The proposed subdistrict provides the benefit of locating higher densities in close proximity to employment centers, shopping and entertainment, which is consistent with sound planning and transportation practices. This land use pattern supports and promotes transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation. 600 W © NCH NORTH NAPLES © Piper Blvd ® 4— Cd aLLEq nv{a TxwNStT Immokalee Rd t— 0 © Immokalee Rd Creekside IT m 7 73 0 o 0 0 m cc Y Q1 C Y V a-O cc cc C a 0 ° a > c J Vanderbilt Beach Road a 3 0 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 8 - The ULI report (pg 16) also explains that "Crucial to the cost -burden conversation is the combination of housing cost and transportation cost." As people have to "drive to qualify', we create a pattern in which we increase vehicle miles travelled, tax the existing infrastructure and erode our quality of life. In addition to these benefits of increased density in the right locations, the proposed subdistrict will provide very important site -specific improvements that will benefit the existing transportation system, roadway safety and reduce trips on Immokalee Road. FUTURE ACCESS :.• . •. ►��������������v���♦ ♦�������������������1 I 11� R 11 1 Ir ►�����������������i�i�i�i�iN_ 501������������������� ' ►1 nil������1 N ►���������� M ACCESSFUTURE Y Y r r 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict 9 - As depicted on the two exhibits above, the project will provide a joint access with the adjacent property to the east, reducing access points along Immokalee Road, reducing potential conflicts and improving safety conditions. Moreover, the project in collaboration with the property to the east, will create a "frontage road" that will allow connection to the Activity Center uses, the Walmart Superstore and the transit stop at that location. The project will also provide a potential interconnection to Bermuda Palms should that community want the connection. The frontage road will reduce trips onto Immokalee Road and will enable bicycle and pedestrian access to the commercial uses within the Activity Center. Urban Density As we know, Collier County is expected to grow significantly in population by 2040. Collier county with its outstanding quality of life will continue to attract in -migration and annual visitors. The current COVID-19 pandemic has most likely accelerated that growth. In order to meet the County's housing needs and to minimize sprawl, the county has made it a priority to accommodate growth in the urban areas. Urban densities in the right locations, as proposed for this subdistrict, creates numerous benefits described above. In addition to housing, transportation, affordability, transit, quality of life and sprawl benefits, it is important to note that increased density can be achieved in a form that is attractive and compatible with adjacent uses. 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 10 - The ULI report (pg 21) points to "examples of this type of increased density include eayfront and Naples Square, at more than 20-30 units per acre rather than the average 2.5 units per acre in other residential communities." There are numerous examples of recent, attractive and desirable multi -family projects where the density on net acre basis far exceeds the county's current 16 du/ac limitation. Some of these include Magnolia Square that has 290 units on approximately 10.5 acres for a density of 27.5 du/ac; One Naples which was recently approved for approximately 26 du/ac, Addies Corner with a net density of approximately 24 du/ac; Vanderbilt Way with 48 units on 2.5 acres for a density of 19.2 du/ac; and Orchid Run with 281 units on 16,19 net acres for density of 17.4 du/ac. These projects demonstrate that higher density has a place in Collier County and can be compatible, attractive and successful when done at human scale and located in appropriate areas. Similar to the proposed project, the examples above are typically 4-stories in height and located within a mixed -use project or in vicinity to a complementary commercial node. The following photos of the Orchid Run project demonstrates how a higher density project can be attractive and consistent with the community character and the level of quality expected in Collier County. The photos below also demonstrate that people do not experience and react to form and not density figures. If the form is right people will like a project and enjoy their interaction with the built environments 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 11 - Site Design/Setbacks/Buffers In addition to the aesthetics of the proposed project, careful attention was paid to the location of the building onsite, the scale of the building, the landscaping, the amenities provided and the setbacks and buffering from adjacent properties. These items are addressed in detail as part of the companion PUDZ application, however the following exhibits below address these compatibility issues. As can be seen from the height and massing exhibit, the proposed apartments provide a natural transition from the commercial uses to the east and provide significant separation from Bermuda Palms to mitigate for the height differential. The setback exhibit shows that the proposed project far exceeds standard setback requirements. The proposed building was designed and located on the site in such a way as to mitigate the height differential with Bermuda Palms and to ensure compatibility. The building is articulated and provides 2 large courtyards to break up the massing and to provide landscaped areas facing Bermuda Palms. The actual building height including any parapet wall will not exceed 55 feetfrom grade. The parking garage, which is built-in the overall structure will be two levels and will not exceed 30 feet from grade. At its closest, the proposed structure is approximately 84' from the western property boundary and approximately 190' from the neighboring residences. The Collier County LDC acknowledges that potential compatibility challenges can arise between different uses and requires mandatory setbacks and buffering between uses. The Collier LDC requires 50' setbacks from Industrial PUDs to residential zoning districts (Sec 4.07.03), and per Site Design Standards in Sec 4.02.01, standard Industrial zoning districts only require 50' setbacks from residential uses. Moreover, noisy or "impactful" uses such as Car Washes only require 50' setbacks from abutting residential. To the south of the property the proposed apartments are approximately 180' form the property line, where most of this area is a densely vegetated preserve with pines measuring up to 65'. The closest Livingston Lakes residences are over 272' from the proposed structure. Lastly, the project exceeds buffer requirement on the two sides that it abuts residential uses. The code requires 10' Type A buffers where residential multi -family uses abut each other. Along the western boundary a 15' Type B buffer is proposed and as mentioned above a wide, densely -vegetated preserve is proposed along the south. Height and Massing Comparison Exhibit 92' B"ARRI0'T 41E RUC60 - WP.Lf�ART 30' VERIZON 25' - CHASE �� STORAGE • VACANr BLUE.CEML - 111LIRTBLVD CAAWASH LAND BERMllDA RAL 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 12 - Line of Sight — Southern Boundary Him ..�o. •rh off;' ;Ba r. TL IIIIIIIIII BirFER f PARKING EX. BUFFER —EX.TREES Line of Sight — Northern Boundary i SLO- R •` R6vRPE� CA —N 6Luf—ALAPARTMENif J- AREn 1ES1 MOPALff ROW 100'CANALfASfMfM 60'BIIFFfR 91'i IAKES _ S= _ A 12 TWEER' TR su FES G i O � O 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 14 - CONSISTENCY WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT, ULi's HOUSING AFFORDABILITY RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED HOUSING AFFORDABILITY LDC AMENDMENTS: The proposed subdistrict is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, ULI's Housing Affordability Recommendations and proposed Housing Affordability LDC amendments in that it complies with or implements the intent of these documents. In summary, the Immokalee Interchange Infill Residential Subdistrict is compliant and consistent with the aforementioned documents and request higher density for the following reasons: 1. It implements housing affordability recommendations from ULI and provides affordable housing for a period of 30 years. 2. It offers a project that provides rental units and diversifies Collier County's housing stock. 3. It proposes higher density in a location adjacent to a Mixed-Use/Interchange Activity Center, which is an area designated to allow the highest densities and intensities in the County. 4. It proposes higher density on an infill parcel that will serve as a transition from more intense commercial uses to lower intensity multi -family residential communities. 5. It proposes higher density along a major transit corridor and in very close proximity to two major transit stops (North Collier Regional Park and the Immokalee Walmart Supercenter) 6. It proposes joint access with the adjacent planned automobile dealership thus limiting access points along Immokalee Road, and improving traffic and safety conditions. 7. It allows the development of a "frontage road" with interconnection among projects and direct access to the Walmart Commercial plaza thereby reducing trips onto Immokalee Road and Vehicle Miles Traveled. 8. It is consistent with Transit Oriented Development principles and encourages bicycle and pedestrian modes for local convenience shopping. 9. It proposes higher density to help mitigate Collier County's high costs of land, impact fees and regulatory approvals, as well as the rapidly escalating material and construction costs. 10. It proposes a project that must go through the public hearing process and must demonstrate compatibility through PUD process. 11. It requires an affordable housing commitment for a period of 30 years, and requires it to be memorialized via a Developer Agreement, PUD Developer Commitments or rezoning conditions of approval. 12. It provides a quality project that must demonstrate the demand for proposed housing product through a market study. 13. It provides an attractive human -scale multi -family community that provides appealing architecture, amenities and landscaping since people experience form not density. The proposed density on a net acreage is consistent with several desirable multi -family projects in Collier County. 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 15 - Growth Management Plan Consistency: The following excerpts demonstrates consistency with the concepts principles, goals objectives and policies in the Growth Management Plan. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) The Overview explains the intent and concepts behind the land use regulations and the allocation of development to certain areas of the County. An overarching theme is "to protect and manage natural resource systems" by directing growth to urban designated areas stated as follows: Urban Designated Areas on the Future Land Use Map are located and configured to guide concentrated population growth and intensive land development away from areas of great sensitivity and toward areas more tolerant to development. Furthermore, the FLUE establishes the Use of Activities Centers as a means of concentrating future development in appropriate urban areas that help minimize urban sprawl and promote an efficient use of public infrastructure as stated below: The Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to provide for concentrated commercial and mixed use development but with carefully configured access to the road network. Superior urban design is therefore promoted by carefully managing road access, avoiding strip commercial development, improving overall circulation patterns, and providing for community focal points. Policy 4.7: Access Management Plan provisions have been developed for Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Centers designated on the Future Land Use Map and these provisions have been incorporated into the Collier County Land Development Code. The intent of the Access Management Plan provisions is defined by the following guidelines and principles: a. The number of ingress and egress points shall be minimized and shall be combined and signalized to the maximum extent possible. b. Spacing of access points shall meet, to the maximum extent possible, the standards set forth in the Collier County Access Control Policy (Resolution No. 01-247, adopted June 26, 2001). c. Access points and turning movements shall be located and designed to minimize interference with the operation of existing and planned interchanges and intersections. d. Developers of lots, parcels, and subdivisions shall be encouraged to dedicate crossaccess easements, rights -of -way, and limited access easements, as necessary and appropriate, in order to ensure compliance with the above -mentioned standards (a. — c.) Objective 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map .... 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 16 - OBJECTIVE 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: 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. 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. Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. Housing Element GOAL 1: TO CREATE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF DECENT, SAFE, SANITARY, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY. OBJECTIVE 1: Provide new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing needs of legal residents with very -low, low, moderate and affordable workforce incomes, including households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural Collier County OBJECTIVE 2: Increase the number of affordable housing units, by the methods contained in Objective 1 and subsequent Policies, for very -low, low, moderate and affordable workforce income residents with the assistance of for -profit and not -for -profit providers of affordable housing, within the County and its municipalities Policy 2.2: Partnerships shall be encouraged between private developers, non-profit entities, local governments and other interested parties to ensure the development of housing that meets the needs of the County's very - low, low, moderate and affordable workforce income residents. Policy 2.4: The County shall, with the City of Naples, continue to review existing codes and ordinances and amend them as needed to allow for flexible and innovative residential design that encourages mixed use development with a variety of housing designs, styles, and price ranges. Transportation Element OBJECTIVE 7: Develop and adopt standards for safe and efficient ingress and egress to adjoining properties, and encourage safe and convenient on -site traffic circulation through the development review process. Policy 9.3: The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments, and shall also develop standards 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 17 - and criteria for the safe interconnection of such local streets. OBJECTIVE 12: Encourage the efficient use of transit services now and in the future. 4/2/21 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict - 18 - Collier County Florida January 29—February 3, 2017 Urban Land Institute Collier County Florida Expanding Housing Affordability January 29—February 3, 2017 Urban Land Insiituie About the Urban Land Institute THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE is a global, member - driven organization comprising more than 40,000 real estate and urban development professionals dedicated to advancing the Institute's mission of providing leadership in the responsible use of land and creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. ULI's interdisciplinary membership represents all aspects of the industry, including developers, property owners, investors, architects, urban planners, public officials, real estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, finan- ciers, and academics. Established in 1936, the Institute has a presence in the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific regions, with members in 76 countries. The extraordinary impact that ULI makes on land use deci- sion making is based on its members sharing expertise on a variety of factors affecting the built environment, includ- ing urbanization, demographic and population changes, new economic drivers, technology advancements, and environmental concerns. Peer -to -peer learning is achieved through the knowledge shared by members at thousands of convenings each year that reinforce ULI's position as a global authority on land use and real estate. In 2016 alone, more than 3,200 events were held in 340 cities around the world. Drawing on the work of its members, the Institute recog- nizes and shares best practices in urban design and devel- opment for the benefit of communities around the globe. More information is available at uli.org. Follow ULI on Twit- ter, Facebook, Linkedln, and Instagram. Cover photos: Wilhelm Rosenkranz (top); Beth Silverman (bottom). © 2017 by the Urban Land Institute 2001 L Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036-4948 All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the contents without written permission of the copy- right holder is prohibited. 2 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report About ULI Advisory Services THE GOAL OF THE ULI ADVISORY SERVICES pro- gram is to bring the finest expertise in the real estate field to bear on complex land use planning and development projects, programs, and policies. Since 1947, this program has assembled well over 600 ULI-member teams to help sponsors find creative, practical solutions for issues such as downtown redevelopment, land management strate- gies, evaluation of development potential, growth manage- ment, community revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, military base reuse, provision of low-cost and affordable housing, and asset management strategies, among other matters. A wide variety of public, private, and nonprofit or- ganizations have contracted for ULI's advisory services. Each panel team is composed of highly qualified profes- sionals who volunteer their time to ULI. They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and are screened to ensure their objectivity. ULI's interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic look at development problems. A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience chairs each panel. The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is intensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day composed of a tour of the site and meetings with sponsor representatives, a day of hour-long interviews of typically 50 to 100 key community representatives, and two days of formulating recommendations. Long nights of discussion precede the panel's conclusions. On the final day on site, the panel makes an oral presentation of its findings and conclusions to the sponsor. A written report is prepared and published. Because the sponsoring entities are responsible for significant preparation before the panel's visit, including sending extensive briefing materials to each member and arranging for the panel to meet with key local community members and stakeholders in the project under consider- ation, participants in ULI's five-day panel assignments are able to make accurate assessments of a sponsor's issues and to provide recommendations in a compressed amount of time. A major strength of the program is ULI's unique ability to draw on the knowledge and expertise of its members, including land developers and owners, public officials, academics, representatives of financial institutions, and others. In fulfillment of the mission of the Urban Land Institute, this Advisory Services panel report is intended to provide objective advice that will promote the responsible use of land to enhance the environment. ULI Program Staff Thomas W. Eitler Senior Vice President, Advisory Services Beth Silverman Senior Director, Advisory Services Paul Angelone Director, Advisory Services Steven Gu Associate, Advisory Services James A. Mulligan Senior Editor David James Rose EditorlManager Sara Proehl, Publications Professionals LLC Manuscript Editor Betsy Van Buskirk Creative Director Deanna Pineda, Muse Advertising Design Graphic Designer Craig Chapman Senior Director, Publishing Operations Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 3 Acknowledgments ON BEHALF OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE, the panel would like to thank our sponsors, the Board of Coun- ty Commissioners of Collier County —Penny Taylor, Donna Fiala, Andy Solis, Burt L. Saunders, and William L. McDan- iel Jr. The panel would also like to thank the city of Naples, the city of Marco Island, Everglades City, the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and the Commu- nity Housing Plan Stakeholders Committee for inviting the panel to examine housing affordability challenges in the county, and it thanks the community at large for being so warm and welcoming. Special appreciation goes to Kimberly Grant, director of Community and Housing Services; Cormac Giblin, Grants and Housing Development manager; Steve Carnell, head of Public Services; County Manager Leo Ochs; and the rest of the county staff members for the time and effort they have devoted to the project. In addition, the panel expresses its appreciation to Steve Hruby, Nick Kouloheras, and the other members of the affordable housing committee for their assistance and support throughout the engagement. The panel also thanks ULI Southwest Florida, which will continue to be a local resource for Collier County moving forward. Finally, the panel would like to thank the approximately 90 residents, business and community leaders, and repre- sentatives from the Greater Collier County community who shared their perspectives and insights during the panel's stakeholder interviews. 4 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Contents ULIPanel and Project Staff...............................................................................................................................6 Background and the Panel's Assignment..........................................................................................................7 Study Area and Surrounding Context.................................................................................................................9 CurrentConditions........................................................................................................................................11 Vision: What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up?.....................................................................................17 Implementation.............................................................................................................................................. 20 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................37 Appendix A: Implementation Schedule............................................................................................................38 Appendix B: Examples of County Housing Initiatives.........................................................................................39 Appendix C: City of Austin, 2014 Robert C. Larson Policy Leadership Award Winner.........................................40 Aboutthe Panel.............................................................................................................................................43 Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 5 ULl Panel and Project Staff Panel Chair Philip Payne Principal and Chief Executive Officer Ginkgo Residential Charlotte, North Carolina 1' :0111=111170 Hilary Chapman Housing Program Manager Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Washington, D.C. Ian Colgan Assistant Executive Director Oklahoma City Housing Authority Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Joanne Fiebe Florida Center for Community Design and Research School of Architecture and Community Design, University of South Florida Tampa, Florida Lacy McManus Director of Program Development Greater New Orleans Inc. New Orleans, Louisiana John Orfield Principal BOKA Powell Dallas, Texas Cassie Wright Project Manager Urban Ventures LLC Denver, Colorado ULI Project Staff Beth Silverman Senior Director, Advisory Services Steven Gu Associate, Advisory Services 6 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Background and the Panel's Assignment COLLIER COUNTY HAS BEEN DESCRIBED as "unique" and "one of the most beautiful places in the world." Although the community is unique, the issue of housing affordability is not. In fact, virtually every commu- nity in the nation is, to some degree, struggling with this issue. It is especially true in retirement and resort commu- nities, which have significant numbers of service workers and high real estate values. The issue of housing affordability is not new. The panel is impressed with the time, the effort, and the quality of work that has been invested in this subject by the commission- ers and Collier County staff. Many of the panel's recom- mendations mirror and ratify the work that has already been done. From the panel's perspective, the real need in Collier County is for action and implementation. This implementa- tion will require political will and leadership. In addition, the community at large will need to prepare for and adapt to the growth that is certain to occur in the county. Not all of the panel's recommendations will be popular within the community at large, but the panel believes such recom- mendations are essential to the long-term viability and sustainability of Collier County. An integral part of this strategic vision will be developing a plan that ensures that affordable housing will be available to all of the county's citizens. The Panel's Assignment There is no question that Collier County has a housing affordabilityproblem. The highly desirable area is home to millionaires and billionaires from around the world. The county also has a sizable second -home retirement com- munity. Like many affluent resort communities across the United States, those influences have created a develop- ment pattern that caters to select segments of the com- munity. The local economy is focused on retail, hospitality, services, and agriculture; however, high housing costs have priced out much of the workforce needed for the county to function. As a result, large numbers of employ- ees are commuting long distances to and from work, and employers are having an increasingly difficult time recruit- ing and retaining workers. Community leaders are seeking strategic recommendations on how to address the issues surrounding housing affordability in Collier County. In March 2015 and again in March 2016, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) held an affordable housing workshop. The BCC has also received several recommen- dations for programs and incentives to address housing affordability in Collier County, including establishing an affordable housing trust fund, providing even greater density incentives to support affordable housing develop- ment, and providing inclusionary zoning with pay -in -lieu -of options. The larger Collier County community has come Although Collier County is the site of multimillion -dollar homes, it faces a significant housing affordability problem. Part of the challenge stems from a significant lack of supply in terms of housing type and level of affordability throughout the county. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 7 together around this issue. In October 2015, the United Way sponsored a community -wide forum about affordable housing. The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors has also established a work group to address this issue. Collier County has invited the ULI Advisory Services panel to help the county develop a community -wide approach to address housing affordability issues. Collier County has asked the panel to focus on the follow- ing key questions: ■ Why is it important for the county to have a balanced supply of housing, in terms of type, tenure, attainability, access, and distribution? ■ According to key stakeholders, including residents, what are the major obstacles to producing and sustaining affordable housing and workforce housing in Collier County? What can be done to mitigate those obstacles? ■ What are the stakeholders' perceptions of affordable and workforce housing and of the existing tools and programs in place to support it? What are stakeholders' recommendations for change? ■ How can public policy encourage the redevelopment of underused areas of the developed coastal area that includes affordable and workforce housing while ensur- ing that such housing will also be a component of new development in the urban and rural fringe areas. ■ What policies, strategies, and best practices have worked in places similar to Collier County that the panel Collier County circa 1930-1945. m would recommend that the county implement as it produces affordable housing units in the county's urban and rural areas? Summary of the Panel's Recommendations It was evident to the panel during its interviews with com- munity stakeholders; its review of comments compiled from a countywide, online, public survey; and its multiple study tours throughout Collier County that much work has already been done to address housing affordability chal- lenges. The panel hopes this report not only will serve as a blueprint for implementation, but also will help solidify an ongoing strategy to meet the county's spectrum of housing affordability needs. With such goals in mind, the panel's primary recommendations include the following: ■ Create a vision for the future of the community. ■ Recognize that housing affordability affects all segments of the community. ■ Increase the county's supply of affordable housing (in- cluding rental housing) by adding to the current supply and by maintaining existing affordable units. ■ Adopt a smart code that distinguishes between the urban and rural parts of the county. ■ Reactivate the Affordable Housing Trust Fund —and use it. ■ Recognize that transportation is part of the housing affordability solution. Develop solutions that link housing with access to transportation options. ■ Establish transportation corridors to target mixed - income, multifamily housing development. ■ Consider establishing an enhanced minimum -wage ordinance. ■ Raise public awareness, educate, and communicate with the community about housing affordability. a A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Study Area and Surrounding Context LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST END of the Florida peninsula, Collier County is the largest county by land area in the state. The county contains a variety of differ- ent communities including the city of Naples, inland Im- mokalee, and Marco Island, as well as four large nationally protected environmental areas. According to the 2010 census, the population breaks down to 65.7 percent non - Hispanic whites, 25.9 percent Latino, 6.6 percent African American, and 1.1 percent Asian. This diverse community, both geographically and ethnically, makes Collier County unique when compared with similar tourist destinations. However, this diversity has also led to housing issues throughout the county. Key Focus Areas Although the county was examined at large, the panel was asked to focus on the following key areas: ■ The city of Naples is an incorporated municipality bordering the Gulf of Mexico on the west and the unincorporated Collier County urban area on the east. Naples measures just 14 square miles and has some of the highest housing costs in the country. The limited number of commercial areas consists primarily of retail centers and financial institutions. ■ The urban area is located between the city of Naples and the rural lands (which run from the coast to about ten miles inland). Most of the housing, commercial, re- tail, and other services are located and permitted in this area. The urban area is characterized by large, planned, gated communities and by strip -mall developments. ■ The rural lands and the Estates area are located between the urban area and the more environmentally sensitive areas to the east. The Estates area is largely composed of platted, subdivided lots that range from Charlotte Har6or - - FOV HENDRB No la PALM BF Cape LEE B yntor Naples CO LIER BROWARD, 41 Big Cypress GULF N PRES , amiani OF \ \o DADE M E X/ C O Hoi este}4 whitewater BeL/� 1 i' 1 E glades NP _ -West Palm Beach Fort Lauderdale lollywood iami e NP ATLANTIC OCEAN 6 FLORId,Q BAYi \.i 1 Key West. — Located in southwest Florida, Collier County is the largest county by land area in the state. Collier County Florida Urban { City of 1, - I 0 X O <— Immokalee area -_i-. Rural lands/Estates area IS p' The panel's study area encompasses the entire county. However, key focus areas within the study include the city of Naples, the urban area, the rural lands, the Estates area, and the Immokalee area. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 9 about one acre to more than 20 acres. During the Florida Land Grab of the 1950s, land parcels were divided and sold, creating the largest subdivision in the world with tens of thousands of home sites. Designated as privately owned, single-family lots, the Estates area's commercial and retail opportunities are limited. West of the Estates are the rural lands, which are primarily farmland and environmentally sensitive areas that are designated for future cities and towns. The first town to be built in this area is Ave Maria. Once the project is built out, it will have up to 11,000 residences and 1.7 million square feet of retail, office, and business park uses spread across its 4,000 acres. Ave Maria is located at the intersection of Oil Well Road and Camp Keals Road in eastern Collier County. The main entrance —on Oil Well just west of Camp Keals—leads to the town center. ■ The Immokalee area is an agricultural center of the county. It is located in the northeast section of the county and is characterized by residential, commercial, and industrial development. A significant percentage of the affordable housing units available in Collier County are located in the Immokalee area. Habitat for Humanity development projects, such as Carson Lakes and Faith Landing, are built here, as are other affordable housing developments, including Hatcher's Preserve. 10 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Current Conditions AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS MANY definitions and perceptions. Oftentimes, the multitude of definitions and opinions creates confusion when people are attempting to both study and solve issues of housing affordability in any given community or geography. Many definitions of afford- able housing refer to a percentage of area median income (AMI) as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Other definitions are careful to delineate between "affordable" and "workforce" housing — often defined as above or below 80 percent of AMI. Regard- less of the definition used in the affordable housing industry, for most people what represents "affordable" is more of a gut feeling that is influenced by their daily context. Throughout the study process, the panel consistently heard about Collier County's housing affordability problem. However, the panel also perceived that there is a lack of clarity and agreement about the definition of affordable ENVi$iOWNR MA IOPYEM F Cwb Na.i What Is Affordable Housing? — LU I.0 N The Center for Urban Pedagogy, a New York City nonprofit organization dedicated to using the power of design and art to increase meaningful civic engagement, created the guidebook What Is Affordable Housing? with pictures and diagrams to help explain affordable housing issues in New York City. housing, which is causing poor communication, misunder- standings, and misaligned goals relative to the topic. Ac- cordingly, the panel recommends reframing the terminology of housing affordability around the concept of cost burden. Reframing the Idea of Housing Affordability HUD defines "cost burdened" as the following: Families who pay more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, which includes mortgage principal and interest, property tax, and homeowners insurance payments. Other definitions add other housing costs, such as utilities, condominium or homeowners association fees, and ongo- ing maintenance or repairs, but the overall concept is that if a household is paying more than 30 percent of its gross income toward housing, then that is a concern, and from a policy standpoint, such cost may need to be addressed. The advantage of using the cost -burden terminology is that it does not put the focus on income alone; instead, it examines income as compared to housing cost. Therefore, it has a localized outcome that recognizes the different housing markets that exist nationally, regionally, and even within a single city or county. The 30 percent cost -burden threshold has been around for several decades. The idea was originally established by the 1937 National Housing Act, which also created the public housing program. At that time, eligibility to live in public housing was based on income limits, rather than maximum rents; a tenant's income could not exceed five to six times the rent. Since the late 1930s, the 30 percent income limit for rental housing has been reevaluated and Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 11 Glossary of Housing Affordability Terms Affordable housing: Generally, a home or apartment occupied by a household that pays 30 percent or less of its gross income toward its mortgage or rent. The term is also widely used to refer to housing that is subsidized or rent -regulated and that is occupied by a household that is "low-income" (see later). The term used in this manner can be limiting —there are growing numbers of households that are within a range of incomes, that live in unsubsidized or unregulated market -rate housing, and that have a problem with "housing affordability" (see later). Area median income (AMI): The median household income of each metropolitan statistical area (MSA) adjusted for family size. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes AMIs annually. AMI is used to determine the eligibility of applicants for most housing assistance programs. Extremely low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed the higher of the federal poverty level or 30 percent of AMI (see earlier). Housing affordability: Refers to the ability or the lack thereof of a household to meet its housing expenses with a reasonable and sustainable share of its income, generally spending no more than 30 percent of gross income on housing costs, without regard to the household's income or whether the household lives in subsidized, rent -regulated, or market -rate housing. Housing cost burden: Per the federal government, refers to a household having to pay more than 30 percent of its income for housing and possibly having difficulty affording other necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. A housing cost burden is "severe" if housing costs consume more than 50 percent of a household's income. Low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed 80 percent of AMI (see earlier), adjusted for family size. Mixed -income housing: "Mixed -income" has a twofold meaning. In accordance with federal housing policy, HUD defines a mixed -income building as "comprised of housing units with differing levels of affordability, typically with some market -rate housing and some housing that is available to low-income occupants below market -rate." In accordance with widely held housing industry practice, a mixed -income neighborhood consists of a variety of household incomes and opportunities for meaningful interaction, including parks, schools, and shopping. Moderate -income housing: Per federal regulations, households whose incomes are between 81 percent and 95 percent of AMI. The government may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 95 percent of AMI on the basis of an analysis of prevailing levels of construction costs, fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. Naturally occurring affordable housing: Generally, housing that is "affordable" to "low-income" and "moderate -income" (see earlier) households that is not currently federally subsidized or rent -regulated. Preservation: Generally, providing the necessary physical improvements and financial capital to enable a currently occupied rental property to remain "affordable" (see earlier) and in decent condition for a sustained period of time. Preservation programs can also target owner -occupied housing, thereby providing assistance to homeowners that allows them to make improvements to their homes and to remain in them. Public housing: Rental housing owned and operated by local housing authorities that primarily serves "extremely low-income" (see earlier) households. Roughly 2.6 million people live in the nation's 1.1 million public housing units. Very few public housing units have been built in recent years. Supportive housing: Generally, "affordable housing" (see earlier) combined with social services to assist vulnerable populations, such as the homeless, the disabled, the addicted, and the elderly. Very low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed 50 percent of AMI (see earlier), adjusted for family size. Workforce housing: Generally, housing that is "affordable" (see earlier) to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of AMI (see earlier). In high -cost areas, incomes may be as high as 150 percent of AMI. Some definitions exclude owner -occupied housing. Source: ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing. 12 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report During the study tour, the panel observed that in several communities multiple cars were parked in front of each home, thus supporting the theory that people are living together in order to afford the high cost of housing in the county. adjusted several times, ranging from 20 to 30 percent at any given time. In 1981, the housing burden rate for rentals was rees- tablished at 30 percent of gross annual income. Gradu- ally, this limit was extended to homeownership. In the mid-1990s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would purchase mortgages only if their principal, interest, tax, and insur- ance (PITI) payments were 28 percent or less of the borrower's gross income for a conventional loan and 29 percent for a loan insured by the Federal Housing Admin- istration. Since that time, almost all cost -burden limits for housing have been around 30 percent of a household's gross income (https://www.census.gov/housing/census/ publications/who-can -afford.pdf). Used in conjunction with the 30 percent cost -burden threshold is severe cost burden, which includes house- holds that pay more than 50 percent of gross income toward housing costs. Those households are the most at risk —regardless of locality. Defining the Cost -Burden Problem In 2015, Collier County had a population of 343,802 and 140,131 households. The Shimberg Center at the Univer- sity of Florida estimates that of the 140,131 households, 58,685 (40 percent) were cost burdened in 2015—mean- ing they spent more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing. Of those 58,685 households, 29,342 were considered severely cost burdened —meaning they spent more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing. This finding means that two out of every five households in Collier County are cost burdened, with one in five severely cost burdened. Table 1: Cost Burden in Collier County Burden for Three -Person Household Earning 30 to 150 Percent of Area Median Income Percentage of income Percentage of income Percentage of income Annual household Percentage of area needed to afford needed to afford needed to afford income median income median rent* median -price home** median -price condo*** $20,160 30 61 149 101 $29,600 50 41 101 69 $47, 300 80 26 63 43 $59,125 100 21 51 35 $65, 038 110 19 46 31 $70,950 120 17 42 29 $88,688 _ 150 _ 14 J _ 34 23 Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development- The 2016 Collier County Economic, Demographic & Community Profile; the American Community Survey. *Median gross rent is $1,020 per month, as defined by the Shimberg Center in 2015. '*Median sales price is $405,000, including mortgage and interest at a 20 percent downpayment for 30 years, plus estimated homeowner's insurance, property taxes, and flood insurance. '**Median sales price for condominiums and townhouses is $257,000, including mortgage and interest at 20 percent downpayment for 30 years, plus estimated homeowner's insurance, property taxes, and flood insurance. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 13 However, the issue of cost burden may be larger than the numbers indicate. Not all of the households counted in the census are year-round residents, and most of those part- time households have incomes that support their residence in the county, which is a second residence. Therefore, it is likely that the actual percentages of cost burden are substantially higher among residents who live in the county year-round. To better understand the meaning of "cost burdened" in Collier County, the panel analyzed the correlation between household income and housing prices or rental rates. In 2016, the estimated AMI for Collier County was $65,700, and the average household size was 2.47. For a snapshot of the cost -burden issue, see table 1. Who Is Cost Burdened in Collier County? The people who are cost burdened in Collier County are crucial to the local economy. They provide key public safety, education, and health care services to the com- munity's residents. In addition, they are responsible for the high -quality lifestyle that makes Collier County such a special place. Examples of workers in the cost -burdened category include the following: ■ Health care: Nurses, medical assistants, senior service providers ■ Education: Teachers and other school employees ■ Public safety: Police officers, firefighters ■ Service industry workers: Wait staff, hotel staff, retail and trade salespeople, golf course employees, land- scape maintenance workers ■ Entry-level or nonprofit professionals: Bank tellers, social workers, office managers, government employees Not every person in those fields will have difficulty finding housing that is affordable. For example, dual -income households have increased purchasing power. However, people receiving entry-level and median income rates in health care, public safety, and professional sectors are more likely to experience a cost burden than are the people holding executive, management, and supervisory positions. Also, single -income households, which can include one- to four -person households, are more likely to experience a cost burden or even a severe cost burden when living in Collier County. Table 2 provides a representative sample of employment positions in Collier County and what people in such posi- tions can afford in the local market. Across the board, the ability to afford houses priced at the median sales price from 2015 was low. The ability to afford rental units at the median gross rent (plus utilities) was more reasonable, with affordability attainable for some of the people holding professional positions. During the panel process, the panel heard many stories regarding how difficult it is to recruit service industry work- ers, particularly those who work at the resorts and hotels, including housekeepers, front -desk staff members, and golf course attendants. The panel's analysis of cost burden for those jobs indicates that there is substantial cost burden for such workers unless they share living space or commute long distances. One critical challenge for Collier County businesses is the ability to recruit entry-level professionals. Mid- and upper -level professionals in public safety, education, government, and health care can afford a wider range of housing. However, such is not the case for entry-level professionals, who often end up living far away from their source of employment (particularly in Lee County). Having employees who reside outside of Collier County and who commute long distances for work often means a high level of attrition for businesses. Furthermore, when people who work in the county are commuting to adjoining municipali- ties to live, the county bears the costs of the roads without the benefit of receiving the tax revenue. Collectively, the employment sectors that are the most at risk to incur a significant cost burden represent more than 50 percent of the local labor force. But beyond that, the sectors represent the core of county, public safety, 14 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Table 2: Estimated Cost Burden for Households Headed by Selected Wage Earners Health care Registered nurse $47,000—$65,000 38% Medical assistant $30,000435,000 41% Emergency technician $28,000—$36,000 42% Education Teacher $44,000—$59,000 28% Teaching assistant $22,000—$24,000 45% Public safety Firefighter $39,000—$57,000 43% Patrol officer $47,000—$59,000 41 % Service workers Maid and housekeeping $18,000422,000 Massage therapist % 44% $26,000—$55,000 1r48% Concierge $25,000—$31,000 Entry-level/midtier professional Human resources specialist $35,000—$55,000 31 % 45% Dental assistant $33,000—$43,000 36% Administrative assistant $22,000433,000 - Housing cost accounts for less than 30 percent of gross income (not cost burdened) - Housing cost accounts for 30 to 50 percent of gross income (cost burdened) - Housing cost accounts for 50 percent or more of gross income (severely cost burdened) Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; The 2016 Collier County Economic, Demographic & Community Profile; the American Community Survey. and education services, and those services support the background of the lifestyle, health, and overall vitality of the county. Other important groups of residents with substantial needs include low- to moderate -income seniors, both those who live independently and those who require services; residents who require mental health treatment and various other services; and very low -wage earners. Those resi- dents face virtually no supply of housing or no continuity in being provided social and health services. Most experience long wait lists at the few available housing sites, and many have to be relocated outside of the county to areas with a greater concentration of housing and services. Going Beyond the Root of the Problem If one is to understand the full spectrum of housing afford- ability, it is critical to examine the aspects of the challenge that go beyond housing costs. Those additional crucial factors include added housing costs, housing supply and availability, transportation costs, and future growth implications for the county, and such factors are examined in further detail in the following sections. Added Housing Costs In Collier County, housing affordability for homeowners (and especially first-time homeowners) means more than Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 15 just taking into consideration PITI. Utilities and home- ownership association fees also come into play when determining housing affordability and cost burden. After interviewing several area stakeholders, the panel believes that the percentage of cost -burdened Collier County households is even higherthan outlined in the earlier section. One reason the percentage is higher is that many households cannot afford a 20 percent downpayment, which means they must pay private mortgage insurance, thus reducing the amount of home they can afford. In addition, almost all areas of Collier County require flood insurance, which adds a substantial monthly cost on top of all the costs just described. Moreover, Collier County has one of the highest homeowner insurance rates in Florida. Availability When one considers cost burden and affordability, one must also consider availability and quality. Housing units at the bottom of the cost spectrum often are made up of a high percentage of units with quality and maintenance concerns. If one considers the total number of units existing at differ- ent rental and sale prices, availability of those units at any given time can significantly constrain access to housing that is affordable. The panel took a "snapshot' of units available on the market using readily accessible, publicly available portals to find housing (Zillow.com, Trulia.com, Apartments.com). Using the income bands of 25 different employment Table 3: Collier County Housing Market Snapshot Units Affordable for Households Earning Less Than 100 Percent of Area Median Income Housing type Single-family, for -sale homes Condominiums Single-family rentals Number of units Anna- 65-250** Multifamily rentals Sources: Zillow.com; Apartments.com. *3.8 percent of inventory on multiple listing services **Priced at $120,000 to $175,000 23 categories, the panel looked to see how many units were available below the cost -burden threshold of 30 percent (table 3). The analysis provided several interesting results. Although a reasonable number of condominiums were available (but no additional homeowners association fees were considered in the analysis, which may have resulted in fewer options), very few single-family homes were for sale, and there were very limited rental options, which indicated a particularly constrained rental market. For any worker or single -income household with income between 80 and 100 percent of AMI, options were extremely limited, to say nothing of those households making less than 80 percent, which represent a substantial percentage of workers who are cost burdened. Transportation Crucial to the cost -burden conversation is the combination of housing cost and transportation cost. According to data from the Center for Neighborhood Technology, households at 90 to 100 percent of area median income can incur housing and transportation costs of 75 percent of their gross income. That figure is 61 percent for households between 100 and 120 percent of AMI. Furthermore, de- pending on the distance from employment and other activity centers, transportation costs for Collier County households can fluctuate wildly. In some cases, households may incur 5 to 10 percent more in transportation costs if they are located farther away from employment and other services. Growth Implications In a county expected to grow significantly in population by 2040, what does that finding mean for the future? The county is expected to add 58,000 households over the next 23 years. If the local issue of cost burden is not addressed, then —at a minimum-11,000 more households will experience severe cost burden (above 50 percent) than do households today. Given ever -rising real estate values and a seemingly bottomless demand for higher -end homes and rentals, the likelihood of both the number and percentage of cost -burdened households increasing is high. 16 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Vision: What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up? THE PANEL TOURED KEY AREAS of Collier to get a comprehensive look at the county. The panel also inter- viewed more than 90 stakeholders during this process, reaching out to residents, elected and appointed officials, business leaders, real estate developers, and nonprofit leaders. From the study tours and interviews, the panel did not hear a strong consensus regarding the path forward for Collier County. However, several common themes and community values were frequently raised. Those traits are both existing and aspirational: some have already been im- plemented across the county (such as the Blue Zone and the commitment to beautification), while others are indica- tive of recent concerns and current shortcomings (such as economic development and traffic). The common themes and community values include the following: ■ Maintaining Collier County's reputation as a premiere tourist destination ■ Growing and maintaining a strong real estate base and retaining steady values ■ Retaining a safe and healthy community ■ Enhancing and sustaining a visually attractive and aes- thetically pleasing community with character ■ Ensuring an efficient transportation system ■ Diversifying the local economy What the Future of Collier County Looks Like Collier County's current debate on housing affordability is not a new one. The panel heard repeatedly about the community's reservations regarding another discussion on housing affordability —the topic has been widely discussed for many years —with the Great Recession and housing downturn halting past efforts. These on -again, off -again discussions reflect the cyclical nature of this issue and the related concern it raises. Today, with new interests and partners realigning around the housing issue, a variety of pathways and solutions can be explored. Considering the overall values raised by community members, the panel believes two key scenarios Collier County is home to pristine beaches and enviable weather; it also boasts a mix of urban, suburban, and rural land use patterns. Nonetheless, the panel believes that Collier County does not have a vision for what it wants to be in the future. (Left to right: Ave Maria, Naples's iconic beaches, and the panel's public reception) Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 17 face Collier County: a future with action and a future with- out action. A wide range of options and interventions exists within this dichotomy and will produce varying outputs and results. The scenarios presented next are intended to illustrate specific certainties that the panel believes will be inevitable under current conditions. The Future of Collier County without Action on Housing If county leaders choose not to respond to the current housing needs, it is likely that the current market condi- tions and trends will continue to advance and evolve. Local employers will continue to have difficulty hiring and retaining key employees in the county, which will create a "brain drain" out of the community and into neighboring jurisdictions, such as Lee County. Not only does this market condition place a strain on employers' ability to hire and retain high -quality talent, but also it means more workers and middle-class laborers will be commuting greater distances, thereby increasing transportation con- gestion and mitigating quality of life and civic engagement. In addition, Collier County's local economy will lose tax revenue as incomes earned in the county leave to neigh- boring jurisdictions because out -of -county employees tend to spend a greater portion of their income by going to gro- cery stores, restaurants, and dry cleaners in their residen- tial communities. Therefore, Collier County will continue to sustain the burden of influx infrastructure strain, while receiving no tax revenue from it. Those conditions create an intensified landscape of competition between counties, instead of mutual collaboration for the betterment of the region. With no action on housing, Collier County will be forced to create reactionary policy and will have more dif- ficulty when guiding future growth of the county. The Future of Collier County with Action on Housing Conversely, if the county takes appropriate action and intervenes, the aforementioned trends could be redirected in a more financially and economically sustainable direc- tion for the county. Although the panel report will identify the specific strategies for all residents of Collier County, having a proactive policy right now will redirect the current housing and demographic trends and will create positive benefits for the county. The local economy will benefit by retaining a self- sustaining employment base in which people can work in Collier County's Sheriff's Department, public schools, hotels, and restaurants and can live in the county. The benefits include an increase in tax revenue generated by the in -county residents, a lesser strain on existing transportation infrastructure, and an increase in the qual- ity of life for this vital segment of the community. Also, employers will have a better chance of attracting and retaining talented and skilled workers in the county, which will improve the overall quality of life in the county and will build a stronger middle class. With the growing aging demographic, a proactive policy will make the county a more hospitable place for longtime residents to age in place and to receive health care. Also, keeping this older demographic in the county will generate county tax revenue from the group's use of local pharma- cies, grocery stores, and specialized medical services. By taking a proactive approach toward addressing housing, Collier County can develop a vision that expands on and enhances the existing unique qualities of the county. Why a Vision Is Important The panel believes that the overall priorities of the county lack a collective vision; without such a vision, aligning and prioritizing government processes and policies will be challenging. Collier County is still facing near -certain changes —with or without a unifying vision —particularly regarding the incoming population and real estate growth. If one considers the expectations around building growth and residential influx, the problems facing the county today will be amplified in the coming years, thus exacerbating the current pain points (traffic, workforce, costs). In short, the status quo in Collier County will work only for a limited number of people and for a limited amount of time. The 18 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report As part of the study, the panel met with community stakeholders, including residents, business and community leaders, and other representatives from the larger Collier County community. panel feels strongly that without proactive management, the anticipated growth will erode the very qualities that attracted people to the county in the first place. The panel recommends that the creation of a vision for Collier County should come from the county itself, as a self -directed exercise, and should be inclusive of all stake- holders. However, to ensure the exercise and the results have the desired effect, the panel provides the following elements that the county should include in its vision: ■ Provide key considerations around quality of life for all residents, as well as how to improve and maintain it. ■ Provide a range of housing options that are accessible to the full spectrum of consumers. Housing options should be economically and geographically diverse throughout the county, as well as having a range in sizes and types such as single-family homes and rental apartments. Additional key factors to consider when providing hous- ing options include the reasonable proximity to jobs, schools, amenities, and transportation choices. There should also be an inclusive mix of income levels in dif- ferent neighborhoods. ■ Grow and sustain a thriving economy that includes qualities such as livable wages, job opportunities that provide pathways to wealth creation and upward mobil- ity, diversified industries, and a diversified workforce. ■ Provide accessible, multimodal transportation options that safely and efficiently connect all residents to jobs, amenities, and services. In addition, provide clear directives to governing entities to help align policies and processes with the envisioned future for the county. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 19 Implementation THE PANEL IS IMPRESSED WITH the planning and study that has already been completed regarding housing affordability in Collier County. The panel's recommenda- tions reflect and endorse much of the work that has al- ready been completed. However, what is abundantly clear to the panel is that action and implementation are crucial to creating sustainable solutions. Implementation of the panel's recommendations will require sincere action, tremendous political will, and strong leadership. For addi- tional reference, the panel has created a proposed imple- mentation schedule to provide a blueprint for how to move forward on the recommendations described throughout this section in the short, medium, and long term. (See ap- pendix A.) The panel's major recommendations are organized around the following six core strategies to address housing afford- ability: ■ Increase supply; ■ Maintain supply; ■ Regulate and govern; ■ Enhance transportation options; ■ Enhance wages; and ■ Engage, market, and educate. Increase Supply How can Collier County meet its current and future hous- ing needs? One approach to achieving the goals is by adding housing that is affordable to households with a wide range of income levels. There is good news to share: several strategies include simply making improvements to existing procedures and vehicles rather than creating new programs entirely. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when existing structures already support the development of more affordable housing. The Housing Trust Fund The housing trust fund (HTF) is an example of a national best practice that Collier County currently has at its disposal but does not use. More than 700 HTFs exist nationwide, and they are often a critical element of a jurisdiction's overall housing policy. Collier County's HTF should be sustainable and predict- able, given the long planning process involved in housing development. The county should keep in mind that what can make an HTF challenging is finding viable revenue sources. Other jurisdictions have funded their trust funds through sales taxes, real estate transfer taxes, linkage fees as part of the zoning ordinance, inclusionary zoning in -lieu fees, condominium conversion fees or demolition fees, and hotel and motel taxes. The best and most common revenue source for a county HTF is a document record- ing fee, which is a fee paid upon filing various types of official documents with a state or local government. This fee is one of the few revenue sources that most counties can commit to, and the panel recommends Collier County consider this approach. Development Incentives The county's existing developer incentives have clearly failed to transform existing development patterns and allow for greater production of housing that is affordable to a broad range of low- to moderate -income households. Any developer incentives need to be reasonable, be flex- ible, and allow for creative partnerships to produce new, affordable homes. The panel strongly recommends that the county put increased emphasis on multifamily rental 20 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report County Housing Trust Fund Dedicated Revenue Sources Revenue Source County Trust Funds Document recording fee Arlington County, Virginia; 9 New Jersey counties; 54 Pennsylvania counties; 39 Washington counties Property tax Kalamazoo County, Michigan; King County, Washington Inclusionary zoning in -lieu fees Sonoma County, California Tax increment funds Alameda County, California Delinquent property tax penalties and Toledo/Lucas County, Ohio interest (land bank) Real estate transfer tax Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Hotel/motel tax dfi� Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Developer impact fees/proffers Fairfax County, Virginia Food and beverage tax ' Dade County, Florida a Sale of foreclosed properties Traverse City, Michigan (now expired) Sales/use tax Summit County, Colorado General funds North Valley/Chico, Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Santa Barbara County, Sonoma County, and San Luis Obispo County, California; Tompkins County, New York (with Ithaca and Cornell University); Arlington County, Virginia; 24 counties in Iowa Source: Housing Trust Fund Project Center for Community Change, 2016. housing as a means of addressing its affordability housing situation. Multifamily rental housing is the most cost- effective way to provide housing that is affordable to the average working person. The panel recommends that existing density bonuses be reassessed to allow for and provide incentives for more mixed -use development and greater efficiency of land use throughout the county. This recommendation will be dis- cussed in greater detail later in this report, but the current density bonus program needs revision to allow for higher densities to ensure that additional mixed -income, mixed - tenure (rental as well as homeownership) developments are financially feasible. Examples of this type of increased den- sity include Bayfront and Naples Square, at more than 20 to 30 units per acre rather than the average 2.5 units per acre in other residential communities. The density can also be flexible to allow for complementary adjacent uses and to reflect different preferences in the urban and rural areas. I M- -VI Impact fees are an often -cited source of frustration to those creating both market rate and affordable housing products. Not only are high impact fees an impediment to new construction of affordable housing, but also they can be erratic and can be an ineffective way to raise revenue. During periods of high growth, they can produce lots of cash, but during slow periods of growth, the revenue provided by such fees falls, sometimes precipitously. An example of existing density that allows for a mix of uses in p downtown Naples along Fifth Avenue. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 21 Inclusive Housing Strategy: Tysons Corner, Virginia A sprawling edge city begins to remake itself as a more walkable, sustainable place, with transit -accessible, mixed - income housing at its core. Fairfax County, Virginia, home to 1.1 million residents, is the most populous county in the Washington, D.C., region and is one of the most prosperous in the nation, with a median household income of nearly $113,000. The county's development since the 1960s and its image today have been shaped by the growth of Tysons Corner, a roughly 1,700-acre area originally marked by the intersection of state Routes 7 and 123. For a half century, "Tysons" has epitomized the commercially successful suburban employment center and retail destination, which is dominated by large office buildings occupied by white-collar companies and high -end shopping malls. Tyson's enormous economic success —it was the nation's 12th- largest central business district as recently as 2014—came over time with substantial costs in the form of traffic congestion and sprawling development. The number of homes and apartments fell far behind the number of jobs; investment fell short of needs in cultural amenities, green space, and schools; and transit options were limited. Tysons's very economic model came into question. For local business leaders and elected officials, the future of Tysons depends on whether it can reinvent itself as a more complete community. Under the rubric of a "Transforming Tysons" plan, Fairfax County has established goals to be met by 2050: increase the number of Tysons residents to 100,000 (from 19,000 today), double the number of jobs to 200,000, and ensure that at least three-quarters of the new growth is within a half -mile of Metro stations (four stations opened in the Tysons area in 2014). Fairfax County also intends Tysons to be a mixed -income residential community —a place where construction and service workers, teachers, and others in need of more affordable housing can afford to live. To achieve that goal, the county has ambitiously expanded a longstanding county policy that has been a national model for promoting inclusionary housing development. Equity Strategies, Results, and Challenges Since 1990, the county has generally required residential development projects (excluding high rises) to set aside a share of units (generally 5 to 12.5 percent) for households earning 50 to 70 percent of the Washington metro area median income. Developments receive a density bonus — permission to increase the size of the project —to help mitigate the economic cost of delivering the below -market units. This affordable dwelling unit (ADU) program has generated more than 2,500 affordable units to date, with about an equal mix of rental and for -sale housing. Research indicates that Fairfax County ADU homes and apartments are overwhelmingly located in low -poverty neighborhoods and in areas with schools comparable to those in places without ADUs. Research also indicates that the program has not deterred developers from delivering profitable projects in the county. By state law, the ADU program does not apply to high-rise buildings — precisely the type of development the county wants to see near transit in the Tysons transformation plan. Recognizing that this exemption would undermine the opportunity to provide a wider range of housing choice in Tysons, the county expanded its inclusionary policy so it could be applied more effectively in the area. As a result, 20 percent of all high-rise units in Tysons must meet affordability requirements, albeit at higher income levels than the ADU program. Though low- and mid -rise buildings are still covered by the ADU program, their developers are encouraged to meet the higher standard as well. As of June 2016, 356 affordable units had been delivered in Tysons. Future development up to allowed densities could result in the creation of as many as 4,200 units in the area. Tysons will also generate funding to support affordable housing through payments that office, retail, and hotel development projects must make in return for receiving county approval to build at greater densities —generally either a one-time contribution of $3 per square foot or annual payment of $0.25 per square foot for 16 years. As of 2014, this policy was projected to generate more than $64 million for investment in affordable housing in Tysons through a trust fund. The capacity of Tysons to become a more equitable community is interlinked with its evolution into a denser, more walkable area and with its careful use of inclusionary development practices and incentives as that evolution occurs. Researcher Christopher Leinberger, whose work has suggested that more -walkable urban places can advance an array of social -equity outcomes as well as deliver superior economic returns, has noted of Tysons: "Many of the neighborhood associations surrounding [Tysons] became supporters of increased density because of the promised walkable urban future. NIMBYs (not in my backyard) became YIMBYs (yes in my backyard)." The Tysons inclusionary housing policy is not perfect. In exchange for requiring a higher percentage of inclusionary units than under the existing ADU program, the county raised the income levels of eligible families, reflecting the realities of development feasibility. To serve families with very low incomes, the county will need to offer development subsidies through the trust fund and other sources. And while the Tysons policy appears to be working well for rental apartment buildings, it has proven more problematic for for -sale projects. In November 2016, the Washington Post reported: "County leaders are considering relaxing the 20 percent expectation for high-rise condominium projects, after developers complained that it will make it harder to secure financing for their typically smaller buildings." The county worked with the development community to revise the policy to reflect market conditions that had changed since it was put in place, and the first condominium project was recently approved. 22 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report The high fee structure, however, reflects the limited sources available to Collier County to support develop- ment of all types. The panel recommends a review of the impact fee structure to consider how to better incentivize developers to build a spectrum of housing types and sizes. Further, the panel recommends that the current impact fee deferral program cover all types of income -restricted hous- ing, regardless of whether it is single-family, multifamily, senior, or special needs housing. National Best Practices In addition to enhancing existing tools to create affordable housing, the panel recommends tailoring several national best practices to Collier County's unique characteristics to supplement the county's ability to meet current and future housing needs. Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is an approach to add to the supply of affordable housing options by linking the zones to the creation of market -rate housing. IZ programs have been used across the country since 1972 and vary greatly in terms of their structure and requirements. Given the under - use of the existing density bonus program, the county needs to consider a more proactive approach to increase the supply of housing options for all of its residents. Although IZ programs may not produce a high volume of units, such programs have the unique ability to provide the choice to residents to live in communities with better access to transit, jobs, and schools. IZ programs can be flexible in implementation to fit the needs of the county and to fit different project types. For example, the county may want to allow for the provision of inclusionary units to be produced off site; the payment for units through a fee -in -lieu arrangement to the HTF; or the creation of partnerships between for -profit and nonprofit developers so the units best fit the respective business models and expertise. Mitigating the cost of land —something that is fixed, limited, and a significant challenge to all developers in Collier County —can be addressed through vehicles such as a community land trust (CLT) and through a program to Case Study: Palm Beach County Workforce Housing Program Palm Beach County's Workforce Housing Program requires all new developments of more than ten units to provide units for households earning 60 to 120 percent of AMI in exchange for additional density allowances on a sliding scale. Developers have the flexibility to meet the affordable housing requirements by paying an in -lieu fee, building units off site, or purchasing and deed restricting market -rate units. To date, more than 1,400 affordable or workforce units have been approved as part of 36 developments. In addition, nearly $900,000 of in -lieu fees have been collected from three developments. The program was established in 2004 but gained traction in the market only after 2009, when the county made substantial revisions as a result of recommendations by the real estate industry, including homebuilders and realtors. An evaluation of the program found that the county's incentives fully offset the cost or lost profit incurred by developers in providing the affordable and workforce units. designate public land for public goods, such as affordable housing. CLTs are nonprofit, community -based organiza- tions whose mission is to provide affordable housing in perpetuity by owning land and leasing it to those who live in houses built on that land. Although CLTs may have a broad mission, their primary role is providing successful homeownership opportunities for generations of lower - income families. A related approach to the CLT is to consider a ground lease structure. This approach both dramatically reduces the cost of the land to the developer and helps ensure long-term affordability for the housing built on that site. The city of Naples has used this approach in at least two instances at the Jasmine Cay and Carver Apartments. The panel also recommends that the county immediately undertake a review of the current land inventory to identify parcels that may be available for housing development Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 23 opportunities. This review can be accomplished using a cross -agency strategy, and the county should find ways to engage with community stakeholders to identify possible sites and building intensities. A related part of using public land for public good is to colocate affordable housing with the renovation or creation of new public facilities. One suc- cessful example includes building affordable housing for seniors adjacent to a new public library at a development called the Bonifant in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is not the sole responsibility of either the government or the private sector to provide for the housing needs of all residents in Collier County. The best way to produce housing effectively that meets a broad, rather than narrow, range of housing needs is through effective public/private partnerships. Elements of effective public/private partner- ships include creating a shared vision, clear roles and responsibilities, consistent and coordinated leadership, and frequent communication. Repurposing Vacant and Underused Retail Space Another unique opportunity for Collier County to add to its supply of affordable housing is to take advantage of existing vacant and underused retail sites along major transportation corridors through a conversion to multi- family residential buildings. This effort would accomplish several goals simultaneously, including these: ■ Returning underperforming buildings to the tax rolls and generating revenue for the county, and ■ Providing an option for rental apartments along existing transportation corridors without the need to create new infrastructure. The county's regular rental housing surveys have found va- cancy rates in multifamily rental buildings to be extremely low, at 1 to 2 percent, thus indicating a significant unmet demand for rental housing options. Maintain Supply One of the most cost-effective and efficient means of providing affordable housing is to maintain the existing The Bonifant in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, is a transit - oriented development for lower -income seniors that is adjacent to the new Silver Spring library and within walking distance of transit and bus lines. supply. The National Housing Trust finds that renovating an existing property can be one-third to one-half as expensive as new construction. Renovating older properties does not require new land for development, takes advantage of existing infrastructure, and reduces construction waste. Collier County has an existing renovation code available to developers looking to refurbish existing properties, and the county should encourage its use through incentives mentioned previously, such as through expedited permit- ting and inspections and by reducing or deferring the associated fees. The county can identify opportunities proactively by track- ing properties with expiring affordability covenants (using resources such as the National Housing Preservation database) to ensure that existing rental properties remain affordable for the long term. The county should also explore implementing a right of first refusal to purchase The panel strongly recommends that the county take an inventory of vacant and underused commercial parcels that might be available for housing development. 24 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Inclusive Housing Strategies: Pasadena, California Pasadena (population 140,000), a southern California city renowned for its high quality of life, faces formidable challenges in providing affordable housing in an expensive market with high land costs and a limited amount of developable property. Sustained price appreciation has made housing unaffordable —even for households earning more than $100,000 annually. Through an array of incentive -based programs, including an inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO) and a density bonus, the city has supported development of more than 5,000 transit - oriented housing units since 2001, including 1,370 units of affordable and workforce housing. The Housing Incentives Fee Program, adopted by the city council in 2004, incentivizes production of affordable housing by providing developers with significant reductions in impact fees, building permit fees, construction taxes, and transportation fees. The city adopted its density bonus ordinance in 2006, which provides developers of housing projects that include affordable units with a bonus in the number of units that may be constructed on a site. (either by the county or by a nonprofit partner) expiring use properties so the county can prevent the loss of any housing that is affordable to low- and moderate -income residents and that might result in displacement. Regulate and Govern After a review of existing regulations, interviews with stakeholders, and an understanding of current market conditions, the panel determined that the county faces inherent difficulties, unnecessary costs, and a lack of predictability to developing affordable housing projects. Al- though internal and external market forces play a large role in the success of the projects, the county could reduce approval times and costs while increasing predictability in the review process in three steps: ■ Update regulations to encourage affordable housing development in desired areas. Pasadena has emphasized links to transit by clustering mixed -use projects near light -rail stations, major corridors, and employment areas. Because of efforts to encourage transit -oriented development, the majority of residential and mixed -use projects built during the 2000s were located within a half mile of a transit stop or employment center. More than 50 percent of the affordable units produced under the IHO were developed along such major corridors. Two large IHO projects have been developed close to Gold Line light -rail stations, and a third project (totaling 212 units) is forthcoming. In addition, Pasadena's efforts to promote affordable housing have extended beyond simple subsidies to encompass community outreach. According to William Huang, the city's housing director, "The success of affordable housing is rarely only financial. Even if funding is secured, gaining public acceptance is a prerequisite." ■ Permit higher densities in urban areas for projects with affordable housing by -right. ■ Revise the governance structure, and streamline the process. Review and Revise the Land Development Code Good codes are the foundation on which great communi- ties are built. When done well, codes make it easier for a community to implement its vision. However, the current Land Development Code (LDC) does not consistently sup- port and encourage growth in already existing urbanized areas of the county (those areas generally west of Collier Parkway). Many of the LDC's ordinances are geared toward large-scale, planned -unit developments (PUDs) on greenfield sites. Conversely, smaller -scale redevelopment and infill sites in already developed areas of the county are challeng- ing to consolidate, may need to address adjacent uses and neighborhood concerns, and often require additional Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 25 density to make them financially feasible. Because of the way that current codes are written, PUDs generally have been more predictable to entitle and have fewer barriers to obtaining funding. Although difficult to develop, projects in the urban areas of the county can yield great benefits by placing residents near existing transit, employment, shopping, and other daily needs and by reducing strain on existing infrastructure. Even though Collier County routinely amends portions of its LDC, consideration should be given to initiating an effort to overhaul the code by implementing a Smart Code, also known as a Unified Development Code (https:// transect.org/codes.html) to encourage the development of affordable and mixed -income housing. Smart Codes are designed to differentiate between more urban and rural conditions that reflect the different characteristics and priorities found across the county. Unique standards for the different tiers of density encourage a more diverse development pattern while encouraging affordable housing in a mixed -use, pedestrian -scaled environment. In a Smart Code framework, all regulatory standards are combined into one streamlined document to prioritize environmental protection, high -quality design, and compatibility with existing patterns of development. The focus of the urban tier should be to stimulate and accommodate infill growth while encouraging affordable housing. This focus can be accomplished through residential density bonuses, mixed -use height bonuses, reductions from parking requirements, modifications to The Bayfront Naples development is an example of successful and appropriate density and mixed -use development in Collier County. buffer and landscape requirements, and other incentive - based measures. In addition to the county's creating a Smart Code, several LDC revisions could make it easier to develop affordable dwelling units in urban portions of the county: ■ Reduce parking standards: Consider establishing standard percentage reductions in minimum parking requirements for urban portions of the county where there are more transit services, where opportunities exist to walk to shopping and employment, and where shared parking opportunities exist to promote efficient site design and reduce development costs. Typical parking standards for multifamily housing in more urban areas range from 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit. ■ Create well-defined compatibility, building mass- ing, and buffer standards: The panel heard about several recent development applications in which com- patibility with adjacent existing communities has fueled distrust between existing neighborhoods and developers. The conflicts are in part due to a lack of clear expecta- tions as to what is required by the LDC. For infill develop- ment projects that include affordable housing, this lack of certainty causes an unnecessary burden on developers while at the same time residents have concerns about property values and existing views. As an example, Okla- homa City created a development guide (http://planokc. org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/planokc_Chap2_ DevelopmentGuide.pdf; page 71) that focuses on urban design solutions for compatibility related to building scale and site design. It provides clear expectations to both the existing neighborhoods and developers as to what should be expected when designing the site and massing of buildings. Those types of standards can also help set community expectations if it is determined that redevel- opment of nonfunctioning golf courses is appropriate. ■ Permit guest houses as accessory dwelling rental units: There are a number of existing guest homes, pre- dominantly in the eastern portions of the county and the Estates, that —if permitted to be used as rentals —could have an immediate effect on the supply of affordable 26 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report rental housing. Additional rental income could also have a positive effect for families who own the units. Although effects on transportation, schools, and other facilities should be considered, these units have already been constructed, are occupied, or have been occupied in the past. Making them legal to lease allows code enforce- ment to better regulate the units while limiting exploita- tion of renters. ■ Encourage smart -site infrastructure: According to a number of interviewees, the panel heard that several onerous land development requirements add unneces- sary expense to overall project costs. The requirements further exacerbate challenges to providing affordable units in projects. Examples include requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street, right-of-way commitments, utility spacing, and other requirements that are more burdensome to on -site development than are the neigh- boring Lee County standards. Target Certain Activity Centers for Significantly Higher Density with the Provision of Mixed - Income Housing Collier County currently has high concentrations of housing in particularly low -density areas of the county. A healthy mixed -income community has higher densities to promote a walkable environment but not high concentrations of low-income housing in one place. Mixed -income com- munities are a market -based approach and include diverse housing for people with a range of income levels. Mixed - income communities are healthier than homogenous, low-income neighborhoods because they prevent blight, support upward mobility, and help retain property values. The panel recommends the following two approaches to achieve these goals: ■ Strengthen the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Program: The current maximum residential densities permitted in Collier County are generally 16 units per acre within specified activity centers of the county when affordable housing is provided (excluding transfer of development rights opportunities). Although maximum buildout of density is frequently not achieved in large PLIDs, smaller infill sites in the western urban portions of the county need additional density to be financially viable. This need was confirmed during the panel's interviews where developers consistently stated that to provide affordable housing on site, the number of residential units allowed per acre should be significantly increased. For example, 30 units per acre may be a more realistic maximum density to properly incentivize market -rate developers to provide affordable housing. In addition, to properly capitalize on infrastructure, mini- mum densities should be provided for residential units per acre. Bonus density is even more important given the approximately 9 percent of unentitled land. Finally, the AHDB program is logistically challenging for market -rate builders to administer. ■ Identify strategic opportunity sites: As illustrated in the map above, the panel also recommends that the county consider further density increases in limited urban areas of the county such as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA where high -quality transit facilities along transportation corridors are provided. Streamline the Project Approval Process when Affordable Housing Is Provided Land use decisions are largely decided by the five -member Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) by a super - majority rule. According to developers, land use attorneys, planners, and other land development professionals, a great deal of uncertainty exists in knowing whether or not a zoning application will be approved because it takes only two board members to veto a project. Forprojects that in- clude affordable housing, this lack of certainty is a key im- pediment to project viability. In addition, although all board members are charged at looking at the county, no at -large board members are specifically charged with overseeing regional and countywide issues. The panel recommends considering adding two at -large board members, making the new BoCC a seven -member board, and reducing the super -majority to a five -out -of -seven approval process. if adding new BoCC members is not feasible, the panel recommends reducing the super -majority requirement to a Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 27 The panel created a conceptual framework to help identify activity centers and transportation corridors with a higher density of mixed -income housing development. Activity centers are denoted by red squares and transportation corridors by purple lines. Enhance Transportation Options Collier County, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tion (MPO), and the city of Naples have done extensive public outreach and planning for alternative mobility op- tions in the county. From the Collier County Master Mobility Plan (2012) and MPO's Comprehensive Pathways Plan (2012), there are clear strategies and recommendations for enhancing transportation access across the county. In ad- dition, there are policy frameworks —such as the complete streets, the existing community movements including the Naples Pathways Coalition, the community Blue Zone, and the various committees and task forces that are informing a range of government entities. Those efforts have created an exemplary foundation of outreach and data to inform and to guide the implementation of a thorough alternative transportation system. Such assets and engagements are critical in the context of housing affordability, because transportation costs simple -majority, which will provide greater certainty. For ex- and convenient, efficient access to jobs seriously affect ample, Hillsborough County, Florida, has a seven -member the attainability of housing and the overall viability of a board with three at -large board members. community. For instance, even if housing is affordable, the costs of transportation can outweigh the financial benefits Although there is an expedited construction permit review of those price points. process, the panel recommends this process be expanded to include comprehensive plan amendments and zon- ing approvals. Comprehensive plan amendments could also be reviewed concurrently with a zoning change for projects that include affordable housing. This change to the project approval process could also be extended to include a concurrent processing of a zoning application and site plan. Consideration should be given to increasing the number of administrative approvals that do not require BoCC approval that will streamline the process and provide greater certainty. Although not strictly related to incentivizing affordable housing, Fairfax County, Virginia, provides concurrent processing (see www.fcrevit.org/publications/download/ DevelopmentlnCRD_CRA.pdf) for comprehensive plan amendments and zoning applications as an incentive for redevelopment of older areas of the county. In addition, the very workforce that most directly benefits from accessible and efficient transportation systems serves as the backbone of the Collier County economy: thus, it relegates this workforce to commutes of several hours or to life -threatening conditions (via bike and pedes- trian commutes), and it inhibits this group's productivity and employment access. Whether it is a bank teller driving to work in Naples, a landscaper riding his bike to a gated community, a waiter taking a bus to a local restaurant, or a teacher walking to a neighborhood school, the workforce of Collier County needs a range of transportation options that align with and support a range of housing choices in a variety of areas. By enacting and implementing many of the recommenda- tions that the plans call for, not only will Collier County be a more accessible community, but also it will be a healthier and more fiscally conservative area. As the aspirations and 28 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report To enhance transportation, the panel recommends the adoption of many of the strategies and recommendations from the Collier County Master Mobility Plan (2012) and the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Pathways Plan (2012). tenants of the Blue Zone Project espouse, active lifestyles are the key to healthy living. Providing a more integrated network of mobility not only provides workforce access but also provides access to healthier lifestyles. In addition, with estimated road costs averaging $4.6 million per lane mile, identifying proactive approaches that will reduce congestion and stress on roadways will save the county significant funds in the future. For all of those reasons, creating greater synergies between housing and transportation decision making and investments is vital for Collier County. Although the panel applauds the efforts of past plans and initiatives, it strongly recommends leveraging the engagement and resources already in place to create a robust multimodal transporta- tion system that better connects labor, jobs, services, and amenities to housing. It is time to act on the work of the past several years and to implement. In keeping with the plans and efforts mentioned previously, the panel recommends that Collier County specifically pursue and prioritize the following recommendations in an implementation phase. Integrate Bus Routes with Affordable Housing Locations Currently, the average headway (the average interval of time between buses pausing at a given stop on a route) in Collier County is 1.5 hours, with the shortest headway at 45 minutes. For transit riders dependent on a bus service to get to work or to other services and the MPO's ameni- ties, the infrequency of the service can make transporta- tion and access an increased difficulty. For riders who might have multiple stops or transfers, those headways can change what would be a short car ride into an all - morning or all -evening commute. If directed effectively, however, the transit service can be an extraordinary asset for the Collier County work- force, potentially reducing the group's commute and car ownership costs. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the average American family spends 19 percent of its household budget on transporta- tion. For families that are in transit -efficient locations, this cost decreases to 9 percent; for those in auto -dependent communities, it increases to 25 percent. Thus, transporta- tion costs can directly add or subtract substantial funds from families' household budgets, thereby increasing cost burdens or providing more flexibility in household budgets. In light of the budget realities, the panel recommends implementing the recommendations of past planning efforts and aligning affordable housing investments and bus routes to the greatest extent possible, specifically considering and including the following: ■ Identify transportation corridors for multifamily development: In keeping with best practices from com- Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 29 munities such as Charlotte, North Carolina, Collier County should identify specific corridors that connect to major job centers and that incentivize specific zones for further multifamily development. By linking residential growth to the transit system, the county will relieve stress on the transportation system by encouraging transit ridership and by creating more effective commutes for the work- force in affordable locations. ■ Implement park -and -ride systems: Park -and -ride is a term that describes a traffic management practice where drivers leave their cars in parking lots of identified commercial centers (typically on the outskirts of urban areas) and travel to the job or employment centers on public transportation. Given the significant footprint of development across the county, as well as the potential for additional neighborhoods such as Ave Maria develop- ing in the rural lands area, working with commercial centers to create a park -and -ride system would take congestion pressure off the internal traffic corridors and would provide workers living in outlying areas with simpler commutes to job centers. Already, circulator routes provided by the Collier Area Transit System (CATS) provide circulator services to and from major commercial centers, like the Super Walmart. The panel recommends consideration be given to enhancing, modifying, and marketing those routes as park -and -ride opportunities. In addition, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) already operates many park -and -ride facilities across the state, thus facilitating vanpool and carpool options. ■ Explore bus rapid transit and express service lines: Recognizing that there are specific areas of greater tran- sit ridership, CATS should explore the creation of either bus rapid transit or express routes to link specific areas to job centers via an express, limited -stop route. This approach is in keeping with the effective best practices that CATS has already established around many of its bus lines. The opportunity now is to enhance what is in place and to create demand -driven transportation lines serving workers. Las Vegas, another tourism dependent economy with a wide geographic footprint, has imple- mented bus rapid transit and express service lines across Case Study: Arlington County, Virginia In Virginia, Arlington County's Special Affordable Housing Protection District (SAHPD) identifies neighborhoods with existing affordable housing within the county's metro corridors. The goal of the SAHPD is to retain affordable housing opportunities (through preservation or replacement) in the county's high -cost transit corridors. In instances where redevelopment is proposed within those districts, developers can achieve higher densities if they include one -for -one replacement of existing affordable housing as part of their project. (One -for -one replacement has been interpreted as replacing the number of bedrooms or the gross floor area on a one -for -one basis.) Replacement can occur either on site or at a similar location off site. the region to directly connect tourism workers to key areas of the city, including downtown and the Strip. Not only is the service successful, but also it is widely used by the workforce to access jobs and housing. Enhance Bike Lane and Pedestrian Systems According to the Collier County MPO's 2014 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Study —a complementary report to the 2012 Comprehensive Pathways Plan —a survey of 478 respondents resulted in 62 percent reporting that they had felt "threatened for personal safety during bicycling or walking trips." For Collier County to reduce transporta- tion road costs, effectively move the workforce across the community, and create healthy avenues for residents to engage in civic activities, this number must be mitigated and the recommendations of both studies should be advanced. Steps toward this goal include the following: ■ Implement the Comprehensive Pathways Plan for the county: Advancing the thorough recommendations of past studies is a meaningful next step in this process, but specific prioritization should be given to the "crash corridors" and "crash clusters" identified in the safety analysis. 30 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report An example of the successful and well -used bike lane infrastructure along 151h Street, a major downtown corridor in Washington, D.C. ■ Enhance safety for transit mobility: The recommen- dations of the 2014 "Safety Study" should be prioritized and funding should be allocated for the full implementa- tion of key safety issues, including continuing educa- tion for traffic engineers and law enforcement officers, application of the FHWA's bike and pedestrian best practices, and continued integration of best practices in engineering design. In addition, the panel recommends addressing lighting, street signage, and public awareness for bicyclists and pedestrians. ■ Hire a bike and pedestrian coordinator for the county and leverage expertise at FDOT: To take full advantage of the recommendations and work already completed, a specialized coordinator should be hired at the county level to advance bicycle and pedestrian priork ties, including reviewing future roadway projects for bike and pedestrian enhancements and safety considerations. In New Orleans, a bike and pedestrian coordinator was able to advance the implementation of more than 100 miles of on- and off -road bike lanes after the project was embedded in the local Department of Public Works through a grant from the local utility company and sup- port from the Louisiana Public Health Institute. Establish Sustainable, Secure Revenue for Transit and Alternative Mobility CATS is serving an increasingly vital need in the county as workforce demands intensify and traffic concerns grow. However, if the service is going to be able to keep up with the demands already placed on it, a critical element is that the service has a sustainable source of revenue it can leverage and depend on. Given the expenses of highways ($4.6 million per lane mile), prioritizing proactive invest- ments in transit today could save the county significant funds in the future. In addition, given the growing bike and pedestrian needs of the county and the multitude of com- munity benefits that those amenities provide, a revenue source should also be identified and provided for such additional capacity. Create Ride -Sharing Option With smartphone apps and online connectivity, fantastic and successful tools for ride sharing are available that can be conveniently and affordably accessed. The county should explore promoting such resources and working with nonprofits to promote convenient ride -sharing options for populations living in more suburban or remote areas, like the Estates, Ave Maria, or Immokalee. The New Orleans Regional Planning Commission sponsors one such ride - share platform, the New Orleans GreenRide, which uses a social media platform to connect riders and carpoolers. Enhance Wages For several decades, middle- and lower -middle-class wages across the United States essentially have been stagnant while housing costs have risen significantly. This trend has resulted in increased pressure on affordability of housing. One effective option to address this issue is to increase wages. The panel has identified two possible options for Collier County. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 31 Denver Transit -Oriented Development Fund The Denver Transit -Oriented Development Fund was established in 2010 with $13.5 million in debt capital to create and preserve affordable housing along current and future transit corridors in the city and county of Denver. In 2014, the fund was expanded to serve the surrounding seven -county region and is now capitalized at $24 million. Borrowers may use funds to purchase, hold (for up to five years), and develop sites within a half mile of fixed -rail transit stations or a quarter mile of high -frequency bus stops. The fund has closed 11 transactions totaling nearly $16 million, with a pipeline of more than 900 permanently affordable units and more than 150,000 square feet of commercial and community space. Returns to capital providers (public agencies, foundations, financial institutions, and community development financial institutions) are generally 2 to 6 percent. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION rpr lFSFFrSpN, �: F.'.- - • 'nvf, 0. 0 57.. T---NY uraiSNFS ■ Metro New Orteam Gm&nR lire We d ndeshnnng simple Marro Hew One9rt5 GraenRde is NRNle7P1!'fF69Bllb'� i helps cow"t commutem 4VM ee corpoor motopYf the Nee prleem Mqu(,polilan Regan. We el5p make rl eosy to track your c=mvbK gM conyon p m mlo eoet—Finpe end emieefene reducdene. r r rd as m«r eeom—ierenna,ran Gre Aide ekk Geeing warred nqW& mrd easy . P.- r w fillfin —,r, 1. Metro New Orleans GreenRide links commuters with carpool matches in the New Orleans metropolitan region. First, government employees are one of the largest groups affected by housing affordability issues in Collier County. On the basis of cost burden for this group, the panel rec- ommends the county consider enhancing wages for county employees. Even modest increases in salary for this group Denver's new Regional Transportation District rail system has eight rail lines servicing 53 stations along the north, east, southeast, southwest, and west rail corridors. can have a profound impact on its ability to afford housing within the community. Second, the panel recommends instituting enhanced minimum wage ordinances. Several U.S. cities including Albuquerque, New Mexico; Flagstaff, Arizona; Malibu, California; Miami Beach, Florida; Portland, Maine; and Washington, D.C., have attempted to address the issue of housing affordability this way and are seeing positive results. In virtually all cases, the ordinances call for a mod- est immediate increase in the minimum wage followed by a series of incremental steps spread over a period of three to five years that ultimately lead to a mandated minimum wage of $13 to $15 per hour. Engage, Market, and Educate Beyond moving ideas into action, education and com- munication also are critical pieces of a comprehensive and successful strategy for implementing housing affordability. If one is to combat the often false and confusing myths regarding what affordable housing is, what it might look like, and what unintended consequences it might create, it is crucial to educate the entire community about the full range of benefits that a balanced supply of housing brings, 32 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report to raise awareness, and to make affordable housing a vis- ible problem to everyone. Bolster Existing Programs and Processes The county government has already developed an afford- able housing database that tracks for -sale and rental units throughout the county. However, the panel recommends enhancing this database to include and track new units coming online and to include their sunset dates so that the county has a clear understanding of the supply of afford- able units in real time. This information should include comprehensive details, including addresses, bedroom sizes, square footage, rental rates, for -sale rates, and neighborhood location. An en- hanced database will also help ensure that the community has a credible source of real-time information that shows that affordability is spread throughout the county and not concentrated in any one district. By improving existing housing information online, the county will create a robust information portal for exist- ing and prospective residents to learn about the county's housing programs and any workshops or events related to housing in the county, ensuring that residents have the right information to make housing decisions. The panel also recommends that existing housing applica- tions are streamlined for residents and handled directly by the county instead of by individual developers. During the panel's review, it heard from the development community that developers are responsible for accepting income veri- fication applications, which they are simply not qualified to manage. This process should be administered either by the county or an administrator managed by the county, such as a private or nonprofit lender. Raise Awareness and Communicate with the Entire Community Although the links between housing affordability and communications may not be immediately obvious, public awareness, communication, and an overall education cam- paign can help ensure that ongoing efforts around housing affordability succeed. The panel has seen a tremendous .� eriwson�natleve;ocmer.Lnc: EN KING " EC0PUM a s+ + � � .. r _ New YWk 5 Yim Pti�w I number of plans and technical recommendations, but un- less they are being communicated to the public at large in a clear and concise manner that is understandable by all, such efforts will go nowhere. To start, the panel recommends that the county develop a comprehensive marketing and communications plan that appeals to a wide variety of audiences: the current and potential residents, the business community, the local community organizations, and the proven donors within the community. The plan needs to appeal to people who are seeking housing, to people who support housing afford- ability, and to those who are skeptics. The message should be tailored around those three key audiences and the lan- guage used should be culturally sensitive, age appropriate, and multilingual. Ideally, the strategies will include written, verbal, and visual approaches. The key to the program's success is the hiring of a cre- ative, community outreach specialist. This person should be a full-time county employee and engaged in public The Center for Urban Pedagogy created an online map to help educate users on the many facets of affordable housing and to allow them to explore the income demographics of any New York City neighborhood. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 33 One of the many community workshops conducted in the Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., as part of the community engagement video project SEE/ CHANGE DC. meetings, neighborhood events, and other aspects of countywide community engagement. The key to com- munity outreach is for it to occur where people already are. People will not go out of their way to go to those types of meetings; the meetings must be brought to them. For example, the outreach specialist should hold the same workshop on three different dates and times to ensure those with atypical work schedules can still participate and be engaged. Create a Residential Toolkit The county should create a residential toolkit to address three constituencies: seekers of affordable housing, supporters of affordable housing, and skeptics of affordable housing. -A- The panel recommends that Collier County think creatively about community engagement, marketing, and education strategies. Volunteer programs such as planting projects related to new housing developments and YIMBY (yes in my backyard) campaigns are great ways to raise awareness of and to engage the larger community in housing affordability issues. Seekers of affordable housing. Building on an enhanced online inventory discussed earlier, the panel also recom- mends the county create an affordable housing directory for those residents seeking housing. The directory will list both rental and for -sale opportunities and will draw from the county's live online database. However, because not everyone is comfortable with (or has access to) the internet, the panel recommends two options for this database: ■ A web -based platform, and ■ A printed document that is updated periodically (e.g., quarterly). The panel understands that a housing resources guide is already in place, but it recommends including a resource guide that is for first-time homebuyers and that includes information about housing assistance for downpayment programs, information about renters' assistance, and information about other community resources available to the public. The purpose is not only to provide information about how someone can afford housing, but also to provide information in a way that allows people to become engaged in the community and connected with their community. In addition, the panel strongly recommends the county employ a housing counselor or expand existing housing counselors' current responsibilities. The housing coun- 34 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report selor should collaborate with the community engagement specialist and other relevant county employees to create a robust educational program around what cost burden means. Also, it is essential for the housing counselor to develop programs and resources around household bud- geting and wealth creation that will help residents improve their financial management. Supporters of affordable housing. Collier County is privileged to have an engaged and effective philanthropic community. But the county needs to figure out how to get the group involved in affordable housing issues. The panel recommends partnering with the philanthropic community around specific fundraising campaigns, such as spe- cific housing development projects or facade or exterior improvement programs. In addition, the county should Case Study: SEE/CHANGE DC Though not specifically about housing, SEE/CHANGE DC is an example of a successful, creative, community engagement project to encourage community building and foster dialogue about rapid neighborhood change. Something similar in Collier County could help create discussion about housing and community and could give greater visibility to housing affordability challenges. What it is: The video art project puts a human face on how population change and revitalization are affecting two Washington, D.C., neighborhoods: Park View and Pleasant Plains. When: During fall 2016, video portraits of community members were projected in storefronts and on street corners along a main corridor — Georgia Avenue, N.W., in the Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods. Who: SEE/CHANGE DC was imagined and produced by the Pink Line Project + Citizen Innovation Lab, created by Composite Co. and BellVisuals, and funded by the D.C. Office of Planning (OP) and the Kresge Foundation. How: SEE/CHANGE DC is part of OP's comprehensive creative placemaking initiative: "Crossing the Street: Building DC's Inclusive Future through Creative Placemaking" grant from the Kresge Foundation. The grant is intended to "promote community -building in neighborhoods that are experiencing rapid demographic and social change, to engage residents in conversations about the future of the District as OP embarks on an update of D.C.'s Comprehensive Plan, and to demonstrate or test select placemaking recommendations articulated in OP's neighborhood plans and District Department of Transportation transit corridor studies and livability studies." In December 2015, OP released a request for applications seeking qualified curators and project managers to work with OP and other District and community stakeholders to define and implement temporary creative placemaking projects. Curators were selected in early 2016 and projects, such as SEE/CHANGE DC, were implemented during 2016. For further information, see www.seechangedc.com. SEE/CHANGE DC is a creative video project that uses community engagement as it inspires community building and fosters conversation about neighborhood change. +-to4 Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 35 partner with the philanthropic community to develop fun and creative community volunteer projects and programs to raise awareness and bring the community together. help debunk myths and perceptions related to negative implications that are often falsely associated with afford- able housing (e.g., increased traffic, crime and density, de - Examples include planting projects related to new housing pressed property values). In addition, creating a workhouse developments, public art initiatives, "welcome wagon" media campaign could be another valuable approach to programs, and "yes in my backyard" (YIMBY) campaigns. community -wide education about housing affordability and Those types of programs can go a long way toward bring- whom it affects. ing the community together. Skeptics of affordable housing. Do not leave out the skeptics of affordable housing. The panel recommends creating a "myths and facts" brochure (available in a printed format and on the county's housing website) to 36 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Conclusion IT IS THE OPINION OF THE PANEL that Collier Coun- ty absolutely has a housing affordability problem. It is not a crisis yet, but if housing is not addressed, the panel be- lieves that it will become a crisis. Given the growth projec- tions for the county, the panel believes this problem will occur far sooner than expected. All of the panel's recommendations are intended to help the city and the county provide housing that is affordable for the full range of incomes found within the community. First and foremost, the panel believes the county needs to immediately come to a consensus and establish a clear vision for the county about how to move forward. Does the county want to remain a community that primarily relies on tourism and retirement, or does it want to diversify its economy? Does the county want to limit growth, or does it want to embrace it? Regardless of the answers, it is —in the panel's opinion —essential that the county address the issue of housing affordability. This approach needs to be a priority. Housing affordability is essential to creating and maintaining a vibrant, sustainable community. Although the county may well have some time to imple- ment the panel's recommendations, time is of the essence. Failure to act now will put at risk the very things that make Collier County so special. Maintaining paradise is both a privilege and an obligation. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 37 Appendix A. Implementation Schedule mplementation Schedule Added Supply Regulation and Governance Communication and Education Strategies Short Term Review existing land inventory for possible Draft additions to the Land Develop- Develop inventory of affordable housing affordable housing development sites, ment Code (LDC) and the Growth units and update regularly. 0 to 3 years including commercial sites for conversion. Management Plan to include inclu- sionary zoning and expand expedited Develop a marketing and communications Develop a cross -agency strategy to permit review process for all affordable plan. consider other public facilities. projects. Employ a housing counselor. Identify and vet funding sources to reinstate Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Permit guest houses as rental units. Expand and enhance educational Revise the LDC to include a smart code programs to that makes it easier to create mixed- ■ Explain housing affordability income developments. ■ Explain cost burden Identify strategic opportunity sites for density increases such as the ■ Assist residents (renters and homeowners) Bayshore Gateway Triangle in household budgeting. Community Development Area. Create an expedited and/or concurrent comprehensive zoning plan approval process. Offer administrative approvals for certain applications. Medium Term Implement an inclusionary zoning program. Plan for additional increased density in Continue to refine and update affordable certain activity centers with the provi- housing inventory. 3 to 5 years Implement an expanded fee waiver/ sion of mixed -income housing. deferral program. Update and refresh the marketing and Add at -large Board of County Commis- communications plan as needed. Fund HTF to take advantage of other sioners members and/or reduce the financing vehicles (LIHTC, AHP, etc.) to super -majority rule. Update and refresh educational tools and support affordable housing development. programming as needed. Develop a process for commercial -to- Review and refine resources and tools residential conversions. available to the housing counselor. Long Term Conduct an annual review of HTF levels Continuously review and monitor the Continuously review and monitor affordable and report on fund expenditures. LDC and revisions, strategic opportu- housing inventory, marketing and com- 5 to 10+ years nity sites, and updated comprehensive munications plan, and educational tools and Adjust the inclusionary zoning program to zoning plan approval process to ensure programming, as well as resources and tools balance the needs of residents with those that the desired goal of increasing the available to the housing counselor, to ensure of developers and the current market. availability of affordable housing is that the goal of increasing the availability of Continuously review and monitor inclusion- being met. affordable housing is being met. ary zoning program, expanded fee waiver/ deferral program, and commercial -to - residential conversions process to ensure that the goal of increasing the availibility of affordable housing is being met. 38 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Appendix 13: Examples of County Housing Initiatives Private funding for housing development and services: Helping low-income families access opportunity neighbor - Santa Clara County, California (www.housingtrustsv.org/) Mobilizing owners and resources to preserve existing hoods: King County, Washington (https://www.kcha.org/ about/education/) affordable units: Cook County, Illinois (www.preservation - Inclusionary zoning: Palm Beach County, Florida (https:// compact.org/) Utilizing publicly controlled real estate to support mixed - income development: Arlington County, Virginia (https:// projects.arlingtonva.us/plans-studies/land-use/public- land/) u I i.org/larson-pol icy-awards/robert-c-I arson-award- finalists-palm-beach-county-florida/) Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 39 Appendix C: City of Austin, 2014 Robert C. Larson Policy Leadership Award Winner _W_ ROBERT C. LARSON HOUSING POLICY LEADERSHIP AWARDS 2014 WINNER ORGANIZATION City of Austin, Texas YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION 2000 AFFORDABILITY 100 percent of units affordable to households at or below 80 percent of median family income (MR), with 12 percent serving house- holds at 30-50 percent of MFI NUMBER OF UNITS PRODUCED 18,406 WEBSITE hp p://h o u s i ngworksaust i n. o rg/ www.austintexas.gov/department/ imagineaustin ®Urban land �nstitntP Terwilliger Center for Housing Austin, Texas, has adopted a multifaceted approach to address the challenges of providing affordable housing in the vibrant and steadily growing city. Outstanding programs include a voter -approved bond program and a city ordinance to incentivize the development of affordable housing. These efforts have yielded 18,406 units since 2000. Austin (pop. 885,000), the capital of Texas, is a national leader in job creation, education, and research, and offers residents a high quality of life with an array of recreational and cultural amenities. Over the past two decades, in the face of rapid and steady population growth attracted to the city, Austin has also encountered corresponding increases in residential rents and home prices. To overcome the resulting squeeze on affordable housing for low-income households, Austin has pursued a multifaceted package of housing programs. These tools include the Housing Trust Fund, the Housing Bond Program, developer incentives, public/private partnerships, and impact statements. • Housing Trust Fund (2000). Since 2000, the Austin City Council has directed $8.8 million in local funds to the Housing Trust Fund (HTF). The city dedicates to the fund 40 percent of incremental tax revenues derived from private sector developments built on designated city - owned property. 40 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Housing Bond Program (2006). When 63 percent of voters approved an allocation of $55 million, Austin for the first time in its history used general obligation bond funding for affordable housing. Through May 2012, the Housing Bond Program had created or retained 3,055 housing units, of which 73 percent are affordable to households earning 30 to 50 percent of MR. DEVELOPER INCENTIVES • S.M.A.R.T. HousingTM (2000). S.M.A.R.T Housing is an incentive program designed to encourage accessible, mixed -income development by providing development fee waivers and an expedited review process for developers who set aside 10 percent of housing units as affordable (S.M.A.R.T. stands for Safe, Mixed -income, Accessible, Reasonably priced, and Transit oriented.) Units must also meet the Austin Energy Green Building Program minimum energy efficiency rating. The program has produced 15,351 units affordable to households earning 80 percent of MR or less. Vertical Mixed Use (2007). Commercial design standards provide a density bonus and parking standards exemptions in exchange for 10 percent of housing units in mixed -use developments being designated as affordable. These units must be maintained as affordable for 40 years for rental, and 99 years for ownership. The program has produced 41 units to date. University Neighborhood Overlay (2004). A density bonus and entitlements are provided to developers who set aside housing as affordable in the University of Texas at Austin campus area. Two tiers of affordability are required-10 percent of units for households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI, and 10 percent of units for households at or below 65 percent of MR. To date, 117 units have been constructed at 50 percent of MR, ten at 65 percent of MR, and 357 units at 80 percent of MR. • The Downtown Density Bonus Program (2013) and the East Riverside Corridor Program (2013). Height -density bonus programs encourage production of affordable "Because of GO Bond funding, the City of Austin has reaped direct and indirect benefits including increased income (through wages), increased local taxes (both property and sales), and increased local jobs." Betsy Spencer Director, City of Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Collier County, Florida, January 29-February 3, 2017 41 "Austin's commitment to providing affordable housing is strong, and our citizens expect the City of Austin to take action on this critical issue. I believe Austin's affordable housing bond votes were successful in 2006 and 2013 because Austinites wanted to see affordable housing in all parts of our city and believe we all benefit from providing affordable housing for low income families." housing in downtown Austin and in a neighborhood recommended for a future high -capacity transit route. Transit -Oriented Development (2009). Affordable housing goals have been established through individual station -area plans for areas within a half mile of the Capital Metro commuter rail stations. The overall goal is for 25 percent of all new housing units in the transit -oriented development areas to be occupied by households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI for homeownership or at or below 60 percent of MFI for rental. PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS • Robert Mueller Municipal Airport Redevelopment (1996-present). In a key public/private partnership for the city, the Mueller development when complete will have about 1,200 housing units affordable for households earning at or below 80 percent of Austin's MFI for ownership and 60 percent of MFI for rental. • Private Developer Agreements —Case by Case. The city continues to negotiate the inclusion of affordable housing in development agreements with market -rate developers to bring affordability into developments that otherwise would be unaffordable to low- and moderate - income households. These units must remain affordable through 2020. IMPACT STATEMENTS • Affordability Impact Statements (2000). Required by Austin's S.M.A.R.T. Housing TM ordinance, an affordability impact statement (AIS) is prepared by a city staff member for all proposed city code amendments, ordinances, and other proposed changes to identify any potential impacts on housing affordability. To date, Austin has issued more than 150 affordability impact statements. Austin's multifaceted approach to meeting the city's need for Mandy DeMayo affordable housing —from zoning to streamlining development HousingWorks Austin approvals, transit, and green construction —provides an Austin, Texas effective way to consider housing needs in a variety of contexts. While individual programs have an impact, it is the combination of tools that is most powerful, reflecting commit- ted leadership from the city as well as the willingness of Austin residents to step up and vote for bonds for affordable housing. For more information about the Terwilliger Center Awards,see www.uli.org/terwilligeraward. 42 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report About the Panel Philip Payne Panel Chair Charlotte, North Carolina For more than 25 years, Payne's primary focus has been the development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and manage- ment of middle market (workforce) multifamily housing. During his career, Payne has been involved in more than $4 billion in multifamily related transactions. Payne is currently the chief executive officer of Ginkgo Residential, which was formed in July 2010. Ginkgo provides property management services for multifamily properties in the southeastern United States and is actively involved in the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of middle market multifamily properties. He is a principal in Ginkgo Investment Company, which was formed in July 2013 and which invests in multifamily properties in the southeastern United States. From 2007 to 2010, Payne served as the CEO of Babcock & Brown Residential. Before joining Babcock & Brown Residential, he was the chair of BNP Residential Properties Trust, a publicly traded real estate investment trust that was acquired by Babcock & Brown Ltd. —a publicly traded Australian investment bank —in February 2007. In addition to his duties at Ginkgo, Payne is a member of the board of directors of Ashford Hospitality Trust, a New York Stock Exchange —listed real estate investment trust that is focused on the hospitality industry. Payne is a trustee and governor of the ULI. He is a mem- ber of ULI's Responsible Property Investing Council (found- ing chair); is a former cochair of the Institute's Climate, Land Use, and Energy Committee; and currently serves as a member of the advisory board for ULI's Center for Sustainability. He is a member of the National Multifamily Housing Council. Payne received a BS and a JD degree from the College of William & Mary in Virginia. He has written for various pub- lications and spoken at numerous conferences on a variety of topics including real estate investment trusts, securi- ties regulations, finance, workforce housing, responsible property investing, sustainability, and resilience. Hilary Chapman Washington, D.C. Chapman is the housing program manager for the Met- ropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). At COG, Chapman collaborates with regional leaders to solve the challenges of homelessness and affordable housing and provides research and analysis to support local hous- ing policy and practice using a regional solutions -based framework. As the lead staff person for two technical committees on housing and homelessness, Chapman collaborates with COG's other departments to integrate housing consider- ations into related fields of health, transportation, and the environment. In her role as lead staff person for the Home- less Services Committee, she helps coordinate the annual regional homeless enumeration that takes place during the last week of January each year, and she is the principal author of the committee's findings, "Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington." Chapman collaborates with COG's housing and planning partners, serving as an advisory board member for the Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance, a participant and convener of the Greater Washington Housing Leaders Group, and a planning member for the Housing Association Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 43 of Nonprofit Developers' annual meeting. She participated in the ULI Washington's Regional Land Use Leadership Institute and is active in ULI's Housing Initiative Council. administration from Anderson University, and a bachelor's degree from Kalamazoo College. He has been a member of ULI since 2012 and participates on the Urban Revitaliza She also volunteers weekly at a program site in the District tion Product Council. of Columbia with the Homeless Children's Playtime Project. Before joining COG, Chapman spent nearly a decade as an affordable housing developer, working with public housing authorities nationally primarily through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOPE VI program to redevelop its most distressed housing units. She had direct responsibility for the construction of more than 250 afford- able housing units and the planning and financing of more than 1,000 more. She also served the government of the District of Columbia as a Capital City Fellow. Chapman holds a master's degree in city planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an under- graduate degree in sociology from the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Ian Colgan Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Colgan is the assistant executive director of the Oklahoma City Housing Authority, one of the largest public housing authorities in the country with 3,100 public housing units and more than 4,000 housing choice vouchers. Colgan leads all real estate development, planning, and policy initiatives for the authority. He was previously the assistant planning director for Oklahoma City, where he spearheaded the production of the city's Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Planning Framework, and several commercial district plans, as well as the creation of two new tax increment finance districts. Colgan was also formerly principal with Development Concepts Inc., a redevelopment consulting firm that is based in Indianapolis, Indiana, where he prepared market - based studies and redevelopment plans for communities throughout the Midwest and Southeast. Colgan holds a master's degree in urban planning from the University of Washington, a master's degree in business JoAnne Fiebe Tampa, Florida Fiebe is a research faculty member and adjunct instruc- tor at the Florida Center for Community Design and Research —a statewide research center at the University of South Florida's School of Architecture and Community Design. Through her work at the Florida Center, Fiebe provides design expertise, performs applied research, and manages community engagement programs to address urban challenges related to the built environment. Fiebe has 13 years of experience in both the public and private sectors while managing a range of urban design and planning projects. Before coming to the Florida Center, she worked for the Fairfax County Office of Community Revitalization on long-range planning, economic develop- ment, and policy for transit -oriented development districts in the Washington, D.C., metro area. Her previous experi- ence included managing entitlements for large residential and mixed -use projects at several development firms. For the past seven years, she has served on the board of a nonprofit urban design collaborative, the Urban Char- rette, which cultivates knowledge of leading urban design practices to build vibrant cities. She also teaches graduate courses at the University of South Florida about city plan- ning and sustainable urban development. Fiebe earned her degrees in architecture from the Uni- versity of Miami and a master's of urban and community design from the University of South Florida, where she also worked at the Center for Urban Transportation Research and coauthored a study on transit and bicycle lanes. She has been published in the Transportation Research Board and in the National Civic Review, and her research was cited in the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide. In her career, Fiebe has led more than 20 public planning projects including over a dozen community engagement 44 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report charrettes. She participated in ULI's Regional Land Use and Leadership Institute and was a resource team member for two Mayor's Institute for City Design programs. She is a member of the American Planning Association and the Urban Land Institute, is LEED accredited, and is a certified charrette planner. Lacy McManus New Orleans, Louisiana As the director of program development for Greater New Orleans (GNO) Inc. —the economic development alli- ance for the ten -parish New Orleans region —McManus is responsible for relationships and for the coordination between product and business development. McManus has positioned the organization's workforce and environ- mental and resilience initiatives as catalysts for wealth generation in southeast Louisiana. In this role, she acts as a liaison between GNO Inc. and private philanthropies, business community stakeholders, government agencies, and nonprofit partners to ensure that GNO Inc.'s programs create a thriving regional economy. Specifically, McManus oversees GNO Inc.'s Coalition for Coastal Resilience and Economy, a business -led advocacy campaign for holistic coastal restoration in south Louisi- ana. She also coordinates GNO's workforce development programs, including an award -winning outreach series to local educators, as well as ongoing engagements with regional higher -education institutions. In 2015, she worked with the state of Louisiana and New Orleans to bring in more than $233 million in resilience funds to the region through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment's National Disaster Resilience Competition. On the federal front, McManus serves on GNO's policy team advancing reauthorization of the National Flood Insur- ance Program through the Coalition for Sustainable Flood Insurance. She also represents GNO on the Housing NOLA Leadership Team and CONNECT Coalition. Before joining the GNO staff, McManus was the special initiatives manager with the nonprofit organization the Center for Planning Excellence, where she oversaw an innovative transportation, land use, and housing policy and advocacy campaign. She has branding and communica- tions experience from several years living and working abroad in both Auroville, India, and in Paris, France. She is an active member of the Junior League of New Orleans, a board member of the public transit advocacy organiza- tion RIDE New Orleans, an alumna of the 2016 Emerging Philanthropist of New Orleans class, and a lead mentor to entrepreneurs in the Propeller small business incubator. McManus holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Georgia's Grady School of Journalism, a master's degree in global communications from the American University of Paris, and a master's degree in business administration from Tulane University. John Orfield Dallas, Texas Orfield is both the product and a proponent of the collaborative style that BOKA Powell exemplifies. The 40-year-old planning and design firm, which is based in Dallas, specializes in corporate and commercial office, higher education, hospitality, urban living, and senior living. A LEED-accredited professional, Orfield is an expert in urban planning and sustainability. His 35 years of design experience includes landmark workplace, academic, luxury hotel, and residential projects across the United States and Mexico. Growing up in an artistically inclined family, Orfield devel- oped an interest in exploring the kinship between archi- tecture, film, and dance —art forms he sees as related in their portrayal of human experience moving through space and time. He has sought out collaborative environments or created them on the spot in design firms and universi- ties from New York to Indianapolis to Mexico City. Orfield considers every project a partnership, not only between the architect and the client, but also with the site itself. He sees this contextual approach as one reason there is no recognizable BOKA Powell "style" —only spaces that Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 45 benefit their surroundings as the result of a very intentional from 1984 to 1986, where he earned the Excellence in design process. Teaching award. He also held an appointment as a visiting professor at the Universidad de las Americas in Puebla, Orfield's recent projects include major projects for South Mexico, from 1994 to 1995. west Airlines, including the carrier's corporate headquar- ters master plan, the 1.1 million -square -foot "Wings" Office Building, the Flight Training Center and Garage, and Cassie Wright the 500,000-square-foot Training and Operations Support Denver, Colorado Center at Dallas's Love Field. Other projects include the Texas A&M West Campus student housing complex, which Wright is the project manager for Urban Ventures LLC, a is designed to accommodate 4,000 students in College Station, Texas; the Venue at the Ballpark, which is a 241- unit apartment complex overlooking the Birmingham Bar- ons ballpark; the Hotel Ajax, which is a boutique hotel and condominium project in Telluride, Colorado; and multiple corporate and commercial office projects for Hillwood and Cawley Partners in North Texas. Orfield's higher education portfolio includes more than 5.5 million square feet of university architecture, including student housing and academic buildings. He has designed corporate headquarters campuses for Accor, Daimler Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, and Computer Associates. While a vice-president at Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc., he completed the iconic 400,000-square-foot Eli Lilly Corporate Center in downtown Indianapolis. In 1996, Orfield joined Dallas -based architecture and plan- ning firm HaldemanPowell+Partners. Now known as BOKA Powell, he became a partner and owner in the practice in 1999. Earlier, Orfield was a vice president at Indianapolis - based Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc. from 1988 to 1994. He worked in numerous architectural intern positions in Houston, Texas; New Haven, Connecticut; and New York City, including an undergraduate internship with Mitchell Giurgola. He earned a master's degree in archi- tecture and building design from Columbia University in 1987. He earned his first bachelor's degree in architecture in 1980 and a second bachelor's of architecture in 1982 from Rice University in Houston. A lifelong educator, Orfield was a member of the fac- ulty of the University of Houston College of Architecture real estate company that is dedicated to creating healthy, sustainable communities. In her position, Wright works on all aspects of real estate development: from land acquisi- tion to project construction. She tests the financial feasibil- ity of projects, actively participates in the site planning and design processes, develops marketing and sales related materials, and closely interacts with project partners. In addition, Wright consults on real estate projects that focus on the relationship between the built environment and healthy living. In this role, she researches and implements best practices and health -based programming to foster community development that promotes social cohesion and positive wellbeing. Currently, Wright is involved with the land development of Aria Denver, a 17.5-acre, mixed -use, mixed -income project that will include more than 450 units and a commercial component. Upon completion, Aria Denver will promote healthy living with community gardens, production farms, a food -producing greenhouse, pocket parks, outdoor fitness equipment, and pathways integrated into the site. Aria Denver is part of Cultivate Health, a partnership among neighboring Regis University, the surrounding neighbor- hoods, and more than a dozen nonprofit organizations. Funded in large part by the Colorado Health Foundation, Cultivate Health is providing infrastructure enhancements and programming that promote an active lifestyle, increase access to healthy food, and offer integrated health services. Wright is co -manager of the Colorado Health Foundation grant and is managing the implementation of three major infrastructure projects (i.e., production farms, improved bicycle facilities, and neighborhood wellness loop) that are included in the Cultivate Health initiative. 46 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Wright is also actively working on the Aria Cohousing proj- ect. Cohousing communities are intentional, collaborative neighborhoods that combine private homes and shared spaces. In cohousing, residents actively participate in the design and operation of their neighborhoods while sharing common facilities and good connections with neighbors. Aria Cohousing is the redevelopment of a 35,000-square- foot convent into 28 condominium units and shared community spaces including a community dining room, kitchen, multipurpose room, guest room, and sunroom. Finally, Wright is project manager for STEAM on the Platte, a 3.2-acre, mixed -use project in Denver's abandoned, industrial corridor along the Platte River. In its first phase, STEAM will feature the conversion of an existing 65,000-square-foot industrial warehouse into office space and the creation of a courtyard and promenade that con- nects to the river's edge. Wright holds a master's degree in city planning from the University of Pennsylvania and a bachelor's degree in soci- ology and anthropology from St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota. She serves on the nonprofit board for Soul Spring, as well as on the Mile High Connects Advisory Council. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 47 Urban Land Institute 2001 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.uli.org ® Printed on recycled paper. 51NCE 1946 ENGINEERING TO: Hilary Halford DATE: December 11, 2020 Final Delivery of Initiative Two, Three, FROM: Mike Bosi, AICP RE: Four and Five —Contract No. 13-6164 The Johnson Engineering Team is pleased to provide to the Housing Operations and Grants Development Staff the proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) & Land Development Code (LDC) changes and support material associated with the final Initiatives recommended by the Collier Housing Plans and directed by the by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at their public hearing on October 8th, 2018. This memorandum is designed to provide a brief description of the final Housing Initiatives, consisting of GMP and LDC changes to implement the Initiatives. It should be noted that the LDC amendments associated with Initiative One, which was delivered on June 25, 2020, are scheduled to be heard by the BCC at their January 26, 2021 public hearing and adopted at their February 9, 2021 public hearing. The draft GMP and LDC amendments have been developed in coordination with Housing Staff and high level review and input from Growth Management Department staff Initiative Two — Five: These Initiatives cover a range of regulatory issues related to the provision of housing that is affordable that were advanced within the Community Housing Plan, these include: I2 - Streamlining conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning when providing for housing that is affordable; I3 - Increasing density within Activity Centers from 16 units per acre to 25 units per acre when providing for housing that is affordable; I4 - Creation of Strategic Opportunity Sites as a identified subdistrict within the GMP to allow for the development of a mixed use development that provides for residential density up to 25 units per acre which is integrated with non-residential land uses with a high degree of employment opportunities, such as corporate headquarters or business campuses; and finally I5 - Increasing density opportunities along bus/transit lines through the creation of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) up to a maximum of 25 units per acre. Each of these Initiatives require amendments to the GMP, which requires a process of review through Transmittal Hearings before the CCPC and the BCC, then review by the State Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), followed by another round of review through Adoption Hearings by the CCPC and the BCC. The process for adoption of GMP amendments typically require 10 to 12 months to satisfy. Following the proposed four Initiatives, the deliverable package provides for an Appendix which contains the data and analysis to support the GMP and LDC amendments. This material is ordered as follows: 1. Marketing Brochure Five Initiatives, 2. 10-09-18 BCC Recap 3. 10-09-18 Housing Executive Summary and Support PowerPoint 4. Collier Housing Plan 5. ULI Collier Housing Assessment 2350 Stanford Court . Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 434-0333 . Fax (239) 434-9320 Initiative Two OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS Statement of Issue — This initiative seeks to streamline the approval process for developments seeking to convert from existing Commercial zoning to Mixed Use and Residential, in exchange for those developments providing their residential units as housing that is affordable. The conversion process is limited to approved commercial zoning found consistent by policies 5.9 through 5.13 of the Future Land Use Element. The initiative seeks to reduce the uncertainty and the amount of time associated with the public hearing approval process for projects that seek to reduce overall intensity from commercial to mixed use or residential use. To be eligible for the administrative approval, the proposed project must contain a commitment for providing housing that is affordable. Strategy to implement — The Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan through policy 5.3.e allows for an evaluation of an existing project against a proposed project through a comparison of the overall intensity of development based upon public facilities impact, with transportation impact being the primary evaluation criteria, with a secondary analysis of utility impacts. Based upon this established process to evaluate or compare projects, the GMP and the LDC would be amended to add housing that is affordable as a permitted use in all commercial zoning districts when a traffic impact analysis, as provided for in the FLUE, yields a result of equal or reduced traffic impacts for a proposed residential or mixed use project. To qualify as a permitted use the project must contain a housing that is affordable commitment. Issues to Consider — The County Attorney's office has stated that the Board cannot allocate it zoning powers to another body or an administrative process. Based upon this opinion the original concept behind this initiative, for a conversion project to submit for staff administrative review, with the Hearing Examiner certifying the application has meet the required regulatory code was abandoned. The concept of streamlining the conversion process is still desired, but the proposed strategy to attain will have to satisfy the County Attorney's Office concerns. To address this concern, the initiative seeks to add to the Commercial zoning districts, housing that is affordable as a permitted use. This addition of housing that is affordable as a permitted use to the commercial zoning districts would eliminate the need to rezone commercial property. Area of change —Future Land Use Element (FLUE) & Land Development Code (LDC) II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES GOAL: TO GUIDE LAND USE DECISION -MAKING SO AS TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY NATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WELL PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WHICH PROMOTE THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL DESIRES. ****************************************************************************** 12/8/2020 Initiative Two Frr OBJECTIVE 1: OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS Promote well planned land uses consistent with Future Land Use Designations, Districts and Subdistricts and the Future Land Use Map to ensure compatibility between the natural and human environments. OBJECTIVE 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. Policy 5.1: Land use policies supporting Objective 5 shall be implemented upon the adoption of the Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.17: Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts To encourage the provision of housing that is affordable within the Urban Mixed Use District, sites zoned Commercial, which have been found consistent by policy and contain a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable shall be a permitted use up to a density of 16 gross units per acre, subject to satisfying a traffic impact analysis. The proposed affordable housing_project's traffic impact shall be evaluated against the highest intensity use within the applicable commercial zoning district and contain a reduced impact to qualify as a permitted use. LDC 2.03.03 — Commercial Zoning Districts A. Commercial Convenience District (C-1). The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C-3). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Housing that is Affordable, subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. ****************************************************************** 12/8/2020 Initiative Two OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS 27. Mixed residential and commercial uses containing housing that is affordable subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE, LDC section 4.02.xx and design criteria contained in section 4.02.38. B. Commercial Convenience District (C-2). 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C-3). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Housing that is Affordable, subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. 46. Mixed residential and commercial uses containiniz housiniz that is affordable subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policv 5.17 of the FLUE. LDC section 4.02.xx and design criteria contained in section 4.02.38. C. Commercial Convenience District (C-3). 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C-3). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Housing that is Affordable. subiect to the Housine that is Affordable by Riaht in Commercial Zoninc Districts provision of Policv 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. 59. Mixed residential and commercial uses containing housing that is affordable subject to the Housing that is Affordable by in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE, LDC section 4.02.xx and design criteria contained in section 4.02.38. ****************************************************************** 12/8/2020 Initiative Two I OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS D. Commercial Convenience District (C-4). 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C-4). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Advertising — miscellaneous (7319). 5. Housing that is Affordable, subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. ****************************************************************************** E. Commercial Convenience District (C-5). The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C-5). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Advertising — miscellaneous (7319). 5. Housing that is Affordable. subiect to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoninc Districts provision of Policv 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the T,nC ************************************************************************************* 2.07.00 — Price Qualifying Program for Housing that is Affordable 2.07.01— Purpose and Intent A. Section 2.07.00 is intended to implement and be consistent with the GMP. 6 163.3161 et F.S, F.A.C., and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in DOAH Case No. 89-1299 GM, by providing for price points of housing units that is affordable to gap -moderate-, low-, and very= low-income levels through the use of density bonuses which allow an increase in the number of residential dwelling units per acre allowed on property proposed for development, thereby decreasing the per unit cost of land and development. B. This objective is accomplished by implementing a Price Qualifying program which consists of a commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable. The purpose of the commitment is to provide increased residential densities to developers who guarantee that a portion of their 12/8/2020 Initiative Two OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS housing development will provide price points of specific units that aligns as affordable to households of gap-, moderate-, low-, or very -low-income, thus expanding_ housing opportunities for households throughout the county. 2.07.02 — Program Criteria The followingare re required components of the commitment for a Price Qualifying Housing that is Affordable project. A. Price Qualification for Income Levels Served. The price points for all units dedicated as Housing that is Affordable within the project must be affordable to income levels as identified within the below chart. Income Level as a percent of Median Income Gap (>120 - <140) Moderate (>80 - <120) Low (>50 - <80) Very Low (<50) 1. Identify the total number of housing units within the development and the total number of units that are affordable, categorized by price points for the level of income, type of unit (single-family or multifamily, owner -occupied or rental), and number of bedrooms, required in the development. 2. The price associated with the Housing that is Affordable unit cannot exceed the thresholds established for the above income levels within the annually updated Collier County Housing Demand Methodolog�re regarding for sale units or the annually pdated Board approved Table of Rental Rates regarding rental units. B. Price Point Requirement. The commitment to the sales price or the monthly rent for the Housing that is Affordable units shall be specified to a time period of five years from initial date of sale or rent. 1. The commitment shall require an annual monitoring report be submitted to the Housing Operations and Grant Development Division for a period of five years from the final CO for the broiect to ensure nricina does not exceed the thresholds established. 2. The conditions contained in the commitment shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the property and the owner's successors and assigns. C. Eligibility Requirement. Owners or renters within the Housing that is Affordable Project must be employed within Collier County as an Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan or retired Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan. D. Violations and Enforcement. 12/8/2020 Initiative Two • OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS 1. It is a violation of section 2.07.00 to rent, sell or occupy, or attempt to rent, sell or occupy, an affordable housing unit provided under the Price Qualifying program except as specifically_ permitted by the terms of section 2.07.00, or to knowingly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the County Manager or designee or by other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by section 2.07.00. 2. The Countv Manager or designee shall have full Dower to enforce the terms of this section and any developer agreements, rezoning conditions or stipulations, and planned unit development (PUD) conditions and stipulations pursuant to this section and the rights, privileges and conditions described herein, by action at law or equity. In the event that it is determined that a violation has occurred and has not or will not be corrected within 60 days, the certificate of occupancy for all Housing that is affordable units within the development shall be withdrawn and the sanctions or penalties provided in the Housing that is Affordable commitment shall be pursued to the fullest extent allowed by law. E. Commitment. The commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable shall be in the form of developer's agreement, a PUD developers commitment or rezoning condition of approval, all of which are subject to the requirements of LDC section 2.07.00. 4.02.xx —Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts A. As reauired by the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provisions within Policy 5.17 of the Growth Management Plan to qualify as a permitted use within the respective commercial zoning district, the property must have been found to be consistent by policy and contain a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable for all units within the project up to a density of 16 gross units per acre, subject to satisf inyg a traffic impact analysis provided for within Policy 5.3.e of the Future Land Use Element. 1. The proposed affordable housing project's traffic impact shall be evaluated against the highest intensity use within the applicable commercial zoning district to qualify as a permitted use. The results of the impact analysis must show the proposed project to be of equal or reduced traffic impact to qualify as a permitted use in the zoning district. 2. In addition to the public facilities impact analysis, to qualify for the administrative process, the project must submit a School Impact Analysis per LDC Section 10.04.09. 3. The Affordable Housing by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts project must be multi- family, single family attached or townhouse. 4. Prior to approval of the Site Development Plan for the project, the application must satisfy the Traffic Impact Analysis, the School Impact Analysis and enter a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. a. The commitment will contain the specifics of the price qualification for income levels served, term of commitment, eligibility requirements, and violations and enforcement as provided within LDC section 2.07.02. 12/s/2020 Initiative Two OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS b. For units that are for sale. one half of the units must be at a price point that is affordable to either the Low or Very Low income levels as provided for within LDC section 2.07.02.A.1. The other one half of the units can be provided at a price point that is affordable to any of the income levels provided for with section 2.07.02.A.1. c. For units that are for rent, all units must be at a price points affordable to Low and Very Low income levels. 5. A Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts project must satisfy the dimensional standards of the underlying commercial zoning district except that the minimum distance between structures shall be a minimum of 10 feet. a. When the proposed project is adjacent to aU propertypied by, or zoned to permit, a single family dwelling unit: 1). Setback from the common boundaries shall be equal to the proposed zoned buildin..height; 2). A 15-foot Type `B" buffer shall be provided along the common boundaries. 12/s/2020 Initiative Two Initiative Three INITIATIVE THREE Irr INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS Statement of Issue — Per the Future Land Use Element of the Collier Growth Management Plan (GMP), mixed use activity centers are intended to be mixed use in character, with the allowable land uses to include the full array of commercial, residential and institutional uses, and other land uses as generally allowed in the Urban designations. The original design of the mixed -use activity center concept as part of the adoption of the GMP was to require a percentage of the activity centers to be developed with residential development at the highest density allowed by the plan. The intent was to allow higher density in the areas of the County where the highest intensity of use was expected and to allow for the market to provide for lower cost units in a high density setting to provide for a better spatial relationship to where job opportunities being created and where potential employees could gain housing that is affordable. This strategy is based upon the concept of reducing vehicle miles traveled, which results in an increase in capacity to the transportation system without the costly expenditures for new roads. While sound in concept, the resulting land use mix of the activity centers provided by the marketplace was a mono -culture of commercial and non-residential land uses. This initiative is designed to provide for incentives through higher densities to allow the marketplace to provide for the mixed use concept within activity centers through the development of mixed income residential housing. Strategy to implement — The Future Land Use Element currently limits density within the activity centers to 16 units per acre (except in the Urban Residential Fringe and Coastal High Hazard Area where the density limit is much lower). To further incentives the introduction of mixed income residential use to current activity centers this amendment seeks to increase the density within the activity centers from sixteen (16) units per acre to twenty-four (25) units per acre when providing for a mixed income residential project that contains housing that is affordable. The current limit of 16 units per acre will remain for all market based projects, but if a project is willing to set aside two-thirds of the bonus density units above the 16 units per acre to a price point affordable to an identified household income level, additional density can be achieved. The full nine units above the current sixteen unit maximum can be achieved if the mixed income residential project dedicates six of the nine additional units to price points affordable to more than one household income level. The density limit for activity centers in the Urban Residential Fringe and Coastal High Hazzard Area will remain unchanged. Considerations — The focus of this initiative is not to remove the public hearing component for a housing that is affordable project, but rather to provide for a satisfactory level of incentivization of the density allowed within an activity center for a market response. The benefit sits with the proximity of housing that is affordable to the job opportunities created within Activity Centers (retail and service based). This not only benefits the transportation system by reducing or eliminating a percentage of trips to satisfy the Activity Center's employment needs, but also places goods and services in much closer proximity to the housing that is affordable and market rate housing within the Activity Center, therefore reducing a percentage of those household's daily trips. Initiative Three 12/8/2020 INITIATIVE THREE INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS ea of change —Mixed Use Activity Centers and Interchange Activity Center Subdistricts of Future Land Use Element (FLUE) & Land Development Code (LDC) GMP and Land Development Code changes FLUE - C. Urban Commercial District (Page 56) 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict For residential -only development, if a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict or Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be permitted and M to 25 units per gross acre when providing for a mixed income project, which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, the eligible density shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre, except as allowed by the density rating system and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a residential -only project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. Mixed -use developments — whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building — are allowed and encouraged within Mixed Use Activity Centers. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre and up to 25 units per ,gross acre when providing for a mixed income project, which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center that is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict but is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density shall be limited to four (4) dwelling units per acre, except as allowed by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, and the portion within an Activity Center is developed as mixed use, some of the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed to that portion of the project located outside of the Activity Center. In order to promote compact and walkable mixed use projects, where the density from a mixed use project is distributed outside the Activity Center boundary: 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict: (Page 60) Initiative Three 12/8/2020 INITIATIVE THREE INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS r' DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS For residential -only development, if a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be allowed and up to 25 units per gross acre when providing for a mixed income project, which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a residential -only project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. Mixed -use developments — whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building - are allowed and encouraged within Interchange Activity Centers. Such mixed -use projects are intended to be developed at a human - scale, pedestrian -oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects — whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre and up to 25 units per gross acre when providing for a mixed income project, which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, and the portion within an Activity Center is developed as mixed use, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project shall not be distributed outside of the Activity Center. ************************************************************************************* LDC 2.07.00 — Price Qualifying Program for Housing that is Affordable 2.07.01 — Purpose and Intent A. Section 2.07.00 is intended to implement and be consistent with the GMP, § 163.3161 et sec. F.S, F.A.C., and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in DOAH Case No. 89-1299 GM, by providing for price points of housing units that is affordable to gap -moderate-, low-, and verb low-income levels through the use of density bonuses which allow an increase in the number of residential dwelling units per acre allowed on property proposed for development, thereby decreasing the per unit cost of land and development. B. This objective is accomplished by implementing a Price Qualifying program which consists of a commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable. The purpose of the commitment is to provide increased residential densities to developers who guarantee that a portion of their housingdevelopment evelopment will provide price points of specific units that align as affordable to Initiative Three 12/8/2020 I INITIATIVE THREE INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS households of gap-, moderate-, low-, or very -low-income, thus expanding housing opportunities for households throughout the county_. 2.07.02 — Program Criteria The following are required components of the commitment for a Price Qualifyin>; Housing that is Affordable project. A. Price Qualification for Income Levels Served. The price points for all units dedicated as Housing that is Affordable within the project must be affordable to income levels as identified within the below chart. Income Level as a percent of Median Income Gap (>120 - <140) Moderate (>80 - <120) Low (>50 - <80) Very Low (<50) 1. Identify the total number of housing units within the development and the total number of units that are affordable, categorized by price points for the level of income, type of unit (single-family or multifamily, owner -occupied or rental), and number of bedrooms, required in the development. The price associated with the Housing that is Affordable unit cannot exceed the thresholds established for the above income levels within the annually updated Collier County Housing Demand Methodolog�re regarding for sale units or the annually updated Board approved Table of Rental Rates regarding rental units. B. Price Point Requirement. The commitment to the sales price or the monthly rent for the Housing that is Affordable units shall be specified to a time period of five years from initial date of sale or rent. 1. The commitment shall require an annual monitoring report be submitted to the Housing Operations and Grant Development Division for a period of five years from the final CO for the project to ensure pricing does not exceed the thresholds established. 2. The conditions contained in the commitment shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the property and the owner's successors and assigns. C. Eligibility Requirement. Owners or renters within the Housing that is Affordable Proj ect must be employed within Collier County as an Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan or retired Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan. D. Violations and Enforcement. 1. It is a violation of section 2.07.00 to rent, sell or occupy, or attempt to rent, sell or occupy, an affordable housing unit provided under the Price Qualifying program except Initiative Three 12/8/2020 INITIATIVE THREE Irr INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS as specifically permitted by the terms of section 2.07.00, or to knowingly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the County Manager or designee or by other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by section 2.07.00. 2. The Countv Manager or designee shall have full Dower to enforce the terms of this section and any developer agreements, rezoning conditions or stipulations, and planned unit development (PUD) conditions and stipulations pursuant to this section and the rights, privileges and conditions described herein, by action at law or equi .. In the event that it is determined that a violation has occurred and has not or will not be corrected within 60 days, the certificate of occupancy for all Housing that is affordable units within the development shall be withdrawn and the sanctions or penalties provided in the Housing that is Affordable commitment shall be pursued to the fullest extent allowed by law. E. Commitment. The commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable shall be in the form of developer's agreement, a PUD developers commitment or rezoning condition of approval, all of which are subject to the requirements of LDC section 2.07.00. 4.O2.xx —Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts 4.O2.xx —Housing that is Affordable within Activitv Centers or an Interchange Activity Centers A. Within an Activity Center or an Interchange Activity Center to increase density beyond 16 units per acre, additional units per acre are required to be made available at a price point affordable for specified income levels, as identified in the chart within 2.O7.O2.A.1. Additionally, the project must: 1. Be a multi -family, single family attached, or townhouse project submitted as a Planned Unit Development or Planned Unit Development Amendment; 2. Enter into a commitment that will contain the specifics of the price qualification for income levels served, term of commitment, eli ig bility requirements, and violations and enforcement as provided within LDC Section 2.07.00. B. The following are additional required components of the commitment for Housing that is Affordable for a project. 1. For units that are for sale. two-thirds (2/3) of the first six units or four of six of bonus densit above 16 units per acre must be made available at a price point affordable to the low level or very low income level identified within the chart in 2.07.03.A.1. Two -Thirds of the final three units or two of three of bonus density shall be made available at a price point from any of the income levels identified within the chart in 2.07.02.A.1. Initiative Three 12/8/2020 rr INITIATIVE THREE INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS 2. If the proposed project is to be a rental community, two-thirds (2/3) of the bonus density must be made available at a price point affordable to the low level or very low income level identified within the chart in 2.07.03.A.1. C. When the proposed project is adjacent to any propertypied by,or zoned to permit, a single family dwelling unit: 1). Setback from the common boundaries shall be equal to the proposed zoned building height; and 2). A 15-foot Type `B" buffer shall be provided along the common boundaries. Initiative Three 12/8/2020 Initiative Four OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY Statement of Issue — A main recommendation of the 2017 ULI Study is that Collier County should allow for greater residential densities to mitigate high land and development costs. Strategic Opportunity Site's (SOS) would be designated by the BCC as areas where higher densities are encouraged when providing for housing that is affordable. Strategic Opportunity Sites are designed to strengthen the relationship between job creation and the location of housing that is affordable for that workforce, with SOS's designed to include new corporate headquarter sites or industrial areas, employment centers, educational facilities or major transportation corridors and other appropriate locations outside of the activity center locations. Housing that is affordable in Strategic Opportunity Sites could be designated for Essential Services Personnel (teachers, first responders, health care professionals, etc.), but will be required to provide for commitments for housing that is affordable. The initiative seeks to develop a process for emerging areas for designation (floating designation to be applied for) where certain land uses (corporate headquarters, campus, research and development parks, etc.) are proposed. The intended benefits are anticipated to be an increase in certainty, a reduction in cost, a better job to housing spatial arrangement and an overall reduction on infrastructure expansion. Strategy to implement — To provide for the initiative, the GMP will be amended to create the criteria for the designation of SOS, similar to the industrial designation process, and develop criteria that must be satisfied: mix of housing types, minimum percentage of units at certain affordability levels, multi -modal design and the ratio of land use mix. The amendment will allow the SOS designation process for future designation based upon proposed land use changes such as corporate headquarters, business and industrial park development. The required commitment to provide for housing that is affordable will be secured through the existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus agreement program, which requires a percentage of the overall development to be made available at a price point correlated to accepted income levels, as shown below. Maximum Allowable Density Bonus by Percent of Development Designated as Affordable Housing 9.2, 3 Product (% of MI( 10% 20% 30% 401k 50% 6095 70% 80% 90% 100% Gap (>120-140) 4• s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 n1a n/a Moderate (>80—s120) 4 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Low (>50—<_80) 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 Very Low (<_50) 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 12 12 Issues to Consider — The designation of Strategic Opportunity Sites (SOS) follows the precedent established in the Future Land Use Element for the designation of Activity Centers. The SOS would be designated on the FLUM to indicate an expectation for a higher density residential project integrated to where a significant number of employment opportunities exist or are expected to develop. Following the reasoning behind initiative three, incentivizing mixed income housing Initiative Four 12/8/2020 OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY projects in Activity Centers, a reduction in vehicle miles traveled is the expected outcome with the creation of an SOS. The maximum density allocated to an SOS will be, twenty-five (25) units per acre. The intent is to provide opportunities for housing that is affordable to areas with high employment needs, with a minimum of 20% of the housing that is affordable dedicated to low or very low income levels. Area of change — Future Land Use Element (FLUE) FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION (Page 25) The following section describes the land use designations shown on the Future Land Use Map. These designations generally indicate the types of land uses for which zoning may be requested. However, these land use designations do not guarantee that a zoning request will be approved. Requests may be denied by the Board of County Commissioners based on criteria in the Land Development Code or on special studies completed for the County. 1. Urban Designation Urban designated areas on the Future Land Use Map include two general portions of Collier County: areas with the greatest residential densities, and areas in close proximity, which have or are projected to receive future urban support facilities and services. It is intended that Urban designated areas accommodate the majority of population growth and that new intensive land uses be located within them. Accordingly, the Urban area will accommodate residential uses and a variety of non-residential uses. The Urban designated area, which includes Immokalee, Copeland, Plantation Island, Chokoloskee, Port of the Islands, and Goodland, in addition to the greater Naples area, represents less than 10% of Collier County's land area. The boundaries of the Urban designated areas have been established based on several factors, including: patterns of existing development; patterns of approved, but unbuilt, development; natural resources; water management; hurricane risk; existing and proposed public facilities; population projections and the land needed to accommodate the projected population growth. Urban designated areas will accommodate the following uses: a. Residential uses including single family, multi -family, duplex, and mobile home. The maximum densities allowed are identified in the Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays that follow, except as allowed by certain policies under Objective 5. b. Non-residential uses including: 1. Essential services as defined by the most recent Land Development Code; 17. Research and Technology Park uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban -Industrial District. 18. Strategic Opportunity Sites subject to criteria identified in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban -Industrial District. .......................................................................... Initiative Four 12/8/2020 OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR 2EATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY lrban Mixed Use District (Page 27) District, which represents approximately 116,000 acres, is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. Certain industrial and commercial uses arc also allowed subject to criteria. ****************************************************************************** 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. This Subdistrict comprises approximately 93,000 acres and 80% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density Rating System but shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre except in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights Section of the Land Development Code. *********************************************************************************************************** 20. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict This Subdistrict consists of 31 acres and is located at the northeast quadrant of two major arterial roadways, Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. In addition to uses generally allowed in the Urban designation, the intent of the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict is to provide shopping, personal services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. The Subdistrict also permits multi -family rental residential dwelling units. The Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring Pine Ridge Middle school and nearby residential development and therefore, emphasis will be placed on common building architecture, signage, landscape design and site accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles. 21. Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict The Strategic Opportunity Sites (SOS) Subdistrict is intended to provide for the introduction of mixed income residential use to existing or plarmed industrial and/or commercial Planned Unit Developments or traditionally zoned projects. The addition of residential use to a geographic area of land with a high degree of employment opportunities (corporate headquarters, technology campus, research and development parks, etc.) provides for a beneficial relationship between households and job locations. This relationship benefits the employees and employers within a proposed SOS, but also benefits all users of the Count transportation system by reducing the total vehicle miles traveled to satisfy primary household need of employ The SOS should be designed in a mixed use environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivityprovide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents, and patrons of the Subdistrict. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District, and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, are not subject to the Density Rating System, and shall comply with the following_ general conditions: Initiative Four 12/8/2020 OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY A. The proposed SOS subdistrict must provide for housing that is affordable in the following manner: 1. Base Density shall be at 4 units per acre with the requirement that an Affordable HousingDensity Bonus (AHDB) agreement must be established. 2. The commitment for housing that is affordable shall be authorized through Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB,) program, as specified within LDC section 2.06.00. 3. A minimum of 20 percent of the total units must be committed as affordable housing opportunities from either the Low or Very Low income levels as provided in LDC section 2.06.03.A. All density bonuses awarded through the utilization of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus provided for in 2.6.03 shall be doubled when dedicated to the Low or Very Low income levels. 4. Maximum density shall not exceed 25 units per net acre. 5. Each phase of the project that proposes residential development, must provide for the ratio of market housing units to housing that is affordable units stated within the AHDB agreement. B. When locating in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the SOS must be abutting, and have direct access to a road classified as an arterial and or collector in the Transportation Element. Direct principal access is defined as a local roadway connection to the arterial or collector road, provided the portion of the local roadway intended to provide access to the SOS is not within a residential neighborhood and does not service a predominately residential area. C. When the SOS is located within the Urban Industrial District or includes industrially zoned land, those uses allowed in the Industrial Zoning District shall be permitted provided that the total industrial acreage is not greater than the amount previously zoned or designated industrial. When a SOS is located in the Urban Commercial District or Urban -Mixed Use District, the industrial uses shall be limited to those target industry uses, as defined within the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict of this Element. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance for an SOS project shall list specifically all permitted uses and development standards consistent with the criteria identified in this provision. D. When the SOS project is abutting residentially zoned land, all, or a portion, of the housing is encouraged to be located proximate to such abutting residentially zoned land where feasible. 1. When the proposed project is adjacent to any property occupied by, or zoned to permit, a single family dwelling, the setbacks along the common boundary shall be equal to the proposed zoned building height and a 15-foot Type `B" buffer shall be provided. E. Housing shall be fully integrated with other compatible uses in the project through Initiative Four 12/8/2020 OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY vertical or horizontal mixed use buildings, landscaping, open space and through pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular (multi -modal) interconnections, demonstrated through the submittal of a Mobilityplan and an internal capture analysis. 1. The Mobilitv Plan shall depict the configuration and phasing of all connecting streets street behind/between out parcels, and other planned local streets, along with all access points from adjoining streets, as shown on a conceptual development plan, with cross -sections of each. The Mobilitv Plan shall also provide for an analvsis of the project's internal capture. F. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall be a minimum of ten -acres and utilize PUD zoning. 1. The development standards provided within the PUD zoning will ensure that the spatial arrangement and compatibility measures adopted integrate the residential development with the non-residential development of the project. 2. All proposed non-residential land uses that utilize hazardous substance or bulk storage of petroleum or like material will be adequately separated from the proposed residential portion of the Strategic Opportunity Site. G. All projects within a designated Strategic Opportunity Site must satisfy the concurrency management system at the time of Development Order. H. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall include a minimum of 20 percent and up to a maximum of 60 percent of the total acreage within the Subdistrict for residential development. The residential component may provide for a mix of single family and multi -family units or provide for a multi -family only option. 1. The land uses within a proposed SOS may contain uses from Residential, Commercial and/or Business Park zoning districts. J. The non-residential portion of the SOS shall utilize the Commercial Five (C-5.) Zoning District, as development standards. The residential portion of the SOS shall utilize the residential zoning district development standards closest aligned to the density sought within the SOS. Deviations are permitted in conformity with J. below). K. Deviations from Land Development Code standards are allowed within a PUD request to implement an approved SOS. Justifications for the deviations shall be based upon their relationship to identified Goals, Objectives or Policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. ************************************************************************************* C. Urban Commercial District (Page 56) This District is intended to accommodate almost all new commercial zoning; a variety of residential uses, including higher densities for properties not located within the Urban Coastal Fringe or Urban Residential Fringe Subdistricts; and a variety of non-residential uses. 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Mixed Use Activity Centers have been designated on the Future Land Use Map Series identified in the Future Land Use Element. The locations are based on intersections of major roads and on Initiative Four 12/8/2020 OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR ATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY ig criteria. When this Plan was originally adopted in 1989, there were 21 Activity Centers. are now 19 Activity Centers, listed below, which comprise approximately 3,000 acres; this includes three Interchange Activity Centers (#4, 9, 10) which will be discussed separately under the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict. Two Activity Centers, #19 and 21, have been deleted as they are now within the incorporated City of Marco Island. 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict The Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict consists of f 6.33 acres and is located on the west side of Livingston Road, just north of the terminus of Piper Boulevard. The purpose of this subdistrict is to allow for the development of a parking lot and Collier County utility facilities and services. ************************************************************************************************************* 15. Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict The Strategic_Opportuni . Sites (SOS) Subdistrict is intended to provide for the introduction of mixed income residential use to existing or planned industrial and/or commercial Planned Unit Developments or traditionally zoned projects. The addition of residential use to a geographic area of land with a high degree of employment opportunities (corporate headquarters, technology campus, research and development parks, etc.) provides for a beneficial relationship between households and job locations. This relationship benefits the employ and employers within a proposed SOS, but also benefits all users of the Count transportation s, stay reducing the total miles traveled to satisfy a primary household need of employ The SOS should be designed in a mixed use environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents, and patrons of the Subdistrict. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District subject to the criteria set forth under the Strategic Opportunity Sites Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District. *************************************************************************** D. Urban Industrial District (Page 70) The Industrial Land Use District is reserved primarily for industrial type uses and comprises approximately 2,200 acres. Besides basic Industrial uses limited commercial uses are permitted. Retail commercial uses are prohibited, except as accessory to Industrial or Business Park uses. The C-5, C-4 and PUD Commercial Zoning Districts along the perimeter of the designated Urban Industrial District that existed as of October 1997 shall be deemed consistent with this Land Use District. Industrially designated areas shall have access to a road classified as an arterial or collector in the Transportation Element, or access may be provided via a local road that does not service a predominately residential area. Intensities of use shall be those related to: a. Manufacturing; Initiative Four 12/8/2020 OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY n. High density residential as part of a proposed Strategic Opportuni . Site. . Business Park Subdistrict The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non- industrial uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and landscaped areas provide for buffering and enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the Park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a Subdistrict in the Urban Industrial District subject to the criteria set forth under the Business Park Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District. 2. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of targeted industry uses — aviation/aerospace industry, health technology industry, information technology industry, and light, low environmental impact manufacturing industry — and non -industrial uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents and patrons of the park. Research and Technology Parks shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban — Industrial District subject to the criteria set forth under the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District. 3. Strategic Opportunity Sites Subdistrict The Strategic Opportuni . Sites (SOS) Subdistrict is intended to provide for the introduction of mixed income residential use to existing or planned industrial and/or commercial Planned Unit Developments or traditionally zoned projects. The addition of residential use to a geographic area of land with a high degree of employment opportunities (corporate headquarters, technology campus, research and development parks, etc.) provides for a beneficial relationship between households and job locations. This relationship benefits the employ and employers within a proposed SOS, but also benefits all users of the Count transportation s. stay reducing the total miles traveled to satisfy a primary household need of employment. The SOS should be designed in a mixed use environment where landscaped areas. outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivityprovide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents, and patrons of the Subdistrict. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban Industrial District subiect to the criteria set forth under the Strategic Opportunity Sites Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District. Initiative Four 12/8/2020 Initiative Five OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS Statement of Issue —The final initiative directed by the Housing Plan and the Board at the October 9, 2018 public hearing was for promoting housing that is affordable on major transit corridors. The initiative is recommended based upon two desired outcomes, in addition to adding to the supply of housing that is affordable. The first is that locating higher density housing along transit corridors can help reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles on the overall network, as well as reducing the overall trip length within the urbanized area where the majority of employment opportunities are located and therefore strengthening the spatial relationship between where employment opportunities exist and where employees live. The second intended outcome sits with the frequency of transit service. The addition of higher density housing along existing transit corridors is designed to increase the ridership of the system and the particular route that the housing is situated, and this increased ridership can have a positive effect of reducing the headway, or time between bus service of the particular route. This increased frequency ideally would promote more ridership on the system due to the decrease in wait times and the increase in efficiency for the individual rider. An outcome that would generate more self -funding to the Collier Area Transit system to increase the efficiency of the transit system. Strategy to implement — The Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan currently allows for an affordable housing project (whether or not along a transit route) to request up to 16 units per gross acre if specific percentages of housing that is affordable is committed to within the project. To further incentivize the development of housing that is affordable along transit routes, the Density Rating System will be amended to provide for additional density for projects that promote the utilization of the transit system within the design of the project and concentrate a majority of the project's units within close proximity to the project entrance. Additionally, the Transportation Element of the GMP will be amended to explicitly state that higher density along transit routes is a County priority. The design of the project will allocate the highest density of the project occurring in the quarter - mile of the transit station/route, known as the, "Transit Core". The project will pay close attention to the multi -modal design to provide for sufficient ease of use for the pedestrian or the bicyclist to access the transit station Considerations — The majority of collector and arterial roadways within the County are currently designated as set transit routes and based upon this recognition, the portion of the routes not within the FLUM Urban designation will not be recommended for density above the current 16 units per acre that can currently be requested if utilizing an affordable workforce density bonus. The transit oriented design (TOD) of the project will require that highest level of density will be allocated within a quarter mile of the transit stop along the project's frontage, with density stepping down as the distance from the project frontage increases. This design function will address the issue of first and last mile", often cited as a barrier to transit usage, by reducing the distance between the transit stop and the residential unit of the rider and enhancing the connectivity between the two. Area of change —Transportation Element, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) & Land Development Code (LDC) Transportation Element Objective 12 (Page 22) 12/8/2020 OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS Policy 12.10: The County, through the Future Land Use Element and Density Rating System, will prioritize higher density residential and mixed use projects along Urban designated Collier Area Transit (CAT) routes. This prioritization is to encourage a better spatial relationship between the location of employment centers and available housing that is affordable. Increasing the proximity of this relationship between work opportunities and the location of employees provides for a direct benefit to the transportation system as a whole with the reduction in vehicles miles traveled and the availability of transit to reduce the number of singlepancy trips within the system. FLUE - Density Rating System (Page 50) FLUE - B. Density Rating System (Page 50) This Density Rating System is only applicable to areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as: Urban, Urban Mixed Use District; and, on a very limited basis, Agricultural/Rural. It is not applicable to the Urban areas encompassed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; these two Elements have their own density provisions. The Density Rating System is applicable to that portion of the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to the extent that the residential density cap of 4 dwelling units per acre is not exceeded, except for the density bonus provisions for Affordable Housing and Transfer of Development Rights, and except as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The final determination of permitted density via implementation of this Density Rating System is made by the Board of County Commissioners through an advertised public hearing process (rezone or Stewardship Receiving Area designation). 1. The Density Rating System is applied in the following manner: Within the applicable Urban Designated Areas, a base density of 4 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be allowed, though not an entitlement. This base level of density may be adjusted depending upon the location and characteristics of the project, such as a project proposed as a Transit Oriented Development may seek a base density of 13 residential dwelling units per gross acre. For purposes of calculating the eligible number of dwelling units for a project (gross acreage multiplied by eligible number of dwelling units per acre), the total number of dwelling units may be rounded up by one unit if the dwelling unit total yields a fraction of a unit .5 or greater. Acreage to be used for calculating density is exclusive of: the commercial and industrial portions of a project, except where authorized in a Subdistrict, such as the Orange Blossom Mixed -Use Subdistrict; and, mixed residential and commercial uses as provided for in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts in the Collier County Land Development Code; and, portions of a project for land uses having an established equivalent residential density in the Collier County Land Development Code. 2. Density Bonuses (51) h. Transit Oriented Development 12/s/zozo OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS To further facilitate the prioritization of higher density projects along existing transit routes of the density increases may be requested, as identified further below, if a project complies with the following conditions: the project has direct frontage to an existing fixed transit route or on a proposed route as identified for funding on the Transit Development Plan; the project has a Future Land Use Map designation of Urban -Mixed Use District; the project provides for a transit stop along the project's frontage or is within one -quarter mile of an existing transit stop; the project is proposing multi -family development and the project complies with the transit oriented design standards contained in chapter four (4) of the Land Development Code. A base of thirteen (13) units per gross acre ma.. b�quested. Bonus density may be requested through a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. The maximum density shall not exceed 25 units per gross acre. This base and bonus shall not be combined with other density bonuses. 4. Density Conditions (Page 53) The following density condition applies to all properties subject to the Density Rating System. a. Maximum Density The maximum allowed density shall not exceed sixteen (16) dwelling units per gross acre within the Urban designated area, except for the following: When utilizing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code adopted by Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended on June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004; or the density bonus for Project Location on a Transit Route of the Density Rating System in which case the maximum allowed density when providing a commitment for Housing that is Affordable shall not exceed twentv-five (25) dwelling units Der acre. LDC 1.08.02 — Definitions "Transit Core" means the area within the inner quarter -mile around a transit station. "Transit Oriented Development" (TOD) means a project or projects, in areas identified in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), that is or will be served by existing or planned transit service. These designated areas shall be compact, moderate to high densi . developments, of multi -modal character, interconnected with other land uses, pedestrian orientated, multi -family and designed to support frequent transit service operatingthrough hrough the Collier Area Transit system on available roadway connections. ************************************************************************************* LDC 2.07.00 — Price Oualifying Program for Housing that is Affordable 2.07.01— Purpose and Intent 12/8/2020 OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS Section 2.07.00 is intended to implement and be consistent with the GMP, § 163.3161 et sec. F.S, F.A.C., and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in DOAH Case No. 89-1299 GM, by providing for price points of housing units that is affordable to gap -moderate-, low-, and very - low -income levels through the use of density bonuses which allow an increase in the number of residential dwelling units per acre allowed on property proposed for development, thereby decreasing the per unit cost of land and development. B. This objective is accomplished by implementing a Price Qualifying program which consists of a commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable. The purpose of the commitment is to provide increased residential densities to developers who guarantee that a portion of their housing development will provide price points of specific units that align as affordable to households of ggp-, moderate-, low-, or very -low-income, thus expanding housing opportunities for households throughout the county. 2.07.02 — Program Criteria The following are required components of the commitment for a Price Qualifying Housing that is Affordable project. A. Price Qualification for Income Levels Served. The price points for all units dedicated as that is Affordable within the nroiect must be affordable to income levels as identified within the below chart. Income Level as a percent of Median Income Gap (>120 - <140) Moderate (>80 - <120) Low (>50 - <80) Very Low (<50) 1. Identify the total number of housing units within the development and the total number of units that are affordable, categorized by price points for the level of income, type of unit (single-family or multifamily, owner -occupied or rental), and number of bedrooms, required in the development. 2. The price associated with the Housing that is Affordable unit cannot exceed the thresholds established for the above income levels within the annually updated Collier County Housing Demand Methodology regarding for sale units or the annually updated Board approved Table of Rental Rates regarding rental units. B. Price Point Requirement. The commitment to the sales price or the monthly rent for the Housing that is Affordable units shall be specified to a time period of five years from initial date of sale or rent. 1. The commitment shall require an annual monitoring report be submitted to the Housing Operations and Grant Development Division for a period of five years from the final CO for the nroiect to ensure pricing does not exceed the thresholds established. 12/8/2020 OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE Ir INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 2. The conditions contained in the commitment shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the property and the owner's successors and assigns. C. Eligibility Requirement. Owners or renters within the Housing that is Affordable Project must be employed within Collier County as an Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance plan or retired. D. Violations and Enforcement. 1. It is a violation of section 2.07.00 to rent. sell or occupv. or attempt to rent. sell or occupy, an affordable housing unit provided under the Price Qualifying ing Program except as specifically permitted by the terms of section 2.07.00, or to knowingly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested b. the Countv Manager or designee or by other persons pursuant to the authoritv which is delegated to them by section 2.07.00. 2. The Countv Manager or designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this section and any developer agreements, rezoning conditions or stipulations, and planned unit development (PUD) conditions and stipulations pursuant to this section and the rights, privileges and conditions described herein, by action at law or equity. In the event that it is determined that a violation has occurred and has not or will not be corrected within 60 days, the certificate of occupancy for all Housing that is affordable units within the development shall be withdrawn and the sanctions or penalties provided in the Housing that is Affordable commitment shall be pursued to the fullest extent allowed by law. E. Commitment. The commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable shall be in the form of developer's agreement, a PUD developers commitment or rezoning condition of gpproval, all of which are subject to the requirements of LDC section 2.07.00. ************************************************************************* 4.02.xx —Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts ****************************************************************************** 4.02.xx —Housing that is Affordable within Activitv Centers or an Interchange Activitv Centers 4.02.xx —Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Desi!n Standards A. As expressed by Policy 12.10 of the Transportation Element and the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element within the Collier Growth Management Plan, higher density multi -family projects shall be prioritized alongexisting xisting transit routes. B. All proposed multi -family projects that front on an existing Collier Area Transit fixed route or on a proposed route as identified for funding on the Transit Development Plan, are 12/s/2020 • OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS designated Urban Mixed Use District on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and satisfy the design standards identified below are eligible for 13 units per acre. 1. If proposed route on the Transit Development Plan has not been identified for funding the applicant may coordinate with Collier Area Transit to secure fundingneeds. eeds. C. Design Standards for TOD. 1. The project must be multi -family and submitted as a Planned Unit Development. 2. A minimum of 50 percent of all units within the project will be located within one -quarter of a mile from a frontage access point. 3. The project shall provide vehicular, pedestrian and bike interconnections throughout the project to ensure multimodal transportation links to the project entrance, as well as adjacent properties, where interconnection to adjacent properties is possible and practicable. 4. Building Height. Not to exceed four stories, with a zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 60 feet. 5. Setback for Principal Structures to project boundaries and buffer requirement. a. Front Yard - Minimum 10 feet. maximum 25 feet. b. Side and Rear Yard - 50 percent of building height. When adjacent to any property occupied by, or zoned to permit, a single family dwelling setback to be provided at a one -foot (setback) to one -foot (height) basis. 6. Duriniz the rezoning process the project must coordinate with Collier Area Transit (CAT) to provide a commitment to develop a permanent transit stop along the project's frontage or identify an existing stop within'/4 of a mile of the project's frontage. 7. Eligible density. a. Baseline Transit Oriented Development a maximum of 13 units per acre. b. Housing that is Affordable Transit Oriented Development — a maximum of 25 units per acre. D. Additional requirements for a Housing that is Affordable Transit Oriented Development. 1. A commitment that will contain the specifics of the price qualification for income levels served, time frame, eligibilityrequirements, and violations and enforcement as provided within LDC Section 2.07.02. 2. For units that are for sale, two-thirds (2/3) of the first 9 units of bonus density(6 units) above 13 units per acre must be made available at a price point affordable to the low or very low income level identified within the chart in LDC section 2.07.02.A.1. Two-thirds of the final 3 units of bonus densitv (2 units) shall be made available at a price point from any of the income levels identified within the chart in LDC section 2.07.02.A.1. 12/s/2020 OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 3. For units that are for rent, two-thirds (2/3) of all units above 13 units per acre must be made available at a price point affordable to Low and/or Very Low income levels as provided for within LDC section 2.07.02.A.1 12/s/2020 Initiative Marketing Brochure We are Improving Housing Choices for Working Families and Want to Hear from YOU! INITIATIVE #1. Regulatory Relief (Cost Maintenance) for Design and Construction of Residential Housing This initiative focuses upon specific design and material requirements of the Land Development Code (LDC). The LDC describes the types of relief that may be granted as well as the criteria for design or construction of a project to offer housing that is affordable. This satisfies county goals and objectives to providing affordable housing for working families, while maintaining public health and safety standards as well as community appearance. Ten (10) cost -saving actions were identified through stakeholder input County staff refined the list of actions, including the specific codes or policies that may be eligible for relief. A proposed project must also comply with requirements of the Collier County Impact Fee Deferral program or Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) program. Proposed changes to the LDC are: • Add a list of standards that define relief eligibility. This list would be designated as Section 4.02.39. • Modify language to allow cluster housing land use changes be an administrative approval procedure rather than the current, longer public hearing process, and when compatibility standards are met. This will allow a developer to start building housing units sooner. Cluster housing, or open space developments, helps save open space. Homes in this type of development are situated in groupings relatively close together, while larger areas of open space within the development form a buffer with nearby properties. These open spaces often become common ground that are often used for recreation, gardens and such. This requires changes to LDC Sections 2.03.02 and 4.02.04. • Mandate more frequent review meetings to shorten review times so that priority is given to and qualifying projects are approved more quickly. Requires altering the Development Review Fast Track Resolution 18-40. Housing is considered affordable if a family . or individual spends no more than 30% of their income to live there. INITIATIVE #2. Streamline Commercial Conversion into Modern "Live Work and Play" Communities Streamlining the process for developers who convert commercially zoned land to mixed use and residential uses by replacing the public hearing process with an administrative approval procedure. This supports the desirable result of housing located on or near commercially zoned sites throughout the county. Having residences closer to businesses enhances access and convenience to employment, healthcare, groceries and other daily needs and personal services. It also encourages residents to seek other modes of travel like walking and biking, and supports an overall thriving economy. The current Growth Management Plan (GMP) allows density up to 16 units per acre for such conversions, and the LDC allows a mix of uses in commercially zoned districts C-1 through C-3, however both require lengthy zoning processes. Proposed changes to the GMP include: or • Add housing that is affordable by increasing densities at 16 units per acre as a part of the density rating system for conversion projects. Increasing densities is an incentive for developers and homebuilders as it allows them to provide more dwelling choices to the public, and increase their potential revenue. Affordability must be committed through an Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Agreement, Developers Agreement, Planned Unit Development (PUD) commitment, or compliance with terms and conditions of the Impact Fee Deferral program. • Multiple proposed LDC amendments will establish the mix of uses and multifamily basis that will qualify affordable parameters as allowable uses in conventional commercial districts. Those projects will still be subject to criteria for public facilities as determined by an impact analysis and must meet compatibility standards to ensure the project has the public benefit of reduced intensity, or less traffic overall. INITIATIVE #3. Redeveloped Activity Centers to include Mixed -Income Family Housing The greatest need for affordable housing is in close z r t proximity to employment, healthcare, groceries, and other daily needs and personal services. This initiative is to encourage housing in the County's 20 Activity Centers. Current County programs normally provide housing at single -household income levels. This initiative is designed r ,. = to stimulate housing within areas of up to 25 units per acre where households of mixed economic levels are served. `=r•. _' -`` ;. — Syr INCOMEOF Gap W6 to <140 Moderate >80 to <120 Low >50 to <80 — - - - Very Low <50 Collier County LDC 2.06.03 (Ordinance 19-02) Proposed changes to the GMP include: • Increase density from the currently allowable 16 units per acre to a maximum of 25 units per acre in activity centers, if a portion of the additional units are committed at prices that serve a mix of at least two income levels of the county's defined affordability thresholds as seen in the chart above. INITIATIVE #4. Expansion Density Recommendations for Work/Live Communities Strategic Opportunity Sites (SOS) are a new concept that recognizes larger development projects featuring corporate headquarters or similarly substantial employment centers. These locations represent key areas, with high potential to provide the greatest benefits in the wake of continued growth. The location of residential properties near these areas of employment are also encouraged. The best way to introduce this integrated pattern of development is to provide an incentive to developers. Proposed changes to the GMP include: • To establish the SOS as a future land use designation. This will allow a developer to seek this designation through a Future Land Use Map change, while meeting the necessary requirements and agreements. The density attained is subject to a new formula that is proposed to allocate the highest densities to projects that serve a mix of income levels and that accommodate lower income levels, allowing for more housing options that are affordable. • Allow developers to increase densities up to 25 units per acre as long as they show that 50 percent of the housing units qualify as affordable; demonstrate a mix of income levels; meet mixed -use ratios and follow design and buffering requirements. INITIATIVE #5. Increase Transit Route Corridors for the Benefit of Working Families withing the "Center City" Developments The location of housing that is affordable for working families is naturally beneficial to the transportation system, as well as those who live within a convenient distance. This initiative provides for an increased density incentive to developers as long as the housing project meets affordable eligibility; incorporates transit oriented design (TOD) elements and concentrates a majority of the dwelling units within a convenient walking distance, defined as an area covered by a 5-minute walk, or about 1/4-mile. Proposed changes to the GMP include: • Apply transit supportive density levels (minimum of seven units per acre) to market rate development that is designed to orient toward transit and stimulate housing that is affordable. With increased density in these locations, greater efficiencies in transit use may also be achieved. The principles of TOD also align with the potential for autonomous vehicles and other transportation advancements. • Change the Transportation Element to state that a priority is placed on locating higher density housing along transit corridors. • Change the Density Rating System to allow TOD market rate projects be eligible for increased density incentives. Specifically, up to 13 units per acre through PUD approval. Then, from 13 up to 25 units per acre through PUD approval and dedication that the additional units are committed at prices affordable to a range of income levels. Collier County October 9th, 2018 BCC Recap COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB) Airport Authority AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 October 9, 2018 9:00 AM Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2 - BCC Chair Commissioner William L. McDaniel Jr., Dist. 5 - BCC Vice -Chair; CRAB Co -Chair Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co -Chair Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERE❑ SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD Page l October 9, 2018 WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING 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. 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. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, SUITE 1, NAPLES. FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Father Paul D'Angel❑ of St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church Invocation Given 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (ex parte disclosure provided by commission members for consent agenda.) Approved and/or Adopted w/changes — 5/0 Commissioner Solis abstained from voting on Item #15A3 B. September G, 2018 — BCC/Budget Hearing Meeting Minutes Approved as presented — 5/0 C. September 11, 2018 — BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes Approved as presented — 5/0 Page 2 October 9, 2018 D. September 20, 2018 BCC/Budget Hearing Meeting Minutes Approved as presented — 5/0 3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS A. EMPLOYEE B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS C. RETIREES D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH 1) Recommendation to recognize Lorraine Lantz, Principal Planner, Growth Management Department as the September 2018 Employee of the Month. Recognized 4. PROCLAMATIONS (One Motion to Adopt all Proclamations) A. Proclamation designating October 20, 2018 as Children's Business Fair Day in Collier County. To be accepted by Michael Dalby, Nikkie Dvorchak, Madeline Young, Amanda Beights and Alex Breault. Adopted — 5/0 B. Proclamation designating October 2018 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Linda Oberhaus, Chief Executive Officer - Shelter for Abused Women & Children and Collier County Sheriff Kevin Rambosk. Adopted — 5/0 C. Proclamation recognizing Collier County Public School's 19th Annual Red Walk, to be held on October 19, 2018 at Lely Elementary School. To be accepted by Christa Crehan, Principal, Lely Elementary School and Craig Greusel, Program Director. Adopted — 5/0 5. PRESENTATIONS Page 3 October 9, 2018 A. Presentation of the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year 2018 from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) presented to the Office of Management and Budget. To be accepted by Mark Isackson, Corporate Financial Planning and Management Services Director. Presented B. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for October 2018 to The Immokalee Foundation, Inc. To be accepted by Noemi Perez, Executive Director; Laura Simmelink, Development Director; and Amber Barr, Program Services Director. Also in attendance is Bethany Sawyer representing the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. PowerPoint presentation by Noemi Perez; Annual Report requested by Commissioners Added: C. Commissioner Solis announced the featured artist — Lynda Fay Braun 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA A. Trent Dunn — Cannabis dispensaries B. Rae Ann Burton — Panthers in Golden Gate Estates C. Garrett Beyrent — Innovation Zone, Golden Gate Farmer's Market 8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT To be heard at 10:00 a.m. (Per Agenda Change Sheet) A. Recommendation to direct staff to continue implementation of the Community Housing Plan (CHP) by taking necessary actions to: (1) Continue work on a Mixed Income Housing Incentive Program; (2) Provide regulatory relief to certain housing applications (including senior, veteran's, Page 4 October 9, 2018 and special needs housing); (3) Develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions; (4) Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed -income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers; (5) Develop a process to identify and allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites; (6) Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors. (Cormac Giblin, Grants and Housing Development Manager; Community and Human Services Division) • Motion to deny presentation recommendations for #1 - Approved 510; • Motion to approve presentation recommendations for #2 - Approved 510; • Motion to approve presentation recommendations for #3 - Approved 312 (Commissioner McDaniel and Commissioner Fiala opposed); • Motion to deny presentation recommendations for #4 - Failed 213 (Commissioner Saunders, Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Solis opposed); Motion to accept recommendation as presented with exception of activity centers, staff to bring back recommendations - Approved 411 (Commissioner Fiala opposed); • Motion to deny presentation recommendations for #5 - Failed 213 (Commissioner Saunders, Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Solis opposed); Motion to approve presentation recommendations as shown on the screen - Approved 312 (Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner McDaniel opposed); ■ Motion to approve presentation recommendations as shown on the screen #6 - Approved 312 (Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner McDaniel opposed) B. Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Strategic Marketing Plan for the Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) and make a finding that this plan promotes tourism. (Jack Wert, Tourism Division Director) Motion to approve the Strategic Marketing Plan and that it supports Tourism - Approved 510 C. Recommendation to approve release of $250,000 from Tourism Division Emergency Advertising Reserves to support an integrated marketing and promotion campaign to mitigate the future negative visitor impact of the Red Page 5 October 9, 2018 Tide crisis in Collier County and make a finding that this action promotes tourism. (Jack Wert, Tourism Division Director) Approved - 5/0 D. Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement between the District Schools of Collier County (District) and the Board of County Commissioners (Board), that supersedes the prior Interlocal Agreement and meets new reimbursement guidelines implemented by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), authorize the payment of S3,038,402.12 to the District for shelter and transportation cost incurred during Hurricane Irma, and authorize all necessary budget amendments. (Dan Summers, Bureau of Emergency Management Division Director) Approved — 5/0 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. AIRPORT B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Proposed BCC Future Workshop Schedule: February 5, 2019 BCC/Transit System Workshop at 9:00 a.m., February 5, 2019 BCC/Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop at 1:00 p.m. and March 5, 2019 BCC Land Use Map Workshop B. Commissioner Taylor — Adding a second review step regarding the CRA Master plan updates with respect to the LDC Regulations and The Overlay Requirements C. Commissioner Saunders — Drafting an ordinance to prevent Gas Pump Skimmers D. Commissioner Solis — Nationwide shortage of healthcare professionals and mental health facilities; Bringing back an ordinance creating the Behavioral Health Advisory Committee E. Commissioner Solis — Adjourned - Consensus Page 5 October 9, 2018 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Approved and/or Adopted w/changes — 5/0 (Commissioner Solis abstained from voting on Item #16A3) A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and sewer facilities for RaceTrac at Davis Boulevard, PL20160002277, accept unconditional conveyance of a portion of the potable water and sewer facilities, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $18,093.40 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent. A final inspection to discover defects was conducted by staff on August 22, 2018, in coordination with Public Utilities, and the facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable 2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and sewer facilities for Vanderbilt Commons, PL20170000562, accept unconditional conveyance of the potable water facilities and a portion of the sewer facilities, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $38,553.68 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent. A final inspection to discover defects was conducted by staff on August 28, 2018, in coordination with Public Utilities, and the facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable Commissioner Solis abstained from voting during Agenda Changes 3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water facilities for Villages of Monterey Clubhouse, PL20170001728, accept unconditional conveyance of a portion of the potable water facilities, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Page 7 October 9, 2018 Bond in the total amount of $6,129.24 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent. A final inspection to discover defects was conducted by staff on August 27, 2018, in coordination with Public Utilities, and the facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable 4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional conveyance of the sewer utility facilities for Collier Park of Commerce Phase 2, PL20160000500 and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $5,216.45 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent. A final inspection to discover defects was conducted by Development Review staff on September 4, 2018, in coordination with Public Utilities, and the facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable 5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and sewer facilities for Hammock Cove Tract C, PL20170000348, accept unconditional conveyance of a portion of the sewer facilities, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $6,074.82 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent. A final inspection to discover defects was conducted by staff on August 30, 2018, in coordination with Public Utilities, and the facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable 6) Recommendation to approve and Authorize the Chairman to sign the Utility Facilities Quit -Claim Deed and Bill of Sale between Collier County and Minto Sabal Bay, LLC, in order to correct an error in the previously recorded Utility Facilities Warranty Deed and Bill of Sale for Isles of Collier Preserve Phase 8 — Dog Park, PL20180001856, in which the Developer mistakenly conveyed sanitary sewer facilities to the County even though no such facilities exist. 7) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Abaco Pointe, (Application Page 8 October 9, 2018 Number PL20180001040) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. Wlstipulations 8) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien with a value of $289,730.43 for payment of $680.43 in the code enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Irene Sylva Est and Rafael Rosas, Code Enforcement Board Case No. CESD20150002305 relating to property located at 141 20th Avenue NE, Collier County, Florida. Related to several structures erected on the property without obtaining Collier County building permits 9) Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 1 for Johnson Engineering, Inc., for the "Sunshine Blvd. from 17th Ave. SW to Green Boulevard" LAP project, for the design of sidewalk and pedestrian bridge improvements in the amount of $27,604 (Project No. 33505). Due to an increase in work order assignments to cover the cost of a bridge hydraulic recommendation analysis for the pedestrian bridge, consisting of a bridge hydraulic and scour analysis report and a canal topographic survey 1 0) Recommendation to approve an agreement for $318,142 with Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. pursuant to Annual Contract "14-6212 Bridge Repairs and Maintenance" for repairs on Bridge 030149 (Bluebill Avenue over Naples Park Canal), Project Number 66066. To repair several spalled areas, cracking, pile corrosion and delamination referenced in FDOT reports 11) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to execute Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. 17-7128 in the amount of $29,028.35 with APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., for additional professional engineering services as required for the "Wiggins Pass Channel and Doctors Pass Channel Dredging Project." To provide (necessary) additional engineering services, regulatory agency coordination, and a time extension of 30 days to the existing contract to facilitate final engineering and the close out certification process Page 9 October 9, 2018 12) Recommendation to award a Work Order to Preferred Materials, Inc., for construction of the "Airport Road and Davis Boulevard (Phase2) - Northbound Right Turn Lane" project in the amount of $518,443.49 (Project 60148). Specified under Contract #16-6663 13) This item was continued from the September 25, 2018 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien with a value of $33,130.36 for payment of S10,000 in the code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v. AT&T Wireless Services of FL, Code Enforcement Board Case No. CEPM20150012708 relating to 1173 Sun Century Road, Collier County, Florida. For fines associated with a garage with roof damage 14) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 18-7430 "Landscape Maintenance Vendors" to Florida Land Maintenance d/bla Commercial Land Maintenance and Superior Landscaping & Lawn Service, Inc. As detailed in the Executive Summary B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB), approve a Lease Modification for Bayshore Gateway Triangle CR.A office located at 3750 Bayshore Drive with 3750 Bayshore Drive, LLC and authorize the Chairman to sign. To secure short-term office space for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA until a build -out of the new office space is completed, which is expected in the first quarter of 2019 C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Lease Agreement with South Seas Northwest Condominium Apartments of Marco Island, Inc., to extend the lease term to maintain 800 MHz communications equipment operating at that location. Extending the lease term to October 14, 2021 Page 10 October 9, 2018 2) Recommendation to correct a scrivener's error in the Executive Summary for Bid Number 18-7314 "95th Avenue North Public Utilities Renewal," Project Numbers 60139 and 70120, awarded to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., on June 26, 2018 as Agenda Item # 11 G. 3) Recommendation to terminate the Siemen's Guaranteed Energy, Water, and Wastewater Performance Savings Contract assigned to the Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD) by Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA) for non -appropriation. Terminating a contract dated July 25, 2016 D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve the conveyance of a Raw Water Utility Easement along the eastern edge of the Gordon River Greenway to the City of Naples. An easement over a parcel of County -owned land necessary to construct, operate and maintain infrastructure 2) Recommendation to approve the FYI 8-19 contract with the State of Florida Department of Health {DOH} for the operation of the Collier County Health Department in the amount of $1,491,400. Effective October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 3) Recommendation to authorize Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $59,998.24 against a purchase order issued under Contract # 17-7154 for Structural and Mechanical Pool Contractor with Omni Aquatics, Inc. To return the activity pool at the aquatic facility in Immokalee to fully operational and operate within the local, state and federal law regulations 4) Recommendation to approve two (2) after -the -fact grant requests to the Florida Communities Trust Grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; one (1) application in the amount of $163,642 is to enhance recreational amenities available at Isles of Capri Neighborhood Park, and the other application in the amount of $735,000 is to purchase the Gore property which is designated as Strategic Habitat Conservation Area for Conservation Collier. Page 11 October 9, 2018 As detailed in the Executive Summary 5) Recommendation to approve an out of cycle Collier County Tourist Development Council (TDC) Grant Application for Beach Park Facilities in the amount of $200,000 for restroom improvements and a feasibility study for the construction of a Park Ranger Station at Barefoot Beach Preserve Park, authorize necessary budget amendment, and make a finding that the expenditure promotes tounsm. For upgrades to the 27-year old facility 6) Recommendation to approve a Conservation Bank Agreement between Collier County and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and all documents necessary, to create the Pepper Ranch Preserve Conservation Bank, generating U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service panther habitat unit mitigation credits to mitigate for proposed impacts to panther habitat during future County projects and to authorize any Budget Amendments necessary to fund the new Pepper Ranch Preserve Bank Endowment Fund 673 in the amount of $253,600 for interim maintenance at the Pepper Ranch Preserve Conservation Bank. To provide 8,669 panther habitat unit mitigation credits for development of future projects at a cost savings of $1,077,123.25 7) Recommendation to adopt the Museum Division 2018 Strategic Plan. As detailed in the Executive Summary E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to renew the annual Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) for Ambitrans Medical Transport, Inc. to provide Class 2 Advanced Life Support (ALS) inter - facility transport ambulance service for a period of one year. To provide Advanced Life Support inter -facility transport services in Collier County by a private provider 2) Recommendation to approve a five-year agreement with Marsh ClearSight, Inc. in an annual amount of $138,000 for the purchase of Risk Management Information System Software (RMIS) and authorize the Chairman to sign Contract #18-7341. Page 12 October 9, 2018 To manage damage claims presented against the County in an efficient, effective manner and assure the standardization and continuity of the risk management processes through a common Risk Management Information System 3) Recommendation to accept a Federally -Funded Sub -award and Grant Agreement through the Florida Division of Emergency Management for reimbursement of expenditures associated with preparation and recovery from the Florida 30th Avenue Fire (Net Fiscal Impact: $82,964.96). Requires a 25% local share in the amount of $20,741.24 4) Recommendation to award Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) #18-7321, "Gas and Diesel Fuel Multi -Agency Cooperative Purchase," to Palmdale Gil Company, Inc., authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement, and terminate the award of #18-7406 "Emergency Fuel." To provide gasoline and diesel fuel for County vehicles 5) Recommendation to approve a Florida Emergency Medical Services County Grant Application, Request for Grant Fund Distribution Form and Resolution for the funding of Training and Medical/Rescue Equipment in the amount of $63,545 and to authorize the necessary Budget Amendment. Resolution 2018-171 6) Recommendation to authorize routine and customary budget amendments appropriating carry forward budget in the amount of $8,944,843.63 for approved open purchase orders into Fiscal Year 2019. 7) Recommendation to approve the Administrative Reports prepared by the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other contractual modifications requiring Board approval. As detailed in the Executive Summary 8) Recommendation to approve the administrative report prepared by the Procurement Services Division for disposal of property and notification of revenue disbursement. As detailed in the Executive Summary Page 13 October 9, 2018 i �VKliWI rWu KI0K1li 01 :Al] 9 04 :AN r 0]►6.1 1) Recommendation to award Solicitation No. 18-7434 for Pelican Bay Streetlight Pole Repairs to SPE Utility Contractors FD, LLC in the amount of $97,894 and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement. To straighten 110 streetlight poles and replace four pathway bollard lights damaged by Hurricane Irma 2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Adopted Budget. Resolution 2018-172 3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget. Resolution 2018-173 4) Recommendation to award RFP # 18-7281 R, "Tourism Fulfillment and Call Center Services" to Faneuil, Inc., for $21,772.97, authorize the Chairman to execute the associated agreement, and make a finding that this action promotes tourism. To fulfill requests for information, answer incoming requests from toll -free numbers, publication responses and the Internet 5) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a grant application to Florida Sports Foundation in the amount of $25,000 to offset a portion of the operating expenses to host the 2018 Football University (FBU) National Championships in Collier County, authorize the County Manager to accept the award and process any budget amendments and make a finding that this action promotes tourism. The event will take place December 15-20, 2018 6) Recommendation to use Tourist Development Tax Promotion Funds to support the upcoming November 2018 Sports Tourism Events up to $17,800 and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. For the Paradise Coast Softball Invitational November 16-18, 2018 and Trophy Fish Bowl Lacrosse event November 17-18, 2018 Page 14 October 9, 2018 7) Recommendation to use Tourist Tax Promotion Funds to sponsor the 2018 Powerboat Nationals Formula 4 Global Championship Event October 27-28, 2018, approve reimbursement of operating expenses for this purpose, and make a finding that these event expenditures promote tourism. 8) Recommendation to approve Tourist Development Tax Promotion and Marketing funding to support the upcoming Winter Nationals Senior Softball Tournament on November 6-11, 2018 up to $6,105 and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. 9) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a grant application to Visit Florida in the amount of $70,000 for the Tourism Recovery Grant Program for Red Tide in Collier County, authorize the County Manager to accept the award and process any necessary budget amendments and make a finding that this action promotes tourism. 10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reviews and approves the proposed FY2019 Action Plan for Leo E. Ochs, Jr County Manager. As detailed in the Executive Summary G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Resolution authorizing execution of Joint Participation Agreement Contract No. GOE50 Supplement One with the Florida Department of Transportation for construction of a new terminal facility with associated entrance, parking, and related safety improvements at the Marco Island Executive Airport. Resolution 2018-174 H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Recommendation to extend the 2018 Tax Roll at the request of Tax Collector Larry Ray. Page 15 October 9, 2018 Extending it past November 1 due to Value Adjustment Board petitions 2) Recommendation to approve the FY 2018 SCARP letter delegating authority to Sheriff Kevin Rambosk to be the official grant applicant and contact person, or his designee, and to receive, expends the payment and make any necessary budget amendments of the FY 2018 of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) grant funds. 3) Recommendation to serve as the local coordinating unit of government for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Federal Fiscal Year 2017 Edward Byrne Memorial, Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Countywide Program and (1) authorize the Chairman to execute the Certification of Participation; (2) designate the Sheriff as the official applicant and the Sheriff's office staff as grant financial and program managers; (3) authorize the acceptance of the grant if and when awarded; and (4) approve associated budget amendments and approve the Collier County Sheriff's Office to receive and expend the grant funds. 4) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the periods between September 13 and 26, 2018 pursuant to Florida Statute 136.06. 5) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of October 3, 2018. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee. Resolution 2018-175: Appointing Norma R. Lees -Davis and re -appointing Ronald J. Jefferson to 4-year terms expiring October 6, 2022 2) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Collier County Citizen Corps. Page 16 October 9, 2018 Resolution 2018-176: Reappointing Barry Gerenstein to a 4-year term expiring November 5, 2022 3) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the HistoriclArchaeological Preservation Board. Resolution 2018-177: Reappointing Elaine Reed and Eugene V. Erjavec, Jr. to 3-year terms expiring October 1, 2021 4) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee. Resolution 2018-178: Re -appointing Kathleen Dammert to a 4- year term expiring October 1, 2022 5) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee. Resolution 2018-179: Reappointing Annette. Kniola to a 4-year term expiring October 13, 2022 6) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for final compensation in the amount of $8,000 for Parcel 404RDUE, including all attorney and expert fees, in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Jarrett Cox, et al, Case No. 1 f-CA-1313, required for the Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion Project No. 60145, (from 20th St. E. to Everglades Blvd.). (Fiscal Impact: $4,800) A 6,965-square foot perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility easement 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all participants must be sworn in. Adopted — 510 Page 17 October 9, 2018 A. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the Fiscal Year 2019-19 Adopted Budget. Resolution 2018-180 18. ADJOURN Consensus INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383. Page 18 October 9, 2018 October 9t", 2018 Executive Summary & PowerPoint 10/09/2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to direct staff to continue implementation of the Community Housing Plan (CHP) by taking necessary actions to: (1) Continue work on a Mixed Income Housing Incentive Program; (2) Provide regulatory relief to certain housing applications (including senior, veteran's, and special needs housing); (3) Develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions via the Hearing Examiner; (4) Develop guidelines to incentivixe mixed -income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers; (5) Develop a process to identify and allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites; (6) Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors. (Cormac Giblin, Grants and Housing Development Manager; Community and Human Services Division) OBJECTIVE: To implement new and modified approaches to address Collier County's housing affordability issues. CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County has a statutory obligation to provide housing for its current and anticipated population, including those that are most vulnerable. Housing that is affordable is part of a community's infrastructure and therefore impacts the entire community. First responders, health care professionals, teachers, and others have been historically priced out of the housing market. A vibrant and sustainable community needs to develop specific strategies to accommodate the housing needs of its workforce. In response to community concerns, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) commissioned the development of a CHP in March 2016 with a broad cross-section of stakeholders appointed in June 2016. In 2017, the Urban Land Institute (LTLI) performed a panel review of the housing situation in Collier County. Among their conclusions is that Collier County needed to reframe its view of housing to meet better the needs of the 40% of the population (58,685 households) currently living in Collier County that are cost -burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing. This large segment of Collier County's population is working and living here un-affordably. The community stakeholders presented the CHP to the Board on October 25, 2017. The plan includes approximately thirty (30) specific recommendations including housing for seniors, veterans, and those with special needs. The Board accepted the CHP and staff initiated an implementation schedule. This request is the third of a series of implementation actions to be presented to the Board. Some of the key recommendations include a continuation of work on a Mixed Income Housing Program, regulatory relief for certain affordable housing applications (including senior, veterans, and special needs housing), develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions, develop incentivization guidelines for mixed -income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers, develop a process to allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites and provide an increase in density in the CRA areas and along transit corridors. Specific recommendations include: A. Mixed -Income Housing Incentive Program - Direct staff to work with the development community, bankers, and other interested parties to develop Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land Development Code (LDC) amendments that will create a market -based mixed -income housing program. Provide market incentives for the inclusion of housing that is affordable in new developments. The market chooses how to meet the goal with multiple options offered to Packet Pg. 43 11.A 10/09/2018 participants. • Increased Density and Impact Fee Relief provides an incentive to the developer with more market -rate units. • Seek a "Win/Win" outcome. B. Provide Regulatory Relief to Certain Housing Applications - Direct staff to review regulations and develop LDC amendments that will provide development relief to certain residential land use applications (including senior, veteran's, and special needs housing) that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as housing that is affordable. • Creating development incentives for developments that voluntarily include housing that is affordable will encourage the development of more affordable units. ■ Staff will work with the Development Services Advisory Committee to explore and vet possible changes to the LDC that would provide regulatory relief and bring suggested amendments back for Board approval. C. Allow for Commercial to Residential conversions via Hearing Examiner - Direct staff to develop GMP and LDC amendments that will streamline the Commercial to Residential conversion process via the Hearing Examiner for developments that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as housing that is affordable. ■ This recommendation would seek to streamline the approval process for developments seeking to down -zone from existing Commercial uses to Residential, in exchange for those developments providing a portion of their residential units as housing that is affordable. • HistoricaIly the vast majority of these requests have been approved by the Board. • This process would be limited to properties located within Activity Centers or that are identified as "Commercial/Consistent by Plan." • The Board sets clear criteria for approval and staff carries it out via the Hearing examiner. ■ Maintains public transparency. D. Develop incentivixation guidelines to incentivize mixed -income residential housing - Direct staff to develop GMP and LDC amendments that will encourage the inclusion of residential units in Activity Centers for developments that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as housing that is affordable. • Encourages residential uses near areas with existing infrastructure. ■ Allows for housing that is affordable to be developed throughout the north/south corridors of the county. E. Develop a process to designate certain Strategic Opportunity Sites and allow for increased density (greater than 16ula) - Direct staff to develop GMP and LDC amendments that will create a process for the creation and designation of Strategic Opportunity Sites allowing for increased density (above 16u1a) for developments that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as housing that is affordable. ■ A main recommendation of the 2017 ULI Study is that Collier County should allow for greater residential densities in order to mitigate high land and development costs. • Strategic Opportunity sites would be designated by the Board as areas where higher densities are encouraged. ■ A Strategic Opportunity Site may be attractive for a new corporate headquarters campus, a regional commercial center, or an institution of higher learning. F. Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency areas and along Packet Pg. 44 11.A 10/09/2018 transit corridors - Direct staff to develop GMP and LDC amendments that will allow increased density and other incentives in CRAB and along transit corridors for developments that voluntarily provide a predefined portion of their units as Housing that is affordable. • To incentivize development in CRA areas and along transit corridors where infrastructure already exists. • Locating housing that is affordable on major transit corridors and in CRA areas is a recommendation of the 2017 ULI study. ■ CRAs typically need additional incentives to increase their property values and encourage new development. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no immediate and direct Fiscal impacts to approving the items in this Executive Summary. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of these policies, strategies, ordinances, and amendments will assist Collier County in meeting the goals of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: For those implementation actions that are Board approved, the County Attorney's Office will work with staff to ensure that the resolutions, amendments to resolutions, ordinances (GMP and LDC) are approved for form and legality. Accordingly, this Item is approved to form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board approval. - JAB RECOMMENDATION: To direct staff to continue implementation of the CHP by taking necessary actions to: (1) Continue work on a Mixed Income Housing Incentive Program; (2) Provide regulatory relief to certain housing applications (including senior, veteran's, and special needs housing); (3) Develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions via the Hearing Examiner; (4) Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed -income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers; (5) Develop a process to identify and allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites; (6) Provide an increase in density in the CRA areas and along transit corridors. Prepared By: Cormac Giblin, AICP - Grants and Housing Development Manager; Community and Human Services Division ATTACHMENT(S) 1. CHP Phase 3 Presentation Agenda 092818-1420 [Linked] (PDF) Packet Pg. 45 11.A 10/09/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: I LA Doc ID: 5699 Item Summary: Recommendation to direct staff to continue implementation of the Community Housing Plan (CHP) by taking necessary actions to: (1) Continue work on a Mixed Income Housing Incentive Program; (2) Provide regulatory relief to certain housing applications (including senior, veteran's, and special needs housing); (3) Develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions; (4) Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed -income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers; (5) Develop a process to identify and allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites; (d) Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors. (Cormac Giblin, Grants and Housing Development Manager; Community and Human Services Division) Meeting Date: 10/09/2018 Prepared by: Title: — Community & Human Services Name: Hilary Halford 09112/2018 I:41 PM Submitted by: Title: — Community & Human Services Name: Cormac Giblin 09/12/2018 1:41 PM Approved By: Review: Public Services Department Community & Human Services Community & Human Services Public Services Department County Attorney's Office Public Services Department County Attorney's Office Office of Management and Budget County Attorney's Office Zoning Budget and Management Office County Manager's Office Kristi Sonntag Additional Reviewer Cormac Giblin Additional Reviewer Kristi Sonntag Additional Reviewer Todd Henry Level 1 Division Reviewer Jennifer Belpedio Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Steve Carvell Level 2 Division Administrator Review Emily Pepin CAO Preview Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Ed Finn Additional Reviewer Leo E. Ochs Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 09/12/2018 6:10 PM Completed 09/17/2018 10:53 AM Completed 09/17/2018 12:19 PM Completed 09118/2018 10:45 AM Completed 09119/2018 11:59 AM Completed 09/25/2018 10:36 AM Completed 09/25/2018 1:45 PM Completed 09/25/2018 4:41 PM Completed 09/26/2018 10:56 AM Completed 09/27/2018 8:48 AM Completed 10101/2018 10:27 AM Completed 10/02/2018 2:01 PM Packet Pg. 46 10/09/2018 Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 1010912018 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 47 O U a o� U � N U= 7171 iY'rfy�:,YR�{ E •=J I• � 4= ram:/ 0 im D 0� W J a Gn Ed 0 c in E ,2 �u V 1L �wr J O Corp 0 v) o c � 0 u U4 ,� t�A �Q U V. A a c �--' Ch ^� y 1° w ;p b ll al � A o � a �. x w �, •v A a � 7- 0 rp r.. v G3 r AA >, U GO .: � b � v •Q � c t3 A A x 4 cc on v7 U t� m H a O q CC c4 v 71 a oM � F I O M �;T4 rti ME •+Y"+ o V cd O sr � i�p U O o Fm 410 ►a 40 ►] sr C) O +a �o o c � '� CU U m a a o � cc N eC CC a U on Y-I U o o 1° u •"" x O 1 a V � is ,r. 11- J w q V O O Q O d C � l" i M � n F o o ry rW m m ,-1 a a � L y C �Y OO�o o0 tuD o l7 3 LM LL � T }' V V) o Ln O Ln O O O C N � w -i a tii• N rNi .J a Q o !1 — 0 c o Q Ln Ln Ln 00 m c-1 Lr) LO Ln a m o a c f ;. QO N C LL = a = 3 W C1n CD Ln iy - -r Y U D 3 S , Ln r- ' Ln a G V a � O Om 0) w C � Ln n O) rV 00 � C e m 00 P4 try Ln tp z Lr) LLn Ln o� e o w O a-J (D Q p a _ w 1 ul Lr) o o o Q n ov t-+ a a KL [V rV Ln �k rV a � n c Q Q d 0 r'-,l 1i' O eY lfl m m E o s 00 d (-Am d� = o =° `m a o, oo i -i rr) O Ln Ln I� q a) _ L Q sxtr� a .0 0? ri a a - J 3 0 3 w Lv a H w +, x w w 7 m a j - a - Y Y c LC C C = d v 3 3 ac a 0 0 3 0 4-4 1 � U � v � •� x x o w y4-4 v x A x I .O Q •ram.[ A ° U 4-1 CA Cd O v Q4 - w1.4 co m v16.1v v cc D c � xw �4 I O Fm- tit � Q O � v ❑ 4 .� V y as A x o � v � •� v v o � u � � V y r. w) PIN • A �a� a H � \ w L ;o ;rj) o •rJ o � as F v� c� .� o � q ❑ � � j ua U � • ai -O cn 0 n 0 IL > • �, 4� o E Q as cu0 Ln Q) 0 �. 0 CL ---- i is CL v Q)0 .� Q U U C) Ucn 0 o� LO c U .� 0 00 �(D o oC))° o� • V) v (l') U vi V)D aD 0�0 Q) 0E� ; V o o U 7- ❑ 0 u a a 00 O0� a E - ri m � n F o� o N N mm r-I IL a ,= bo L y C Y 000 00 0 Ln LL vv Y a H N Ln 0 u, O O O cq Lin m a J a o O in — 2 LO m a r-1 Lfl LO 1 a x � a o to = c fu C LL c a= O O U p 3 S = F �• vl -13 C „ a a u, p Ln LD v �Ln L � r'I Lf1 � V 0) O IOU O n O N Nwmp G �O LO c a l0 0 r4 n m ME v Lfm7 Ll, LLr) 1 I c O a O � �'ao 0 M- f-I Lf, � O O s no0 t" a Ln [V cV Ln c N a � -lh a c O Q d 0 [nl L —p t O '4 lfl M m E o s 00 d N m d4 _ m`2 u oo ri 4 M O Ln Lr I-- Q a, _ © e = c — J m un M � 3 a Y H v +, x w a 7 m Y C j i4v r- v CIP IX Or- 3 3 x x 0 0 3 0 N Q m w ,4 .. Im■ .j N Q O r L v .> Q .� Op vo O U p � N p-4L-n O p v�LO v O CD 0p (D �_ 0 Q- �• a °� �° 0 GO 4o4�o�v c��o� L vEo vv ono A A I& G Q) Q) L Q) O�0 t� QL Lo .0 .L E . A 0 0 0 U•E Q� �.cQ c U 0 Q � � � U �' n D U— o�a U�- Cnt�L�o �0Q) 0-oE 0n00C) -0o'o �.c0LE �C7� �0�UQ) 0 0 V! y— ._�� ,� ��._ tn 0 Q) E o>�,o Q) C) 0 r - =Q(D�.- rt' V) 0 0 (L) U N 4_ o E O U -� p '- o a . � N � +.- 0 o�� >° >-�� v) 0 E 0 0 •U Q? ° •I 00 .-c U- D 0 0 ."' 0 � ° o.� �4-�� o E Q) 3 0 0. _ o 4- 7 0 U 4) 0 -.� �� 000 0� �� o o o a� Q � Q } Ln u o- a > .� o 41J p N N N N Q "' -4— p - c, CL DL a Q > a)N Q �� °� 0 � Q >> >>� p p 0 Q p t � i O W 0O cn c � 0 - v u 0 (1) (D 0 N Ln Q D Q O L (-n L N LL p U V -0 -11ZLn > '= Q Q U N Q Lr> O- Q — N 2 Q ❑ Q Q U U v Q •i O Q w Q Q Q t� Q Y U Qom}LnI � L -4- U E U o� �Q �5 U-Q LL- Q z IL H z w w d z H 0 w 0 F-� z Z) 0 U nc w 0 z J a w N z w w w a 0 U N w J IL z LL 0 U H z w w J w z N 2 vvcnc��L� v ovo}'4L� m O 0)w.�� 0-0 M v V O J LU M 0-0 (D m lv 4-- Q L O v v v v Qv 0 4�l . v 4���°�� a�c�aovv� O v A L v-u� o�-0-� 0 i--' � - a)a - � a� 0 �•v�'oC���`� _0 a-J O v c > O — v L 4-1 v � � v � fj m � u s �n v � a v 0 cn ao s C 7 }, a--+ O CC3 t!Y U Q ., C6 0 � }Va [!1 —_ V) qp — tw u — .j a 0 U- u u Q v (Utw C � L 0 U- cis b4 LL aC D O oa - o -0 � o x tw -v u o s� d O u o L a-J 0 U L L v C) Ci3 OC C: (N d U) U L d] {y d Q) V) L d v 4-1 i�o o v kn ;o -� o ar d E s u o d ; co 4-1 -a — (U C) Q 4-1 o, s touo v _0 3 s C6 O -0 > ro I-- � ru QD .— to — i--' d Ln v o CL L txoo •cn = � � 73 0 s s cn bA Z O O — s 44- �' v t10 •� 3 � v v tw 0 — m O s L o C= v `4 > v u � U) M 22 L o L O c E d �, 0 01 CN -- v � n 4� a 2 0 v 4- v •� v v �-C 4- 0 0 Ln C ._ 0 � � 0 0 � 0 4- •— E :D 0 E U U 4� E o U v 0 E E 0 U 0 J QL 0 v 4� 0 u z Q • ry - � W u LU V) < W ry • u z — o � o cc Q _ Q ry 0 LL- Q 0 C� W ry 0 C) Q CN 0-4 .V) D 0 A 0 4- a� a� 0 CL Is .V) D 0 0 0 u 0 c� co Vn)rqq'l441 •� .� � 4) a a a o ago Era o ° u D > � o a ° o 0� 00 �a°CD �? N� 70 E o off_ IfV,Uu 0- U o. a a� � tn 70 a� �~ a _�•� �, a ��o�pC)V; E � o U0oT 0 Loo 0�ECD a Lo U U Q� CL c j Q _ o � s Q 0 � N� ] u 70 °° 0)C) o7 � aa 4� o° 0 ° —Q .3 0 oo�, U° ao °�� L�•L a o Lo,� 3 L_ 0 o-C o�a��,af Q o •� v CN p 4t U � o A V) L D- o a� a 4- 0 0 E q- 0 c 0 L Ln 0 U 0 0 U v 0 0 o - L 0 0 0 �= 0 U �- � o W 0 �n [e" 0 T 0 a� Q cn � o v E 0 E E 0 0 U U� U� m� o 0 o o o � 4 o '= -C o} 0 0 .o U 0 T U N � o � � o o� L 0 I LO CN 0 .N L 0 A 0 �U 4� E E 0 U 0 0 Q it 4� .E 0 x W IF u 0 Q- 0 Q. 4 T O 7C) D u C .s V7 0 a� -E(D� o� o o- -�, � o 0 0 0 _ E 00 .0 U o Q �3 Q� L.- o CDa�°�Lno o U ova�o�- �•� �oEom 0 Q�a� o�1�--o0 o ?- •�, 0 0 > (D 0 Q o •� �0 - cn E - C x o o Q) U � 0 o.�• o 0 � � o^ v a��-0,0 cy)' U.S oo F-0 it '> 011, _ �> U Q— o V) > (D o � � �U o � o- U U C: Q � Q 4� o C) o a 4� U 70 E 4- m a o (D -� U x �- w -0 Ln -*- O Ln 2!- - O .� U Q o o .oL- Q�F Q � Q = cn C) cy 0 U '> L. I o 0 • i �- U 0 a) o 0 7C) (1) E o �� 0 0 �� Q = U 0) �' � 4) 0 0 0 -C > :. 0 0 a� � �I-- a -0 . ) 7C) Q) '> '> 70 U Ln 0 L U Ln 0 0 0 a� a) C) a � •� � •� � o W o EZ U x� U = 0 0 U (D a L W • = .- Q o� ��� 0-Q,LE —� U 0 4- a �0 0 c0 a U cry a 06_, � a it •� - V) 0 .V) a� 0 U 0 a) ry 0 i W L E c F- 0 0 U x " W o 0 0 Q= :4z '> 141 UP r 0 Q D 0 T � o U 4) � Ln LOI) (1) (1) U 0 a� E U 0.- AIL A D 0 i i h M a .3 O u W R .Ln Ln D a z a a c a a a LN (Z (D U X • - • W z W • - F- • - F- U w (Z 0 > I w w E ry o • - w 0 F- F- 0 LL Z aD 0 0 U aoqm Al a 0 =Q� x WI 0 U 0 4- Cf) L L (D L I U 4) O 4- 70 � � O L U Q) 0 N O >' Ln Uo� oo IL o7UO E > O a)o U)o 4� 1 E .� c) Q � O += '� U U 0 O � U � U Q U > 70 O Q) O _ (D O 3 O U _ L .� N j •� 0- 0 U � � �1 .� 0 � T Ln .X T U .n � Q � _ _ O U O �- +- -+-- O Q O �_ U n O R tCT. > w 4) ® ® 1® A lo, P Mt. ' llmiwl.. FA! Aw. I OL 0 4) v v v U m A U L 4- Ln 0 .X v Ln 0 (D L L Q) V) D v v v 0 C- w rI r- El a) 4- 0 D 0 ui aD OLOO N N L^` W M 0 4- 0 Ln a� Al .V) D 0 z LO 0 V) a� JF' QL 0-Q 0 (- U 0 .0 a� 0 Ll0 T aQ N 0 r. Lfn V) 0 Q- Q. O Q No Q ry w w 3 Mal N N 9 AMA rR , L4- 0 I .( -) a) m 7 .� O 0- C- O r J ZD 0 Q) N L ° D LL i - V) °73 � � i o ° °° vi 0) 0 � � 9 cn �- (D-0 o 4) o o f s o o 00 0 O ° Q o a� U U ° 70 U.V) . 7C) Z C) ° U Nv � 70cu L L U ° a) cn E � a) o Q) - o o _N ° L Q O c U U Q) D 0 Q) 0 CD 0 � �- �D o 0 L o o .- O o U E0 °�v v'a) °o �'� ]� o °ao�� 4 Q L J 1L L L U ® E� A A _l 6 Nt O ry 4- 0 0 0 O 7 V) GO 0) Q- O O CD (Y) � cry a v � LO a - a Ln o (D oLn af -� NO a� Ln E Ln a � -° '� o Ln w Ln V LL � m d o I& J P-4 DL o v v a N O u L.- 0 U Ln Ln � v � o 04- v o 0 a •C N N c 0 0 v V) D E E 0 0 0 U� v 0 •- v •L 0 cQ v0:� �U .4� U L UQ v � o 0 � v 0 L L 0 U MA 0 Q U 0 Ln MF 0 L 0 U 0 v .n c 0 L v � '~ 0 0 V} L � ,0 o-0 0 E of `n° v 0 -0 0 _ 4) cn • ^ 0 o 0 • "-' U 4- - () v -0-0 4 (Z O>- v C �U � 0 o�� � v � � � � 0 � oV E .U _ > C"J u° > 0 •- v o00 0UQ J U CAI Q LO V) v a a E: N O u 0 V) m 4- V) LO 00 . v o `n 0 0 U 0 0 cn C) 0 Q) a� v ry �U o � N o .4� U < Q 4 r 0 E u 0 Ln o w •� V) .] 4) 0 � 0 �- a� C) CL v: � v 0 0 E E ° �o m A h E o -� • Ln v 0 0 �' v - v L v Q E o U o v a� •� ° °' a� •� ° U Q ° V) ° U U •L ° ° ° u >� o a v OL c a� _� � ° ° v o LO C ° o o v v 0 O O 0 i v a o� o o v U o (D v v � Q o > >� >� _ o o v v v oU ❑ C ❑ ❑ ° ❑ cr, rZ D V? cN c _O � Collier Housing Plan At'l m I I LDIA r1 Collier County Community Housing Plan October 24, 2017 Table of Contents • Executive Summary • Plan Development & Community Participation Page 5 • Current Housing Conditions Page 8 • ULI Findings Page 8 • Cost Burden Page 8 • Jobs -Housing Imbalance Page 9 • Market Trends Page 12 • ULI Recommendations Page 14 • Vision for the Future Page 15 • Shared Language/Definitions Page 15 • Housing Demand Model (HDM) Page 18 • Housing Recommendations —Stakeholders Group Page 20 • Density and Certainty Page 21 • Housing Trust Fund and Stable Funding Sources Page 28 • Community Land Trust & Public Lands Page 41 • Transportation Enhancements Page 45 • Communication & Outreach Page 47 • Housing Response Model: Closing the Gap and Taking Action Page 51 • Implementation Plan/ Schedule Page 52 • Appendices Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 2 Executive Summary Collier County has a statutory obligation to provide for housing its current and anticipated population, including those most vulnerable. Affordable housing is part of a community's infrastructure and therefore it impacts the entire community. First responders, health care professionals, teachers and others have been priced out of the housing market and have to commute long distances. A vibrant and sustainable community needs to accommodate its workforce so that those people who educate our children and save our lives can live near where they work, if they choose. In response to community concerns about the unmet needs, development of the Collier County Community Housing Plan was commissioned by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in March 2016. An initial and on -going struggle in this endeavor has been achieving a common understanding of the definition of affordable housing, as well as how housing is tracked and reported in order to inform decision making. This plan recommends a new and simple definition to be in line with federal and state definitions, and focuses on the household income in determining whether or not housing is affordable. Under the definition, if a household spends less than 30% of their gross income on housing, then housing is affordable. The definition is inclusive of all populations including seniors and persons with special needs. Also, a decision is required as to the top income level to be considered affordable housing, and it is recommended that level be 140% of the Area Median Income, or $90,432 for a 3-person household in 2017. In early 2017, the Urban Land Institute performed a panel review of the housing situation in Collier County. Among their conclusions is that Collier needed to reframe its view of housing to better meet the needs of the 40% of the population (58,685 households) already living here that are spending more than what is affordable on housing. This large segment of Collier County's population is living here un-affordably. With a common definition, an income cap, a focus on better meeting the needs of the cost burdened who live here, and an analysis of current market availability, a needs and response model has been developed. The needs model indicates a need for 1,665 additional units to be developed at various income levels in the next year. These units would house new entrants to the county, and also achieve a new "level of service standard" to reduce the existing cost burdened population by 1% to 3% of the population. "Housing is not a social issue, it is an economic issue. " -ULI Panel Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 3 The response model implements the six core strategy recommendations from the ULI Panel which are: Review regulation and governance to simplify, expedite and reduce cost of development; increase supply of rental and for -sale product for the determined income categories; maintain or restore existing supply, enhance transportation options; and increase communication and engagement concerning housing that is affordable. The key elements of the recommendations include increasing certainty in the process, reducing specified development costs and review times, enhancing existing incentives such as the affordable housing density bonus program and the activity center bonuses, implementing a mixed income ordinance with enhanced density and flexible in -lieu of options, adopting a non-residential linkage fee to garner sustainable revenue for a housing trust fund, creation of a community land trust and process for land donations, and significant improvements with respect to impact fee relief. The plan will address housing for seniors and those with special needs, as well as disaster recovery housing. All of these strategies and incentives are intended to function as a complete package in order to achieve their desire results. The response model developed indicates that the incentives and other programs can help Collier meet its objectives, but may still fall short. Extensive research was conducted, and the exhibits and support papers are available for detailed review on the background of plan elements. The plan is intended as a short and long range incentive program to address current and future housing needs, and will be evaluated periodically to determine the extent to which headway is being made. The Stakeholder Committee recommends this plan to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and the Affordable Housing Committee and staff recommends this plan to the Board of County Commissioners. Plan Development & Community Participation: In March 2016, the Board of County Commissioners directed the development of a cohesive, inclusive plan to meet the housing affordability needs of the entire County. The creation of a Community Housing Plan (CHP) includes addressing the current and future housing affordability needs of Collier County as required by Florida State Statute 163.3177(6)(f)a, with input from a diverse group of community stakeholders. The goal was to help create and guide the development of a long term, comprehensive plan within eighteen (18) months, or by September 2017. The Board of County Commissioners approved the creation and appointment of members to a Community Housing Stakeholders Group on June 14, 2016. More than 35 Stakeholders, representing a broad coalition of members from major employers, developers and real estate professionals, to non- profits, advocacy groups, and others have meet regularly since the first meeting on July 25, 2016. They have spent countless hours researching and discussing options that could be utilized in Collier County to encourage the development of housing that is affordable to a wide range of incomes and households. The Housing Stakeholder Committee has worked to build public and private partner solutions to the housing affordability crisis. There has been extensive research and analysis of existing data and proposed methods and tools to address this critical community issue to encourage the development of a wider variety of housing opportunities affordable to a broad and diverse spectrum of Collier County residents. The Stakeholders committee and the County's Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) have worked closely together and held more than 20 regularly scheduled meetings, 30 subcommittee meetings, and 5 public hearings since July 2016. The Community Housing Stakeholders Group has presented its recommendations to AHAC, DSAC, and other public and private committees to ensure that multiple voices are included in this community -wide process. Creating more housing that is affordable to a broad cross section of the community will help make Collier County a more sustainable, diverse, vibrant, and livable community in the coming years. FL Statues Chapter 163.3177 (6) (f) a. - Every local jurisdiction must plan for the provision of housing for all current and anticipated future residents of the jurisdiction. Urban Land Institute (ULI) Community Public & Human Services Community Housing Plan Comm Growth Stakehidrs Managmt Group Dept Aft Hsg Advisory Comm IAHAQ Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 5 0 Collier County Housing Stakeholder Members & Contributors: Steve Sanderson, President and CEO, United Way of Collier County Michael Dalby, President and CEO, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Danny Gonzalez, President, Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Renee Thigpen, HR Director, Naples Community Hospital Allen Weiss, President and CEO, Naples Community Hospital Ian Dean, HR Director, Collier County School District Kamela Patton, Superintendent, Collier County School District Leo Ochs, Jr., County Manager, Collier County Government — as employer Tim Durham, Manager Corporate Business Operations, Collier County Gov't Mike Boose, HR Director, Arthrex Reinhold Schmieding, Founder and President, Arthrex Darlyn Estes, HR Director, Collier County Sheriff's Office Clark Hill, General Manager, Naples Hilton Hotel, Hotels/Restaurants Nick Kouloheras, President, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Hsg Dev Steve Kirk, President, Big Cypress Housing, Nonprofit housing developer Russell Budd, CEO, PBS Construction, For profit housing developers Bill Bullock, Senior Vice President, Minto Communities Developer Kathy Curatolo, Exec Vice President, Collier Building Industry Association Bill Spinelli, Chairman, Titan Custom Homes/CBIA - Construction Industry Jamie French, Deputy Dept Head, Growth Management Dept, Collier County Robin Singer, Planning Director, City of Naples Tami Scott, Zoning Administrator, City of Marco Island Christine Welton, Exec Director, Hunger and Homeless Coalition of CC Michael Puchalla, Executive Director, HELP, Nonprofit Housing Counseling/Ed Oscar Hentschel, Executive Director, Collier County Housing Authority Angela Edison, Housing Director, Collier Cnty Housing Auth/SWFL Apt Assoc Barbara Melvin, Community Relations Officer, First Florida Integrity Bank Mary Waller, Director, Naples Area Board of Realtors (NABOR) Shirley English, CEO, Marco Island Area Association of Realtors Nancy Pelotte-Cook— Marketing Director, Lely Palm Retirement Community Dr. Jaclynn Faffer, Pres & CEO, Jewish Family & Community Services of SWFL Marianne Lorini, President and CEO of the Area Agency On Aging of SWFL Lydia Galton (Retired/Active Community Volunteer) Community At Large Alan Horton (Retired Naples Daily News) Community At Large Ed Morton (Retired NCH) Community At Large Mark Teaters, Golden Gate Estates Association Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) Steve Hruby, Chairman Taylor McLaughlin John Cowan Denise Murphy Mary Waller Scott Kish Joseph Schmitt Litha Berger Kristi Bartlett Dr. Carlos Portu Christina Apostolidis Other Contributors Sally Luken, Luken Solutions; Alan Leaffer, Citizen -at -Large; Gerald Godshaw, Collier Citizens Council; Mark Hahn, Home Care; Sheryl Soukup, Soukup Strategic Solutions; Leslie Reyes, Citizen -at -Large; Anthony Fortino, Fortino Construction; George Danz, Riviera Golf Est; Mary George, Community Foundation of Collier County Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 6 October N, 7017 To the Board of County Commissioners, As rnembe s of the County appointed Community Housing Plan Stakeholders Committee, anti empoyers anti residents of Collier Cowe are ware grateful for the opportunity to have met and studied the housing afrordabiity problems that face Collier County. We haw: spent more than 15 months meebng, researching and dbcussing this challenge impacting ots community. We hove determined that there isa reed to swously address the lack of lousing that is affodable crow, in 7017 and 7t118; and not "kick the tan" down the road. Many facets of the public ocelot and business communrbrs have difficulty hiring and retaining employees wfounnot find rental o lor•sale housing flat rs affordable based upon their income. from our research and Alscussions, the lack of hotrsing affordability Impacts a very broad section of our community from profenonals in health care, education, and other busirnesses, to our first responders, our hospitality and construction engines, and our low income senior cmxns, as well as those persons with special needs. The proposed plan presents a well -reasoned, modest, and balmced approach that is hosed on facts and best -practises, that acknowledges that we all hove a part to play in imptamentng mtwwowon strategies and solutions. This plan moves us forward as a coanmursty in addressing this important issue. As participants, and employers, actively nrvotwed ,n these discussions, we the undersigned whole h—fiedly recommend the approval, and most Importantly, the implementation of the recommendations presented in the Community Housing Plan. We stand at the ready to continue assisting Collker County Government in addressing thb matt" that has tremendous Impact on the gwllty of life, sustainabllity, Ohtani and economic future of this community that we all proudly call lone. Pnpest .Ity, Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 7 "From the panel's perspective, the real need in Collier County is for action and implementation. This implementation will require political will and leadership. In addition, the community at large will need to prepare for and adapt to the growth that is certain to occur in the County." — ULI Panel Report pg 7 Current Housing Conditions: Urban Land Institute (ULI) Findings In the fall of 2016, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) was hired to help Collier "There is no question County develop a community -wide approach to address the local housing that Collier County has a affordability challenges. The Board of County Commissioners had previously held affordable housing workshops in March 2015 and 2016 to housing affordability address the housing affordability crisis which has continued to grow since problem. Part of the the end of the Great Recession (2007-2011). challenge stems from a Members of the ULI team spent a week in Collier County touring the significant lack of supply community, meeting with more than 100 stakeholder representatives, processing data/information and holding a preliminary workshop with in terms of housing type elected officials to offer recommendations and suggestions. The ULI Panel report titled, Collier County Florida January 29-February 3, 2017, resulted in and level of affordability a call to action with 35 specific recommendations and some startling throughout the county." statistics. — ULI Panel Report In the opening of the ULI Panel Report the team stated that they were "...impressed with the time, the effort, and the quality of work that has been invested in this subject by the commissioners and Collier County staff." However, the panel also stated that "From the panel's perspective, the real "'In 2015, 2 out of every 5 need in Collier County is for action and implementation. This households in Collier implementation will require political will and leadership."(pg 7) Reframing Housing Affordability - Cost Burdened County were cost ULI focused on those families and individuals in our community who are burdened, spending "cost burdened"; meaning they spend more than 30 percent of their gross more than 30% of their income on housing costs, which includes mortgage principal and interest, property tax, HOA fees, and homeowner's insurance payments. In income on housing." — conjunction with this definition are those community members who are ULI Panel Report "severely cost burdened" meaning that they spend more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing cost. This population is the most at -risk. The ULI report states that "The advantage of using the cost -burden terminology is that it does not put the focus on income alone; instead, it examines income as compared to housing cost." (pg 11) The Shimberg Center at the University of Florida estimated that forty percent (40%) of all Collier County households (58,685 households) were cost burdened in 2015. Of these 58,685 households, 29,342 were ` considered Severely Cost Burdened, spending more than 50% of their •to monthly income on housing expenses. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 8 Figure 1. Cost Burdened Professions Who is cost -burdened in Collier County? People from across the community Firefighters. Police Officers Health Care Nurses, Nursing/Medical Assistants, Senior Care Providers Education Teachers & Teacher Assistants, Support Staff Wait staff, hotel staff, retail 1 trade salespeople. golf course employees, landscape maintenance Bank tellers. government employees, administrative assistants These job sectors make up over 50% of all jobs in the county They are first responders, educators of children, and health care providers. Growth Implications According to the ULI Report, "The county is expected to add 58,000 households over the next 23 years. If the local issue of cost burden is not addressed, then — at a minimum-11,000 more households will experience severe cost burden (above 50 percent) than do households today." (pg 16) Jobs -Housing Imbalance Impacts Economic Development and Quality of Life There is a Jobs -Housing imbalance in Collier County resulting in at least 17.4% of the workforce (approximately 40,000 people) commuting daily from outside of Collier County. These employees work in Collier but live in Lee, Charlotte, or other counties where they spend their wages on rent, a mortgage, purchasing groceries, gas, and other necessities. Many public - sector employees (Sheriff's Office, County & City government, School personnel) and large segments of the private sector cannot afford to live in Collier County. Their daily commutes from neighboring counties add to the traffic congestion on the roadways and diminish quality of life and active citizen participation. The ULI report identified "one critical challenge for Collier County businesses is the ability to recruit entry-level professionals." (pg 14.) According to the ULI, "having employees who reside outside of Collier County and who commute long distances for work means a high level of attrition for businesses. "There are multiple challenges that first According to a survey of Collier County BCC employees, 32% of the workforce drives more than 30 minutes each day to and from work - home with 5% of the workforce driving more than 60 minutes each day. — County survey 2016 Approximately 40,000 people commute daily from outside of Collier County. — US Census The same holds true for those employers recruiting for hospitality and service sector employment. Resort and second -home communities require retail and service employees, but many of these employees are not able to live near their job due to a lack of housing that is affordable. Stores, hotels and restaurants cannot afford to pay high enough wages to allow their employees to live in affluent areas, and as a result, suffer from short - staffing, absenteeism and high turnover. The ULI panel report states that "Furthermore, when people who work in the county are commuting to adjoining municipalities to live, the county bears the costs of the roads without the benefit of receiving the tax revenue." (pg 14) Figure 2. Sample Cost Burdened Employment in Collier County Annual Wage Range (Entry to Median) Median Gross Rent 2015 Median Home Sales Price Homes Priced at 50% of Median Price $1,020 / Month $405,000 $200,000 Health Care Registered Nurses $47,000-$65,000 24% 1 38% 1 19% Medical Assistants $30,000-$35,000 41% 34% Emergency Technicians $28,000-$36,000 42% 34% Education Teachers $44,000-$59,000 28% ° 25% Teaching Assistants $22,000-$24,000 45% Public Safety Firefighters $39,000-$57,000 29% 43% 21% Patrol Officers $47,000-$59,000 26% 41'Yu 210 Service Workers Maids/Housekeepingl $18,000422,000 109% 55% Massage Therapist $26,000-$55,000 37% 44% 22% Concierges $25,000-$31,000 48% 39% Entry Level/ Mid Tier Professionals Human Resources Specialists $35,000-$55,000 31% 45% 22% Dental Assistants $33,000-$43,000 36% 29°/n Administrative Assistants $22,000-%33,000 37% Source: ULI Collier Report 2017 Figure 3. 2009-2014 Employment Commuting Patterns in Collier Co. Commuting 20,313 employees 14.7% of Commute from: Lee, to Collier out of 138,490 workforce Hendry, Charlotte, County for total Collier County commutes from Broward, Miami -Dade, Jobs Jobs commute another county Sarasota, Hillsborough, from another into Collier Highlands, Orange & county (2009-14) 1 1 Palm Beach Counties Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013, American Community Survey According to the ULI research, there were an extremely small number of available units on the market for households earning 80-100% of area i "Furthermore, when people who work in the county are commuting to adjoining municipalities to live, the county bears the costs of the roads without the benefit of receiving the tax revenue."- ULI Report (pg 14) Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 10 median income in February 2017. Both the rent and for sale housing prices in Collier continue to outpace neighboring counties forcing employees to commute 30 to 100 miles each way, spending their wages in adjacent counties. Collier's housing affordability gap will continue to grow as rents and for sale housing prices continue to trend upward year over year. Fieure 4. "Availability Snapshot" February 1. 2017 Units on the Market for Households who make 100% or less of Area Median Income ($68,300) Housing Units Available Single Family - For Sale 125 Condo- For Sale 250 Single Family - Rentals 0 Multi -Family Rentals 23 Source: ULI Report 2/1/2017 (MLS & Apartments.com, Zillow.com, Craigslist.com, and others) Figure 5. Collier County Fair Market Rent Increases 2016/17 Collier County Rents Efficiency 1 bdrm 2 bdrm 3 bdrm 4bdrm 2017 Fair Market $801 $973 $1,195 $1,606 $1,996 Rent chg from prior +11.3% +14.3% +14.7% +15.5% +15.6% year Source: Collier County Apartment Survey, HUD Figure 6. Collier County Median for Sale Housing Increases 2016/17 Multi- Single- Combined Family Family March 2017 Collier $275,000 $422,000 $340,000 Median Sale Price change from prior +7% +5% +5% year Source: NABOR April 2017 Collier's housing affordability gap will continue to grow as rents and for sale housing prices continue to trend upward year over year. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 11 Market Trends Collier County's historical development pattern is low density, single family homeownership. Since its initial establishment, Naples and Collier County have focused on high -end second home communities, seasonal resort tourism, and the businesses that support this economic engine. As a result of this market driven pattern, large segments of the population have been underserved and priced out of the market. The County's housing production is not sufficiently diverse with regard to size, tenure, location, and price points, to adequately reflect the social, economic, and age related diversity of our population. The result of these trends and policies is a significant disparity between the cost of housing and the incomes of the average person and the working poor. Furthermore, the members of the workforce with low to moderate wages, and members of the community on fixed incomes, have limited housing options. All of these historical development patterns, high housing cost, and other disparities limit Collier County's ability to attract and retain a strong workforce and to sustain and expand our economy. The challenge is to embrace pubic policies and encourage changes in development trends to ensure that Collier County has a diverse, affordable housing stock that reflects the needs of our current and future population with regard to type, tenure, cost, location, safety, and accessibility. The community must begin to think differently as we plan for a vibrant, sustainable future, addressing the needs of multiple generations of renters and homeowners who provide the needed services that enhance our community's quality of life. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition's annual Out of Reach the High Cost of Housing publication, the gap between renters' wages and the cost of rental housing continues to escalate. The rental housing market has continued to experience strong demand since the Great Recession, as homeownership rates have declined. "Household income has not kept up with the rising cost of rental housing. From the housing crisis of 2007 to 2015, the median gross rent for a rental home in the U.S. increased by 6%, after adjusting for overall inflation, while the median income for renter households rose by just 1% and median income for all households declined by 4% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). Demand for rental housing will likely continue to rise. Researchers at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard predict an additional 4.7 million renter households by 2025 from household growth, even if homeownership rates stabilize." (NLIHC Out of Reach 2017) The challenge is to embrace public policies and encourage changes in development trends to ensure that Collier County has a diverse, affordable housing stock that reflects the needs of our current and future population with regard to type, tenure, cost, location, safety, and accessibility. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 12 In addition, according to NLIHC, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, and other agencies "Six of the seven occupations projected to add the greatest number of jobs by 2024 provide a median wage that is not sufficient to afford a modest one -bedroom rental home." According to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Labor Market Statistics, in 2013, 80.5% of the jobs in Collier County paid less than 80% of the area median income. Three years later, in 2016 that increased to 87.7%. As with other resort communities across the country, there is often a lack of housing that is affordable to rent or purchase for households who provide services in tourism, hospitality and to retirees. Housing that is affordable to households working and providing services to the community needs to become a part of the community's infrastructure. Housing affordability initiatives in other resort communities have been researched with successful programs identified as potential solutions for the Collier housing affordability challenges. A key element of such initiatives is to educate residents and "change the narrative" to present affordable housing as a necessity and a shared public responsibility/part of the community's infrastructure. Figure 7. Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index Area Median Fiume Price —H—ling opportunity t ride- trja Area Median i Sa $6 61.4% of the jobs in Collier County pay less than $33,250 per year. Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Labor Market Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Program (QCEW) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. *3iak $68.3k Fig146.4 (Source: Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index) The existing housing stock of for sale homes are at prices very high relative to wage income levels, as shown in the above graph depicting data from the Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index. A Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) below 50 indicates an unhealthy housing to Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 13 IN THE PAST 3_5 VEARS - - HOME PRICES INCREASED- 35.6 - MEDIAN INCOME INCREASED 3.9% a AFFCI RDA8I LILY [Hal] DECREASED tfslnwA�t of [I -I Ing m o ppo rcunity Index] the share of housing sold that o tsld be affordable t fiam lly ea rning ed€an In k—sed o standard norYgae derwrfting I-itena is es 30:0 of gross m spent o h ousing with lO9'n down paymen{]_ al Associat€on of Home builders [N B] and Wells affordability relationship. This chart shows the gap between wages and for sale housing prices over the past three and a half years. ULI Recommendations The ULI Panel Report (Exhibit B) provides major recommendations organized around six core strategies with 35 specific recommendations. The six core strategies for housing affordability are: ✓ Regulation & ✓ Enhance Transportation Governance Options ✓ Increase Supply ✓ Enhance Wages ✓ Maintain or Restore ✓ Communication and Existing Supply Engagement The Board of County Commissioners provided direction to the staff and stakeholders to explore 27 of the specific recommendations in four categories as they develop the Community Housing Plan (CHP). The 27 recommendations reviewed by Stakeholders are shown below in green. Figure 8. ULI Recommendations Increase Density YIMBY a 7 member BCC in AHDB Bus route Volunteerl aff. development wages program Projects Incl. Zoning with Directory Simple Majority Park and Ride affordable flexibility Minimum wage for AH Zoning options System housing for developer� Increase Density Rental of guest Bus Rapid transit Myths and FaaV at Strategic Sites houses / ADU or express routes Brochure Increase Admin Commercial by Implement Approvals Transp, Jobs; Pathways Plan Incr. density Expedite Community Land Promote Ride Permitting Trust Sharing Options Reduce regs to Use Publicly Secure revenue reduce cost owned land source for transit Adopt SMART Reduce or waive code (LDC) impact fees Reinstate Housing Trust Fund Dedicated Funding c,..,..,- 1 ■ Marke . Commu Plan 'q Hire Community Outreach Coord Streamline applicatio process Directory of affordable housing for consumer%� E Hou %I ducatio Program Housin Resources Hire Housing Counselor 16� n Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 14 IT IS THE OPINION OF THE PANEL that Collier County absolutely has a housing affordability problem. It is not a crisis yet, but if housing is not addressed, the panel believes that it will become a crisis. Given the growth projections for the county, the panel believes this problem will occur far sooner than expected. — ULI Report, pg. 37 Vision for the Future: All residents of Collier County have a diverse range of attainable housing options. (Housing Stakeholders Group, July 2017) Creating a Shared Language --- What is Housing Affordability? In an effort to develop a common understanding, we must have a shared language of standardized terms. Throughout the CHP the following terms will be utilized to describe the concept of "What is" and "Who needs" housing that is affordable. The goal is to move away from the term affordable housing in order to reframe the perception that housing affordability is only for very low income households, or even those with no income. Therefore, it has been determined that we will refer to our goal as meeting the housing affordability needs of the community. However, for purposes of definitions, and to utilize the standard nomenclature the term affordable housing will be used; but what is really being talked about is housing affordability. Affordable Housing - Housing is affordable to a household when a residential dwelling unit with monthly rent or monthly mortgage payment, including property taxes and insurance, is not in excess of 30 percent of that amount which represents the percentage of the median annual gross income for the household. In Collier County, affordable housing specifically includes the following income level targets for the area, and are based on income categories determined by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: (a) "Extremely low income" means households whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the median income. (b) "Very low income" means households whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of the median income (c) "Low income" means households whose incomes are more than 50 percent but do not exceed 80 percent of the median income (d) Moderate income" means households whose incomes are more than 80 percent but do not exceed 120 percent of the median income (e) "Gap income" means households whose incomes are more than 120 percent but do not exceed 140 percent of the median income Approved Affordable Housing shall mean Affordable Housing that includes a long-term affordability restriction wherein the cost of housing and income of the household are known and monitored, for a specific period of time. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 15 Vision for the Future: All residents of Collier County have a diverse range of attainable housing options. - Housing Stakeholders Group, July 2017 -r 0 Category Name Percentage Category Income Limit by Num er of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely Low 30% $14,640 $16,740 $18,840 $20,910 $22,590 Very Low 50% $24,400 $27,900 $31,400 $34,850 $37,650 Low 80% $39,040 $44,640 $501240 $55,760 $60,240 Moderate 120% $58,560 $66,960 $75,360 $83,640 $90,360 Gap j 140% 1 $70,272 $80,352 $90,432 $100,368 $108,432 Category Name Percentage Category Rent Limit by Number of Bedrooms (incl. utilities) Efficiency 1 2 3 4 Extremely Low 30% $366 $392 $471 $543 $606 Very Low 50% $610 $653 $785 $906 $1,011 Low 80% $976 $1,046 $1,256 $1,450 $1,618 Moderate 120% $1,464 $1,569 $1,884 $2,175 $2,427 Gap 140% $1,830 $1,883 $2,261 $2,610 $2,912 Category Name Percentage Category Typical purchasing power for household size (Uncome) 1 2 3 4 Extremely Low 30% $43,920 $50,220 $56,520 $62,730 Very Low 50% $73,200 $83,700 $94,200 $104,550 Low 80% $117,120 $133,920 $150,720 $167,280 Moderate 120% $175,680 $200,880 $226,080 $250,920 Gap 140% $210,816 $241,056 $271,296 $301,104 Community Land Trust (CLT) - a vehicle to separate land from homes for the purpose of transferring title to a home without selling the land. The land remains with a nonprofit that holds title to the land and manages the ground leases. The homes can be sold to other income qualified buyers rliirina a AA-yaar arniinrl laaca A C'I T is tvnirally manaaarl by a nnn-nrnfit Housing Trust Fund (HTF) — is established to collect and disburse funds for the creation of affordable housing, including purchasing land. Locally collected funds dispersed using local guidelines and requirements Linkage Fees — a fee charged to non-residential development based upon the employment demand and affordable housing need created by new or re -development. Linkage Fees collected are placed in a Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Mixed -Income Housing — includes diverse types of housing units, such as apartments, town homes, and/or single-family homes for people with a range of income levels. Mixed -income housing includes both market rate and below market rate as determined by the needs of the local community. Collier County is proposing development of mixed -income communities targeted at low, moderate, and gap incomes along with market rate housing. Seniors and Special Needs- households that include persons that are elderly, disabled, at risk of being or are homeless, and/or have extremely low incomes. These special needs populations may include more specifically defined subgroups such as youth aging out of foster care, survivors of domestic violence, persons with severe and persistent mental illness, or persons with developmental disabilities. Severely Cost Burdened — households that pay more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing cost - mortgage principal, interest, taxes and insurance (PITI), or rent and utilities. Unrestricted Market Rate Housing — means dwelling units that are unrestricted for affordability, yet are valued on the open market at a given time with a fair market value making them potentially attainable to households with yearly incomes less than 140%AMI. In this category, there is no knowledge of whether the general affordable housing definition has been met, meaning the household income of the persons in the dwelling units and their actual housing costs are unknown. AN\ L �— Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 17 Collier County Housing Demand Model ---What is the Housing Need? The Board of County Commissioners adopted a Housing Demand Methodology in 2015 that identified the need for additional housing units based upon projected population growth by income categories. This 2015 demand model only addressed future housing demand. The 2017 Housing Demand Model (HDM) has been modified to add information on the current supply and current shortfall of housing, as well as the number of cost burdened households, resulting in a projected total affordable housing units needed per year by various targeted categories. With an estimated 40% of the county population being cost burdened according to the Shimberg Center at University of Florida, reducing this percentage of cost burden families by just a few percentage points would bring Collier County more in line with other communities' cost burden percentage. Collier County is ranked 121" highest in Florida for the number of households that are cost burdened. In looking at other Florida communities, many counties have between 36%-39% of their population being housing cost burden. Collier County should consider efforts to reduce its cost burden 57,601 Households population by at least 3-5% in the coming years to be competitive with peer counties. Figure 9. Sample Cost -Burdened Counties State Rank County Households # Cost Burdened % Cost Burdened 2 Monroe 33,658 16,635 49.4% 6 Palm Beach 574,690 256,971 44.7% 7 St. Lucie 113,981 49,982 43.9% 10 Sarasota 181,668 76,613 42.2% 12 collie& AL 143,771 57,601 40.1° 14 Volusia 217,830 86,902 39.9% 16 Flagler 41,710 16,562 39.7% 17 Lee 268,614 104,709 39.0% 18 Pinellas 434,206 168,988 38.9% 19 Indian River 63,373 24,403 38.5% 20 Manatee 149,999 57,122 38.1% 24 Charlotte 77,358 28,173 36.4% 37 Hendry 11,916 4,039 33.9% 61 Glades 4,595 1,234 26.9% Southwest Florida 5-county region in green; All adjacent counties lower cost burdened Similar coastal communities in orange Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 18 are cost burdened in Collier County — of which 29,342 are severely cost burdened (spending more than 50% of their income on housing) Collier County individuals or families that are cost burdened (more than 30%) or severely cost burden (more than 50%) have less income to spend on other necessities including food, health care, school supplies, and transportation costs. Using the updated 2017 Housing Demand Methodology shows a need for housing that is affordable at a variety of income levels in Collier County. Figure 10. Housing Demand Model The Housing demand model shows a need for 1,665 units at various income levels. Collier County Housing Demand Model - Sept 1, 2017 1 J i a R R ] R 9 1R I1 ]J ti la i4 IR Heuxheld in Eel selnd 2018 [aaL 8u rdened Population links Heeded In e Arallable Remeinlrlj ana Tree Income Tame! Household Incoma Dollar j3 _ Maa R-t/Aurch— pricy Hvusinp Restricted Hvusvhvlds Growth Order tv Lvwvr Needed pere Tora1 uniec[500 iJnits Vohs R.svurc.s Funding Income Lei.el 2D1] XI1D Invenlo A d rY PProve ( 2A35 alrx of Demand poat Burdened Yaar Rantal Needad nvaila 6le Availa6lo Peraon housa6oidl {Aug 2017! ALftrdahk all HeusehoW, ZD17 by 1% 71 Ilu1y 26I7j lyeerlyl R.ntai __ Fytravr[ylnRv l..atf.an3n% $18,840 $471 - 150 12,106 233 303 536 53fi SHIP, LD6G, $z�.a� _ _ HOML ESE Ir.ry t— 0 se.naai 3J -sore $31,400 $785 - 1,411 11,465 263 297 _ 550 550 SHIP, LD00, $1�� HOME: ESE_ w.. 1Q,D78 9,723 10,195 413 464 444 765 _ 7D7 698 llw,�dRa..ral srx-ansc airFtmsc 2=,U% LWPc $SD,240 $75,360 $90,432 $3256jt$115,000 12,052 4,285 $20D,000 43,335 i - $250,000 22,740 - 352 243 254 27 __ 16D 312 532 __ 47 n1a DD SHIP.ME HOME SHIPown« ni. nIa 0. Mndmr Gap rM.1 7$,127 5,846 57,567 1,817 1,439 3,256 499 1,665 Sources/ Notes: 1. NABOR (Naples) and MIAAOR (Marco) Collier County Inventory levels collected from July 10, 2017 2. University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing- Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse 3. To determine the current population needs and future populations needs, the FL Dept of Labor, Occupation Reportfrom 2016 was used which includes jobs located in Collier County 4. Collier County Property Appraiser 5. Includes Manufactured Homesl. (column #11)- NABOR (Naples) and MIAAOR (Marco) Collier County Inventory levels collected from August, 2017; note NABOR does not include private sales not approved for sale on the MLS 6. 2. (column #7)- University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing- Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse 7. (column #8)- To determine the current population needs and future populations needs, University of Florida Shimberg Center forAffordable Housing- Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse 8. (column #5)- Collier County Property Appraiser 9. Note: There are 8,514 mobile home units in Collier County, of which 2,076 are located in District 5 (which includes Immokalee). A survey of mobile home parks has determined that the majority of mobile home units in Immokalee are utilized as migrantfarm-worker housing, and many other mobile homes in the urban area of the county are located in age restricted, 55 and over communities. While the number of mobile homes in Collier County is significant, in total they make up less than 4% of the County's total housing stock and they are encumbered by other restrictions that preclude them from serving as housing options for the greater population. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 19 Housing Recommendations The Stakeholders Group —How Do We Address the Housing Need? With the release of the final ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Collier County, Florida January 29-February 3, 2017 in June 2017 (Exhibit B), the Housing Stakeholders Group, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC), and staff have developed a long term, comprehensive Community Housing Plan with specific recommendations to the BCC and the community to address the growing housing affordability crisis that has been impacting the community for years. The Stakeholders formed five subcommittees to begin to gather data on the issues and identify tools and methods to address the identified strategies. Stakeholder Group Subcommittees: Density and Certainty Stable Funding Sources Community Land Trust & Public Lands Transportation Enhancements Communication & Outreach The Stakeholders recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners follow on the next sections. Stakeholder Focus Density and Certainty Stable Funding Sources Community Land Trust & Public Lands Transportation Enhancements Communication & Outreach Density and Certainty This subcommittee focused on bringing certainty to the development process and increasing density. This subcommittee's recommendations include: 1. Identify "Strategic Opportunity Sites" for Higher Densities A. Require Activity Centers to include residential development- When originally enacted in Collier County's Code, Activity Centers were designed to include a mix of uses including residential development at higher densities as well as intense commercial and office uses. This would have several benefits including providing housing opportunities in/near commercial job centers and developing residential properties at higher densities providing diversity in the residential development pattern of Collier County. These residential units would not be restricted or monitored for affordability, but rather would serve to provide a diverse supply of housing types and options. The requirement that activity centers include residential uses in their development was removed from Collier's Code decades ago. As a result, all activities center development to date has been focused exclusively on commercial centers; residential development around activity centers has maintained Collier County's low density/gated community characteristics and the workforce needed for those job centers must commute from further away causing congestion on our roadway system. It is recommended that Collier County again require a residential component be included in the development or re -development of any exiting or newly created activity centers. B. Allow Higher Densities in Activity Centers & Strategic Opportunity Sites above the current limits (i.e. 20-25 units/acre)- According to the ULI Report, "density is key" to providing housing that is affordable. The ULI suggested densities in the 30-35 units per acre range. Collier County's historic development pattern has led to extremely low density development that sprawls outward from the coast and from commercial centers. Although extremely rarely used or approved, if ever, density in Collier County is capped in the Comprehensive Plan to 16 units to the acre maximum. Density above this maximum can create opportunities for housing that is affordable to be developed. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 21 MIXED USE 8 INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER ACREAGE 00"Tm ACRES ACMTYCENIP 1 1018ti ACTNINCENRR2 1A1.5C ACNRYCENM 1 1MB ACMT CENRA< 169.19 ACIMTI' NIPS 199 " ACNINCENRA6 W25 A NITYCENIR) 190.91 AC11VMCVM.9 92.21 ACNINaNIA9 W-ffi AMMUNIRIU M% ACTNINCENRR 11 19996 A VMCENIR12 192N ACTWMCENMR11 %5.12 MTIVINCENTERu W% ACTNINCENRRI5 wo AC IW CENRR R 193.n ACT MCENRRIT 169-62 ACIVINCENIR 18 InG6 ACTIVINCENRRN IUW 2 1 0 2 ides N �� A It is recommended that Collier County initiate a process to amend its comprehensive plan to allow for the maximum residential density to be increased to 20-25 units per acre at certain Strategic Opportunity Sites. Strategic Opportunity Sites will be identified by the Board based upon recommendations from Growth Management through the land use review process. These sites may build on the existing activity centers concept and be expanded to include new corporate headquarter sites or industrial areas, or major transportation corridors, in the urban area, eastern Collier, Immokalee and other appropriate locations. Housing that is affordable in Strategic opportunity sites could be designated for Essential Services Personnel (teachers, first responders, health care professionals, etc.). 2. Modify the existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) program to allow higher densities from 8 to 12 units per acre (See attached proposed amendment to the AHDB in the Appendix Exhibit C & C.1) The existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus program allows for a density bonus of up to 8 additional units per acre on top of a site's base density. These bonuses, which have a land use restriction of 15 years, are available only in the County's Urban Area, where development is encouraged. In Collier County, the base density in the urban area is 4 units per acre, with several large areas further limited to only 3 units per acre as a base density. Applying the maximum Affordable Housing Density Bonus program to these sites allows the density on those sites to only be increased to 11 or 12 units per acre. This is below the County's maximum allowed density cap of 16 units per acre. It is recommended that the existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program be amended to allow up to a 12 unit per acre bonus, thus allowing development of housing that is affordable to be built up to the county's maximum allowable density of up to 16 units per acre. It is also recommended to extend the AHDB on rental com m Lnities to 30 years. 3. Implement Mixed Income Housing Ordinance with local flexibility Urban Area- LZE COUNTY CIL 4 n 0 options (See attached draft ordinance in the Appendix Exhibit D & D.1) Policy 1.9 of the Housing Element of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan specifically tasks the County, to explore the development of a fair share i C affordable housing ordinance that shall require commercial and residential developments to address the lack of affordable housing. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 22 To address this task and the housing affordability issue in Collier County, it is recommended that the county adopt and implement a locally designed and controlled Mixed Income Housing Ordinance. The proposed Mixed Income Housing Ordinance will require new residential development seeking approval by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability. Developers have several options as to how to meet this requirement including 1) accepting a 30% density bonus and including the mixed income units onsite, 2) providing the mixed income units off site, 3) partnering with another entity to provide the mixed income units, 4) paying a fee in -lieu of providing the mixed income units, or 5) approval by the Board of County Commissioners of some other option to comply with the mixed income housing ordinance with a commensurate result. The proposed Mixed Income Housing Ordinance allows for a 30% density bonus (including bonus/additional market rate units) in exchange for providing 15% of the residential units as Mixed Income Housing. The mixed income units will be 5% at Low Income, 5% Moderate Income, and 5% Gap income. Ten percent of those mixed income units will be made available to seniors and special needs households. It is anticipated that this ordinance will create approximately 180 new units that are affordable each year at varying income level targets (including units for seniors and those with special needs). These units will be deed restricted and monitored to remain affordable for a specific period of time. Implementation of a mixed income housing ordinance would help ensure equitable distribution of housing that is affordable throughout all areas of the county. As stated, developers may choose to pay fees in lieu of developing the required affordable housing on site. In- lieu fees that are permitted within the mixed income housing ordinance are not intended to provide a revenue source for affordable housing. The fee in lieu is established at $127,000 per unit and calculated as the difference between the combined single-family and multi -family median sales price ($327,000- NABOR July 2017, Exhibit D.1) and that amount that is affordable to a household at the Moderate income level ($200,000). Funds which may be collected if a developer chooses this option would be deposited into the local affordable housing trust fund. This supports the primary goal and objective of the Housing Element, which is to provide new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing needs of residents with very -low, low, moderate and gap incomes, including seniors and households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural Collier County. An exception to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance is Towns and Villages developing under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) overlay. PROPOSED MA WAM Table A- Affordable-11orkforce Gap Housing ➢eusits Bones (Addiliosal Asailable Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre) [—M—. Allowable Density 8-1 by laercem of D—IDpnwnt Designated as AOordabse­Worldme4op Houpnd Household product Income 10% 20% 30% eo% S0% t91% T01i tt0li 90% lODli %oned+M I i 12 Gap :.. mill.. Na 2 3 t S 6 7 B 19 NB moderate Nat 8 5 6 7 8 9 10 31 12 51 Lon Na 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 "L_ Na B 9 30 11 12 12 U 12 12 'rDwner�oowpled only —Nay only be used in conjunction wlh at Will 10% at or below 80%MI Total Allowable Demity = Base Density a AffordablerWallorc"ap flea g Density Bonus In no event shall the maximum gross density Allowed exceed 10 units pet per a B The AHDB shall be available to a dooloperent only to the extent that b othev is.e complies and is corisstem with the GMP and the land d—lopnenl regulations, including die procedures. requirements condition and criteria for "PDDs" and wGnings. where appacable C The mirinum number of affordable housing units that shall be provided in a development pursuant to this section shag be ten fl0f a8ordable housing units D. The ratio of number of bedrooms per affordable housing unit shal in general be equal to the ratio of Use number of bedrooms per residential unit for the entire devebpnem MuL Y Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 23 Communities in the RLSA will have their own housing affordability requirements. Figure 11. PUD Residential Approvals 2007-2017 PUD UNIT APPROVALS Example Mixed Income Housina Reauirements/Units YEAR PUD Units Approved 5% 10% 15% 20 /o 2007 3,271 164 327 491 654 2008 1,515 76 152 227 303 2009 548 27 55 82 110 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2011 2,080 104 208 312 416 2012 523 26 52 78 105 2013 145 7 15 22 29 2014 3,366 168 337 505 673 2015 325 16 33 49 65 2016 267 13 27 40 53 2017 1 /2 r 610 31 61 92 122 2017 Projected 1,220 61 122 183 244 2007-2017 (Projected) Total 13,260 663 1,3261 1,989 2,652 4. Establish or Increase Administrative Approvals A. Allow commercial conversion near tareeted transaortation and iob centers at high density; using SDP approval only- Collier County currently allows the conversion of commercial sites to residential through a re -zoning process. Commercial zoning may be converted to residential at 16 units per acre. This process is rarely used due to the requirement that the site go through a full re -zoning process including public hearings. Downzoning a site from commercial zoning reduces the intensity of uses allowed on the site. As such the need for public vetting and approvals of such actions should be greatly mitigated. It is recommended that for developments proposing to include housing that is affordable through a commercial to residential conversion be approved administratively through the SDP process. B. Allow affordable housing densities by right- Currently the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program is allowed to be applied as matter of right in the Immokalee area. "Density is Key" -ULI Panel Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 24 It is recommended that this provision be expanded to allow Affordable Housing Density Bonuses up to 4 units to the acre to be approved administratively throughout the urban area. C. In Senior Living Facilities require any request above a .45 FAR to include 20% of the beds as affordable/Medicare. D. Micro Housing — Create local development codes to suit small single family units. Study full impact and effects of allowing smaller units, including but not limited to LDC and GMP impacts, Impact Fee impacts, and future land use element impacts. 5. Expedite the Permitting and Approval Process; including zoning, LDC and GMP changes A. The current Expedited Permitting Process for Affordable Housing (Fast -Track) prescribes a certain number of review days depending on the action required. Rejections are then sent back to the applicant and resubmitted to be reviewed and either rejected again or approved. This cycle can repeat itself 5 or 6 or more times. Each time adding months to the project approval. Create a concurrent and interactive review to clear discrepancies in one meeting. It is recommended that the current Expedited Permitting Process be amended to include a concurrent and interactive review to clear discrepancies in one or two meetings between staff and applicants. 6. Allow cost -saving infrastructure changes - Case Study Several regulatory changes were considered and evaluated as to the costs they add to a development, their need, and the potential cost savings if the regulations were eliminated. A Case Study of a recent single family development applied some of these changes in an attempt to find the "real world" value of making them. The chart below shows a sampling of what the elimination or amendment of some of these regulations can do to the construction cost of EACH home. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 25 Figure 12. Cost saving regulatory relief Proposed Changes Cost Savings per Unit Limit application to 1 round of reviews at Planning level $1,091 Limit application to 2 rounds of review by Engineering $545 Allow for administrative approval for projects meeting established thresholds $909 Allow for additional density for affordable projects by right, i.e. Market rate projects in urban area = 4 units/acre, mixed income = 7/units/acre $1,818 Require sidewalks on only one side of the street $223 Waive requirement for generator at lift station $2,364 Total Savings per Unit $6,950 By adopting some of these regulatory reliefs the cost of each home could be reduced by almost $7000. According to the National Home Builder's Association's "Priced Out" report in 2016, every $1000 added or subtracted to the price of a home in Collier County either allows 189 additional households to afford to purchase a median priced home, or puts that home out of their reach. Applying that model to the $7000 in construction cost savings has the potential to make approximately 1,325 home in Collier County affordable to buyers. It is recommended that Collier County continue to explore and refine the list of regulatory relief items and present a full list to the Board for approval through the applicable LDC or GMP amendment cycles. 7. Amend the LDC to Adopt Smart Code A smart code is a unified land development ordinance template for planning and urban design. A form -based unified land development ordinance designed to create walkable neighborhoods across the full spectrum of development, from the most rural to the most urban, incorporating a transect of character and intensity within each. "Every $1000 added or subtracted to the price of a home in Collier County either allows 189 additional households to afford to purchase a median priced home, or puts that home out of their reach." — NHBA Priced Out Report Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 26 Example: Figure 13. Smart Code Neighborhood Transect Zones Preserve East of Golden Goodlette Pine Sth Ave 5. Everglades Gate Rd -Collier Ridge Rd. Mercato Blvd. Estates Blvd. U541 Collier County currently implements a version of a smart code by using various elements of our Comprehensive Planning Process. The county is currently undertaking the re -study of four major elements of its comprehensive plan the results of which may move development to follow several elements of Smart Codes. Recommendation: Continue to study via the 4 restudy efforts, how housing affordability in Collier County could benefit from using a Smart Code. 8. Impact Fee Deferral Program Tindale Oliver recently conducted a study of Impact Fee Discount programs in counties and cities in Florida. The Tindale Oliver Impact Fee Discount report is attached as Exhibit E in the Appendix. Based on this study, it is concluded that Collier County's current Impact Fee Deferral Program is already very advanced in comparison to other jurisdictions. The Impact Fee Deferral program has been in place since 2001. Impact fees are deferred on units earmarked for owner -occupied or rental housing for families with incomes up to 120% of Median Area Income. (3-person household earning less than $75,360 per year) However, further impact fee relief in consistently noted by the development community as a part of the remedy to achieve more housing that is affordable. Therefore, the following recommendations are made: It is suggested that the current Collier program be "fine-tuned" as follows: Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 27 • Increase the deferral period for Rental Developments from 10 years to 30 years. • Forgive Owner -Occupied deferrals after 15 years • Increase households served to 140% of Median Income (Gap Housing) • Add capacity to the program by increasing the percentage of collections from 3% to 4% or 5% of total collections of county impact fees. Since the 2005 ordinance update, the Impact Fee Deferral program has been capped at three percent (35o) of the total annual impact collections which represents a de minimus amount of the total. Reinstating the Housing Trust Fund Housing trust funds are established sources of funding for affordable housing construction and other related purposes created by governments in the United States (U.S.). The housing trust fund (HTF) is an example of a national best practice that Collier County currently has at its disposal but does not use. More than 700 HTFs exist nationwide, and they are often a critical element of a jurisdiction's overall housing policy. One primary benefit of these instruments is the fact that there is local control over the allocation of the funds to match with the goals of the local jurisdiction. By reinstating the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Fund), all voluntary donations or other revenue generated for affordable housing shall be deposited into the Fund. The Fund shall be maintained in an interest - bearing account and any interest derived from deposits in the Fund shall follow and remain within the Fun. Monies in the Fund, including interest and recaptured monies, shall be disbursed according to the eligible uses set forth and as approved by the Board and administered by the Community and Human Services Division. Awards from the Fund shall be made only at the discretion of the BCC. The Community and Human Services Division will act as the administrators of the fund and associated projects for the BCC. The AHAC will work with CHS staff to develop oversight protocols and specific eligibility criteria for BCC approval. (See Exhibits F, F.1 & F.2) Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 28 Fieure 13. Proposed Uses of Housing Trust Fund Programs Developer Consumer Down Payment Assistance X Impact Fee Relief X X Land Acquisition/Pre X Development Funding Construction Loans X X Community Land Trust— X land acquisition Preserve existing X X affordable housing supply — For rehabilitating rental or owner occupied dwelling units Rental assistance X Local contribution for tax X credit or SAIL applications Disaster Recovery X X Priority scoring, or additional funds will be awarded to those projects that are mixed income, in activity centers, or on major transit routes (in particular on CAT routes). Additionally, 10% of all funds are set aside to benefit seniors and/or persons with disabilities. Many of these programs currently have, or will have, land use restrictions ranging from 15 years to 99 years depending upon the funding source requirements. A local funding source will allow for projects to receive "layered subsidies", or multiple levels of assistance. The above list is not exhaustive, and the county commission by resolution may add or remove alternative affordable housing programs. It is recommended that the County reinstate its Housing Trust Fund. Stable Funding Sources The subcommittee focused its efforts on a variety of tools and methods to identify funding sources that are targeted to address Collier County identified needs. This subcommittee's recommendations include: 1. Collier County's HTF should be sustainable and predictable, given the long planning process involved in housing development. The county should keep in mind that what can make an HTF challenging is finding Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 29 viable, stable, recurring revenue sources. Other jurisdictions have funded their trust funds through sales taxes, real estate transfer taxes, linkage fees as part of the zoning ordinance, mixed income housing in - lieu fees, condominium conversion fees or demolition fees, and hotel and motel taxes. It is recommended to implement the following strategies to support the need for future housing that is affordable, and to the extent possible, address the existing backlog. Figure 14. Recommended Funding Sources r Potential Revenue Include as a priority for lobbyists on staff $2M Annually or under contract with Collier County that the legislature appropriate all the Sadowski state and local housing trust funds for Florida's housing programs. Adopt a Linkage Fee for Non -Residential $1/SF = $2M/yr (based uses on 2017 projection) Adopt an in -lieu of fee or donation of $127,000/unit = land in lieu of constructing required $1,270,000/yr est. workforce units under the mixed income housing requirement Sale proceeds from donated or surplus Cannot assess land designated for affordable housing_ Develop philanthropy in the form of Cannot assess cash or land donations Continue with Tax Increment Financing TBD for a new CRA (Bayshore CRA), and consider similar structures for other CRA's Public/Private Partnerships Cannot assess Community Foundation/ other non- Cannot assess profits Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 30 Increase Funding from the Sadowski Act Fund One of the most highly recommended HTF funding sources is a real estate documentary stamp tax. However, in Florida, with the Sadowski Act Funding, this is already in use and not available for funding the local HTF. Instead, these funds are awarded to each county in the form of State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) funds based on an approved annual allocation. It is common knowledge that in most years, the state legislature does not fully allocate this funding, instead diverting some of it to meet other needs. The Local Housing Trust Fund already establishes a permanent source of local funding for affordable housing in Collier County, and is the single most effective source. However, legislation subjects this revenue to the appropriations process, which allows funds collected to be "swept" out of the trust fund and used for other purposes. For this reason, all of the revenue collected for affordable housing is not used for affordable housing. For example, of the $292.37 million in revenue available under a fully - funded scenario, only $137 million will be used for affordable housing programs. For Collier County, this means that of the $3.3 million allocation if fully -funded, the County will only receive $1.4 million. This is a significant shortfall in funding that otherwise would be and should be used to fund affordable housing. Therefore, to increase the ability to use this already established source, it is recommend increasing advocacy for full appropriation of the Sadowski Act trust funds. Non -Residential Linkage Fees Linkage fees "link' other forms of development with a community's needs for affordable housing. Linkage fees are typically charged to developers and then spent on affordable housing preservation or production through existing housing programs. Linkage fee ordinances are one way to leverage private markets to produce affordable housing, fund homeownership programs, or preserve existing affordable rental housing. Linkage fees help meet a housing need that may be produced when new development occurs. For instance, the development of an office or retail complex in an area will bring many employment opportunities to the area, including minimum wage jobs that may not pay enough so that a household can work and live in the same community — or even a nearby community that is connected to the workplace by affordable transit. Linkage fees, most Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 31 often charged to developers on a square foot basis, can then supplement an affordable housing funding program that targets certain areas. Figure 15 NON-RESIDENTIAL PERMITS Example Linkaqe Fee Requirements/Revenue YEAR PeSgFted $0.50/ft $1.00/ft $3.00/ft 2014 667, 850 $ 333,925 $ 667,850 $ 2,003,550 2015 1,647,162 $ 823,581 $ 1,647,162 $ 4,941,4861 2016 731,456 $ 365,728 $ 731,456 $ 2,194,368 2017 1 /2 r 958,352 $ 479,176 $ 958,352 $ 2,875,056 2017 Projected 1,916,704 $ 958,352 $ 1,916,704 $ 5,750,112 2014-2017 (Projected) Totaij 4,963,172j $ 2,481,586 j $ 4,963,172 j $14,889,516 Proposed Non -Residential Linkage Fee Ordinance — (see draft ordinance in Appendix Exhibit G) (A) APPLICABILITY. All new non-residential construction occurring within the unincorporated area of the County shall be subject to the Linkage Fee in this ordinance at the time of issuance of a Building Permit. This includes additions to and redevelopment of existing properties, and the commercial and industrial portions of planned unit and mixed -use developments. This excludes churches, government buildings, educational institutions and Towns and Villages in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) of eastern Collier County. Towns and villages will have their own housing affordability requirements in their overlay which will be determined by conducting an affordable housing needs assessment and providing the required housing within their community boundaries. (B) LINKAGE FEE AMOUNT. All new commercial and industrial construction occurring within the unincorporated area of the County shall pay a Linkage Fee of $ 1 per square foot, and in accordance with the following: 1. For phased developments, the Linkage Fee shall be computed only for the square feet of development covered by the specific Building Permit. 2. Any Person who, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, agreed in writing as a condition of development approval to pay fees related to the shortage of Affordable Housing shall be responsible for the payment of such fees under the terms of such Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 32 agreement, and the payment of such fees by the Person will be offset against any Linkage Fees otherwise due under this ordinance at later stages of the development activity for which the fee was paid. Cities such as Jupiter, Winter Park and Coconut Creek have all implemented linkage fees in Florida. Commercial and high -end market rate residential development increase the need for employment of low wage workers who will be in need of affordable housing within the community. For example, in the San Francisco Bay area, one study shows that every high-tech job produces 4 other jobs across all income levels, including lower income jobs such as retail clerks and restaurant workers. A similar report shows that manufacturing jobs in Florida produce 2.5 additional jobs. High -end market rate residential development has a similar effect, in that residents of such development often demand services such as lawn care, maids, pool servicers and other lower -income jobs. Linkage fees are upheld by both federal and state law'. The legal basis of linkage fees is the two part Supreme Court test: • The nexus between what the government wants the landowner to do and a legitimate state interest. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); and • The requirement on the private landowner must be related "in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 Linkage fees are generally charged on a per square foot basis. Rates in Florida vary from less than $1 per square foot to upwards of $35 per square foot. Linkage fees are set based on a balance between funding needed to meet a locality's affordable needs and ensuring development remains financially feasible. A nexus study was completed for Collier County in 2006, which supports reasonable linkage fees ranging from $0.72 per square foot for residential to $43.46 per square foot for tourist properties. Fees are usually paid upfront at permitting. However, some localities allow payments to be made over time. Some also have allowable exceptions and exemptions for smaller developments or certain types of development. (Exhibit G) The basic steps to establish a linkage fee include: • Nexus and Feasibility Studies — in accordance with Nollan and Dolan, cities must first complete a nexus study to determine the actual impact of new development of various types on demand for Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 33 V*_ - 1 A ilL• 9 71 affordable housing as well as the maximum feasible fees development types can support in light of existing fees and other factors. • Implementation Plan — determine how the fees will be used, who will administer the fees, timing and basis for adjustments to the fees, and any alternatives offered for paying the fees (including developers actually building the housing) • Adoption — Draft and adopt the actual ordinance and regulations for the fee. The ordinance and regulations should be reviewed annually, and revised as economic conditions changed. It is recommended that Collier County adopt a nominal linkage of $1 per square foot of non-residential development (in line with other Florida jurisdictions). It is also recommended that Collier County complete a linkage fee nexus study to establish the legal basis for the fee. Mixed Income In -lieu of fees Such fees are generally established by one of two methods: • Affordability Gap Method —This method sets the fee based in the difference in purchase price or rent between market rate and what would be affordable to the target income level for the mixed income housing ordinance. For example, if the market or median home price is $400,000, and the target affordable price is $200,000, then the in -lieu fee would be $200,000 per housing unit required under the ordinance. • Production Cost Method — This method sets the fee based on the cost for the public to produce an affordable housing unit. For example, if it costs the public $200,000 to produce a unit. The method used is dependent upon the desired outcome. If the desire is to encourage developers to build the affordable housing, then the fee should be set high to serve a deterrent from utilizing the option. However, if the goal is to raise funds to support other programs, then the fee should be set lower so as not to deter utilization of the option. Other considerations would be application of the in -lieu fee i.e. should it be the same for each developer (should developers of homes costing in the millions pay the same rate as developers of lower -priced homes), or should it vary by location (should developers building in downtown or redevelopment sites, where it costs more to produce units, pay the same rate as developers in greenfield locations on the fringes). We recommend use of the affordability gap method. The general policy goal of mixed income housing is to encourage the production of affordable housing within higher -income communities, so that the lower -income Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 34 households can live in the communities where they work. The higher fees through the affordability gap method would tend to encourage production on site. However, the in -lieu fees generated would provide the level of funding needed to assist lower income buyers purchase homes or rent in those higher -income communities. (A) The mixed income requirements of the Mixed Income Housing ordinance may be satisfied by paying a $127,000/unit fee in lieu of developing the number of Units required. The fee for each unit is based on the affordability gap method. The total fee collected will be the per -unit fee for each unit type (for - sale or rental) times the number of units required under the mixed income housing ordinance. 1. The fees collected from these payments shall be deposited into the County's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 2. The fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the residential development. 3. The method of determining the fee shall be reviewed periodically as necessary to ensure that the purposes and intent of this ordinance are met. (B) The Mixed Income Housing requirements of this ordinance may be satisfied by donating land within the County's boundaries in unincorporated areas in lieu of developing the number of mixed income units required by the Mixed Income Housing ordinance. The proposed land to be donated shall be subject to the determination by the Board of County Commissioners that it is: 1. Suitable for development; 2. Equivalent in value to the applicable fee in lieu; 3. The value of the land shall be determined by one appraisal commissioned by the County and paid for by the developer; 4. The value of the land to be donated may alternatively be determined by relying on the purchase price of the land provided it has been the subject of a purchase by a bona fide purchaser for value within the past year; 5. The conveyance of the land to the County or Community Land Trust selected to administer the Workforce Housing Program on behalf of the County shall occur no later than at the time of application for a building permit. (C) In no case will any cash or land donations be returned to the developer, once such transaction is completed. It is recommended that Collier County accept Mixed Income Housing opt - out fees in the amount of $127,000 for each required unit not produced Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 35 based on the "affordability gap" method (to be adjusted annually based on current data). (Exhibit D) Sale proceeds from donated or surplus land designated for affordable housing In 2006, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 125.379, Florida Statutes, wherein each county is tasked to triennially prepare an inventory list of all real property within its jurisdiction to which the county holds fee simple title that may be declared appropriate for use or sale for the benefit of affordable housing. The Board of County Commissioners must review the inventory list at a public hearing and revise it as they choose. Following the public hearing, the governing body must adopt a resolution that includes an inventory list of such property. The Statute provides possible options for appropriate usage of this property to benefit affordable housing. The property may be offered for sale and the proceeds, above any amounts reimbursed to Countyfunds, are available for eligible uses. The land, or the proceeds from sale, may be used for one of the following activities: 1. Purchase land for the development of affordable housing. 2. Increase the Housing Trust Fund earmarked for affordable housing. 3. Sell with the restriction that requires the purchaser to develop affordable housing. 4. Donate to a nonprofit housing organization for construction of permanent affordable housing. 5. Make the property available for use for the production and preservation of permanent affordable housing. It is also viable that land may be donated to the County for purposes of housing that is affordable. If it is determined to sell that property, the proceeds would be added to the HTF. It is recommended that any residual sale proceeds from surplus property also be added to the Housing Trust Fund. Philanthropy in the form of cash or land donations Collier County is an affluent community and consequently it is appropriate to consider philanthropy as a revenue mechanism, be it in the form of cash or land. Collier would accept cash donations into the HTF, and accept land donations into the Community Land Trust for use as affordable housing, or make donated lands available for sale, placing the proceeds into the HTF. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 36 Collier would reserve the right to only accept lands that are unencumbered and appropriate for use in whole or in part for housing that is affordable. Collier would need to develop appropriate legal mechanisms and a method for creating documentation required by donors for tax purposes. It is recommended that that any cash or land donations for housing that is affordable be accepted by the county. Continue with Tax Increment Financing (Bayshore CRA), and consider similar structures for other CRA's The Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Agency (CRA) was created by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on March 14, 2000 by Resolution 2000-82. The total area comprises approximately 1,800 acres with a wide range of residential and commercial properties. Funding for the CRA comes from Tax Increment Finance (TIF). TIF is a portion of the property taxes generated above what was received by the County prior to the CRA being established and does not result in any additional tax to the resident. Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Plan was approved on June 13, 2000 by Resolution 2000-181 to address deteriorating physical and economic conditions then prevailing within Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. This approach for raising revenue for housing that is affordable could use with other CRA's. It is recommended that the County continue using CRA funds to correct deteriorating physical and economic conditions, including housing affordability issues, and adopt a TIF for any future new CRAB. Backlog There exists not only the need for future development of housing that is affordable, but also a need to alleviate an existing backlog of demand. Local property tax revenue can be used as a permanent source of funding for affordable housing. In most cases nationwide, property tax revenue for affordable housing is raised by an affordable housing levy. A successful example is the Seattle Affordable Housing Levy, which has raised over $388 million since its first approval in 1981. The most recent re -approval in 2016, which was approved by 68% of the vote, stands to raise as much as $290 million over the next seven years. However, levies are an additional tax subject to renewal by voters. I� ■EN Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 37 Figure 16. Additional Revenue Sources inu-mue use yr runus rvr drrvruduie nvusing wim i Undetermined potential Sales Tax referendum/program with funds allocated to a Housing Trust Fund annually. Establish a certain percentage or dollar amount from ad Undetermined valorem taxes to be allocated to a Housing Trust Fund annually. It is recommended that, if the Board of County Commissioners desires to make a more profound impact on the back -log of housing affordability ' issues, to move forward with one or both of the funding sources identified in Figure 16 above. Funds allocated from the General Fund should be provided on a one-to-one match for funding collected through the non- residential linkage fee. These sources would serve to spread the response to housing affordability throughout the County, and not only on new development. Additional Housing Programs and Initiatives The County may provide funding for housing rehabilitation/sustainability assistance, preservation, homeownership assistance, rental assistance, and special needs housing opportunities for low to moderate income households. The County will utilize Federal, State, and local funding sources to conduct activities associated with all housing and programs and initiatives. The rules and regulations associated with each Federal, State, and local funding sources will govern the use of such funds and shall be in i accordance, where appropriate, with the following documents: • Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan (CDBG, HOME, ESG); • Local Housing Assistance Plan (SHIP); and • Applicable Federal, State and Local Policy and Procedures Manual All planning and policy documents will be made available on the County's website and at the offices of the Community and Human Services Division. The availability of funds for the programs will be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation within the County or Request for Proposals issued by the County. Current County programs fall under these primary categories: Homeownership, Rental Housing, Special Needs Housing, Housing Sustainability, Fair Housing and Accessibility. Many of these programs have Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 38 W_ a lien and/or land use restriction ranging from 15 years to 30 years in accordance with each programs guidelines and funding source requirements. A. Homeownership programs may include down payment assistance in the form of first or second mortgages, grants, sale of County owned property, donation of County owned property to eligible non -profits including CHDOs, financing to non-profit and for -profit developers for the construction of owner occupied units, and construction of single family homes. The County will also maintain programs that preserve homeownership including providing funding for the rehabilitation of owner occupied housing, promoting housing counseling and homeownership reservation initiatives. B. Rental Housing - Affordable rental assistance programs may include tenant based assistance, facility/project based assistance, security deposit and short-term rental assistance, financing to non-profit and for - profit developers for the construction of affordable rentals, donation of County owned property to eligible non -profits including CHDOs, and grants for new construction of affordable rental housing units. SHIP funds can be used to meet the SAIL local contribution requirement C. Special Needs Housing - The Community and Human Services Division of the County will ensure that all housing programs funded by the County include set -asides or priorities for special needs populations. Special needs populations include the homeless, veterans with a service connected disability, developmentally and physically disabled, and children aging out of foster care. Priority or set -aside may include units that serve specific special needs populations through access to support services and/or unit features that ensure accessibility. D. Housing Sustainability - The Community and Human Services Division will insure that funding priority and consideration will be given to housing construction projects that include "green" or sustainable features such as solar panels, rain water capture and storage, tank -less water heaters, high efficiently insulation and architectural features that enhance energy savings. Projects where a portion or all of the units are designated as smoke free will also be given priority consideration for funding. EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY E. Fair Housing/ Accessibility - Any entity or individual receiving housing assistance or incentives through the County's housing programs must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of I �idt1D� Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 39 a_WAMLex__ I 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 when applicable. No entity or individual that receives housing assistance from Collier County may discriminate or deny access to housing on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. F. Disaster Housing Recovery — Historically, funding has been allocated to Collier County by the State and Federal governments in response to declared disasters. Collier County was awarded over $14 million in state and federal disaster funding for Hurricane Wilma. This funding was expended for the course of seven years following to repair and replace housing units destroyed by the storm. It is anticipated that Collier County will received significant disaster funding as a result of Hurricane Irma. Collier County also maintains a Disaster Housing Strategy that was approved by the BCC in July of 2010. This strategy details specific actions, coordination, and responsibilities that are implements in post disaster housing recovery. Figure 17. Chart of Existing Grant Resources Resource HUD- Infrastructure, land $1.5M CDBG acquisition, purchase assistance HUD- Construction or rehab of $350,000 HOME units FHFC- Purchase assistance, rehab $1.51VI SHIP or new construction Community Land Trust and Public Lands This Subcommittee recommends specific publicly owned properties to pursue for housing development and the creation of a Community Land Trust (CLT). 1. Establish a dedicated land trust administered by a non-profit entity (public -private partnership) A. Accept donations of land in -lieu of the Mixed Income Housing requirement. B. Hold land in perpetuity (99 yr land lease) for the development and preservation of affordable housing stock. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 40 C. Acquire land using in -lieu of fees or other stable funding sources (See attached Community Land Trust information in the Appendix) D. Provide initial funding in the amount of $100,000 for establishment and development of a new Community Land Trust in Collier County. 2. Identify sources of land and process for incorporating parcels into the land trust 3. It is recommended that the BCC continue its current public policy whereby any property considered surplus land (without a designated use or which the designated use is no longer needed) must first be offered to any public entity for a use that is a public benefit. If there is more than one entity interested, the County evaluates and weights the level of importance and need of the agencies and allocates the land to the highest and greatest uses. If there are no interested parties, the parcel is sold through open bidding or included in a RFP for development. 4. It is recommended that the BCC adopt a new public policy that places priority on affordable housing in all future public land acquisitions and encourages the co -location of housing and public facilities. Community Land Trusts for Collier County Under traditional homeownership subsidy programs, the subsidized home can be sold at the market appreciated sales price, with recapture of the original subsidy upon resale. Because of market appreciation, the recaptured subsidy is wholly inadequate for the local government to get another family into homeownership. The local government or other subsidy provider must then expend an even greater amount of subsidy to provide a homeownership opportunity to the next homebuyer. It is this massive drain on already depleted public resources which is driving local governments to increasingly explore the community land trust option. Using a community land trust (CLT) is a way to stop losing ground both figuratively and literally. The nonprofit CLT retains ownership of the land to remove this subsidized housing from the speculative market so that the homes remain permanently affordable. The CLT approach results in permanent nonprofit ownership of the land, which is leased to lower - income households, who receive assistance to buy homes developed on the CLT land. The CLT transfers title of the house to an income qualified buyer but retains title of the underlying land. By excluding the price of the land (which in some parts of Florida, dwarfs the costs of the improvements), and arranging additional subsidies (such as SHIP) to assist the buyer's purchase of the house, the overall purchase price is made affordable and the monthly mortgage PITI payments are often more affordable than renting. CLTs also Using a community land trust (CLT) is a way to stop losing ground both figuratively and literally. provide an excellent source of rental housing, often time in single family homes, which are attractive to families with children or elderly parents. In return for the significant subsidies required to develop this affordable homeownership opportunity, the CLT imposes resale restrictions on the improvements through the 99-year ground lease, which ensures that the property will remain affordable in perpetuity. The owner of a CLT home is required to sell to a similarly qualified buyer at a restricted price, determined by a resale formula found in the ground lease. The typical ground lease mandates a resale price based on the homeowner's down payment, plus the sum of principal payments made on the mortgage, and limits appreciation to one quarter of what appreciation would have been for the property if owned in fee simple. By dramatically limiting appreciation, CLT homes remain affordable to new homebuyers without the need for significant additional subsidies. (Exhibit H) Governance and Operations The typical community land trust board is made up of three groups in equal representation: • Resident members — CLT homeowners • General members — residents of the community that do not own CLT homes • Public members — those who represent the public interest). Public members can include elected officials, municipal staff, and/or representatives from other local nonprofits. Boards range in size from less than 10 to over 20. The size and makeup of the Board will depend upon the specific goals of the land trust and the makeup of the community. The size and election process of the Board will be included in the Bylaws. In most cases, CLTs operate as independent organizations. In the early stage, staff may be comprised completely of volunteers. However, eventually paid staff will be needed to carry out the day-to-day functions of the CLT and implement the direction of the Board. Most nonprofit organizations start with either an Executive Director or Administrator. Starting with an Executive Director is to look for someone with long-term managerial skills or the potential to develop them. Starting with an Administrator usually calls for someone with more limited yet important organizational skills to carry on certain tasks and responsibilities for the short term until an Executive Director can be hired. Ultimately, a basic staff Community Land Trusts in Florida Community land trusts began to emerge in Florida in the early 2000s in response to the housing boom and rapid rise in purchase prices at that time. There is no enabling legislation required for community land trusts. They are Florida nonprofit organizations, usually with section 501(c)(3) IRS tax exemption approval. However, community land trusts should employ the assistance of attorneys experienced in corporate and real estate law for both start up and operations. Current Status Community land trusts are now well -established in Florida. The table below summarizes the current state of several of the state's community land trusts: Figure 18. Land Trusts in Florida Community Land South Florida Neighborhood Community Trust Name: Community Renaissance, Land Trust of Land Trust Inc. Palm Beach County, Inc. Year Founded 2006 2005 2006 Geographic Area Broward and West Palm Palm Beach served Miami -Dade Beach County Counties Number of Staff 4 6 2 Number of 8 13 29 Ownership Units Number of 55 80 82 Rental Units Anticipated At least 6 36 rental and 32 Growth over additional 25 ownership next two years homeownership homeownership units (through 2019) units (deed restricted per local government program) Commercial None owned at None within the Owns a small property this time, but land trust commercial ownership and considering co- space within plans working or a rental office space for community non -profits Annual budgets for these CLTs range from around $800,000 to $1.6 million. Funding sources include local government grants (HOME funds), foundation grants, ground lease fees, bank grants and lines of credit, membership fees Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 43 and other charitable donations. It should be noted that of the three CLTs in the chart above, only one offers membership to the community and collects membership fees. With the resurgence of the housing market, the second wave of CLTs is developing in various communities throughout the state. Some communities are looking at regional community land trusts. The South Florida Community Land Trust stands to serve as the model for a regional CLT, with its expansion from Broward into Miami -Dade County. Also, the South Florida Community Land Trust Network serves as a model for regional CLT consortiums, as member organizations throughout south Florida are able to leverage resources to grow their individual footprints, expecting to reach a combined 374 units by the end of 2017. Recommendations for Collier County 1. A Community Land Trust in Collier County should be established to manage a proposed Mixed Income Housing Program established by ordinance, which includes mixed income and linkage fee requirements. 2. All donations of land in -lieu under the program would go to the Community Land Trust to hold in perpetuity for the development and preservation of a stock of housing that is affordable. 3. The Community Land Trust would also be responsible for monitoring compliance with the Mixed Income Housing Program ordinance, particularly adherence to restrictive covenants that require sale or lease of properties to income -eligible households at affordable prices. 4. Additionally, the County may decide to deed any surplus land suitable for affordable housing development to the Community Land Trust. 5. It is further recommended that the municipalities of the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island be encouraged to adopt similar initiatives or contribute themselves to the Community Land Trust. Public Lands Review Numerous meetings have been conducted at both staff and committee levels to review publicly owned lands where housing might be developed or co -located with government uses. The initial list of thousands of properties was reviewed and analyzed with these top four (4) properties being recommended for housing development through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Additional analysis for each site is available in Appendix Exhibit I. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 44 A. Bayshore CRA 17+ acre parcel is currently out for development proposals. Proposals were received on August 31, 2017. A Selection committee & CRA Board will review and make recommendations to the Board. B. Bembridge PUD - Public Utilities has performed a feasibility study to relocate Master Pump Station 313 from Countryside to the 5 acre Bembridge site. Public Utilities has the funds to reimburse Impact Fees for the parcel. Countryside was the original proposed site for MPS 313 expansion but the residents were opposed so the Bembridge site was offered as an alternative. Impact fee funds would need to be paid to acquire the parcel for housing. The Bembridge site was previously the subject of a workforce housing RFP Competition and extensive planning and design efforts have already been completed for the site. C. Randall Curve parcel is over 47 acres and was deeded to the County for use as a public park and has a Statutory Deed. With the development of a regional park in the area this site is not needed for a park. Mixed use development may be proposed for the site, of which housing that is affordable may be one component. D. Grey Oaks/Livingston Road parcel is 21 acres along the west side of Livingston Road and a part of the Grey Oaks PUD. The 21 acres owned by the County would need to be removed from the Grey Oaks PUD to be developed for housing. The site is central to jobs and employment centers. It is recommended that RFPs be developed for the construction of housing that is affordable on parcels 8, C, & D above. Transportation Enhancements Transportation to and from employment centers in Collier, or outlying communities, puts a strain on the existing infrastructure based on the jobs - housing imbalance that exists in Southwest Florida. Currently, the average headway (the average interval of time between buses pausing at a given stop on a route) in Collier County is 1.5 hours, with the shortest headway at 45 minutes. For transit riders dependent on a bus service to get to work or to other services, the infrequency of the service can make transportation and access an increased difficulty. For riders who might have multiple stops or transfers, those headways can change what would be a short car ride into an all -morning or all evening commute. If directed effectively, however, the transit service can be an extraordinary asset for the Collier County workforce, potentially reducing the group's commute and car ownership costs. According to the Federal Highway Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 45 Administration (FHWA), the average American family spends 19 percent of its household budget on transportation. For families that are in transit -efficient locations, this cost decreases to 9 ...the workforce percent; for those in auto -dependent communities, it increases to 25 percent. Thus, transportation costs can directly add or subtract substantial of Collier County funds from families' household budgets, thereby increasing cost burdens or providing more flexibility in household budgets. needs a range of Recommendation #1: Integrate Bus Routes with Affordable Housing Locations transportation 1. Activity: Identify transportation corridors for multi -family development. options that align 2. Activity: Implement park -and -ride systems. 3. Activity: Explore bus rapid transit and express service lines with and support According to the Collier County MPO's 2014 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Study —a complementary report to the 2012 Comprehensive Pathways a range of Plan —a survey of 478 respondents resulted in 62 percent reporting that they had felt "threatened for personal safety during bicycling or walking housing choices trips." For Collier County to reduce transportation road costs, effectively move the workforce across the community, and create healthy avenues for residents to engage in civic activities, this number must be mitigated and in a variety of the recommendations of both studies should be advanced. The Comprehensive Pathways Plan is being updated, with completion areas." -UL1 anticipated in mid-2018. The draft recommends aligning new pathways construction (bicycle and pedestrian facilities) with transit routes, stops and Panel Report transfer centers and identifies bicycle/pedestrian Safety Focus Areas based on crash statistics. Steps toward enhancing the use of transit, bicycling, and walking for at least a portion of daily trips should be encouraged. Recommendation #2: Enhance Bike Lane and Pedestrian Systems 1. Activity: Implement the Comprehensive Pathways Plan for the county 2. Activity: Enhance safety focusing on pedestrian and cyclist and vulnerable road users. With smart phone apps and online connectivity, fantastic and successful tools for ride sharing are available that can be conveniently and affordably accessed. The county should explore promoting such resources and working Recommendation #3: Ride Sharing Options for Enhanced Mobility 1. Activity: Create Ride -Sharing Option Collier Area Transit (CAT) is serving an increasingly vital need in the county "Providing a more as workforce demands intensify and traffic concerns grow. However, if the integrated network of service is going to be able to keep up with the demands already placed on it, a critical element is that the service has a sustainable source of revenue mobility not only it can leverage and depend on. Given the expenses of highways ($4.6 million provides workforce per lane mile), prioritizing proactive investments in transit today could save the county significant funds in the future. In addition, given the growing bike access but also provides and pedestrian needs of the county and the multitude of community access to healthier benefits that those amenities provide, a revenue source should also be identified and provided for such additional capacity lifestyles. In addition, with estimated road Recommendation #4: Revenue for Transit and Alternative Mobility 1. Activity: Establish Sustainable, Secure Revenue for Transit and costs averaging 4.6 Alternative Mobility. 2. Activity: Implement a Recurring Revenue Source (i.e.: Mobility Fee; million per lane -mile, MSTU; etc.) 3. Activity: Establish uniform standards to apply impact of identifying proactive development on Transit; approaches that will Transit and other forms of alternative transportation are critical for many reduce congestion and renters. Renters are more likely than other households to depend on transportation modes other than their own cars to reach work, shopping, stress on roadways will and other activities. This is particularly true for seniors, the disabled and save the county those with low incomes. Seven percent of Florida households have no vehicle at home. However, this number increases to 14 percent for renters ' significant funds in the and to 18 percent for renters with incomes between 30 and 60 percent of AMI. The share of no -vehicle households continues to increase for extremely future." low income renters, especially older households, until a majority of ELI - ULI Panel Report (pg 29) (Extremely Low Income) renters over age 75 have no access to a vehicle at home. As Collier County's population continues to age there will be an increased need for affordable rental housing with access to transit, paratransit, and other forms of alternative transportation. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 47 Communication and Outreach/Engagement The Communication and Engagement subcommittee has made recommendations to help educate the community on the need for and importance of housing that is affordable to a wide range of individuals and families that live and work in Collier County. There is a need to continue to communicate the need for more rental apartment availability ... it appears that point can't be stressed enough, particularly with millennial workforce. Their recommendations are: 1. Create an online, near -real-time updated Current Inventory of Affordable Housing Availability (purchase and rental) along with links to Information & Resources, outlining all available programs. 2. Recommend the County create an easy to find, one click "housing - focused" website briefly explaining and connecting currently available housing resources. Recommend that if the Commissioners don't want to add staff that they contract with a 3rd party to keep up the website and provide a "human element" ("Housing Resource Specialist") that focuses every day on helping citizens find housing solutions and opportunities. A. Develop & release an RFP (late fall 2017) for an agency to provide both a custom website and staffing to support the Housing One -Stop. The website development alone with the associated algorithms could cost close to $80,000, plus associated staff costs. B. Provide initial funding of $100,000 for development and nonprofit management 3. Develop a Marketing, PR & Communications Plan to continue to educate the community on who needs housing and is having trouble finding it; why do we need to address the situation; and what's the impact of no action; and keep the public aware of efforts and impact. A. Educate residents and "change the narrative" to present affordable housing as a necessity and a shared public responsibility B. Create PSA's, short videos and social media and other vehicles to continually educate the public on housing affordability issues. Show images of a nurse, teacher, bank manager, sheriff's deputy, mid -level managers, etc. and explain that we need them, and they need housing that's affordable. Images of the elderly and other working citizens. Have Dr. Weiss (nurses & healthcare), Dr. Patton (teachers) and Sheriff Rambosk (sheriff's deputies) make brief video statements on Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 48 Affordable housing is an essential part of eve ry community's infrastructure. It is one of the cornerstones to creating a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community. how housing challenges are beginning to impact their ability to recruit and keep staff, and that when those staff live outside our community, we lose their spending and their potential off -work contributions in our neighborhoods (coach, volunteer, youth leader, etc.). C. A marketing campaign involving surveying for baseline understanding, executing a marketing plan to raise awareness and understanding, and then post -marketing surveying to determine if we've moved the needle. The goal is to inform & encourage more citizens to feel more inclined to support such housing (Can 1 Be Your Neighbor? Yes in My Back Yard campaigns), and realize the benefit of being able to provide housing for a range of workforce needs that impact their lives and build community D. Begin a campaign to clarify what we mean by "affordable housing" and "workforce housing" — using both short videos and social media to define the issue and who it impacts. This effort could have a County component explaining the issue (not campaigning, but explaining), and a business component that would engage the private sector — for instance, engage the Chamber's GAIN and Leadership Collier classes and alumni as the "face of workforce housing," demonstrating the quality of our workforce members (who currently often can't afford to live in Collier County). E. Plus, we need to show what 16-30 housing units per acre looks like, in terms of apartments, townhouses and homes. This seems to be a constant sticking point. Also, we learned how there will need to be more caregivers (the federal minimums are increasing) to take care of our aging (and increasingly income -constrained) population, yet we have a shortage of housing that would be affordable to caregiver staff. Can we assume they will live outside of Collier County and commute each day in large enough numbers to meet the demand? 4. Also consider solutions that don't involve construction. For example, Hillsborough County offers assistance with down payments. Plus, some resort communities include connections to VRBO properties as an access to transitional housing that's affordable (an owner may be willing to do a 1 year rental, at an overall lower price than the seasonal rate, but making the same amount of money as a 6-month rental). Anything that could be done to provide more awareness of properties that are already in existence. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 49 Most Critical Need and Combination of Strategies The need for affordable rental housing is one of the major challenges for our community. Businesses that are recruiting for professionals or those employers that hire seasonal health care or hospitality employees, have difficulty finding vacant rental units for their permanent relocation, or seasonal employment. Existing rental communities have a very low vacancy rate of 3%-4% which is insufficient to accommodate population growth or current residents in need of a new rental units. This current situation also imposes huge burdens on renters if units are taken out of service such as an apartment complex fire (Bear Creek, April 2017) or a natural disaster such as Hurricane Irma. The County currently administers some State & Federal grant programs that target rental housing. In the 1990's and early 2000's there were a number of apartment communities built utilizing programs including Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program, Federal Home Loan Bank Board funding and other resources. However, since the mid-2000's we have not seen new rental apartment communities come online as the county's population continues to grow. In addition, apartment communities built utilizing LIHTC and other programs regularly convert to market rate housing after the subsidies and use restrictions expire (30ys+/-). We have recently "lost" five apartment communities whose subsidies have expired and five more communities' subsidies will expire between 2022-2028. Each apartment community that converts to market rate has the ability to impact 50 to over 250 households. To accommodate population and associated employment growth, many of the strategies proposed in this plan will help to increase the supply of much needed rental housing. These strategies include the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB), Mixed -Income Housing, Community Land Trust (CLT), Linkage Fees, local Housing Trust Fund (HTF), Impact Fee Discounts, and other programs. Many of these programs are intended to be layered to provide sufficient incentives for developers to build much needed rental housing. Utilizing the Affordable Housing Density Bonus program (AHDB), rental developments are built at higher multi -family densities. The Mixed Income Housing requirement will produce units at various income ranges to be included in market rate communities, with a set aside for seniors and special needs, or opt to build a housing development off -site. Funds in the local housing trust fund (HTF), including linkage fees, percent of sales tax/ad valorum, and donations, could be used to provide a local match to aid apartment developments competing for state and federal funding, thereby boosting their chances of award. In addition, rental developments could be built on land owned by a non-profit community land trust (CLT) which would result in long-term (99 years) affordability. Together, all of these programs, and others, will help the county increase the supply of rental housing that is affordable to accommodate its future population and employment, growth. Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 50 Closing the Gap In an effort to address the housing affordability crisis in Collier County, local ' government and the business community must partner to quickly implement some short term, medium, and long term initiatives. To paraphrase the ULI, now is the time for action. The future sustainability, livability, vibrancy, and quality of life of our community is at stake. The following table demonstrates how this plan addresses the current and future need for housing that is affordable for our workforce and low-income seniors and special needs populations. Figure 19. Housing Response Model Units to be Produced by Strategy Household Housing TOTAL Tenure Target Household Income in Dollars (3. Rent/Purchase price Remaining Increased Increased Trust Fund with Linkage Mixed Income Housing (15% of Land Trust Grant Funding Projected Income Level person Units Needed Density Certainly Fee Approvals) (est 203c.) ($50k/unit) Units household) ($50k/unit) Produced Rental Extremely Low Less than30% $18,840 $471 536 4 0 3 5 15 20 47 Rental Very Low 31%.50% $31,400 $785 550 50 50 20 10 40 40 210 owner/Rental Low 51%-80% $50,240 $1256/$115,000 532 75 75 20 55 45 20 290 Owner Moderate 81%-120% $75,360 $200,000 47 100 150 5 55 20 10 340 Owner Gap 121%-140% $90,432 $250,000 r/a 50 271 2 55 0 0 378 Total 1,665 279 546 50 180 120 90 1265 Implementation Plan/Schedule The Community Housing Plan recommendations to be undertaken are: Immediate Action • Approve the Community Housing Plan • Adopt New Definition of Affordable Housing — Housing Affordability • Adopt new Housing Demand Methodology • Direct staff to advertise Mixed Income Housing Ordinance • Commission a nexus study and direct staff to advertise Linkage Fee Ordinance • Amend the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) program • Reinstate the Housing Trust Fund and adopt funding sources • Advocate for full funding of the Sadowski Housing Trust Fund • Adopt a policy to address housing that is affordable in future public land acquisitions. • Prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) making County owned sites available for housing development. • Adopt amended Impact Fee Relief program Short Term (1-3 Years) • Partner with a local nonprofit organization on the creation of a Community Land Trust and provide financial assistance of $100,000 for the first two years. • Create a concurrent zoning review/approval process to reduce the cost of affordable housing construction and expedite new housing • Develop a marketing & communications plan and expand educational programs including household budgeting • Update the Land Development Code to include new housing programs and definitions • Update the inventory of affordable housing units regularly • Fund the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) through local initiatives • Develop guidelines to require mixed income residential housing in activity centers • Adopt public policies regarding use of County owned land • Provide administrative approvals of certain affordable housing applications • Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 52 • Continuously review and monitor the LDC and Growth Management Plan to update and ensure the goal of increasing housing affordability is being met • Develop an administrative process for commercial to residential conversions • Build Developer Capacity • Build Housing Development Corporation Capacity Long Term (4-10 years) • Continue to conduct an annual review of the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) and report on expenditures and accomplishments • Review and adjust the mixed income housing, Linkage Fee, and Density Bonus programs as needed to balance the needs of residents, developers and the current market • Continue to monitor all housing initiatives to ensure that the goal of increased housing affordability is being met • Continuously review and monitor all affordable housing incentive programs to ensure they are on track and meeting goals • Continuously review and monitor the affordable housing inventory, marketing & communications plan, and other educational tools and programs to ensure the goal are being met Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/2/17 - Page 53 ULI Collier Housing Assessment Collier County Florida January 29—February 3, 2017 Urban Land Institute Collier County Florida Expanding Housing Affordability January 29—February 3, 2017 Urban Land Insiituie About the Urban Land Institute THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE is a global, member - driven organization comprising more than 40,000 real estate and urban development professionals dedicated to advancing the Institute's mission of providing leadership in the responsible use of land and creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. ULI's interdisciplinary membership represents all aspects of the industry, including developers, property owners, investors, architects, urban planners, public officials, real estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, finan- ciers, and academics. Established in 1936, the Institute has a presence in the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific regions, with members in 76 countries. The extraordinary impact that ULI makes on land use deci- sion making is based on its members sharing expertise on a variety of factors affecting the built environment, includ- ing urbanization, demographic and population changes, new economic drivers, technology advancements, and environmental concerns. Peer -to -peer learning is achieved through the knowledge shared by members at thousands of convenings each year that reinforce ULI's position as a global authority on land use and real estate. In 2016 alone, more than 3,200 events were held in 340 cities around the world. Drawing on the work of its members, the Institute recog- nizes and shares best practices in urban design and devel- opment for the benefit of communities around the globe. More information is available at uli.org. Follow ULI on Twit- ter, Facebook, Linkedln, and Instagram. Cover photos: Wilhelm Rosenkranz (top); Beth Silverman (bottom). © 2017 by the Urban Land Institute 2001 L Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036-4948 All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the contents without written permission of the copy- right holder is prohibited. 2 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report About ULI Advisory Services THE GOAL OF THE ULI ADVISORY SERVICES pro- gram is to bring the finest expertise in the real estate field to bear on complex land use planning and development projects, programs, and policies. Since 1947, this program has assembled well over 600 ULI-member teams to help sponsors find creative, practical solutions for issues such as downtown redevelopment, land management strate- gies, evaluation of development potential, growth manage- ment, community revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, military base reuse, provision of low-cost and affordable housing, and asset management strategies, among other matters. A wide variety of public, private, and nonprofit or- ganizations have contracted for ULI's advisory services. Each panel team is composed of highly qualified profes- sionals who volunteer their time to ULI. They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and are screened to ensure their objectivity. ULI's interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic look at development problems. A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience chairs each panel. The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is intensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day composed of a tour of the site and meetings with sponsor representatives, a day of hour-long interviews of typically 50 to 100 key community representatives, and two days of formulating recommendations. Long nights of discussion precede the panel's conclusions. On the final day on site, the panel makes an oral presentation of its findings and conclusions to the sponsor. A written report is prepared and published. Because the sponsoring entities are responsible for significant preparation before the panel's visit, including sending extensive briefing materials to each member and arranging for the panel to meet with key local community members and stakeholders in the project under consider- ation, participants in ULI's five-day panel assignments are able to make accurate assessments of a sponsor's issues and to provide recommendations in a compressed amount of time. A major strength of the program is ULI's unique ability to draw on the knowledge and expertise of its members, including land developers and owners, public officials, academics, representatives of financial institutions, and others. In fulfillment of the mission of the Urban Land Institute, this Advisory Services panel report is intended to provide objective advice that will promote the responsible use of land to enhance the environment. ULI Program Staff Thomas W. Eitler Senior Vice President, Advisory Services Beth Silverman Senior Director, Advisory Services Paul Angelone Director, Advisory Services Steven Gu Associate, Advisory Services James A. Mulligan Senior Editor David James Rose EditorlManager Sara Proehl, Publications Professionals LLC Manuscript Editor Betsy Van Buskirk Creative Director Deanna Pineda, Muse Advertising Design Graphic Designer Craig Chapman Senior Director, Publishing Operations Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 3 Acknowledgments ON BEHALF OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE, the panel would like to thank our sponsors, the Board of Coun- ty Commissioners of Collier County —Penny Taylor, Donna Fiala, Andy Solis, Burt L. Saunders, and William L. McDan- iel Jr. The panel would also like to thank the city of Naples, the city of Marco Island, Everglades City, the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and the Commu- nity Housing Plan Stakeholders Committee for inviting the panel to examine housing affordability challenges in the county, and it thanks the community at large for being so warm and welcoming. Special appreciation goes to Kimberly Grant, director of Community and Housing Services; Cormac Giblin, Grants and Housing Development manager; Steve Carnell, head of Public Services; County Manager Leo Ochs; and the rest of the county staff members for the time and effort they have devoted to the project. In addition, the panel expresses its appreciation to Steve Hruby, Nick Kouloheras, and the other members of the affordable housing committee for their assistance and support throughout the engagement. The panel also thanks ULI Southwest Florida, which will continue to be a local resource for Collier County moving forward. Finally, the panel would like to thank the approximately 90 residents, business and community leaders, and repre- sentatives from the Greater Collier County community who shared their perspectives and insights during the panel's stakeholder interviews. 4 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Contents ULIPanel and Project Staff...............................................................................................................................6 Background and the Panel's Assignment..........................................................................................................7 Study Area and Surrounding Context.................................................................................................................9 CurrentConditions........................................................................................................................................11 Vision: What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up?.....................................................................................17 Implementation.............................................................................................................................................. 20 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................37 Appendix A: Implementation Schedule............................................................................................................38 Appendix B: Examples of County Housing Initiatives.........................................................................................39 Appendix C: City of Austin, 2014 Robert C. Larson Policy Leadership Award Winner.........................................40 Aboutthe Panel.............................................................................................................................................43 Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 5 ULl Panel and Project Staff Panel Chair Philip Payne Principal and Chief Executive Officer Ginkgo Residential Charlotte, North Carolina I' MO N IM111170 Hilary Chapman Housing Program Manager Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Washington, D.C. Ian Colgan Assistant Executive Director Oklahoma City Housing Authority Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Joanne Fiebe Florida Center for Community Design and Research School of Architecture and Community Design, University of South Florida Tampa, Florida Lacy McManus Director of Program Development Greater New Orleans Inc. New Orleans, Louisiana John Orfield Principal BOKA Powell Dallas, Texas Cassie Wright Project Manager Urban Ventures LLC Denver, Colorado ULI Project Staff Beth Silverman Senior Director, Advisory Services Steven Gu Associate, Advisory Services 6 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Background and the Panel's Assignment COLLIER COUNTY HAS BEEN DESCRIBED as "unique" and "one of the most beautiful places in the world." Although the community is unique, the issue of housing affordability is not. In fact, virtually every commu- nity in the nation is, to some degree, struggling with this issue. It is especially true in retirement and resort commu- nities, which have significant numbers of service workers and high real estate values. The issue of housing affordability is not new. The panel is impressed with the time, the effort, and the quality of work that has been invested in this subject by the commission- ers and Collier County staff. Many of the panel's recom- mendations mirror and ratify the work that has already been done. From the panel's perspective, the real need in Collier County is for action and implementation. This implementa- tion will require political will and leadership. In addition, the community at large will need to prepare for and adapt to the growth that is certain to occur in the county. Not all of the panel's recommendations will be popular within the community at large, but the panel believes such recom- mendations are essential to the long-term viability and sustainability of Collier County. An integral part of this strategic vision will be developing a plan that ensures that affordable housing will be available to all of the county's citizens. The Panel's Assignment There is no question that Collier County has a housing affordabilityproblem. The highly desirable area is home to millionaires and billionaires from around the world. The county also has a sizable second -home retirement com- munity. Like many affluent resort communities across the United States, those influences have created a develop- ment pattern that caters to select segments of the com- munity. The local economy is focused on retail, hospitality, services, and agriculture; however, high housing costs have priced out much of the workforce needed for the county to function. As a result, large numbers of employ- ees are commuting long distances to and from work, and employers are having an increasingly difficult time recruit- ing and retaining workers. Community leaders are seeking strategic recommendations on how to address the issues surrounding housing affordability in Collier County. In March 2015 and again in March 2016, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) held an affordable housing workshop. The BCC has also received several recommen- dations for programs and incentives to address housing affordability in Collier County, including establishing an affordable housing trust fund, providing even greater density incentives to support affordable housing develop- ment, and providing inclusionary zoning with pay -in -lieu -of options. The larger Collier County community has come Although Collier County is the site of multimillion -dollar homes, it faces a significant housing affordability problem. Part of the challenge stems from a significant lack of supply in terms of housing type and level of affordability throughout the county. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 7 together around this issue. In October 2015, the United Way sponsored a community -wide forum about affordable housing. The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors has also established a work group to address this issue. Collier County has invited the ULI Advisory Services panel to help the county develop a community -wide approach to address housing affordability issues. Collier County has asked the panel to focus on the follow- ing key questions: ■ Why is it important for the county to have a balanced supply of housing, in terms of type, tenure, attainability, access, and distribution? ■ According to key stakeholders, including residents, what are the major obstacles to producing and sustaining affordable housing and workforce housing in Collier County? What can be done to mitigate those obstacles? ■ What are the stakeholders' perceptions of affordable and workforce housing and of the existing tools and programs in place to support it? What are stakeholders' recommendations for change? ■ How can public policy encourage the redevelopment of underused areas of the developed coastal area that includes affordable and workforce housing while ensur- ing that such housing will also be a component of new development in the urban and rural fringe areas. ■ What policies, strategies, and best practices have worked in places similar to Collier County that the panel Collier County circa 1930-1945. m would recommend that the county implement as it produces affordable housing units in the county's urban and rural areas? Summary of the Panel's Recommendations It was evident to the panel during its interviews with com- munity stakeholders; its review of comments compiled from a countywide, online, public survey; and its multiple study tours throughout Collier County that much work has already been done to address housing affordability chal- lenges. The panel hopes this report not only will serve as a blueprint for implementation, but also will help solidify an ongoing strategy to meet the county's spectrum of housing affordability needs. With such goals in mind, the panel's primary recommendations include the following: ■ Create a vision for the future of the community. ■ Recognize that housing affordability affects all segments of the community. ■ Increase the county's supply of affordable housing (in- cluding rental housing) by adding to the current supply and by maintaining existing affordable units. ■ Adopt a smart code that distinguishes between the urban and rural parts of the county. ■ Reactivate the Affordable Housing Trust Fund —and use it. ■ Recognize that transportation is part of the housing affordability solution. Develop solutions that link housing with access to transportation options. ■ Establish transportation corridors to target mixed - income, multifamily housing development. ■ Consider establishing an enhanced minimum -wage ordinance. ■ Raise public awareness, educate, and communicate with the community about housing affordability. a A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Study Area and Surrounding Context LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST END of the Florida peninsula, Collier County is the largest county by land area in the state. The county contains a variety of differ- ent communities including the city of Naples, inland Im- mokalee, and Marco Island, as well as four large nationally protected environmental areas. According to the 2010 census, the population breaks down to 65.7 percent non - Hispanic whites, 25.9 percent Latino, 6.6 percent African American, and 1.1 percent Asian. This diverse community, both geographically and ethnically, makes Collier County unique when compared with similar tourist destinations. However, this diversity has also led to housing issues throughout the county. Key Focus Areas Although the county was examined at large, the panel was asked to focus on the following key areas: ■ The city of Naples is an incorporated municipality bordering the Gulf of Mexico on the west and the unincorporated Collier County urban area on the east. Naples measures just 14 square miles and has some of the highest housing costs in the country. The limited number of commercial areas consists primarily of retail centers and financial institutions. ■ The urban area is located between the city of Naples and the rural lands (which run from the coast to about ten miles inland). Most of the housing, commercial, re- tail, and other services are located and permitted in this area. The urban area is characterized by large, planned, gated communities and by strip -mall developments. Charlotte Harlj& FoV - HENDRB?Ne qla �1Nest Palm Beach Cape I PAL BEA B yM n lea LEE r - alee ,- - -, 441 -�--- rga Naples ort Lauderdale CO LIER BRO WARD �ti - ollywood _, 41 Big Cypress GULF N PRES , �i I Tamia, iami OF E -4 of DnDE G Bisc�yne NP M E X I C O Hoineste Whitewater Be -' .l b' A TLANTIC E lades NP OCEAN BAY ■ 1 � Key West ' Located in southwest Florida, Collier County is the largest county by land area in the state. Collier County Florida <— Immokalee area Z. - - • -- Rural lands/Estates area t: ■ The rural lands and the Estates area are located - W -` z between the urban area and the more environmentally_i sensitive areas to the east. The Estates area is largely The panel's study area encompasses the entire county. However, key focus areas within the study composed of platted, subdivided lots that range from include the city of Naples, the urban area, the rural lands, the Estates area, and the Immokalee area. Urban '%} area ` City of 1 Naples 0 X O Collier County, Florida, January 29-February 3, 2017 9 about one acre to more than 20 acres. During the Florida Land Grab of the 1950s, land parcels were divided and sold, creating the largest subdivision in the world with tens of thousands of home sites. Designated as privately owned, single-family lots, the Estates area's commercial and retail opportunities are limited. West of the Estates are the rural lands, which are primarily farmland and environmentally sensitive areas that are designated for future cities and towns. The first town to be built in this area is Ave Maria. Once the project is built out, it will have up to 11,000 residences and 1.7 million square feet of retail, office, and business park uses spread across its 4,000 acres. Ave Maria is located at the intersection of Oil Well Road and Camp Keals Road in eastern Collier County. The main entrance —on Oil Well just west of Camp Keals—leads to the town center. ■ The Immokalee area is an agricultural center of the county. It is located in the northeast section of the county and is characterized by residential, commercial, and industrial development. A significant percentage of the affordable housing units available in Collier County are located in the Immokalee area. Habitat for Humanity development projects, such as Carson Lakes and Faith Landing, are built here, as are other affordable housing developments, including Hatcher's Preserve. 10 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Current Conditions AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS MANY definitions and perceptions. Oftentimes, the multitude of definitions and opinions creates confusion when people are attempting to both study and solve issues of housing affordability in any given community or geography. Many definitions of afford- able housing refer to a percentage of area median income (AMI) as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Other definitions are careful to delineate between "affordable" and "workforce" housing — often defined as above or below 80 percent of AMI. Regard- less of the definition used in the affordable housing industry, for most people what represents "affordable" is more of a gut feeling that is influenced by their daily context. Throughout the study process, the panel consistently heard about Collier County's housing affordability problem. However, the panel also perceived that there is a lack of clarity and agreement about the definition of affordable EMYL. oWNG Xc kDPV I j rw What Is Affordable Housing? The Center for Urban Pedagogy, a New York City nonprofit organization dedicated to using the power of design and art to increase meaningful civic engagement, created the guidebook What Is Affordable Housing? with pictures and diagrams to help explain affordable housing issues in New York City. housing, which is causing poor communication, misunder- standings, and misaligned goals relative to the topic. Ac- cordingly, the panel recommends reframing the terminology of housing affordability around the concept of cost burden. Reframing the Idea of Housing Affordability HUD defines "cost burdened" as the following: Families who pay more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, which includes mortgage principal and interest, property tax, and homeowners insurance payments. Other definitions add other housing costs, such as utilities, condominium or homeowners association fees, and ongo- ing maintenance or repairs, but the overall concept is that if a household is paying more than 30 percent of its gross income toward housing, then that is a concern, and from a policy standpoint, such cost may need to be addressed. The advantage of using the cost -burden terminology is that it does not put the focus on income alone; instead, it examines income as compared to housing cost. Therefore, it has a localized outcome that recognizes the different housing markets that exist nationally, regionally, and even within a single city or county. The 30 percent cost -burden threshold has been around for several decades. The idea was originally established by the 1937 National Housing Act, which also created the public housing program. At that time, eligibility to live in public housing was based on income limits, rather than maximum rents; a tenant's income could not exceed five to six times the rent. Since the late 1930s, the 30 percent income limit for rental housing has been reevaluated and Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 11 Glossary of Housing Affordability Terms Affordable housing: Generally, a home or apartment occupied by a household that pays 30 percent or less of its gross income toward its mortgage or rent. The term is also widely used to refer to housing that is subsidized or rent -regulated and that is occupied by a household that is "low-income" (see later). The term used in this manner can be limiting —there are growing numbers of households that are within a range of incomes, that live in unsubsidized or unregulated market -rate housing, and that have a problem with "housing affordability" (see later). Area median income (AMI): The median household income of each metropolitan statistical area (MSA) adjusted for family size. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes AMIs annually. AMI is used to determine the eligibility of applicants for most housing assistance programs. Extremely low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed the higher of the federal poverty level or 30 percent of AMI (see earlier). Housing affordability: Refers to the ability or the lack thereof of a household to meet its housing expenses with a reasonable and sustainable share of its income, generally spending no more than 30 percent of gross income on housing costs, without regard to the household's income or whether the household lives in subsidized, rent -regulated, or market -rate housing. Housing cost burden: Per the federal government, refers to a household having to pay more than 30 percent of its income for housing and possibly having difficulty affording other necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. A housing cost burden is "severe" if housing costs consume more than 50 percent of a household's income. Low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed 80 percent of AMI (see earlier), adjusted for family size. Mixed -income housing: "Mixed -income" has a twofold meaning. In accordance with federal housing policy, HUD defines a mixed -income building as "comprised of housing units with differing levels of affordability, typically with some market -rate housing and some housing that is available to low-income occupants below market -rate." In accordance with widely held housing industry practice, a mixed -income neighborhood consists of a variety of household incomes and opportunities for meaningful interaction, including parks, schools, and shopping. Moderate -income housing: Per federal regulations, households whose incomes are between 81 percent and 95 percent of AMI. The government may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 95 percent of AMI on the basis of an analysis of prevailing levels of construction costs, fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. Naturally occurring affordable housing: Generally, housing that is "affordable" to "low-income" and "moderate -income" (see earlier) households that is not currently federally subsidized or rent -regulated. Preservation: Generally, providing the necessary physical improvements and financial capital to enable a currently occupied rental property to remain "affordable" (see earlier) and in decent condition for a sustained period of time. Preservation programs can also target owner -occupied housing, thereby providing assistance to homeowners that allows them to make improvements to their homes and to remain in them. Public housing: Rental housing owned and operated by local housing authorities that primarily serves "extremely low-income" (see earlier) households. Roughly 2.6 million people live in the nation's 1.1 million public housing units. Very few public housing units have been built in recent years. Supportive housing: Generally, "affordable housing" (see earlier) combined with social services to assist vulnerable populations, such as the homeless, the disabled, the addicted, and the elderly. Very low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed 50 percent of AMI (see earlier), adjusted for family size. Workforce housing: Generally, housing that is "affordable" (see earlier) to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of AMI (see earlier). In high -cost areas, incomes may be as high as 150 percent of AMI. Some definitions exclude owner -occupied housing. Source: ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing. 12 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report During the study tour, the panel observed that in several communities multiple cars were parked in front of each home, thus supporting the theory that people are living together in order to afford the high cost of housing in the county. adjusted several times, ranging from 20 to 30 percent at any given time. In 1981, the housing burden rate for rentals was rees- tablished at 30 percent of gross annual income. Gradu- ally, this limit was extended to homeownership. In the mid-1990s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would purchase mortgages only if their principal, interest, tax, and insur- ance (PITI) payments were 28 percent or less of the borrower's gross income for a conventional loan and 29 percent for a loan insured by the Federal Housing Admin- istration. Since that time, almost all cost -burden limits for Table 1: Cost Burden in Collier County housing have been around 30 percent of a household's gross income (https://www.census.gov/housing/census/ publications/who-can -afford.pdf). Used in conjunction with the 30 percent cost -burden threshold is severe cost burden, which includes house- holds that pay more than 50 percent of gross income toward housing costs. Those households are the most at risk —regardless of locality. Defining the Cost -Burden Problem In 2015, Collier County had a population of 343,802 and 140,131 households. The Shimberg Center at the Univer- sity of Florida estimates that of the 140,131 households, 58,685 (40 percent) were cost burdened in 2015—mean- ing they spent more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing. Of those 58,685 households, 29,342 were considered severely cost burdened —meaning they spent more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing. This finding means that two out of every five households in Collier County are cost burdened, with one in five severely cost burdened. Burden for Three -Person Household Earning 30 to 150 Percent of Area Median Income Annual household income $20,160 $29,600 $47, 300 $59,125 $65, 038 $70,950 $88,688 _ Percentage of income Percentage of income Percentage of income Percentage of area needed to afford needed to afford needed to afford median income median rent* median -price home** median -price condo*** 30 61 50 41 80 26 100 21 110 19 120 17 150 �I _ 14 1 149 101 63 51 46 42 34 ®1 69 43 35 31 29 23 Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development- The 2016 Collier County Economic, Demographic & Community Profile; the American Community Survey. *Median gross rent is $1,020 per month, as defined by the Shimberg Center in 2015. '*Median sales price is $405,000, including mortgage and interest at a 20 percent downpayment for 30 years, plus estimated homeowner's insurance, property taxes, and flood insurance. '**Median sales price for condominiums and townhouses is $257,000, including mortgage and interest at 20 percent downpayment for 30 years, plus estimated homeowner's insurance, property taxes, and flood insurance. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 13 However, the issue of cost burden may be larger than the numbers indicate. Not all of the households counted in the census are year-round residents, and most of those part- time households have incomes that support their residence in the county, which is a second residence. Therefore, it is likely that the actual percentages of cost burden are substantially higher among residents who live in the county year-round. To better understand the meaning of "cost burdened" in Collier County, the panel analyzed the correlation between household income and housing prices or rental rates. In 2016, the estimated AMI for Collier County was $65,700, and the average household size was 2.47. For a snapshot of the cost -burden issue, see table 1 Who Is Cost Burdened in Collier County? The people who are cost burdened in Collier County are crucial to the local economy. They provide key public safety, education, and health care services to the com- munity's residents. In addition, they are responsible for the high -quality lifestyle that makes Collier County such a special place. Examples of workers in the cost -burdened category include the following: ■ Health care: Nurses, medical assistants, senior service providers ■ Education: Teachers and other school employees ■ Public safety: Police officers, firefighters ■ Service industry workers: Wait staff, hotel staff, retail and trade salespeople, golf course employees, land- scape maintenance workers ■ Entry-level or nonprofit professionals: Bank tellers, social workers, office managers, government employees Not every person in those fields will have difficulty finding housing that is affordable. For example, dual -income households have increased purchasing power. However, people receiving entry-level and median income rates in health care, public safety, and professional sectors are more likely to experience a cost burden than are the people holding executive, management, and supervisory positions. Also, single -income households, which can include one- to four -person households, are more likely to experience a cost burden or even a severe cost burden when living in Collier County. Table 2 provides a representative sample of employment positions in Collier County and what people in such posi- tions can afford in the local market. Across the board, the ability to afford houses priced at the median sales price from 2015 was low. The ability to afford rental units at the median gross rent (plus utilities) was more reasonable, with affordability attainable for some of the people holding professional positions. During the panel process, the panel heard many stories regarding how difficult it is to recruit service industry work- ers, particularly those who work at the resorts and hotels, including housekeepers, front -desk staff members, and golf course attendants. The panel's analysis of cost burden for those jobs indicates that there is substantial cost burden for such workers unless they share living space or commute long distances. One critical challenge for Collier County businesses is the ability to recruit entry-level professionals. Mid- and upper -level professionals in public safety, education, government, and health care can afford a wider range of housing. However, such is not the case for entry-level professionals, who often end up living far away from their source of employment (particularly in Lee County). Having employees who reside outside of Collier County and who commute long distances for work often means a high level of attrition for businesses. Furthermore, when people who work in the county are commuting to adjoining municipali- ties to live, the county bears the costs of the roads without the benefit of receiving the tax revenue. Collectively, the employment sectors that are the most at risk to incur a significant cost burden represent more than 50 percent of the local labor force. But beyond that, the sectors represent the core of county, public safety, 14 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Table 2: Estimated Cost Burden for Households Headed by Selected Wage Earners Health care Registered nurse $47,000—$65,000 FF 74'To 38% Medical assistant $30,000435,000 41 % Emergency technician $28,000—$36,000 42% Education Teacher $44,000—$59,000 28% Teaching assistant $22,000—$24,000 45% Public safety Firefighter $39,000—$57,000 29% 43% Patrol officer $47,000—$59,000 26% 41 % Service workers Maid and housekeeping $18,000422,000 Massage therapist $26,000—$55,000 44% Concierge $25,000—$31,000r4r8% Entry-level/midtier professional Human resources specialist $35,000—$55,000 31 % 45% Dental assistant $33,000—$43,000 36% N Administrative assistant $22,000—$33,000 1 - Housing cost accounts for less than 30 percent of gross income (not cost burdened) Housing cost accounts for 30 to 50 percent of gross income (cost burdened) - Housing cost accounts for 50 percent or more of gross income (severely cost burdened) Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; The 2016 Collier County Economic, Demographic & Community Profile; the American Community Survey. and education services, and those services support the background of the lifestyle, health, and overall vitality of the county. Other important groups of residents with substantial needs include low- to moderate -income seniors, both those who live independently and those who require services; residents who require mental health treatment and various other services; and very low -wage earners. Those resi- dents face virtually no supply of housing or no continuity in being provided social and health services. Most experience long wait lists at the few available housing sites, and many have to be relocated outside of the county to areas with a greater concentration of housing and services. Going Beyond the Root of the Problem If one is to understand the full spectrum of housing afford- ability, it is critical to examine the aspects of the challenge that go beyond housing costs. Those additional crucial factors include added housing costs, housing supply and availability, transportation costs, and future growth implications for the county, and such factors are examined in further detail in the following sections. Added Housing Costs In Collier County, housing affordability for homeowners (and especially first-time homeowners) means more than Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 15 just taking into consideration PITI. Utilities and home- ownership association fees also come into play when determining housing affordability and cost burden. After interviewing several area stakeholders, the panel believes that the percentage of cost -burdened Collier County households is even higherthan outlined in the earlier section. One reason the percentage is higher is that many households cannot afford a 20 percent downpayment, which means they must pay private mortgage insurance, thus reducing the amount of home they can afford. In addition, almost all areas of Collier County require flood insurance, which adds a substantial monthly cost on top of all the costs just described. Moreover, Collier County has one of the highest homeowner insurance rates in Florida. Availability When one considers cost burden and affordability, one must also consider availability and quality. Housing units at the bottom of the cost spectrum often are made up of a high percentage of units with quality and maintenance concerns. If one considers the total number of units existing at differ- ent rental and sale prices, availability of those units at any given time can significantly constrain access to housing that is affordable. The panel took a "snapshot' of units available on the market using readily accessible, publicly available portals to find housing (Zillow.com, Trulia.com, Apartments.com). Using the income bands of 25 different employment Table 3: Collier County Housing Market Snapshot Units Affordable for Households Earning Less Than 100 Percent of Area Median Income Housing type Single-family, for -sale homes Condominiums Single-family rentals Number of units 65-250** Multifamily rentals Sources: Zillow.com; Apartments.com. *3.8 percent of inventory on multiple listing services **Priced at $120,000 to $175,000 23 categories, the panel looked to see how many units were available below the cost -burden threshold of 30 percent (table 3). The analysis provided several interesting results. Although a reasonable number of condominiums were available (but no additional homeowners association fees were considered in the analysis, which may have resulted in fewer options), very few single-family homes were for sale, and there were very limited rental options, which indicated a particularly constrained rental market. For any worker or single -income household with income between 80 and 100 percent of AMI, options were extremely limited, to say nothing of those households making less than 80 percent, which represent a substantial percentage of workers who are cost burdened. Transportation Crucial to the cost -burden conversation is the combination of housing cost and transportation cost. According to data from the Center for Neighborhood Technology, households at 90 to 100 percent of area median income can incur housing and transportation costs of 75 percent of their gross income. That figure is 61 percent for households between 100 and 120 percent of AMI. Furthermore, de- pending on the distance from employment and other activity centers, transportation costs for Collier County households can fluctuate wildly. In some cases, households may incur 5 to 10 percent more in transportation costs if they are located farther away from employment and other services. Growth Implications In a county expected to grow significantly in population by 2040, what does that finding mean for the future? The county is expected to add 58,000 households over the next 23 years. If the local issue of cost burden is not addressed, then —at a minimum-11,000 more households will experience severe cost burden (above 50 percent) than do households today. Given ever -rising real estate values and a seemingly bottomless demand for higher -end homes and rentals, the likelihood of both the number and percentage of cost -burdened households increasing is high. 16 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Vision: What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up? THE PANEL TOURED KEY AREAS of Collier to get a comprehensive look at the county. The panel also inter- viewed more than 90 stakeholders during this process, reaching out to residents, elected and appointed officials, business leaders, real estate developers, and nonprofit leaders. From the study tours and interviews, the panel did not hear a strong consensus regarding the path forward for Collier County. However, several common themes and community values were frequently raised. Those traits are both existing and aspirational: some have already been im- plemented across the county (such as the Blue Zone and the commitment to beautification), while others are indica- tive of recent concerns and current shortcomings (such as economic development and traffic). The common themes and community values include the following: ■ Maintaining Collier County's reputation as a premiere tourist destination ■ Growing and maintaining a strong real estate base and retaining steady values ■ Retaining a safe and healthy community ■ Enhancing and sustaining a visually attractive and aes- thetically pleasing community with character ■ Ensuring an efficient transportation system ■ Diversifying the local economy What the Future of Collier County Looks Like Collier County's current debate on housing affordability is not a new one. The panel heard repeatedly about the community's reservations regarding another discussion on housing affordability —the topic has been widely discussed for many years —with the Great Recession and housing downturn halting past efforts. These on -again, off -again discussions reflect the cyclical nature of this issue and the related concern it raises. Today, with new interests and partners realigning around the housing issue, a variety of pathways and solutions can be explored. Considering the overall values raised by community members, the panel believes two key scenarios Collier County is home to pristine beaches and enviable weather; it also boasts a mix of urban, suburban, and rural land use patterns. Nonetheless, the panel believes that Collier County does not have a vision for what it wants to be in the future. (Left to right: Ave Maria, Naples's iconic beaches, and the panel's public reception) Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 17 face Collier County: a future with action and a future with- out action. A wide range of options and interventions exists within this dichotomy and will produce varying outputs and results. The scenarios presented next are intended to illustrate specific certainties that the panel believes will be inevitable under current conditions. The Future of Collier County without Action on Housing If county leaders choose not to respond to the current housing needs, it is likely that the current market condi- tions and trends will continue to advance and evolve. Local employers will continue to have difficulty hiring and retaining key employees in the county, which will create a "brain drain" out of the community and into neighboring jurisdictions, such as Lee County. Not only does this market condition place a strain on employers' ability to hire and retain high -quality talent, but also it means more workers and middle-class laborers will be commuting greater distances, thereby increasing transportation con- gestion and mitigating quality of life and civic engagement. In addition, Collier County's local economy will lose tax revenue as incomes earned in the county leave to neigh- boring jurisdictions because out -of -county employees tend to spend a greater portion of their income by going to gro- cery stores, restaurants, and dry cleaners in their residen- tial communities. Therefore, Collier County will continue to sustain the burden of influx infrastructure strain, while receiving no tax revenue from it. Those conditions create an intensified landscape of competition between counties, instead of mutual collaboration for the betterment of the region. With no action on housing, Collier County will be forced to create reactionary policy and will have more dif- ficulty when guiding future growth of the county. The Future of Collier County with Action on Housing Conversely, if the county takes appropriate action and intervenes, the aforementioned trends could be redirected in a more financially and economically sustainable direc- tion for the county. Although the panel report will identify the specific strategies for all residents of Collier County, having a proactive policy right now will redirect the current housing and demographic trends and will create positive benefits for the county. The local economy will benefit by retaining a self- sustaining employment base in which people can work in Collier County's Sheriff's Department, public schools, hotels, and restaurants and can live in the county. The benefits include an increase in tax revenue generated by the in -county residents, a lesser strain on existing transportation infrastructure, and an increase in the qual- ity of life for this vital segment of the community. Also, employers will have a better chance of attracting and retaining talented and skilled workers in the county, which will improve the overall quality of life in the county and will build a stronger middle class. With the growing aging demographic, a proactive policy will make the county a more hospitable place for longtime residents to age in place and to receive health care. Also, keeping this older demographic in the county will generate county tax revenue from the group's use of local pharma- cies, grocery stores, and specialized medical services. By taking a proactive approach toward addressing housing, Collier County can develop a vision that expands on and enhances the existing unique qualities of the county. Why a Vision Is Important The panel believes that the overall priorities of the county lack a collective vision; without such a vision, aligning and prioritizing government processes and policies will be challenging. Collier County is still facing near -certain changes —with or without a unifying vision —particularly regarding the incoming population and real estate growth. If one considers the expectations around building growth and residential influx, the problems facing the county today will be amplified in the coming years, thus exacerbating the current pain points (traffic, workforce, costs). In short, the status quo in Collier County will work only for a limited number of people and for a limited amount of time. The 18 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report As part of the study, the panel met with community stakeholders, including residents, business and community leaders, and other representatives from the larger Collier County community. panel feels strongly that without proactive management, the anticipated growth will erode the very qualities that attracted people to the county in the first place. The panel recommends that the creation of a vision for Collier County should come from the county itself, as a self -directed exercise, and should be inclusive of all stake- holders. However, to ensure the exercise and the results have the desired effect, the panel provides the following elements that the county should include in its vision: ■ Provide key considerations around quality of life for all residents, as well as how to improve and maintain it. ■ Provide a range of housing options that are accessible to the full spectrum of consumers. Housing options should be economically and geographically diverse throughout the county, as well as having a range in sizes and types such as single-family homes and rental apartments. Additional key factors to consider when providing hous- ing options include the reasonable proximity to jobs, schools, amenities, and transportation choices. There should also be an inclusive mix of income levels in dif- ferent neighborhoods. ■ Grow and sustain a thriving economy that includes qualities such as livable wages, job opportunities that provide pathways to wealth creation and upward mobil- ity, diversified industries, and a diversified workforce. ■ Provide accessible, multimodal transportation options that safely and efficiently connect all residents to jobs, amenities, and services. In addition, provide clear directives to governing entities to help align policies and processes with the envisioned future for the county. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 19 Implementation THE PANEL IS IMPRESSED WITH the planning and study that has already been completed regarding housing affordability in Collier County. The panel's recommenda- tions reflect and endorse much of the work that has al- ready been completed. However, what is abundantly clear to the panel is that action and implementation are crucial to creating sustainable solutions. Implementation of the panel's recommendations will require sincere action, tremendous political will, and strong leadership. For addi- tional reference, the panel has created a proposed imple- mentation schedule to provide a blueprint for how to move forward on the recommendations described throughout this section in the short, medium, and long term. (See ap- pendix A.) The panel's major recommendations are organized around the following six core strategies to address housing afford- ability: ■ Increase supply; ■ Maintain supply; ■ Regulate and govern; ■ Enhance transportation options; ■ Enhance wages; and ■ Engage, market, and educate. Increase Supply How can Collier County meet its current and future hous- ing needs? One approach to achieving the goals is by adding housing that is affordable to households with a wide range of income levels. There is good news to share: several strategies include simply making improvements to existing procedures and vehicles rather than creating new programs entirely. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when existing structures already support the development of more affordable housing. The Housing Trust Fund The housing trust fund (HTF) is an example of a national best practice that Collier County currently has at its disposal but does not use. More than 700 HTFs exist nationwide, and they are often a critical element of a jurisdiction's overall housing policy. Collier County's HTF should be sustainable and predict- able, given the long planning process involved in housing development. The county should keep in mind that what can make an HTF challenging is finding viable revenue sources. Other jurisdictions have funded their trust funds through sales taxes, real estate transfer taxes, linkage fees as part of the zoning ordinance, inclusionary zoning in -lieu fees, condominium conversion fees or demolition fees, and hotel and motel taxes. The best and most common revenue source for a county HTF is a document record- ing fee, which is a fee paid upon filing various types of official documents with a state or local government. This fee is one of the few revenue sources that most counties can commit to, and the panel recommends Collier County consider this approach. Development Incentives The county's existing developer incentives have clearly failed to transform existing development patterns and allow for greater production of housing that is affordable to a broad range of low- to moderate -income households. Any developer incentives need to be reasonable, be flex- ible, and allow for creative partnerships to produce new, affordable homes. The panel strongly recommends that the county put increased emphasis on multifamily rental 20 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report County Housing Trust Fund Dedicated Revenue Sources Revenue Source County Trust Funds Document recording fee Arlington County, Virginia; 9 New Jersey counties; 54 Pennsylvania counties; 39 Washington counties Property tax Kalamazoo County, Michigan; King County, Washington Inclusionary zoning in -lieu fees Sonoma County, California Tax increment funds Alameda County, California Delinquent property tax penalties and Toledo/Lucas County, Ohio interest (land bank) Real estate transfer tax Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Hotel/motel tax AME Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Developer impact fees/proffers Fairfax County, Virginia Food and beverage tax 'V Dade County, Florida a Sale of foreclosed properties Traverse City, Michigan (now expired) Sales/use tax Summit County, Colorado - General funds North Valley/Chico, Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Santa Barbara County, Sonoma County, and San Luis Obispo County, California; Tompkins County, New York (with Ithaca and Cornell University); Arlington County, Virginia; 24 counties in Iowa Source: Housing Trust Fund Project Center for Community Change, 2016. housing as a means of addressing its affordability housing situation. Multifamily rental housing is the most cost- effective way to provide housing that is affordable to the average working person. The panel recommends that existing density bonuses be reassessed to allow for and provide incentives for more mixed -use development and greater efficiency of land use throughout the county. This recommendation will be dis- cussed in greater detail later in this report, but the current density bonus program needs revision to allow for higher densities to ensure that additional mixed -income, mixed - tenure (rental as well as homeownership) developments are financially feasible. Examples of this type of increased den- sity include Bayfront and Naples Square, at more than 20 to 30 units per acre rather than the average 2.5 units per acre in other residential communities. The density can also be flexible to allow for complementary adjacent uses and to reflect different preferences in the urban and rural areas. 73 Impact fees are an often -cited source of frustration to those creating both market rate and affordable housing products. Not only are high impact fees an impediment to new construction of affordable housing, but also they can be erratic and can be an ineffective way to raise revenue. During periods of high growth, they can produce lots of cash, but during slow periods of growth, the revenue provided by such fees falls, sometimes precipitously. An example of existing density that allows for a mix of uses in p downtown Naples along Fifth Avenue. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 21 Inclusive Housing Strategy: Tysons Corner, Virginia A sprawling edge city begins to remake itself as a more walkable, sustainable place, with transit -accessible, mixed - income housing at its core. Fairfax County, Virginia, home to 1.1 million residents, is the most populous county in the Washington, D.C., region and is one of the most prosperous in the nation, with a median household income of nearly $113,000. The county's development since the 1960s and its image today have been shaped by the growth of Tysons Corner, a roughly 1,700-acre area originally marked by the intersection of state Routes 7 and 123. For a half century, "Tysons" has epitomized the commercially successful suburban employment center and retail destination, which is dominated by large office buildings occupied by white-collar companies and high -end shopping malls. Tyson's enormous economic success —it was the nation's 12th- largest central business district as recently as 2014—came over time with substantial costs in the form of traffic congestion and sprawling development. The number of homes and apartments fell far behind the number of jobs; investment fell short of needs in cultural amenities, green space, and schools; and transit options were limited. Tysons's very economic model came into question. For local business leaders and elected officials, the future of Tysons depends on whether it can reinvent itself as a more complete community. Under the rubric of a "Transforming Tysons" plan, Fairfax County has established goals to be met by 2050: increase the number of Tysons residents to 100,000 (from 19,000 today), double the number of jobs to 200,000, and ensure that at least three-quarters of the new growth is within a half -mile of Metro stations (four stations opened in the Tysons area in 2014). Fairfax County also intends Tysons to be a mixed -income residential community —a place where construction and service workers, teachers, and others in need of more affordable housing can afford to live. To achieve that goal, the county has ambitiously expanded a longstanding county policy that has been a national model for promoting inclusionary housing development. Equity Strategies, Results, and Challenges Since 1990, the county has generally required residential development projects (excluding high rises) to set aside a share of units (generally 5 to 12.5 percent) for households earning 50 to 70 percent of the Washington metro area median income. Developments receive a density bonus — permission to increase the size of the project —to help mitigate the economic cost of delivering the below -market units. This affordable dwelling unit (ADU) program has generated more than 2,500 affordable units to date, with about an equal mix of rental and for -sale housing. Research indicates that Fairfax County ADU homes and apartments are overwhelmingly located in low -poverty neighborhoods and in areas with schools comparable to those in places without ADUs. Research also indicates that the program has not deterred developers from delivering profitable projects in the county. By state law, the ADU program does not apply to high-rise buildings — precisely the type of development the county wants to see near transit in the Tysons transformation plan. Recognizing that this exemption would undermine the opportunity to provide a wider range of housing choice in Tysons, the county expanded its inclusionary policy so it could be applied more effectively in the area. As a result, 20 percent of all high-rise units in Tysons must meet affordability requirements, albeit at higher income levels than the ADU program. Though low- and mid -rise buildings are still covered by the ADU program, their developers are encouraged to meet the higher standard as well. As of June 2016, 356 affordable units had been delivered in Tysons. Future development up to allowed densities could result in the creation of as many as 4,200 units in the area. Tysons will also generate funding to support affordable housing through payments that office, retail, and hotel development projects must make in return for receiving county approval to build at greater densities —generally either a one-time contribution of $3 per square foot or annual payment of $0.25 per square foot for 16 years. As of 2014, this policy was projected to generate more than $64 million for investment in affordable housing in Tysons through a trust fund. The capacity of Tysons to become a more equitable community is interlinked with its evolution into a denser, more walkable area and with its careful use of inclusionary development practices and incentives as that evolution occurs. Researcher Christopher Leinberger, whose work has suggested that more -walkable urban places can advance an array of social -equity outcomes as well as deliver superior economic returns, has noted of Tysons: "Many of the neighborhood associations surrounding [Tysons] became supporters of increased density because of the promised walkable urban future. NIMBYs (not in my backyard) became YIMBYs (yes in my backyard)." The Tysons inclusionary housing policy is not perfect. In exchange for requiring a higher percentage of inclusionary units than under the existing ADU program, the county raised the income levels of eligible families, reflecting the realities of development feasibility. To serve families with very low incomes, the county will need to offer development subsidies through the trust fund and other sources. And while the Tysons policy appears to be working well for rental apartment buildings, it has proven more problematic for for -sale projects. In November 2016, the Washington Post reported: "County leaders are considering relaxing the 20 percent expectation for high-rise condominium projects, after developers complained that it will make it harder to secure financing for their typically smaller buildings." The county worked with the development community to revise the policy to reflect market conditions that had changed since it was put in place, and the first condominium project was recently approved. 22 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report The high fee structure, however, reflects the limited sources available to Collier County to support develop- ment of all types. The panel recommends a review of the impact fee structure to consider how to better incentivize developers to build a spectrum of housing types and sizes. Further, the panel recommends that the current impact fee deferral program cover all types of income -restricted hous- ing, regardless of whether it is single-family, multifamily, senior, or special needs housing. National Best Practices In addition to enhancing existing tools to create affordable housing, the panel recommends tailoring several national best practices to Collier County's unique characteristics to supplement the county's ability to meet current and future housing needs. Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is an approach to add to the supply of affordable housing options by linking the zones to the creation of market -rate housing. IZ programs have been used across the country since 1972 and vary greatly in terms of their structure and requirements. Given the under - use of the existing density bonus program, the county needs to consider a more proactive approach to increase the supply of housing options for all of its residents. Although IZ programs may not produce a high volume of units, such programs have the unique ability to provide the choice to residents to live in communities with better access to transit, jobs, and schools. IZ programs can be flexible in implementation to fit the needs of the county and to fit different project types. For example, the county may want to allow for the provision of inclusionary units to be produced off site; the payment for units through a fee -in -lieu arrangement to the HTF; or the creation of partnerships between for -profit and nonprofit developers so the units best fit the respective business models and expertise. Mitigating the cost of land —something that is fixed, limited, and a significant challenge to all developers in Collier County —can be addressed through vehicles such as a community land trust (CLT) and through a program to Case Study: Palm Beach County Workforce Housing Program Palm Beach County's Workforce Housing Program requires all new developments of more than ten units to provide units for households earning 60 to 120 percent of AMI in exchange for additional density allowances on a sliding scale. Developers have the flexibility to meet the affordable housing requirements by paying an in -lieu fee, building units off site, or purchasing and deed restricting market -rate units. To date, more than 1,400 affordable or workforce units have been approved as part of 36 developments. In addition, nearly $900,000 of in -lieu fees have been collected from three developments. The program was established in 2004 but gained traction in the market only after 2009, when the county made substantial revisions as a result of recommendations by the real estate industry, including homebuilders and realtors. An evaluation of the program found that the county's incentives fully offset the cost or lost profit incurred by developers in providing the affordable and workforce units. designate public land for public goods, such as affordable housing. CLTs are nonprofit, community -based organiza- tions whose mission is to provide affordable housing in perpetuity by owning land and leasing it to those who live in houses built on that land. Although CLTs may have a broad mission, their primary role is providing successful homeownership opportunities for generations of lower - income families. A related approach to the CLT is to consider a ground lease structure. This approach both dramatically reduces the cost of the land to the developer and helps ensure long-term affordability for the housing built on that site. The city of Naples has used this approach in at least two instances at the Jasmine Cay and Carver Apartments. The panel also recommends that the county immediately undertake a review of the current land inventory to identify parcels that may be available for housing development Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 23 opportunities. This review can be accomplished using a cross -agency strategy, and the county should find ways to engage with community stakeholders to identify possible sites and building intensities. A related part of using public land for public good is to colocate affordable housing with the renovation or creation of new public facilities. One suc- cessful example includes building affordable housing for seniors adjacent to a new public library at a development called the Bonifant in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is not the sole responsibility of either the government or the private sector to provide for the housing needs of all residents in Collier County. The best way to produce housing effectively that meets a broad, rather than narrow, range of housing needs is through effective public/private partnerships. Elements of effective public/private partner- ships include creating a shared vision, clear roles and responsibilities, consistent and coordinated leadership, and frequent communication. Repurposing Vacant and Underused Retail Space Another unique opportunity for Collier County to add to its supply of affordable housing is to take advantage of existing vacant and underused retail sites along major transportation corridors through a conversion to multi- family residential buildings. This effort would accomplish several goals simultaneously, including these: ■ Returning underperforming buildings to the tax rolls and generating revenue for the county, and ■ Providing an option for rental apartments along existing transportation corridors without the need to create new infrastructure. The county's regular rental housing surveys have found va- cancy rates in multifamily rental buildings to be extremely low, at 1 to 2 percent, thus indicating a significant unmet demand for rental housing options. Maintain Supply One of the most cost-effective and efficient means of providing affordable housing is to maintain the existing The Bonifant in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, is a transit - oriented development for lower -income seniors that is adjacent to the new Silver Spring library and within walking distance of transit and bus lines. supply. The National Housing Trust finds that renovating an existing property can be one-third to one-half as expensive as new construction. Renovating older properties does not require new land for development, takes advantage of existing infrastructure, and reduces construction waste. Collier County has an existing renovation code available to developers looking to refurbish existing properties, and the county should encourage its use through incentives mentioned previously, such as through expedited permit- ting and inspections and by reducing or deferring the associated fees. The county can identify opportunities proactively by track- ing properties with expiring affordability covenants (using resources such as the National Housing Preservation database) to ensure that existing rental properties remain affordable for the long term. The county should also explore implementing a right of first refusal to purchase The panel strongly recommends that the county take an inventory of vacant and underused commercial parcels that might be available for housing development. 24 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Inclusive Housing Strategies: Pasadena, California Pasadena (population 140,000), a southern California city renowned for its high quality of life, faces formidable challenges in providing affordable housing in an expensive market with high land costs and a limited amount of developable property. Sustained price appreciation has made housing unaffordable —even for households earning more than $100,000 annually. Through an array of incentive -based programs, including an inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO) and a density bonus, the city has supported development of more than 5,000 transit - oriented housing units since 2001, including 1,370 units of affordable and workforce housing. The Housing Incentives Fee Program, adopted by the city council in 2004, incentivizes production of affordable housing by providing developers with significant reductions in impact fees, building permit fees, construction taxes, and transportation fees. The city adopted its density bonus ordinance in 2006, which provides developers of housing projects that include affordable units with a bonus in the number of units that may be constructed on a site. (either by the county or by a nonprofit partner) expiring use properties so the county can prevent the loss of any housing that is affordable to low- and moderate -income residents and that might result in displacement. Regulate and Govern After a review of existing regulations, interviews with stakeholders, and an understanding of current market conditions, the panel determined that the county faces inherent difficulties, unnecessary costs, and a lack of predictability to developing affordable housing projects. Al- though internal and external market forces play a large role in the success of the projects, the county could reduce approval times and costs while increasing predictability in the review process in three steps: ■ Update regulations to encourage affordable housing development in desired areas. Pasadena has emphasized links to transit by clustering mixed -use projects near light -rail stations, major corridors, and employment areas. Because of efforts to encourage transit -oriented development, the majority of residential and mixed -use projects built during the 2000s were located within a half mile of a transit stop or employment center. More than 50 percent of the affordable units produced under the IHO were developed along such major corridors. Two large NO projects have been developed close to Gold Line light -rail stations, and a third project (totaling 212 units) is forthcoming. In addition, Pasadena's efforts to promote affordable housing have extended beyond simple subsidies to encompass community outreach. According to William Huang, the city's housing director, "The success of affordable housing is rarely only financial. Even if funding is secured, gaining public acceptance is a prerequisite." ■ Permit higher densities in urban areas for projects with affordable housing by -right. ■ Revise the governance structure, and streamline the process. Review and Revise the Land Development Code Good codes are the foundation on which great communi- ties are built. When done well, codes make it easier for a community to implement its vision. However, the current Land Development Code (LDC) does not consistently sup- port and encourage growth in already existing urbanized areas of the county (those areas generally west of Collier Parkway). Many of the LDC's ordinances are geared toward large-scale, planned -unit developments (PUDs) on greenfield sites. Conversely, smaller -scale redevelopment and infill sites in already developed areas of the county are challeng- ing to consolidate, may need to address adjacent uses and neighborhood concerns, and often require additional Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 25 density to make them financially feasible. Because of the way that current codes are written, PUDs generally have been more predictable to entitle and have fewer barriers to obtaining funding. Although difficult to develop, projects in the urban areas of the county can yield great benefits by placing residents near existing transit, employment, shopping, and other daily needs and by reducing strain on existing infrastructure. Even though Collier County routinely amends portions of its LDC, consideration should be given to initiating an effort to overhaul the code by implementing a Smart Code, also known as a Unified Development Code (https:// transect.org/codes.html) to encourage the development of affordable and mixed -income housing. Smart Codes are designed to differentiate between more urban and rural conditions that reflect the different characteristics and priorities found across the county. Unique standards for the different tiers of density encourage a more diverse development pattern while encouraging affordable housing in a mixed -use, pedestrian -scaled environment. In a Smart Code framework, all regulatory standards are combined into one streamlined document to prioritize environmental protection, high -quality design, and compatibility with existing patterns of development. The focus of the urban tier should be to stimulate and accommodate infill growth while encouraging affordable housing. This focus can be accomplished through residential density bonuses, mixed -use height bonuses, reductions from parking requirements, modifications to The Bayfront Naples development is an example of successful and appropriate density and mixed -use development in Collier County. buffer and landscape requirements, and other incentive - based measures. In addition to the county's creating a Smart Code, several LDC revisions could make it easier to develop affordable dwelling units in urban portions of the county: ■ Reduce parking standards: Consider establishing standard percentage reductions in minimum parking requirements for urban portions of the county where there are more transit services, where opportunities exist to walk to shopping and employment, and where shared parking opportunities exist to promote efficient site design and reduce development costs. Typical parking standards for multifamily housing in more urban areas range from 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit. ■ Create well-defined compatibility, building mass- ing, and buffer standards: The panel heard about several recent development applications in which com- patibility with adjacent existing communities has fueled distrust between existing neighborhoods and developers. The conflicts are in part due to a lack of clear expecta- tions as to what is required by the LDC. For infill develop- ment projects that include affordable housing, this lack of certainty causes an unnecessary burden on developers while at the same time residents have concerns about property values and existing views. As an example, Okla- homa City created a development guide (http://planokc. org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/planokc_Chap2_ DevelopmentGuide.pdf; page 71) that focuses on urban design solutions for compatibility related to building scale and site design. It provides clear expectations to both the existing neighborhoods and developers as to what should be expected when designing the site and massing of buildings. Those types of standards can also help set community expectations if it is determined that redevel- opment of nonfunctioning golf courses is appropriate. ■ Permit guest houses as accessory dwelling rental units: There are a number of existing guest homes, pre- dominantly in the eastern portions of the county and the Estates, that —if permitted to be used as rentals —could have an immediate effect on the supply of affordable 26 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report rental housing. Additional rental income could also have a positive effect for families who own the units. Although effects on transportation, schools, and other facilities should be considered, these units have already been constructed, are occupied, or have been occupied in the past. Making them legal to lease allows code enforce- ment to better regulate the units while limiting exploita- tion of renters. ■ Encourage smart -site infrastructure: According to a number of interviewees, the panel heard that several onerous land development requirements add unneces- sary expense to overall project costs. The requirements further exacerbate challenges to providing affordable units in projects. Examples include requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street, right-of-way commitments, utility spacing, and other requirements that are more burdensome to on -site development than are the neigh- boring Lee County standards. Target Certain Activity Centers for Significantly Higher Density with the Provision of Mixed - Income Housing Collier County currently has high concentrations of housing in particularly low -density areas of the county. A healthy mixed -income community has higher densities to promote a walkable environment but not high concentrations of low-income housing in one place. Mixed -income com- munities are a market -based approach and include diverse housing for people with a range of income levels. Mixed - income communities are healthier than homogenous, low-income neighborhoods because they prevent blight, support upward mobility, and help retain property values. The panel recommends the following two approaches to achieve these goals: ■ Strengthen the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Program: The current maximum residential densities permitted in Collier County are generally 16 units per acre within specified activity centers of the county when affordable housing is provided (excluding transfer of development rights opportunities). Although maximum buildout of density is frequently not achieved in large PUDs, smaller infill sites in the western urban portions of the county need additional density to be financially viable. This need was confirmed during the panel's interviews where developers consistently stated that to provide affordable housing on site, the number of residential units allowed per acre should be significantly increased. For example, 30 units per acre may be a more realistic maximum density to properly incentivize market -rate developers to provide affordable housing. In addition, to properly capitalize on infrastructure, mini- mum densities should be provided for residential units per acre. Bonus density is even more important given the approximately 9 percent of unentitled land. Finally, the AHDB program is logistically challenging for market -rate builders to administer. ■ Identify strategic opportunity sites: As illustrated in the map above, the panel also recommends that the county consider further density increases in limited urban areas of the county such as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA where high -quality transit facilities along transportation corridors are provided. Streamline the Project Approval Process when Affordable Housing Is Provided Land use decisions are largely decided by the five -member Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) by a super - majority rule. According to developers, land use attorneys, planners, and other land development professionals, a great deal of uncertainty exists in knowing whether or not a zoning application will be approved because it takes only two board members to veto a project. Forprojects that in- clude affordable housing, this lack of certainty is a key im- pediment to project viability. In addition, although all board members are charged at looking at the county, no at -large board members are specifically charged with overseeing regional and countywide issues. The panel recommends considering adding two at -large board members, making the new BoCC a seven -member board, and reducing the super -majority to a five -out -of -seven approval process. If adding new BoCC members is not feasible, the panel recommends reducing the super -majority requirement to a Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 27 The panel created a conceptual framework to help identify activity centers and transportation corridors with a higher density of mixed -income housing development. Activity centers are denoted by red squares and transportation corridors by purple lines. simple -majority, which will provide greater certainty. For ex- ample, Hillsborough County, Florida, has a seven -member board with three at -large board members. Although there is an expedited construction permit review process, the panel recommends this process be expanded to include comprehensive plan amendments and zon- ing approvals. Comprehensive plan amendments could also be reviewed concurrently with a zoning change for projects that include affordable housing. This change to the project approval process could also be extended to include a concurrent processing of a zoning application and site plan. Consideration should be given to increasing the number of administrative approvals that do not require BoCC approval that will streamline the process and provide greater certainty. Although not strictly related to incentivizing affordable housing, Fairfax County, Virginia, provides concurrent processing (see www.fcrevit.org/publications/download/ DevelopmentlnCRD_CRA.pdf) for comprehensive plan amendments and zoning applications as an incentive for redevelopment of older areas of the county. Enhance Transportation Options Collier County, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tion (MPO), and the city of Naples have done extensive public outreach and planning for alternative mobility op- tions in the county. From the Collier County Master Mobility Plan (2012) and MPO's Comprehensive Pathways Plan (2012), there are clear strategies and recommendations for enhancing transportation access across the county. In ad- dition, there are policy frameworks —such as the complete streets, the existing community movements including the Naples Pathways Coalition, the community Blue Zone, and the various committees and task forces that are informing a range of government entities. Those efforts have created an exemplary foundation of outreach and data to inform and to guide the implementation of a thorough alternative transportation system. Such assets and engagements are critical in the context of housing affordability, because transportation costs and convenient, efficient access to jobs seriously affect the attainability of housing and the overall viability of a community. For instance, even if housing is affordable, the costs of transportation can outweigh the financial benefits of those price points. In addition, the very workforce that most directly benefits from accessible and efficient transportation systems serves as the backbone of the Collier County economy: thus, it relegates this workforce to commutes of several hours or to life -threatening conditions (via bike and pedes- trian commutes), and it inhibits this group's productivity and employment access. Whether it is a bank teller driving to work in Naples, a landscaper riding his bike to a gated community, a waiter taking a bus to a local restaurant, or a teacher walking to a neighborhood school, the workforce of Collier County needs a range of transportation options that align with and support a range of housing choices in a variety of areas. By enacting and implementing many of the recommenda- tions that the plans call for, not only will Collier County be a more accessible community, but also it will be a healthier and more fiscally conservative area. As the aspirations and 28 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report To enhance transportation, the panel recommends the adoption of many of the strategies and recommendations from the Collier County Master Mobility Plan (2012) and the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Pathways Plan (2012). tenants of the Blue Zone Project espouse, active lifestyles are the key to healthy living. Providing a more integrated network of mobility not only provides workforce access but also provides access to healthier lifestyles. In addition, with estimated road costs averaging $4.6 million per lane mile, identifying proactive approaches that will reduce congestion and stress on roadways will save the county significant funds in the future. For all of those reasons, creating greater synergies between housing and transportation decision making and investments is vital for Collier County. Although the panel applauds the efforts of past plans and initiatives, it strongly recommends leveraging the engagement and resources already in place to create a robust multimodal transporta- 45 minutes. For transit riders dependent on a bus service to get to work or to other services and the MPO's ameni- ties, the infrequency of the service can make transporta- tion and access an increased difficulty. For riders who might have multiple stops or transfers, those headways can change what would be a short car ride into an all - morning or all -evening commute. If directed effectively, however, the transit service can be an extraordinary asset for the Collier County work- force, potentially reducing the group's commute and car ownership costs. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the average American family spends 19 percent of its household budget on transporta- tion. For families that are in transit -efficient locations, this tion system that better connects labor, jobs, services, and cost decreases to 9 percent; for those in auto -dependent amenities to housing. It is time to act on the work of the communities, it increases to 25 percent. Thus, transporta- past several years and to implement. In keeping with the plans and efforts mentioned previously, the panel recommends that Collier County specifically pursue and prioritize the following recommendations in an implementation phase. Integrate Bus Routes with Affordable Housing Locations Currently, the average headway (the average interval of time between buses pausing at a given stop on a route) in Collier County is 1.5 hours, with the shortest headway at tion costs can directly add or subtract substantial funds from families' household budgets, thereby increasing cost burdens or providing more flexibility in household budgets. In light of the budget realities, the panel recommends implementing the recommendations of past planning efforts and aligning affordable housing investments and bus routes to the greatest extent possible, specifically considering and including the following: ■ Identify transportation corridors for multifamily development: In keeping with best practices from com- Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 29 munities such as Charlotte, North Carolina, Collier County should identify specific corridors that connect to major job centers and that incentivize specific zones for further multifamily development. By linking residential growth to the transit system, the county will relieve stress on the transportation system by encouraging transit ridership and by creating more effective commutes for the work- force in affordable locations. ■ Implement park -and -ride systems: Park -and -ride is a term that describes a traffic management practice where drivers leave their cars in parking lots of identified commercial centers (typically on the outskirts of urban areas) and travel to the job or employment centers on public transportation. Given the significant footprint of development across the county, as well as the potential for additional neighborhoods such as Ave Maria develop- ing in the rural lands area, working with commercial centers to create a park -and -ride system would take congestion pressure off the internal traffic corridors and would provide workers living in outlying areas with simpler commutes to job centers. Already, circulator routes provided by the Collier Area Transit System (CATS) provide circulator services to and from major commercial centers, like the Super Walmart. The panel recommends consideration be given to enhancing, modifying, and marketing those routes as park -and -ride opportunities. In addition, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) already operates many park -and -ride facilities across the state, thus facilitating vanpool and carpool options. ■ Explore bus rapid transit and express service lines: Recognizing that there are specific areas of greater tran- sit ridership, CATS should explore the creation of either bus rapid transit or express routes to link specific areas to job centers via an express, limited -stop route. This approach is in keeping with the effective best practices that CATS has already established around many of its bus lines. The opportunity now is to enhance what is in place and to create demand -driven transportation lines serving workers. Las Vegas, another tourism dependent economy with a wide geographic footprint, has imple- mented bus rapid transit and express service lines across Case Study: Arlington County, Virginia In Virginia, Arlington County's Special Affordable Housing Protection District (SAHPD) identifies neighborhoods with existing affordable housing within the county's metro corridors. The goal of the SAHPD is to retain affordable housing opportunities (through preservation or replacement) in the county's high -cost transit corridors. In instances where redevelopment is proposed within those districts, developers can achieve higher densities if they include one -for -one replacement of existing affordable housing as part of their project. (One -for -one replacement has been interpreted as replacing the number of bedrooms or the gross floor area on a one -for -one basis.) Replacement can occur either on site or at a similar location off site. the region to directly connect tourism workers to key areas of the city, including downtown and the Strip. Not only is the service successful, but also it is widely used by the workforce to access jobs and housing. Enhance Bike Lane and Pedestrian Systems According to the Collier County MPO's 2014 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Study —a complementary report to the 2012 Comprehensive Pathways Plan —a survey of 478 respondents resulted in 62 percent reporting that they had felt "threatened for personal safety during bicycling or walking trips." For Collier County to reduce transporta- tion road costs, effectively move the workforce across the community, and create healthy avenues for residents to engage in civic activities, this number must be mitigated and the recommendations of both studies should be advanced. Steps toward this goal include the following: ■ Implement the Comprehensive Pathways Plan for the county: Advancing the thorough recommendations of past studies is a meaningful next step in this process, but specific prioritization should be given to the "crash corridors" and "crash clusters" identified in the safety analysis. 30 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report An example of the successful and well -used bike lane infrastructure along 151h Street, a major downtown corridor in Washington, D.C. Establish Sustainable, Secure Revenue for Transit and Alternative Mobility CATS is serving an increasingly vital need in the county as workforce demands intensify and traffic concerns grow. However, if the service is going to be able to keep up with the demands already placed on it, a critical element is that the service has a sustainable source of revenue it can leverage and depend on. Given the expenses of highways ($4.6 million per lane mile), prioritizing proactive invest- ments in transit today could save the county significant funds in the future. In addition, given the growing bike and pedestrian needs of the county and the multitude of com- munity benefits that those amenities provide, a revenue ■ Enhance safety for transit mobility: The recommen- source should also be identified and provided for such dations of the 2014 "Safety Study" should be prioritized additional capacity. and funding should be allocated for the full implementa- tion of key safety issues, including continuing educa- Create Ride -Sharing Option tion for traffic engineers and law enforcement officers, application of the FHWA's bike and pedestrian best practices, and continued integration of best practices in engineering design. In addition, the panel recommends addressing lighting, street signage, and public awareness for bicyclists and pedestrians. - Hire a bike and pedestrian coordinator for the county and leverage expertise at FDOT: To take full advantage of the recommendations and work already completed, a specialized coordinator should be hired at the county level to advance bicycle and pedestrian priork ties, including reviewing future roadway projects for bike and pedestrian enhancements and safety considerations. In New Orleans, a bike and pedestrian coordinator was able to advance the implementation of more than 100 miles of on- and off -road bike lanes after the project was embedded in the local Department of Public Works through a grant from the local utility company and sup - With smartphone apps and online connectivity, fantastic and successful tools for ride sharing are available that can be conveniently and affordably accessed. The county should explore promoting such resources and working with nonprofits to promote convenient ride -sharing options for populations living in more suburban or remote areas, like the Estates, Ave Maria, or Immokalee. The New Orleans Regional Planning Commission sponsors one such ride - share platform, the New Orleans GreenRide, which uses a social media platform to connect riders and carpoolers. Enhance Wages For several decades, middle- and lower -middle-class wages across the United States essentially have been stagnant while housing costs have risen significantly. This trend has resulted in increased pressure on affordability of housing. One effective option to address this issue is to increase wages. The panel has identified two possible port from the Louisiana Public Health Institute. options for Collier County. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 31 Denver Transit -Oriented Development Fund The Denver Transit -Oriented Development Fund was established in 2010 with $13.5 million in debt capital to create and preserve affordable housing along current and future transit corridors in the city and county of Denver. In 2014, the fund was expanded to serve the surrounding seven -county region and is now capitalized at $24 million. Borrowers may use funds to purchase, hold (for up to five years), and develop sites within a half mile of fixed -rail transit stations or a quarter mile of high -frequency bus stops. The fund has closed 11 transactions totaling nearly $16 million, with a pipeline of more than 900 permanently affordable units and more than 150,000 square feet of commercial and community space. Returns to capital providers (public agencies, foundations, financial institutions, and community development financial institutions) are generally 2 to 6 percent. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION lFs:Fo50N. nV rF - 7 WF IlP MP F T'"-NI — .9.F5 s...r.Q �n„ Nn. D�I.cw n+rrroaolilo� R.vion �• Metro New Orleans GreenRide links commuters with carpool matches in the New Orleans metropolitan region. First, government employees are one of the largest groups affected by housing affordability issues in Collier County. On the basis of cost burden for this group, the panel rec- ommends the county consider enhancing wages for county employees. Even modest increases in salary for this group Denver's new Regional Transportation District rail system has eight rail lines servicing 53 stations along the north, east, southeast, southwest, and west rail corridors. can have a profound impact on its ability to afford housing within the community. Second, the panel recommends instituting enhanced minimum wage ordinances. Several U.S. cities including Albuquerque, New Mexico; Flagstaff, Arizona; Malibu, California; Miami Beach, Florida; Portland, Maine; and Washington, D.C., have attempted to address the issue of housing affordability this way and are seeing positive results. In virtually all cases, the ordinances call for a mod- est immediate increase in the minimum wage followed by a series of incremental steps spread over a period of three to five years that ultimately lead to a mandated minimum wage of $13 to $15 per hour. Engage, Market, and Educate Beyond moving ideas into action, education and com- munication also are critical pieces of a comprehensive and successful strategy for implementing housing affordability. If one is to combat the often false and confusing myths regarding what affordable housing is, what it might look like, and what unintended consequences it might create, it is crucial to educate the entire community about the full range of benefits that a balanced supply of housing brings, 32 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report to raise awareness, and to make affordable housing a vis- ible problem to everyone. Bolster Existing Programs and Processes The county government has already developed an afford- able housing database that tracks for -sale and rental units throughout the county. However, the panel recommends enhancing this database to include and track new units coming online and to include their sunset dates so that the county has a clear understanding of the supply of afford- able units in real time. This information should include comprehensive details, including addresses, bedroom sizes, square footage, rental rates, for -sale rates, and neighborhood location. An en- hanced database will also help ensure that the community has a credible source of real-time information that shows that affordability is spread throughout the county and not concentrated in any one district. By improving existing housing information online, the county will create a robust information portal for exist- ing and prospective residents to learn about the county's housing programs and any workshops or events related to housing in the county, ensuring that residents have the right information to make housing decisions. The panel also recommends that existing housing applica- tions are streamlined for residents and handled directly by the county instead of by individual developers. During the panel's review, it heard from the development community that developers are responsible for accepting income veri- fication applications, which they are simply not qualified to manage. This process should be administered either by the county or an administrator managed by the county, such as a private or nonprofit lender. Raise Awareness and Communicate with the Entire Community Although the links between housing affordability and communications may not be immediately obvious, public awareness, communication, and an overall education cam- paign can help ensure that ongoing efforts around housing affordability succeed. The panel has seen a tremendous ry �sknrny 7 . ENVIS16NING J)EVELGPMM T0OLKIT Hew York number of plans and technical recommendations, but un- less they are being communicated to the public at large in a clear and concise manner that is understandable by all, such efforts will go nowhere. To start, the panel recommends that the county develop a comprehensive marketing and communications plan that appeals to a wide variety of audiences: the current and potential residents, the business community, the local community organizations, and the proven donors within the community. The plan needs to appeal to people who are seeking housing, to people who support housing afford- ability, and to those who are skeptics. The message should be tailored around those three key audiences and the lan- guage used should be culturally sensitive, age appropriate, and multilingual. Ideally, the strategies will include written, verbal, and visual approaches. The key to the program's success is the hiring of a cre- ative, community outreach specialist. This person should be a full-time county employee and engaged in public The Center for Urban Pedagogy created an online map to help educate users on the many facets of affordable housing and to allow them to explore the income demographics of any New York City neighborhood. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 33 One of the many community workshops conducted in the Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., as part of the community engagement video project SEE/ CHANGE DC. meetings, neighborhood events, and other aspects of countywide community engagement. The key to com- munity outreach is for it to occur where people already are. People will not go out of their way to go to those types of meetings; the meetings must be brought to them. For example, the outreach specialist should hold the same workshop on three different dates and times to ensure those with atypical work schedules can still participate and be engaged. Create a Residential Toolkit The county should create a residential toolkit to address three constituencies: seekers of affordable housing, supporters of affordable housing, and skeptics of affordable housing. The panel recommends that Collier County think creatively about community engagement, marketing, and education strategies. Volunteer programs such as planting projects related to new housing developments and YIMBY (yes in my backyard) campaigns are great ways to raise awareness of and to engage the larger community in housing affordability issues. Seekers of affordable housing. Building on an enhanced online inventory discussed earlier, the panel also recom- mends the county create an affordable housing directory for those residents seeking housing. The directory will list both rental and for -sale opportunities and will draw from the county's live online database. However, because not everyone is comfortable with (or has access to) the internet, the panel recommends two options for this database: ■ A web -based platform, and ■ A printed document that is updated periodically (e.g., quarterly). The panel understands that a housing resources guide is already in place, but it recommends including a resource guide that is for first-time homebuyers and that includes information about housing assistance for downpayment programs, information about renters' assistance, and information about other community resources available to the public. The purpose is not only to provide information about how someone can afford housing, but also to provide information in a way that allows people to become engaged in the community and connected with their community. In addition, the panel strongly recommends the county employ a housing counselor or expand existing housing counselors' current responsibilities. The housing coun- 34 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report selor should collaborate with the community engagement specialist and other relevant county employees to create a robust educational program around what cost burden means. Also, it is essential for the housing counselor to develop programs and resources around household bud- geting and wealth creation that will help residents improve their financial management. Supporters of affordable housing. Collier County is privileged to have an engaged and effective philanthropic community. But the county needs to figure out how to get the group involved in affordable housing issues. The panel recommends partnering with the philanthropic community around specific fundraising campaigns, such as spe- cific housing development projects or facade or exterior improvement programs. In addition, the county should Case Study: SEE/CHANGE DC Though not specifically about housing, SEE/CHANGE DC is an example of a successful, creative, community engagement project to encourage community building and foster dialogue about rapid neighborhood change. Something similar in Collier County could help create discussion about housing and community and could give greater visibility to housing affordability challenges. What it is: The video art project puts a human face on how population change and revitalization are affecting two Washington, D.C., neighborhoods: Park View and Pleasant Plains. When: During fall 2016, video portraits of community members were projected in storefronts and on street corners along a main corridor — Georgia Avenue, N.W., in the Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods. Who: SEE/CHANGE DC was imagined and produced by the Pink Line Project + Citizen Innovation Lab, created by Composite Co. and BellVisuals, and funded by the D.C. Office of Planning (OP) and the Kresge Foundation. How: SEE/CHANGE DC is part of OP's comprehensive creative placemaking initiative: "Crossing the Street: Building DC's Inclusive Future through Creative Placemaking" grant from the Kresge Foundation. The grant is intended to "promote community -building in neighborhoods that are experiencing rapid demographic and social change, to engage residents in conversations about the future of the District as OP embarks on an update of D.C.'s Comprehensive Plan, and to demonstrate or test select placemaking recommendations articulated in OP's neighborhood plans and District Department of Transportation transit corridor studies and livability studies." In December 2015, OP released a request for applications seeking qualified curators and project managers to work with OP and other District and community stakeholders to define and implement temporary creative placemaking projects. Curators were selected in early 2016 and projects, such as SEE/CHANGE DC, were implemented during 2016. For further information, see www.seechangedc.com. SEE/CHANGE DC is a creative video project that uses community engagement as it inspires community building and fosters conversation about neighborhood change. peel �r ixgtwerx e � � Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 35 partner with the philanthropic community to develop fun and creative community volunteer projects and programs to raise awareness and bring the community together. help debunk myths and perceptions related to negative implications that are often falsely associated with afford- able housing (e.g., increased traffic, crime and density, de - Examples include planting projects related to new housing pressed property values). In addition, creating a workhouse developments, public art initiatives, "welcome wagon" media campaign could be another valuable approach to programs, and "yes in my backyard" (YIMBY) campaigns. community -wide education about housing affordability and Those types of programs can go a long way toward bring- whom it affects. ing the community together. Skeptics of affordable housing. Do not leave out the skeptics of affordable housing. The panel recommends creating a "myths and facts" brochure (available in a printed format and on the county's housing website) to 36 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Conclusion IT IS THE OPINION OF THE PANEL that Collier Coun- ty absolutely has a housing affordability problem. It is not a crisis yet, but if housing is not addressed, the panel be- lieves that it will become a crisis. Given the growth projec- tions for the county, the panel believes this problem will occur far sooner than expected. All of the panel's recommendations are intended to help the city and the county provide housing that is affordable for the full range of incomes found within the community. First and foremost, the panel believes the county needs to immediately come to a consensus and establish a clear vision for the county about how to move forward. Does the county want to remain a community that primarily relies on tourism and retirement, or does it want to diversify its economy? Does the county want to limit growth, or does it want to embrace it? Regardless of the answers, it is —in the panel's opinion —essential that the county address the issue of housing affordability. This approach needs to be a priority. Housing affordability is essential to creating and maintaining a vibrant, sustainable community. Although the county may well have some time to imple- ment the panel's recommendations, time is of the essence. Failure to act now will put at risk the very things that make Collier County so special. Maintaining paradise is both a privilege and an obligation. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 37 Appendix A. Implementation Schedule implementation Schedule Added Supply Regulation and Governance Communication and Education Strategies Short Term Review existing land inventory for possible Draft additions to the Land Develop- Develop inventory of affordable housing affordable housing development sites, ment Code (LDC) and the Growth units and update regularly. 0 to 3 years including commercial sites for conversion. Management Plan to include inclu- sionary zoning and expand expedited Develop a marketing and communications Develop a cross -agency strategy to permit review process for all affordable plan. consider other public facilities. projects. Employ a housing counselor. Identify and vet funding sources to reinstate Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Permit guest houses as rental units. Expand and enhance educational Revise the LDC to include a smart code programs to that makes it easier to create mixed- ■ Explain housing affordability income developments. ■ Explain cost burden Identify strategic opportunity sites for density increases such as the ■ Assist residents (renters and homeowners) Bayshore Gateway Triangle in household budgeting. Community Development Area. Create an expedited and/or concurrent comprehensive zoning plan approval process. Offer administrative approvals for certain applications. Medium Term Implement an inclusionary zoning program. Plan for additional increased density in Continue to refine and update affordable certain activity centers with the provi- housing inventory. 3 to 5 years Implement an expanded fee waiver/ sion of mixed -income housing. deferral program. Update and refresh the marketing and Add at -large Board of County Commis- communications plan as needed. Fund HTF to take advantage of other sioners members and/or reduce the financing vehicles (LIHTC, AHP, etc.) to super -majority rule. Update and refresh educational tools and support affordable housing development. programming as needed. Develop a process for commercial -to- Review and refine resources and tools residential conversions. available to the housing counselor. Long Term Conduct an annual review of HTF levels Continuously review and monitor the Continuously review and monitor affordable and report on fund expenditures. LDC and revisions, strategic opportu- housing inventory, marketing and com- 5 to 10+ years nity sites, and updated comprehensive munications plan, and educational tools and Adjust the inclusionary zoning program to zoning plan approval process to ensure programming, as well as resources and tools balance the needs of residents with those that the desired goal of increasing the available to the housing counselor, to ensure of developers and the current market. availability of affordable housing is that the goal of increasing the availability of Continuously review and monitor inclusion- being met. affordable housing is being met. ary zoning program, expanded fee waiver/ deferral program, and commercial -to - residential conversions process to ensure that the goal of increasing the availibility of affordable housing is being met. 38 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Appendix 13: Examples of County Housing Initiatives Private funding for housing development and services: Helping low-income families access opportunity neighbor - Santa Clara County, California (www.housingtrustsv.org/) hoods: King County, Washington (https://www.kcha.org/ Mobilizing owners and resources to preserve existing about/education/) affordable units: Cook County, Illinois (www.preservation - Inclusionary zoning: Palm Beach County, Florida (https:// compact.org/) Utilizing publicly controlled real estate to support mixed - income development: Arlington County, Virginia (https:// projects.arlingtonva.us/plans-studies/land-use/public- land/) u I i.org/larson-pol icy-awards/robert-c-I arson-award- finalists-palm-beach-county-florida/) Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 39 Appendix C: City of Austin, 2014 Robert C. Larson Policy Leadership Award Winner — rw_ ROBERT C. LARSON HOUSING POLICY LEADERSHIP AWARDS 2014 WINNER ORGANIZATION City of Austin, Texas YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION 2000 AFFORDABILITY 100 percent of units affordable to households at or below 80 percent of median family income (MR), with 12 percent serving house- holds at 30-50 percent of MFI NUMBER OF UNITS PRODUCED 18,406 WEBSITE hp p://h o u s i ngworksaust i n. o rg/ www.austintexas.gov/department/ imagineaustin ®Urban Land II15ti11ItQ Terwilliger Center for Housing Austin, Texas, has adopted a multifaceted approach to address the challenges of providing affordable housing in the vibrant and steadily growing city. Outstanding programs include a voter -approved bond program and a city ordinance to incentivize the development of affordable housing. These efforts have yielded 18,406 units since 2000. Austin (pop. 885,000), the capital of Texas, is a national leader in job creation, education, and research, and offers residents a high quality of life with an array of recreational and cultural amenities. Over the past two decades, in the face of rapid and steady population growth attracted to the city, Austin has also encountered corresponding increases in residential rents and home prices. To overcome the resulting squeeze on affordable housing for low-income households, Austin has pursued a multifaceted package of housing programs. These tools include the Housing Trust Fund, the Housing Bond Program, developer incentives, public/private partnerships, and impact statements. • Housing Trust Fund (2000). Since 2000, the Austin City Council has directed $8.8 million in local funds to the Housing Trust Fund (HTF). The city dedicates to the fund 40 percent of incremental tax revenues derived from private sector developments built on designated city - owned property. 40 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Housing Bond Program (2006). When 63 percent of voters approved an allocation of $55 million, Austin for the first time in its history used general obligation bond funding for affordable housing. Through May 2012, the Housing Bond Program had created or retained 3,055 housing units, of which 73 percent are affordable to households earning 30 to 50 percent of MR. DEVELOPER INCENTIVES • S.M.A.R.T. HousingTM (2000). S.M.A.R.T Housing is an incentive program designed to encourage accessible, mixed -income development by providing development fee waivers and an expedited review process for developers who set aside 10 percent of housing units as affordable (S.M.A.R.T. stands for Safe, Mixed -income, Accessible, Reasonably priced, and Transit oriented.) Units must also meet the Austin Energy Green Building Program minimum energy efficiency rating. The program has produced 15,351 units affordable to households earning 80 percent of MR or less. Vertical Mixed Use (2007). Commercial design standards provide a density bonus and parking standards exemptions in exchange for 10 percent of housing units in mixed -use developments being designated as affordable. These units must be maintained as affordable for 40 years for rental, and 99 years for ownership. The program has produced 41 units to date. University Neighborhood Overlay (2004). A density bonus and entitlements are provided to developers who set aside housing as affordable in the University of Texas at Austin campus area. Two tiers of affordability are required-10 percent of units for households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI, and 10 percent of units for households at or below 65 percent of MR. To date, 117 units have been constructed at 50 percent of MR, ten at 65 percent of MR, and 357 units at 80 percent of MR. • The Downtown Density Bonus Program (2013) and the East Riverside Corridor Program (2013). Height -density bonus programs encourage production of affordable "Because of GO Bond funding, the City of Austin has reaped direct and indirect benefits including increased income (through wages), increased local taxes (both property and sales), and increased local jobs." Betsy Spencer Director, City of Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Collier County, Florida, January 29-February 3, 2017 41 "Austin's commitment to providing affordable housing is strong, and our citizens expect the City of Austin to take action on this critical issue. I believe Austin's affordable housing bond votes were successful in 2006 and 2013 because Austinites wanted to see affordable housing in all parts of our city and believe we all benefit from providing affordable housing for low income families." housing in downtown Austin and in a neighborhood recommended for a future high -capacity transit route. Transit -Oriented Development (2009). Affordable housing goals have been established through individual station -area plans for areas within a half mile of the Capital Metro commuter rail stations. The overall goal is for 25 percent of all new housing units in the transit -oriented development areas to be occupied by households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI for homeownership or at or below 60 percent of MFI for rental. PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS • Robert Mueller Municipal Airport Redevelopment (1996-present). In a key public/private partnership for the city, the Mueller development when complete will have about 1,200 housing units affordable for households earning at or below 80 percent of Austin's MFI for ownership and 60 percent of MFI for rental. • Private Developer Agreements —Case by Case. The city continues to negotiate the inclusion of affordable housing in development agreements with market -rate developers to bring affordability into developments that otherwise would be unaffordable to low- and moderate - income households. These units must remain affordable through 2020. IMPACT STATEMENTS • Affordability Impact Statements (2000). Required by Austin's S.M.A.R.T. Housing TM ordinance, an affordability impact statement (AIS) is prepared by a city staff member for all proposed city code amendments, ordinances, and other proposed changes to identify any potential impacts on housing affordability. To date, Austin has issued more than 150 affordability impact statements. Austin's multifaceted approach to meeting the city's need for Mandy DeMayo affordable housing —from zoning to streamlining development HousingWorks Austin approvals, transit, and green construction —provides an Austin, Texas effective way to consider housing needs in a variety of contexts. While individual programs have an impact, it is the combination of tools that is most powerful, reflecting commit- ted leadership from the city as well as the willingness of Austin residents to step up and vote for bonds for affordable housing. For more information about the Terwilliger Center Awards,see www.uli.org/terwilligeraward. 42 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report About the Panel Philip Payne Panel Chair Charlotte, North Carolina For more than 25 years, Payne's primary focus has been the development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and manage- ment of middle market (workforce) multifamily housing. During his career, Payne has been involved in more than $4 billion in multifamily related transactions. Payne is currently the chief executive officer of Ginkgo Residential, which was formed in July 2010. Ginkgo provides property management services for multifamily properties in the southeastern United States and is actively involved in the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of middle market multifamily properties. He is a principal in Ginkgo Investment Company, which was formed in July 2013 and which invests in multifamily properties in the southeastern United States. From 2007 to 2010, Payne served as the CEO of Babcock & Brown Residential. Before joining Babcock & Brown Residential, he was the chair of BNP Residential Properties Trust, a publicly traded real estate investment trust that was acquired by Babcock & Brown Ltd. —a publicly traded Australian investment bank —in February 2007. In addition to his duties at Ginkgo, Payne is a member of the board of directors of Ashford Hospitality Trust, a New York Stock Exchange —listed real estate investment trust that is focused on the hospitality industry. Payne is a trustee and governor of the ULI. He is a mem- ber of ULI's Responsible Property Investing Council (found- ing chair); is a former cochair of the Institute's Climate, Land Use, and Energy Committee; and currently serves as a member of the advisory board for ULI's Center for Sustainability. He is a member of the National Multifamily Housing Council. Payne received a BS and a JD degree from the College of William & Mary in Virginia. He has written for various pub- lications and spoken at numerous conferences on a variety of topics including real estate investment trusts, securi- ties regulations, finance, workforce housing, responsible property investing, sustainability, and resilience. Hilary Chapman Washington, D.C. Chapman is the housing program manager for the Met- ropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). At COG, Chapman collaborates with regional leaders to solve the challenges of homelessness and affordable housing and provides research and analysis to support local hous- ing policy and practice using a regional solutions -based framework. As the lead staff person for two technical committees on housing and homelessness, Chapman collaborates with COG's other departments to integrate housing consider- ations into related fields of health, transportation, and the environment. In her role as lead staff person for the Home- less Services Committee, she helps coordinate the annual regional homeless enumeration that takes place during the last week of January each year, and she is the principal author of the committee's findings, "Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington." Chapman collaborates with COG's housing and planning partners, serving as an advisory board member for the Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance, a participant and convener of the Greater Washington Housing Leaders Group, and a planning member for the Housing Association Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 43 of Nonprofit Developers' annual meeting. She participated in the ULI Washington's Regional Land Use Leadership Institute and is active in ULI's Housing Initiative Council. She also volunteers weekly at a program site in the District of Columbia with the Homeless Children's Playtime Project. Before joining COG, Chapman spent nearly a decade as an affordable housing developer, working with public housing authorities nationally primarily through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOPE VI program to redevelop its most distressed housing units. She had direct responsibility for the construction of more than 250 afford- able housing units and the planning and financing of more than 1,000 more. She also served the government of the District of Columbia as a Capital City Fellow. Chapman holds a master's degree in city planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an under- graduate degree in sociology from the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Ian Colgan Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Colgan is the assistant executive director of the Oklahoma City Housing Authority, one of the largest public housing authorities in the country with 3,100 public housing units and more than 4,000 housing choice vouchers. Colgan leads all real estate development, planning, and policy initiatives for the authority. He was previously the assistant planning director for Oklahoma City, where he spearheaded the production of the city's Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Planning Framework, and several commercial district plans, as well as the creation of two new tax increment finance districts. Colgan was also formerly principal with Development Concepts Inc., a redevelopment consulting firm that is based in Indianapolis, Indiana, where he prepared market - based studies and redevelopment plans for communities throughout the Midwest and Southeast. Colgan holds a master's degree in urban planning from the University of Washington, a master's degree in business administration from Anderson University, and a bachelor's degree from Kalamazoo College. He has been a member of ULI since 2012 and participates on the Urban Revitaliza- tion Product Council. JoAnne Fiebe Tampa, Florida Fiebe is a research faculty member and adjunct instruc- tor at the Florida Center for Community Design and Research —a statewide research center at the University of South Florida's School of Architecture and Community Design. Through her work at the Florida Center, Fiebe provides design expertise, performs applied research, and manages community engagement programs to address urban challenges related to the built environment. Fiebe has 13 years of experience in both the public and private sectors while managing a range of urban design and planning projects. Before coming to the Florida Center, she worked for the Fairfax County Office of Community Revitalization on long-range planning, economic develop- ment, and policy for transit -oriented development districts in the Washington, D.C., metro area. Her previous experi- ence included managing entitlements for large residential and mixed -use projects at several development firms. For the past seven years, she has served on the board of a nonprofit urban design collaborative, the Urban Char- rette, which cultivates knowledge of leading urban design practices to build vibrant cities. She also teaches graduate courses at the University of South Florida about city plan- ning and sustainable urban development. Fiebe earned her degrees in architecture from the Uni- versity of Miami and a master's of urban and community design from the University of South Florida, where she also worked at the Center for Urban Transportation Research and coauthored a study on transit and bicycle lanes. She has been published in the Transportation Research Board and in the National Civic Review, and her research was cited in the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide. In her career, Fiebe has led more than 20 public planning projects including over a dozen community engagement 44 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report charrettes. She participated in ULI's Regional Land Use and Leadership Institute and was a resource team member for two Mayor's Institute for City Design programs. She is a member of the American Planning Association and the Urban Land Institute, is LEED accredited, and is a certified charrette planner. Lacy McManus New Orleans, Louisiana As the director of program development for Greater New Orleans (GNO) Inc. —the economic development alli- ance for the ten -parish New Orleans region —McManus is responsible for relationships and for the coordination between product and business development. McManus has positioned the organization's workforce and environ- mental and resilience initiatives as catalysts for wealth generation in southeast Louisiana. In this role, she acts as a liaison between GNO Inc. and private philanthropies, business community stakeholders, government agencies, and nonprofit partners to ensure that GNO Inc.'s programs create a thriving regional economy. Specifically, McManus oversees GNO Inc.'s Coalition for Coastal Resilience and Economy, a business -led advocacy campaign for holistic coastal restoration in south Louisi- ana. She also coordinates GNO's workforce development programs, including an award -winning outreach series to local educators, as well as ongoing engagements with regional higher -education institutions. In 2015, she worked with the state of Louisiana and New Orleans to bring in more than $233 million in resilience funds to the region through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment's National Disaster Resilience Competition. On the federal front, McManus serves on GNO's policy team advancing reauthorization of the National Flood Insur- ance Program through the Coalition for Sustainable Flood Insurance. She also represents GNO on the Housing NOLA Leadership Team and CONNECT Coalition. Before joining the GNO staff, McManus was the special initiatives manager with the nonprofit organization the Center for Planning Excellence, where she oversaw an innovative transportation, land use, and housing policy and advocacy campaign. She has branding and communica- tions experience from several years living and working abroad in both Auroville, India, and in Paris, France. She is an active member of the Junior League of New Orleans, a board member of the public transit advocacy organiza- tion RIDE New Orleans, an alumna of the 2016 Emerging Philanthropist of New Orleans class, and a lead mentor to entrepreneurs in the Propeller small business incubator. McManus holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Georgia's Grady School of Journalism, a master's degree in global communications from the American University of Paris, and a master's degree in business administration from Tulane University. John Orfield Dallas, Texas Orfield is both the product and a proponent of the collaborative style that BOKA Powell exemplifies. The 40-year-old planning and design firm, which is based in Dallas, specializes in corporate and commercial office, higher education, hospitality, urban living, and senior living. A LEED-accredited professional, Orfield is an expert in urban planning and sustainability. His 35 years of design experience includes landmark workplace, academic, luxury hotel, and residential projects across the United States and Mexico. Growing up in an artistically inclined family, Orfield devel- oped an interest in exploring the kinship between archi- tecture, film, and dance —art forms he sees as related in their portrayal of human experience moving through space and time. He has sought out collaborative environments or created them on the spot in design firms and universi- ties from New York to Indianapolis to Mexico City. Orfield considers every project a partnership, not only between the architect and the client, but also with the site itself. He sees this contextual approach as one reason there is no recognizable BOKA Powell "style" —only spaces that Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 45 benefit their surroundings as the result of a very intentional from 1984 to 1986, where he earned the Excellence in design process. Teaching award. He also held an appointment as a visiting professor at the Universidad de las Americas in Puebla, Orfield's recent projects include major projects for South- Mexico, from 1994 to 1995. west Airlines, including the carrier's corporate headquar ters master plan, the 1.1 million -square -foot "Wings" Office Building, the Flight Training Center and Garage, and Cassie Wright the 500,000-square-foot Training and Operations Support Denver, Colorado Center at Dallas's Love Field. Other projects include the Texas A&M West Campus student housing complex, which Wright is the project manager for Urban Ventures LLC, a is designed to accommodate 4,000 students in College Station, Texas; the Venue at the Ballpark, which is a 241- unit apartment complex overlooking the Birmingham Bar- ons ballpark; the Hotel Ajax, which is a boutique hotel and condominium project in Telluride, Colorado; and multiple corporate and commercial office projects for Hillwood and Cawley Partners in North Texas. Orfield's higher education portfolio includes more than 5.5 million square feet of university architecture, including student housing and academic buildings. He has designed corporate headquarters campuses for Accor, Daimler Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, and Computer Associates. While a vice-president at Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc., he completed the iconic 400,000-square-foot Eli Lilly Corporate Center in downtown Indianapolis. In 1996, Orfield joined Dallas -based architecture and plan- ning firm HaldemanPowell+Partners. Now known as BOKA Powell, he became a partner and owner in the practice in 1999. Earlier, Orfield was a vice president at Indianapolis - based Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc. from 1988 to 1994. He worked in numerous architectural intern positions in Houston, Texas; New Haven, Connecticut; and New York City, including an undergraduate internship with Mitchell Giurgola. He earned a master's degree in archi- tecture and building design from Columbia University in 1987. He earned his first bachelor's degree in architecture in 1980 and a second bachelor's of architecture in 1982 from Rice University in Houston. A lifelong educator, Orfield was a member of the fac- ulty of the University of Houston College of Architecture real estate company that is dedicated to creating healthy, sustainable communities. In her position, Wright works on all aspects of real estate development: from land acquisi- tion to project construction. She tests the financial feasibil- ity of projects, actively participates in the site planning and design processes, develops marketing and sales related materials, and closely interacts with project partners. In addition, Wright consults on real estate projects that focus on the relationship between the built environment and healthy living. In this role, she researches and implements best practices and health -based programming to foster community development that promotes social cohesion and positive wellbeing. Currently, Wright is involved with the land development of Aria Denver, a 17.5-acre, mixed -use, mixed -income project that will include more than 450 units and a commercial component. Upon completion, Aria Denver will promote healthy living with community gardens, production farms, a food -producing greenhouse, pocket parks, outdoor fitness equipment, and pathways integrated into the site. Aria Denver is part of Cultivate Health, a partnership among neighboring Regis University, the surrounding neighbor- hoods, and more than a dozen nonprofit organizations. Funded in large part by the Colorado Health Foundation, Cultivate Health is providing infrastructure enhancements and programming that promote an active lifestyle, increase access to healthy food, and offer integrated health services. Wright is co -manager of the Colorado Health Foundation grant and is managing the implementation of three major infrastructure projects (i.e., production farms, improved bicycle facilities, and neighborhood wellness loop) that are included in the Cultivate Health initiative. 46 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Wright is also actively working on the Aria Cohousing proj- ect. Cohousing communities are intentional, collaborative neighborhoods that combine private homes and shared spaces. In cohousing, residents actively participate in the design and operation of their neighborhoods while sharing common facilities and good connections with neighbors. Aria Cohousing is the redevelopment of a 35,000-square- foot convent into 28 condominium units and shared community spaces including a community dining room, kitchen, multipurpose room, guest room, and sunroom. Finally, Wright is project manager for STEAM on the Platte, a 3.2-acre, mixed -use project in Denver's abandoned, industrial corridor along the Platte River. In its first phase, STEAM will feature the conversion of an existing 65,000-square-foot industrial warehouse into office space and the creation of a courtyard and promenade that con- nects to the river's edge. Wright holds a master's degree in city planning from the University of Pennsylvania and a bachelor's degree in soci- ology and anthropology from St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota. She serves on the nonprofit board for Soul Spring, as well as on the Mile High Connects Advisory Council. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 47 Urban Land Institute 2001 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.uli.org ® Printed on recycled paper. Proposed Housine Affordability LDC Amendments Proposed Immokalee Interchanee Residential Inflll Subdistrict Proposes up to 16 du/- By Right in Commercial Zoning Proposes a maximum density of 30 du/ac through a PUD Rezoning- Must demonstrate Districts and 25 du/ac in Activity Centers and Strategic compatibility with adjacent uses; Complements Activity Center 4; and Provides transportation DENSITY Opportunity Centers. (Initiatves 2,3 & 4) benefits. Promotes increased density in Activity Centers, along Proposed location is one property removed from Activity Center 4 and is complementary to transportation corridors and within newly created the uses within the Activity Center and the proposed car dealership on the abutting property. Strategic Opportunity Sites(initiatives 2,3,&4) The subject property is along a major transportation corridor and approximately 1/4 mile from an existing transit stop. Similar to SOS sites, this property is also a strategic site due to its key LOCATION location along a major transportation corridor and inclose proximity to transit and an Activity Center. Similar to the SOS, this proposed location will require staff review to demonstrate compatibility with surrounding uses. Promotes increased density along majortransportation Proposed subdistrict and resulting project provides joint access from lmoka l lee that will corridors and in close proximity to transit. Promotes improve, traffic managment, circulation patterns and safety conditions; A frontage road Transit Oriented Design and ease of access for pedestrians parallel to lmmokalee will significantly improve access to the Activity Center uses, will reduce TRANSPORTATION/TOD and cyclists. (Initiatives 3 & 4) trips on lmmokalee, and will encourage bicycle and pedestrian modes; and supports TOD by providing higher density close to transit employment and shopping and making transit easier to access. Amendments ask for the provision of housing that is The proposed subdistrict proposes increased density based on several factors including afforadable in order to obtain additional density. appropriateness of proposed location along a major corridor and close proximity to transit Generally speaking, 20%of those units must be affordable. shopping and employment; the infill character of the property and its support of sprawl (Initiatives 2,3,4 & 5) reduction; provision of rental units that diversify the needed available housing stock; support HOUSING AFFORDABILITY of TOD principles; provision of a residential project that will create a transition from more intense commercial uses to less intense residential uses; support of essential service personnel; and provision of approximately 13%of units that are affordable. Department of State / Division of Corporations I Search Records I Search by Entity Name / Previous On List Next On List Return to List L_ No Events No Name History Detail by Entity Name Florida Limited Liability Company CIG NAPLES, LLC Filing Information Document Number L20000136374 FEIIEIN Number NONE Date Filed 05/26/2020 Effective Date 05/26/2020 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 226 EAST 8TH STREET CINCINNATI, OH 45202 Mailing Address 226 EAST 8TH STREET CINCINNATI, OH 45202 Registered Agent Name & Address HF REGISTERED AGENTS, LLC 1715 MONROE STREET FORT MYERS, FL 33901 Authorized Person(s) Detail Name & Address Title MGR BASTOS, DAVID 226 EAST 8TH STREET CINCINNATI, OH 45202 Annual Reports No Annual Reports Filed Document Images 05/26/2020 -- Florida Limited Liability View image it PDF tomtit Previous On List Next On List Return to List CIO Naples LLC Search No Events No Name History Exhibit I.D Capital Investments Group, Inc. PROJECT CONSULTANTS Attorney: Jeff E. Wright Henderson & Franklin Pelican Bay Financial CenterNaples, FL 34108 TEL: (239) 344-1371 - Office FAX: (239) 344-1508 Email: Jeff.Wright&henlaw.com Planner: Patrick Vanasse, AICP RWA Inc. Inc. 6610 willow Park Drive, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 TEL: (239) 597-0575- Office Email: pvanassekconsult-rwa.com Transportation: Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 TEL: (239) 566-9551 — Office Email: ntrebilcockktrebilcock.biz Environmental: Bethany Brosious Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200Fort Myers, FL 33912 TEL: (239) 274-0067 — Office FAX: (239) 274-0069 Email: bethanyb@passarella.net Architect: Chris Gallagher, AIAHoyt Architects 1527 2nd St. Sarasota, FL 34326 TEL: (941)366-6066-Office Email: Chrisghoytarchitects.com AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PL20190001600, PL20190001620 1 KURT G. SCHERER (OR) WM . S CHERER(print name), as TRUSTEE (title, if applicable) of WILLIAM C. SCHERER TRUST (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) ownerQapplicant =contract purchasernand that: 1. 1 have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize CIG NAPLES, LLC to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. "Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee" • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. the penalties ojpe"ury, I declare that 1 have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that re true. 41 f Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of physical presence or ®o line notarization this L- day of ;fV1-1 , 20�, by (printed name of owner or qualifier) (�i'L7 5 6P f Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: Are personally known to me ® Has produced a current drivers license E3 Has produced identification. Notary Signature: cwa"m 0 FF 969113 i�• cr?�o'�' BpdedThu7tq, Wun�C•�0.1067D10 CP\08-con-00115\155 REV 3/4/2020 4-h-1r ClaHnty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliereov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a- If the property is owned fee simple by an INLiIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: 31 C. r = Name and Address % of Ownership Gvrc L1,444 C°_ ' -, V T D �' �A:9 If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership r) — F 5 q IN Ng J, � C 4 1,14 7 0/1J � Al mi- G3 If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address % of Ownership William %. Scherer c/o Excel Real Estateg. 2375 N. Tamiami Trail #206 ; Naples, FL 34103 Yv),. fie. S ff�S t:/ef 7RV4 7�A ,Wo. A Created 9/28/2017 r-pc: i- r/,v/J !7hlAc'E(<r /9r45:GLeV1 1-4►F:, Page I of 3 0? J �0 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net aver County 28M NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34204 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (233) 252-6358 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership N/A e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE. with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders. beneficiaries. or partners: f [,A Name and Address % of Ownership `&&Z &Aa /fie `/. 7 {- 3!. G 7 Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or lu , UI LIUSL.- Name and Address N/A Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Ca er Co1.nty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2900 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (2391252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Date of option: Date option terminates: or Anticipated closing date: AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change In ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other Interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County Immediately if such change occurs prior to the petit€on's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand thatfailureto include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN; Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Owner Gregg Fusaro, Capital Investment Group, Inc. Agent/Owner Name (please print) Die Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit III.A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION O.R. 5460. PAGE 132 SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48-RANGE 26 W % OF E %2 OF NW % OF NW %, LESS N 100 FT R/W COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. EXHIBIT 66IV.B.199 PROPOSED GMPA AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Proposed Small Scale Amendments to the Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) related to 9.35 f acres located on the south side of Immokalee Road East of Livingston road and west of Juliet Blvd. in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Amend the FLUE Policy 1.5, A. URBAN — MIXED USE DISTRICT, as follows: A. URBAN — MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict 3. Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict 4. Business Park Subdistrict 5. Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict 6. PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict 7. Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict 8. Orange Blossom Mixed -Use Subdistrict 9. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 10. Henderson Creek Mixed -Use Subdistrict 11. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict 12. Buckley Mixed -Use Subdistrict 13. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict 14. Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 15. Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict 16. Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict 17. Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict 18. Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict 19. Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict 20. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict 21. Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict 22. Vanderbilt Beach Road Mixed Use Subdistrict [PENDING1 23. Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict Amend the Future Land Use Designation DESCRIPTION SECTION, URBAN DESIGNATION, A. Urban Mixed Uses District, Page 50, as follows: 23. Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict Page 1 of 3 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict consists of 9.35+/- acres and is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection of Juliet Boulevard and Immokalee Road. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow infill multi -family residential development at a densitfp to 30 units per acre and to provide affordable residential units to accommodate the workforce in Collier County, thereby advancing the intent of Goal 1 of the Housing Element. Development within the Subdistrict shall be subject to the following a. Development shall be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). b. The maximum residential density_ permitted within the Subdistrict is 30 units per acre. c. Allowable residential uses are limited to multi -family rental units. d. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with affordable housing goals and objectives of the Housing element by providing the following_ • Twenty five percent (25%) of the total units (70 units) will be rented to Essential Services Personnel ("ESP"). ESP means natural persons or families at least one of whom is employ. e�police or fire personnel, a child care worker, a teacher or other education personnel, health care personnel or a public employee. Any time that a unit becomes vacant, assuming that less than 70 units are occupied by ESP, the next available unit will be offered to ESP. In the event that no ESP rents the available unit within thirty (30) dqys of advertisement of its availability, then the unit may be offered to the general public. This commitment to ESP shall remain in effect for a period of time that is 30 vears from the date that the development receives its final certificate of occupancy. • Of the seventy ESP units, thirty five(35) of those units will be income and rent restricted. Ten (10) of the units will be designated for those households whose incomes are less than 80% of the AMI for Collier County. Fifteen (15,) of the units will be designated for households whose incomes are between 80% and 90% of AMI for Collier County, and ten (10) of the units will be designated for households whose incomes are between 90% and 100% of the AMI for Collier County. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years and AMI rent limit adjustments will be made on an annual basis according to the most recent Collier County Board approved Table of Rental Rates for each income category and the number of bedrooms in the unit. e. Affordable Housing commitments will be included in the PUD as Developer Commitments and memorialized through a Developer Agreement. f. Access to the project will be via a shared access with the property to the east on the eastern property line of this project. g. Interconnection with the property to the west will be provided on the RPUD Master Plan and can be exercised by the abutting properly if desired. h. Interconnection with the property east and reciprocal cross -access easements between properties will be provided as part of the RPUD in order to allow connection to Useppa Way, Juliet Boulevard and Activity Center 4. Page 2 of 3 Amend the FLUE, B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM, Le., Pages 51 and 52 as follows: e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System, except as provided in: 1) Policy 5.3 of the Future Land Use Element. 2) The Urban Mixed Use District for the "vested" Port of the Islands development. 3) The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict 4) The Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict. 5) The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. 6) Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. 7) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. 8) The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. 9) The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. 10) The Vanderbilt Beach Road Mixed Use Subdistrict [PENDING] 11) Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict Amend the FLUE, Future Land Use Map Series, Pages 148 and 149, as follows: FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map. Activity Center Index Map ********************************text break******************************* Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict Map_ Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial East Residential Subdistrict Map The Vanderbilt Beach Road Mixed Use Subdistrict [PENDING] Immokalee Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict Page 3 of 3 T46S I T47S I T48S L 9 i a ? c S 6 ppyy G }} z � €a a d a u0�I0 n11 s On®10®0 W R 6 HR LU � �y�V E€ 4� 3 333 m 36 3' S3 3Igo so o i 1. tt �Y � sm ego � eye m 3 IN � �l g001112=1. 1®�®�®�I W h 0: W N 19 L. IL 0 JhLas so�> — W Opp: 0 1p U �a_O w N :) o a te= waIn � � jzw r U — p N Lu m aw�l~n z �'=wW a 1i U MWO I-wf,ln W to ILL OI=-•7W !3z-Q,w r � � V -< LL o T46S T47S T50S I T51S I T52S I T53S - i 3 s s o a000 00 0 _� 8 S 6 6 < < w ° Y 3 g w � i � m L 3 iw I � o. i 9 - i e o - ------ _ - M e ��a G u I o f Irt°` T48S T49S T50S T51S �a w 00 w w w w s Oda €o� Bt�R� N T52S I T53S Immokalee Road _r N Ultimate Express C- 00- Car Wash (p� Q Chase aO O Q Bank Useppa Drive O m Q Extra Space Storage Windsong Club Germain Apartments Bermuda Palms Immokalee Subject,$ite (In Process) Livingston Lakes Legend PGNO� L' R Blue Coral Apartments ;, N d (,Nnas 0 150 300 :.AGNOLI �mokalee Road Exhibit IV.D BARBERInterchange Residential glue Coral Apartments Created: 1/27/2020 BRUNDAGE, iNC. Infill Subdistrict/ (a.k.a) Inset Map ABB PN: 20-0003 Q f o m / ` � ` it .f/�` �r" :�••5. •y �' \. �! i tJot y� :S t' I I r�.. i � •� a]f»L� A _, y �i�/ft1 �@ � ...� 0`'T i jS Npg� ♦ I I EI I% s � CD o ` N E ��� 9`¢`•,f i + E -: J Q.: � •�C . k -ti�:. v i _ ' .. tee}• ,. J —�. �,J y Y. ii fr .t �:t K . o m wy c 0 .:. \ o - f � In r.� ,fi�l��'%+° �•�, §fit � "? �„ �' �� �` ,�G ;* ;.fie � �: � 1u. Y� r �. a .e, �• c c ' V i E_aw h LL Vic' Y 0 CO t o m Ow - c oa; i 3 aw. r t - Livingston Road* z W a w z �uuu uuuu ■uuuu ■uuuu ■uuuu \ \ 0 04 0 m • � a a 9 | § IN. IN. IL z g ( %§ r 2tJ \ � a - j 2 © $ - % 0 k 2 C § ; k w o — � c �U 9 �j � �! ., k _ - ©� /\ : e . « f= & - ■ § �). \ , \ | (L\: | Fi - . � � \ _ e . m W\ ° zo - § y . IL \ § ® ` ` .L) v : . , \ 2 ! � , a§ § k : | � | � � § � § / O Z --- k � 7 E 0 0 C ƒ 0 0 U N .co wo — §2 k « | � ||§ «,. IMMOKALEE ROAD INTERCHANGE RESIDENTIAL INFIL SUBDISTRICT/ a.ka. BLUE CORAL APARTMENTS COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT Revised May 2020 Prepared For: Capital Investment Group, Inc. 226 East 81h Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 659-6181 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 Project No. 20CIG3219 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction.................................................................................................................................... I Environmental Data Authors.........................................................................................................1 VegetationDescriptions.................................................................................................................I ListedSpecies Survey....................................................................................................................3 NativeVegetation Preservation.....................................................................................................4 Conservation and Coastal Management Element Consistency......................................................5 References......................................................................................................................................5 it LIST OF FIGURES Page Exhibit 1. Project Location Map.........................................................................................El-1 Exhibit 2. Aerial with Boundary......................................................................................... E2-1 Exhibit 3. Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map........................................................E3-1 Exhibit 4. Native Vegetation Map......................................................................................E4-1 Exhibit 5. Listed Species Survey........................................................................................ E5-1 iii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Native and Non -Native Habitat Types and Acreages............................................4 1V INTRODUCTION The following environmental data report is provided in support of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment for Blue Coral Apartments (Project). The Environmental Data Report was prepared in accordance with the Collier County Environmental Data Report submittal requirements outlined in Chapter 3.08.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The 9.35± acre Project site is located in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Exhibit 1). More specifically, the Project is found along the south side of Immokalee Road approximately 2,700 feet west of Interstate 75 (Exhibit 2). The Project is bound by Immokalee Road to the north, Bermuda Palms to the west, Livingston Lakes to the south, and undeveloped land to the east. The Project site is comprised mainly of undeveloped, forested uplands and wetlands that have been invaded to various degrees by exotic vegetation including melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), and Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia). The following Environmental Data Report includes details regarding the authors of this report, vegetation descriptions for the various habitats on -site, results of the listed species survey conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) in January 2020, and the County native vegetation preservation requirement. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AUTHORS This Environmental Data Report was prepared by Bethany Brosious and Heather Samborski. They both satisfy the environmental credential and experience requirements for preparing the Environmental Data Report, per Section 3.08.00 of the Collier County LDC. Ms. Brosious is an Ecologist with PAI, with over 13 years of consulting experience in the environmental industry. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Sciences from the University of Florida and a Master of Science degree in Environmental Science from Florida Gulf Coast University. Ms. Samborski is an Ecologist with PAI, with five years of consulting experience in the environmental industry. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from Eastern Connecticut State University and a Master of Science degree in Environmental Science from Florida Gulf Coast University. VEGETATION DESCRIPTIONS The existing vegetative communities on the property include forested uplands and wetlands with varying degrees of exotic infestation. The vegetation associations for the property were delineated using December 2018 rectified color aerials (Scale: 1" = 200') and groundtruthing conducted in January 2020. These delineations were classified based on the nomenclature of the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Levels III and IV 1 (Florida Department of Transportation 1999). Level IV FLUCFCS was utilized to denote disturbance, and "E" codes were used to identify levels of exotic species invasion (e.g., melaleuca, earleaf acacia, and Brazilian pepper). AutoCAD Map 3D 2018 software was used to determine the acreage of each mapped polygon, produce summaries, and generate the final FLUCFCS map (Exhibit 3). A total of nine vegetative associations and land uses (i.e., FLUCFCS codes) were identified on the Project site. The dominant habitat type on the Project site is Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2), accounting for 28.1 percent of the property (2.63± acres). Exotic vegetation documented on -site includes but is not limited to, Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, earleaf acacia, and Australian pine. The degree of exotic infestation ranges from 25 to nearly 100 percent cover. The Project site contains 0.67± acre of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdictional wetlands (Exhibits 3 and 4). The jurisdictional wetlands identified by FLUCFCS code include approximately 0.52 acre of Mixed Wetland Forest, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E3) and approximately 0.15 acre of Mixed Wetland Forest, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E4). The on -site wetlands contain a large amount of exotic vegetation including Brazilian pepper, earleaf acacia, and melaleuca. The following is a description of each FLUCFCS classification. Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2) The canopy of this upland habitat is primarily slash pine (Pinus elliottii) with scattered live oak (Quercus virginiana) and earleaf acacia. The sub -canopy is dominated by saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) with myrsine (Myrsine cubana), rusty staggerbush (Lyonia ferruginea), and gallberry (Ilex glabra) throughout. Earleaf acacia and Brazilian pepper are also found scattered throughout the sub -canopy. The ground cover is dominated by saw palmetto and includes scattered bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Greenbrier (Smilax spp.), muscadine grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) are found throughout the ground cover and sub - canopy. Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 4119 E3) This habitat type is similar to Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2) with higher densities of melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and earleaf acacia. Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 4119 E4) This habitat type is similar to Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E3) with higher densities of melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and earleaf acacia. Pine, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E3) The canopy of the upland habitat is comprised of widely scattered slash pine with earleaf acacia, melaleuca, cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), live oak, and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). The sub -canopy is composed of melaleuca, earleaf acacia, Brazilian pepper, cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco), live oak, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and widely scattered bald 2 cypress. The ground cover is mostly open but includes live oak, wedelia (Sphagneticola trilobata), muscadine grapevine, greenbrier, Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, earleaf acacia, and widely scattered swamp fern (Telmatoblechnum serrulatum) and sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense). Brazilian Pepper (FLUCFCS Code 422) This upland habitat type is dominated by Brazilian pepper in all strata with scattered earleaf acacia and slash pine in the canopy, with earleaf acacia and melaleuca in the sub -canopy. The ground cover is mostly bare, with some muscadine grapevine. Australian Pine (FLUCFCS Code 437) This habitat type has a canopy that is comprised entirely of Australian pine. The sub -canopy is dominated by Australian pine with scattered cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper, and myrsine. The ground cover is mostly bare, with scattered Brazilian pepper and wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa). Mixed Wetland Forest, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 6309 E3) The canopy of this wetland habitat consists primarily of melaleuca and earleaf acacia with scattered slash pine, bald cypress, and cabbage palm. The sub -canopy includes melaleuca, earleaf acacia, Brazilian pepper, cabbage palm, laurel oak, and bald cypress. The ground cover is dominated by swamp fern and sawgrass, with scattered cabbage palm, fennel (Eupatorium leptophyllum), Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, and earleaf acacia. Mixed Wetland Forest, Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E4) This wetland habitat type is similar to Mixed Wetland Forest, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6309 E3) with higher densities of melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and earleaf acacia in all strata. Road FLUCFCS Code 814) This land use type consists of roadways and their Right -of -Ways. LISTED SPECIES SURVEY A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted by PAI on the Project site on January 28, 2020. Three listed plant species, stiff -leaved wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata), inflated wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana), and butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) were observed during the listed species survey. The stiff -leaved wild pine and inflated wild -pine are listed as threatened and endangered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) respectively, and the butterfly orchid is listed as commercially exploited. All three species are included on the Collier County "Less Rare Plant List." None of the species documented on -site are federally listed. The survey methodology and results are provided as Exhibit 5. 3 NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION The 9.35± acre Project site is comprised of 7.88± acres of native vegetation. An 0.70± acre area of Australian pine, 0.40± acre of Brazilian pepper, and 0.36± acre of roadway have been identified as non-native vegetation (Ordinance 14-34) and have been excluded from the native vegetation calculation (Exhibit 4). Section 3.05.07.B.1 of the Collier County LDC requires the retention and preservation of 15 percent of the on -site native vegetation for a mixed -use development in the non -coastal high hazard area which for this Project equates to a 1.18± acre preserve requirement (i.e., 7.89± acres of native vegetation x 0.15 = 1.18± acres of required native vegetation preserve) (Exhibit 4). Table 1 provides a summary of the native vegetation communities on -site and the native vegetation preservation calculation. Table 1. Native and Non -Native Habitat Types and Acreages FLUC Codee Description Native Vegetation Acreage Non -Native Vegetation Acreage 4119 E2 Pine Flatwood, Disturbed 25-49% Exotics 2.63 - 4119 E3 Pine Flatwood, Disturbed 50-75% Exotics 1.75 - 4119 E4 Pine Flatwood, Disturbed 76-100% Exotics 1.32 - 4159 E3 Pine, Disturbed 50-75% Exotics 1.51 - 422 Brazilian Pepper - 0.40 437 Australian Pine - 0.70 6309 E3 Mixed Wetland Forest, Disturbed 50-75% Exotics 0.52 - 6309 E4 Mixed Wetland Forest, Disturbed 76-100% Exotics 0.15 - 814 Road - 0.36 Total 7.88 1.46 Minimum Retained Native Vegetation Requirement (Native Vegetation Acreage, 7.89E Acres x 15 Percent) 1.18 The applicant proposes to preserve and enhance 1.18± acres of native vegetation along the south side of the Project site. Please see the Master Concept Plan for the location of the on -site preserve areas. The preserves' proposed locations allow for habitat connectivity to the undeveloped land and the preserve areas to the east and to the preserve area for Livingston Lakes to the southeast. Enhancement activities within the preserve areas will include the removal of exotic vegetation and supplemental plantings of native vegetation, where required. The locations of the on -site preserve areas were selected to be consistent with Section 3.05.07.A.4 and 3.05.07.A.5 of the Collier County LDC and to provide a connection to adjoining off -site preservation areas. The property does contain 0.67± acre of isolated low -quality wetland habitats that are utilized by listed plant species; however, the same listed plant species were also identified in the proposed preserve area. Retention of this wetland habitat would result in a small, low quality preserve area, likely surrounded by development. Further, the property contained no .19 xeric scrub, dune, strand, hardwood hammocks, wetlands with a Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure score of at least 0.65, or upland habitat that serves as a buffer to high quality wetlands. As a result, the locations of the native vegetation preserves were selected to provide connectivity to the off -site conservation/preserve lands to the east and southeast, per Section 3.05.07.A.5. As previously noted, these areas will also be enhanced through exotic vegetation removal and supplemental planting of native vegetation. This activity will improve the quality of habitats on - site and off -site through the elimination of exotic and nuisance species seed sources. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT CONSISTENCY The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 7.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME), for the following reasons: • The Project will preserve and enhance a minimum of 15 percent of the native vegetation on -site. The preserve will be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement, prohibiting further development. • Selection of preservation area is consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1 and the preserve provides connectivity to off -site preserve areas. • A habitat management and exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plan will be required at the time of Site Development/Construction Plan submittal. The preserve area shall be required to be maintained free of Category I and II invasive exotic plants, as defined by the EPPC. • The requirement for submittal of appropriate environmental data pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. • Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Agency permits will be required at the time of Site Development/Construction Plan submittal. • In accordance with CCME Policy 7.1.4, project development will comply with applicable federal and state permitting requirements regarding listed species protection. REFERENCES Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Second Edition. 5 EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP A; CORSO Apr y,, iP.OND AP,P,LE 7 DR Lq LU LLI .+�.F..�a'.5.' _k... , a WIGGINS''P,4S S.Rb}'F �Jp „r� '' y 'pA la ..,•i'.'.. .'c" iaZ \OPERIAL'GOLF-'Z �,#,x'.. :. f' -Y{+ _+lS: s .{'f. 7O .ca , ,: el 4 F a \CORE WAY #' hi%' '. '*',{, '.I w ' m VOLLIERSrRES 4� ,;ERIE�DR:" I V/ klyip PROJECT SEC °LL:•,s•��'' .i P.IP,ER•BLVD. -' EXIT IMMOKA. L'EE:RD .,q�1 AUTUMN:OP.KSLN M1 } I DE BLVM1 .. ,v T- CREEK$-D ;. HIDDEN OXKS LN n zU AGO90a .ka}.,dMO IL M1t(I'F-, 3�•'f + I , .¢--m-SPP,NISH�OAKS LN Y co t9 :• .Z IIt ;1i� .'ntm[4 ..} _~- Y 4 O S m 'spa ' "!i•+'�; ' 1'1.4 98TH AVE N " :NO�,IN -'" ' a 3 yPL' ' O`=GOLDEN OAI(S?LN ��SPSUFt� 97TH AVE N - , 96TH AVE N L 94TH AVE N, : f.. I�PELICQN'MA'RSIHB �` .:�- " SIo "^ M1("' i STANDING OAKS.LN.—• 33RD AVE N.' ' _: t IIr __ -� , . " , O 32ND AVE N NS 91 ST AVE T �O \MMON DROAKSLN BU r,c -�1.: - ;.` ._'tfl , w v:t''�. - '--• R OAKS R'•r I .'tP p...., '�2 •N"•, ''.i'' p• 'a z ./R.'{ '. 'ices-ENGLISH OAKS -LN-- m O . Y ., BAY„' ; , , ,..., y % lk k O tVP.ND�RBIL�T*BEACH.IRD ..D < LL,• l'�'r" y ry."CEO ,,•LLr.4�C T- O m ! Cp. Aw,�ujT EME r{ ., ✓FSe y`i.v x` m {vO,_ xY.} [ �.:CH_ERRYIWOOD DR 7TH AVENW - - .¢ 9 A Ao o.w 2z'r DR--- 'STFi AVE NW m Ri 4 .' 0 i =DR i i` ,mom } ~ F :' Q O 3 w k YL `2110 Qo t { w M/SS.� lP� .:f .k:"nzkkka''' W`i'. , 0 'S' �:' •' :. ..ir Y�r ITRUS4 '�, t .. _ " 2'r FF *Q a %GIR " +.� r—'. i , : >° a Y �..�. CORAL -.WOOD DR 3RD AVE NW'. ORA GE;BLOSSOMOR '*'-DANIELS•RD E r EXHIBIT 2 I_\ 01:7 /_\ 1 • ' • e� iJe­ 77 a c :JNk _ 1. �.-��-• �� ,: � � .� :r .•it3 HIS.•kd ,irk i yWt t tom: f rl . a, WONDER WORLD DR- - �. ��•,� _. m e _ r gw. �, J� f • NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY 5- PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A hx FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2018. h4 4 ! PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER PORTELLA & ASSOCIATES, LLC DRAWING No. P&A3066 ACADFILE.DWG DATED MARCH 2, 2020. DRAWN BY DATE R.F./T.S. 3/2/20 - EXHIBIT 2. AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY REVIEWED BY DATE PASSARELLA - B.B. 3/z/zo & ASSOCIATES a BLUE CORAL APARTMENTS REV SED DATE EXHIBIT 3 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP E Ave O¢���au�imm�rnp O N R7 07 V 1, N M p � o Iry W +I +I +I +I +I +I +I +I +I +I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 4 Q Gm�cq r—: UNi�mcq ui �U �1 x Qno �o ow rya Q 0 0 O � J t8N r r OF2 VJ �W�,QQ Qrw � p. W JO 0 O W Z U N O z x LL J O Z Q U r O O ,+�, Wow ac7� oo zo xWr n�J r� NWOE tw z QLw,� ¢c¢.arn t: w 1�1 KJ Z N O LU LU d J w W LC p F r a CT J}= b FF �r' [0 [0 Q J rn p ¢ rn Q rn N F a C] C] C] r 7 7 Q OOOd0 pJ� N�0 OLL J O ¢wit �,o( GW WwOX �� C r=aw o 3 Z�w �`�� F3o �w(y1 �%Q Q Q W C] C] =rQQ 00 W o JOQ a\n w w z C �_�_�� ww axro rQ� Nab rnw- 8w¢ Zi mmmd LULU w aow= aoo cu m U,u azz C] C] C] v O O r LCWO2 00< D pop JW W Q LL LL O W x LL' J N U J W d J Z J d W U' C] C] C] Z C] C] Z QrdLL a<< LLQQ LLQ� 7mQ OOOMILEZZ OOOmaZgg r Z LL a LL LL 3 3 0 0 LL LL LL LL R r p p p N N W W W W Q y W W¢ Z Z Z Z.x x D ¢ N¢ N Q EL- a a a Co'< N V W W W W W W LU �Uaavvv 9toZ �C45W> fzz, c In i i I w J � u w u o o w Q o• - MMLdi �_.mmmL smalL44 i ealaa Ae —ioad wq,,2 - OZOZ 'LZ -w o-BXII evl axa'oZZO£0 avW SawvuaM awv sDAJ A wilts IVI-V £ ilewx3\18oaay 03\030Z\61ZO130Z\OZOZ\:f EXHIBIT 4 NATIVE VEGETATION MAP � \\-IMMOKALEE RD- K;/`�V 614 (0.36 Ac.±) SCALE: 7" = 200' 422 r r'. 41 Ac.±) m 4119E3 (0.26 Ac.±) 0 z a I I 4119E2 (2.63 Ac.±) A(0.13AC P/L 6309E3 0.52 AC.±) WE4C.±) 437 (0.70 Ac.±) LEGEND: 4119E4 SFWMD WETLANDS (1.19 Ac.±) El (0.67 Ac.±) NATIVE VEGETATION 71 (7.88 Ac.±) NON-NATIVE VEGETATION NON -NATIVE -WONDER WORLD DR - Ac.±) NOTES: PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER PORTELLA IN FLUCFCS %OF ASSOCIATES, LLC DRAWING No. P&A3066 CODES DESCRIPTIONS ACREAGE TOTAL ACADFILE.DWG DATED MARCH 2, 2020. 4119 E2 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (25-49% EXOTICS) 2.63Ac.± 28.1% 4119 E3 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 1.75Ac.± 18.7% FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1'=200- 4119 E4 PINE FLATWOODS, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 1.32Ac.± 14.1% AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS 4159 E3 PINE, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 1.51 Ac.± 16.1% APPROXIMATED. 422 BRAZILIAN PEPPER 0.41 Ac.± 4.4% FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER 437 AUSTRALIAN PINE 0.70Ac.± 7.5% AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 6309 E3 MIXED WETLAND FOREST, DISTURBED (50-75% EXOTICS) 0.52Ac.± 5.6% (FLUCFCS) (FOOT 1999). 6309 E4 MIXED WETLAND FOREST, DISTURBED (76-100% EXOTICS) 0.15 Ac.± 1.6% 814 ROAD 0.36Ac.± 3.9% UPLAND/WETLAND LIMITS HAVE NOT TOTAL 9.35Ac.± 100.0% BEEN REVIEWED BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. R.F./T.S. 3DATE EXHIBIT 4. NATIVE VEGETATION MAP REVIEWED BY �^� B.B. 3DATE P&PASSARELLA '2& ASSOCIATESaBLUE CORAL APARTMENTS REASED DATE �� U EXHIBIT 5 LISTED SPECIES SURVEY BLUE CORAL APARTMENTS LISTED SPECIES SURVEY Revised May 2020 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of the listed species survey conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. on January 28, 2020 for Blue Coral Apartments (Project). The Project is comprised of 9.35± acres of forested lands, invaded by varying degrees of exotic vegetation located in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Figure 1). The Project is located along the south side of Immokalee Road approximately 2,700 feet west of Interstate- 75. More specifically the Project is bordered by Immokalee Road to the north, Bermuda Palms to the west, Livingston Lakes to the south, and undeveloped land to the east. 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY A literature review and field survey were conducted to determine whether the Project site was being utilized by state and/or federally listed species as identified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern. In addition, the property was surveyed for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited and surveyed for plant species that are included on the Collier County Rare and Less Rare Plants lists (Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.04.03). 2.1 Literature Review The literature review involved an examination of available information on listed species in the Project's geographical region. The literature sources reviewed included: Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (FWCC 2018); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007); the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993); Landscape -Scale Conservation for the Florida Panther (Kautz et al. 2006); and USFWS and FWCC databases for telemetry locations of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and wading bird rookeries (e.g., wood stork (Mycteria americana)) in Collier County. The FWCC and USFWS database information is updated on a periodic basis and is current through different dates, depending on the species. The FWCC information that was reviewed is current through the noted dates for the following four species: Florida E5-1 panther telemetry — June 2019; bald eagle nest locations — 2017; black bear telemetry — December 2007; and red -cockaded woodpecker locations 2006. 2.2 Field Survey The field survey was conducted during daylight hours by qualified ecologists walking parallel belt transects across the Project site. Transects were spaced to ensure that sufficient visual coverage of ground and flora was obtained. Approximate transect locations and spacing are shown on Figure 2. At regular intervals the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. The survey was conducted with the aid of 8x or 1 Ox power binoculars. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Literature Review No red -cockaded woodpecker colonies or cavity trees have been documented on the Project site. The closest documented colonies are approximately 1,700 feet south and 3,000 feet southeast of the Project site (Figure 3). The red -cockaded woodpecker is a state and federally listed endangered species. One bald eagle nest location is documented by FWCC approximately 3,200 feet to the north of the Project site (Figure 3). The Project site is located well outside of the USFWS designated 660-foot buffer zone for bald eagle nests. The bald eagle is not a listed species but is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. According to the FWCC data, the Project falls within the core foraging area (CFA) of one recorded wood stork colony (Figure 4). Colony No. 619081 is located approximately 10.75± miles northeast of the Project site. The wetlands on the Project site provide limited foraging potential for wood storks due to their dense canopy and exotic species coverage. The wood stork is a state and federally listed threatened species. The Project site is located within the USFWS Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) consultation area (Figure 5). The Florida bonneted bat is a state and federally listed endangered species. There are five plant species listed on the "Less Rare Plant" list per Collier County's LDC Section 3.04.03 (Requirements for Protected Plants) that could occur within habitats on the Project site. They include Florida butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), giant wild pine (Tillandsia utriculata), inflated wild pine (T. balbisiana), stiff -leaved wild pine (T. fasciculata), and twisted air plant (T. flexuosa). Five plant species are listed on the "Rare Plant" list per Collier County's LDC Section 3.04.03 (Requirements for Protected Plants). They include Cowhorn orchid (Cyrtopodium punctatum), Curtiss's milkweed E5-2 (Asclepias curtissii), Florida clamshell orchid (Encyclia cochleata), Ghost orchid (Polyrrhiza lindenii), and West Coast prickly apple (Harrisia gracilis). 3.2 Field Survey The field survey was conducted on January 28, 2020. Weather conditions during the survey were partly cloudy skies, with five to ten miles per hour northeasterly winds, and temperatures in the low 70s. The field survey documented three listed plant species on the Project site: stiff -leaved wild pine, inflated wild pine, and Florida butterfly orchid. These epiphytic plant species were found throughout the Project site located on live and dead oaks (Quercus sp.), pines (Pinus sp.), and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) (Figure 5). 4.0 SUMMARY The literature search and review of agency databases found documented occurrences for no listed species on the Project site. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of an active bald eagle nest and is located within one documented wood stork colony CFA. The Project site is located within the USFWS consultation area for the Florida bonneted bat. The January 28, 2020 field survey documented three listed plant species on the Project site: stiff - leaved wild pine, inflated wild pine, and Florida butterfly orchid. No listed wildlife species were observed. 5.0 REFERENCES Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2018. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species. Official Lists, Bureau of Non -Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 118-133 Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. E5-3 Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. E5-4 A; CORSO �p y,, iP.OND AP,P,LE 7 DR Lq LU LLI .+�.F..�a'.5.' _k... , a WIGGINS''P,4SS.Rb}'F �JD „r� '' y 'pA la ..,•i'.'.. .1 'oi iaZ ko \OPERIAL'GOLF-'Z �,#,x'.. _+lS: s .{'f. 7O .ca , ,: f14 F - a \CORE WAY - #' hi%' '. '*',{, '.I w ' m .dM:•'':r!- VOLLIERSrRES )3. 'r�,ar�L ,;ERIE�DR:" I V/ klyip PROJECT SEC °LL:•,s•��'' .i P.IP,ER•BLVD. -' EXIT IMMOKA. L'EE:RD AUTUMN:OP.KSLN M1 } $IDE -BLVD s } x �: J Q M1 .. ,v T- CREEK W,_ ;. �' 3� ry - F ¢l HIDDEN OP,KS LN n z U-#q OO a .\ >MO IL M1t(L'F-, 3�•'f Y+ I , .¢--m-SPP,NISH�OAKS LN .., „�- co t9 :• .Z St � ;�1i� .'n rv. .: �.£ L-�ri.' :4 _ rAq,�S�ry3�1.t tm[ � �4 �4� 98TH AVE N?LN ��SPSUFt� 97TH AVE N 96TH AVE N I. I,_. .. �.,- .. _Y,..ys...M DR:: �'r z - • -:r.. }: .. .` K - .' I-:rS_�° rPELI,C� _ -SI' r' '( STANDING OAK§.LN.—• 94TH AVE N, - f.. I. ,AN'MA'RS .o '�!'- i , 33RD AVE N... , t r H 32ND AVE N O' .e�• ....�_.. V' •�� 91ST AVE NST r1 vZ Y:iw�:" Ry' pN DR `V�:.. x f 0 N — 'SHADY-OAKS'LN - Oq \MM w::.: kY.. w v:t''�.-�-'--• BUR OAKS -L-N '�2 •N"•, ''.i'' p 'a z ./R.'{ '. 'ices-ENGLISH OAKSLN O BAY„ lk O p :g "�VP.N�R DBIUTIIBEACH.IRD I ..D < LL,• y ry."CEO •5•LLr.4�C T- !- O m ! Cp. Aw,T EME r{ ., ✓FSe y`i.v {vO,_ xY.} [—::CHERRY!WOOD DR 7TH AVE, NW-.-- .;icE'�Y. 9y' �� � f ' . a0 w .�PnO�.O..Oti''. �:.-' d\'J : p - A6 Y{ per• -Q03.; +t .::: =:HICKORY -WOOD DR--- -STH AVE NW m R7 4 . 0 i =DR �' E' A 1 a ryt^ :; : ,I i ,mom } ~ F QO 3 w k YL `2110Qo� t { wM/SS.� lP� .:f _nzkkka''' 'S' �:' •' :. ..ir Y�r ITRUS4 '�, t .._ : - 2'rT'' ' -gym 'R+ �..�.CORAL-.WOOD DR 3RD AVE NW'. . OA ;Y O �' ORA GE;BLOSSOM�DR � . -DANIELS•RD OL 7� . ....... .... JL -IMMOKALEFRD- 09 ;.� 41 lip �l .4 A, i-AdL, CL FIGURE 2. AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY AND SURVEY TRANSECTS BLUE CORAL APARTMENTS LEGEND: DER WORLD- DR- APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WALKED TRANSECTS I io&-A NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2018. PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM 1 THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY IS WEBSITE. DRAWN BY DATE T.S. 2/11/20 REVIEWED BY DATE B.B. 2/11/20 D�TF PPASSARELLA &REVISED ASSOCIATES Ecologisrs Z a r a U z o H Q Z V 0 W O Z J } F W O r O J w U � p o0 a W J r d w Q Z w w M. r Z a o J a 3: o o a J 0 CO Q LL1 IL Q m Y U 0 Q O Q U m OJ LL V Q m w m Tj + • A W W J N Z K Z Z 0. 54 pP w O Q oP w O Q �P p ar K K O V K J Z rTl w �+ O 3 0 Q O P w U V (� U zu 00 Zu 0o 3u,� ro a� O z m " Qo Qo �o� o= � U O O U O W U O r W r h V J r wwawr w r W r �wr O a� Tn 3 Z W m W W W V O r W r W r O W w J E r t�0 V U L QOV r s ZOU V 00_P Z w' N O m LL N d LL N K 3 N �../ Fg 0 m w ' O N N • • � � • • N N O w O A H 2 (] 00 Q W • i m 0] Z J W c W 0 Q GAl6-NVOOI_ _ OAKS-BLVD J J O � U (38 NO1S°JNIAII O H AIRPORT --PULLING RD - U � Q w O W H � � w W Z a -....i----- ---- - GOOD LETTE-RD EXT- - ---OaQ 30Qa31131pp00 - -ft VAN OA181S3M Wd 90:77:2 . OZOZ/LZ/9 - 0XW'S21J3d$—U21S1l—Jo—S3JNatldno JO-031N@waoa—£—atlngiA\S3tl001d\A3Atl0$-53103d$-031S1l\OZ02\$19\612£OIJ02\OZ02\:f N W Z O N O w CO H U w N Q Z N � H Z Z d W 0 Z a w a o N z W O J m J O o0 a p U p 0 o J 3 U 7i O r / I W Y / 1 Ga sIV3N-dwv_,o W } � I J O Z L I o GAl9 1139 S V 1 ti m �p o , ....�� ..-....--. U W U � O J l O �O m J V o W 0 W O J 4 p ` K 7 i x o 3A V 3Nll33a1 tNREE OAKS PKWY m w _OHO �- Z- V,ANDERBII 1S a3lMO3 N N r k � � a ai AGO c E-+ � CO GA19 S3GV10a3A3 % m LLI 5 W _ Q J I U` J w O U 0 I m U Q f % f w o m m a, U) :J O > wLIVING TON RD z AIRPORT -PULLING RDa — Ga )INVad 31131000J Wd 01:":Z & OZOZ/LZ/S - LEGEND dr CORAL BLUE APARTMENTS Q FLORIDA BONNETED BAT CONSULTATION AREA N w' E S 0 10 20 Miles NOTES COUNTY INFORMATION WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY WEBSITE. ROADWAY NETWORKS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GIS WEBSITE. FLORIDA BONNETED BAT CONSULTATION AREA WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE USFWS NOVEMBER 2019. FIGURE 5. FLORIDA BONNETED BAT CONSULTATION AREA MAP BLUE CORAL APARTMENTS DRAWNBY DATE D.B. 3/10/20 REVIEWEDBY DATE PAS SARELLA H.S. 3/10/20 couitl REVISED DATE -� �O�OgiSt. ^'ASSOCIATES ,r � :: . d ► - _ k ak TILFAS P P 16 TILBAL fi _+•� 1' - •, T .,yam } * y K. _� may, ; ^ 3i♦ . J yry i'_ �•I ,t - ENCTAM s-' Z APPROXIMATE .RY✓ t. 0 TILFAS P - �`'� •a. sF �:, ITILFAS • law - •TILFAS •TILFAS., :-.' s'a : ILFAS1_i.`�,y. i • �Rh 3F�' FjYc TILBAL.: TILBAL•. ..e• - ENCTAM• 77. 30 y Y � a: •<� . � ;fir.. .. ey �: TILFAS .r r • �. ` �.0 � Y � . Jam' �'% r �'. y� � � •. - I J�1od. _� ys ,.::. • �JFR NOTES A RIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED T ROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY A PRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM Lk T E COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY i «�. O¢���au�imm�rnp O N R7 07 V 1, N M 0 � o W +I +I +I +I +I +I +I +I +I +I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Q� Gqr-:cq �uNi�mcq Q(V — —— 0 0 0 O 0 m 0 10 x LU O O O Lo 0 Z�8 m m 2vACC� o 0 occ co co O m m C V Q Q Q N 7 7 7 0 y y y b W W v x O O 000�zoo O O O CO IL d Z Z OOOMaZ LL Lgg L LL 3 3 L LL p p Z Z Z Z M j X X p aaaam¢iic� N V W W W W W W W 0 0 W W W N N f� OC) 1Ji U a a v v v 9§ Z 3 r Ave o a ,ate o� w w r M Z J N r r O O a rx OD w J U w jlU—i� oo z� oz 3 Q�r � o LL w 0, o o Z o x w r w V o m m z a w Z a p N M U MOE a3z as Jar: r>w F am a J N o Q o F N LU a( o LL oUo w o r om LU p U d o D J U 086 LL J D a W a r x a w O ?i Z r w w U LL r 3 O rar m W JOQ afn w W Z d x F o J U• d' F r w NUwJ X rn 3> a Q U LL pw- rarM0-w cMOU az wO EUz oNa O D r d 0 LL W W O w U z adLL aaaa LLa LLa— m m a K t` HH3alOH .Aa —100d Hd91:11 - 030Z '9Z HVW 3-8X11 :av1 0Ma'OZZO£0 avW Sanvu3M aHv sDAJ A — iv-V £ —1-3\.--d 03\0Z0Z\61Z£0MZ\0Z0Z\:f O¢���au�imm�rnp O N R7 07 V I, N r- M 0 � o W +I +I +I +I +I +I +I +I +I +I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Q� Gqr-:cq �uNi�mcq Q(V r- r- r- 0 0 0 O 0 m 0 10 x LU O O O Lo 0 Z�8 m m 2vACC� o 0 occ co co O m m C V Q Q Q N 7 7 7 0 y y y b W W v x O O 000�zoo O O O CO w d Z Z OOOMaZ LL Lgg L LL 3 3 L LL p p Z Z Z Z M j X X p aaaam¢iic� N V W W W W W W W 0 0 0 0 W N N f� OQ C) 3 r Ave o a ,ate o� w w r M Z J N r r O O a rx OD w J U w z�� oo z� oz 3 Q�r �oLLw 0, oo Zo xwr w V o m m z a w Z a p N M U MOE a3z as Jar: r>w F am a J N o Q o F N LU a( o LL oUo w o r om LU p U d o D J U 086 LL J D a W a r x LL w O ?i Z r w w U LL r 3 O rar m W JOQ afn ... w W Z d x F o J U• LL' F r w NUwJ X rn 3> a r Q U LL pw- raomm M0-w cMOU az wO EUz oNa O D r o 0 LL W W O w U z aLLLL aaaa LLa LLa— m m a Z o. K HNS—H :AS aa1100d Nv81:11 - OZOZ '9Z evW o-BXII :avl ama'DZZO£0 evW saN—SM aNv SJdDnIA Nilm Oviaa/ 8 1181-3U—WGNSWV dW�0Z\61Z£0130Z\OZOZ\:f IMMOKALEE ROAD INTERCHANGE RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICTBLUE CORAL APARTMENTS LISTED SPECIES SURVEY March 2020 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of the listed species survey conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. on January 28, 2020 for the 9.35± acre Coral Blue Apartments (Project). The Project is comprised of 9.35± acres of forested lands, invaded by varying degrees of exotic vegetation located in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Figure 1). The Project is located along the south side of Immokalee Road approximately 2,700 feet west of Interstate-75. More specifically the Project is bordered by Immokalee Road to the north, Bermuda Palms to the west, Livingston Lakes to the south, and undeveloped land to the east. 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY A literature review and field survey were conducted to determine whether the Project site was being utilized by state and/or federally listed species as identified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern. In addition, the property was surveyed for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited and surveyed for plant species that are included on the Collier County Rare and Less Rare Plants lists (Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.04.03). 2.1 Literature Review The literature review involved an examination of available information on listed species in the Project's geographical region. The literature sources reviewed included: Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (FWCC 2018); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007); the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993); Landscape -Scale Conservation for the Florida Panther (Kautz et al. 2006); and USFWS and FWCC databases for telemetry locations of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and wading bird rookeries (e.g., wood stork (Mycteria americana)) in Collier County. The FWCC and USFWS database information is updated on a periodic basis and is current through different dates, depending on the species. The FWCC information that was reviewed is current through the noted dates for the following four species: Florida D-1 panther telemetry — June 2019; bald eagle nest locations — 2017; black bear telemetry — December 2007; and red -cockaded woodpecker locations 2006. 2.2 Field Survey The field survey was conducted during daylight hours by qualified ecologists walking parallel belt transects across the Project site. Transects were spaced to ensure that sufficient visual coverage of ground and flora was obtained. Approximate transect locations and spacing are shown on Figure 2. At regular intervals the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. The survey was conducted with the aid of 8x or 1 Ox power binoculars. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Literature Review No red -cockaded woodpecker colonies or cavity trees have been documented on the Project site. The closest documented colonies are approximately 1,700 feet south and 3,000 feet southeast of the Project site (Figure 3). The red -cockaded woodpecker is a state and federally listed endangered species. One bald eagle nest location is documented by FWCC approximately 3,200 feet to the north of the Project site (Figure 3). The Project site is located well outside of the USFWS designated 660-foot buffer zone for bald eagle nests. The bald eagle is not a listed species but is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. According to the FWCC data, the Project falls within the core foraging area (CFA) of one recorded wood stork colony (Figure 4). Colony No. 619081 is located approximately 10.75± miles northeast of the Project site. The wetlands on the Project site provide limited foraging potential for wood storks due to their dense canopy and exotic species coverage. The wood stork is a state and federally listed threatened species. The Project site is located within the USFWS Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) consultation area (Figure 5). The Florida bonneted bat is a state and federally listed endangered species. There are five plant species listed on the "Less Rare Plant" list per Collier County's LDC Section 3.04.03 (Requirements for Protected Plants) that could occur within habitats on the Project site. They include Florida butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), giant wild pine (Tillandsia utriculata), inflated wild pine (T. balbisiana), stiff -leaved wild pine (T. fasciculata), and twisted air plant (T. flexuosa). Five plant species are listed on the "Rare Plant" list per Collier County's LDC Section 3.04.03 (Requirements for Protected Plants). They include Cowhorn orchid (Cyrtopodium punctatum), Curtiss's milkweed D-2 (Asclepias curtissii), Florida clamshell orchid (Encyclia cochleata), Ghost orchid (Polyrrhiza lindenii), and West Coast prickly apple (Harrisia gracilis). 3.2 Field Survey The field survey was conducted on January 28, 2020. Weather conditions during the survey were partly cloudy skies, with five to ten miles per hour northeasterly winds, and temperatures in the low 70s. The field survey documented three listed plant species on the Project site: stiff -leaved wild pine, inflated wild pine, and Florida butterfly orchid. These epiphytic plant species were found throughout the Project site located on live and dead oaks (Quercus sp.), pines (Pinus sp.), and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) (Figure 5). 4.0 SUMMARY The literature search and review of agency databases found documented occurrences for no listed species on the Project site. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of an active bald eagle nest and is located within one documented wood stork colony CFA. The Project site is located within the USFWS consultation area for the Florida bonneted bat. The January 28, 2020 field survey documented three listed plant species on the Project site: stiff - leaved wild pine, inflated wild pine, and Florida butterfly orchid. No listed wildlife species were observed. 5.0 REFERENCES Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2018. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species. Official Lists, Bureau of Non -Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 118-133 Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. D-3 Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. tom" ►n ..', d . `y. w. • ' �4 �r CORS '�o•'�'- � .?'�_ °r'=.za, - . FOIT�:. Gs+,..�� �•.s..+','.�i+i" N K - em-li .•.ASS'. .. _ ,F sl W G' t .. .. f-I : .CSg :i• _ w W •'W.�• �� 'g6� -'•¢fir � � . a a WIGGINS PASS RD = 'n •�y�jj �� ORDI-N 1il p a •ENTRADAAVE 'G- ¢ ...•cad a ERIALOL i��:n'ir.:.^•i ,:..E�-- x?!,,:.; -. �] :•r_ I "��� - lac ;iy:a`• f� i .-'. ".,-�, . 9 �kTr.:.�'- - - ?.5 .. �_;;`: -, .:g :t9 Y:'.��: yr A r jet., wh w.\1z' - +II Y: ... -.f K •D .;t:QII Q'�!F:.-wa �0 .c'r .:ILf �` ':' .�. z �^` :p > ,IFRIEly j':1:•' . • •:i:.d-?i' cnDRni nays - >,;.'�y mPRpv sVlK Y`r",zv : A�' : �"��+_" YO • ..�NE',O� z PROJECT• • ,i.ffr4;.^.mom:' . �OO:.w� J D! 'd .• 1 K.f �. .4 XIT u: �•:...� ',s��n 'I"��_�....y:. �' '� :i Zb..: P.IRERBCV-•IMMOKALEERD �►�.`:—_.'.,'"?"= '�. �•'� .,cyy R.E k" ^.•I„v6 G. -! 111`=,,i�AUTUMN OAKS LN—��' :.� �, , •!I" E`\`�SIDE.BLVD Z CREe u •�i,• 6, �•�Wy� , �5�'CI ..I�� :+.. .HIDDEN OAKSLN z 410 O r �� S°d fill O,P,C,` Bp w k!'"A 2 .SUN m= `p S o - MOR/V, n m 3R •cuy = �� D Q I m. A TR 75 r 1c i Y Y'•.: 3 w O $PANISH OAKS LN �.AnN F w . ¢ z - 9RTH AVE N NO ' , ?" .;j I I t• O'—GOLDEMOAKS LN a SATUR� z _ �s 97TH AVEIN •. �'IN , -� -ty,S+ y4r 95TH AVE N �.: 94TH AV"S.�• Ef q�!-MARSH.I,BLVD•'. iG, I " ?::� a?+.,..a �r-';m{ •, 4'•; • .:STANDING OAKSCN•_—=-�,. • 91ST AVE NSTiQ.t ON.DR-r L z' m.CV_ ..� �.`Q,-r�i... ..�`-VO• -SHADY-OAKS r - "'LNcn �•-••- .: q a. TIBURON,Af'' w„�,• - .. - ^'"F,w R OAKS LN- ;T. 4.w`- o =rCi;:- _'.. w • t"A.::. Y .. ��—i�`a,l. 1; _ .... 5 . • ci gan Y14 'ENGLISH OAKS :ram °- d �rf . y•. :... ..--.....c• '.� -;:.. g. :. n.. _ - -- I CAN DVLK�CIR p 3' pe�'yl�y. _ VANDE BILT°BEACH!RDyi, :n.. al0• - .f - D,':A��.ui..'':jii"•'il�.:pd •..a :r: O•"43—�'�'->i;f.='S. �Q .• R.V`',^i-w �.�e'�r'^ ro p ! CO A bl0 O. O'W -yF-�:.• Q yzy'�{g 'QD.'•' w v, ,.{ CHERRY -WOOD DR 7TH•AVENW-- m 0.:� M.:y So- ap n p O rya ' EM K F rn Z�. O"" �n ❑ i g ���`" °'• +. ;> HICKORY -HICKORY " • STH AVE NW - �z (7=DR: �e g Iw\v 2�Q `�,• i„ _�' m y s : ul O'i` '.�'O-' M/sSAtfk`;x3 :�`c ):A`�,.� a: #, r. w °r 5xv..''N - ' '0 r.. -CITRUS. „s•g�:� _ r 3 8.,.. ;;o P n CIR. / — >Y m -- ' CORAL_WOOD DR 3RD AVE NW .,.,..°ONO :: r`�c _t 4 ,. F'f• ...: ORANGEBLOSSOM'OR - - "° x Fs; ..�.. l.ry �, w. ' .DANIELS RD— —�R .✓.•V is?'rfrl's-: `._ 7- FIGURE 1. PROJECT• • ■ OL 7� . ....... .... JL -IMMOKALEFRD- 09 ;.� 41 lip �l .4 A, i-AdL, CL FIGURE 2. AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY AND SURVEY TRANSECTS CORAL BLUE APARTMENTS LEGEND: DER WORLD- DR- APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WALKED TRANSECTS I io&-A NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2018. PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE. DRAWN BY DATE Ow - T.S. 2/11/20 REVIEWED BY DATE IMPPASSARELLA B.B. 2/11/20 REVISED DATE It!n �=,=- & ASSOCIATES; N Z O U N O > W N 0 J W Z LLI Z w U O J N W O C U W o O O a W Q J W J 00 w Z w J �9 u = r Z Q IL Q O J < W Ca o Y Uo Q O U 0 0 Q 00 � O LL_ Y U Q 00 U o O� I* + • , w w J N wp wp z zw gz az z Om Y+�I OO O O O QN QN =N p Z O W W �I LL1 wK WW-WK �� JW Q W w O 3O 3O Q OP Z U oN O O O O > O W z Q oN Q oN wo. o p V�1. r� O U O O U O W U O O W V J J3� J3� J3� w¢ ram, y wF a wF F wF Q {fJ 3 wwz Wwz wz Yo W J o J U o J z o J O W ^ J l0 OU Q OU Z OU O Q J 0: Qa 0: W O z W w N m w N w €fa `u �1. 0 _ • m w • • ¢ •• • O O c� • W P ~ P ~ A • 0 • • • N N O • • C7 • • m o o • • = o off �CC U J 2 m w • m Z r • w J w ly w 0 Z > GA18 NVOO-1 OAKS-BL-VDOf J ® ° U �G21-NO1S JN IAII z 0 Q u �r u W GOODLETTE RD EXT VVANDERB4LgTIIIlu AIRPORT -PULLING RD o K w c7 a z a Ga0 3�a a31131000J GA161S3M WV 9Z:ZZ:11 0 OZOZI7Z/£ - OXW'S3103dS-031S1l-10-S33N3NN0000-431N3HN000-£-3N091j\S3N091j\A3ANOS-S3103dS-031S1l\OZOZ\S19\61Z£9190Z\OZOZ\:f N W z 00 O N N J Q F O U � w Q (J] F Z N F z Z d W V W a z w o z N a J m ¢ � O Op o U U 7i � .O SIG .O O 7� ro K W O W U J J Q 32J1 _mac nAKR PK 1� AmNd ( 1S N3lMOj 71i � K 1 J�R1 � c DE m W_p W z V 0 QF� JOp a N � rT1 W o 1 m 3, aim i9w_ z w J F N W F N W O z ¢Q Y z zao zyz O p ¢w ao F Q W Q N J L¢ K o W w o o o3: a w O¢< Oo a �l - V J z Y� 3p �o_aw aul <z !1� VJJ N p 0~ 0 Q zo w 3¢y mw o o w O m p¢ P �zZ3w �11 N N 1 r 1 � o off �co � GAlB S30V_10213A3 5 1 J Co W W _ Q J I U J w O o U 0 I 01 � O K � 2 p W Co 03 #J O ¢ / G2l NOISONIAI-1 Q W z AIRPORT -PULLING RD > Ii CW )INV2i3 31131G0'O`9 �5a W �O r 71h WV 1£:£Z:11 0 0Z0Z/7Z/£ - UXW'W9 91-ONV- 31N3NOO�FNNOIS-DOOM-7-3N091j\S3N091j\A3ANOS-S31D3 S-031S1l\OZOZ\SI9\61Z£9190Z\OZOZ\:f ,r � :: I . �� ::rs•. n c , . is t; . d ► - _ k ak TILFAS P P 16 TILBAL fi _+•� 1' - •, T .,yam } * y K. _� may, ; ^ 3i♦ . J yry i'_ •( ,t - ENCTAM ., s-' Z APPROXIMATE .RY✓ t. I 0 TILFAS P - �`'� •a. f �:, ITILFAS • law - •TILFAS •TILFAS., :-.' s'a : ILFAS1_i.`�,y. i • �Rh 3F�' FjYc TILBAL.: TILBAL•. ..e• - ENCTAM• 77. 30 It y Y � a: •<� . � ;fir.. .. ey �: dTILFAS , r 'iPi K M •-�� • ENCTAM N TIES A RIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED T ROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY A PRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM Lk F T E COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY M� I �. Exhibit V.D.1.3 Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small -Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? Answer: Yes, the proposed amendment is directly related to a proposed Small -Scale Development Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County -wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Answer: No, the proposed amendment does not create a significant impact in population which would result in a potential increase in County -wide population by more than 5% of population projections. Exhibit V.D.1.4 Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. Answer: Yes, the proposed land use is a new district. Suitability of proposed land: The property is located less than a mile from a major intersection and one property away from a mixed -use activity center. The property is in an ideal location, it is local to many goods and services, it will create a much needed availability for workforce housing and it will also help to offset urban sprawl in the eastern areas of the county. Environmentally Sensitive land: Please reference Exhibit V.C.1-V.C.2 —Environmental Data report for details on the environmental sensitivity of the subject property. The development is proposing to preserve the southernmost 1.18 acres to maintain a hydrologic connection from the east to the west where abutting preserves are located on the other proposed and existing developments. Ground Water: Groundwater will be preserved, all above ground improvements will require stormwater attenuation and no pollutants will be present. Additionally, as referenced in Exhibit X.A.6-WRM-ST (Well Fields Map), there are no Well Fields near the property. Natural Resources: There are no significant natural resources present on the existing site other than soil, water and some trees. EXHIBIT V.E.1 & V.E.3 Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict/Blue Coral Apartments Public Facilities Report The proposed Subdistrict seeks to satisfy the need for an additional residential area in order to keep up with the increasing business growth in Collier County. This property presents itself as an ideal location due to its close proximity to surrounding goods and services, 1-75, and a 6-lane divided road that is also used as an emergency evacuation route. The site will provide a total of 280 units, in a variety of layouts ranging from studio to 3-bed/2-bath apartments. The total population that the residential site will serve is based on the countywide average occupancy of 2.5 people per dwelling unit, resulting in additional housing for 700 residents in Collier County. Collier County Public Utilities will provide water service for potable and fire protection needs as well as wastewater service. The subject property is within the North Wastewater Service Area. The county has sufficient treatment capacity to provide water and sewer service. For wastewater, the permitted treatment capacity is 26.35 MGD while the required treatment capacity is 21.23 MGD. The additional peak demand required by Immokalee Road Apartments (Blue Coral Apartments) is 0.11 MGD, resulting in an increase of required treatment capacity to 21.34 MGD. For potable water, the permitted capacity is 52.75 MGD while the required treatment capacity is 42.5 MGD. The peak demand required from the Blue Coral Apartments is 0.14 MGD, increasing the water treatment requirement to 42.64 MGD. According to the Collier County 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), currently there is an existing landfill capacity of 13,547,175 tons, and a ten-year landfill capacity requirement of 2,675,006 tons. The estimated life of the landfill is 42 years. This is adequate to accommodate the additional solid waste stream generated by the proposed project. On -site Stormwater pre-treatment water quality and quantity will comply with SFWMD requirements. Stormwater for the proposed apartment complex will be stored in and under the pavement with full water quality and quantity treatment provided to discharge to the preserve on the southern portion of the site. The preserve will be used to convey the runoff to flow towards Livingston Road, ultimately flowing into the Airport Road canal in accordance with a natural flow way system dictated by SFWMD on adjoining properties. State and County standards for off -site discharges will be met, resulting in no adverse impacts to the stormwater management (drainage) level of service. The adopted level of service for schools is based upon permanent FISH capacity: 100% for high school Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs); 95% for elementary CSAs; and 95% for middle school CSAs. The subject site is within zone E8, Northwest Area 2 CSA for elementary schools, zone M4 Northwest Area CSA for middle schools, and zone H4, Northwest Area CSA for high schools. The E8 CSA includes two elementary schools, Laurel oak and Veterans Memorial. They have a combined FISH capacity of 1,639 students, a 201 8/2019 peak enrollment of 1,790 students, and a projected 2023/202A enrollment of 1,861 (1 14% capacity). According to the Collier County Public Schools CIP, enrollment at Laurel Oak Elementary School is being monitored. Laurel Oak will continue to provide temporary alternatives to address the overcrowding prior to providing permanent relief in 2023. The H4 and M4 CSAs include Barron Collier and Gulf Coast High Schools, and North Naples, Oakridge, and Pine Ridge Middle Schools. The high schools have a combined FISH capacity of 5,297 students, a 201 8/2019 peak enrollment of 4,090 students, and a projected 2023/2024 enrollment 4,784 students (90% capacity). Starting in 2023, a new high school will open and provide permanent relief for Naples and Golden Estates area high schools. The middle schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,361 students, a 2018/2019 peak enrollment of 3,126 students, and a projected 2023/2024 enrollment of 3220 students (96% capacity). According to Collier County Public schools CIP, enrollment at Oak Ridge Middle School and Gulf Coast high School is being monitored. Gulf Coast High School added six additional portables in 2018, and further temporary alternatives to address overcrowding will be provided until the opening of the new high school. According to the Collier County 2019 AUIR, there is a projected 2023/202A surplus of 56.01 community park acres and 216.29 regional park acres. A population increase of approximately 700 people necessitates an additional 0.84 community park acres (per 2019 AUIR, a loss of 0.0012 acres per person) and 1.89 regional park acres (per the 2019 AUIR, a loss of 0.0027 acres per person) to maintain Collier County level of service standards. The proposed development will not result in a reduction of level of service standards, as there is an adequate surplus of community and regional park acres, and the residential development will provide amenities. The 2019 AUIR estimates a utilization rate of 0.000061 EMS units per person. The proposed development will not result in a significant increase of demand, as an increase of 700 people will result in a requirement of 0.043 EMS units to serve the site. An EMS/fire station is located at 7010 Immokalee Road, approximately 1.5 miles East of the property. The subject site is within the North Collier Fire District. Please see attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts. ememomome Y ;I - �d / : •' \ � it � �-� ����il'. � " i ..- ,, � � �'ryr � �t �. �� � 3 .. ` r I T MALIid, \ 11� � \•, c -' �f t �g _ ,r+.� la 44 .s..,.. II . Pi 99 47 iv .�.Mp �' •"'.�++.i A ' e ;n RtPp�f�' 9 1.. 'it h, — - ♦y r a ,.. Fp r ti ,' �■ Y� £__ �' r •�' �e �d+t � � a C�.[M rp,ar.�x� p� �`� Lw yip w _ bd •33,A T - I p i � - � } 4 a FtF-,Sj l*(rdJ] �TY[Jj}P�J i_ {i ... :. " 1"sam�gsayi agt-e aeaS g zu"l l@ a .1011. a` $mfull ' UH 10 w ap �s°1;5§€ $a;ohs gfra` soh gSag € s s- -E`y Bg e--S i$.g �H��ag£ ���� 3�a ffie&$s€£HI �;33 g$ F'x PROa�gs£3s ill Ens !Hill 1 2as raaiN9aa MHU! SsR.fl a: 1 €6Su3 Uegffig 1101 19 sag g S:e �� a s IM M HR AN a i aga �a_• H@fr � INIa&°x %"s=$ ���x s� .a �`g�gg� frig HM: yW&WP'J F; LL3pp C'n� i 1 EA p"� pg PH ��aaSol €i".in; % 1Q s� Tad fr3�s "gel iaa9 $' Qx fr� Efra! $B. fg`+. g a�E F H i yy! g Aga@ gg R ,LL .� id3 389 sa� 82gP _gg � • �$ E'a� ¢ '1 jl� LL os it'll, h1 I �a II�c, ���paoo `I�popg. ki -0•0 - 000 iJ.�O� oil ag8� 3 e xao� gg s Q Fg a �� g�$3 E s $ S�• � s £ � �� � s g`� g� a ,�,lgY �� 6WM J. s s s W g§ - g a C Z RN � t- g� - M al 2ks€ �e _ F Z aaayb�gg?g5r$ J � fi p S a �• $E Y dg ` Sg SE + PH" A g b�_.$ I Spn[� S �� $�5 a axa a ge w %M$ c ff �ill!i a s aes" w8 & cg 4 asm; am ag dQv o 5 !1 o e e o$$ g a w sa9 M it Ir Saj nytm� 0 x a ��•.M. i o i n_ VV � o a i 0 r i/11•I\VMM- a a � ,N J r) zo oOZ -- , o`a ol l Vi W 6 0 _N tN C � E LL Q i Q v C o s U X � w �p cn V Cie `3 y 7 s INSTR 5486031 OR 5460 PG 132 RECORDED 12/20/2017 11:20 AM PAGES DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC $18.50 Prepared by: Daniel J. Cramer Cramer, Minock & Sweeney, P.L.C. 339 E Liberty, Ste 200 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 QUIT CLAIM DEED Property Appraiser's Parcel Identification No. 00198000006 This Quit Claim Deed executed this 17" day of June, 2015, by first party, Grantor William C. Scherer, a single man and as the surviving spouse of Irene K. Scherei"!`whose address is 19218 Eastwood Drive, Harper Woods, Michigan 4825-t, second party, Grantee William C. Scherer, as Trustee, William C. Scherer Trust u/a/d, '" 1 � �" amended and restated on June 17, 2015, whose address is . G��tCCJ� %"ct. �S"C; 2�5 1.1,-zR�(1Z�to l�d�PtJ�r WITNESSETH: that the said first for tl sum lesthan $10, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby r-e—' ik(e, yelease a d quit laiip unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interes �� ,.affi�e 4A ii Xparty has in and to the following described parcel of land, and imp°o emgn0, a d a rter i 't reto in Collier County, Florida, to -wit: � W/1/2 of 1/2 of NW NW1A, Less 14 t./ r Collier County, Florida To have and to hold the same to ip Kan 'angular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and aff tl%e ate; right, title, interest, lien, equity and claim whatsoever for the said first party, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the first party has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written, sealed and delivered in the presence of: WITNESSES: ��. meaIt b a nie 'J: Cramer Janette Seile Carras ",rk, 1,,e_,� 0. illiam C. Scherer *** OR 5460 PG 133 *** STATE OF MICHIGAN )SS COUNTY OF WASHTENAW The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me and produced photo identification, on this 17" day of June, 2015 by William C. Scherer, a single man and as the surviving spouse of Irene K. Scherer. V) A, P 70 N t. rded, return to: Cramer Cramer, Minock & Sweeney, P 1 339 East Liberty Street, Suite 2 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 / *Whose death certificate has I eDdl2p' County Records. Jane e�$eile Carras/, Notary Public, Wasnaw County, State of Michigan My Commission Expires: June 16, 2017 C§0�d,Subsequent Tax Bills to: -, 'Z at -gLiber g e 109e - , I � Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Site I Site Zone Parcel No 00198000006 Address Site City *Note *Disclaimer Name / Address IWILLIAM C SCHERER TRUST % EXCEL REAL ESTATE 2375 N TAMIAMI TRL #206 Citv I NAPLES I State I FL I Zia 134103 1 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 31330 1 000100 030 3B30 30 48 26 9.35 Legal 130 48 26 W1/2 OF E1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4, LESS N 10OFT R/W Milla a Area O 47 Milla a Rates O *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code v 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.083 5.8071 110.8901 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Pacie Amount 06/17/15 5460-132 $ 0 02/01/77 675-1482 $ 0 2019 Certified Tax Roll (Subiect to Chanae) Land Value $ 1,345,600 +) Improved Value $ 0 (_) Market Value $ 1,345,600 (_) Assessed Value $ 1,345,600 (_) School Taxable Value $ 1,345,600 (_) Taxable Value $ 1,345,600 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PUD PL20190001600 & GMPA PL20190001620 1, David Bastos (print name), as Manager (title, If applicable) of cIG Naples, LLc. (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner= applicant contract purchaser and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Jeff E. Wright - Henderson & Franklin to act as ourlmy representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: + If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pros. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust then they must include the trustee's name and the words 'as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it are true. 13 a�a Signature Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of El physical presence r online notarization this day of 'r1k .2074 , by (printed name of owner or qualifier) vt 05 Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: ' Are personally known to me Has produced a current drivers license M Has produced `} as identification. Notary Signature: �u� �F' '�` C"V— ': TERESA ANN WALDEN r Notary Public, State of Ohio _ My commission Exr res 1 a15.2022 CP108-COA-001151155 REV 3/4/2020 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PUD PL20190001600 & GMPA PL20190001620 1, David Bastos (print name), as Manager (title, if applicable) of CIG Naples, LLC. (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner= applicant =contract purchaser and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Paikk Vanasse, AICP to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v, pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee': • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it are true. Signature ate STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER he foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of N physical presen or El online notarization this day of ��r it 20L4 , by (printed name of owner or qualifier) �� S Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box; Are personally known to me Has produced a current drivers license Has produced as identification. Notary Signature: a1...v W a—1,a' TERESA ANN WALDEN Notary Public, State of Ohio My Commission Expires 10.15-2022 CPI08-COA-001151155 REV 3/4/2020 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PUD PL20190001600 & GMPA PL20190001620 1, David Bastos (print name), as Manager (title, If applicable) of cIG Naples, LLc. (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner= applicant contract purchaser and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Jeff E. Wright - Henderson & Franklin to act as ourlmy representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: + If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pros. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust then they must include the trustee's name and the words 'as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it are true. 13 a�a Signature Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of El physical presence r online notarization this day of 'r1k .2074 , by (printed name of owner or qualifier) vt 05 Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: ' Are personally known to me Has produced a current drivers license M Has produced `} as identification. Notary Signature: �u� �F' '�` C"V— ': TERESA ANN WALDEN r Notary Public, State of Ohio _ My commission Exr res 1 a15.2022 CP108-COA-001151155 REV 3/4/2020 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PUD PL20190001600 & GMPA PL20190001620 1, David Bastos (print name), as Manager (title, if applicable) of CIG Naples, LLC. (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner= applicant =contract purchaser and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Paikk Vanasse, AICP to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v, pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner" of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee': • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it are true. Signature ate STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER he foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of N physical presen or El online notarization this day of ��r it 20L4 , by (printed name of owner or qualifier) �� S Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box; Are personally known to me Has produced a current drivers license Has produced as identification. Notary Signature: a1...v W a—1,a' TERESA ANN WALDEN Notary Public, State of Ohio My Commission Expires 10.15-2022 CPI08-COA-001151155 REV 3/4/2020 TPODIICOCR planning•engineering Traffic Impact Statement Blue Coral Apartments Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) Prepared for: RWA, Inc. 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 Phone: 239-597-0575 Collier County, Florida 04/16/2021 Prepared by: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee* — $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee* — Maior Study — $1,500.00 Fee Note — *to be collected at time of first submittal Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 2 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Table of Contents ProjectDescription.......................................................................................................................................4 TripGeneration.............................................................................................................................................5 Trip Distribution and Assignment.................................................................................................................6 BackgroundTraffic........................................................................................................................................8 Existing and Future Roadway Network.........................................................................................................9 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -Link Analysis..........................................................................10 SiteAccess Turn Lane Analysis....................................................................................................................11 ImprovementAnalysis................................................................................................................................13 Mitigationof Impact...................................................................................................................................13 Appendices Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan........................................................................................................14 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting)................................................................. 17 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations and Land Use Code Descriptions ...................................... 24 Appendix D: Collier County Northwest TCMA........................................................................................... 37 Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits.................................................................................................40 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 3 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Project Description The Blue Coral Apartments project is located on the south side of Immokalee Road (County Road 846) between Livingston Road (County Road 881) and 1-75, and lies within Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The subject property is approximately 9.35 acres in size. Refer to Figure 1— Project Location Map and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Figure 1— Project Location Map fV❑ c v ry = p ProjE t p p.... G Map data ®2020 1000 ft The purpose of this report is to document the transportation impacts associated with the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and the associated Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ). The project site is vacant and is currently zoned "A" — Agriculture. The subject project is a proposed residential development that will consist of up to 280 multifamily dwelling units. Traffic generation associated with the proposed development is evaluated generally based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition and ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. The proposed ITE land use designations are determined based on the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) descriptions and are intended to provide the highest and best use trip generation scenario with respect to the project's proposed development parameters. The proposed development parameters are illustrated in Table 1. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 14 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Table 1 Proposed Development Program Development Land Use - [SIC Codes] ITE LUC Size (dwelling units) Residential Multifamily — [N/A] 221— Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 280 For the purposes of this report, the future planning horizon year is assumed 2026. The project proposes to connect to Immokalee Road via a shared access with the adjacent development to the east, Germain Immokalee PUD. As such, generated traffic may access Juliet Boulevard via Useppa Way. In addition, proposed development will provide one interconnection to the residential property to the west, Bermuda Palms. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on March 13, 2020, via email. Refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting). This report is consistent with the notes illustrated in the approved methodology and provides updated traffic impacts in reference to the most current 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and extends the horizon year to 2026. Trip Generation Consistent with the adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines and Procedures, traffic generated by the proposed development is estimated using the latest ITE Trip Generation Manual. The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software), most current version, is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE rates and equations are used for the trip generation calculations, as applicable. The ITE — OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations and Land Use Code Descriptions. Based on ITE recommendations and consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, no reductions for internal capture or pass -by trips are considered for this project. The trip generation associated with the proposed build -out conditions is summarized in Table 2A. Table 2A Project Trip Generation — Build -out Conditions — Average Weekday In agreement with the Collier County TIS guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net external traffic) and consistent with the Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 15 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2020 AUIR, the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM peak hour. Based on the projected traffic illustrated in Table 2A, the maximum total daily trip generation for the proposed development shall not exceed 119 two-way PM peak hour new trips based on the land use codes in the ITE Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval, as applicable. The site operational analysis reflects projected AM and PM peak hour traffic. Since the proposed connection to Immokalee Road is a shared access with the property to the east (Germain Immokalee PUD), a trip generation evaluation for Germain Immokalee PUD development is provided in Table 2B. For the purposes of this report, the Germain Immokalee PUD will allow development of a car dealership building with up to 80,000 square feet in size. The proposed site plan for this project is illustrated in Appendix A. For trip generation details refer to Appendix C. Table 2B Germain Immokalee PUD — Build -out — Trip Generation — Average Weekday Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the proposed project is assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated within the methodology meeting. The site -generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3 and it is graphically depicted in Figure 2 — Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour. Table 3 Proposed Development — Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour 42.1 Airport Rd to Livingston Rd 25% EB —18 WB —12 42.2 Livingston Rd to Project M=l EB — 44 WB — 28 42.2 Project to 1-75 40% WB — 29 EB —18 5W 1-75 to Logan Blvd 51.0 North of Immokalee Rd 15% SB —11 NB-7 kale 05"W5 SB — 9 Note(s): *Roadway segment peak hour, peak direction is taken from the 2020 AUIR; Project peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 6 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPAIPUDZ — TIS —April 16, 2021 Figure 2 — Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour ect Trip Distrib ution WILLOU Hey by Percentage AGAfs 72571 0 '9 P- 912�r "'Goc)gle Map data (02020 1000ft, F� ]AI­ FP-r-o—iect Trip Distribution PM Peak Hour [Kff-- 7by JES 18 < Q 9 V-r— ss 9 Tr v.11 I. I' F,� I" cl. -Google Q Map data @2020 1000 ft Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 17 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures requirement of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from peak hour peak direction volume (estimated from 2008 through 2020), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2020 AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. The higher of the two determinations is used in the roadway network Level of Service (LOS) analysis. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour, peak direction traffic volume for the build -out year 2026. Table 4 Background Traffic without Project (2020 - 2026) 2026 Projected 2026 2020 AUIR Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Projected Pk cc Pk Hr, Pk Dir Traffic Background Hr, Peak Dir Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Background Annual Growth Traffic Volume Trip Background Link Link Location Traffic Growth Factor** w/out Project Bank Traffic Volume ID # Volume Rate (trips/hr) w/out Project (trips/hr) (%/yr)* Growth (trips/hr) Trip Factor** Bank*** Immokalee Airport Rd to Rd 42.1 Livingston Rd 2,360 2.00% 1.1262 2,658 11 2,371 Immokalee Livingston Rd to 42.2 3,020 2.00% 1.1262 1402 30 3,050 Rd Project ImmRodkalee 42.2 Project to 1-75 3,020 2.00% 1.1262 3,402 30 3,050 Immokalee 1-75 to Logan 43.1 2,620 3.18% 1.2066 3,162 490 3,110 Rd Blvd Livingston North of 51.0 1,410 2.58% 1.1651 1,643 86 1,496 Rd Immokalee Rd Livingston South of Rd 52.0 Immokalee Rd 2,220 3.03% 1.1961 2,656 22 2,242 Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate — Historical Growth Rate or 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1 +Annual Growth Rate )6. 2026 Projected Volume = 2020 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2026 Projected Volume = 2020 AUIR Volume +Trip Bank. The projected 2026 Peak Hour — Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 18 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the Collier County 2020 AUIR and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5-Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements were identified in the Collier County 2020 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build -out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions 2020 Peak 2026 Peak CC AUIR Roadway Link 2020 Minimum Dir, Peak Hr 2026 Dir, Peak Hr Roadway Link Link ID # Location Roadway Standard Capacity Roadway Capacity Condition LOS Volume Condition Volume (Peak Dir) (Peak Dir) Immokalee Rd 42.1 Airport Rd to 6D E 3,100 (EB) 6D 3,100 (EB) Livingston Rd Immokalee Rd 42.2 Livingston Rd to 6D/8D E 3,500 (EB) 6D/8D 3,500 (EB) Project Immokalee Rd 42.2 Project to 1-75 6D/8D E 3,500 (EB) 6D/8D 3,500 (EB) Immokalee Rd 43.1 1-75 to Logan 61D/81D E 3,500 (EB) 61D/81D 3,500 (EB) Blvd Livingston Rd 51.0 North of 61D/41D D 3,000 (NB) 61D/41D 3,000 (NB) Immokalee Rd Livingston Rd 52.0 South of 6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D 3,100 (NB) Immokalee Rd Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D = 4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service; Dir = Direction. Based on the information illustrated in the Collier County Current Planning Studies webpage, The Immokalee Road Corridor Congestion Study is currently underway. The study will evaluate the future levels of congestion in the Immokalee Road Corridor between Livingston Road and Logan Boulevard. This report is expected to be completed in the late spring of 2021. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 19 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which are evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future horizon year 2026. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates the LOS traffic impacts of the project to the area roadway network. Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) — With Project in the Year 2026 2026 Peak peak Hour, 2026 Peak % Vol Min LOS Min LOS CC Hour, Peak Peak Dir, Hour, Peak Capacity exceeded exceeded Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Dir Project Dir Traffic Impact without with Link Link ID Location Capacity Traffic with Project by Project? Project? # Volume Added** *** Project Yes/No Yes/No (Peak Dir)* Immokalee Airport Rd to 42.1 3,100 (EB) EB —18 2,676 0.6% No No Rd Livingston Rd Immokalee Livingston Rd to 42.2 3,500 (EB) EB-44 3,446 1.3% No No Rd Project ImmRodkalee 42.2 Project to 1-75 3,500 (EB) EB —18 3,420 0.5% No No Immokalee 43.1 1-75 to Logan 3,500 (EB) EB— 5 3,167 0.1% No No Rd Blvd Livingston North of 51.0 3,000 (NB) NB— 7 1,650 0.2% No No Rd Immokalee Rd Livingston South of 52.0 3,100 (NB) NB —15 2,671 0.5% No No Rd Immokalee Rd Note(s): *Refer to Table 5; "Refer to Table 3; ***2026 Projected Volume = 2026 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added. Based on the information illustrated in Table 6, this project does not create any significant impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2026 future traffic conditions. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. As illustrated in Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Chapter 6.02.02 — M.2., once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segment using Collier County TIS criterion, the development's impact is not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 10 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 In agreement with the Collier County Growth Management Plan — Transportation Element — Policy 5.2, project traffic that is 1% or less of the adopted peak hour service volume represents a de minimis impact. With the exception of Immokalee Road segment from Livingston Road to project access, the projected traffic impact is de minimis on all other analyzed roadway segments. With the exception of Immokalee Road segment from 1-75 to Logan Boulevard (Collier County AUIR Link ID #43.1), the analyzed roadway segments are located within the County's designated Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA). The TCMA's designations are provided in Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element. In agreement with Policy 5.7 of the Transportation Element, the TCMA concurrency is measured on a system -wide basis such that each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards. Based on the information contained in 2020 AUIR, the Northwest TCMA percent lane miles meeting standard is 97.2%. The Northwest TCMA map and the associated percent lanes miles meeting standard in the year 2020 are illustrated in Appendix D. As illustrated in Policy 5.8(d) — Transportation Element, no impact will be de minimis if it exceeds the adopted LOS standard of any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA. Any impact to a hurricane evacuation route within a TCMA shall require a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment provided the remaining LOS requirements of the TCMA are maintained. It is noted that Immokalee Road is a designated hurricane evacuation route as depicted in Collier County Transportation Element — Map TR - 7. Site Access Turn Lane Analysis The project proposes to connect to Immokalee Road via a shared access with the adjacent development to the east, Germain Immokalee PUD. Residential traffic may access Juliet Boulevard via Useppa Way. In addition, the proposed development will provide one interconnection to the residential property to the west, Bermuda Palms. Refer to Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. The project accesses are evaluated for turn lane warrants based on the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook for Work within the Right -Of -Way (Collier County Resolution No. 2016-136), Section III: (a) two-lane roadways — 40vph for right -turn lane/20vph for left -turn lane; (b) multi -lane divided roadways — right -turn lanes shall always be provided; and (c) when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left -turn lanes. Required turn lane improvements are considered site related. As illustrated in the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook for Work within the Right -Of -Way, Section III, if existing County ROW is utilized for these improvements, compensating ROW must be provided. Turn lane lengths required at build -out conditions are analyzed based on the number of turning vehicles in an average one -minute period for right -turning movements, and two -minute period for left -turning movements, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 feet and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 11 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Turning movement projections are illustrated in Appendix E. Immokalee Road (CR 846) is an east -west urban divided arterial roadway under Collier County jurisdiction, has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project and has an Access Management Classification of 3. Access management is the design of access between roadways and land development. It promotes the efficient and safe movement of people and goods by reducing conflicts on the roadway system. The latest adopted Access Management Policy for Collier County is depicted in Resolution No. 13-257. Consistent with a future Class 3 designation, the established access management criteria are as follow: 660 feet connection spacing; 660 feet directional median opening; 1,320 feet full median opening; and 2,640 feet (0.5 mi) signal spacing. Based on our review of the Master Plan, the proposed shared access point does not meet connection spacing standards for a Class 3 roadway. Given the unique site geometric conditions, the proposed shared access location is considered a reasonable compromise for a non -conforming connection location. Consistent with the adopted median opening spacing standards, a directional median opening is allowed at this location. For the purposes of this operational analysis, 2 configurations are considered for the proposed access: right-in/right-out and right-in/right-out/left-in. Consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 2021 Florida Design Manual (FDM), Chapter 212, Exhibit 212-1, design speed of 45 mph - urban conditions -the minimum turn lane length is 185 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. The site operational analysis reflects projected AM and PM peak hour traffic. Since the proposed connection to Immokalee Road is a shared access with the property to the east, turning movement projections are provided for both developments (Blue Coral Apartments PUD and Germain Immokalee PUD), as illustrated in Appendix E. Scenario 1- Immokalee Road - Shared Access - Right-in/Right-out Connection A dedicated eastbound right -turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi -lane criteria. The developments are expected to generate 58 vehicles per hour (vph) and 71 vph eastbound right - turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. By rounding to the nearest 25 foot increment, at the minimum, the eastbound right -turn lane should be 210 feet long (185 foot deceleration lane with taper and 25 feet of storage). Scenario 2 - Immokalee Road - Shared Access - Right-in/Right-out/Left-in Connection If a directional median opening is allowed, a dedicated westbound left -turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi -lane criteria. No changes to the eastbound right -turning traffic are expected under the Scenario 2 assumptions. As such, the minimum length for the eastbound right -turn lane should be 210 feet. The developments are expected to generate 27 vph and 28 vph westbound left -turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. By rounding to the nearest 25 foot increment, at the minimum, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 12 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 the westbound left -turn lane should be 210 feet long (185 foot deceleration lane with taper and 25 feet of storage). A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of a Site Development Plan or Development Order application to determine turn lane requirements, as more accurate parameters become available. Improvement Analysis Based on the results illustrated within this traffic analysis, the proposed project is not a significant traffic generator for the roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2026 future buildout conditions. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed development without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service. With the exception of Immokalee Road segment from 1-75 to Logan Boulevard, the analyzed roadway segments are located within the County's designated Northwest TCMA. This report concludes that concurrency standard is maintained for the Northwest TCMA. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of a Site Development Plan or Development Order application to determine turn lane requirements, as more accurate parameters become available. The maximum total daily trip generation for the proposed development shall not exceed 119 two-way PM peak hour new trips based on the land use codes in the ITE Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval, as applicable. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 13 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 14 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —April 16, 2021 Blue Coral Aoartments PUD Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 15 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Germain Immokalee PUD LULU T J w yyuyiy %� h I CL LLJ > ❑ ,w oa 4 ❑ oLU i Z W i LU 3ddo ° z w O V � 0 S Wo �3 Z <li aaa VM MAMEROM -. CR. Bad [RlOfii OF WAY) E21 u go-n f UMPPA WAY m z x 9 w N ws 9 oil V F O RR ¢ ��r v i@ o� 'eE .MUM Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 16 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 17 Blue Coral Apartments - GMPA/PUDZ - TIS -April 16, 2021 INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Crass out the items that do not apply, or N/A (not applicable). Date: March 13, 2020 Time: NIA Location: NIA - Via Email People AttendinE: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) Michael Sawyer, Collier County Ciro■�th \Iana ement Division 2) Norman Trebilcock, TCS 3) Cip-ian Malaescu. TCS Study Preparers Preparer's Name and Title: Norman Trebilcock, AICP, PE Organization: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions- PA Address & Telephone Number: 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200, Naples, FL 34104, ph 239-566-9551 Reviewer[s): Reviewer's Name & Title: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager Collier County Transportation Planning Department Organization & Telephone Number: 239-252-2926 Applicant: Applicant's Name: Capital Investment Group, Inc. Address: 226 East 8` St. Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone Number: 513-246-1985 Proposed I)evelopment. Name: Coral Blue Apartments - Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and the associated Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) Location: On the south side of hnmokalee Road (CR 846), between Livingston Rd_(,CR 881) and I-75 (refer to Figure 1) Land Use Type: Residential - Multifamily ITE Code #: LUC 221 - Multifamily Ilousing (Mid -Rise) Description: The property is approximately 9.35 ac and it is currently vacant land. The proposed GMPAIPUDZ would allow for the development of up to 280 multifamily dwelling units. Project will connect to Immokalee Rd via a connection shared with the adjacent development to the east. In addition, development will provide interconnects to the commercial site to the east and to the residential property (Bermuda Palms) to the west. As such, generated traffic may access Juliet Blvd via Useppa Way. Pa'-": 1 of'6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 18 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —April 16, 2021 Figure 1 — Project L.rrcation Map . o Y .p N q O Go gle gran nam rnu2o �000 rt� A.oitin Existing: Agricultural (A), future PUD application Comprehensive plan recommendation: GMPA Requested: approval for new development - Findings of the Preliminary Study: Study type: Since proiecled net external AM or PM project traffic is greater than 100 two-way peak- hour trips this study qualifies for a Maior TIS — significant roadway and/or operational impacts. Proposed TIS will include trip generation, traffic distribution and assiQctments, si gnificance test (based on 2°Ia12%/3% criterion). Trip Generation — based on Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures, ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition and ITE Trip Generation Handbook- 3rd Edition. In agreement with ITF. procedures and Collier County TIS guidelines, internal capture and pass -by traffic are not considered. The TIS will determine if there is consistency with the Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. The report will provide existing. LOS and document the impact the proposed change will have on designated arterial and collector roads. Roadway concurrency analysis — based on estimated net external PM peak hour traffic. The TIS shall be consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures. Most of the analyzed roadway segments are located within the County's designated Northwest Transportation Concurrence Management Areas (TCNIAs). Page 2 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 19 Blue Coral Apartments - GMPA/PUDZ - TIS -April 16, 2021 The TCMA's designation is provided in Policy 5.4 and 5.6 of the Transportation Element - Collier Countv Growth Management Plan (GMP). To maintain concurrence. TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the adopted LOS standard. Site Access - The applicant proposes one shared access connection on Immokalee Road - review compliance with adopted Collier County Access Management Policy. Immokalee Road - segment from Livingston Road to I-75 - Access Management Class 3. Posted Speed - 45 mph. Desio Speed - 45 mph. Operational site access - turn lane analysis is based on proposed project build -out conditions AM -PM peak hour generated traffic - to include projected traffic from the property to the east (up to 80,000 sf automobile dealership). Study Type: if not net increase, operational study) Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS ❑ Maior TIS Study Area: Boundaries: Adjacent Street -Immokalee Road Additional intersections to be analyzed: N/A Build Out Year: 2025 Planning Horizon Year: 2025 Analysis Time Period(s): Concurrency-PM Peak Hour; Operational-AM/PM Peak Hour Future Off -Site Developments: NIA Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 100' Edition. ITE Handbook 3'd Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: NIA Pass -by trips: NIA Internal trips: NIA Transit use: NIA Other: NIA Horizon Year Road►r a►• Network Impmvements: 2025 Methodology & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estimates: Collier County traffic counts and 2019 AUIR Site -trip generation: OTISS - IT$ 10a' Edition Trip distribution method: Enejneer's Estimate - refer to Figure 2 Traffic assignment method: project trip generation with background growth Traffic growth rate: historical growth rate or 2% minimum Turning movements: Ingress Traffic - 60% from Immokalee Rd via proposed shared access and 40% via east interconnection - Useppa Way. Page 3 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 20 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —April 16, 2021 Figure 2 — Project Trip Distribution by Percentage v V 0 d 0 ,r) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 21 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —April 16, 2021 Special Features: from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: NIA Sight distance: NIA Queuing: NIA Access location & configuration: NIA Traffic control: MUTCD Signal system location & progression needs: NIA On -site parking needs: NIA Data Sources: CC 2019 AUIR: CC Traffic Counts Base maps: NIA Prior study reports: NIA Access policy and jurisdiction: NIA Review process: NIA Requirements: NIA Miscellaneous: NIA Small Scale Study — No Fee Minor Study - $750.00 Major Study - $1,500.00 X Methodology Fee $500 X Includes 0 intersections Additional Intersections - $500.00 each A11 fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign -off on the application. SIGNATURES Novviow TYeb7 roriz Study Preparer—Norman Trebilcock Reviewer(s) Applicant Page 5 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 22 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —April 16, 2021 Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review, Analysis Review, and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. Methodology Review - $500 Fee Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement, including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s), distribution, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study" determination, written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement, and written confirmation of a re -submitted, amended methodology statement, and one meeting in Collier County, if needed. "Small Scale Studv" Review - No Additional Fee {Includes one sufficiency review} Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concurrency determination, site access inspection and confirmation of the study compliance with trip generation, distribution and maximum threshold compliance. "Minor Study Review" - $750 Fee (Includes one sufficiency review) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: optional field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, distribution, and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of off -site improvements within the right-of-way, review of site access and circulation, and preparation and review of "sufficiency" comments/questions. "Ma ior Study Review" - $1,500 Fee [Includes two intersection analysis and two sufficiency reviews Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, special trip generation and/or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data colleaxilassembled, review of traffic growth analysis, review of off -site roadway operations and capacity analysis, review of site access and circulation, neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates, and preparation and review of up to two rounds of "sufficiency" comments/questions and/or recommended conditions of approval. "Additional intersection Review" - $500 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the `%bjor Study Review" and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the "Major Study Review" "Additional Sufficiency Reviews" - $500 Fee Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. Page 6 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 23 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations and Land Use Code Descriptions Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 24 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Blue Coral Apartments PUD Land Use: 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) Description Mid -rise multifamily housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors). Multifamily housing (low-rise) (Land Use 220), multifamily housing (high-rise) (Land Use 222), off -campus student apartment (Land Use 225), and mid -rise residential with 1st -floor commercial (Land Use 231) are related land uses. Additional Data In prior editions of Trip Generation Manual, the mid -rise multifamily housing sites were further divided into rental and condominium categories. An investigation of vehicle trip data found no clear differences in trip making pattems between the rental and condominium sites within the ITE database. As more data are compiled for future editions, this land use classification can be reinvestigated. For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available, there were an average of 2 A 6 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available, an average of 95.7 percent of the total dwelling units were occupied. Time -of -day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the eight general urbanlsuburban sites with data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and 4:45 and 5:45 p.m., respectively. For the four dense mufti -use urban sites with 24-hour count data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7:15 and 8:15 a.m. and 4:15 and 5:15 p.m., respectively. For the three center city core sites with 24-hour count data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 6:45 and 7:45 a.m. and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., respectively. For the six sites for which data were provided for both occupied dwelling units and residents, there was an average of 2.46 residents per occupied dwelling unit. Far the five sites far which data were provided far both occupied dwelling units and total dwelling units, an average of 95.7 percent of the units were occupied. The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the five center city core sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1 84 during Weekday, Peak Hour Df Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 am • 1.94 during Weekday, AM Peak Hour of Generator • 2.07 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.59 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator Trip Gene ration Manual 10th Edition • Volume 2: Data • Residential (Land lJses 200-299) 71 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 25 Blue Coral Apartments - GMPA/PUDZ- TIS -April 16, 2021 The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 32 dense mufti -use urban sites at which bath person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1.90 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1,90 during Weekday, AM Peak Hour of Generator • 2,00 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2,08 during Weekday, PM Peak Hourof Generator The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 13 general urban/suburban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected were as follows: • 1,56 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.88 during Weekday, AM Peak Hour of Generator • 1.70 during Weekday, Peak Hour ofAdjamnt Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 2.07 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), British Columbia (CAN), California, Delaware, district of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ontario, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakcta, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Source Numbers 168, 188, 204, 305, 306, 321, 357, 390, 436, 525, 530, 579, 638, 818, 857, 866, 901, 904, 910, 912, 918, 934, 936, 939, 944, 947, 948, 949, 959, 963, 964, 966, 967, 969, 970 72 TdpGeneration Manual IDth EdNon - Volume 2: Data - Residential (Land Uses 200--299) HWW Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 26 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 27 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name: Daily Project Name : 5000 Immokalee Rd No. Development Data: 3113=20 City: StatelPrvvince: ZiprPostal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Trip Gen Manual, 10th Ed Land U8e Independent Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total Variable 221 - Multifamily Dwelling Units 280 Weekday Best Fit (LIN) 762 762 1524 Housing (Mid -Rise) T = 5.45 (X)+-1.75 50% 50% (General UrbanlSuburban) TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Land Use Entry Reduction Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 0 % 762 0 % 762 EXTERNAL TRIPS Land Use External Trips Pass -by% Pass -by Trips Non -pass -by Trips 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 1624 0 0 1524 ITE DEVIATION DETAILS Weekday Landuse No deviations from ITE. Methods No deviations from ITE. External Trips 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rico) (General UrbanlSuburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 28 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 SUMMARY Total Entering Total Exiting Total Entering Reduction Total Exiting Reduction Total Entering Internal Capture Reduction Total Exiting Internal Capture Reduction Total Entering Pass -by Reduction Total Exlting Pass -by Reduction Total Entering Non -Pass-by Trips Total Exiting Non -Pass -by Trips 762 762 762 762 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 29 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name : AM Peak Hour Project Name : 5D00 Immokalee Rd No. Development Date: 3113=20 City: StatelPrvvince: ZipfPostal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Trip Gen Manual, 10th Ed Land Use Independent Size Time Period Method Entry Exit Total Variable 221 - Multifamily Dwelling Units 280 Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LOG) 24 70 94 Housing (Mid -Rise) Hour of Adjacent Ln(T)=0.98Ln(X) 26% 74% (General Street Traffic, +-0.98 UrbanlSuburban) One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Land Use Rasduedtm Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 0 % 24 0 % 70 EXTERNAL TRIPS Land Use External Trips Pass -by% Pass -by Trips Nan -pass -by Trips 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 94 0 0 94 ITE DEVIATION DETAILS Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street 17affic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Landuse No deviations from ITE. Methods No deviations from ITE. Extemal Trips 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) [General Urban/Suburban] ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case_ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 130 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 SUMMARY Total Entering Total Exiting Total Entering Reduction Total Exiting Reduction Total Entering Internal Capture Reduction Total Exiting Internal Capture Reduction Total Entering Pass -by Reduction Total Exlting Pass -by Reduction Total Entering Non -Pass-by Trips Total Exiting Non -Pass -by Trips 24 70 24 70 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 131 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 PERIOD SETTING Analysis Name : PM Peak Hour Project Name : 5D00 Immokalee Rd No. Development Date: 3113=20 City: StatelPrvvince: ZipfPcstal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Land Use Independent Size Time Period Method Variable 221 - Multifamily Dwelling Units 280 Weekday, Peak Best Fit (LOG) Housing (Mid -Rise) Hour of Adjacent Ln(T)=0.96Ln(x) (General Street Traffic, +-0.63 UrbanlSuburban) One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Trip Gen Manual, 10th Ed Entry Exit Total 73 46 119 61% 39% Land Use Rasduedtm Adjusted Entry Exit Reduction Adjusted Exit 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 0 % 73 0 % 46 EXTERNAL TRIPS Land Use External Trips Pass -by% Pass -by Trips Nan -pass -by Trips 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 119 0 0 119 ITE DEVIATION DETAILS Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street 17affic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Landuse No deviations from ITE. Methods No deviations from ITE. External Trips 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) [General Urban/Suburban] ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case_ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 132 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 SUMMARY Total Entering Total Exiting Total Entering Reduction Total Exiting Reduction Total Entering Internal Capture Reduction Total Exiting Internal Capture Reduction Total Entering Pass -by Reduction Total Exlting Pass -by Reduction Total Entering Non -Pass-by Trips Total Exiting Non -Pass -by Trips 73 dfi 73 dB Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 133 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Germain Immokalee PUD Land Use: 840 Automobile Sales (New) Description A new automobile safes dealership is typically located along a major arterial street characterized by abundant commercial development. The sale or leasing of new cars is the primary business at these facilities; however, automobile services, parts sales, and used car sales may also be available. Some dealerships also include leasing options, truck sales, and servicing. Automobile sales (used) (Land Use 841) and recreational vehicle sales {Land Use 842) are related uses. Additional Data Time -of -day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A. For the six general urban/suburban sites with data, the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 11:15 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. and 1:45 and 2:45 p.m., respectively. The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia. Source Numbers 260, 271, 280, 328, 414, 424, 427, 438, 440, 507, 571, 583, 612, 715, 728, 880, 881, 936, 974, 975 172 Trip Generation Manual IOth Edition • Volume 2: Data • Retail I Land Uses 804-899) REF Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 134 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 PERIOD SETTING ✓ DATA PROVIDED BY ITE Specify the Independent Variable, Time Period, and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis. To record any notes, click - Add Notes above. PROJECT NAIVE: GERMAIN IMMOKALEE ROAD ANALYSIS NAME: Weekday LAND USE INDEPENDENT SIZE LOCATION TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL VARIABLE 840 - AubNno la Salsa {New} 1000 4 Ft GFA • Oro) Utan/Sulb Woo"'*Avenge 11 g114 1113 2227 27.84 (0) indicates size out of range. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 35 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —April 16, 2021 PERIOD SETTING V DATA PROVIDED BY ITE Specify the Independent Variable, Time Period, and Calculation Method to he used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis. To record any notes, click • Add Notes above. PROJECT NAME GERMAIN IMMOKALEE ROAD ANALYSIS NAME: AM Peak Hour INDEPENDENT SIZE LOCATION TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT VARIABLE 84D - Automoble Sales (New) 1000 Sq. FL GFA ' 80 Urb General lrban Weekday, Peak Hou Average 1p 40 1.87 PERIOD SETTING TOTA' ,., DATA PROVIDED BY ITE 150 Specify the Independent Variable, Time Period, and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis. To record any notes, click • Add Notes above. PROJECT NAME GERMAIN IMMOKALEE ROAD ANALYSIS NAMES PM Peak Hour INDEPENDENT SIZE LOC'''nN TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTA.' VARIABLE 840 -Automobile Sales (New) 1000 Sq. F1 GFA ■ gO General Weekday Peak HCU Beat Fit(LIN) ■ �� 10O 1fi6 UrbanlSuburban T' = 1,8Lxl + 21.6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 36 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Appendix D: Collier County Northwest TCMA Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 37 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 138 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 139 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 140 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —April 16, 2021 v �a — � E Sa �� { a � E Ln U ❑7 07 U C Q L Z; 7 U O L r D a ❑] O � C OJ L a > c� Q U w �- 2 ❑ lye 17 W 0 ❑ NE N M LrvmBsiwl Ra - lrvmgaton iMir4'n°" . Llvin9'• O �yrr�yyy��� � .rw •.av a m � m E `q N C] L7 0 II II Q () cc 4s a Q vr•Ej � 9 pm �n C �� •em c�aYr. rier Afw�G�As �n6 RnvG �na+b •rt GnnL 2 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 141 Blue Coral Apartments - GMPA/PUDZ - TIS -April 16, 2021 v �a a � Q � E �II a o �ci � Ig ra NO) � ^ U + 2 M E w" U w g` IJJ g N Q �ivm9siwit:a - LrvmgatonitE iMirgato" 'C s LW19'• z - O S�.1. O m E `q N U L7 In rl 4y o ccV Arty.O Ravi p A..+b WgLn CD 0 hi ►0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 142 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ— TIS —April 16, 2021 .o Q Li L7 Q - 0 w �- 2 ❑ In- lye '0 NE N � 17 - IJMNelnn R.J - •-, LrvmBsiwl Ra - lrvmgaton iMir4'n°" s # e • - Llvin9'• Z - O Syrr-yy��� � m E `q N C] L7 0 II II Q () cc 4s a Q �n6 R.tvG �ua+b •rt GnnL Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 143 Blue Coral Apartments — GMPA/PUDZ — TIS —April 16, 2021 v �a — � E Sa �� { a E � Ig C.,; y NO) 4 0 a s` (> M zo N N E N 0 m' 0 CA r c\I N C7 t + II II a L{] N •— CJ C7 N m m m + t mm Q� Q t1 I now on;M06007anown...M cc II II � � ^ U + + I w �- 2 a 3 E wee E U U w Ui g N Q In 0 F Liv,ngsiWl Rd - Lrvmgaton NO LH�n. 'C s LW19'• z - O S�.1. O m E `q N U L7 0�� II II 4 s a cc vr•Ej � 9 pm �n C �� Rem E.y.na rier Afw�G�As �� RatvG �a,a'b Rrt GnnL Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 144 Vogt Strategic Insights Mr. Gregg Fusaro Capital Investment Group, Inc. 226 East 8th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Dear Mr. Fusarao: March 23, 2020 Revised: April 14, 2021 Vogt Strategic Insights (VSI) has completed this preliminary market assessment for a 280-unit market -rate project in Naples, Florida. The name for the proposed subject site has not been determined at this time. We have supplemented this analysis at the request of the Collier County Zoning Division/Community Planning Section, with an additional considered comparable property and demand calculation, in April 2021. The site for the proposed development is south of Immokalee Road, east of its intersection with Livingston Road in the northern portion of Naples, Collier County, Florida. The site is 9.35 acres and is level and undeveloped. We have estimated the demographic support potential and achievable rent levels for new construction, upscale, market -rate rental units tailored to general occupancy households. Our evaluation includes establishment of a preliminary Site Primary Market Area (PMA), which is the geographic area where much of the support for the proposed multifamily residential project will originate. We conducted a telephone survey of existing comparable multifamily rental housing properties in the preliminary Site PMA detailing occupancies, rent levels and potential competitive impact; an analysis of planned and proposed area rental projects; and an analysis of the demographic trends that influence the preliminary Site PMA. We conclude our analysis by providing a preliminary demand estimate for the market for the proposed market -rate units and comment on the market's ability to support additional development. Phone: (614) 224-4300 Fax: (614) 225-9505 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, Ohio 43215 VSlnsights.com Site and Preliminary Project Concept Detailed unit configurations were not available at the time of this analysis. We anticipate the subject units will be attached and be walk-up flats or elevator -equipped (if taller than three stories) with one-, two - and three -bedroom configurations. The preliminary proposed unit mix includes 150 one -bedroom units, 116 two -bedroom units and 14 three - bedroom units. 50 One -Bedroom 1.0 Al 525 $1,208 $2.30 60 One -Bedroom 1.0 A2 725 $1,523 $2.10 40 One -Bedroom 1.0 A3 770 $1,579 $2.05 44 Two -Bedroom 2.0 B1 1,104 $1,943 $1.76 60 Two -Bedroom 2.0 B2 1,126 $1,971 $1.75 12 Two -Bedroom 2.0 B3 1,187 $2,042 $1.72 14 Three -Bedroom 2.0 C1 1,427 $2,240 $1.57 280 It is anticipated that the subject project will be completed in 2021. Based on the utility responsibilities at most market -rate comparables, we have assumed tenants will pay for all essential utilities, including electric heat, electric hot water, electric cooking and general electric, along with the cost of water, sewer service and trash collection. The proposed project will offer high -quality, contemporary residential units. We have assumed amenities based on those offered at the most comparable modern rental alternatives, which include the following: stainless steel appliances, upgraded counters and cabinets, washer and dryer, patio/balcony, carpet and luxury vinyl flooring, walk-in closets, window blinds, central air conditioning and an eat -in kitchen that includes a range, refrigerator with icemaker, dishwasher, microwave oven and garbage disposal. The project is also assumed to offer a pool, fitness center, clubhouse, community room, playground, business center, surveillance cameras and a picnic/barbeque area. We recognize the project concept may change as the planned multifamily project evolves. The conclusion discussion and recommendations within this analysis are preliminary in scope and may change when a full market study is completed. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Preliminary Primary Market Area (PMA) The preliminary Primary Market Area (PMA) is typically the geographical area from which most of the renters for the proposed development are expected to originate. Based on interviews with property management, area mobility patterns and previous studies conducted by VSI in the Naples area, as well as a review of demographic characteristics and trends, we have established the preliminary subject Site PMA. The subject site is located just east of the unincorporated community of North Naples. In general, the preliminary Site PMA includes North Naples and a northern portion of the city of Naples, in the far northwestern portion of Collier County. Significant boundaries of the preliminary Site PMA include the following: North: Bonita Beach Road East: Bird Rookery Swamp, Smoke House Bay Drive and Collier Boulevard South: Golden Gate Parkway and Mooring Line Drive West: Gulf of Mexico The Gulf of Mexico and Bird Rookery Swamp for natural boundaries to the west and northeast of the Site PMA. Areas south of the Site PMA generally have lower median incomes and are served by additional multifamily stock near the central portion of Naples. Areas of the east include primarily owner -occupied housing and are not expected to generate significant support for the subject site. We anticipate some level of support for the subject will also come from other areas of central Naples, south of the Site PMA and Lee County, north of the Site PMA. Support will also originate from residents new to southwest Florida. Because this out -of -market support potential is generated from a very broad area, we have not evaluated a Secondary Market Area. A map of the preliminary market area is on the following page. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Na les, FL 2019 Estimated Population: 168,388 Legend • • Project Site Primary • Area 00 .57 Square Miles Counties in PMA: Collier and Leep PMA 0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 4.5 5.25 6 6.75 7s F Bonita Springs Miles = Golden Gate Estero mNc5 "o m - Operations m Bay �tzSt°` ono dh v 6 .� a� way v Island Walk o _ `D ee c P°do oo° se �a d n ci Lee County Naples r o `m o v tr ee4 Dr -torksto% „/3 7t gl< 0 Naples Park z _ F pn< KIo� i°r o a s Pelican Bay 'o,._ g tee_ Ra Rive` s o a' H Y SY c u ..y' _ RockB� Tower ,�'� Sho Ro Pine Ridge c flub R ,. t'kin L 5 ¢ �?�� 1 ..� a BoDdta o ? d ,o. Head Rd 'Panch Rd Vineyards 'o m i4 Terry St E Terry St V je Dr m a z Esplanades -Tarpon day o y,z dy6'in z o st Ave 'Dean St = roc ti Lnll c (p ~ `�Ir I ® Spanish ...a Fox ea�� d 65h 3 a Stt aIJ oMoss way ova b� Van WaV P\essaL Ridgo, ,.S°Vtr -W e5 Latitude Dr P°" E v s s s L Bonita o J� e o u inthro o Alha br ae xs nn s e '° a.`bon ° Or. °a Pa m I St G.. �P �lu Co a Revreat s.�O� b /�o/io Medl �° 3 Eden r �; °r 0 Bay Dr M �N� uiJ 7 Mem rial Blvd m T n a m SY '^ Wiggin �\�j co, rnin C �. P Z, L v to arr Ba Pass Rdf I ,�i Ln n R o'.: o ,V¢< ite .cce Drlm o-v ; m l� AD I trarl m a 0 i= z atCypress ressThe � i,_f�. c> r o > N c ,e n uarr nits Bay Gir , f o" v m Sie ° Club W gaVm� D Mentor o la ay Dr Naples f Bluebill 1�11th o® S 1 4 Piper Blvd G�Ave Nap es mar'Y h� n m Dr o n v z- Oav-T �` of Par ro d d 'Spanish i . nao emu {- 3 l Indigo z z T p60\ °ca o Oaks Ln c Lakes D �� n x Pelic ill.• mstandingw o Islan6%D Yo ^ 41 n Marsh ibut° '^ y Oaks Ln a F Vanderbilt ' BIV6 $ x o z tV o �:..y. > If Bur Oaks Ln e W a d K e •�•,r A o 6a o ,If Clu < English U 0Island Walk Oaks Ln b i I t -r y Z `y:�ssron Old Gloves _ A. Citrus _ _ en lgood t ?�, c 1O a, <�tI 'serve Ci Wood Dr 3rd N yr O jf els Rd 1p -o Teak Ave NW Or '' f Hunters m' m 5i Wood Dr v Gulf ofF Pelicana Pinea o N Rd 'e1el"% Pf - 3rd �9 o Ave SW 5th Mexico Bay mRidg� Illz"\ o �s > Vill Tamarind Ave SW leg 1 an' °st I{ a h r r9 IC`d] 13th SW 14th Ave SW Ave 1 ` I tl I 1 the Dr So Royal Rd Poin ciana Dr t n 17th I SW - t Ave SW m Su, o v St^ Dr y s ° Ra e/ 21st Big P L Ave SW ` m; Q judge Sj. de z - U 1 Y a' ° 23rd 2 e coary Bra tie St m �.p c) Estuary r°p �v ed "' Dr uu ra S Oa,�., a Co er 5th- Leaf Ln G n �... z� 27th fev °' 29t! Age-sw Ivd .o G evai ` a ve ezrF g n e ®cl ate m 315t Ivisa 32nd n Ave SW - ^, (. RlverDr t Me c i r _ 6 Mq? S Rec ea,.oW agno ` «(r 'FiI Rea j. 'b Aver _ d or u o °yer t Wa bui Z1gL- o Rd h a I 75 ve _.�Icr [�- Terminal...- Rd Ga $4 I a G7 m v �F° it a m R .° g � /es %tage Ot o Vogt Strategi 1-137_R97 aple��M 4 F I ) Insights Demographic Characteristics Population and household trends for the preliminary Naples Site PMA are as follows: Population Households 2000 Census 107,033 46,559 2010 Census 144,093 64,825 Change 2000-2010 37,060 18,266 Percent Change 2000-2010 34.6% 39.2% 2019 Estimated 168,388 76,546 Change 2010-2019 24,295 11,721 Percent Change 2010-2019 16.9% 18.1% 2024 Projected 182,072 83,081 Change 2019-2024 13,684 6,535 Percent Change 2019-2024 8.1% 8.5% Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; VSI As illustrated in the preceding table, the Naples Site PMA experienced an increase in both population and households between 2000 and 2010. Between 2010 and 2019, the population increased by 24,295, or 16.9%. During the same period, households increased by 11,721, or 18.1%. Projections through 2024 indicate there will be 182,072 people in 83,081 households within the Site PMA. This represents a population increase of 13,684 (8.1%) and a household increase of 6,535 (8.5%). The summary of the Site PMA population bases by age follow: Population 2010 (Census) 2019 (Estimated) 2024 (Projected) I - I 19 & Under 26,792 18.6% 27,815 16.5% 29,003 15.9% 1,188 4.3% 20 to 24 6,113 4.2% 6,554 3.9% 6,580 3.6% 26 0.4% 25 to 34 12,983 9.0% 15,148 9.0% 15,518 8.5% 370 2.4% 35 to 44 14,736 10.2% 15,428 9.2% 17,249 9.5% 1,821 11.8% 45 to 54 18,298 12.7% 17,455 10.4% 16,893 9.3% -562 -3.2% 55 to 64 21,019 14.6% 24,763 14.7% 25,039 13.8% 276 1.1% 65 to 74 23,393 16.2% 30,854 18.3% 34,275 18.8% 3,421 11.1% 75 & Over 20,759 14.4% 30,371 18.0% 37,515 20.6% 7,144 23.5% Total 144,093 100.0% 168,388 100.0% 182,072 100.0% 13,684 8.1% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; VSI Population projections illustrate the contraction of the 45 to 54 age cohort within the Site PMA from 2019 to 2024 and the expansion of all others. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com The Site PMA household base by age segments is summarized as follows: Households2010 1 • 124 (Projected)1 1 by Age Under 25 1,626 2.5% 1,558 2.0% 1,620 1.9% 62 4.0% 25 to 34 5,946 9.2% 6,584 8.6% 6,726 8.1% 142 2.2% 35 to 44 7,738 11.9% 7,790 10.2% 8,608 10.4% 818 10.5% 45 to 54 10,410 16.1% 9,496 12.4% 9,071 10.9% -425 -4.5% 55 to 64 11,680 18.0% 13,539 17.7% 13,487 16.2% -52 -0.4% 65 to 74 13,476 20.8% 17,638 23.0% 19,312 23.2% 1,674 9.5% 75 to 84 10,060 15.5% 14,137 18.5% 17,196 20.7% 3,059 21.6% 85 & Over 3,889 6.0% 5,804 7.6% 7,061 8.5% 1,257 21.7% Total 64,825 100.0% 76,546 100.0% 83,081 100.0% 6,535 8.5% Median 60.7 years 64.5 years 66.1 years +1.6 years Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; VSI Projections indicate that all but age 45 to 64 preliminary Site PMA household age cohorts will increase over the next five years. Households by tenure are distributed as follows: 2010 11 1 • 1 • •" •" •" Owner -Occupied 46,486 71.7% 55,758 72.8% 61,452 74.0% Renter -Occupied 18,339 28.3% 20,788 27.2% 21,629 26.0% Total 64,825 100.0% 76,546 100.0% 83,081 100.0% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; VSI In 2019, renter households were estimated to occupy 27.2% of all occupied housing units, while 72.8% were occupied by homeowner households. The share of renters is lower than national trends, but not uncommon for communities of similar socioeconomic composition. Projections indicate the number of renter households is expected to increase through 2024. Despite a slower rate of growth among renters overall, higher income renter households are expected to increase at a faster pace. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Household sizes by tenure are distributed as follows: Persons Per 2019 (Estimated) Wr. 2024 (Projected) MMIRTMW Change 2019-2024 Renter Household 1 Person .. 6,619 31.8% 6,571 30.4% . . . -48 -0.7% 2 Persons 6,588 31.7% 7,014 32.4% 427 6.5% 3 Persons 3,297 15.9% 3,386 15.7% 89 2.7% 4 Persons 2,434 11.7% 2,578 11.9% 144 5.9% 5 Persons+ 1,850 8.9% 2,080 9.6% 230 12.4% Total 20,788 100.0% 21,629 100.0% 841 4.0% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; VSI 1 Person 14,604 26.2% 16,080 26.2% 1,476 10.1% 2 Persons 30,886 55.4% 34,350 55.9% 3,464 11.2% 3 Persons 4,422 7.9% 4,787 7.8% 365 8.3% 4 Persons 3,636 6.5% 3,827 6.2% 192 5.3% 5 Persons+ 2,214 4.0% 2,411 3.9% 197 8.9% Total 55,761 100.0% 61,455 100.0% 5,694 10.2% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; VSI The distribution of households by persons per household for the preliminary Site PMA is similar to other suburban markets. The subject site will offer one- to three -bedroom units, targeting the most common household sizes. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Income Trends The distribution of households by income and the median income by tenure within the preliminary Naples Site PMA are summarized as follows: Household 2010 (Census) 2019 (Estimated) 2024 (Projected) Range Less than $10,000 HouseholdsIncome 2,714 4.2% ..Households 2,641 3.5% 2,456 3.0% $10,000 to $19,999 4,832 7.5% 3,926 5.1% 3,619 4.4% $20,000 to $29,999 5,745 8.9% 4,931 6.4% 4,658 5.6% $30,000 to $39,999 5,775 8.9% 5,768 7.5% 5,561 6.7% $40,000 to $49,999 5,602 8.6% 6,454 8.4% 6,234 7.5% $50,000 to $59,999 5,494 8.5% 5,486 7.2% 5,279 6.4% $60,000 to $74,999 6,278 9.7% 6,855 9.0% 6,983 8.4% $75,000 to $99,999 7,675 11.8% 10,953 14.3% 11,087 13.3% $100,000 to $124,999 5,642 8.7% 6,759 8.8% 7,876 9.5% $124,999 to $149,999 3,883 6.0% 4,804 6.3% 6,117 7.4% $150,000 to $199,999 4,687 7.2% 5,603 7.3% 7,605 9.2% $200,000+ 6,498 10.0% 12,369 16.2% 15,609 18.8% Total 64,825 100.0% 76,549 100.0% 83,084 100.0% PMA Median Income $65,377 $80,052 $90,225 PMA Median Owner Income $80,472 $98,535 $111,056 PMA Median Renter Income $41,708 $51,070 $57,560 Collier County Median Income $58,106 $67,771 $75,385 Naples -Marco Island MSA Median Income $58,106 $67,771 $75,385 Florida State Median Income $47,661 $54,237 $58,334 U.S. Median Income $47,185 $60,547 $65,804 Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Detailed Tenure Crosstab by Urban Decision Group; VSI The median household income in 2010 was $65,377. By 2019, it increased by 22.4% to $80,052. Projections indicate the median household income will be $90,225 by 2024, an increase of 12.7% over 2019. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com The following tables illustrate renter household income by household size for 2010, 2019 and 2024 for the preliminary Naples Site PMA: Household Renter Households2010 Income Range Less than $10,000 632 378 216 142 113 1,481 $10,000 to $19,999 940 615 352 231 184 2,322 $20,000 to $29,999 995 668 382 251 200 2,495 $30,000 to $39,999 977 674 386 253 202 2,492 $40,000 to $49,999 769 645 369 242 193 2,217 $50,000 to $59,999 562 486 278 183 145 1,654 $60,000 to $74,999 626 563 322 211 168 1,891 $75,000 to $99,999 482 443 253 166 133 1,478 $100,000 to $124,999 303 263 150 99 79 893 $125,000 to $149,999 213 178 102 67 53 614 $150,000 to $199,999 122 95 54 36 29 336 $200,000 & Over 180 127 73 48 38 465 Total 6,800 5,135 2,938 1,929 1,537 18,339 Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Detailed Tenure Crosstab by Urban Decision Group; VSI Household • • •2019 (Estimated) Income• Less than $10,000 430 • 362 • 181 • 134 • 102 • 1,208 $10,000 to $19,999 698 507 254 187 142 1,787 $20,000 to $29,999 821 593 297 219 167 2,097 $30,000 to $39,999 691 760 380 281 213 2,326 $40,000 to $49,999 770 865 433 320 243 2,630 $50,000 to $59,999 553 625 313 231 175 1,897 $60,000 to $74,999 795 732 367 271 206 2,371 $75,000 to $99,999 796 953 477 352 268 2,845 $100,000 to $124,999 387 428 214 158 120 1,308 $125,000 to $149,999 289 298 149 110 84 930 $150,000 to $199,999 119 146 73 54 41 433 $200,000 & Over 269 319 160 118 90 955 Total 6,619 6,588 3,297 2,434 1,850 20,788 Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Detailed Tenure Crosstab by Urban Decision Group; VSI Household • • • 1 • Income• Less than $10,000 312 • 303 • 146 • 111 • 90 • 963 $10,000 to $19,999 606 444 214 163 132 1,558 $20,000 to $29,999 748 533 257 196 158 1,892 $30,000 to $39,999 581 712 344 262 211 2,110 $40,000 to $49,999 736 828 400 304 246 2,514 $50,000 to $59,999 546 643 310 236 191 1,926 $60,000 to $74,999 853 789 381 290 234 2,547 $75,000 to $99,999 901 1,149 554 422 341 3,367 $100,000 to $124,999 467 560 270 206 166 1,669 $125,000 to $149,999 372 431 208 158 128 1,296 $150,000 to $199,999 145 205 99 75 61 585 $200,000 & Over 302 419 202 154 124 1,201 Total 6,571 7,014 3,386 2,578 2,080 21,629 Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Detailed Tenure Crosstab by Urban Decision Group; VSI Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com These demographic statistics have been used in our demand calculation found later in this analysis. Conventional Apartments In the preliminary Naples Site PMA, we identified and surveyed by telephone 20 better quality, conventional market -rate apartment projects containing 4,992 units. These selected surveyed projects represent some of the highest quality market -rate alternatives in the market. The following is a summary of the distribution of the market -rate units surveyed by telephone by bedroom type within the preliminary Site PMA, as of March 2020: Studio 1.0 4 0.1% 0 0.0% $1,289 One -Bedroom 1.0 1,481 29.7% 62 4.2% $1,260 Two -Bedroom 1.0 516 10.3% 8 1.6% $1,326 Two -Bedroom 2.0 1,991 39.9% 100 5.0% $1,464 Two -Bedroom 2.5 221 4.4% 11 5.0% $1,685 Three -Bedroom 2.0 596 11.9% 20 3.4% $1,770 Three -Bedroom 2.5 123 2.5% 6 4.9% $1,878 Four -Bedroom 2.0 60 1.2% 0 0.0% $1,860 Total Market -rate 4,992 100% 207 4.1% - Overall Median Market -rate Rent $1,450 Source: VSI Telephone Survey *Adjusted to reflect no landlord -paid essential utilities The 95.9% occupancy for the area indicates a stable rental market. The vacancies are distributed among the various properties surveyed, with none of the selected modern alternatives reporting vacancy rates in excess of 8%. Based on previous work in the subject Site PMA, we rated most properties surveyed on a scale of A through F based on quality and overall appearance (i.e. aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds appearance). Most of these properties were surveyed previously in person, with N rating indicating we have not evaluated the quality of select properties in person. Our rating system is described as follows, with + and - variations assigned according to variances from the following general descriptions: A— Upscale/high quality property B — Good condition and quality C — Fair condition, in need of minor improvements D — Poor condition F — Serious disrepair, dilapidated Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com The following is a distribution of units, vacancies and median adjusted rents by quality rating: Market -rate Properties Median Adjusted Rent* • W® Vacancy ®®� Bedroom Bedroom A 2 488 6.8% - $1,523 $1,943 $1,596 - A- 2 396 4.0% - $1,340 $1,495 $1,655 - B+ 3 822 2.6% - $1,140 $1,467 $1,884 - B 6 1,990 3.9% - $1,241 $1,464 $1,970 $2,531 B- 1 268 4.5% - $1,256 $1,370 $1,499 - N 5 1,028 4.7% $1,289 $1,578 $1,720 $1,770 $1,860 Source: VSI Telephone Survey *Adjusted to reflect assumed proposed project's utility structure N — Not previously surveyed Vacancies are highest among the A rated and unrated properties, which primarily include the newest properties in the market. All quality groupings have vacancy rates below 7%, indicating stability. The subject market -rate project is anticipated to have a quality rating of A or higher. This high quality rating should enhance the subject development's overall marketability. The multifamily housing surveyed by telephone is included in Addendum A of this market area review. Planned Multifamily Development In addition to the properties under construction included in our survey, we identified multiple planned, proposed or under construction projects within the preliminary Site PMA. Following is a summary: • Magnolia Square (290 units) is currently under construction at the intersection of Goodlette Road N and Pine Ridge Road. This property is expected to offer one- to three -bedroom units, with unit sizes ranging from 822 to 1,958 square feet. • Allura (304 units) is expected to break ground in 2020 after substantial resident pushback. The proposal was originally denied, until the developer agreed to offer approximately 10% of the units to moderate -income households (incomes up to 80% of the area median income). • The Haldeman (400 units) is expected to break ground in 2020. This 400-unit project is adjacent to a large under construction mixed -use development known as the HUB. This project is expected to have units available in 2021. • Vanderbilt Commons (58 units) is planned near Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard. These two- and three -bedroom units are expected to be built above retail uses. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com If all four of these properties proceed with development, they would create a total of 1,052 units. With the additional 464 units under construction and the subject site, there would be 1,796 new construction upscale apartments added to the market. Renter households with incomes of at least $40,000 are expected to increase by 1,735 over the next five years. These units would serve the growing higher income renter cohort. Given the number of units in the pipeline, the market will become much more competitive for market -rate renters and there could be a temporary softening of the market if all planned and proposed properties come to fruition. Additional properties are in the development pipeline south of the Site PMA. Given the different geographic areas of demographic support for the site and these properties, there will be little to no competitive overlap for renters. Market -rate Comparables Among the surveyed market -rate projects within the preliminary Naples Site PMA, we selected eight market -rate projects that we consider most comparable the concept at the proposed site. At the request of the Collier County Zoning Division/Community Planning Section, we have also included La Costa in our comparable tables. The selected market -rate properties offer modern one- to three -bedroom units. The selected comparable market -rate properties include the following: PropertiesComparable Market -rate Map Opened/ Total Percent Distance Waiting Rent ID Project Name Renovated Units Occupied To Site List Specials "QR N.R. Site Subject Site 2021 280 - - - - A B+ 1 Malibu Lakes Apts. 2002 356 97.8% 1.3 miles None None B B 3 Bermuda Island 1998 / 2007 360 97.5% 2.9 miles None None B+ B 5 Orchid Run Apts. 2015 282 93.6% 7.7 miles None None N N 9 Addison Place 2018 294 92.5% 3.7 miles None None N N 12 Mer Soled Apt. Homes 2002 / 2011 320 93.1% 8.4 miles None None A A The Crest at Bonita 13 Springs 2019 264* 100.0% 5.1 miles None None N N 15 La Costa** 1998 276 96.7% 5.3 miles None None A- A Monterra at Bonita 16 Springs 1999 / 2016 244 98.4% 6.5 miles None None N N 18 Versol 2019 40+200* 100.0% 7.1 miles None None N N Source: VSI Telephone Survey Q.R. — Quality Rating N.R. —Neighborhood Rating *Under construction **Included in the comparable tables at the request of the Collier County Zoning Division/Community Planning Section The selected comparable market -rate projects have a combined 2,172 units that are online, with two properties under construction. None of the established comparables have vacancy rates in excess of 8%. The combined occupancy of the comparable properties is 95.8%, indicating stability. The selected properties represent some of the highest quality and/or rent market -rate alternatives in the Site PMA. The following map illustrates the subject site location relative to the locations of the comparable properties. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com The following tables detail the appliances and the unit and project amenities of the selected comparable market -rate properties in the area: Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Continued: Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Continued: The proposed project will offer comparable or superior amenities to the selected properties. The units are expected to offer upscale finishes and the project amenities are considered comprehensive. We expect the project and unit amenities will allow the subject site to compete in the market. The comparables offer a variety of options for covered parking, with most available for an additional monthly fee. Carports at comparables are $25 to $40, detached garages range from $100 to $150 and parking garages range from $120 to $180. It would benefit the site to offer optional parking garages to compete with modern comparables. The rents per square foot for each comparable property and the preliminary proposed rents at the subject site are compared in the following tables. Note, the subject proposed rents are opening day rents, while the rents at the comparables are current. The selected comparable projects are sorted highest to lowest, by average rent per square foot. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Site Subject Site 1.0 $1,208 - $1,579 525 - 770 $2.05 - $2.30 5 Orchid Run Apts. - $1,578 - $1,615 808 - 849 $1.90 - $1.95 9 Addison Place - $1,560 - $1,640 758 - 867 $1.89 - $2.06 1 Malibu Lakes Apts. - $1,391 759 $1.83 13 The Crest at Bonita Springs 1.0 $1,460 821 $1.78 18 Versol 1.0 $1,435 - $1,580 736 - 929 $1.70 - $1.95 15 La Costa 1.0 $1,340 800 $1.68 3 Bermuda Island - $1,182 - $1,302 662 - 866 $1.50 - $1.79 16 Monterra at Bonita Springs - $1,260 - $1,380 874 - 971 $1.42 - $1.44 12 Mer Soleil Apt. Homes - $960 - $1,116 754 - 802 $1.27 - $1.39 Weighted Average $1,399 805 $1.74 Source: VSI Telephone Survey 5 Orchid Run Apts. 2.0 $1,930 - $2,005 1,100 -1,150 $1.74 - $1.75 Site Subject Site 2.0 $1,943 - $2,042 1,104 -1,187 $1.72 - $1.76 13 The Crest at Bonita Springs 2.0 $1,588 950 $1.67 9 Addison Place 2.0 $1,720 - $1,840 1,084 - 1,237 $1.49 - $1.59 18 Versol 2.0 $1,840 - $1,890 1,196 - 1,312 $1.44 - $1.54 1 Malibu Lakes Apts. 2.0 $1,515 - $1,706 1,092 - 1,119 $1.39 - $1.52 15 La Costa 1.0-2.0 $1,440 - $1,495 990 - 1,120 $1.33 - $1.45 3 Bermuda Island 1.0-2.0 $1,393 - $1,543 1,056 - 1,204 $1.28 - $1.32 12 Mer Soleil Apt. Homes 2.0 $1,091 - $1,316 944 - 1,047 $1.16 - $1.26 16 Monterra at Bonita Springs 2.0 $1,425 - $1,540 1,357 $1.05 - $1.13 Weighted Average $1,591 1,118 $1.42 Source: VSI Telephone Survey 5 Orchid Run Apts. 2.0 $2,415 - $2,470 1,301 - 1,326 $1.86 Site Subject Site 2.0 $2,240 1,427 $1.57 9 Addison Place 2.0 $2,115 1,397 $1.51 13 The Crest at Bonita Springs 2.0 $2,155 1,423 $1.51 1 Malibu Lakes Apts. 2.0 $2,006 - $2,061 1,269 - 1,385 $1.49 - $1.58 18 Versol 2.0 $2,165 - $2,180 1,501 - 1,523 $1.43 - $1.44 15 La Costa 2.0 $1,655 1,300 $1.27 3 Bermuda Island 2.0 $1,684 - $1,960 1,349 - 1,606 $1.22 - $1.25 12 Mer Soleil Apt. Homes 2.0 $1,258 - $1,596 1,167 - 1,184 $1.08 - $1.35 16 Monterra at Bonita Springs 2.0 $1,550 - $1,770 1,592 $0.97 - $1.11 Weiahted Average S1.883 1.392 S1.35 Source: VSI Telephone Survey Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Adjusted one -bedroom rents among the comparables range from $960 to $1,640, averaging $1,399 and a weighted average adjusted rent per square foot of $1.74. Two -bedroom adjusted rents range from $1,091 to $2,005, with an average adjusted rent of $1,591 ($1.42 per square foot). Three -bedroom adjusted rents range from $1,258 to $2,470, with an average adjusted rent of $1,883 ($1.35 per square foot). The proposed preliminary rents are within the range of the existing comparables, with the exception of the highest priced two -bedroom units at the proposed site. The two- and three -bedroom average rent per square foot costs at Orchid Run Apartments, which was built in 2015, are higher than those proposed at the site. Note that the rents in the previous tables are the current rents while the rents at the project site are at opening in late 2021. The selected comparable properties are used to estimate a preliminary achievable market rent for the units at the proposed subject development. Based on a basic rent comparability analysis, which compares the assumed unit amenities and features at the proposed subject to the selected comparable properties, the estimated present-day achievable market rents for units at this site are projected to be $1,250 to $1,525 for one -bedroom units, $1,850 to $1,950 for two -bedroom units and $2,200 for three -bedroom units. While a majority of the proposed rents are slightly higher than the current -day rents, it is important to keep in mind that the estimated achievable market rents do not factor in the potential rent growth in the market. Therefore, the estimated achievable present-day market rents should be considered conservative. Rent growth, as well as pent-up market demand, improves the potential to achieve higher rents at the site. The subject project is expected to conduct a majority of its absorption in 2022, with the first units available in late 2021. We expect rent growth of at least 2.5% per year, which would yield estimated 2022 achievable rents of $1,315 to $1,600 for one -bedroom units, $1,945 to $2,045 for two -bedroom units and $2,310 for three -bedroom units. The proposed rents are below or within the range of these estimated achievable rents and appear preliminarily supportable. Note the achievable rent can vary greatly depending on the quality, aesthetic, configuration and amenities offered at the subject site. Preliminary Support Analysis With rent at the proposed development starting at $1,208, the proposed project will generally be marketed to households with incomes of approximately $45,000 and higher. This assumes renters will have incomes of at least three times the rent at the site (conservatively rounded up). Based on the 2010 Census, there are 18,339 renter households within the subject Site PMA. According to ESRI and Urban Decision Group, nationally recognized providers of demographic information, the number of renter households is estimated to increase by 2,785 to 21,124 in 2021, the subject site's projected year of opening. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Following is a summary of 2021 (expected date of opening) renter households for the preliminary Site PMA by income and household size: 2021 (Estimated) HouseholdsRenter Less than $10,000 383 338 167 125 97 1,110 $10,000 to $19,999 661 481 238 178 138 1,696 $20,000 to $29,999 792 569 281 210 163 2,015 $30,000 to $39,999 647 741 366 273 213 2,239 $40,000 to $49,999 757 850 420 313 244 2,584 $50,000 to $59,999 550 632 312 233 182 1,909 $60,000 to $74,999 818 755 372 278 217 2,441 $75,000 to $99,999 838 1,031 508 380 297 3,054 $100,000 to $124,999 419 481 237 177 139 1,453 $125,000 to $149,999 322 351 173 129 101 1,076 $150,000 to $199,999 129 170 83 62 49 494 $200,000 & Over 282 359 177 132 103 1,054 Total 6,600 6,758 3,332 2,492 1,942 21,124 Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; VSI The distribution of renters by income band and household size is the basis for the demand projection for the subject Site PMA. A projected 12,773 renter households will be within the preliminary market area in 2021 with an annual income of $45,000 or more. Overall, the 280 proposed units planned for the subject development will represent a 2.2% market capture rate (= 280 units / 12,773 income -qualified renters). A capture below 5% is considered highly achievable assuming reasonable rent levels. Based on the higher income renter household growth projected for the area, we expect additional support from outside the preliminary PMA. This component could represent as much as 30% of the overall support at the site and increase the potential project support base. We will confirm this out -of -market support factor during our in -market survey for the full market study. Given the number of proposed units in the pipeline, we have also conducted a basic penetration rate for the existing comparable, under construction, pipeline and proposed units. The existing and proposed units will primarily serve those with incomes of at least $35,000. Combined, we have considered 3,692 total comparable, under construction, proposed and pipeline units in this penetration rate analysis. In 2021, there will be an estimated 15,183 renters with incomes of at least $35,000 in the Site PMA. The 3,692 potential upscale units represent a penetration rate of 24.3%, an achievable ratio. This indicates that over three quarters of the income -qualified renters could afford the proposed rents but may reside elsewhere. Given the number of units in the pipeline, we expect competition will increase, but the number of units being added to the market is due to rapidly expanding renter household trends, particularly among higher income households. The occupancy rates among comparable properties indicate ongoing demand for modern high -quality rental options. It is our opinion there is adequate depth for the pipeline and proposed subject units in the northern Naples submarket. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com We have also conducted an incremental demand analysis for the overall Site PMA to for the need for rental units targeting those with incomes above $40,000. This minimum income requirement would account for most of the renters able to afford the rents at the subject site, comparable and/or pipeline product, assuming a 33% rent to income ratio. This demand analysis considers renter household growth, units needed for a balanced market, existing rental housing product and additional units in the pipeline. Site PMA Renter Demand 40 0ii Projected Change in Income -Eligible Renter Households 2019 13,370 2022 (Year Stabilized) 14,441 Net Change in Households 1,041 Add: Estimated Units Removed from Housing Stock Rental Housing Stock Total Removal Rate Units Removed (Annual) 2019-2022 21,293 0.27%* 58 Total Units Removed from Housing Stock 232 Net Housing Demand 1,273 Competitive Multifamily Units Inventory Vacant Competitive Impact Selected Comparable Units 1,896 83 12** Under Construction 464 UC - - 441** Total Demand for New Units before Competitive Planned Supply 861 *Rate is based on HUD's most recent Components of Inventory Change data (2011-2013) **Units needed to meet 5%vacancy factor for market Planned Additions to Supply Total Units At 95% Occupancy Potentially Competitive Pipeline 1,052 999 999 Total New Rental Supply 1,052 999 999 Estimated Competitive Impact at 60% Developed (= 999 X 60%) 599 Demand for Rental Housing 262 Proposed Subject 280 Based on this incremental demand analysis, there is an estimated demand for 262 units serving those with incomes above $40,000 at the time of subject site stabilization. While the 280-unit subject site slightly exceeds this estimated deficit, it is our opinion the proposed subject site can be demographically supportable and will aid in providing adequate modern rental housing stock to keep pace with the growing base of renters with higher incomes in the Site PMA. The slight variation in demand could be affected by projections. These demand estimates also do not consider support from geographic areas outside the Site PMA or those converting from homeownership to a maintenance -free rental unit. By 2024, there will be an estimated 1,735 additional income -appropriate renters ($40,000 and higher) when compared to 2019 projections. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com In addition, this assumes all the properties in the pipeline are constructed which is unlikely. Based on previous experiences, approximately 40% of these units will not be developed due to issues with site approvals, financing, timing and/or changing market conditions or will not be competitive based on location, product type, number of units, finishes, etc. Overall, we estimate that 599 of the planned multifamily units will be developed and competitive with the subject project. Even with this high number of units in the development pipeline, we anticipate growing renter household demand will continue to outpace deliveries. At the request of the Collier County Zoning Division/Community Planning Section, we have also completed a similar incremental demand analysis for those with incomes of at least $45,000, which is the assumed targeted income range for the subject site and is included below. Site PMA Renter Demand 000 Projected Change in Income -Eligible Renter Households 2019 12,054 2022 (Year Stabilized) 13,131 Net Change in Households 1,077 Add: Estimated Units Removed from Housing Stock Rental Housing Stock Total Removal Rate Units Removed (Annual) 2019-2022 21,293 0.27%* 58 Total Units Removed from Housing Stock 232 Net Housing Demand 1,309 Competitive Multifamily Units Inventory Vacant Competitive Impact Selected Comparable Units 1,896 83 12** Under Construction 464 UC - - 441** Total Demand for New Units before Competitive Planned Supply 880 *Rate is based on HUD's most recent Components of Inventory Change data (2011-2013) **Units needed to meet 5%vacancy factor for market Planned Additions to Supply Total Units I At 95% Occupancy Potentially Competitive Pipeline 1,052 999 999 Total New Rental Supply 1,052 999 999 Estimated Competitive Impact at 60% Developed (= 999 X 60%) 599 Demand for Rental Housing 281 Proposed Subject 280 Based on this supplemental incremental demand analysis, there is an estimated demand for 281 units serving those with incomes above $45,000 at the time of subject site stabilization. This estimate is modestly higher than the estimate for those with incomes of at least $40,000 due to a modest projected decline among renters with incomes between $40,000 and $50,000. Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Summary The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the development potential for a new market -rate rental project within the northern area of Naples. Income -appropriate demographic trends are positive and household growth among higher income renters is steady through at least 2024, thereby increasing the demand for additional multifamily housing alternatives. Overall, the 280 proposed units planned for the subject development will represent a 2.2% market capture rate (= 280 units / 12,773 income -qualified renters). A capture below 5% is considered highly achievable assuming reasonable rent levels. The proposed rents are below or within the range of estimated achievable rents and appear preliminarily supportable. As this analysis has shown, the concept and rents are supportable in Naples. However, the pipeline of new projects will increase competition in the short term. It is not possible to gauge the likelihood that all of the projects will be built but based on an incremental demand analysis, these units should be able to be supported without affecting the overall health of the rental market in this PMA It is important to stress that this is a preliminary market assessment. Critical elements to the success of the proposed subject project, such as an in-depth analysis of the location, competitiveness of floor plans and economic trends, are beyond the scope of this preliminary market assessment and have not been fully considered in this analysis. It is recommended that the developer consider a full feasibility study before finalizing a project concept. Included are the rental housing survey of potentially comparable and competitive rental alternatives, a preliminary PMA map and location map for your review. Respectfully, Jimmy Beery Vogt Strategic Insights (VSI) Vogt Strategic Insights 1310 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-4300 VSlnsights.com Naples, FL A. Telephone Survey of Conventional Rentals The following section is a telephone survey of conventional rental properties in the preliminary Site PMA. These properties were identified through a variety of sources, including area apartment guides, government agencies and our own field inspection. The intent of this field survey is to evaluate the overall strength of the existing rental market, identify trends impacting future development and to identify those properties considered most comparable to the subject site. The field survey has been organized by project type; properties are color coded to reflect this and designated as market -rate, Tax Credit, government -subsidized or a combination of these three property types. The field survey is assembled as follows: • A color -coded map indicating each property surveyed and the project type followed by a list of properties surveyed. • Distribution of non -subsidized and subsidized units and vacancies in properties surveyed. • Properties surveyed by name, address, telephone number, project type, key amenities, year built or renovated (if applicable), number of floors, total units, occupancy rate, quality rating, rent incentives and Tax Credit designation. Housing Choice Vouchers and Rental Assistance are also noted here. • A rent distribution is provided for all market -rate and non -subsidized Tax Credit units by unit type and bedroom. • Calculations of rent per square foot (all utilities are adjusted to reflect similar utility responsibility). Data is summarized by unit type. • The distribution of market -rate and non -subsidized Tax Credit units are provided by quality rating, unit type and number of bedrooms. The median rent by quality ratings and bedrooms is also reported. Note that rents are adjusted to reflect common utility responsibility. • An analysis of units added to the area by project construction date and, when applicable, by year of renovation. • Aggregate data and distributions for all non -subsidized properties are provided for appliances, unit amenities and project amenities. • Aggregation of projects by utility responsibility (market -rate and non -subsidized Tax Credit only). • A utility allowance worksheet. Note that other than the property listing following the map, data is organized by project types. Market -rate properties (blue designation) are first followed by variations of market -rate and Tax Credit properties. Non -government subsidized Tax Credit properties are red and government - subsidized properties are yellow. See the color codes at the bottom of each page for specific project types. Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL Mao Identification List Malibu Lakes Apts. MRR B 2002 356 8 97.8% 1.3 • Village MRR A 2015 168 11 93.5% 3.0 Bermuda Island MRR B+ 1998 / 2007 360 9 97.5% 2.9 ISandalwood Waverly Place Apts. MRR B+ 1991 300 10 96.7% 7.3 Orchid Run Apts. MRR N 2015 282 18 93.6% 7.7 Amberton MRR B 2006 306 15 95.1% 3.1 The Oasis Naples Apts. MRR B 1987 / 2005 216 0 100.0% 4.7 Alvista at Laguna Bay MRR B 1989 / 2007 456 36 92.1% 5.0 Addison Place MRR N 2018 294 22 92.5% 3.7 Meadow Brook Preserve Apt. Homes MRR B- 1997 / 2011 268 12 95.5% 6.0 Somerset Palms MRR N 1999 168 4 97.6% 6.6 Mer Soled Apt. Homes MRR A 2002 / 2011 320 22 93.1% 8.4 The Crest at Bonita Springs MRR N 2019 0 0 U/C 5.1 Summer Wind Apts. MRR B 1987 368 15 95.9% 5.6 La Costa MRR A- 1998 276 9 96.7% 5.3 Monterra at Bonita Springs MRR N 1999 / 2016 244 4 98.4% 6.5 Avesta Eldorado Apt. Homes MRR A- 1988 / 2012 120 7 94.2% 8.4 Versol MRR N 2019 40 0 100.0% 7.1 Belvedere at Quail Run MRR B+ 1986 162 2 98.8% 6.8 Coral Palms Apt. Homes MRR B 1987 / 2019 288 3 99.0% 8.9 Project Type Projects Surveyed Total Units Vacant Occupancy Rate U/C 20 4,992 207 95.9% 464 Total units do not include units under construction. Project Type Market -rate Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit/Government-subsidized • senior Restricted Government -subsidized Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 QR - Quality Rating DTS - Drive Distance To Site (Miles) Field Survey Naples, FL Distribution of Units ... ..isted• 0 1 4 0.1% 0 0.0% $1,289 1 1 1,481 29.7% 62 4.2% $1,260 2 1 516 10.3% 8 1.6% $1,326 2 2 1,991 39.9% 100 5.0% $1,464 2 2.5 221 4.4% 11 5.0% $1,685 3 2 596 11.9% 20 3.4% $1,770 3 2.5 123 2.5% 6 4.9% $1,878 4 2 60 1.2% 0 0.0% $1,860 TOTAL 4,992 100.0% 207 4.1% 464 Units Under Construction Grand Total 4,992 - 207 4.1% Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL Survey of Properties 3511 Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Total Units 168 Naples, FL 34109 Vacancies 11 Phone (239) 260-5455 Occupancy 93.5% Contact Mary(by phone) Floors 4 Waitlist None Quality A Year Built 2015 Comments Senior Restricted (55+) Does not accept HCV; Higher rent 2-br/2.5 bath units have den 5300 Hemingway Ln. Total Units 300 Naples, FL 34116 Vacancies 10 Phone (866) 897-9138 Occupancy 96.7% Contact Maddie(by phone) Floors 2 Waitlist None Quality B+ Incentives No Rent Specials Year Built 1991 Comments Does not accept HCV; Rent range based on floor level; Flat water fee included in reported rents: 1-br/$50, 2-br/$60 & 3-br/$75 Project Type Market -rate Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Vogt Strategic Government -subsidized Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL No Picture on File 10991 Lost Lake Dr. Total Units 282 Naples, FL 34105 Vacancies 18 Phone (239)775-3000 Occupancy 93.6% Contact JoEllen(by phone) Floors 4 Waitlist None Quality N Year Built 2015 Comments Does not accept HCV; Unit mix estimated 2277 Arbour Walk Cir. Total Units 216 Naples, FL 34109 Vacancies 0 Phone (239)598-9944 Occupancy 100.0% Contact Amy(by phone) Floors 2 Waitlist 2 months Quality B Year Built 1987 Renovated 2005 Comments Does not accept HCV Amberton 8070 Dream Catcher Cir. #2201 Total Units 306 Naples, FL 34119 Vacancies 15 Phone (239)307-5152 Occupancy 95.1% Contact John(by phone) Floors 2 Waitlist None Quality B Year Built 2006 Comments Does not accept HCV 8 Alvista at Laguna Bay - - IIIIIllllllllflllllllllllfl� r` �"��ti�ii�i 2602 Fountain View Cir. Total Units 456 Naples, FL 34109 Vacancies 36 Phone (239)254-7889 Occupancy 92.1% Contact Celeste(by phone) Floors 2 Waitlist None Quality B Year Built 1989 Renovated 2007 Comments Does not accept HCV; Flat fee for water, sewer & trash included in reported rents: 1-br/$52 & 2-br/$72; Rent range based on interior upgrades Project Type Market -rate 0 Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit 0 Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized I Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Vogt Strategic Government -subsidized Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL • Addison No Picture on File 8633 Addison Place Cir. Total Units 294 Naples, FL 34119 Vacancies 22 Phone (833)693-5088 Occupancy 92.5% Contact Brian(by phone) Floors 4 Waitlist None Quality N Year Built 2018 Comments Does not accept HCV Somerset11 Palms No Picture on File f 15985 Arbor View Blvd. Total Units 168 Naples, FL 34110 Vacancies 4 Phone (239)594-7003 Occupancy 97.6% Contact Jessica(by phone) Floors 3 Waitlist 4-br: 2 households Quality N Incentives One month free rent with 12- Year Built 1999 month lease Comments Does not accept HCV 1 Meadow BrookApt. Ho R .Y aa 2� Eli .. f Ap— 1130 Turtle Creek Blvd. Total Units 268 Naples, FL 34110 Vacancies 12 Phone (239)514-4449 Occupancy 95.5% Contact Chuck(by phone) Floors 3 Waitlist None Quality B- Year Built 1997 Renovated 2011 Comments 7% farmworkers, not designated; Does not accept HCV 12 Mer Soleil Apt.Homes i Aji 4310 Jefferson Ln. Total Units 320 Naples, FL 34116 Vacancies 22 Phone (239)354-1155 Occupancy 93.1% Contact Marisol(by phone) Floors 2 Waitlist None Quality A Incentives No Rent Specials Year Built 2002 Renovated 2011 Comments Accepts HCV; Formerly Tax Credit Project Type Market -rate 0 Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit 0 Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized I Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Vogt Strategic Government -subsidized Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL No Picture on File 28000 Crest Preserve Cir. Total Units 0 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Vacancies 0 Phone (239)317-0874 Occupancy 0 Contact Krista(by phone) Floors 3 Waitlist None Quality N Year Built 2019 Comments All 264 units under construction, expected completion 8/2020; Unit mix estimated Wi 3105 La Costa Cir. Total Units 276 Naples, FL 34105 Vacancies 9 Phone (239)435-4555 Occupancy 96.7% Contact Wendy(by phone) Floors 3 Waitlist None Quality A - Year Built 1998 Comments Does not accept HCV; Higher rent units have stainless steel appliances & wood floor coverings; Upgrading units as they turnover 5301 Summer Wind Dr. Naples, FL 34112 Phone (561) 475-5008 Contact Molly(by phone) Waitlist None Total Units 368 Vacancies 15 Occupancy 95.9% Floors 2 Quality B Year Built 1987 Comments Does not accept HCV; YieldStar rents; Rent range based on floor level No Picture on File 28151 Dovewood Ct. Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Phone (239) 948-3826 Contact Debbie(by phone) Waitlist None Total Units 244 Vacancies 4 Occupancy 98.4% Floors 3 Quality N Year Built 1999 Renovated 2016 Comments Does not accept HCV; Unit mix estimated; Higher priced 2- & 3-br units have been upgraded Project Type Market -rate Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Vogt Strategic Government -subsidized Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL I / 1 4300 Atoll Ct. Total Units 120 Naples, FL 34116 Vacancies 7 Phone (239)360-5796 Occupancy 94.2% Contact Maria(by phone) Floors 2 Waitlist None Quality A - Year Built 1988 Renovated 2012 Comments Does not accept HCV; 2-br rent range due to floor level ' Belvedere at Quail - - ' tnll�f(�Illlllil , ji•111�G®Rp� � 111tlflfl�I -�j 260 Quail Forest Blvd. Total Units 162 Naples, FL 34105 Vacancies 2 Phone (239)434-0033 Occupancy 98.8% Contact Laura(by phone) Floors 3 Waitlist None Quality B+ Year Built 1986 Comments Does not accept HCV; Unit mix estimated; Part of condominium community • No Picture on File 28750 Bonita Crossings Blvd. Total Units 40 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Vacancies 0 Phone (239)970-9705 Occupancy 100.0% Contact Melissa(by phone) Floors 2 Waitlist None Quality N Year Built 2019 Comments Does not accept HCV; 200 units under construction, expected completion 6/2020 1 Coral Palms Apt. Homes /i,�lllia - c9® s 4539 Coral Palms Ln. Total Units 288 Naples, FL 34116 Vacancies 3 Phone (239)455-4188 Occupancy 99.0% Contact Anita(by phone) Floors 2 Waitlist None Quality B Year Built 1987 Renovated 2019 Comments Accepts HCV (40 units); Unit mix estimated by management; Rent range based on floor level Project Type Market -rate 0 Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit 0 Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized I Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Vogt Strategic Government -subsidized Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL Collected Rents Project Type 0 Market -rate � Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized 0 Market-rate/Tax Credit � Tax Credit 0 Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Senior Restricted Government -subsidized Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL Price Per Sauare Foot The Crest at Bonita Springs 1 648 $1,316 $2.03 Versol 1 627 $1,289 $2.06 Malibu Lakes Apts. 1 759 $1,391 $1.83 • Sandalwood Village 1 694 - 993 $1,798 - $2,298 $2.31- $2.59 Bermuda Island 1 662 - 866 $1,140 - $1,260 $1.46 - $1.72 Waverly Place Apts. 1 756 $793 $1.05 Orchid Run Apts. 1 808 - 849 $1,578 - $1,615 $1.90 - $1.95 The Oasis Naples Apts. 1 762 - 862 $1,166 - $1,186 $1.38 - $1.53 Alvista at Laguna Bay 1 844 - 888 $1,260 - $1,403 $1.49 - $1.58 Addison Place 1 758 - 867 $1,560 - $1,640 $1.89 - $2.06 Meadow Brook Preserve Apt. Homes 1 689 $1,256 $1.82 Mer Soleil Apt. Homes 1 754 - 802 $960 - $1,116 $1.27 - $1.39 The Crest at Bonita Springs 1 821 $1,460 $1.78 Summer Wind Apts. 1 730 $1,241 $1.70 La Costa 1 800 $1,340 $1.68 Monterra at Bonita Springs 1 874 - 971 $1,260 - $1,380 $1.42 - $1.44 Avesta Eldorado Apt. Homes 1 860 $1,125 $1.31 Versol 1 736 - 929 $1,435 - $1,580 $1.70 - $1.95 Belvedere at Quail Run 1 750 $1,240 $1.65 Coral Palms Apt. Homes 1 550 - 715 $946 - $1,026 $1.44 - $1.72 Malibu Lakes Apts. 2 1,092 - 1,119 $1,515 - $1,706 $1.39 - $1.52 • Sandalwood Village 2 to 2.5 1,134 - 2,004 $2,569 - $4,529 $2.26 - $2.27 Bermuda Island 1 1,056 $1,351 $1.28 2 1,104 - 1,204 $1,467 - $1,501 $1.25 - $1.33 Waverly Place Apts. 1 to 2 805 - 962 $1,224 - $1,309 $1.36 - $1.52 Orchid Run Apts. 2 1,100 - 1,150 $1,930 - $2,005 $1.74 - $1.75 Amberton 2.5 1,166 - 1,339 $1,550 - $1,685 $1.26 - $1.33 The Oasis Naples Apts. 1 1,012 - 1,112 $1,296 - $1,526 $1.28 - $1.37 Alvista at Laguna Bay 2 1,127 - 1,146 $1,464 - $1,654 $1.30 - $1.44 Addison Place 2 1,084 - 1,237 $1,720 - $1,840 $1.49 - $1.59 Meadow Brook Preserve Apt. Homes 2 920 $1,370 $1.49 Somerset Palms 2 1,030 $1,429 $1.39 * - All rents have been adjusted to reflect utilities provided at the subject site based upon local housing authorities utility allowances. Project Type Market -rate Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit IIII'Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit/Government-subsidized • Senior Restricted Government -subsidized Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL Mer Soleil Apt. Homes 2 944 - 1,047 $1,091 - $1,316 $1.16 - $1.26 The Crest at Bonita Springs 2 950 $1,588 $1.67 Summer Wind Apts. 2 942 $1,241 - $1,256 $1.32 - $1.33 La Costa 1 990 $1,440 $1.45 2 1,120 $1,495 $1.33 Monterra at Bonita Springs 2 1,357 $1,425 - $1,540 $1.05 - $1.13 Avesta Eldorado Apt. Homes 2 960 $1,240 - $1,340 $1.29 - $1.40 Versol 2 1,196 - 1,312 $1,840 - $1,890 $1.44 - $1.54 Belvedere at Quail Run 1 to 2 900 $1,474 - $1,514 $1.64 - $1.68 Coral Palms Apt. Homes 1 960 $1,185 - $1,326 $1.23 - $1.38 Malibu Lakes Apts. 2 1,269 - 1,385 $2,006 - $2,061 $1.49 - $1.58 Bermuda Island 2 1,349 - 1,606 $1,684 - $1,960 $1.22 - $1.25 Waverly Place Apts. 2 1,008 $1,475 $1.46 Orchid Run Apts. 2 1,301- 1,326 $2,415 - $2,470 $1.86 - $1.86 Amberton 2.5 1,428 - 1,695 $1,878 - $1,970 $1.16 - $1.32 Addison Place 2 1,397 $2,115 $1.51 Meadow Brook Preserve Apt. Homes 2 1,103 $1,499 $1.36 Somerset Palms 2 1,187 $1,631 $1.37 Mer Soleil Apt. Homes 2 1,167 - 1,184 $1,258 - $1,596 $1.08 - $1.35 The Crest at Bonita Springs 2 1,423 $2,155 $1.51 La Costa 2 1,300 $1,655 $1.27 Monterra at Bonita Springs 2 1,592 $1,550 - $1,770 $0.97 - $1.11 Versol 2 1,501- 1,523 $2,165 - $2,180 $1.43 - $1.44 Malibu Lakes Apts. 2 1,551- 1,617 $2,531- $2,611 $1.61- $1.63 Somerset Palms 2 1,387 $1,860 $1.34 * - All rents have been adjusted to reflect utilities provided at the subject site based upon local housing authorities utility allowances. Project Type Market -rate Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit IIII'Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Senior Restricted Government -subsidized Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL Average Adjusted Rent Per Square Foot* 7 �� Garden $1.67 $1.42 $1.37 Townhouse $0.00 $1.29 $1.24 * - All rents have been adjusted to reflect utilities provided at the subject site based upon local housing authorities utility allowances. Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL Quality Rating A 2 488 6.8% $1,798 $1,316 $1,258 A- 2 396 4.0% $1,340 $1,495 $1,655 B+ 3 822 2.6% $1,140 $1,467 $1,884 B 6 1,990 3.9% $1,241 $1,464 $1,970 B- 1 268 4.5% $1,256 $1,370 $1,499 N.A. 5 1,028 4.7% $1,289 $1,578 $1,720 $1,770 A 163 253 72 A- 148 200 48 B+ 297 423 102 B 566 998 108 12 B- 20 228 20 N.A. 4 287 443 246 48 183 123 $2,531 $1,860 Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL Year Built Before 1970 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1970 to 1979 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1980 to 1989 6 1,610 63 3.9% 1,610 32.3% 1990 to 1999 6 1,616 48 3.0% 3,226 32.4% 2000 to 2009 3 982 45 4.6% 4,208 19.7% 2010 to 2014 0 0 0 0.0% 4,208 0.0% 2015 2 450 29 6.4% 4,658 9.0% 2016 0 0 0 0.0% 4,658 0.0% 2017 0 0 0 0.0% 4,658 0.0% 2018 1 294 22 7.5% 4,952 5.9% 2019 2 40 0 0.0% 4,992 0.8% 2020* 0 0 0 0.0% 4,992 0.0% Total 20 4,992 207 4.1% 4,992 100.0 % Year Renovated Market -rate and Non -Subsidized Tax Credit Year Range . .. Before 1970 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1970 to 1979 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1980 to 1989 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1990 to 1999 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2000 to 2009 3 1,032 45 4.4% 1,032 45.4% 2010 to 2014 3 708 41 5.8% 1,740 31.2% 2015 0 0 0 0.0% 1,740 0.0% 2016 1 244 4 1.6% 1,984 10.7% 2017 0 0 0 0.0% 1,984 0.0% 2018 0 0 0 0.0% 1,984 0.0% 2019 1 288 3 1.0% 2,272 12.7% 2020* 0 0 0 0.0% 2,272 0.0% Total 8 2,272 93 4.1% 2,272 100.0 % Note: The upper table (Year Built) includes all of the units included in the lower table. * As of March 2020 Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Su Naples, FL liances and Unit Amenities * - Does not include units where appliances/amenities are optional; Only includes market -rate or non -government subsidized Tax Credit. Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL Proiect Amenities ool 19 100.0% 4,992 in -site Mangement 19 100.0% 4,992 a u n d ry 6 31.6% 1,888 lubhouse 17 89.5% 4,646 ommunity Space 18 94.7% 4,686 itness Center 16 84.2% 4,266 of Tub/Sauna 5 26.3% 1,454 layground 11 57.9% 3,236 omputer/Business Center 11 57.9% 2,888 ports Court(s) 9 47.4% 2,796 torage 3 15.8% 892 ✓ater Features 5 26.3% 1,624 levator 3 15.8% 744 ecurity 10 52.6% 2,910 ar Wash Area 7 36.8% 2,110 iutdoor Areas 11 57.9% 3,024 ervices 0 0.0% ommunity Features 2 10.5% 624 ibrary/DVD Library 1 5.3% 282 lovie Theater 2 10.5% 576 Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Su Naples, FL Utility Distribution Utility Number of Number of Distribution (Responsibility) Tenant Electric 20 4,992 100.0% Cooking 100.0% Tenant Electric 20 4,992 100.0% •Tenant 100.0% Electric 20 4,992 100.0% 100.0% Electric Tenant 20 4,992 100.0% 100.0% Landlord 4 1,284 25.7% Tenant 16 3,708 74.3% 100.0% Landlord 4 1,284 25.7% Tenant 16 3,708 74.3 % 100.0% Trash Pick Up Landlord 8 2,512 50.3% Tenant 12 2,480 49.7% 100.0% Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey Naples, FL Utilitv Allowance 0 Garden 1 Garden 1 Townhouse 2 Garden 2 Townhouse 3 Garden 3 Townhouse 4 Garden 4 Townhouse FL -Naples (3/2020) $4 $6 $11 $30 $18 $6 $6 $39 $16 $51 $24 $20 $5 $7 $13 $36 $25 $8 $8 $48 $16 $57 $24 $20 $5 $7 $13 $36 $25 $8 $8 $48 $16 $57 $24 $20 $6 $8 $14 $42 $32 $12 $10 $56 $19 $63 $24 $20 $6 $8 $14 $42 $32 $12 $10 $56 $19 $63 $24 $20 $10 $14 $24 $48 $39 $13 $13 $68 $21 $70 $24 $20 $10 $14 $24 $48 $39 $13 $13 $68 $21 $70 $24 $20 $11 $15 $27 $57 $61 $16 $16 $82 $24 $80 $24 $20 $11 $15 $27 $57 $61 $16 $16 $82 $24 $80 $24 $20 Vogt Strategic Insights Survey Date: March 2020 Field Survey r- E z - w x� Q7�5M= :uuuu „uu■u■ - doi A.) Potable Water Demands Proposed Average Daily Flow (ADF) - Single Family Units People Per Unit Demand per Person* Number of Units ADF for Single Family Units *Per GMP/CIE Policy 1.5D - Club House Estimated Floor Area Demand per 100sf ADF for Club House Total ADF Potable Water Demands B.) Peak Water Flow Peaking Factor (PF)* *Per 2019 AUIR Hours of daily operation Adjusted Peak Hour Flow = ADF * PF Instantaneous Peak Flow C.) Sewage Generation Rate Proposed Average Daily Flow (ADF) - Single Family Units People Per Unit Demand per Person Number of Units ADF for Single Family Units - Club House Estimated Floor Area Demand per 100sf ADF for Club House Subtotal ADF Sewage Generation D.) Peak Sewage Demand Peaking Factor (PF)* *Per 2019 AUIR Hours of daily operation Adjusted Peak Hour Flow = ADF * PF Instantaneous Peak Flow Exhibit X.A.9 2.5 150 280 units 105,000 gpd 13,000 sf 15 gpd 1,950 gpd 106,950 gpd =1 0.11 JMGD 24 hrs => 139,035 gpd => 5,793 gph = 96.6 gpm 0.14 MGD 2.5 100 gpd 280 units 70,000 gpd = 13,000 sf = 15 gpd = 1,950 gpd = 71,950 gpd = 0.07 MGD 1.50 24 hrs => 107,925 gpd => 4,497 gph = 74.9 gpm 0.11 MGD => 96.6 gpm => 74.9 gpm t U L C z _r. 1 3.. w_ WtK .©, Q- s mwemaSLS . k° �| ,siml m��+lamampW«_| • 2 k,m m §z : §2A \m§f <\< _. z -E-zYz §g0 [2§§\« § U- j - Z.(�k§ viz O t /z 0 .� e Ell ,. Q/ `PC\ : A ul ` 0 \ >Esl?- "' 44 Ell 0 f j 4 i Z5698'I/m 63 uoyezuoyyry Lo saLe�ywa�epuold eualnsuoreux SN7VEIAS 9NI011na SL60-L65(6Ez)y J SL50-MS(W) 60LKepuold YaldeN/Oo2a4n5'anup Wed.oIIIMOM avu 3: I o 'JVN/I8/3r3N■I�rN.3 v!jlslpgnS ligul lepuaplsay aBuepia3ul peoy aalelowwl llsroas 3 3 Ill 'saldeN 917 Z � w V g`a H S... °gH o I f � In N Y � Q \ z J �\ 7 - � 286981/E99L 83 uoyezuo4lntllo sau>y!uaJ ePPoli 8L50-L65 (OEZ)Jftli SLSO-L65 (8EZ1 6014E epyoN'saltleN /OOZ aP.nS'anyO Wed ^soll!M OL99 ON1333NION3 ■/■■Y NOUAS SSOUD U333f191S3M � a &' � { L S o $ - os 3�!j;sIP9n5II!bul Iel;uaplsaU aSuey��a;ul peoU aale�owwl — I s € Bade ill' I N91� in Z ZOO o w z O x? 0 �JOQQ �ZL]m� a a Oar Z Z Z 6 — U z _ Z J¢ m w w p L ,DZ=> ~ al � y W V Z O w W Z Z O Z�; lz z Z� V a 0= W 2 N a .0 V w a < 0 0 ❑�WwO �a w5 zWG» LU Q J LU W ® Y m 1 1,SS w \ I I la_J +I Ln 1 Z 1 I > Y o Qw \\ I N ��a En orf \ I \ N H \ I \ I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I _ w 1 c 1 J 1 . 1 I \ I \ I 1 I w l7 +I 1 I 1 I o > Y Zo U) � J 1 11 a 11 11 a 0 0 +'OF 256981/E99L 83 oatezuoip�ryio sase�y!w�eppoli el)-llnj "SO.0 8L50-L65 (6EWZ ,, "SO-L65 (d 601bE ePpold'saltleN / OOZ aPnS'a^W Wed Moll!M O199 9NI:33N19N3 ■I��Y N011�35 b3Jjf18 H1f105 a � ° $ g o& l:)u;s!p9n511!bul le!;uap!say a8uey»a;ul peoy aalelowwl — � Jll'saldeN 917 in Z ZOm �W��O x? 0 ¢rOQ< j Zpm� r Ozer ¢v¢rz Z� < Z d N U _ Z z ¢zW O Z u v ra l7>Z u tDZ—Z z Z O w 5- Z Z a9a Z25 O Z m Z Z� o v¢�=W� In Z C n > Z - ~ u�0'0� z � a er d �r f sm 04 w5 Q 0 V G� J CO % LU d' w V1 w11 - w c oC m a . ® s .am .n .. .SS J I w I I I w Q 1 +I O 2 a w 1_ Q w l w a I I � LL I I I +oz I m X w +I I w Y I � a I >z Z Y O a 01 �,, J 1.0� ZS69M/EWLE3ua uoipmr/o-19!WJeppoli 8LS0 MS (6£Z) WJ SLSO-L6S (6Ez) 6016E eppoll s JdeN/WZ aUnS'N Wed^ 111M OM 9Ng33NI�N3 NOUNS SSONJ 213jjng H1NON y: 3 $ S 8 g u ;o!jls!pgnS ll!jul le!luap!sad a8ueyajajul peoa aalelowwl Jll'saldeN 91J �z w0� owZ�o Z=z L] z o� ¢IsNZ io¢¢ Y Z o m Z O F w Z w Z Z V1 _ Z o z V z Q .w'i0 > > t Z5, F a l7 >w ' Z z w�lnw V Z O w � I I ZMQD l7w o z Z? z n a V w d H z m Z Y z :5 OLL <2 W K m II o p U w o �0 N Z V > _ z > w w II II F �?Onln rY K � m II II II II II I w O m ' II +,9Z II II II Z � Q z U O O II II II II II II II II " II II II 1 I I I I I I I I I II I I I I a � 3 I I w� w a I I Tot O 2 I I zo m I I I I I I II 0of W I I I I WLL }J I I I I fm O wo w R I I I I U 0¢ I I Ozw Jw ¢ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ss ;p G F Z � - O J - N; EXHIBIT "A" Permitted Uses: The Blue Coral Apartments shall be developed as a Residential use project, which will include studio, one bedroom, two bedroom and three -bedroom apartments with a density of 30 units per acre. The maximum unit total for this PUD shall be 280. Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GMD), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in the effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. Tract A A. Principal Uses: 1. Preserve B. Accessory Uses: The only accessory uses allowed in the preserve area would be those permitted under LDCsections 4.06.02, 4.06.05.E.1 and 3.05.07. Tract B A. Principal Uses: 1. Residential Multi -Family 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by Hearing Examiner or the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses andstructures, including, but not limited to: 1. Parking garage limited to residents and their guests. 2. Leasing Center 3. Fitness Facility limited to residents and their guests. 4. Clubhouse limited to residents and their guests. 5. Pools/Hot Tubs limited to residents and their guests. 6. Uses and Structures that are accessory and incidental to the Multifamily Residential use. Page 1 of 9 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the proposed Blue Coral Apartments. Standards not specifically set forth within this application shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or Subdivision Plat, consistent with RMF-16 zoning. TABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 43,560 Sq. Ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 Ft. NIA MINIMUM YARDS (External)* From North 150 Ft. SIPS From South 150 Ft. SIPS From West 80 Ft. SIPS From East 25 Ft. SIPS MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES MAXIMUM HEIGHT* MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 50% of the bldg. height, not less than 15' I Zoned 55 Ft. I Actual 60 Ft. Studio=450 sf 1 BR=600 sf 2+BR=750 sf SIPS Zoned 30 Ft. I Actual 35 Ft. Preserve 25' 10, * The proposed parking garage is considered an accessory use/structure whether it is attached or detached from the principal structure. It will meet accessory use development standards. Page 2 of 9 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 MR aam p n 'tl0 �IY11941n! "' o n c w' > 7 z 3ti a F z r a _,_ _, _.,.'r. ------ 0 3 G N a $S" 1 i 2 `a' ¢ a' i .x�ras3ssraiana�a,s L :' ti x N 7 { G v •i r p a m c C R A C z A 3 z O ob ° cn p ;% / I V ate• Z v A i� :�`f up ^r^r f�77 c as rb - i m o m � n �a R ° ! EV-1j, n ID� o G3^ j------- ©= C � n m '..'.' q j _ 1 ro rt1 ! Y� Y m�'n%z 0U p I I x`^ZG1� C I tr �61 m km T ? --o g-" — - �_�—.� b v "' c •� F yy —__� f" IAtlM d01H5718 A4LI __—._.—_—.—.. DO a- o❑—. .. _ � _. _._ J.=.� .�s m � � umr �i �ii iii �++" n' `�� /rnT M 8-D —.--OVO 3 331YSIOWW! G m W Page 3 of 9 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 Exhibit D LEGAL DESCRIPTION (O.R. 5460. PAGE 32) SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48-RANGE 26 W'/z OF E'/2 OF NW'/4 OF NW'/4, LESS N 100 FT R/W COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. Page 4 of 9 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 Exhibit "E" No deviations are requested. Page 5 of 9 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS PURPOSE The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development ofthis project. GENERAL 1. 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 PUDcommitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is CIG Naples, LLC., or its assigns. Should the Managing 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 theCounty Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the 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 PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment ofPUD commitments. 2. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights onthe part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federalagency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law." (Section 125.022, FS) 3. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement ofthe development. 1 of 4 Page 6 of 9 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 4. The Master Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit C (Agnoli Barber & Brundage Project No. 20-0003) is an illustrative preliminary development plan. The design elements and layout illustrated on the Master Plan shall be understood to be flexible, so that the final design may satisfy the Developer's criteria and comply with all applicable requirements of this Ordinance. Changes may be made in accordance with the LDC. TRANSPORTATION 1. The maximum vehicle trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 119 two-way PM peak hour net new external trips based on the use codes in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for SDP or plat approval. 2. Access to the project will via a shared access with the property to the east on the eastern property line of this project. If the shared access split by the property line is not granted, access will be afforded on the subject property only and will also accommodate cross access to the property to the East. Design, permitting and construction of the shared access shall be at the time of the first SDP or Plat. 3. Access points shown on the PUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property boundary. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is approved. 4. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks, interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer in accordance with the applicable regulations of the State of Florida. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. 5. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing County rights of way or easement(s), then compensating right-of-way shall be provided at no cost to CollierCounty as a consequence of such improvement(s). 6. Fifteen (15) feet of the northernmost portion of the property just west of the proposed shared access shall be dedicated to Collier County in the form of a road easement in order to accommodate a right -in eastbound turn lane. Owner shall convey the fifteen (15) foot easement to Collier County at no cost to the County at the time of Site Development Plan approval, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Page 7 of 9 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 7. Vehicular and Pedestrian interconnection will be provided to the abutting properties on the east and west to allow access to all connection points with the shared project access along Immokalee Road and across the abutting property to the east to Useppa Way and Juliet Boulevard, consistent with the conceptual PUD Master Plan, _Exhibit C. The final location of the access point will be coordinated with the adjacent property owner and a cross -access easement will be provided, or an access easement for public use without responsibility of maintenance by Collier County, at time of the first Site Development Plan or Plat. The connection and supporting infrastructure will be constructed to the property line by the developer or successors or assigns prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. The interconnections shall remain open to the public. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. The southernmost portion of the property shall have a designated preserve. The area of the preserve shall equate to 15% of the native vegetation on the site. Total native vegetation on the site is 7.89 acres (Passarella & Associates, Inc, Project No. 20CJG3219). 7.89 acresx 15% =1.18 acre preserve. 2. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E. I Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. 3. Ten (10) feet of the southernmost portion of the southern twenty five (25) foot principal setback from the preserve shall have no site alteration, placement of fill, grading, plant alteration or removal or similar activity abutting the preserve. WATER MANAGEMENT 1. Storm water shall not be discharged into the preserve area until it has been fully treated inaccordance with Collier County and Water Management District standards. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1. The developer shall complete a minimum 8" water main loop between the adjacent Eboli (AKA Bermuda Palms) and Germain Immokalee PUDs. The water main shall connect the existing 8" water main serving Bermuda Palms to a future 8 water main to be extended through Germain Immokalee from an existing 8" water main stub -out at Useppa Way. If a point of connection at Germain Immokalee does not exist at the time of project development, the water main shall be terminated at the property line with an automatic water main flushing device, as shown in detail W-2 of the Collier County Utilities Standards Manual, ordinance No. 2004-31. If a connection to the existing 8" water main serving Page 8 of 9 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 Bermuda Palms is deemed infeasible by Collier County staff at the time of project development, the developer shall instead connect to the existing 20" water main on the north side of Immokalee Road. The water main will be conveyed to the Collier County Water -Sewer District within a County Utility Easement (CUE) at least 15 feet in width, in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance, at no cost to the County or District, and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, prior to or concurrent with preliminary acceptance of utilities. AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1. Twenty five percent (25%) of the total units (70 units) will be rented to Essential Services Personnel ("ESP"). ESP means natural persons or families at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a child care worker, a teacher or other education personnel, health care personnel or a public employee. Any time that a unit becomes vacant, assuming that less than 70 units are occupied by ESP, the next available unit will be offered to ESP. In the event that no ESP rents the available unit within thirty (30) days of advertisement of its availability, then the unit may be offered to the general public. This commitment to ESP shall remain in effect for a period of time that is 30 years from the date that the development receives its final certificate of occupancy. 2. Of the seventy ESP units, thirty five (35) of those units will be income and rent restricted. Ten (10) of the units will be designated for those households whose incomes are less than 80% of the AMI for Collier County. Fifteen (15) of the units will be designated for households whose incomes are between 80% and 90% of AMI for Collier County, and ten (10) of the units will be designated for households whose incomes are between 90% and 100% of the AMI for Collier County. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years and AMI rent limit adjustments will be made on an annual basis according to the most recent Collier County Board approved Table of Rental Rates for each income category and the number of bedrooms in the unit. Page 9 of 9 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS PURPOSE The purposed of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development ofthis project. GENERAL 1. 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 PUDcommitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is CIG Naples, LLC., or its assigns. Should the Managing 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 theCounty Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the 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 PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment ofPUD commitments. 2. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights onthe part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law." (Section 125.022, FS) 3. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement ofthe development. 1 of 4 Page 1 of 4 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 4. The Master Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit C (Agnoli Barber & Brundage Project No. 20-0003) is an illustrative preliminary development plan. The design elements and layout illustrated on the Master Plan shall be understood to be flexible, so that the final design may satisfy the Developer's criteria and comply with all applicable requirements of this Ordinance. Changes may be made in accordance with the LDC. TRANSPORTATION 1. The maximum vehicle trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 119 two-way PM peak hour net new external trips based on the use codes in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for SDP or plat approval. 2. Access to the project will via a shared access with the property to the east on the eastern property line of this project. If the shared access split by the property line is not granted, access will be afforded on the subject property only and will also accommodate cross access to the property to the East. Design, permitting and construction of the shared access shall be at the time of the first SDP or Plat. 3. Access points shown on the PUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property boundary. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is approved. 4. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks, interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer in accordance with the applicable regulations of the State of Florida. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. 5. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing County rights of way or easement(s), then compensating right-of-way shall be provided at no cost to CollierCounty as a consequence of such improvement(s). 6. Fifteen (15) feet of the northernmost portion of the property just west of the proposed shared access shall be dedicated to Collier County in the form of a road easement in order to accommodate a right -in eastbound turn lane. Owner shall convey the fifteen (15) foot easement to Collier County at no cost to the County at the time of Site Development Plan approval, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Page 2 of 4 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 7. Vehicular and Pedestrian interconnection will be provided to the abutting properties on the east and west to allow access to all connection points with the shared project access along Immokalee Road and across the abutting property to the east to Useppa Way and Juliet Boulevard, consistent with the conceptual PUD Master Plan, _Exhibit C. The final location of the access point will be coordinated with the adjacent property owner and a cross -access easement will be provided, or an access easement for public use without responsibility of maintenance by Collier County, at time of the first Site Development Plan or Plat. The connection and supporting infrastructure will be constructed to the property line by the developer or successors or assigns prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. The interconnections shall remain open to the public. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. The southernmost portion of the property shall have a designated preserve. The area of the preserve shall equate to 15% of the native vegetation on the site. Total native vegetation on the site is 7.89 acres (Passarella & Associates, Inc, Project No. 20CJG3219). 7.89 acresx 15% =1.18 acre preserve. 2. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E. I Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. 3. Ten (10) feet of the southernmost portion of the southern twenty five (25) foot principal setback from the preserve shall have no site alteration, placement of fill, grading, plant alteration or removal or similar activity abutting the preserve. WATER MANAGEMENT 1. Storm water shall not be discharged into the preserve area until it has been fully treated inaccordance with Collier County and Water Management District standards. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1. The developer shall complete a minimum 8" water main loop between the adjacent Eboli (AKA Bermuda Palms) and Germain Immokalee PUDs. The water main shall connect the existing 8" water main serving Bermuda Palms to a future 8 water main to be extended through Germain Immokalee from an existing 8" water main stub -out at Useppa Way. If a point of connection at Germain Immokalee does not exist at the time of project development, the water main shall be terminated at the property line with an automatic water main flushing device, as shown in detail W-2 of the Collier County Utilities Standards Manual, ordinance No. 2004-31. If a connection to the existing 8" water main serving Page 3 of 4 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 Bermuda Palms is deemed infeasible by Collier County staff at the time of project development, the developer shall instead connect to the existing 20" water main on the north side of Immokalee Road. The water main will be conveyed to the Collier County Water -Sewer District within a County Utility Easement (CUE) at least 15 feet in width, in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance, at no cost to the County or District, and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, prior to or concurrent with preliminary acceptance of utilities. AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1. Twenty five percent (25%) of the total units (70 units) will be rented to Essential Services Personnel ("ESP"). ESP means natural persons or families at least one of whom is employed as police or fire personnel, a child care worker, a teacher or other education personnel, health care personnel or a public employee. Any time that a unit becomes vacant, assuming that less than 70 units are occupied by ESP, the next available unit will be offered to ESP. In the event that no ESP rents the available unit within thirty (30) days of advertisement of its availability, then the unit may be offered to the general public. This commitment to ESP shall remain in effect for a period of time that is 30 years from the date that the development receives its final certificate of occupancy. 2. Of the seventy ESP units, thirty five (35) of those units will be income and rent restricted. Ten (10) of the units will be designated for those households whose incomes are less than 80% of the AMI for Collier County. Fifteen (15) of the units will be designated for households whose incomes are between 80% and 90% of AMI for Collier County, and ten (10) of the units will be designated for households whose incomes are between 90% and 100% of the AMI for Collier County. These units will be committed for a period of 30 years and AMI rent limit adjustments will be made on an annual basis according to the most recent Collier County Board approved Table of Rental Rates for each income category and the number of bedrooms in the unit. Page 4 of 4 PL20190001600 Blue Coral Apartments PUDZ 4/ 13/2021 THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY AND RETURN TO: MUTUAL GRANT OF EASEMENT AND SHARED ACCESS THIS MUTUAL GRANT OF EASEMENT AND SHARED ACCESS ("Easement") is made this day of , 2021, by and between William C. Scherer, as Trustee of the William C. Scherer Trust u/a/d May 5, 1994, as amended and restated on June 17, 2015 ("Scherer"), whose address is c/o Excel Real Estate, 2375 N. Tamiami Trail #206, Naples, FL 34103 ("Scherer"), and JAZ Automotive Properties, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of Florida, whose address is 4250 Morse Crossing, Columbus, OH 43219 ("JAZ"). BACKGROUND A. SCHERER is the owner of the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "SCHERER Property"). JAZ is the owner of the real property more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "JAZ Property"). B. In connection with Collier County Ordinance 2020-032 , SCHERER and JAZ desire to grant to each other the right, but not the obligation, to construct a shared access drive over a portion of the SCHERER Property and the JAZ Property, as more particularly described on Exhibit "C" (the "Easement Area") and in connection therewith mutually grant a perpetual, non-exclusive easement to the other for ingress and egress, as well as for construction, installation and maintenance of roads, sidewalks, median landscaping, over, under and across the Easement Area located on their respective property. C. SCHERER and JAZ execute this document to evidence their agreement with respect to the Easement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, SCHERER and JAZ hereby grant, set over, convey and deliver to the other parry, its successors and assigns, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement in, under, upon, about, over and through the Easement Area, located on their respective property, for vehicular and pedestrian ingress, egress, access, as well as construction, installation and maintenance of roads, sidewalks, and landscaping, substantially in compliance with the Access Road Sketch attached as Exhibit "D". This Easement is given for the purpose of allowing SCHERER and JAZ the right to construct, use and maintain a permanent access drive, together with any sidewalks, median landscaping and other improvements within the Easement Area as may be reasonably necessary or desirable for purposes of ingress and egress to and from the SCHERER Property and the JAZ Property as depicted on Exhibit "D" (collectively the "Improvements"). Page 1 of 11 The Easement shall exist on the following terms and conditions: 1. Based on the status of development approvals for both parties, it is likely that JAZ will need the Improvements before SCHERER. Accordingly, JAZ shall take responsibility for the design, construction and permitting of the Improvements. The existing lanes on Immokalee Road will need to be reconfigured to align with the new median opening and will be generally constructed in conformance with Exhibit "D", which work will be undertaken by JAZ within the Immokalee Road right of way. Notwithstanding the foregoing, SCHERER shall be entitled to construct the Improvements, as shown in Exhibit "D", within the Easement Area if they are not undertaken by JAZ. Regardless of the party constructing the Improvements, all such work shall be designed, permitted, and constructed in compliance with applicable governmental ordinances, codes and regulations (collectively the "Codes"). SCHERER agrees to reimburse JAZ for fifty percent (50%) of all costs incurred therewith if JAZ constructs the Improvements, including hard costs and soft costs. Conversely, JAZ agrees that it shall reimburse JAZ fifty percent (50%) of all costs incurred therewith if JAZ were to construct the Improvements. Such costs shall be reimbursed within thirty (30) days after the date of the notice which shall include copies of paid invoices and a certificate of completion sent from the party that constructs such Improvements (the "constructing party") to the other party. Estimated costs for the Improvements are set forth on attached Exhibit "E". Notwithstanding the foregoing, the party which does not construct the Improvements (the "non -constructing party") shall only be liable to the constructing party for one-half of the total cost of such Improvements if they had been constructed to the minimum Codes requirements. If either party wishes to construct improvements which are above and beyond such requirements, such party shall be liable for 100% of any excess costs above the Codes requirements unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. 2. Any construction by either SCHERER or JAZ shall be performed by licensed contractor(s) who will provide to the non -constructing party with evidence of insurance prior to and as a condition of the commencement of any construction. The non -constructing party shall be named as additional insured. Such insurance shall be issued by an insurance company rated A- or better by A.M. Best, as follows: (a) commercial liability - $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, (b) workers' compensation in amounts required by applicable law, (c) automobile liability - $1,000,000 per accident, and (d) employer's liability - $1,000,000 each accident, $1,000,000 each employee. Copies of all permit applications and the contractor's estimate of the cost for work within the Easement Area shall be provided to the non -constructing party prior to submittal of the permit applications. SCHERER and JAZ covenant to the other that no mechanic or construction lien shall be placed on the part of the Easement Area owned by the non -constructing party related to the construction of the Improvements depicted on Exhibit D. In the event such a mechanic or construction lien is recorded on the property owned by the non - constructing party, the constructing party shall within fifteen (15) days of recording transfer the lien to a bond or other security to remove the mechanic or construction lien from the property, failing which, the non -constructing party may act to remove the mechanic or construction lien from its property, and seek to collect all sums paid in connection therewith from the constructing party and, in connection therewith, exercise its rights under Section 6 below. In the event that the non -constructing party receives any notices of any violations occurring in connection with the construction of the Improvements, whether such notices are received from any public or private source, the non -constructing party shall forward copies of same to the constructing party which shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of same to cure such violations, failing which the non - constructing party shall have the right to correct such violations and to recover the costs thereof from the constructing party, including, but not limited to, costs of enforcement, fines and penalties Page 2 of 11 and administration. Prior to the commencement of construction of the Improvements and at all times thereafter, SCHERER and JAZ shall each maintain in full force and effect, comprehensive public liability insurance, written by a company rated A- or better by A.M. Best and insuring against the risks of bodily injury, death, and property damage or loss occurring within or as a result of the use of the Easement Area by SCHERER, JAZ and their employees, contract parties, customers, agents and invitees, with a minimum single limit of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, coverage to be in a comprehensive general liability form. The foregoing coverage requirements may be provided by a combination of comprehensive general liability and umbrella policy provided that at all times not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence is available. Both policies shall provide that such policy may not be cancelled or modified without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party. SCHERER and JAZ shall provide the other party, on or before the effective date of the policy, a certificate evidencing the insurance required hereunder and stating that such insurance is in full force and effect, that the premiums therefore have been paid and that the other party and its mortgagee on the Easement Area have been named as insured parties. 3. The parties acknowledge and agree that they shall share equally in the maintenance and repair of the Easement Area, and that the Easement Area shall at all times be kept in good condition and repair. If either party performs any maintenance of the Easement Area, the performing party shall deliver an invoice to the non -performing party setting forth all costs and expenses incurred in performing such work, including hard and soft costs, together with copies of paid invoices from any third parry suppliers or contractors evidencing the same, and the non- performing party shall reimburse the performing party for fifty percent (50%) of the costs and expenses within thirty (30) days after receipt of such invoice from the performing party. 4. No party may block, remove, reconfigure or otherwise materially alter the Easement Area or the access road constructed thereon without the other party's prior written consent. Provided, however, that nothing herein shall prevent either parry from connecting internal sidewalks, drives and/or roadways on their respective property to the access road constructed within the Easement Area at their own expense. The Easement Area shall at all times be used in a legal manner and in compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances. 5. Each party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from and against any claims, suits, costs, expenses and other liabilities arising out of each party's use of the Easement Area by itself, or by its tenants, employees, customers, agents or other invitees, or otherwise arising out of any violation of this Agreement. 6. In the event that SCHERER or JAZ shall fail to timely pay or reimburse ("Owing Party") the other party any amount due under this Easement ("Owed Party"), then interest shall accrue on the unpaid amount at the maximum rate permitted by law, and Owed Party may record a claim of lien against the Owing Party's property to secure the obligation of Owing Party to pay such amount to Owed Party. The lien evidenced by such claim of lien shall be effective upon, and shall arise only from and after, the recording of such claim of lien in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Such claim of lien may be foreclosed in the same manner as the foreclosure of a mortgage encumbering real property. Such claim of lien may be transferred to security by the Owing Party in accordance with the procedures set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 713. Page 3 of 11 7. This Easement shall be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. The rights and obligations created hereunder shall run with the properties described herein and shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of each party and its successors and assigns, and upon any and all subsequent owners of the SCHERER Property and JAZ Property, or any portion thereof. For the avoidance of doubt, the right to construct the Improvements within the Easement Area as set forth herein may be exercisable by any successor owner(s) of the SCHERER Property and/or JAZ Property, and the obligation to reimburse the party undertaking such construction shall accrue to the then owner of the SCHERER Property and JAZ Property not undertaking such construction at the time of such construction. 8. The Easement shall not be deemed a dedication of the Easement Area to the general public. 9. Miscellaneous. (a) Any notice, demand, request or communication required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and sent by hand delivery, United States certified mail, postage prepaid, or by recognized overnight delivery service, addressed to the parties addresses provided for herein or to such other address or to the attention of such other person as hereafter shall be designated in writing by the parties sent in accordance herewith. Any such notice, demand, request or communication shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of receipt or refusal at the address, and in the manner, provided herein. (b) When the context in which words are used in this Easement indicates that such is the intent, words in the singular number shall include the plural and vice versa, and the words in masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders and vice versa. (c) In the event that any provision of this Easement shall be held to be invalid, the same shall not affect in any respect whatsoever the validity of the remaining provisions of this Easement. (d) This Easement contains the entire understanding and agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements between them respecting the subject matter contained herein. There are no representations, agreements, arrangements or understandings, oral or written, between and among the parties relating to the subject matter of this Easement that are not fully expressed herein. (e) The failure of any party hereto to insist upon strict performance of any of the servitudes, easements, privileges, rights, covenants, agreements, terms and conditions hereunder, irrespective of the length of time for which such failure continues, shall not be a waiver of any of such party's rights. No consent or waiver, express or implied, to or of any breach or default in the performance of any obligation hereunder shall constitute a consent or waiver to or of any other breach or default in the performance of the same or any obligation hereunder. (f) This Easement may be changed, modified or amended only by an instrument in writing duly executed and acknowledged by the parties. Page 4 of 11 (g) This Easement is made and shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for any litigation arising out of this Agreement shall lie exclusively in a court of appropriate jurisdiction in Collier County, Florida, and in no other venue or forum. (h) This Easement may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if the parties had signed the same document. All such counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set its hand and seal this day of , 2021. Witness Name: Witness Name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER SCHERER: William C. Scherer, as Trustee of the William C. Scherer Trust u/a/d May 5, 1994, as amended and restated on June 17, 2015 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence this day of , 2021, by William C. Scherer, as Trustee of the William C. Scherer Trust u/a/d May 5, 1994, as amended and restated on June 17, 2015, who is personally known to me OR produced as identification. (Notary Seal) Notary Public of Florida Printed Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires: Page 5 of 11 Witness Name: Witness Name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER JAZ: Flavio Galasso, Director of Operations JAZ Automotive Properties, LLC An Ohio limited liability company I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence this day of , 2021, by , as President of JAZ Automotive Properties, LLC an Ohio limited liability company, on behalf of the compnay, who is personally known to me OR produced as identification. (Notary Seal) Notary Public of Florida Printed Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires: Page 6 of 11 EXHIBIT "A" SCHERER PROPERTY Page 7 of 11 I E s B tl I I e d tit � g�� S 02'0518" E 1184.83' �I uwi l I 0 O 8 _ =I z I l W Jill )C 3 F vuna N 02'05'43 W 1184.80' N I m �o N D7 rn I o Id - N R6i E�SFMENI — — W u @ c � _ IM W N � IN I 8s� Ce N I q�q LrMGSTON ROAD wN L NLNON 0330 W 04 w o� U N i \ a 6 p y = O of <$ W G N N m g N W z N N� �„u.vNNNc ogmleg I�m��ae a Sm N a §=Y og aao E`! .NBF 3 E 6W SIRome �' =ut3 mo�'o rc �� m m � EXHIBIT `B" JAZ PROPERTY Page 8 of 11 o�o� FR _arcp ok'a ��o�o € - �iQ:cmiz aSmE G1 qgs �n: cd5 8V i m 'SpI' E`ENm x Sk _up a M - ma LL�F x� ogLLJ3 3a� � UMp a Iwn boo€' � p z _ o o rc ioo a aN ••« i vano,mo w � � 3 .I F— s ozw s� a iie�ss R 9 I _ I I ; I I � I 8 8 i I I � I i i I EXHIBIT "C" EASEMENT AREA Legal Description of Easement Area on SCHERER Property Legal Description of Easement Area on JAZ Property Page 9 of 11 I I O O o � x tp w zd �~ UANC O u0i U ��me n F w"x¢ i l 04 a a Hamm Ada x zox min W (n I Z � Qo d3 cWawea Q F GEZpO q I O p Pa D I W W In w d w Z z 1 O N N F ■ wm W z O Q ti o m. O L.L a F ■■■■■■mommom■om ■■ m� < .. ui ■■■■■■■■■ Q Q m o w ■■■■■■■■■ d � � U LLJ Y L 00 q LLI ~ m U O ft� N J U Q F t Q U I Z 0 E- C) � CD 0 J0 0 A I�po �fo cn^ Hw L Ln W O-14 m w F C7 w ` a w (L� C'I W m 0 d w w o a =a z oQ 0' ~w �o oa W rn of Q �w W L w� x Za Y O w O � Y O O Q Q c� w0 a a M: m w nl 0 (� F �� CWJ w a0 D O U J w m Q O O N Q S 02°05'17 E Q 0 150.10H-j `4 L3 J of L5 z I � w Q 0 w_ =� (n U wof H Z ii N H 0 0 00 (O Ln Ln S O WLL a (n MLn NLn n H Q W OD W 0 N 0 Q Oo a LIJ a Qof Ld w O =w �o G w3333w � 04000 z �w N W O m w w �a 0 UCO � ~z���N�� o aZ w� 0 U cn wEino wi,inm z <nO C)z WO Q Y Z_QOinOMO�n Q WN Z- _� O � m N m N N N m W Z ~ U O 0000 -OO H Q H :2Z �� m (n zz z Z cn w pQ Ow w0 w 0 W Um �w Q m z 0 p liw J O w U 00 OOO J J J J J J J J < O w Z Z L� ~ ~ o 00 N Q Z 00 G Q as � 0 CCD 0- II II 0 to z Z Z 0_ W U m LU a w Q o 0 w o m cn a d z N 0 Di+ O ■■■■■. 7400 Trail Blvd., Suite 200 ■■■■■ GNOLI Naples, FL 34108 mommo� PH: (239) 597-31 1 1 ■■■■■r ARBER & www.ABBINC.com ::::::v-RUNDAGE, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF AN ACCESS EASEMENT ALL THAT PART OF THOSE LANDS AS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 5460, PG. 132, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD; THENCE S 02005'17" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LANDS A DISTANCE OF 150.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE S 02005'17" E A DISTANCE OF 140.71 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE N 89059'50" W A DISTANCE OF 30.13 FEET; THENCE N 02006'48" W A DISTANCE OF 58.51 FEET; THENCE N 12037'29" W A DISTANCE OF 26.99 FEET; THENCE N 02005'11" W A DISTANCE OF 55.85 FEET; THENCE S 89058'44" E A DISTANCE OF 35.09 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 0.11 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12461-SD2 PAGE 1 OF 1 I �L c� t ■■■■■. 7400 Trail Blvd., Suite 200 ■■■■■ GNOLI Naples, FL 34108 mommo� PH: (239) 597-31 1 1 ■■■■■r ARBER & www.ABBINC.com ::::::v-RUNDAGE, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF AN ACCESS EASEMENT ALL THAT PART OF THOSE LANDS AS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 5696, PG. 1480, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LANDS, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD; THENCE S 02005'17" E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LANDS A DISTANCE OF 150.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE S 89058'44" E A DISTANCE OF 34.96 FEET; THENCE S 02005'11" E A DISTANCE OF 53.28 FEET; THENCE S 08044'44" W A DISTANCE OF 26.94 FEET; THENCE S 02013'39" E A DISTANCE OF 60.78 FEET; THENCE N 89059'50" W A DISTANCE OF 30.03 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID WEST LINE; THENCE N 02005'17" W ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 140.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 0.10 ACRES. REFERENCE ABB DRAWING #12461 -SD I PAGE 2OF2 EXHIBIT "D" ACCESS ROAD SKETCH FOR EASEMENT AREA Page 10 of 11 ' GNOLI ::::MP -BARBER & GERMAIN IMMOKALEE & BLUE CORAL APARTMENTS """BRUNDAGE, mc. ENNEN, 7���i� SHARED ACCESS 7400 Trail BWd., Suite 200 •Naples, FL 34108 PH: (239) 597-3111 • FAX: (239) 566-2203 SCALE: 1" = 70' _�•� I I I I I .FJ 1 i i i I I I O I m m F OD I BLUE CORAL - I D Oc - - • w GERMAIN i 1*.40111:318N Estimate of Costs Page 11 of 11 GNOLI BARBER & ���956rC� RUNDAGE, INC. Professional Engineers, Planners, Surveyors & Landscape Architects Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Preliminary Pre -Design Lexus Cross Easement ABB Project: 18-0011 Date: January 19, 2021 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ON SITE Facilities $3,000 Roadway $32,175 Drainage/ Stormwater $18,750 Subtotal: $53,925 RIGHT TURN LANE Facilities $45,000 Roadway $29,000 Drainage/ Stormwater $17,250 Subtotal: $91,250 IMMOKALEE ROAD MEDIAN Facilities $7,000 Roadway $27,375 Subtotal: $34,375 Pretotal: $179, 550 Design/ Permitting/ CEI $26,933 Mobilization/ Demobilization $17,955 Contingency $26,933 TOTAL: $251,370 Notes: This Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) has been prepared by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. (ABB) at the request of the owner or as a requirement of governmental agency. ABB has based the unit costs of this OPC on previous work history with similar projects or on values provided by reputable contractors we have worked with in accordance with F.A.C. 61 G-1518.011, this is not a guarantee or warranty expressed or implied as to the construction cost that may be obtained by owner using competitive bidding. If such a guarantee is needed, it is recommended that owner procure the services of a professional cost estimator or obtain a binding bid from a contractor. ❑❑❑❑E:;. L7LJ❑❑C: GNOLI ❑❑❑❑❑� ❑❑❑❑❑p AB & ❑❑❑❑❑❑� 0000007 RUNDAGE, INC. Professional Engineers, Planners, Surveyors & Mappers Lexus Cross Easement Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 1/19/2021 ON SITE FACILITIES COMPONENTS QUANTITY UNITS UNIT COST COST Landscape and Irrigation 1 LS $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Subtotal: $ 3,000 ROADWAY Concrete S/W 150 LF $ 15 $ 2,250 1-1/2" Asphalt 670 SY $ 12 $ 8,040 6" Lime Rock Sub -Base 670 SY $ 10.5 $ 7,035 12" Sub -Grade Stabilization 670 SY $ 2 $ 1,340 Curb & Gutter 250 LF $ 20 $ 5,000 Lighting Road 250 LF $ 18 $ 4,500 Earthwork/ Fill 670 CY $ 3.0 $ 2,010 Sign and Stripe 1 LS $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Subtotal: $ 32,175 DRAINAGE / STORMWATER Catch Basins 2 EA $ 6,000 $ 12,000 18" RCP 150 LF $ 45 $ 6,750 Subtotal: $ 18,750 TOTAL: $ 53,925 RIGHT TURN LANE FACILITIES COMPONENTS QUANTITY UNITS UNIT COST COST Landscape and Irrigation I LS $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Power Line Relocation 3 EA $ 10,000 $ 30,000 Subtotal: I I I $ 45,000 ROADWAY Concrete S/W 250 LF $ 15 $ 3,750 1-1/2" Asphalt 500 SY $ 12 $ 6,000 6" Lime Rock Sub -Base 500 SY $ 10.5 $ 5,250 12" Sub -Grade Stabilization 500 SY $ 2 $ 1,000 Curb & Gutter 250 LF $ 20 $ 5,000 Lighting Road 250 LF $ 18 $ 4,500 Earthwork/ Fill 500 Cy $ 3.0 $ 1,500 Sign and Stripe 1 LS $ 2000, $ 2,000 Subtotal: r$ 29,000 DRAINAGE / STORMWATER Catch Basins 1 EA $ 6,000 $ 6,000 18" RCP 250 LF $ 45 $ 11,250 Subtotal: $ 17,250 TOTAL: $ 91,250 IMMOKALEE ROAD MEDIAN FACILITIES COMPONENTS QUANTITY UNITS UNIT COST COST Landscape and Irrigation 1 LS $ 7,000 $ 7,000 Subtotal: $ 7,000 ROADWAY 1-1/2" Asphalt 450 SY $ 12 $ 5,400 6" Lime Rock Sub -Base 450 SY $ 10.5 $ 4,725 12" Sub -Grade Stabilization 450 SY $ 2 $ 900 Curb & Gutter 250 LF $ 20 $ 5,000 Earthwork/ Fill 450 CY $ 3.0 $ 1,350 Sign and Stripe 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Subtotal: $ 27,375 TOTAL: $ 34,375 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a Neighborhood Information Meeting, Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage Inc., on: Tuesday, August 25th, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., at the New Hope Ministries, located at 7675 Davis Blvd, Naples, Florida, 34104 A formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval for a Planned Unit Development under PL20190001600 and a Growth Management Plan Amendment under PL20190001620. The 9.35-acre site located on the south side of Immokalee Rd, just west of Juliet Blvd and east of Livingston Rd. The petitioner is asking the County to approve these applications to rezone the property and allow for a multi -family residential development and associated uses. The proposed multi -family project will follow the development standards of RMF-16 and is also proposing a density of 30 units per acre. If you have any questions, comments or do not feel comfortable attending the meeting in person you do have the opportunity to participate virtually via an online zoom meeting. At this meeting, the petitioner will explain the project in detail, record your input as an interested neighbor and answer any questions you may have. The link and passcode for the online zoom meeting are shown below. Link: https://us04web.zoom.us/i/75501266443?pwd=LzFQYUs4bm45eU1RVkhOYmwxczV5Zz09 Meeting ID: 755 0126 6443 Passcode:658876 If you are unable to attend the meeting in person or participate virtually, and have questions or comments, they can also be directed by mail, phone, or e-mail to the individual below: 7400 Trail Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34108 Telephone: (239) 597-31 1 1 Thomas D. Barber, AICP - Facsimile: (239) 566-2203 :mail: tom.barber@abbinc.com NAPLESNEWS.COM I MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2020 1 eD To advertise, visit: Classifieds 'la263.4700 ,Of s.ified,E gps9 �l gals@nzplesnewscom s VISA a'I --- �iHappy ads SWM 59 seeks 'ce lady for 'mpan o..h p, d n— , mov es, beach. Ed 239436-3942 Business Bpp9rtunites, lease, Invest... Commercial / Office Be. sq. ft en ""'+escrows (239) 2624121 UIOWNER lot 2/3rd+acr.. Multi -zoned Citysew DwI 239-352-8216 Adopt Me r alai) yogri Iw ........Dog $500.00 obo Male, 10 months, White with blackandS,a y"_, neutered all shots uplto date. (301)904-0615 4. MISSI NGD 0S­UODLE R AROUND PAC E AND NECK LARGE REWARD Homes Pembroke Welsh CoreRun, AKC Ng, shots, health c M Male/Female, parents ested. 44 $1,500. 561-65002. Assorted allall kind�� A NEW ENGLAND collector ams to U�y al I types of tine antiG .Before you 2ndII, please call for opini'n, You mar be pleasantlyy prised. 80019 YU1 94 ANTIQUES & ART WANTED Courteous Palm Beach Buyer seeks: Quality paintings, s IpYure, glass, porcelain, silver, jewelry, Tiffany, Cartier, modern art, Picasso, Warhol, old rm�aste1"' Chinese etc.i 1561} gp1-0222nze, Homes Don't miss this one! LG Refrigerator / Freezer, $$5DO.W. LG Stainless Steel 5 Finish. 5 years old excellent condition. 21.8Cubicfeet storage. .00 new. You pick up.,p., (31(314)651-1184 LOOK! Microwave gg a[ D n ditionl GE white f200 watt $,0(239)821-7845 Thermad'r-Refrigerator Freezer, Side by Side, ice mak- er, 19.5 ft., 6 years Id, n sold for f8,500, excellent onod selling for E1,250. 239- 450 2658 DIAMONDS- 5 CT Cushion 4 Ci Cana E r' perear., CTTenn ,brace- let Rolex.239-25D-3832 �ower Pal leather recliners. Clean, excellent condition) $465. 239-595-6389 Power Lift Chair Recliner, 5 yr film.ty�new 239-]84-8288used. $450 Homes In Partnership with the •NETWOaKY LOCALiQ Reach More People. Get More Leads. ®� Spend Less Money. s��aa r w.. Deliver Compelling Messages Ea11Ics Reach the Neighborhood Leads You Own, Delivered in Real Time Furniture Household Queen Size Post Bed, Beami- ful Wood Frame Queen Sized bed with step p. Great Con- dition. Head, Foot and Rails luded. You pick up., $$400.00.(314)651-1184 Wood Queen Bedroom Set 2 night stands,dN,s mirror, ar 2lamps, N.Like new! mo $950.239-595-6389 Walker Mower - 42' mulch deck 8 new, deck. $3,250. 239- 290-3096 i vem' Mobility chairs & s<o."o $200-f800. M co Island Call: 239.235-1565 Real Estate starting fresh... S. ft from Vanderbih Beach. turn key,eech ac�euv2+den, private Eb g g pool, Tennis, 239-641-0304 HAMPTON'S, 2/2 NEW RE- MODEL $213,000 OPEN SUN - DAY 1-0 1820 Kinggs Lake Blvd. a103, (239)537-3276 BY OWNER Narples - Beautiful pdated co do for sale $335,000, 3 BR, 2BA, 1950 s�feet one gg gg be iful many on Iak.aBotto ,floor, y Upgrade', built 2007, great location in b 'ful c - unity(516)204-2146 NEIGHBORH lip OUAL OPPORTUNITY um All as, ,state edve using In his newspapp rissubjett to the Federal Faer Housing AR f 1'Ea which makes it lie al to advertise any di°�`im n.n. based on olor, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or familial status or an intention to make any such preference, limitation or discrimination. This newsp.per will not knowingly act apt any advertng fo re estate which ism violation of the law. Our readealare ehereby informed that lldwel lings .d�ertheri m this wspaper are _, able on n equa opportuniTy a Naples: Whchair Accessible Home with 3eelram a ps. 3BRReA on ,ter w/deck. 55+ c'mm. f230,000. 239-300-6341. L OpenS. Open L Verona Walk 8785 Zurigo Ln 4BR3+ BA P... ar sO ake View, solar /spa. $520K MLS 220039180 Chellie Doepke 239-8T]-1T22 Premier Plus Realty Co RqM l Ett Bonha Springs 26R 2BA.1st Rr gat- d, tiled, fhness, 2 car garage avail. f1,195/mo+last a sec. Intl water. 239149-4935/ 23925a706 MarcokRa Island- Turn -Key pp bland views, fornlease.RSecuA- ty deposit. 440-871-1523. DOD INFORMATI4 151 Naples- Avian' at Naples 2br, c bhe.. $ 1dr'V6]5/m�',p water & basic cable ind'd. No smok- ing, No Pets. 516-318-4198 Available Now! $1,550, Naples Park Duplex, 2 bdrm, 2 ba, ]OS 101st AVE N, Naples, Florida (239)250-983. BONITA SPRINGS 1 BD, 1 BA near Bonita Beach Some Pets k, $1095 fall: 239.890A59] f 1500.00 2 bdrm 2 ba 39109 Naples, pet ok pool, (239)200-5869 Naples, $285% 3 bdrm, 2 ba, 34120 Golden Gate Estates - Naples, Refrige .r, Washer, Dryer let, ga^ gourmet kit, hEwd firs, ... pool, laundry off-st pkg, refrig., Home (]03)4]0-]]31 zipaecmi— )IN MEETING Petitions PL20190001600 & PL20190001620 The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting in person or via Zoom Meeting held by Thomas D. Barber, AICP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., representing CIG Naples, LLC. Tuesday, August 25th, 2020 at 6 pin. New Hope Ministries 7675 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 Subject Property: Parcel No. 00198000006 The property owner is petitioning Collier County to approve a Planned Unit Development and a Growth Management Plan Amendment to rezone the property to allow for a multi -family residential development and associated uses. Zoom Meeting Info: WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation, review project materials and discuss the project with the owner and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions cur comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax, or e-mail to: Thomas D. Barber, AICP Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. 7400 Trall Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34108 Telephone: (239) 597-3111 Facsimile: (239) 566-2203 Email: tom.barber@abbinccom NapIt.q 4:3altIj TCtjj1,'.; PART OFTH@ USA TODAY NETWORK Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 Agnoli Barber Brundage Inc 7400 Trail Blvd Naples, FL 34108 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared said legal clerk who on oath says that he/she serves as Legal Clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida , for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 08110/2020 A�=-- Subscribed and sworn to before on August 28, 2020: Notary, State of WI, County of Brown f TARA MONDLOCH Notary Public, State of Wisconsin My commission expires: August 6, 2021 Publication Cost: $1,040.26 Ad No: GC10470791 Customer No: 531687 PO#: NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petitions PL20190001600 & PL20190001620 The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting in person or via Zoom Meeting held by Thomas D. Barber, AICP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., representing CIG Naples, LLC. Tuesday, August 25th, 2020 at 6 p.m. New Hope Ministries 7675 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 Subject Property: Parcel No. 00198000006 The property owner is petitioning Collier County to approve a Planned Unit Development and a Growth Management Plan Amendment to rezone the property to allow for a multi -family residential development and associated uses. Zoom Meeting Info: WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation, review project materials and discuss the project with the owner and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax, or e-mail to: Thomas D. Barber, AICP Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. 7400 Trail Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34108 Telephone: (239) 597-3111 Facsimile: (239) 566-2203 Email: tom.barber@abbinc.com This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraisers ONi— (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not this data to others without consent from the CCPA. NAME? 4940 COUGAR COURT LLC 4940 COUGAR CT SOUTH 4101 LLC 4945 COUGAR COURT S #101 LLC 4945 COUGAR CT S #102 LLC 4955 SANDRA BAY DRIVE #101 LLC 574732 ONTARIO LIMITED ADAMCHEK,STANLBY ANDERSON, KENNETH ❑ AULETTA, JEAN B P DEVCO LLC BALANICA, ABRIAN BALL, CHRISTOPHER BELL, DEB ODAR BERMUDA PALMS 2-205 LAND TRUST BERMUDA PALMS 3-101 LAND TRUST BERMUDA PALMS 3-205 LAND TRUST BERMUDA PALMS OF NAPLES BERMUDA PALMS UNIT#105 LLC BERMUDA PALMS UNIT#202 LLC BETHEL, JILL REBECCA BI EN R, NEAL & LISA M BISSMEYER II, WILLIAM C BLANCHARD, MICHAELA J BONFIGLI0, NICHOLAS R BOWEN, ROSANNE E BRAINERD, KATHLEEN G BROCCOLI SR, STEVENJ BUCCA, MARIA BULTINCK, STEFAAN E BUNCH, W TiOMAS & GAIL M BURKS, WILLIAM R & ELVA IT BUTLER LAKE DRIVE LLC CALDWELL, RONALD ❑ CAMPANALE, FRANK CAMPOBASSO, MARINA ROSA CAPRIOTTI, JOSEPH E & EILEEN M CARDONA, ARIEL & DORA CARDONA, CARTOS CARLTON LAKES MASTER ASSN INC CARLTON LAKES MASTER ASSN INC CARLTON LAKES MASTER ASSN INC CARLTON LAKES MASTER ASSN INC CARDLLO, CARMEN J CASHION, CH RISLOPE ER M CASIMINI, ALEXA ROSE CHASING PARADISE LLC CHEGWIDDEN, NIALL KENNETH CHESSER, KATHY K CHEVEZ, ANTONIO & HALYMA CHRIST, ANN CAN IT, KIRSTIN CIVETTI, JAY P CLARK, JEFFREY A & LISA F CLAUSSEN, ROBERT G & NORMA M CNC INVESTMENTS LLC COADY, JUDITH COLLIER CNTY CONLEY, WILLIAM & LINDA CONRY TR, TRUDY M CORBETT, JEAN M CORE CORP CRESTO, DIANE M CONY, JULIA F CZAPSKI, ALBINA Z DARRAH, LORE DEAL REVOCABLE TRUST DEBARBIERI, LAURIE A DEEA LLC DEGAETANO, ROBERT & HEATHER DELDIN, ALISTN J DENNIS & LINDA RITCHIE BEN SMORE, JAMES&JEANNE DEVITA, MICHAEL DIORIO, JASON N DOHERTY, DIANE M DOLORES T CORONA REV TRUST DONNELLY ET AL, JANE ❑ DOROTHY L VERRASTRO REV TRUST BUFF, NATALIE R BEMAS, ROBERT F&THERESAJ DURHAM, THOMAS SHERRILL BERKEE, LINDA C DYCHES, MARTHA L ELAINE DAMIANI REV TRUST ERRICO, KEITH A & MARIA A F & S HAGSPIEL REV TRUST FERNANDEZ, RUBEN DARIO FERRARA HORVATH, DANA FICHERA, ANNA & FRANK FITZGERALD, JOHN A FLIGG, JAMES EDWARD FOIST CRAIG FOLEY, CHERYL ANN FORRER, JAMES D & ANNE FRANK, DIANA M FRANKLIN, CATHERINE F FRATTAROLA, THOMASJ FUHRO, BRIAN D & CYNTHIA M FURLONG, ELEANOR FURST BEAN FAMILY TRUST G M & P A WILSON FAMILY TRUST NAME2 212 SAN MATEO DRIVE 212 SAN MATEO DRIVE 212 SAN MATEO DR 212 SAN MATEO DR 212 SAN MATEO DRIVE 105 BRIAN BLVD LORETTA ADAMCHEK DOUGLAS B ANDERS 160 VICTORIA DRIVE 2190 J AND C BLVD MARIA CONTRERAS CATHERINE M BALL 133 RUE CHARLESWOOD 28 ROUTE DE VENCE 28 ROUTE DE VENCE 11 RUE DE COLMAR CONDO ASSN INC GIO STEVE MECKSTROTH % STEVE MECKSTROTH 5881 GOLDEN OAKS LN 15140 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE HELEN F BISSMEYER 494C COUGAR CT S #1 C4 15168 BUTLER LAKE DRIVE 15157 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE RICHARD A DICAPUA MARIE E BROCCOLI 1341 84TH ST 958 SPYGLASS LN 15189 BUTLER LAKE DR #102 15177 BUTLER LAKE DR #101 271 ROUTE 46W 15184 BUTLER LAKE DRIVE #203 3508 ERIE DRIVE 4965 SANDRA BAY DRIVE #201 15197 BUTLER LAKE DR #201 15161 PALMER LAKE CIR #102 9234 SHADOW OAK LN 8910 TERRENE CT STE 200 8910 TERRENE CT STE 200 6910 TERRENE CT STE 200 8910 TERRENE CT STE 200 2034 MACARTHUR CT 15145 PALMER LAKE CIR #19-202 4970 DEERFIELD WAY#F204 2025 TEAGARDEN LANE CHERYL NOLLEEN CHEGWIDDEN DARLA J MELUCCI 4915 SANDRA BAY DRIVE #7-203 JOHN COBB 4965 SANDRA BAY DRIVE #203 3166 SANTORINI COURT 15209 BUTLER LAKE DR #201 4910 DEERFIELD WAY#103 69 KIRTLAND DR MICHAELJ WILSON CIO REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 1764 COL MBIA RD UTD 6-19-95 15140 PALMER LAKE CIR #201 16112 CAMMEN LAKES CIR 15144 PALMER LAKE CIR #101 15185 BUTLER LAKE DR #201 64 BRIAR HILL RD 15188 BUTLER LAKE DR #203 7998 HELENA CT 4910 DEERFIELD WAY APT A101 215 WEST 78TH ST APT B 210 FOREST DRIVE 4940 COUGAR COURT SOUTH REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 4985 SANDRA BAY DR #8-105 GIOVANNA DEVITA 15193 BUTLER LAKE DR #1 C2 4945 COUGAR CT S #283 211 BARCLAY BLVD 2 CROSSHILL DR 15663 SECOYA RESERVE CIRCLE 4920 DEERFIELD WAY APT 104 39 SHERWOOD DRIVE DARYL BAXTER DURHAM 4965 SANDRA BAY DR #104 4925 SANDRA BAY DRIVE 15177 BUTLER LAKE DR 05 102 470 CHESTNUT STREET 4910 DEERFIELD WAY #201 MARGARITA DIAZ ADAM J HORVATH 2 WINCHESTER WAY PATRICIA L FITZGERALD MARTHA SUSAN FLIGG AUDREY MATULAY MILAINE DE DIEGO 50 WINSIDE LANE 15136 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #202 4950 DEERFIELD WAY D 101 15213 BUTLER LAKE DR #201 2 MISTY RIDGE CIR 15149 PALMER LAKE CIR #101 6608 BARRETT ROAD 38 HIGH ROCK AVE APT 5G NAMED NAME4 NAMES NAMED FOLIO BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-0 4000201005 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-0 `24000200628 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 341318111 `24000200624 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-8537 `24000200640 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-0 `24000201021 WATERDOWN L8B 006 CANADA '53570000707 15157 PALMER LAKE CIR #102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '26144000665 5026 DEERFIELD BLVD #108 MASON, OH 45040-0 '25569000655 BRIDGEWATER, NJ 08807-0 '25 44000487 NAPLES, FL 34109-2001 '00199280003 15161 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #1-202 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '-69C OOC89 79 CASTLES BR WAYNE, NJ 07470-0 `26144C01169 HUDSON JOP1HC CANADA `26144001622 TOURRETTESILOUP 06140 FRANCE `24000200404 TOURRETTESILOUP 06140 FRANCE `24000200420 CANNES 06400 FRANCE '24000200608 CIO ABILITY MGMT 6736 LONE OAK BLVD NAPLES, FL 34109-6834 '24000200721 212 SAN MATEO DR BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-8537 '24000200307 212 SAN MATEO DR BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-8537 '24000201348 NAPLES, FL 34119-0 '24000201047 UNIT 27-101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '26144001460 15141 PALMER LAKE CIR #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 F26144000445 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000200886 #16-201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000209 UNIT 202 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000940 491 C COUGAR CT N #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000200022 9 TABER LN UTICA, NY 13501-0 c53570000969 BROOKLYN, NY 11228-3011 `24000200543 NAPLES, FL 34102—TT33 `24000201322 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25569000607 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25569000348 SUITE H106-107 FAIRFIELD, NJ 07004---0 '26144000063 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25144000128 ORCHARD LAKE, MI 48324-0 '25569000306 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '24000201128 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000768 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25559000047 NAPLES, FL 34120-0 26144000704 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135-0 25540000024 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 31,1310 25540000121 DONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135-0 26 4C000228 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135-0 2554C001463 DUNEDIN, FL 34698-0 24000200909 NAPLES, FL 34109—C 26144000584 NAPLES, FL 34 11 0-0 153570000985 NAPLES, FL 34111-0 26144001583 4940 DEERFIELD WAY APT 201 NAPLES, FL 34110-2308 53570000422 4935 SANDRA BAY DR UNIT 103 NAPLES, FL 3410" `2400020 0462 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24011201314 4925 SANDRA BAY DR #204 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 2400C200361 NAPLES, FL 34109—C 24000201160 NAPLES, FL 34119-0 53570000526 NAPLES, FL 34109—C 2556900112' NAPLES, FL 34110-0 5357CCCoo 66 NAPLES, FL 34110-1314 2400C200226 15181 BUTLER LAKE DR #202 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 2556900046' 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112 0 56199282C31 BOSTON, MA 02127-0 26144001046 1T21 MARYLAND AVE SOUTH HOLLAND, IL 601 53570000228 NAPLES, FL 34109—C 26144011:25 NAPLES, FL 34110-0 2556900043 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144001347 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000542 NORWICH, CT 06360-6427 53573000163 NAPLES, FL 34109—C 26144000241 AVE MARIA, FL 34142-0 24000200064 NAPLES, FL 34 11 0-1395 53570000024 NEW YORK, NY 10024-0 26144001282 LINWOOD, NJ 08221-0 '63570000341 UNIT 45 204 NAPLES, FL 34109--0 24000200983 15152 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #24-101 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 26144001101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000201500 4925 SANDRA BAY DR #2102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000200242 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000561 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000200763 PRINCETON, NJ 08540-0 26144300788 BO NESS W LOTHIAN EH519JB SCOTLAN❑ 53570000147 NAPLES, FL 34110-0 25569000160 NAPLES, FL 34110-1396 53,70C30244 BROCKPORT, NY 14420-0 21161110144 4940 DEERFIELD WAY #204 NAPLES, FL 34110-0 53,70000480 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000201487 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000200349 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000364 WASHINGTON TWP, NJ 07676-0 26144000801 NAPLES, FL 34110-1395 53570000105 4975 SANDRA BAY DR 47-103 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000201267 2443 POLHEMUS ROAD TOM RIVER, NJ 08753-0 24000201380 WASHINGTONVILLE, NY 10992-0 24000200527 9230 SPRING RUN BLVD BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135-0 26144001062 8665 BAY COLONY DR 4601 NAPLES, FL 34108-0 26144001127 4910 COUGAR CT N APT 205 NAPLES, FL 34109-2671 No00200200 4985 SANDRA BAY DR #204 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000201564 CORAM, NY 11727-0 25561111121 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144Col 664 NAPLES, FL 34110-0 53570000529 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569001101 KINNELON, NJ 07405-0 26144000429 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000623 FALLS CHURCH, VA 22042-- 4203 24000200844 SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866—C 25569001127 GIUNTA, GEORGE GORRAN, MARLO TRACY GRATTON, SANDRA LYNNE GRIFFIN, ROSANNE HAVEMEIER, KEVIN M HEMRICK, PHILIP F & BARBARA HENDLER, CAROL A & SAM HERNANDEZ, MARIA HINGORANI, SANJAY HOFFMANN,ROSEANNE HORROCKS, KIRK D & KATHLEEN JO HOSKINS, JESSE E HUMPHREY, LINDA L IDA G KOREY RESIDENCE TRUST INGESOULIAN, MARTIN P II JOSEPH M JACOBS, STEPHEN C & KUM S JACOBS, STEPHEN C & KUM 5 JANICE W THOMPSON DEC OF TRUST JAZ AUTOMOTIVE PROPERTIES LLC JEAN T MCENERY REV LIV TRUST JEFFREY K STLTZNER TRUST JEREMIAS, LAWRENCE JO ANNE N SERGEANT REV TRUST JOHN LOOS IRREV TRUST JOSEPH TRIUMBARI INVSTMNT LTD JSF USEPPA WAY CMPII LLC KASE PUB LLC KAUFIELD, SHERRY KOK FAMILY ENTERPRISES LLC KEDZIOR, JANINA KENNEDY, JOSEPH W & ROSEMARIE KNOTT JR, ROBERT JOSEPH KOCHENOUR, CANDICE KOTTMAN, GARY & MARY KRELL, SCOTT M & KATHLEEN A KUMIN, GERALD & JUNE LAKEVIEW AT CARLTON LAKES LARSON, JENNIFER L LAVAGGI, AUDREY LAVALLIE, CHRISTINA A LEEDOM, TRICIA LENNERT, CONSTANCE J LEONARD, JOHN D & SHARON A LEWANDOWSKI, DAVID & SHARON LEWANDOWSKI, DAVID R LEPTON, ARNOLD LIBUNAO, ALLANJ LINDA LANZETTA REV TRUST LINDBERG, ROSALIE S LI UCCI, ROBERT T & CAROL A LIVINGSTON LAKES CONDO ASSN LIVINGSTON LAKES CONDO ASSN LIVINGSTON LAKES CONDO ASSN LLERENA, LEIDIANA LOPRESTI, ALICE W NDSBERG, GARY A & JANET L LYNN ELLYN TRUST MACMURDO FAMILY REV LIV TRUST MAGDALENA CASTRO REV TRUST MAHDI, LAWRENCE & LILY MARCA, WILLIAM L & SANDRA H MARC RET A GARRETT REV TRUST MARK JOHN MCKNIGITT TRUST MARTINEZ, MARIANO & ELISABETi MATAI, XHEMAL MATHENEY TR, A GROVER MATHENEY TR, A GROVER MATHENEY TR, A GROVER MAXWELL, BETH A MCCJLLOUGIT, ROBERT HENRY MCGRATi, DONNA J MCKENZIE, PATRICIA A MCLEOD, WAYNE LEWIS MEIXNER, RAIMUND & IRENE MICELI, ANTONIO MICHAEL P SISAK REV TRUST MIKOLINSKI, LISA MOLAR 1 INVESTMENTS LLC MUMFORD, LARRY & CAROL NAITO, SHINOBA NANCY S COOPER REV TRUST NASHAT INVESTMENTS LLC NEEL, DEBRA J NOCERA, CARL & ARLENE OAKES FARMS INC OCAMPO, JULIO J OCONNOR,CHAD ONEIL, BETHANY A OZSOY, ALP PAL, SAMANTiA E PARENTE, DIANE H & JOHN M PATEL, USHA PAUL L WESTBROOK REV TRUST PAUL, GEORGE W & BEVERLY A PAYETTE, MAUREEN PEARL, RONALD L PENSWICK, MARY F PETRONE, ANTHONY GARY MOTKOYOST 76 NEHOIBEN STREET NEEDHAM, MA 02492-0 26144000225 15209 BUTLER LAKE BR #101 NAPLES, FL 34189-8 '25569000982 15140 PALMER LAKE CIR 4102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144001486 4975 SANDRA BAY BR 9102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000201241 15148 PALMER LAKE CIR *103 NAPLES, FL 34104-0 26144001266 195 SLEEPY HOLLOW ROAD #1295 ATHENS, NY 12015-0 '63570000668 15213 BUTLER LAKE BR #102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569001086 3344 93RD ST APT 1X JACKSON HEIGHTS, NY 11372-1921 '63570000121 PRADIP TANDON 3185 ST IVES COUNTRY CLUB PKWY DULUTH, GA 30097-2099 24000201102 CAROLYN MONACO 15188 BUTLER LAKE BR #102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '26144000160 2431 HEARTH STONE DR GRAND LEDGE, MI 48837-0 25569000649 PHYLLIS GONZALES HOSKINS 15165 BUTLER LAKE DR #102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000128 15173 BUTLER LAKE DRIVE @4-102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25569000283 15144 PALMER LAKE CIR 4103 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144001389 MAGDALENE SCHMID 15169 BUTLER LAKE DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000225 4935 SANDRA BAY DR #203 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '24000200569 105 CROSSOVER RD FAIRPORT, NY 14450-0 25569000186 105 CROSSOVER ROAD FAIRPORT, NY 14550-0 "25569000429 123 WESTCHESTER DRIVE AMHERST, OH 44001-3423 '63570000684 4250 MORSE CROSSING COLUMBUS, OH 43219-0 00196040008 10433 LONG AVENUE OAK LAWN, IL 60453-4644 T3570000587 LAUREL J STOLTZNER TRUST 1445 DENNISON HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL 50169- 4833 '63570000309 4960 DEERFIELD WAY UNIT 201 NAPLES, FL 34103-0 '63570000765 4910 COUGAR CT N #1-102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000200046 4755 TAMIAMI TRAIL N SUITE #115 NAPLES, FL 34103-0 26144000102 3 MANSWOOD ORES BRAMPTON L6T OA3 CANADA 24000201306 PTAJD #8816 PO BOX 320099 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-0 34595002440 4980 TAMIAMI TR N # 201 NAPLES, FL 34103-0 00196920007 15137 PALMER LAKE CIR #202 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000348 5669 SHORE DR ORCHARD LAKE, MI 46324-0 '25569000924 4975 SANDRA BAY DR 9104 NAPLES, FL 34109-2683 24000201283 300 ASTILBE DR KENNETT SQUARE, PA 19346-1565 T3570000464 ELIZABETH ANN KNOTT 15173 BUTLER LAKE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000267 28900 CAVELL TERRACE NAPLES, FL 34119-0 26144001068 15152 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #203 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '26144001208 8303 SUMMIT CEDAR LANE LIVERPOOL, NY 13090-0 '25569000241 15148 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25144001224 COMMOMSASSOCIALON INS 5704 LONE OAK BLVD NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25540000755 1148 HAMPTON GARDENS LN CHARLOTTE, NC 28209-0 53570000804 CARMEN DI DOMENICO 15181 BUTLER LAKES DR #102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25669000445 15205 BUTLER LAKE DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000940 JOYCE K LEEDOM 4950 DEERFIELD WAY 4D102 NAPLES, FL 34110-0 53670000545 4970 DEERFIELD WAY 4F-101 NAPLES, FL 34110-2324 53670000846 4920 DEERFIELD WAY 4201 NAPLES, FL 34110-0 53670000260 14322 HIGH ROAD LOCKPORT, IL 50441-0 24000200860 SHARON A LEWANDOWSKI 14322 HIGH RD LOCKPORT, IL 60441-7448 24000200103 DEANNE PASTOR 4945 COUGAR CT S #205 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000200802 220 SCOVILLE AVENUE OAK PARK, IL 60302-0 53570000642 15149 PALMER LAKE CIR #103 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000665 15213 BUTLER LAKE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25669001062 4960 DEERFIELD WAY 4104 NAPLES, FL 34110-0 53670000749 24301 WALDEN CENTER RD BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-0 00199287006 24301 WALDEN CENTER RD BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-0 00199287501 24301 WALDEN CENTER RD BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-0 00199287705 15209 BUTLER LAKE DR #102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25669001004 4940 DEERFIELD WAY APT 103 NAPLES, FL 34110-2308 53670000383 135 S BASSWOOD RD LAKE FOREST, IL 60045-0 25669000801 4960 DEERFIELD WAY E-103 NAPLES, FL 34110-0 53570000723 324 KERRY COURT CRANBERRY TWP, PA 16066-0 `25669000669 15189 BUTLER LAKE DR NAPLES, FL 34109-0 `25569000584 583 RIDGEWOOD AVE GLEN RIDGE, NJ 07028-0 `25569000704 55 WESTWOOD DRIVE JOHNSON CITY, NY 13790-0 `25569000762 15137 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000263 7709 RACHEL WHITNEY LANE ALEXANDRIA, VA 22315-0 `26144001428 4975 SANDRA BAY DR 4101 NAPLES, FL 34109-2684 `24000201225 4940 DEERFIELD WAY 4102 NAPLES, FL 34110-0 53570000367 LAND TRUST AGREEMENT JTD 06129AG PMB PTY 3977I1601 NW 97TN AVE PO BOX 25207 MIAMI, FL 33102-0 `34695004062 LAND TRUST AGREEMENT UTD 06129/66 PMB PTY 3977f1601 NW 97TH AVE PO BOX 25207 MIAMI, FL 33102-5207 '34695002026 LAND TRUST ATREEMENT JTD 06/29/88 PMB PLY 397TI1601 NW 97TH AVE PO BOX 25207 MIAMI, FL 25207-0 '34595004040 4950 DEERFIELD WAY # D-103 NAPLES, FL 34110-2306 53570000561 2051 ANGUS COURT BURLINGTON L7M 4X9 CANADA 53670000927 WILLIAM P ROONEY PATRICK K MCGRATH 710 HULL COURT MARCO, FL 34145-0 `24000200926 12142 FINGERBOARD RD MONROVIA, MD 21770-0 '26144001567 4955 SANDRA BAY DR #103 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '24000201053 MITTELEHRENBACH 201 LEUTENBACH 91359 GERMANY '24000200323 10980 VANDERBILT DR NAPLES, FL 34108-0 24000201556 15145 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 `26144000500 4965 SANDRA BAY DRIVE #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '24000201429 SUNSHINE SAND INVESTMENTS LLC 15112 CAMMEN LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34110-0 '25569000827 151W BUTLER LAKE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25569000746 f16069-7-7 AKASAKA MINATO TOKYO 1070052 JAPAN 24000200941 23 TOWER DR NEWPORT, KY 41071-0 `26144000461 2141 MANOR HILL DRIVE MISSISSAUGA L5M 5H9 CANADA '26144000507 15156 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #23-103 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25144001020 15153 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #21-101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '26144000746 % FRANCIS A OAKES 7595 SANTA CRUZ COURT NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25640000656 4360 SW 160 AVE MIAMI, FL 33165-0 `247100200446 15164 BUTLER LAKE DRIVE #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '26144000069 TOM S CHMELIK 7528 CORDOBA CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25144001240 NATALIA N VILLAGRA 1428 BIRDIE DR NAPLES, FL 34120-527 '24000200129 15136 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE 9201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25144001646 4336 MAPLE GROVE DR ERIE, PA 16510-0 `25669000209 15137 PALMER LAKE CIR #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '26144000322 ELIZABETH Y WESTBROOK RV TRUST 15161 PALMER LAKE CIR 4101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25569000021 15141 PALMER LAKE CIR #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '26144000380 DAVID JORDAN 15137 PALMER LAKE CIR #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25144000257 CANDICE A MADISON-PEARL 15177 BUTLER LAKE DRIVE #5-202 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 `25669000403 ROBERT F PENSWICK 15156 PALMER LAKE CIR #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '26144000962 SONJA PETRONE 15157 PALMER LAKE CIR 4103 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 '25144000908 PHELPS REVOCABLE TRUST 13157 POND APPLE BR E NAPLES, FL 34119-0 26144001680 PINERO, EDELIA ELISA 27012 ADRIANA CIR #101 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135-0 24000200365 POTTER, DAVID G 272 GLEN EAGLE CIR NAPLES, FL 34104-5715 24000201089 PULERI, LAURIE F 15157 PALMER LAKE CIR #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000924 QUARLES, MARISA 15189 BUTLER LAKE DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000623 QUICK, DAVID C & BARBARA E 1625 SPRUCE ST TRENTON, NJ 08610-2230 24000201445 R L & P A DELESTOWICZ LV TRUST 10807 CANTERBURY DR MOKENA, IL 60448-1086 '63570000820 RAMASKEVICIUS, GINTAUTAS 1242 SW 4TH CT CAPE CORAL, FL 33991-0 24000201209 RANDY & RENEE BRENON FAM TRUST 5978 HIDDEN OAK DRIVE LOCKPORT, NY 14094-0 24000200%1 RANDY & RENEE BRENON FAM TRUST 5978 HIDDEN OAK DRIVE LOCKPORT, NY 14094-7934 24000200582 RANDY & RENEE BRENON FAM TRUST 6978 HIDDEN OAK DRIVE LOCKPORT, NY 14094-7934 24000200789 RANDY & RENEE BRENON FAM TRUST 6978 HIDDEN OAK DRIVE LOCKPORT, NY 14094-7934 24000201186 RASHBAUM, MINDY TRACY E LEONARD 15136 PALMER LAKE CIR #102 #102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144001606 RASMUSSEN, LAUREN ANN OLAF JAMES RASMUSSEN 4935 SANDRA BAY DRIVE #3-204 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000200585 READDEAN, MELANIE PHILIP RANKIN 1454 CARNOUSTIE CIR GROVE CITY, OH 43123-0 '63570000943 REDDICK, MARY 4910 DEERFIELD WAY #A102 NAPLES, FL 34110-1395 '53570000040 REFERENCE ONLY BERMUDA PALMS A CONDOMINIUM 00199282904 REFERENCE ONLY CARRIAGE HOMES AT LIVINGSTON LAKES A CONDOMINIUM 00199285008 REFERENCE ONLY COACH HOMES AT LIVINGSTON LAKES A CONDOMINIUM 00199284009 REFERENCE ONLY LAKEVIEW I AT CARLTON LAKES A CONDOMINIUM 25540000781 REFERENCE ONLY LAKEVIEW II AT CARLTON LAKES A CONDOMINIUM 25540000804 REIDY, GEORGE F & TONI E 16186 BUTLER LAKE DR #103 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000144 REIDY, GEORGE F & TONI E 15188 BUTLER LAKE DR #103 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000186 REILLY, NANCY J 15156 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #102 NAPLES, FL 34109-9047 26144001004 REUSS, DONALD A CAROL A FELDHAUS 15181 BUTLER LAKE DRIVE #6-201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000461 RHODES, ELIZABETH J 15149 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #20-102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000649 RISSOLO, LUCELLY 60 FAWN RIDGE LN NORWALK, CT 06851-1137 24000200747 ROBERT J DELCO TRUST 11642 UPPER PENINSULA PLACE SAINT JOHN, IN 46373-0 25569000102 ROBERT O HAINEY BENEFIT TRUST 15144 PALMER LAKE CIR #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144001402 ROMERO, PATRICIA 4965 SANDRA BAY DR #202 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000201144 RONALD A SEKULICH & NANCY J SEKULICH LIVING TRUST 4940 DEERFIELD WAY #104 NAPLES, FL 34110-2308 '63570000406 ROSE, GLADYS JOAN 14 SULTANA STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12856-0 25569001045 ROSEN, KYLE RICHMAN 315 CYPRESS WAY W NAPLES, FL 34110-0 '53570000446 RUBINOFF, MARK R SALLY A RUBINOFF 4950 DEERFIELD WAY D201 NAPLES, FL 34110-2306 '63570000600 RUIZ, ANTONIO & MARIA A 27775 BEN OAKS DR MECHANICSVILLE, M❑ 20659-0 25144001185 SANDRA BAY LLC 2553 W 118TH TERRACE LEAWOOD, KS 66211-3041 24000201461 SANGHVI, HINA 15145 PALMER LAKE CIR #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000566 SATHAN, ANABEL C & AJAN 4945 COUGAR CT S #105 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000200705 SCHAER, ALFRED E & MARY 15144 PALMER CIR #20-201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000681 SCHARF, DANIEL E & RENA ❑ 506 DAWES AVE UTICA, NY 13502-0 '53570000202 SCHMIDT, RONALD J 316 SAINT FRANCOIS ST FLORISSANT, MO 63031-5016 24000200187 SCHOLES, L CORY BRENDA REEVE 59 ELODIA COURT HAMILTON L9C 7R2 CANADA '53570000325 SHOEMAKER, LORY J 15149 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE 920-203 NAPLES, FL 34117-0 26144000720 SHTERENTAT ZINAYIDA LEON KAYSER 30223 VIEWCREST COURT NOVI, MI 48377-0 26144001363 SHUPENIUK LAND TRUST 4910 COUGAR CT N APT 203 NAPLES, FL 34109-2671 24000200161 SILAR, MARILYN BOYD 15184 BUTLER LAKE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000021 SISK, RON & DEBRA 15205 BUTLER LAKE DRIVE #202 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25559000965 SLIPAKOFF, DAVID & ROBIN 706 HILLSVIEW DRIVE COLLEGEVILLE, PA 19426-0 25569000380 SMARGE, STEPHANIE SARANNA 11373 CHAMPIONSHIP DR FORT MYERS, FL 33913-0 24000200486 SMITH, KEVIN LUCY RIOLINO 4319 NIAGRA RIVER PARKWAY STEVENSVILLE LOS ISO CANADA 24000201403 SORRENTINO, WIGI 80 SAINT ANDREW RD BOSTON, MA 02128-1224 24000200268 SPINA, CHRISTOPHER J & KIM A 9220 BONITA BEACH RD SE # 114 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135-4231 24000200284 STANEK, JOHN KELLY STANEK 4945 COUGAR CT S #103 NAPLES, FL 34109-2676 24000200666 STEPHEN G MATTHEWS LIV TRUST 15 MARIANO DRIVE READING, MA 01867-0 '53570000888 STEPHENS JR, THOMAS SCOTT 4985 SANDRA BAY DR #8 25 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 24000201607 STEWART JR, DENNIS RAY VENESA STEWART 3029 WOLF LAKE BLVD NEW ALBANY, IN 47150-0 26144000306 STOCKWELL, GEORGE M SANDRA K STOCKWELL 57 BENNETTS BRIDGE RD SANDY HOOK, CT 06482-1440 '53570000189 SWEENY, SHARON E JOHNSTON 14 CHOIR LN WESTBURY, NY 11590-0 26144000762 SWEETIN, DENNIS R 4985 SANDRA BAY DR # 8-202 NAPLES, FL 34109-2686 24000201542 TALLEY, ROBERT M & MARGARET A 15173 BUTLER LAKE DRIVE #4-202 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000322 TARANTINO, JASON S 15153 PALMER LAKE CIR #202 NAPLES, FL 34109-9043 26144000627 TARULLO, NANCY PO BOX 97 SHIP BOTTOM, NJ 08008-0 '53570000862 THOMAS E BRIGHAM TRUST P O BOX 660 CHAMPAIGN, IT 61624-0 26144000526 THOMAS S NAREKIAN TRUST 28413 VERDE LANE BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135-0 24000200080 THOMAS TR, NICHOLAS S SUSAN A THOMAS TR N7455 THOMAS LN CRIVITZ, WI 54114-4019 '53510000082 THOMSON, JOHN & ROSLYNE FAIRVIEW OF CRAIGIE WHITECAIRNS AB23 8XE UNITED KINGDOM 25144001321 TIITF fDOT 1ST OF FL PO BOX 1249 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-3000 00198600008 TIPKA, DONALD A & MARIA L 2000 KING JAMES PARKWAY #127 WESTLAKE, OH 44145-0 26144000542 TIPPMANN, GERD & URSULA MATTHAEUSSTR 50 MUELHEIM KAERLIC 56218 GERMANY 26144001143 TORRENS, NAILA 15161 PALMER LAKE CIR #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26569000063 TOWER, KATHERINE C FORREST RTOWER 13225 WABASH #404 CHICAGO, IL 50505-0 26144000859 TRAUNERO, EZIO 59 ANNIE CRAIG DRIVE #2804 ETOBICOKE M8V OC4 CANADA 25569000885 V E & K E GUSTAFSON REV TRUST 54691 BELLINGHAM DR SHELBY TOWNSHIP, MI 46316-1299 '53570000761 VELLA, ANITA 67 FRANKLIN ST BRAINTREE, MA 02184-0 24000200501 VICKERS, JAMES A & SUSAN J 15153 PALMER LAKE CIRCLE #21-203 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000843 VILLAFAN, ERIKA 4985 SANDRA BAY DR #201 NAPLES, FL 34109-2686 24000201526 WALKER, DANIEL O & JILL A 1993 ILER STREET S SALEM, OR 97302-0 26144001509 WALKER, KELLY E & ELIZABETH A 15185 BUTLER LAKE DRIVE #7-102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 25569000526 WELLS, MONA MATTHEW WELLS 3600 LAKEMONT DR BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134-0 26144000966 WEST FLORIDA COMMUNITY RENTALS LLC 30593 HICKORY LN FRANKLIN, MI 48025-0 24000200145 WETTELS, ELAINE FRANCES ROBERT G SIRICO 15141 PALMER LAKE CIR #102 NAPLES, FL 34109-9041 26144000403 WHICKER, MARK S & TERESA K 15137 PALMER LAKE CIR # 203 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000364 WILLIAM C SCHERER TRUST % EXCEL REAL ESTATE 2375 N TAMIAMI TRL #205 NAPLES, FL 34103-0 00198000006 WILLIAMS, RHYS T & GERILYN 137 SELMA BLVD RANDOLPH, NJ 07859-0 25569000908 WINDSONG CLUB APTS LLC 470518TH AVE BROOKLYN, NY 11204-0 001W460008 WISE, JENNIFER R 15144 PALMER LAKE CIR #203 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144001444 WITTHAUER, PAUL W LYNNETTE N WITTHAUER 3020 83 112 AVE SE JAMESTOWN, ND 58401-0 26144001305 WOJCICKI, CAROL A 356 CHRISTY ROAD EIGHTY FOUR, PA 15330-0 53570000286 XING, YI XUAN 15140 PALMER LAKE CIR #202 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144001541 YATES, CHERYL H CAROLYN S HOFFACKER 15185 BUTLER LAKE DR #101 NAPLES, FL 34109-9030 25569000500 ZAHR, SAMEER 4041 GULF SHORE BLVD N #1004 NAPLES, FL 34103-0 25569000558 ZASA, DOREEN A 15164 BUTLER LAKE DR #102 NAPLES, FL 34109-0 26144000047 ZIEGLER, RONALD JANET KURNICK ZIEGLER 23362 PORTAGE WAY #2107 NOVI, MI 49375-0 53510000901 Blue Coral Apartments Petitions PL20190001600 & PL20190001620 Planned Unit Development & Growth Management Plan Amendment Neighborhood Information Meeting New Hope Ministries 7675 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 August 25, 2020 at 6pm Summary of Meeting Signs were placed outside and within the church for attendees to find the meeting location. ABB provided face mask and hand sanitizer to attendees at the table at the entrance of the room. Individual sign in sheets and pens were provided at every seat while accommodating social distancing guidelines. The meeting was called to order at approximately 6:02pm by Tom Barber with Agnoli, Barber & Brundage to talk about Blue Coral Apartments. He then introduced David Bastos and Gregg Fusaro with CIG Naples, Land Use Attorney Jeff Wright, Engineer Dominic Amico, Transportation Norman Trebilcock, and Environmentalists Bethany Brosius. Tom Barber then begins Zoom Call presentation explaining the project location is about half a mile West of 175 south side of Immokalee road, subject site in yellow near Walmart extra space storage Marriott suites and seed to table, area in purple is the proposed Germain Immokalee PUD/GMPA. Future land Use exhibit shown in pink is the activity center number 4 and yellow is our project site which is in the urban residential subdistrict and purple is the Germain Immokalee proposed subdistrict blue is Seed to Table commercial subdistrict is the parking area. Looking closer at the layout most of the existing properties have been developed into PUD whether is residential or commercial or mixed -use PUD. This project will consist of 280 units, multi -family residential development that include studio one bedroom two bedroom and three -bedroom residences. The project will buffer residences to the west from neighboring commercial developments, this is a logical transition from a high intensity commercial activity center. Property is zoned Ag-2, its 9.35 acres and will be applying for two different applications the Growth Management Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development. As part of the Growth Management Plan Amendment, certain requirements are set forth the subdistrict 9.35 acres and the development will be encouraged to be a Planned Unit Development and maximum density allowed 30 units per acre. With the Growth Management Plan Amendment, a future land use element will need to be amended and subdistrict map created, Blue Coral apartments subdistrict. The Planned Unit Development will be broken into two tracts, tract A will be the preserve and tract B will be principle use of the residential multi -family. Accessory uses to the multi family use will be the leasing center, fitness facility, clubhouse, pools, hot tubs, and other uses. The development standards for the PUD set forth how the project will be developed, there is a minimum square footage for the apartments, zoned height will be 55ft, the setbacks from the boundaries will generally be 50 percent of the building height. PUD is set forth for the Master Concept Plan, tract A on the left will be the preserve and tract B will be development and I will go through the development and layout on the next slide, but you can see the access points by the arrows. Looking at overall perspective the project site shown in yellow fits in well with the other surrounding developments. From a transportation perspective the trip cap is proposed at 119 pm peak hours two- way trips and the project will have a shared access with interconnections to adjacent properties. The site will be buffered to the east and west with 15-foot type B buffers and to the south with roughly 170-foot preserve. Conceptual design of the site is laid out so that the building will be facing the east far away from the residential area as possible, well landscaped and buffered from the other surrounding areas. In the middle of the buildings will have some of the amenities, parking structure in between the buildings and parking on site with access points to the east will be shared with the neighboring development. Here are some of the proposed rent for those units, some of the units will be at 80 to 100 percent of the area median income which will help with some of the workforce housing that is needed in collier county So looking at buffers, the buffer to the south facing the Livingston Lakes will be 170 foot preserve and the buildings will be roughly 250 feet apart, the dash blue line is the site line what the view might look like from the second floor of Livingston lakes building. To the west of abutting Bermuda Palms the buildings are roughly 200 feet apart and in between is a parking area from Bermuda Palms, drive aisle with parking, their buffer, 15 feet type B buffer, another drive aisle parking area with 5 foot sidewalk with foundation plants in front the building. So looking along Immokalee Road, from the southern profile perspective the areas in orange reflect commercial and the areas in blue are residential so moving to east to west you can see this is a transition down from commercial to residential. With the proposed project shown in black from the bottom roughly around 49 feet tall. Connectivity is important so we are going to connect to the existing sites to the proposed sites and allow access to Juliet Blvd. to take some of the strain off Immokalee road. Also, the preserve has been laid out to allow connectivity to the other existing preserves and buffer residences to the south. The lighting will be designed intentionally so that the parking is lit from as far away from communities as possible. There will be safety lighting as well. Just some of the project highlights, it will have a thoughtful and intentional design. It is laid out to diminish impact on surrounding communities. It will allow for a multi -family residential development that will include studio, one bedroom, two bedrooms, and three -bedroom residences. It will be an appropriate transition from the high intensity commercial. It does respond to the needs to Collier County workforce that currently commute from rural residential areas by design and the development will incorporate units that are smaller square footage and create workforce affordability. So, if all the Zoom attendees can please email me their information, name and address on the following slide and I can entertain any questions you might have. So, if you want to raise your hand if you have any questions, I would be happy to unmute you and answer your questions. "Tom states to the Zoom Meeting". No questions were asked James Sabo then asked how many people are on Zoom, Tom states right now just 2. Does anybody here have any questions. If you do have any questions please email me ill be happy to answer them, thank you very much for coming. James Sabo then ask if both Zoom meeting people got the email address, Tom answers yes, I believe so it was on the slide. James then introduces himself; he is with the county as the principal planner of the project and if anyone has any questions, you do have my email. Tom states, there were 2 people online. The meeting was adjourned at about 6:15pm. This meeting was audio recorded by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage; a copy of which has been provided to the County. The meeting summary was also prepared by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. August 25th, 2020 at 6:00 PM New Hope Ministries, 7675 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL Name Street Address/ Email Address Tom Barber 24199 Mountain View Dr., Bonita Springs, FL 34135/ tom.barber@abbinc.com Jackson McConnell 1277 Belaire Ct., Naples FL, 34110/ mcconnell@abbinc.com Farihah Singh 4339 Cortina Circle Fort Myers, FL 33916/ singh@abbinc.com Brent Bolde 1223 Commonwealth circle F204, Naples FL/ bolde@abbinc.com James Sabo 2800 Horseshoe N., Naples FL/ james.sabo@colliercountyfl.gov Kellie Fissinger 24199 Mountain view Dr., Bonita Springs/ fissinger@abbinc.com William Scherer 2375 Tamiami Tr. N, Naples, FL 34103/ excelrenaples@aol.com David Bastos 2525 Handasyde Ct., Cincinnati, OH 45208/ dbastos@cigproperties.com Norman Trebilcock ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Dominick Amico amico@abbinc.com pg. 1 August 25th, 2020 at 6:00 PM New Hope Ministries 7675 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL Name Address pg. 2 Name Address pg. 3 Name Address pg. 4 (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. 1. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED ?A-rR/ CK WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER Z.o/g�06/Colo/CPSS-2oZo 2: d— Zo/9c�oo/(oao / GN TURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER CIT , STATE ZIP The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 6C)A% day of , 20ZI , by Tartir.lck V wnaSSe , personally known tome or who produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) KAYLABENSON Notary Public - State of Florida commission : GG 911199 My comm. Expires Sep 9, 2023 of No4ary Public Name of Notary Public Rev. 3/4/2015 !ti 33tix1Z3`.i 'OT ENT; AL d Radeve-kopment �amily f P cl-F i PUBLIC HEAPING NOTICE' '93H.dl'> NX INTIFNANZE RUSIONTIA[ INFILL SUBDISTRICT 11ANAtFMM PLAN AlAENI MEW(GNIPA) "M 20I94001620/CPSS-2020-2 FS�Ci i7AlWE CORAL APARTIMUS RP119 IaKI ti�,� ur�ar q�btDEVELOPMENT RFZONE(pUBZ� • we. 2019060111 0 3, 102, . :IIO st�A �c$; T�, tntmlj 9.00 6a�rernmt >a.,n A� MIpE i1OSGi kmi ite�! Ito ��ow �t6a Joitphitt M. 34112 �-' 4 C ttT vr•• -� �!! tl't� it , ''Y «+. 14 y _ice' t r � � "-• ,/ •�' * f � 1 � MoscaMichele From: Diane Doherty <dianedoherty@me.com> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 2:36 PM To: MoscaMichele; MedinaJosephine Cc: Linda Durkee Subject: Petition Opposing Blue Coral Developmentt EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Attachment available until Jun 9, 2021 Dear Ms. Mosca and Ms. Medina, Please find attached several petitions from the residents of Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Association, Inc. opposing the following: (1) We oppose the use of Bermuda Palms for ingress and/or egress by Blue Coral Apartments or any other entity, including Germain Lexus, and for any other purpose, and (2) We oppose the approval of Blue Coral Apartments unless its proposed size of up to 280 units is reduced by at least 50 percent. These petitions are being submitted today, May 10, to meet the deadline for inclusion in the packet of materials to go to the Commissioners. Click to Download Scan 23.pdf 24.6 M B Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by email: dianedoherty@me.com or by mobile: 240-381- 4310. Sincerely yours, Diane M, Doherty President, Board of Directors 1 BERMIJU)A PALMS OF NAPLES CONOOMINIUM ASSOCV-,% f 0,' : o C/O ABILITY -MANAGEMENT 673E LONE OAK BLVD. NAPLES, FL 34109 PHONE: 3 9-591-4200 �%'Ir rd 9 cc V1 �z,alRi�y� I;,,sagy P9��senu,dn3fari BeffKaudai Palm!; of Na;i�� ��nsioe��i�aQnu 3 �1JJ��ia2�on, Inc. to BlueC@1@9 Apartments) 1 ate: may P 20"'� � 1^Y'a the uugdersRgnmr d, as Owners of the Bermuda Palms condo development on Ir""okel" € 00d In Napless F`, hereby express our opposition to the proposed Blue Coral Apartmments on Immokalee Road as follows: 1 WO appose the use of Bermuda Palms for ingress and/or regress by Ifflue coral Apartments or any other entity, including Germain LexrM, and 90Y anV other purpose, and, �2) tVfl uflbPose thP. aWOVal of Blue Coral Apartments unless its pO'og 050d size of up to 28o units is reduced by at least 50 percent, Diane M. 0 President, Owners Pleasar d; a kin `f cla S- S7a-rx*c,, fie, u v i -r ao - Deb Swinderman Kz am..c, m Fwd: Bermuda Palms Petition May 9, 2021 at 8:30:59 PM Diane Doherty 4 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Anna Fichera <anna16anna@yahoo.com> Date: Sun, May 9, 2021 at 6:45 PM Subject: Re: Bermuda Palms Petition To: DebPabilityteam.com <Deb@ bilityteam.com> Anna and Frank Fichera 4935 Sandra Bay Drive Naples Florida 34109 On Wednesday, May 5, 2021, 03:38:24 PM EDT, Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Deb Swinderman <deb@abilityteam.com> wrote: Hello again I just realized that some of you may not have the ability to sign the attached petition, and scan back to me. I will accept an email with your address and unit number in lieu of a signature, sorry for the inconvenience. Deb Swinderman CAM Ability Management Inc. 6736 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 239-591-4200 PETITION To; Collier Bounty Planning Commission From: Bermud;; Pallas of Naples Condominium Association, Inc. Re; 013120MOOn to Blue Coral Apartments Date: Mays, 2021 We the undersigned, as owners of the Bermuda Palms condo development on Immokelee Road in Naples, FL, hereby express our opposition to the proposed Blue moral apartments on Immokelee Road as follows: (lj Ufa OF Pose the use of Bermuda Palms for ingress and/or egress by Blue Coral Apartments or any other entity, including Germain Lexus, and for any other purpose, and; (2) We oppose the approval of Blue Coral Apartments Unless its proposed size of up to 280 units is reduced by at least So percent. ---- =----- Funa ar ded Ernessage--------- From: nAuster cnr anapv <Irasmussen2102@gmail.com> Date: -Sat, May 8, 20211 a- 1--'4S5 PM Subject: Petition 1b: <Deb(@abilityteam."--,�= d> Good] ave—Rhg Deb, My husbmnd and � i/woWd Does W -q ggn the- pat; aW Our hformaodon Ds as uaflmus. Olaf and Lauren Rasnn)ciooen 4935 Sande bay Dr. Unit 3-204 Nna p os, FL 34109 H�0wa a �wof�,der" -G I nOgMg U,�IMrem [Rais munseen INC. ABUTY MANAWEMENT LONE OAK a LVD, MAPLES, EL 34109 'HONE; 239-591-4200 VIE-rF-Tro"'Y .i. rity Plzmr.e7',t Rmr to RIv-m �-,)-,-A! Ap.,rtmkbnt; In "9.hdd de vt-IV 0 pm clan MAPIr3a, our uppfiTftion trlhq 7r:?poirj 1.: -,,rQt ik:: ,7. j*jj"k*;,qe 3 tCad aS fDj30W,5. jig C-1,0,ea ,447� S%,v,6F-4 RA-j �? i v tA,,v I *.r ,,got FW: Bermuda Palms Petition May 6, 2021 at 4:34 PM Diane Dohery From: PATRICIA ROMERO <flaquital9741 @hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 4.32 PM To: DebCabilityteam.com Subject: Re: Bermuda Palms Petition I vehemently oppose the ingress and egress by using Sandra Bay Dr. This road is already congested and adding an additional 200+ units with the blue coral apartments will become an absolute nightmare, getting out of Sandra Bay Drive. At the very minimum I would suggest that the proposed blue coral apartments be reduced by a minimum of 50%. Patricia Romero 4965 Sandra Bay Dr. Apt 202, Naples FI. 34109 From: Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Deb Swinderman <Deb@abilityteam.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 3:34 PM To: Patricia Romero <fla�uital97419hotmail.com> Subject: Bermuda Palms Petition Hello again I just realized that some of you may not have the ability to sign the attached petition, and scan back to me. I will accept an email with your address and unit number in lieu of a signature, sorry for the inconvenience. Deb Swinderman CAM Ability Management Inc. 6736 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 239-591-4200 6 � definitely concur that 0 vneould not approve of the additional traffic and chaos and danger of i avv ng the new residents of the Blue Corgi A par-TmierMs sharing our e n'iry way and exit. Please acknovioc9go our roqueWs. Th-nk you. Rosanne Griffin Bermuds,,i 'palms Bldg 7 Unit 102 f 975 S19A)bFI/i slqY -IAZ 6- FW: petition May 6, 2021 at 12:16 PM Diane Dohery From: michael devita <michaeldevita@att.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 3:24 PM To: Deb@abilityteam.com Subject: petition BERHUVA PALMS Of MAPLES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. C/O ABILITY MANAGEMENT 5736 LONE OAK OLVD. NAPLES, AFL 34109 PHONE; 239-591-4200 PETITION To; collia' County Planning Commission From: Berret+q,;. Palms of Maples Condominium Association, Inc, Re: Qppm zic;;on to chit Carol Apartments Date: Meer S, 2021 We the vnde-rsZgned, os Owners of the Bermuda Palms condo Aevetopment on Immokeles R0*11In "$Pigs, FL, hereby express our opposltion to the proposed Blue I:oral ♦,partfwts on Immokalco Read as f+ paws; (1 ) WO ntpoxe the use of Bermuda Palms for ingress and/or egress by ShAe Coral Apartments or any other entity, induding Sarmoln Lexns, and for any other purpose, t►nd; (2) die 044mse the approval of Blue Coral Apartments unless its proposed size of up to 280 units Is reduced by at least 50 percent Diane M. noh ; Ly Pr+esldent, ila -.3 of hectors Owners Piease f11119101i ' N: . / n �A 11. i* /may. ,'vr�r r l •mil J %3ANI+kol ZAy jeiY FW: Bermuda Palms Petition May 6, 2021 at 12:15 PM Diane Dohery From: Icdurkee@aol.com <Icdurkee@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 3:55 PM To: Deb@abilityteam.com Subject: Re: Bermuda Palms Petition HI Deb, Thanks. Here is my information -- for supporting the petition: Linda Durkee 4985 Sandra Bay Drive #104 Naples, FL 34109 Best to you, Linda -----Original Message ----- From: Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Deb Swinderman Deb@abiiityteam.com> To: Linda C. Durkee �lcdurkee@aol.com> Sent: Wed, May 5, 2021 3:34 pm Subject: Bermuda Palms Petition Hello again I just realized that some of you may not have the ability to sign the attached petition, and scan back to me. I will accept an email with your address and unit number in lieu of a signature, sorry for the inconvenience. Deb Swinderman CAM Ability Management Inc. 6736 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 239-591-4200 FW: Bermuda Palms Petition May 6, 2021 at 12:15 PM Diane Dohery From: tom narekian <narekiantom@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 4:25 PM To: Deb@abilityteam.com Subject: Re: Bermuda Palms Petition Thomas Narekian 4910 Cougar court unit #104 1 am vehemently opposed to this development as it encroaches on Bermuda Palms PS Thank you for your efforts! Sent from my iPhone On May 5, 2021, at 3:38 PM, Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Deb Swinderman <Deb@abi!ityteam.com> wrote: Hello again I just realized that some of you may not have the ability to sign the attached petition, and scan back to me. I will accept an email with your address and unit number in lieu of a signature, sorry for the inconvenience. Deb Swinderman CAM Ability Management Inc. 6736 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 239-591-4200 cs�vi rt �aa FIN: Bermuda Palms Notice of Public Hearing May 6, 2021 at 12:10 PM Diane Dohery From: Steven Meckstroth <sameckstroth@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 5:22 PM To: Deb@abilityteam.com Subject: Re: Bermuda Palms Notice of Public Hearing I would like to oppose the use of Bermuda Palms for ingress and egress as it will make the neighborhood more dangerous for Tennants and especially children. Would be willing to help fund a lawsuit to prevent this from happening !!! Steven Meckstroth On May 5, 2021, at 2:41 PM, Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Deb Swinderman <Deb@abiiityteam.com> wrote: Hello Everyone This is regarding a Notice of Public Hearing which all owners should have received by US Mail on Monday, May 3, 2021, regarding a proposed 280 unit apartment development known as "Blue Coral Apartments" adjacent to Bermuda Palms with planned future ingress and egress out of our small community. I have a prepared a petition if any owners wishes to sign it for submission to the Collier County Planning Commission: l . Opposing ingress and egress from Bermuda Palms: and 2. Proposing that the development be scaled down from the 280 units by at least 50%. Unfortunately, time is not in our favor as the Commission has requested that all material to be included on the agenda package be submitted to them 10 days prior to the Public Hearing scheduled for May 20, 2021. If any owner wishes to sign this petition, it must be returned by email to Deb abilityteam.com, no later that Sunday evening, May 9, 2021 for submission prior to the deadline. Please see attached petition and notice of the Public Hearing. thank you Deb Swinderman CAM Ability Management Inc. 6736 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 FW: Bermuda Palms Petition May 6, 2021 at 12:08 PM Diane Dohery From: John Palmitano <jpnd20 @yahoo. com> Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 6:30 PM To: Deb@abilityteam.com Subject: Re: Bermuda Palms Petition Mary and I agree with your letter and will vote that way. Thanks Mary & Sebastian Palmitano 4910 Cougar Ct. N Apt 202 Naples, FI. On Wednesday, May 5, 2021, 03:38:11 PM EDT, Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Deb Swinderman <deb@abilityteam.com> wrote: Hello again I just realized that some of you may not have the ability to sign the attached petition, and scan back to me. I will accept an email with your address and unit number in lieu of a signature, sorry for the inconvenience. Deb Swinderman CAM Ability Management Inc. 6736 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 239-591-4200 L"J" r' of 'Any Oth*kr f CV1111Y, c q 15*rm-01r. ' !Vr any o,lner p4rpoxo, and; the' 4WO"; Ofliur Carol Aparkm*nts O.njpx� its %i.xvoug unite hi seduced by ate least So p#rr .an - FW: Bermuda Palms Petition May 6, 2021 at 11:48 AM Diane Dohery From: Anita Vella <vellaanita@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:47 AM To: Deb@abilityteam.com Subject: Re: Bermuda Palms Petition My address is: Bermuda Palms 4935 Sandra Bay Drive, Unit 105 Naples, FL 34109 Thank you! Anita On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:25 AM Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Deb Swinderman <Deb@ abilityteam.com> wrote: Hello again I just realized that some of you may not have the ability to sign the attached petition, and scan back to me. I will accept an email with your address and unit number in lieu of a signature, sorry for the inconvenience. Deb Swinderman CAM Ability Management Inc. 6736 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 239-591-4200 FW: Bermuda Palms Petition May 6, 2021 at 11:46 AM Diane Dohery From: Kathleen Brainerd <kbrainerd2@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 6:50 AM To: Inc - Deb Swinderman Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc <d eb @ ab i I ityteam . co m> Subject: Fw: Bermuda Palms Petition Sent from the all new AOL app for Android ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Deb Swinderman" <Deb @abili1yteam.com> To: "Kathy Brainerd/Richard DiCapua" <kbraincrd2@ao1.com> Cc: Sent: Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:38 PM Subject: Bermuda Palms Petition Hello again I just realized that some of you may not have the ability to sign the attached petition, and scan back to me. I will accept an email with your address and unit number in lieu of a signature, sorry for the inconvenience. Deb Swinderman CAM Ability Management Inc. 6736 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 239-591-4200 From: Kathleen Brainerd and Richard DiCapua of 4910 Cougar Ct Unit 101, Naples Florida 34109 in Bermuda Palms. We are opposed to the ingress and/or egress through Bermuda Palms by this planned construction as well as the sheer size. We are a small community withe small children children using our entrance for school busses. Also, the sheer size of this new community will overwhelm the traffic entering g and exiting the main road which is already a major traffic issue. FW: Bermuda Palms Petition May 6, 2021 at 11:45 AM Diane Dohery From: wlm0525@gmaii.com <wlm0525@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 8:00 AM To: Deb@abilityteam.com Subject: Re: Bermuda Palms Petition would like to go on record as opposing the use of Sandra Bay Drive for ingress and egress for the proposed "Blue Coral apartment complex and the Germain Lexus facility. Further, I would suggest that the proposal to built 280 units be reduced by at least 50%. The amount of of vehicle traffic on Sandra Bay drive is currently overwhelmingly at times and additional traffic could create a serious hazard to the residents of Bermuda Palms. Wayne McLeod 4965 Sandra Bay Drive #103 Naples FI 34109 On May 6, 2021, at 2:45 AM, Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Deb Swinderman <Deb@abilityteam.cam> wrote: Hello again I just realized that some of you may not have the ability to sign the attached petition, and scan back to me. I will accept an email with your address and unit number in lieu of a signature, sorry for the inconvenience. Deb Swinderman CAM Ability Management Inc. 6736 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 239-591-4200 Babette Densmore Re: Petition opposing Blue Coral Apartments attached May 5, 2021 at 8:37 PM LINDA DURKEE 2 SIGNATURES FOR THE PETITION James Densmore Jeanne Babette Densmore 4985 Sandra Bay Dr, Unit #105 Naples, FL 34109 EMAIL: jbdensmoreggmail.com PHONE: 407-885-0655 Living Gods Love On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 8:54 AM dcdurkee@aoi.com> wrote: Hi Diane, Attached is the draft petition in opposition to the proposed Blue Coral Apartments for your review and amendment, if necessary. My recommendation is that, once it is distributed and signed, that it be sent in to the staff person noted on the public hearing notice -- Thomas Clarke@CollierCountyFL.Gov -- and to each of the Collier County Planning Commissioners -- their names and emails links are listed on the Collier County Planning Commission site found at colliercountyfl.gov. The hearing notice says that anything intended to be included in the agenda packets for commissioners "must submit materials a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing." That date is May 20 -- a short window of opportunity. Linda Fs e u � G1 C OF 2AGILPs; 19(-BI t r,� IiGJ`BpiIQ ['Aol l 7-3 P-In, ;'� TO)Z IqN s mnCDP is0, v n Alai 0 2 -oMar 6;quuf;' Haw[ARCI ID:?3'L!f�dl+.np�(�io-; PAW;'S oly ue`cP, 3Res Comaf7 yU'u��6(pdha'" Ste, 10 h tH Lea II F + Lti� ;::lu +6VC(c�J U4L"ci IN'Na tNa � � i � �n cse s Qg, Uum"' s 02 +say Dawc-'-JU-05a P-dam" c o)mde O BR-mcwhmor.'a 20ad 14-4 rdp.�Fpes, UFO,,, k Roby Q"t3[t7mos, 0Juti cq �'iosiiC;ii4�3U"d W 2hu p b_ p r �-y S' �' pine p 7SQ4 59no` °Y, o"miU Alga rt {rm" G:ms V, a U6a d�ua.�lmor4w �-wind- `70 710, 000, G7ca €uL� Wia oppose thQ use ®d' gC:D'6uaGB Lt , fayRrim-lu'i: ss cJmrW6L' wbimss by Lexm, @mc9 ffac ai-,my a-dmu— FEY p ==sn" apadp C^ n proposed wr«c" OU r =Up 'M3 2@1 €n"6-S Is y oghun (A" ry? r;,9c p si 50 pact aat Man M. 00-A cl-f;�r o?co, µ:, ray: AP ✓ G�uC+t'1 idle 2,� UrZr�G , .. Z�"; �. 00v;l;Pstc ° �ttrAU FW: Bermuda Palms Petition May 6, 2021 at 11:42 AM Diane Dohery From: Kirstin Cianti <canti@ me.com> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 8:56 AM To: Deb@abilityteam.com Subject: Re: Bermuda Palms Petition I support this petition. 4965 Sandra Bay Drive Unit 203. Ki rsti n On May 5, 2021, at 3:38 PM, Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Deb Swinderman <debG abiiityteam.com> wrote: Hello again I just realized that some of you may not have the ability to sign the attached petition, and scan back to me. I will accept an email with your address and unit number in lieu of a signature, sorry for the inconvenience. Deb Swinderman CAM Ability Management Inc. 6736 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 239-591-4200 BERMUDA PAUAz,� OF NAPLES CQmDAMINUM ASSOCIATJUUuj, Q;, 11 iLITY MANAGEMENT 33 -ii)S LONE OAK BLVD. Fti44PLESI FL 3ap4y'I €09 j' ��71ON Toa Collier 4vgunty Planning Commission From: Bermudv Palms of Naples Condondnium Association, Inc. Rena OPpopifi:ion to Blue Coral Apartments Date: Mays, 2029 We the undersigned, as o° miy L:)U - �a Bermuda paims condo develo a:�ogzt on lmmol8tee Road i" maples, YL, Vuou-e y f.-:tpress our opposition to the Proposed Blue Coral Apartments P;mmokalee Road as follows: e api pose thQ u -�4 r f1 Bermuda Palms for ingress and/or egress by Ol$st- Cara/ Apartments or any other entity, including Germain '14xasg and for any other purpose, and; We oppose the approval of Blue Coral Apartments unless its PPposed sine;; , ;cam 280 units is reduced by at.least So percent. Diane M. aa-41rtv President,3+ Owners Pleas: lit v FW: Petition to block new construction of Blue Coral Apartments May 6, 2021 at 11:39 AM Diane Dohery -----Original Message ----- From: Margot John <margotjohnl @mac.com> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:52 AM To: Deb Swinderman <deb@abilityteam.00m> Subject: Petition to block new construction of Blue Coral Apartments This is Margot John, owner of unit 103, 4910 Cougar North, Naples,FL. I strongly OPPOSE the use of Bermuda Palms as access and egress for the construction of Blue Coral apartments. Also, should the construction go through, I am strongly in FAVOUR of the complex being cut to half the current proposed size from 280 units down to 140 units. Thank you and regards, Margot John (Mrs) Sent from my iPad Deb Swinderman Fwd: Blue Coral apartments May 5, 2021 at 3:40 PM Diane Doherty - — — Forwarded message -------- From: Kim Russo <karrnl7@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:35 PM Subject: RE: Blue Coral apartments To: Deb Swinderman <deb@abilityteam com> We enjoy the privacy and lack of noise of our small community. There is already too much traffic between us and Juliet many times making it very difficult to exit our community as well as frequent gridlock at Livingston and Juliet. We are in building 8, #202 and it was a positive feature being at the end of the development, eliminating through traffic. This will most likely affect our property value negatively. Dominick and Kimberly Russo. 447,66 �{,V b q 4 Jry k. Gt�t/i 7 d� Sent from my U.S. Geeiioara smarq)hona -- -- Original message ---- From: Deb Swinderman <dab C abilitvteam.com> Date: 5/521 3:07 PM (GMT 05:00) To: Kim Russo G<arrnl7Ghotnlail.00nl>, Diane Doherty<dianedohzrty me.com> Subject: Re: Blue Coral apartments Hi, you ran email back to me your comments of your opposition and also include the address and unit number of your condo, thanks Deb On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 2:53 PM Kim Russo <i arrnl7 @hotmaiLconv wrote: How do we sign this petition. We are in Maryland right now. We DEFINITELY are opposed and wish to sign. Thanks Sent from my U.S. CeflulaO-j Smartphone BERMUDA PALMS OF NAPLES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. C/O ABILITY MANAGEMENT +6736 LONE OAK BLVD, MAPLES, FL 34109 PHONE; 239-591-4200 ET IT ON To: Colliecr County Planning Commission From: Bermvft maims of Naples Condominium Association, Inc. R&,e OPPOVN,con to 'lue Coral Apartments Dater Ma-V " 2021 We the undersigned, as owners of the Bermuda Palms =s),Tv o development -on Immokalees Road In Naples, FL, hereby express our opposition to the proposed Blase Coral Apartments on Ir�mok�tl�e Road as follows.- �1� W4P. OPPOse the use of Bermuda Palms for Ingress and/or z , Blue Coral Apartments or any other +entity, including Germain LeMbs, and:for any other purpose, and; (2) Wit OPPose the apprOVal of Blue Coral Apartments unless its pro -posed size of up to 280 units is reduced W; at least 50 percent. Dime M. 0 President, owners Please Deb &Mnderman Re: Bermuda Palms Notice of Public Hearing May 5, 2021 at 3:16 PM John Shupeniuk Diane Doherty Yes, thank you John On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:15 PM John Shupeniuk <sixshuoeroa hotmail.com> wrote: Consider the petition signed by me John Shupeniuk, Building 1-203. Hope this is sufficient. Tks John It N� Z A103 Sent from Outlook From: Bermuda Palms of Naples Condominium Assoc, Inc - Deb Swinderman <Deb@abilityteam.com> Sent: May 5, 2021 1:21 PM To: Shupeniuk Land Trust <sixshuper@hotmail.com> Subject: Bermuda Palms Notice of Public Hearing Hello Everyone This is regarding a Notice of Public Hearing which all owners should have received by US Mail on Monday, May 3, 2021, regarding a proposed 280 unit apartment development known as 'Blue Coral Apartments" adjacent to Bermuda Palms with planned future ingress and egress out of our small community. I have a prepared a petition if any owners wishes to sign it for submission to the Collier County Planning Commission: 1. Opposing ingress and egress from Bermuda Palms: and 2. Proposing that the development be scaled down from the 280 units by at least 50%. Unfortunately, time is not in our favor as the Commission has requested that all material to be included on the agenda package be submitted to them 10 days prior to the Public Hearing scheduled for May 20, 2021. If any owner wishes to sign this petition, it must be returned by email to Deb(a)abilityteam.com, no later that Sunday evening, May 9, 2021 for submission prior to the deadline. Please see attached petition and notice of the Public Hearing. thank you Deb Swinderman CAM Ability Management Inc. 6736 Lone Oak Blvd Naples, FL 34109 239-591-4200 SEBWLD[xi pl4eLF;0- J F G iZIPLES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. C ABILITY MANAGEMENT P7'BS LONE OAK BLVD. ° 1140LES, FL 34109 PHONE: 239-591 -4200 c os Collier q'w., my Planning Co,�mi� From: BOrmud6l Palms of Maples CondomkAum Association, Inc. Re: Opposifdon to Blase Coral apartments Date: Mays,, 2021 We the endersi gnad, as owners of the Bermuda Palms condo development on Immakalee Road in Naples,, FL,, hereby express our opposition to the proposed Blue Corral i) Tartments on Immokalee [toad as follows: 1� 10— OPPOse thez uza of Bermuda Palms for ingress and/or egress by BIEae Coral Apartments or any other entity, including Germain Lexos, and for any other purpose, and; (2) Wk. OpPOse the approval of 90ue Coral Apartments unless its proposed size of up to 280 units Is reduced by at least 50 percent, Diane M. Dolt -;.!? President, ii .N vi? �CK PALMS OF NAPLE5 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. CA3 ABILITY MANAGEMENT 5736 LONE OAK BLVD. NAPLES, FE 34109 PHONE.- 239-591-4200 PETITION To: Colli" )Lnty planning Commission ii ors;, Berr'AV'gf;"airer cif Napies Condominium Association, Inc. Re:Oppt.,M8.;4 on to Blue Coral Apartments We the t� sngoad, as owners of the Bermuda Palms condo development on Immokalet kF ,± o iR NaPlt%., Ft, htreby express our opposition to the proposed i i ;:.c ra6 "kPartments on. Immokalee Road as follows.. 01 WO 0,+ ),Pose than use 15F Bermuda Palms far ingress and/or egress by Obst Loa -al Apart€ean-15 or any other entity, including Germain La xn't, and for any other purpose, and; (2 41" rwi#POse the aPprOval of Blue Coral Apartments unless its Vk3P,rssed size of ap to 280 units is reduced by at least 50 percent. f Diane N. Disc .c ; President, kibu i,'A of" irect cs•s l Owners Pleas: �i�n-,���r> vie � �/� /►. To: Collier County Planning Commission From: Linda Durkee, Owner at Bermuda Palms Re: Opposition to Blue Coral Apartments on Immokalee Road Date: May 10, 2021 Bermuda Palms Association strenuously opposes Blue Coral Apartments. In its May 10 petition to the Commission, it specifically opposes the use of Bermuda Palms for ingress and/or egress by Blue Coral Apartments or any other entity, including the Germain Immokalee Lexus dealership, or any other purpose. The petition also opposes the development of up to 280 multifamily unless its size is reduced by at least 50 percent. No permit can be complete and rise to the level of approval without these issues being settled. As an owner and resident of Bermuda Palms condominiums, I strenuously object to the proposed Blue Coral Apartments. It does not stand on its own merits. The proposal relies on rebuttable presumptions that make it incomplete. A project of this scale needs to be presented as a complete proposal without critical inconsistencies or rebuttable presumptions. The proposal fails to resolve critical issues, including access to Immokalee Road through Bermuda Palms and water usage from Bermuda Palms. In sum, this proposal does not rise to the level of a complete permit application, and thus does not merit approval by the Commission. * Traffic: The development would exacerbate the too high traffic burden on Immokalee Road due to persistent incremental growth in Collier County and threatened further by profound traffic increases expected from development being decided on for new communities to east of I-75. For example, its intersection with nearby Livingston Road is already at a Level of Service that is below optimal County standards. Growth projected in Collier County in the 2025 and 2040 timeframes would lead to Level of Service failure. Traffic levels along Immokalee Road are so high and the area so build out that planners are envisioning construction of an overpass on Livingston Road. How can it make sense to add to this mix vehicle trips from up to 280 multifamily apartments, which translates to approximately two vehicles per household and up to a minimum increase of 560 vehicles? The voluminous Traffic Study submitted with the proposal breaks down the projected increases into road segments and times of day. It says "the proposed development shall not exceed 119 two-way PM peak hour new trips." But traffic on Immokalee Road from Livingston to Blue Coral Apartments is not considered "de minimis." The congestion is the culmination of approvals of incremental increases in vehicle trips. How many trips are still allowed in the traffic budget? The situation already creates risks for pedestrians and bicyclers, overburdens a national hurricane evacuation route, and exacerbates noise and air pollution levels. Many in Collier and Lee Counties and elsewhere have been vociferously complaining about the traffic, straining the ability to work and recreate safely in Collier County. Limited measures cannot resolve them. A recent letter to the editor in the Naples Daily News calls for no new development on Immokalee Road until road congestion is addressed. Anyone in doubt about the horrible traffic situation should take a test drive in rush hour. * Access: The application proposes future access to Blue Coral Apartments through Bermuda Palms, "subject to neighbor approval." Bermuda Palms Association's petition opposes this access. Yet the proposal is put forward on the basis of this rebuttal presumption. The issue of access needs to be resolved prior to permit approval, not after. If allowed, residents would have to live with increased traffic jams, traffic queues, and risks to public safety. The final project would last for decades. The safety and serenity of Bermuda Palms would suffer incalculable harm. Moreover, the proposal shows possible access by Blue Coral Apartments to Immokalee Road through Germain Immokalee Lexus. The proposal says, "Access to the project will be via a shared access with the property to the east on the eastern property line of the project. " However, project documents go on to say, "If the property line split by the property line is not granted, access will be afforded on the subject property only and will accommodate cross access to the property to the East. Design, permitting and construction of the shared access shall be at the time of the first SDP or Plat." So is this access point still up in the air despite the permit for the dealership already having been approved? If this is a fixed part of that project, why is access through Bermuda Palms necessary? Again, the proposal is unresolved and incomplete. No action should be taken without resolving these issues. * Public Utilities: The proposal leaves unresolved access to the water main at Bermuda Palms. It proposes connecting the existing 8" water main serving Bermuda Palms "to a future 8" water main to be extended through Germain Immokalee from an existing water main stub -out at Useppa Way." But this extension is up in the air. The proposal states, "If a connection to the existing 8" water main serving Bermuda Palms is deemed infeasible by Collier County staff at the time of project development, the developer shall instead connect to the existing 20" water main on the north side of Immokalee Road." There is no inherent right for Blue Coral Apartments to tap into Bermuda Palms' water main, nor has permission to use it been sought. Allowing this use could jeopardize Bermuda Palms' compliance with the National Fire Protection Act in a region of Florida at risk from forest fires. It could negatively affect the volume of water available not only for fire safety but also for residential use at Bermuda Palms. These issues, involving both public health and safety, are unresolved. They must be settled before any application is deemed complete and eligible for Commission action. * Layout: The final proposed layout for Blue Coral apartments, including the height, number of floors, and location of the two residential buildings, is unclear and so unresolved. The layout in design submissions varies. The maximum height for the residential buildings would be limited to 60 actual feet and 55 zoned feet. The parking garage, projected at two stories, has a limit of maximum actual height of 35 feet and zoned height of 30 feet. What is the reality for these three structures? The parking garage is an intensive urban facility inconsistent with location in a residential area. How high would the parking garage be once vehicles parked on the top level, elevators, and circulation systems are accounted for? Further, the designs show four floors, but there is a note that the design is subject to change. There could be more. The final project design on the actual number of floors is unclear and unresolved for purposes of Commission decisionmaking. Nearby residential developments are mainly two stories, including at Bermuda Palms. A related inconsistency is the visual height differential with neighboring properties. The proposal says it is including "setback, buffering height limits and landscaping that will assure compatibility with adjacent properties." Who would determine if compatibility was satisfied and when? * Infill: Urban growth management looks for infill opportunities. The proposal calls Blue Coral Apartments "appropriate." It says the project "is in an ideal location for increased density" as it is "along a major thoroughfare, in close proximity to the Immokalee 175 interchange, and almost immediately abutting Mixed Use Activity Center #4, which is home to a mix of uses and significant commercial intensity." These factors are the very reasons why this site is not at all ideal or appropriate. Blue Coral Apartments would connect to residential buildings to the west and commercial development to the east through a congested area where ingress and egress to these entities are already fraught with safety risks for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclers. Saying there is no problem does not make it so. * Summary: Blue Coral Apartments is an inappropriate development for this site due to its size and location in a residential area. The proposal is inconsistent and incomplete because it premises its application in part on access to Immokalee Road through Bermuda Palms condominiums, which the Bermuda Palms Association strenuously opposes. The proposal calls for connecting to the water main at Bermuda Palms, which is another unresolved issue. The developer is asking the Commission to make assumptions about critical aspects about the nature and specifics of this proposal. By definition, these and other issues are rebuttable presumptions the applicant should resolve prior to permitting. The proposal is incomplete and not ready for Commission action. ENGINEERING TO: Hilary Halford FROM: Mike Bosi. AICP SINCE 1946 DATE: December 11, 2020 Final Delivery of Initiative Two, Three, RE: Four and Five —Contract No. 13-6164 The Johnson Engineering Team is pleased to provide to the Housing Operations and Grants Development Staff the proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) & Land Development Code (LDC) changes and support material associated with the final Initiatives recommended by the Collier Housing Plans and directed by the by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at their public hearing on October 8th, 2018. This memorandum is designed to provide a brief description of the final Housing Initiatives, consisting of GNP and LDC changes to implement the Initiatives. It should be noted that the LDC amendments associated with Initiative One, which was delivered on June 25, 2020, are scheduled to be heard by the BCC at their January 26, 2021 public hearing and adopted at their February 9, 2021 public hearing. The draft GMP and LDC amendments have been developed in coordination with Housing Staff and high level review and input from Growth Management Department staff Initiative Two — Five: These Initiatives cover a range of regulatory issues related to the provision of housing that is affordable that were advanced within the Community Housing Plan, these include: 12 - Streamlining conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning when providing for housing that is affordable; I3 - Increasing density within Activity Centers from 16 units per acre to 25 units per acre when providing for housing that is affordable; I4 - Creation of Strategic Opportunity Sites as a identified subdistrict within the GMP to allow for the development of a mixed use development that provides for residential density up to 25 units per acre which is integrated with non-residential land uses with a high degree of employment opportunities, such as corporate headquarters or business campuses; and finally I5 - Increasing density opportunities along bus/transit lines through the creation of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) up to a maximum of 25 units per acre. Each of these Initiatives require amendments to the GMP, which requires a process of review through Transmittal Hearings before the CCPC and the BCC, then review by the State Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), followed by another round of review through Adoption Hearings by the CCPC and the BCC. The process for adoption of GMP amendments typically require 10 to 12 months to satisfy. Following the proposed four Initiatives, the deliverable package provides for an Appendix which contains the data and analysis to support the GMP and LDC amendments. This material is ordered as follows: 1. Marketing Brochure Five Initiatives, 2. 10-09-18 BCC Recap 3. 10-09-18 Housing Executive Summary and Support PowerPoint 4. Collier Housing Plan LTLI Collier Housing Assessment 2350 Stanford Court .Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 434-0333 . Fax (239) 434-9320 Initiative Two OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO rr STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS Statement of Issue — This initiative seeks to streamline the approval process for developments seeking to convert from existing Commercial zoning to Mixed Use and Residential, in exchange for those developments providing their residential units as housing that is affordable. The conversion process is limited to approved commercial zoning found consistent by policies 5.9 through 5.13 of the Future Land Use Element. The initiative seeks to reduce the uncertainty and the amount of time associated with the public hearing approval process for projects that seek to reduce overall intensity from commercial to mixed use or residential use. To be eligible for the administrative approval, the proposed project must contain a commitment for providing housing that is affordable. Strategy to implement — The Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan through policy 5.3.e allows for an evaluation of an existing project against a proposed project through a comparison of the overall intensity of development based upon public facilities impact, with transportation impact being the primary evaluation criteria, with a secondary analysis of utility impacts. Based upon this established process to evaluate or compare projects, the GMP and the LDC would be amended to add housing that is affordable as a permitted use in all commercial zoning districts when a traffic impact analysis, as provided for in the FLUE, yields a result of equal or reduced traffic impacts for a proposed residential or mixed use project. To qualify as a permitted use the project must contain a housing that is affordable commitment. Issues to Consider — The County Attorney's office has stated that the Board cannot allocate it zoning powers to another body or an administrative process. Based upon this opinion the original concept behind this initiative, for a conversion project to submit for staff administrative review, with the Hearing Examiner certifying the application has meet the required regulatory code was abandoned. The concept of streamlining the conversion process is still desired, but the proposed strategy to attain will have to satisfy the County Attorney's Office concerns. To address this concern, the initiative seeks to add to the Commercial zoning districts, housing that is affordable as a permitted use. This addition of housing that is affordable as a permitted use to the commercial zoning districts would eliminate the need to rezone commercial property. Area of change —Future Land Use Element (FLUE) & Land Development Code (LDC) II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES GOAL: TO GUIDE LAND USE DECISION -MAKING SO AS TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY NATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WELL PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WHICH PROMOTE THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL DESIRES. 12/8/2020 Initiative Two P� OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS OBJECTIVE 1: Promote well planned land uses consistent with Future Land Use Designations, Districts and Subdistricts and the Future Land Use Map to ensure compatibility between the natural and human environments. xxxxxxxxxxxxx�kkkkkk**kk*xx�xkxxxxxkxxx***�Fkkkk����x*xxxieiekxxkx�xk���:�xxxrx:F4:9:k OBJECTIVE 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. Policy 5.1: Land use policies supporting Objective 5 shall be implemented upon the adoption of the Growth Management Plan. xxxxxxx�*�xxx�'er.:ti*9:�9:�kkk�Fkxxxxxxxxxicxxkkkk�:t�': ��F k�F �F�xkkxxxxxxxxxx*4: �: 9: 9: 9:*9: k9c �:xk:� Policy 5.17: Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts To encourage the provision of housing that is affordable within the Urban Mixed Use District, sites zoned Commercial, which have been found consistent by policy and contain a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable shall be a permitted use up to a density of 16 gross units per acre subject to satisfying a traffic impact analysis. The proposed affordable housing project's traffic impact shall be evaluated against the highest intensity use within the applicable commercial zoning district and contain a reduced impact to qualifypermitted use. LDC 2.03.03 — Commercial Zoning Districts A. Commercial Convenience District (C-1). 1. permissible by right, or as accessory or intermediate district (C-3). The following uses, as identified with a number from Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for conditional uses a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). the Standard Industrial within this section are within the commercial 4. Housing that is Affordable, subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning_ Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. 12/8/2020 Initiative Two OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS 27. Mixed residential and commercial uses containing housing that is affordable subiect to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE, LDC section 4.02.xx and design criteria contained in section 4.02.38. B. Commercial Convenience District (C-2). 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C-3). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Housing that is Affordable, subiect to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the TDC'. 46. Mixed residential and commercial uses containing housing that is affordable subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts rp oyislon of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE, LDC section 4.02.xx and design criteria contained in section 4.02.38. C. Commercial Convenience District (C-3). 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C-3). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Housing that is Affordable, subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. 59. Mixed residential and commercial uses containing housing that is affordable subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE, LDC section 4.02.xx and design criteria contained in section 4.02.38. 12/8/2020 Initiative Two OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS Commercial Convenience District (C-4). The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C-4). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Advertising — miscellaneous (7319). 5. Housing that is Affordable, subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. ****************************************************************************** E. Commercial Convenience District (C-5). 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C-5). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Advertising — miscellaneous (7319). 5. Housing that is Affordable, subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. 2.07.00 — Price Qualifying Program for Housing that is Affordable 2.07.01— Purpose and Intent A. Section 2.07.00 is intended to implement and be consistent with the GMP, 163.3161 et seq. F.S, F.A.C., and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in DOAH Case No. 89-1299 GM, by providing for price points of housing units that is affordable to g_ap-moderate-, low-, and very - low -income levels through the use of density bonuses which allow an increase in the number of residential dwelling units per acre allowed on prope!V proposed for development, thereby decreasing the per unit cost of land and development. B. This objective is accomplished by iinplementing a Price Qualifying program which consists of a commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable. The purpose of the commitment is to provide increased residential densities to developers who guarantee that a portion of their 12/s/2020 Initiative Two OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS housing development will provide price points of specific units that aligns as affordable to households of gap-, moderate-, low-, or very -low-income, thus expanding housing opportunities for households throughout the county. 2.07.02 — Program Criteria The following are required components of the commitment for a Price Qualifying Housing that is Affordable project. A. Price Qualification for Income Levels Served. The price points for all units dedicated as Housing that is Affordable within the project must be affordable to income levels as identified within the below chart. Income Level as a percent of Median Income Gap (>120 - <140) Moderate (>80 - <120) Low (>50 - <80) Very Low (<50) 1. Identify the total number of housing units within the development and the total number of units that are affordable, categorized by price points for the level of income type of unit (single-family or multifamily, owner -occupied or rental) and number of bedrooms, required in the development. 2. The price associated with the Housing that is Affordable unit cannot exceed the thresholds established for the above income levels within the annually updated Collier County Housing Demand Methodology regarding for sale units or the annuallupdated Board approved Table of Rental Rates regarding rental units. B. Price Point Requirement. The commitment to the sales price or the monthly rent for the Housing that is Affordable units shall be specified to a time period of five years from initial date of sale or rent. 1. The commitment shall require an annual monitoring report be submitted to the Housing Operations and Grant Development Division for a period of five years from the final CO for the project to ensure pricing does not exceed the thresholds established. 2. The conditions contained in the commitment shall constitute covenants, restrictions and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the property and the owner's successors and assigns. C. Eligibility Requirement. Owners or renters within the Housing that is Affordable Project must be employed within Collier County as an Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan or retired Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan. D. Violations and Enforcement. 12/8/2020 Initiative Two ppr OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS 1. It is a violation of section 2.07.00 to rent, sell or occupy, or attempt to rent, sell or occupy, an affordable housing unit provided under the Price Qualifying program except as specifically permitted by the terms of section 2.07.00, or to knowingly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the County Manager or designee or by other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by section 2.07.00. 2. The County Manager or designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this section and any developer agreements, rezoning conditions or stipulations, and planned unit development (PUD) conditions and stipulations pursuant to this section and the rights privileges and conditions described herein, by action at law or equity. In the event that it is determined that a violation has occurred and has not or will not be corrected within 60 days the certificate of occupancy for all Housing that is affordable units within the development shall be withdrawn and the sanctions or penalties provided in the Housing that is Affordable commitment shall be pursued to the fullest extent allowed bylaw. E. Commitment. The commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable shall be in the form of developer's agreement a PUD developers commitment or rezoning condition of approval all of which are subject to the requirements of LDC section 2.07.00. 4.02.xx —Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts A. As required by the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provisions within Policy 5.17 of the Growth Management Plan to qualify as a permitted use within the respective commercial zoning district, the property must have been found to be consistent by policy and contain a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable for all units within the project up to a density of 16 gross units per acre, subject to satisfying a traffic impact analysis provided for within Policy 5.3.e of the Future Land Use Element. 1. The proposed affordable housing_project's traffic impact shall be evaluated against the highest intensity use within the applicable commercial zoning district to qualify as a permitted use. The results of the impact analysis must show the proposed project to be of equal or reduced traffic impact to qualify as a permitted use in the zoning district. 2. In addition to the public facilities impact analysis, to qualify for the administrative process the project must submit a School Impact Analysis per LDC Section 10.04.09. 3. The Affordable Housing by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts project must be multi- family, single family attached or townhouse. 4. Prior to approval of the Site Development Plan for the project, the application must satisfy the Traffic Impact Analysis, the School Impact Analysis and enter a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. a. The commitment will contain the specifics of the price qualification for income levels served term of commitment, eligibility requirements, and violations and enforcement as provided within LDC section 2.07.02. 12/8/2020 Initiative Two OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS b. For units that are for sale, one half of the units must be at a price point that is affordable to either the Low or Very Low income levels as provided for within LDC section 2.07.02.A.1. The other one half of the units can be provided at a price point that is affordable to any of the income levels provided for with section 2.07.02.A.1. c. For units that are for rent, all units must be at a price points affordable to Low and Very Low income levels. S. A Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts project must satisfy the dimensional standards of the underlying commercial zoning district except that the minimum distance between structures shall be a minimum of 10 feet. a. When the proposed project is adjacent to any property occupied by, or zoned to permit a single family dwelling unit: 1). Setback from the common boundaries shall be equal to the proposed zoned building height; 2). A 15-foot Type `B" buffer shall be provided along the common boundaries. 12/8/2020 Initiative Two Initiative Three INITIATIVE THREE INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS Statement of Issue — Per the Future Land Use Element of the Collier Growth Management Plan (GMP), mixed use activity centers are intended to be mixed use in character, with the allowable land uses to include the full array of commercial, residential and institutional uses, and other land uses as generally allowed in the Urban designations. The original design of the mixed -use activity center concept as part of the adoption of the GMP was to require a percentage of the activity centers to be developed with residential development at the highest density allowed by the plan. The intent was to allow higher density in the areas of the County where the highest intensity of use was expected and to allow for the market to provide for lower cost units in a high density setting to provide for a better spatial relationship to where job opportunities being created and where potential employees could gain housing that is affordable. This strategy is based upon the concept of reducing vehicle miles traveled, which results in an increase in capacity to the transportation system without the costly expenditures for new roads. While sound in concept, the resulting land use mix of the activity centers provided by the marketplace was a mono -culture of commercial and non-residential land uses. This initiative is designed to provide for incentives through higher densities to allow the marketplace to provide for the mixed use concept within activity centers through the development of mixed income residential housing. Strategy to implement — The Future Land Use Element currently limits density within the activity centers to 16 units per acre (except in the Urban Residential Fringe and Coastal High Hazard Area where the density limit is much lower). To further incentives the introduction of mixed income residential use to current activity centers this amendment seeks to increase the density within the activity centers from sixteen (16) units per acre to twenty-four (25) units per acre when providing for a mixed income residential project that contains housing that is affordable. The current limit of 16 units per acre will remain for all market based projects, but if a project is willing to set aside two-thirds of the bonus density units above the 16 units per acre to a price point affordable to an identified household income level, additional density can be achieved. The full nine units above the current sixteen unit maximum can be achieved if the mixed income residential project dedicates six of the nine additional units to price points affordable to more than one household income level. The density limit for activity centers in the Urban Residential Fringe and Coastal High Hazzard Area will remain unchanged. Considerations — The focus of this initiative is not to remove the public hearing component for a housing that is affordable project, but rather to provide for a satisfactory level of incentivization of the density allowed within an activity center for a market response. The benefit sits with the proximity of housing that is affordable to the job opportunities created within Activity Centers (retail and service based). This not only benefits the transportation system by reducing or eliminating a percentage of trips to satisfy the Activity Center's employment needs, but also places goods and services in much closer proximity to the housing that is affordable and market rate housing within the Activity Center, therefore reducing a percentage of those household's daily trips. Initiative Three 12/8/2020 INITIATIVE THREE Ir INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS Area of change Mixed Use Activity Centers and Interchange Activity Center Subdistricts of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) & Land Development Code (LDC) GMP and Land Development Code changes FLUE - C. Urban Commercial District (Page 56) 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict For residential -only development, if a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict or Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be permitted and up to 25 units per gross acre when providing for a mixed income project which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, the eligible density shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre, except as allowed by the density rating system and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a residential -only project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. Mixed -use developments — whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building — are allowed and encouraged within Mixed Use Activity Centers. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre and up to 25 units per gross acre when providing for a mixed income project, which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center that is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict but is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density shall be limited to four (4) dwelling units per acre, except as allowed by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, and the portion within an Activity Center is developed as mixed use, some of the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed to that portion of the project located outside of the Activity Center. In order to promote compact and walkable mixed use projects, where the density from a mixed use project is distributed outside the Activity Center boundary: 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict: (Page 60) Initiative Three 12/8/2020 INITIATIVE THREE INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS For residential -only development, if a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be allowed and up to 25 units per gross acre when providing for a mixed income project, which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a residential -only project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. Mixed -use developments — whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building - are allowed and encouraged within Interchange Activity Centers. Such mixed -use projects are intended to be developed at a human - scale, pedestrian -oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects — whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre and up to 25 units per gross acre when providing for a mixed income project, which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, and the portion within an Activity Center is developed as mixed use, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project shall not be distributed outside of the Activity Center. ************************************************************************************* LDC 2.07.00 — Price Oualifying Program for Housing that is Affordable 2.07.01— Purpose and Intent A. Section 2.07.00 is intended to implement and be consistent with the GMP, § 163.3161 et sec. F.S, F.A.C., and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in DOAH Case No. 89-1299 GM, by providing for price points of housing units that is affordable to gap -moderate-, low-, and very_ low-income levels through the use of density bonuses which allow an increase in the number of residential dwelling units per acre allowed on property proposed for development, thereby decreasing the per unit cost of land and development. B. This objective is accomplished by implementing a Price Oualifyingprogram which consists of a commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable. The purpose of the commitment is to provide increased residential densities to developers who guarantee that a portion of their housing development will provide price points of specific units that align as affordable to Initiative Three 12/8/2020 I �♦ INITIATIVE THREE INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS households of gap-, moderate-, low-, or very -low-income, thus expanding housing opportunities for households throughout the county. 2.07.02 — Program Criteria The followingare components of the commitment for a Price Qualifying Housing that is Affordable project. A. Price Qualification for Income Levels Served. The price points for all units dedicated as Housing that is Affordable within the project must be affordable to income levels as identified within the below chart. Income Level as a percent of Median Income Gap (>120 - <140) Moderate (>80 - <120) Low (>50 - <80) Very Low (550) 1. Identify the total number of housing units within the development and the total number of units that are affordable, categorized by price points for the level of income, type of unit (single-family or multifamily, owner -occupied or rental), and number of bedrooms, required in the development. 2. The price associated with the Housing that is Affordable unit cannot exceed the thresholds established for the above income levels within the annually updated Collier County Housing Demand Methodology regarding for sale units or the annually updated Board approved Table of Rental Rates regarding rental units. B. Price Point Requirement. The commitment to the sales price or the monthly rent for the Housing that is Affordable units shall be specified to a time period of five years from initial date of sale or rent. 1. The commitment shall require an annual monitoring report be submitted to the Housing Operations and Grant Development Division for a period of five years from the final CO for the project to ensure pricing does not exceed the thresholds established. 2. The conditions contained in the commitment shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the property and the owner's successors and assigns. C. Eli ig�ty Requirement. Owners or renters within the Housing that is Affordable Proj ect must be employed within Collier County as an Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan or retired Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan. D. Violations and Enforcement. 1. It is a violation of section 2.07.00 to rent, sell or occupy, or attempt to rent, sell or occupy, an affordable housing unit provided under the Price Qualifying program except Initiative Three 12/8/2020 INITIATIVE THREE rr INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS as specifically permitted by the terms of section 2.07.00, or to knowingly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the County Manager or designee or by other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by section 2.07.00. 2. The County Manager or designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this section and any developer agreements, rezoning conditions or stipulations and planned unit development (!!LTD) conditions and stipulations pursuant to this section and the rights, privileges and conditions described herein, by action at law or equi , . In the event that it is determined that a violation has occurred and has not or will not be corrected within 60 days, the certificate of occupancy for all Housing that is affordable units within the development shall be withdrawn and the sanctions or penalties provided in the Housing that is Affordable commitment shall be pursued to the fullest extent allowed by E. Commitment. The commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable shall be in the form of developer's agreement, a PUD developers commitment or rezoning condition of approval, all of which are subject to the requirements of LDC section 2.07.00. ************************************************************************* 4.02.xx —Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts 4.02.xx —Housing that is Affordable within Activity Centers or an Interchange Activity Centers A. Within an Activity Center or an Interchange Activity Center to increase density beyond 16 units per acre, additional units per acre are required to be made available at a price point affordable for specified income levels, as identified in the chart within 2.07.02.A.1. Additionally, the project must: 1. Be a multi -family, single family attached, or townhouse project submitted as a Planned Unit Development or Planned Unit Development Amendment, 2. Enter into a commitment that will contain the specifics of the price qualification for income levels served, term of commitment, eligibility requirements, and violations and enforcement as provided within LDC Section 2.07.00, B. The following are additional required components of the commitment for Housingtat is Affordable for a project. 1. For units that are for sale, two-thirds (2/3) of the first six units or four of six of bonus densi above 16 units per acre must be made available at a price point affordable to the low level or very low income level identified within the chart in 2.07.03.A.1. Two -Thirds of the final three units or two of three of bonus density shall be made available at a price point from any of the income levels identified within the chart in 2.07.02.A.1. Initiative Three 12/8/2020 INITIATIVE THREE INCENTIVIZE MIXED INCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND ADC AMENDMENTS 2. If the proposed project is to be a rental community, two-thirds (2/3) of the bonus density must be made available at aprice point affordable to the low level or very low income level identified within the chart in 2.07.03.A.1. C. When the proposed project is adjacent to M property occupied by,or zoned to permit, a single family dwelling unit: 1). Setback from the common boundaries shall be equal to the proposed zoned building height; and 2). A 15-foot Type `B" buffer shall be provided along the common boundaries. Initiative Three 12/8/2020 Initiative Four OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY Statement of Issue — A main recommendation of the 2017 ULI Study is that Collier County should allow for greater residential densities to mitigate high land and development costs. Strategic Opportunity Site's (SOS) would be designated by the BCC as areas where higher densities are encouraged when providing for housing that is affordable. Strategic Opportunity Sites are designed to strengthen the relationship between job creation and the location of housing that is affordable for that workforce, with SOS's designed to include new corporate headquarter sites or industrial areas, employment centers, educational facilities or major transportation corridors and other appropriate locations outside of the activity center locations. Housing that is affordable in Strategic Opportunity Sites could be designated for Essential Services Personnel (teachers, first responders, health care professionals, etc.), but will be required to provide for commitments for housing that is affordable. The initiative seeks to develop a process for emerging areas for designation (floating designation to be applied for) where certain land uses (corporate headquarters, campus, research and development parks, etc.) are proposed. The intended benefits are anticipated to be an increase in certainty, a reduction in cost, a better job to housing spatial arrangement and an overall reduction on infrastructure expansion. Strategy to implement — To provide for the initiative, the GMP will be amended to create the criteria for the designation of SOS, similar to the industrial designation process, and develop criteria that must be satisfied: mix of housing types, minimum percentage of units at certain affordability levels, multi -modal design and the ratio of land use mix. The amendment will allow the SOS designation process for future designation based upon proposed land use changes such as corporate headquarters, business and industrial park development. The required commitment to provide for housing that is affordable will be secured through the existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus agreement program, which requires a percentage of the overall development to be made available at a price point correlated to accepted income levels, as shown below. Maximum Allowable Density Bonus by Percent of Development Designated as Affordable Housing 1• 2, 3 Product(% of MI) 10% 20% 30% 40% SO% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gap (>120—s140)4• s 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 n/a n/a Moderate (>80— 0 20) a 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Low (>50—<_80) 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 Very -LOW (-5O) 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 12 12 Issues to Consider — The designation of Strategic Opportunity Sites (SOS) follows the precedent established in the Future Land Use Element for the designation of Activity Centers. The SOS would be designated on the FLUM to indicate an expectation for a higher density residential project integrated to where a significant number of employment opportunities exist or are expected to develop. Following the reasoning behind initiative three, incentivizing mixed income housing Initiative Four 12/8/2020 OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY projects in Activity Centers, a reduction in vehicle miles traveled is the expected outcome with the creation of an SOS. The maximum density allocated to an SOS will be, twenty-five (25) units per acre. The intent is to provide opportunities for housing that is affordable to areas with high employment needs, with a minimum of 20% of the housing that is affordable dedicated to low or very low income levels. Area of change — Future Land Use Element (FLUE) FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION (Page 25) The following section describes the land use designations shown on the Future Land Use Map. These designations generally indicate the types of land uses for which zoning may be requested. However, these land use designations do not guarantee that a zoning request will be approved. Requests may be denied by the Board of County Commissioners based on criteria in the Land Development Code or on special studies completed for the County. 1. Urban Designation Urban designated areas on the Future Land Use Map include two general portions of Collier County: areas with the greatest residential densities, and areas in close proximity, which have or are projected to receive future urban support facilities and services. It is intended that Urban designated areas accommodate the majority of population growth and that new intensive land uses be located within them. Accordingly, the Urban area will accommodate residential uses and a variety of non-residential uses. The Urban designated area, which includes Immokalee, Copeland, Plantation Island, Chokoloskee, Port of the Islands, and Goodland, in addition to the greater Naples area, represents less than 10% of Collier County's land area. The boundaries of the Urban designated areas have been established based on several factors, including: patterns of existing development; patterns of approved, but unbuilt, development; natural resources; water management; hurricane risk; existing and proposed public facilities; population projections and the land needed to accommodate the projected population growth. Urban designated areas will accommodate the following uses: a. Residential uses including single family, multi -family, duplex, and mobile home. The maximum densities allowed are identified in the Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays that follow, except as allowed by certain policies under Objective 5. b. Non-residential uses including: 1. Essential services as defined by the most recent Land Development Code; 17. Research and Technology Park uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban -Industrial District. 18. Strategic Opportunity Sites subject to criteria identified in the Urban -Mixed Use District Urban Commercial District and Urban -Industrial District. Initiative Four 12/8/2020 OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY A. Urban Mixed Use District (Page 27) This District, which represents approximately 116,000 acres, is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. Certain industrial and commercial uses are also allowed subject to criteria. 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. This Subdistrict comprises approximately 93,000 acres and 80% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density Rating System but shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre except in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights Section of the Land Development Code. 20. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict This Subdistrict consists of 31 acres and is located at the northeast quadrant of two major arterial roadways, Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. In addition to uses generally allowed in the Urban designation, the intent of the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict is to provide shopping, personal services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. The Subdistrict also permits multi -family rental residential dwelling units. The Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring Pine Ridge Middle school and nearby residential development and therefore, emphasis will be placed on common building architecture, signage, landscape design and site accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles. 21. Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict The Strategic Opportunity Sites (SOS) Subdistrict is intended to provide for the introduction of mixed income residential use to existing or planned industrial and/or commercial Planned Unit Developments or traditionally zoned projects. The addition of residential use to a geographic area of land with a high degree of employment opportunities (corporate headquarters, technology campus research and development parks, etc.) provides for a beneficial relationship between households and job locations. This relationship benefits the employees and employers within a proposed SOS, but also benefits all users of the County's transportation system by reducing; the total vehicle miles traveled to satisfy a primary household need of employ The SOS should be designed in a mixed use environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivityprovide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents, and patrons of the Subdistrict. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District, and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, are not subject to the Density Rating System and shall comply with the following general conditions: Initiative Four 12/8/2020 Al OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY A. The proposed SOS subdistrict must provide for housing that is affordable in the following manner: 1. Base Density shall be at 4 units per acre with the requirement that an Affordable Housing Density Bonus LAMB) greement must be established. 2. The commitment for housing that is affordable shall be authorized through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) program, as specified within LDC section 2.06.00. 3. A minimum of 20 percent of the total units must be committed as affordable hoggu opportunities from either the Low or Very Low income levels as provided in LDC section 2.06.03.A. All density bonuses awarded through the utilization of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus provided for in 2.6.03 shall be doubled when dedicated to the Low or Very Low income levels. 4. Maximum density shall not exceed 25 units per net acre. 5. Each phase of the project that proposes residential development must provide for the ratio of market housing units to housing that is affordable units stated within the AHDB agreement. B. When locating in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the SOS must be abutting, and have direct access to a road classified as an arterial and or collector in the Transportation Element. Direct principal access is defined as a local roadway connection to the arterial or collector road, provided the portion of the local roadway intended to provide access to the SOS is not within a residential neighborhood and does not service a predominately residential area. C. When the SOS is located within the Urban Industrial District or includes industrially zoned land, those uses allowed in the Industrial Zoning District shall be permitted provided that the total industrial acreage is not greater than the amount previouslyzned or designated industrial. When a SOS is located in the Urban Commercial District or Urban -Mixed Use District, the industrial uses shall be limited to those target industry uses,_ as defined within the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict of this Element. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance for an SOS project shall list specifically all permitted uses and development standards consistent with the criteria identified in this provision. D. When the SOS project is abutting residentially zoned land, all, or a portion, of the housing is encouraged to be located proximate to such abutting residentially zoned land where feasible. 1. When the proposed project is adjacent to any propeM occupied by, or zoned to permit, a single family dwelling, the setbacks along the common boundary shall be equal to the proposed zoned building height and a 15-foot Type `B" buffer shall be provided. E. Housing shall be fully integrated with other compatible uses in the project through Initiative Four 12/8/2020 5 s OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY vertical or horizontal mixed use buildings, landscaping, open space and through pedestrian bicycle and vehicular (multi -modal) interconnections demonstrated through the submittal of a Mobilityplan and an internal capture analysis. 1. The Mobility Plan shall depict the configuration and phasing of all connecting streets, street behind/between out parcels, and other planned local streets, along with all access points from adjoining streets, as shown on a conceptual development plan, with cross -sections of each. The Mobility Plan shall also provide for an analysis the project's internal capture. F. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall be a minimum of ten -acres and utilize PUD zoning. 1. The development standards provided within the PUD zoning will ensure that the spatial arrangement and compatibility measures adopted integrate the residential development with the non-residential development of the project. 2. All proposed non-residential land uses that utilize hazardous substance or bulk storage of petroleum or like material will be adequately separated from the proposed residential portion of the Strategic Opportunity Site. G. All projects within a designated Strategic Opportunity Site must satisfy the concurrency management system at the time of Development Order. H. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall include a minimum of 20 percent and up to a maximum of 60 percent of the total acreage within the Subdistrict for residential development. The residential component mayprovide for a mix of single family and multi -family units or provide for a multi -family only option. I. The land uses within a proposed SOS may contain uses from Residential, Commercial and/or Business Park zoning districts. J. The non-residential portion of the SOS shall utilize the Commercial Five (C-5) Zoning District as development standards. The residential portion of the SOS shall utilize the residential zoning district development standards closest aligned to the density sought within the SOS. Deviations are permitted in conformity with J. (below). K. Deviations from Land Development Code standards are allowed within a PUD request to implement an approved SOS. Justifications for the deviations shall be based upon their relationship to identified Goals, Objectives or Policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. C. Urban Commercial District (Page 56) This District is intended to accommodate almost all new commercial zoning; a variety of residential uses, including higher densities for properties not located within the Urban Coastal Fringe or Urban Residential Fringe Subdistricts; and a variety of non-residential uses. 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Mixed Use Activity Centers have been designated on the Future Land Use Map Series identified in the Future Land Use Element. The locations are based on intersections of major roads and on Initiative Four 12/8/2020 OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY spacing criteria. When this Plan was originally adopted in 1989, there were 21 Activity Centers. There are now 19 Activity Centers, listed below, which comprise approximately 3,000 acres; this includes three Interchange Activity Centers (#4, 9, 10) which will be discussed separately under the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict. Two Activity Centers, #19 and 21, have been deleted as they are now within the incorporated City of Marco Island. 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict The Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict consists of ± 6.33 acres and is located on the west side of Livingston Road, just north of the terminus of Piper Boulevard. The purpose of this subdistrict is to allow for the development of a parking lot and Collier County utility facilities and services. 15. Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict The Strategic Op opop rtunity Sites (SOS) Subdistrict is intended to provide for the introduction of mixed income residential use to existing or planned industrial and/or commercial Planned Unit Developments or traditionally zoned projects. The addition of residential use to a eg_og_ra hic area of land with a high degree of employment opportunities (corporate headquarters, technology campus, research and development parks etc.) provides for a beneficial relationship between households and job locations This relationship benefits the employ and employers within a proposed SOS, but also benefits all users of the Count transportation system by reducing the total miles traveled to satisfy a primary household need of employ The SOS should be designed in a mixed use environment where landscaped areas outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering usable open space and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents, and patrons of the Subdistrict Strategic Opportunity Sites shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District subject to the criteria set forth under the Strategic Opportunity Sites Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District. D. Urban Industrial District (Page 70) The Industrial Land Use District is reserved primarily for industrial type uses and comprises approximately 2,200 acres. Besides basic Industrial uses limited commercial uses are permitted. Retail commercial uses are prohibited, except as accessory to Industrial or Business Park uses. The C-5, C-4 and PUD Commercial Zoning Districts along the perimeter of the designated Urban Industrial District that existed as of October 1997 shall be deemed consistent with this Land Use District. Industrially designated areas shall have access to a road classified as an arterial or collector in the Transportation Element, or access may be provided via a local road that does not service a predominately residential area. Intensities of use shall be those related to: a. Manufacturing; Initiative Four 12/8/2020 OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY n. High density residential as part of a proposed Strategic Opportunity 1. Business Park Subdistrict The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non- industrial uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment with low structural density where building coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and landscaped areas provide for buffering and enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the Park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a Subdistrict in the Urban Industrial District subject to the criteria set forth under the Business Park Subdistrict in the Urban -Mixed Use District. 2. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of targeted industry uses — aviation/aerospace industry, health technology industry, information technology industry, and light, low environmental impact manufacturing industry — and non -industrial uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents and patrons of the park. Research and Technology Parks shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban — Industrial District subject to the criteria set forth under the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District. 3. Strategic Opportunity Sites Subdistrict The Strategic Opportuni Sites (SOS) Subdistrict is intended to provide for the introduction of mixed income residential use to existing or planned industrial and/or commercial Planned Unit Developments or traditionally zoned projects. The addition of residential use to a geographic area of land with a high_degree of employment opportunities (corporate headquarters, technology campus, research and development parks, etc.) provides for a beneficial relationship between households and job locations. This relationship benefits the employ and employers within a proposed SOS, but also benefits all users of the Counter's transportation system by reducing the total miles traveled to satisfv a primary household need of employment. The SOS should be designed in a mixed use environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering;, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents, and patrons of the Subdistrict. Strategici Opportunity Sites shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban Industrial District subject to the criteria set forth under the Strategici Opportunity Sites Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District. Initiative Four 12/8/2020 Initiative Five OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS Statement of Issue —The final initiative directed by the Housing Plan and the Board at the October 9, 2018 public hearing was for promoting housing that is affordable on major transit corridors. The initiative is recommended based upon two desired outcomes, in addition to adding to the supply of housing that is affordable. The first is that locating higher density housing along transit corridors can help reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles on the overall network, as well as reducing the overall trip length within the urbanized area where the majority of employment opportunities are located and therefore strengthening the spatial relationship between where employment opportunities exist and where employees live. The second intended outcome sits with the frequency of transit service. The addition of higher density housing along existing transit corridors is designed to increase the ridership of the system and the particular route that the housing is situated, and this increased ridership can have a positive effect of reducing the headway, or time between bus service of the particular route. This increased frequency ideally would promote more ridership on the system due to the decrease in wait times and the increase in efficiency for the individual rider. An outcome that would generate more self -funding to the Collier Area Transit system to increase the efficiency of the transit system. Strategy to implement — The Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan currently allows for an affordable housing project (whether or not along a transit route) to request up to 16 units per gross acre if specific percentages of housing that is affordable is committed to within the project. To further incentivize the development of housing that is affordable along transit routes, the Density Rating System will be amended to provide for additional density for projects that promote the utilization of the transit system within the design of the project and concentrate a majority of the project's units within close proximity to the project entrance. Additionally, the Transportation Element of the GMP will be amended to explicitly state that higher density along transit routes is a County priority. The design of the project will allocate the highest density of the project occurring in the quarter - mile of the transit station/route, known as the, "Transit Core". The project will pay close attention to the multi -modal design to provide for sufficient ease of use for the pedestrian or the bicyclist to access the transit station Considerations — The majority of collector and arterial roadways within the County are currently designated as set transit routes and based upon this recognition, the portion of the routes not within the FLUM Urban designation will not be recommended for density above the current 16 units per acre that can currently be requested if utilizing an affordable workforce density bonus. The transit oriented design (TOD) of the project will require that highest level of density will be allocated within a quarter mile of the transit stop along the project's frontage, with density stepping down as the distance from the project frontage increases. This design function will address the issue of" first and last mile", often cited as a barrier to transit usage, by reducing the distance between the transit stop and the residential unit of the rider and enhancing the connectivity between the two. Area of change —Transportation Element, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) & Land Development Code (LDC) Transportation Element Objective 12 (Page 22) 12/8/2020 OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS Policy 12.10: The County, through the Future Land Use Element and Density Rating System, will prioritize higher density residential and mixed use projects along Urban designated Collier Area Transit (CAT) routes. This prioritization is to encourage a better spatial relationship between the location of employment centers and available housing that is affordable. Increasing the proximity of this relationship between work opportunities and the location of employes provides for a direct benefit to the transportation system as a whole with the reduction in vehicles miles traveled and the availability of transit to reduce the number of single occupancy trips within the system. FLUE - Density Rating System (Page 50) FLUE - B. Density Rating System (Page 50) This Density Rating System is only applicable to areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as: Urban, Urban Mixed Use District; and, on a very limited basis, Agricultural/Rural. It is not applicable to the Urban areas encompassed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; these two Elements have their own density provisions. The Density Rating System is applicable to that portion of the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to the extent that the residential density cap of 4 dwelling units per acre is not exceeded, except for the density bonus provisions for Affordable Housing and Transfer of Development Rights, and except as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The final determination of permitted density via implementation of this Density Rating System is made by the Board of County Commissioners through an advertised public hearing process (rezone or Stewardship Receiving Area designation). 1. The Density Rating System is applied in the following manner: Within the applicable Urban Designated Areas, a base density of 4 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be allowed, though not an entitlement. This base level of density may be adjusted depending upon the location and characteristics of the project, such as a project proposed as a Transit Oriented Development may seek a base density of 13 residential dwelling units per JZross acre. For purposes of calculating the eligible number of dwelling units for a project (gross acreage multiplied by eligible number of dwelling units per acre), the total number of dwelling units may be rounded up by one unit if the dwelling unit total yields a fraction of a unit .5 or greater. Acreage to be used for calculating density is exclusive of: the commercial and industrial portions of a project, except where authorized in a Subdistrict, such as the Orange Blossom Mixed -Use Subdistrict; and, mixed residential and commercial uses as provided for in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts in the Collier County Land Development Code; and, portions of a project for land uses having an established equivalent residential density in the Collier County Land Development Code. 2. Density Bonuses (51) h. Transit Oriented Development 12/8/2020 OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS To further facilitate the prioritization of higher density projects alongeg transit routes of the Collier Area Transit (CAT) as expressed within Policy 12.10 of the Transportation Element, density increases may be requested as identified further below, if a project complies with the following conditions: the project has direct frontage to an existing fixed transit route or on a proposed route as identified for funding on the Transit Development Plan,• the project has a Future Land Use Map designation of Urban -Mixed Use District, the project provides for a transit stop along the project's frontage or is within one -quarter mile of an existing transit stop, the project is proposing multi -family development and the project complies with the transit oriented design standards contained in chapter four (4) of the Land Development Code. A base of thirteen (13) units per gross acre ma be requested Bonus densitymay be requested through a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. The maximum density shall not exceed 25 units per grass acre. This base and bonus shall not be combined with other density bonuses. 4. Density Conditions (Page 53) The following density condition applies to all properties subject to the Density Rating System. a. Maximum Density The maximum allowed density shall not exceed sixteen (16) dwelling units per gross acre within the Urban designated area, except for the following: When utilizing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code adopted by Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended on June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004; or the density bonus for Project Location on a Transit Route of the Densi Rating System in which case the maximum allowed densily when providing a commitment for Housing that is Affordable shall not exceed twenty-five (25) dwelling units per acre. LDC 1.08.02 — Definitions "Transit Core" means the area within the inner quarter -mile around a transit station. "Transit Oriented Development" (TOD) means a project or projects, in areas identified in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), that is or will be served by existing or planned transit service. These designated areas shall be compact, moderate to high density developments, of multi -modal character, interconnected with other land uses, pedestrian orientated, multi -family and designed to support frequent transit service operating through the Collier Area Transit system on available roadway connections. ************************************************************************************* LDC 2.07.00 — Price Qualifying Program for Housing that is Affordable 2.07.01— Purpose and Intent 12/8/2020 OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS A. Section 2.07.00 is intended to implement and be consistent with the GMP, & 163.3161 et seg. F.S, F.A.C., and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in DOAH Case No. 89-1299 GM by providing for price points of housing units that is affordable to gap -moderate- low- and very_ low-income levels through the use of density bonuses which allow an increase in the number of residential dwelling upper acre allowed on property_ proposed for development thereby decreasing the per unit cost of land and development. B. This obiective is accomplished b mplementing a Price Qualifvina program which consists of a commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable. The purpose of the commitment is to provide increased residential densities to developers who guarantee that a portion of their housing development will provide price points of specific units that align as affordable to households of ggp-, moderate-, low-, or very -low-income, thus expanding housing opportunities for households throughout the county. 2.07.02 — Program Criteria The following are required components of the commitment for a Price Qualifying Housing that is Affordable project. A. Price Qualification for Income Levels Served. The price points for all units dedicated as Housing that is Affordable within the project must be affordable to income levels as identified within the below chart. Income Level as a percent of Median Income Gap (>120 - <140) Moderate (>80 - <120) Low (>50 - <80) Very Low (<50) 1. Identify the total number of housing units within the development and the total number of units that are affordable, categorized by price points for the level of income, type of unit (single-family or multifamily, owner -occupied or rental), and number of bedrooms, required in the development. 2. The price associated with the Housing that is Affordable unit cannot exceed the thresholds established for the above income levels within the annually updated Collier County Housing Demand Methodology regarding for sale units or the annually updated Board approved Table of Rental Rates regarding rental units. B. Price Point Requirement. The commitment to the sales price or the monthly rent for the Housing that is Affordable units shall be specified to a time period of five years from initial date of sale or rent. 1. The commitment shall require an annual monitoring report be submitted to the Housing Operations and Grant Development Division for a period of five years from the final CO for the project to ensure pricing does not exceed the thresholds established. 12/8/2020 OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 2 The conditions contained in the commitment shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the property and the owner's successors and assigns. Q. Eli ig bility Requirement Owners or renters within the Housing that is Affordable Project must be employed within Collier County as an Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance plan or retired. D. Violations and Enforcement. 1. It is a violation of section 2.07.00 to rent, sell or occupy, or attempt to rent, sell or occupy, an affordable housing unit provided under the Price Qualifing program except as specifically permitted by the terms of section 2.07.00 or to knowingly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the County Manaaer or designee or by other personspursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by section 2.07.00. 2. The County Manager or designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this section and any developer agreements, rezoning conditions or stipulations, and planned unit development (PUD) conditions and stipulations pursuant to this section and the rights,privileges and conditions described herein, by action at law or equity. In the event that it is determined that a violation has occurred and has not or will not be corrected within 60 days the certificate of occupancy for all Housing that is affordable units within the development shall be withdrawn and the sanctions or penalties Drovided in the Housing that is Affordable commitment shall be pursued to the fullest extent allowed by law. E. Commitment. The commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable shall be in the form of developer's agreement, a PUD developers commitment or rezoning condition of approval all of which are subject to the requirements of LDC section 2.07.00. 4.02.xx —Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts 4.02.xx —Housing that is Affordable within Activity Centers or an Interchange Activity Centers 4.02.xx —Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Design Standards A As expressed by Policy 12.10 of the Transportation Element and the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element within the Collier Growth Management Plan, higher density multi -family projects shall be prioritized alongexisting xisting transit routes. B. All proposed multi -family projects that front on an existing Collier Area Transit fixed route or on a proposed route as identified for funding on the Transit Development Plan, are 12/8/2020 • OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS designated Urban Mixed Use District on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and satisfy the design standards identified below are eligible for 13 units per acre. 1. If proposed route on the Transit Development Plan has not been identified for funding the applicant may coordinate with Collier Area Transit to secure fundingneeds. eeds. C. Design Standards for TOD. 1. The project must be multi -family and submitted as a Planned Unit Development. 2. A minimum of 50 percent of all units within the project will be located within one -quarter of a mile from a frontage access point. 3. The project shall provide vehicular, pedestrian and bike interconnections throughout the project to ensure multimodal transportation links to the project entrance as well as adjacent properties, where interconnection to adjacent properties is possible and practicable. 4. Building Height. Not to exceed four stories, with a zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 60 feet. 5. Setback for Principal Structures to project boundaries and buffer requirement. a. Front Yard - Minimum 10 feet, maximum 25 feet. b. Side and Rear Yard - 50 percent of building height. When adjacent to any property occupied by, or zoned to permit, a single family dwelling setback to be provided at a one -foot (setback) to one -foot (height) basis. 6. During the rezoning process the project must coordinate with Collier Area Transit (CAT) to provide a commitment to develop a permanent transit stop along the project's frontage or identify an existing stop within'/4 of a mile of the project's frontage. 7. Eligible density. a. Baseline Transit Oriented Development — a maximum of 13 units per acre. b. Housing that is Affordable Transit Oriented Development — a maximum of 25 units per acre. D. Additional requirements for a Housing that is Affordable Transit Oriented Development. 1. A commitment that will contain the specifics of the price qualification for income levels served, time frame, eligibilityrequirements, and violations and enforcement as provided within LDC Section 2.07.02. 2. For units that are for sale two-thirds (2/3) of the first 9 units of bonus densitv (6 units above 13 units per acre must be made available at a price point affordable to the low or very low income level identified within the chart in LDC section 2.07.02.A.1. Two-thirds of the final 3 units of bonus density (2 units) shall be made available at a price point from any of the income levels identified within the chart in LDC section 2.07.02.A.1. 12/s/2o2o OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 3 For units that are for rent two-thirds (2/3) of all units above 13 units per acre must be made available at aprice point affordable to Low and/or Very Low income levels as provided for within LDC section 2.07.02.A.1 12/8/2020