Loading...
Agenda 04/12/2022 Item # 9A (Ordinance Amending GMP - PL20200002234)    Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting April 12, 2022 Continue item 9A to the April 26, 2022 BCC Meeting: *** This item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm. *** *** This item was continued from the March 22, 2022 BCC Meeting Agenda. *** A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy and specifically amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to require Transfer of Development Rights for Comprehensive Plan amendments for increased residential density; amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to remove the density bonus cap on residential in-fill and remove the requirement to use Transfer of Development Rights within one mile of the Urban boundary; and amending the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to change development standards and requirements, to increase density on Receiving Lands located along Immokalee Road, increase density on Receiving Lands for affordable housing, add Transfer of Development Rights Credits, add uses in Receiving areas, and add a conditional use for recreation in Sending Lands, and to amend development standards for Rural Villages; and create the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay; and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [PL20200002234] (District 1, District 3, District 5) (Staff’s request) Continue item 16C3 to the April 26, 2022 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to accept a donation from the Freedom Memorial Foundation of Naples, Florida Inc., for the remaining 23 state stones and a plaque, and to be installed at the Freedom Memorial site. (District 4) (Commissioner Taylor’s request) Continue item 16F2 to the April 26, 2022 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve the change of the Tourism Development Tax Grant deadline from April 12, 2022 to April 29, 2022 at 5 pm. (All Districts) (Commissioner Taylor’s request) Note: Time Certain Items: Item 13A to be heard at 10:00 AM or immediately following the Court Reporter Break – Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for FY21. Item 12B to be heard at 10:30 AM – Special Magistrate submittals. 4/13/2022 11:21 AM 04/12/2022 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy and specifically amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to require Transfer of Development Rights for Comprehensive Plan amendments for increased residential density; amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to remove the density bonus cap on residential in-fill and remove the requirement to use Transfer of Development Rights within one mile of the Urban boundary; and amending the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to change development standards and requirements, to increase density on Receiving Lands located along Immokalee Road, increase density on Receiving Lands for affordable housing, add Transfer of Development Rights Credits, add uses in Receiving areas, and add a conditional use for recreation in Sending Lands, and to amend development standards for Rural Villages; and create the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay; and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [PL20200002234] OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to review and consider approving the proposed amendments to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) for transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and other statutorily required review agencies. CONSIDERATIONS: On February 10, 2015, the Board directed staff to initiate the RFMUD restudy. The restudy focus areas included complementary land uses, economic vitality, transportation and mobility, and environmental stewardship, all through a public outreach effort. The Board appointed an ad hoc advisory committee, the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC), to assist in directing the public engagement process of the RFMUD restudy. The Board directed that staff, rather than the appointed committee, provide recommendations to the Board for regulatory changes. The RFMUD public outreach effort included six (6) public workshops, and meetings with stakeholders, who provided valuable input and analysis. The evaluation of community input received through the restudy workshops reinforces and supports the amendments to improve the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program and achieve the overriding RFMUD goals. The RFMUD restudy public outreach and staff assessment resulted in the RFMUD White Paper . The White Paper provides the framework for the restudy effort conducted by staff and serves to further inform the Board and the public on these efforts. The RFMUD White Paper resulted in recommendations for improving the RFMUD and TDR Program by further protecting the environment, conserving agricultural lands, addressing development characteristics, and establishing new development standards. On January 3, 2017, the RFMUD White Paper was presented to the Board. At that public workshop, staff discussed increasing residential density on Receiving Lands within Rural Villages and outside of Rural Villages; a TDR Bank as a catalyst for the TDR Program; and donations of Sending Lands when no governmental agency accepts the donation. The Board directed staff to discontinue the consideration of a TDR Bank; provide additional data and analysis for Receiving Lands development patterns; and provide information on Sending Lands donations for future Board direction. At the second RFMUD public workshop on May 11, 2017, staff presented to the Board various development scenarios, including density ranges, housing diversity, mobility options, and opportunities 9.A Packet Pg. 32 04/12/2022 for economic development. The Board directed staff to provide additional information on agricultural uses, TDR bank alternatives, and costs for conservation land management. At the final RFMUD workshop on June 20, 2017, staff presented to the Board the following amendme nts and concepts for Board direction: 1) promote economic vitality by allowing business park/employment center outside of the Rural Villages; 2) remove the maximum acreage and leasable floor area limitations for the Village Center and Research and Technology Park within a Rural Village; 3) modify TDR requirements for multi-family from 1 TDR to 0.75 TDRs per unit and eliminate the TDR requirement for defined affordable housing; 4) eliminate the minimum $25,000 price for the Base TDR; 5) provide additional TDR credits to Sending Lands owners, and where possible, apportion equally to all owners regardless of location; 6) allow TDRs for bona fide agricultural operations on Sending Lands; 7) allow landowners who have not conveyed their properties to participate in applicable program changes; 8) expand concept of donation when approved by the BCC; 9) adopt standard whereby County agrees to take title of land donated by Sending Lands owners where no public agency will take the land; and, 10) allow TDRs for agriculture and conservation uses when secured by perpetual easements on Receiving and Neutral Lands. The purpose of this petition is to bring forward those RFMUD Growth Management Plan amendments directed by the Board at their June 20, 2017 workshop (Attachment E) and further directed at their September 25, 2018 Board meeting (Attachment F), which staff recommends. Note: The proposed amendments do not include changes to the existing density provisions for non-Rural Village and Rural Village development in the North Belle Meade (NBM) and Belle Meade Receiving Areas; and do not increase the number of Rural Villages allowed in these areas. Staff is proposing a comprehensive study of the NBM and Belle Meade Receiving areas as part of these amendments (refer to Resolution Exhibit A, page 23, paragraph H). The study will address sustainable long-term growth by developing a coordinated approach to infrastructure planning, establishing appropriate density and intensity of uses, addressing economic diversity, and providing opportunities for greater environmental protection. There are infrastructure constraints in this area, notably, limited transportation network. The study will address the mixture of land uses adequate to result in a sufficient internal capture rate. T he staff team agreed that a comprehensive planning effort in the Belle Meade area is essential to achieving and furthering the goals of the RFMUD and TDR Program. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RFMUD: The below summary of RFMUD proposed amendments represent recommendations of County staff to the CCPC. The recommendations include strategies to promote economic vitality, incentivize greater protection of agriculture and natural resources, and provide for complementary land uses. The amendments are intended to create incentives to encourage increased participation in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and Transfer of Development Rights Program. Sending Lands 1. Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property attributes. 2. Make TDR credits available to Sending owners with existing agricultural uses. In Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) locations, only existing passive agricultural operations, excluding aquaculture, would qualify. Passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan. [For NRPA locations, see attached countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM)] 9.A Packet Pg. 33 04/12/2022 3. Allow landowners who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. 4. Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and provide 2 TDRs for base severance of dwelling unit rights, subject to any additional credits assigned. 5. Provide for Board approval to convey land to a not-for-profit entity or land trust by gift. 6. Government entities, other than the State of Florida, with lands designated North Belle Meade Overlay (NBMO) may qualify for conditional use approval for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. [For NBMO location, see attached countywide FLUM] 7. Allow landowners with large Sending Lands parcels to cluster dwelling units, retaining the o ne unit per 40-acre standard. 8. Implementation of the Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan initiative for the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay (by adding two bonus TDRs for owners of Sending Lands participating in this initiative). Neutral Lands: 1. Allow TDR credits for existing agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual easements. 2. Remove the 40-acre minimum project size for clustered development. Receiving Lands: 1. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park. 2. Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for existing agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements. 3. Provide new measures for mixed-use standards, consistent with the RLSA provisions for SRAs - Stewardship Receiving Areas. 4. Development over 300 acres shall use the Rural Village provisions. 5. Allow for affordable workforce housing projects outside of a Rural Village (stand-alone) and allow at a higher density. 6. Incentivize affordable workforce housing projects by allowing a commercial component to the development. Urban Designation: 1. Eliminate the one-mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Residential Fringe 9.A Packet Pg. 34 04/12/2022 Subdistrict. [For Urban Residential Fringe location, see attached countywide FLUM] 2. Eliminate the requirement to purchase TDRs when utilizing the Urban Residential Infill density bonus provision. 3. Increase TDR demand by adding requirement that any GMP amendment that proposes a density increase in the Urban Mixed-Use District or RFMUD must utilize TDR credits to achieve that density increase. Growth Management Plan Amendments (GMPA) - Alternatives to Board Directed GMPAs 1. Density in Receiving Lands outside of Rural Villages - the Board directed an increase from a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per acre to 2 dwelling units per acre for all lands. Staff recommends this density increase only for the two Receiving Lands area along Immokalee Road due to road capacity and other potential infrastructure concerns. 2. Density in Rural Villages (RV) - Staff recommends density in RV remain at 2-3 dwelling units per acre, but to further study the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade Receiving Lands to determine if adequate infrastructure may be available to accommodate greater density in those two areas. 3. Promote economic vitality outside of Rural Villages by allowing Business and Industrial uses as identified as Florida Qualified Target Industries. 4. Size of Rural Village: Staff recommends retaining the maximum size of the RV to allow for further study, including infrastructure needs, maximum density, employment opportunities, and design parameters. 5. Rural Village Greenbelt - Staff recommends reducing the greenbelt width, not eliminate, to provide for the transition of uses and maintain rural character. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs associated with processing and advertising the proposed GMP amendment has been allocated within the approved budget for the Zoning Division. Therefore, no fiscal impacts to Collier County result from the transmittal of this amendment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of the proposed amendment by the Board for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies will commence the Department’s thirty (30) day review process and ultimately return the amendments to the CCPC and the Board for Adoption hearings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the Land Planning Agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward the proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Growth Management Plan amendments to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to Transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC reviewed and discussed the proposed RFMUD amendments at their May 20, 2021, meeting. There were two (2) registered speakers. The first speaker spoke about including “public benefit” within the GMPA provision that requires TDRs be used to increase density; changing the time frame for the Belle Meade area study from two (2) years to one (1) year; allowing two (2) dwelling units per acre outside of Rural Villages for all Receiving Lands; eliminate the requirement to develop a Rural Village for parcels >300 acres; deferring agricultural TDR bonus for further study as part of the Belle Meade area study; allowing 9.A Packet Pg. 35 04/12/2022 the expansion of industrial uses along Tamiami Trail East (US 41), specifically in the area of the existing Rural Industrial designation; and increasing the environmental restoration bonus. The second speaker discussed the need for additional TDRs for Sending Lands owners; opposed possibility of another study for the Belle Meade area; and generally discussed the need for additional TDR supply and demand. The CCPC recommended that the Board approve the RFMUD amendments for transmittal, with the following modifications: remove the limitation on required TDR utilization for Growth Management Plan amendments that propose to increase density for projects that have a “public benefit”; defer recommendation that requires parcels >300-acres in size to develop as a Rural Village and recommendation for creation of an Agricultural TDR Credit at 1 unit per 5 acres with required perpetual easement in Sending, Receiving and Neutral Lands for consideration during the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade area study; and, move up the staff requested initiation of the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade area study from 2 years to 1 year. (vote: 5/0) 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), F.S. In addition, s. 163.3177(6)(a)2, F.S. 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 non-conforming 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. The 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 FLUE map amendments shall also be based upon the following analysis per Section 163.3177(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 and requires a majority vote for Board approval because this is a Transmittal hearing. [HFAC] 9.A Packet Pg. 36 04/12/2022 RECOMMENDATION: To approve the proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District amendments for transmittal to the DEO and other statutorily required agencies, as recommended by the CCPC and with minor edits for clarity. Prepared by: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division ATTACHMENT(S) 1. [Linked] 00.1Transcript CCPC_05-20-21 (PDF) 2. Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (PDF) 3. 01. CCPC Staff Report RFMUD Transmittal.FINAL (PDF) 4. [Linked] 02. RFMUD White Paper (PDF) 5. [Linked] 03. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix A Public Outreach document (PDF) 6. [Linked] 04. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix B Mitigation Feasibility Study (Rev July 2016) (PDF) 7. 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (PDF) 8. 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (PDF) 9. 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (PDF) 10. 08. Attachment F RFMUD Executive Summary, dated September 25, 2018 (PDF) 11. 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (PDF) 12. 10. Attachment H Countywide FLUM (PDF) 13. 11. Attachment I Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Maps (PDF) 14. Correspondence-Mulhere (PDF) 15. 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (PDF) 16. legal ad - agenda ID 21414 (PDF) 9.A Packet Pg. 37 04/12/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.A Doc ID: 21721 Item Summary: *** This item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm. *** *** This item was continued from the March 22, 2022 BCC Meeting Agenda. *** A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89- 05, as amended, relating to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy and specifically amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to require Transfer of Development Rights for Comprehensive Plan amendments for increased residential density; amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to remove the density bonus cap on residential in-fill and remove the requirement to use Transfer of Development Rights within one mile of the Urban boundary; and amending the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to change development standards and requirements, to increase density on Receiving Lands located along Immokalee Road, increase density on Receiving Lands for affordable housing, add Transfer of Development Rights Credits, add uses in Receiving areas, and add a conditional use for recreation in Sending Lands, and to amend development standards for Rural Villages; and create the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay; and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [PL20200002234] Meeting Date: 04/12/2022 Prepared by: Title: Sr. Operations Analyst – County Manager's Office Name: Geoffrey Willig 03/16/2022 12:32 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 03/16/2022 12:32 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 03/16/2022 1:02 PM Zoning James Sabo Additional Reviewer Completed 03/16/2022 4:30 PM Growth Management Department Mike Bosi Transportation Skipped 03/16/2022 4:22 PM Growth Management Department Mike Bosi Additional Reviewer Skipped 03/16/2022 4:23 PM Growth Management Department Mike Bosi Growth Management Department Skipped 03/16/2022 4:24 PM Growth Management Department James C French Growth Management Completed 03/18/2022 11:49 AM County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 03/23/2022 8:58 AM Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 03/23/2022 9:03 AM 9.A Packet Pg. 38 04/12/2022 County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 03/23/2022 11:13 AM Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 03/25/2022 11:30 AM County Manager's Office Dan Rodriguez Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 04/06/2022 12:38 PM Board of County Commissioners Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending 04/12/2022 9:00 AM 9.A Packet Pg. 39 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: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (attended remotely) Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Christopher T. Vernon ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney P R O C E E D I N G S 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 -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that at 9:00 a.m.? 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. 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 11th 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. 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 11,139 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 41? 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 I-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 staff's 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? 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. So this 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. So to 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 a way 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? 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 may be -- it may be 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. 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 2013 I 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, staff's 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. So this 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 a real 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 to me 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 staff's 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? 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. 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... 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 planning commissioners want to weigh in? (No response.) 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: In a 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 staff's 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; staff's 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. 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 staff's 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 for a 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. 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 turn right 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. 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. 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 I-75, and it's between commercial uses to the east, along with I-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 staff's recommendation of approval, but there's one very important point of disagreement I want to highlight, and that's the density. Growth management staff's 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; staff's 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. 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 here to 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 I-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. 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. 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.F 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. 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 I 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 staff's 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. Can you unmute your microphone for us, please. (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right. We'll come back to Ms. Daugherty. Mr. Berry, are you with us, sir? MR. BERRY: I'm on. 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 50 I 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. 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. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (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? (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. ******* 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. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _________________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on __________, as presented _________ or as corrected _________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 1 of 29 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION [Page 25] *********************************** text break***************************************** I. URBAN DESIGNATION [Page 25] ************************************text break**************************************** A. Urban Mixed Use District [Page 27] *********************************** text break **************************************** Port of the Island is a unique development, which is located within the Urban Designated Area, but is also totally within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. However, a portion of the development was determined “vested” by the State of Florida, thus exempting it from the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Further, there is an existing Development Agreement between Port of the Islands, Inc. and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs dated July 2, 1985, which regulates land uses at Port of the Islands. Port of the Islands is eligible for all provisions of the Urban Mixed Use District in which it is located to the extent that the overall residential density and commercial intensity does not exceed that permitted under zoning at time of adoption of this Plan. *********************************** text break **************************************** Any comprehensive plan amendment to increase residential density within this District shall only provide for that density increase via utilization of the transfer of development rights (TDR) program, except TDR credits shall not be required for projects determined by the Board of County Commissioners to have a public benefit. *********************************** text break **************************************** 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict [Page 28] The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either “a” or “b” below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided below for the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements, including the routing of all on -site and appropriate off-site water through the project’s water management system, and a fair share cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal/out-fall system made necessary by new development in the Subdistrict. a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit (transferable development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, with the following exceptions: 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 2 of 29 i. Properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; or, ii. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density; or, iii. Up to 1.52 additional units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the 196.4 acre portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units (transferable development right) per a cre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: *********************************** text break **************************************** 2. Density Bonuses [Page 53] *********************************** text break **************************************** d. Residential In-fill [Page 54] To encourage residential in-fill in urban areas of existing development outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, a maximum of 3 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if the following criteria are met: (a) The project is 20 acres or less in size; (b) At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer; (c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses; (d) The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent property; (e) There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels; and (f) The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in-fill residential density bonus and was created prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989;. (g) Of the maximum 3 additional units, one (1) dwelling unit per acre shall be transferred from Sending Lands; and (h) Projects qualifying under this provision may increase the density administratively by a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre by transferring that additional density from Sending Lands. ***********************************text break************************************************ f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus [Page 54] To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted as follows: 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 3 of 29 (a) From Urban designated areas into that portion of the Urban designated area subject to this Density Rating System, in accordance with 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. For projects utilizing this TDR process, density may be increased above and beyond the density otherwise allowed by the Density Rating System. (b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development. (c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit per gross acre, with the following exceptions: i. Properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. ii. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density increase. iii. Up to 1.52 additional units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lan ds within the 196.4 acre portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000- 10, as amended, excepting the ±39 acres located in the South ½ of the Southwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. **********************************text break**************************************** II. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION [Page 74] **********************************text break**************************************** B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District [Page 76] The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is identified on Future Land Use Map. This District consists of approximately 93,60077,200 acres, or 76% of Collier County’s total land area. Significant portions of this District are adjacent to the Urban area or to the semi-rural, rapidly developing, large-lot North Golden Gate Estates platted lands. Agricultural land uses within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District do not represent a significant portion of the County’s active agricultural lands. As of the date of adoption, of this Plan Amendment, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District consisted of more than 5,550 tax parcels and includeds at least 3,835 separate 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 4 of 29 and distinct property owners. Alternative land use strategies have been developed for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, in part, to consider these existing conditions. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District employs a balanced approach, including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources and private property rights, providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in designated areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities, commercial uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the District. In order to preserve existing natural resources, including habitat for listed species, to retain a rural, pastoral, or park-like appearance from the major public rights-of-way within this area, and to protect private property rights, the following innovative planning and development techniques are required and/or encouraged within the District. Any comprehensive plan amendment to increase residential density herein shall only provide for that density increase via utilization of the transfer of development rights (TDR) program, except TDR credits shall not be required for projects determined by the Board of County Commissioners to have a public benefit. 1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Sending, Neutral, and Receiving Designations: The primary purpose of the TDR process within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is to establish an equitable method of protecting and conserving the most valuable environmental lands, including large connected wetland systems and significant areas of habitat for listed species, while allowing property owners of such lands to recoup lost value and development potential through an economically viable process of transferring such rights to other more suitable lands. Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, residential density may be transferred from lands designated as Sending Lands to lands designated as Receiving Lands on the Future Land Use Map, subject to the provisions below. Residential density may not be transferred either from or into areas designated as Neutral Lands through the TDR process. A) Receiving Lands: Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development units may be transferred from areas designated as Sending Lands. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations. Various incentives are employed to direct development into Receiving Lands and away from Sending Lands, thereby maximizing native vegetation and habitat preservation and restoration. Such incentives include, but are not limited to: the TDR process; clustered development; density bonus incentives; and, provisions for central sewer and water. Within Receiving Lands, the following standards shall apply, except for those modifications that are identified in the North Belle Meade Overlay: 1. Maximum Density, except for Housing that is Affordable: The base residential density allowable for designated Receiving Lands is one (1) unit per five (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum density achievable in Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per acre for the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade Receiving Lands; and, two (2) dwelling units per 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 5 of 29 acre for the two Receiving Lands areas along Immokalee Road. This maximum density is exclusive of the Density Blending provisions. Dwelling Units may only be transferred into Receiving Lands in whole unit increments (fractional transfers are prohibited). Once the maximum density is achieved through the use of TDR Credits, additional density may be achieved as follows: a) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall be allowed for each additional acre of native vegetation preserved exceeding the minimum preservation requirements set forth in Policy 6.1.2 of the CCME. b) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall be allowed as provided in Policy 6.2.5(6)b of the CCME. 2. Maximum Density for Housing that is Affordable: For a project providing housing that is affordable, a maximum density of twelve and two-tenths (12.2) units per acre is allowed, consistent with Section 2.06.00 of the LDC, subject to rezone approval, and subject to the approval of an “Affordable Housing Agreement.” TDR credits are not required, nor allowed, to achieve density. 3. Clustering: Where the transfer of development rights or provision for housing that is affordable is employed to increase residential density within Receiving Lands, such residential development shall be clustered in accordance with the following provisions: a) Consistent with the provisions of the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub- elements of this Plan, central water and sewer shall be extended to the project. Where County sewer or water services may not be available concurrent with development in Receiving Lands, interim private water and sewer facilities may be approved. b) The maximum lot size allowable for a single-family detached dwelling unit is one acre. c) The clustered development shall be located on the site so as to provide to the greatest degree practicable: protection for listed species habitat; preservation of the highest quality native vegetation; connectivity to adjacent natural reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation, maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. 3. 4. Minimum Project Size: The minimum project size required in order to receive transferred dwelling units is 40 contiguous acres, except no minimum project size is required for the Receiving Lands areas along Immokalee Road. 4.5. Emergency Preparedness: a) In order to reduce the likelihood of threat to life and property from a tropical storm or hurricane event, community facilities, schools, or other public buildings shall be designed to serve as storm shelters if located outside of areas that are likely to be inundated during storm events, as indicated on the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricane Map for Collier County. Impacts on evacuation routes, if any, must be considered as well. Applicants for new residential or 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 6 of 29 mixed use developments proposed for Receiving Lands shall work with the Collier County Emergency Management staff to develop an Emergency Preparedness Plan to include provisions for storm shelter space, a plan for emergency evacuation, and other provisions that may be deemed appropriate and necessary to mitigate against a potential disaster. b) Applicants for new developments proposed for Receiving Lands shall work with the Florida Forest Service and the Managers of any adjacent or nearby public lands, to develop a Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan that will reduce the likelihood of threat to life and property from wildfires. This plan will address, at a minimum: project structural design; the use of materials and location of structures so as to reduce wildfire threat; firebreaks and buffers; water features; and, the impacts of prescribed burning on adjacent or nearby lands. 5. 6. Allowable Uses: Uses within Receiving Lands are limited to the following: a) Agricultural uses; b) Single-family residential dwelling units, including mobile homes where a Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists. c) Multi-family residential structures shall be permitted under the Residential Clustering provisions of this plan, subject to the development of appropriate development standards to ensure that the transitional semi-rural character of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is preserved. These development standards shall include, but are not limited to: building heights, design standards, buffers, and setbacks. d) Rural Villages, subject to the provisions set forth in II. B.3 of this element. e) Dormitories, duplexes and other types of staff housing, as may be incidental to, and in support of, conservation uses. f) Group housing uses subject to the following density/intensity limitations: • Family Care Facilities: 1 unit per 5 acres; • Group Care Facilities and other Care Housing Facilities: Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) not to exceed 0.45. g) Staff housing as may be incidental to, and in support of, safety service facilities and essential services; h) Farm labor housing limited to 10 acres in any single location: • Single family/duplex/mobile home: 11 dwelling units per acre; • Multifamily/dormitory: 22 dwelling units/beds per acre. i) Sporting and Recreational camps within which the lodging component shall not exceed 1 unit per 5 gross acres; j) Essential services. k) Golf courses or driving ranges, subject to the following standards: (1) The minimum density shall be as follows: 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 7 of 29 (a) For golf course projects, including both freestanding golf courses and golf courses with associated residential development: one TDR credit shall be required for every five (5) gross acres of land area utilized as part of the golf course, including the clubhouse area, rough, fairways, greens, and lakes, but excluding any area dedicated as conservation that is non-irrigated and retained in a natural state. Any residential development associated with the golf course shall have a minimum density of one (1) dwelling unit per five acres. (2) Golf courses shall be designed, constructed, and managed in accordance with the best management practices of Audubon International’s Gold Signature Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (3) In order to prevent the contamination of soil, surface water and ground water by the materials stored and handled by golf course maintenance operations, golf courses shall comply with the Best Management Practices for Golf Course Maintenance Departments, prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, May 1995 September 2012. (4) To protect ground and surface water quality from fertilizer and pesticide usage, golf courses shall demonstrate the following management practices: (a) The use of slow release nitrogen sources; (b) The use of soil and plant tissue analysis to adjust timing and amount of fertilization applications; (c) The use of an integrated pest management program using both biological and chemical agents to control various pests; (d) The coordination of pesticide applications with the timing and application of irrigation water; (e) The use of the procedure contained in IFAS Circular 1011, Managing Pesticides for Golf Course Maintenance and Water Quality Protection, May 1991 (revised 1995) to select pesticides that will have a minimum adverse impact on water quality. (5) To ensure water conservation, golf courses shall incorporate the following in their design and operation: (a) Irrigation systems shall be designed to use weather station information and moisture-sensing systems to determine the optimum amount of irrigation water needed considering soil moisture and evapotranspiration rates. (b) As available, golf courses shall utilize treated effluent reuse water consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element Objective 1.4 and its policies; (c) Native plants shall be used exclusively except for special purpose areas such as golf greens, fairways, and building sites. Within these excepted areas, landscaping plans shall require that at least 75% of the trees and 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 8 of 29 50% of the shrubs be freeze-tolerant native Floridian species. At least 75% of the required native trees and shrubs shall also be drought tolerant species. (6)(4) Stormwater management ponds shall be designed to mimic the functions of natural systems: by establishing shorelines that are sinuous in configuration in order to provide increased length and diversity of the littoral zone. A Littoral shelf shall be established to provide a feeding area for water dependent avian species. The combined length of vertical and rip-rapped walls shall be limited to 25% of the shoreline. Credits to the site preservation area requirements, on an acre- to- acre basis, shall be given for littoral shelves that exceed these littoral shelf area requirements. (7) (5) Site preservation and native vegetation retention requirements shall be the same as those set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. These areas are intended to provide habitat functions and shall meet minimum dimensions as set forth in the Land Development Code. These standards shall be established within one year. l) Commercial development as permitted as part of an approved Rural Village. Within one year of adoption of these amendments, the County will develop appropriate standards for commercial development within Rural Villages, with particular focus on design, scale, and access provisions that will maintain the rural character or semi-rural character of the District. m) Research and Technology Parks, consistent with the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict provided for in the Urban designation, and within an approved Rural Village. Within one year of adoption of these amendments, the County will develop appropriate standards for Research and Technology Parks within Rural Villages, with particular focus on design, scale, and access provisions that will maintain the rural character or semi-rural character of the District. n) Business and Industrial Uses as identified as Florida Qualified Target Industries. Within one (1) year from the date of adoption of this amendment, initiate LDC amendments to provide design standards, development standards, and locational criteria. o) Neighborhood commercial uses within Affordable Housing projects. Within one (1) year from the date of adoption of this amendment, initiate LDC amendments to provide uses, design standards, development standards, and locational criteria. n) p) Zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or other similar uses. o) q) Public educational plants and ancillary plants. p) r) Facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste. q) s) Community facilities, such as, places of worship, childcare facilities, cemeteries, social and fraternal organizations. r) t) Sports instructional schools and camps. s) u) Earthmining, oil extraction and related processing. t) v) Asphalt and concrete batch-making plants. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 9 of 29 u) w) Travel trailer recreational vehicle parks, provided the following criteria are met: 1) The subject site is abutting an existing travel trailer recreational vehicle park site; and, 2) The subject site is no greater than 100% the size of the existing abutting park site. v) x) Parks, open space, and recreational uses. w) y) Private schools. 6. 7. Density Blending shall be permitted subject to the provisions set forth in the Density Rating System. 7. 8. Open Space and Native Vegetation Preservation Requirements: a) Usable Open Space: Within Receiving Lands, projects utilizing TDR Credits greater than 40 acres in size shall provide a minimum of 70% usable open space. Usable Open Space includes active or passive recreation areas such as parks, playgrounds, golf courses, waterways, lakes, nature trails, and other similar open spaces. Usable Open Space shall also include areas set aside for conservation or preservation of native vegetation and lawn, yard and landscape areas. Open water beyond the perimeter of the site, street right- of-way, except where dedicated or donated for public uses, driveways, off- street parking and loading areas, shall not be counted towards required Usable Open Space. b) Native Vegetation Preservation: Native vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. 8. Adjustment to Receiving Lands Boundaries. For all properties designated Receiving Lands where such property is contiguous to a Receiving Land/Sending Land boundary, the property owner may submit data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate that a change in the boundary is warranted. Within one year from the effective date of this provision, the County may initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider such boundary changes upon a showing of the following: a) The property is contiguous to Sending Lands; b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property contains characteristics warranting a Sending designation; and c) An adjustment to the Receiving Lands boundary will not adversely affect the TDR program. B) Neutral Lands: Neutral Lands have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development. Available data indicates that Neutral Lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation, and thus higher habitat values, than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but these values do not approach those of Sending Lands. Therefore, these lands are appropriate for limited development, if such development is directed away from existing native vegetation and habitat. A lower maximum gross density is prescribed 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 10 of 29 for Neutral Lands when compared to Receiving Lands. Additionally, certain other uses permitted within Receiving Lands are not authorized in Neutral Lands. Within Neutral Lands, the following standards shall apply: 1. Maximum Density: 1 dwelling unit per 5 gross acres (0.2 units per acre). 2. Clustering: Clustering of residential development is allowed and encouraged. Where clustered development is employed, it shall be in accordance with the following provisions: a) If within the boundaries of the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District, and consistent with the provisions of the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub- elements of this Plan, central water and sewer shall be extended to the project. Where County sewer or water services may not be available concurrent with development in Neutral Lands, interim private water and sewer facilities may be approved. b) The maximum lot size is one acre. c) The clustered development shall be located on the site so as to provide to the greatest degree practicable: protection for listed species habitat; preservation of the highest quality native vegetation; connectivity to adjacent natural reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation, maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. d) The minimum project size shall be at least 40 acres. 3. Allowable Uses: a) Agricultural uses; b) Single-family residential dwelling units, including mobile homes where a Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists. c) Multi-family residential structures shall be permitted under the Residential Clustering provisions of this plan, subject to the development of appropriate development standards to ensure that the transitional semi-rural character of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is preserved. These development standards shall include, but are not limited to: building heights, design standards, buffers, and setbacks. d) Dormitories, duplexes and other types of staff housing, as may be incidental to, and in support of, conservation uses. e) Group housing uses subject to the following density/intensity limitations: • Family Care Facilities: 1 unit per 5 acres; • Group Care Facilities and other Care Housing Facilities: Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) not to exceed 0.45. f) Staff housing as may be incidental to, and in support of, safety service facilities and essential services; g) Farm labor housing limited to 10 acres in any single location: • Single family/duplex/mobile home: 11 dwelling units per acre; 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 11 of 29 • Multifamily/dormitory: 22 dwelling units/beds per acre. h) Sporting and Recreational camps, within which the lodging component shall not exceed 1 unit per 5 gross acres; i) Essential services. j) Golf courses or driving ranges, subject to the following standards: (1) Golf courses shall be designed, constructed, and managed in accordance with the best management practices of Audubon International’s Gold Signature Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2) In order to prevent the contamination of soil, surface water and ground water by the materials stored and handled by golf course maintenance operations, golf courses shall comply with the Best Management Practices for Golf Course Maintenance Departments, prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, May 1995 September 2012. (3) To protect ground and surface water quality from fertilizer and pesticide usage, golf courses shall demonstrate the following management practices: (a) The use of slow release nitrogen sources; (b) The use of soil and plant tissue analysis to adjust timing and amount of fertilization applications; (c) The use of an integrated pest management program using both biological and chemical agents to control various pests; (d) The coordination of pesticide applications with the timing and application of irrigation water; (e) The use of the procedure contained in IFAS Circular 1011, Managing Pesticides for Golf Course Maintenance and Water Quality Protection, May 1991 (revised 1995) to select pesticides that will have a minimum adverse impact on water quality. (4) To ensure water conservation, golf courses shall incorporate the following in their design and operation: (a) Irrigation systems shall be designed to use weather station information and moisture-sensing systems to determine the optimum amount of irrigation water needed considering soil moisture and evapotranspiration rates. (b) As available, golf courses shall utilize treated effluent reuse water consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element Objective 1.4 and its policies; (c) Native plants shall be used exclusively except for special purpose areas such as golf greens, fairways, and building sites. Within these excepted areas, landscaping plans shall require that at least 75% of the trees and 50% of the shrubs be freeze-tolerant native Floridian species. At least 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 12 of 29 75% of the required native trees and shrubs shall also be drought tolerant species. (5)(3) Stormwater management ponds shall be designed to mimic the functions of natural systems: by establishing shorelines that are sinuous in configuration in order to provide increased length and diversity of the littoral zone. A Littoral shelf shall be established to provide a feeding area for water dependent avian species. The combined length of vertical and rip-rapped walls shall be limited to 25% of the shoreline. Credits to the site preservation area requirements, on an acre- to- acre basis, shall be given for littoral shelves that exceed these littoral shelf area requirements. (6)(4) Site preservation and native vegetation retention requirements shall be the same as those set forth in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District criteria. Site preservation areas are intended to provide habitat functions and shall meet minimum dimensions as set forth in the Land Development Code. These standards shall be established within one year. k) Zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or other similar uses. l) Public educational plants and ancillary plants. m) Facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste. n) Community facilities, such as, places of worship, childcare facilities, cemeteries, social and fraternal organizations. o) Sports instructional schools and camps. p) Earthmining, oil extraction and related processing. q) Parks, open space, and recreational uses. r) Private schools. s) Existing units approved for the Fiddler’s Creek DRI may be reallocated to those parts of Sections 18 and 19, Township 51 South, Range 27 East added to Fiddler’s Creek DRI together with part of Section 29, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, at a density greater than 1 unit per 5 gross acres provided that no new units are added to the 6,000 previously approved units, which results in a gross density of 1.6 units per acre for the Fiddler’s Creek DRI; and further provided that no residential units shall be located on that part of Section 29 within the Fiddler’s Creek DRI; and further provided that South Florida Water Management District jurisdictional wetlands impacted by the DRI in said Sections do not exceed 10 acres. 4. Native vegetation and preservation requirements: Native vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. 5. Density Blending shall be permitted subject to the provisions set forth in the Density Rating System. 6. Adjustment to Neutral Lands Boundaries. For all properties designated Neutral Lands where such property is contiguous to a Neutral Land/Sending Land boundary, the property owner may submit data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate that a change in the boundary is warranted. Within one year from the effective date of this provision, the County may initiate a Growth 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 13 of 29 Management Plan amendment to consider such boundary changes upon a showing of the following: a) The property is contiguous to Sending Lands; b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property contains characteristics warranting a Sending designation; and c) An adjustment to the Neutral Lands boundary will not adversely affect the TDR program. C) Sending Lands: Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. 1. Sending Lands are located entirely within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and are depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Based upon their location, Sending Lands are the principal target for preservation and conservation. Private Property owners of lands designated as Sending Lands may transfer density to Receiving Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and to lands within the Urban Designated Area subject to limitations set forth in the Density Rating System. All privately owned lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay are designated Sending Lands. 2. Base Severance Rate: Development rights may be severed from Sending Lands at a maximum rate of 0.2 0.4 TDR credits per acre (1 2 TDR Credits per five acres). Utilization of TDR Credits and TDR Bonus Credits in Receiving Lands may only occur in whole number increments (fractions are prohibited). In the case of legal nonconforming lots or parcels in existence as of June 22, 1999, where such lot or parcel is less than 5 acres in size, one two (2) TDR Credits may be severed from said lot or parcel. 3. Conditions Applicable to Base and Bonus TDR Credits: a) Base TDR Credits may not be severed from Sending Lands where a conservation easement or other similar development restriction prohibits residential development. b) The severance of credits shall be recorded in public records utilizing a legal instrument determined to be appropriate by the County Attorney’s Office. Said instrument shall clearly state the remaining allowable lands uses on the subject property after all, or a portion, of the residential density has been severed from the property. c) Where development rights have been severed from Sending Lands, such lands may be retained in private ownership or may be sold or deeded by gift to another entity. d) The bonus provisions set forth in subsections 4 through 6 below are applicable to properties from which TDR Credits were severed prior to and subsequent to the effective date of this amendment. e) These bonus provisions set forth in subsections 4 through and 5 6 below are also 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 14 of 29 applicable to the North Belle Meade Overlay provisions of the Future Land Use Element. f) Any Sending Lands from which TDR Credits have been severed may also be utilized for mitigation programs and associated mitigation activities and uses in conjunction with any county, state or federal permitting. g) No Conveyance Bonus Credits shall be available without provision of a plan for management and maintenance as authorized in subsection 4 below (the Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus). 4. Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus: One (1) additional TDR Bonus Credit may be issued to the owner of each five-acre parcel or legal nonconforming lot of record. This Bonus shall be granted upon the County’s acceptance of a Restoration and Management Plan (RMP) that is consistent with a listed speci es management plan that includes habitat management, the removal of exotics and the maintenance of the land exotic free. The property owner may contract with any of the government agencies or contractors deemed qualified by the County for implementation of the RMP. The property owner shall provide financial assurance, in the form of a performance surety bond or similar financial security acceptable to the County, that the RMP shall remain in place and be performed until the earlier of a) or b) below the following occurs: a) Viable and sustainable ecological and hydrological functionality has been achieved on the property as measured by the success criteria set forth in the RMP. b) The property is conveyed to a county, state or federal agency, as provided for in subsection 5 below. c) For Sending Lands properties in private ownership located within, or partially within, the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay (BMHEO), the Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus Credit shall be granted when, within two (2) years of the effective date of this provision: (1) the property owner provides a “Flow-Way Easement” to Collier County; and, (2) the property owner removes the invasive exotic plants from the parcel. The County will assume responsibility for the recording of the easement and the perpetual exotic maintenance of the parcel as a condition of the property owner granting the easement. 5. Conveyance TDR Bonus: A TDR Bonus Credit shall be issued to the owner of each five (5) acre parcel or legal nonconforming lot of record designated as Sending Lands, at the transfer rate of one (1) additional TDR Bonus Credit for each five acres or legal nonconforming lot of record for conveyance of fee simple title to a federal, state, or local governmental agency by gift; or to a not-for profit entity or land trust, approved by the Board of County Commissioners, by gift. 6. Early Entry TDR Bonus: An Early Entry TDR Bonus shall be available in the form of an additional one TDR Credit for each base TDR Credit severed from Sending Lands from March 5, 2004, or until September 27, 2022, unless further extended by resolution by the Board of County Commissioners. Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits may be used after the termination of the bonus period. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 15 of 29 6. Belle Meade Flow-Way TDR Bonus: Private property owners of land located within or partially within the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay (BMHEO), as depicted on the BMHEO Map, may sever development rights from Sending Lands at a maximum rate of 0.2 TDR credits per acre (1 TDR Credit per five acres) or legal nonconforming lot of record in exchange for providing a “Flow-Way Easement” to Collier County. Eligibility is limited to within two (2) years of adoption of the establishment of the BMHEO. Eligible parcels are identified on the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Area Flow- Way TDR Bonus Credit Eligibility Map, adopted by separate resolution (Res. 21-XXX). 7. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are limited to the following: a) Agricultural uses consistent with Chapter 823.14(6) Florida Statutes (Florida Right to Farm Act). b) Detached single-family dwelling units, including mobile homes where the Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres or one dwelling unit per lot or parcel of less than 40 acres, which existed on or before June 22, 1999. For the purpose of this provision, a lot or parcel which is deemed to have been in existence on or before June 22, 1999 is 1) a lot or parcel which is part of a subdivision recorded in the public records of Collier County, Florida; or 2) a lot or parcel which has limited fixed boundaries, described by metes and bounds or other specific legal description, the description of which has been recorded in the public records of Collier County Florida on or before June 22, 1999; or 3) a lot or parcel which has limited fixed boundaries, for which an agreement for deed was executed prior to June 22, 1999. c) Habitat preservation and conservation uses. d) Passive parks and other passive recreational uses. e) Sporting and Recreational camps, with which the lodging component shall not exceed 1 unit per 5 gross acres. f) Essential Services necessary to serve permitted uses identified in Section 7.a) through 7.e) such as private wells and septic tanks. g) Essential Services as follows, necessary to serve Urban area or the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District: utility lines, except sewer lines; sewer lines and lift stations, only if located within non-NRPA Sending Lands, and only if located within already cleared portions of existing rights-of-way or easements; and, water pumping stations and raw water wells. h) Essential Services necessary to ensure public safety. i) Oil and gas exploration. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized to minimize impacts to native habitats. 8. Conditional Uses: a) The following uses are conditionally permitted subject to approval through a public hearing process: 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 16 of 29 (1) Essential services not identified above in 7.f). Within one year, Collier County will review essential services currently allowed in the Land Development Code and will define those uses intended to be conditionally permitted in Sending designated lands. During this one-year period or if necessary, until a comprehensive plan amendment identifying conditionally permitted essential services, no conditional uses for essential services within Sending designated lands shall be approved. (2) Public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facilities, and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities, shall be permitted within Section 25, Township 49S, Range 26E, on lands adjacent to the existing County landfill. This shall not be interpreted to allow for the expansion of the landfill into Section 25 for the purpose of solid waste disposal. (3) Commercial uses accessory to permitted uses 7.a), 7.c) and 7.d), such as retail sales of produce accessory to farming, or a restaurant accessory to a park or preserve, so long as restrictions or limitations are imposed to insure the commercial use functions as an accessory, subordinate use. (4) Oil and gas field development and production. Where practicable, directional - drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized to minimize impacts to native habitats. (5) Facilities for resource recovery and for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste, for a ±29 acre property located within the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 49S, Range 27E, provided previously cleared or disturbed areas are utilized so as to avoid impacts to native habitats and to protect existing conservation easement areas from new or expanding uses. This shall not be interpreted to allow for the establishment or expansion of facilities for landfilling, dryfilling, incinerating, or other method of onsite solid waste disposal. (6) Active recreational uses only on lands owned by government entities other than the State of Florida and designated North Belle Meade Overlay, subject to criteria and/or definitions established in the LDC. b) In addition to the criteria set forth in the Land Development Code, Conditional Uses shall be allowed subject to the following additional criteria: (1) The applicant shall submit a plan for development that demonstrates that wetlands, listed species and their habitat are adequately protected. This plan shall be part of the required EIS as specified in Policy 6.1.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. (2) Conditions may be imposed, as deemed appropriate, to limit the size, location, and access to the conditional use. 9. Where residential density is transferred from Sending Lands, allowable uses shall be limited to the following: a) Agricultural uses consistent with Chapter 823.14(6) Florida Statutes (Florida Right to Farm Act), including water management facilities, to the extent and intensity that such operations exist at the date of any transfer of development rights. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 17 of 29 b) Cattle grazing on unimproved pasture where no clearing is required; c) Detached single-family dwelling units, including mobile homes where the Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres. In order to retain these development rights after any transfer, up to one dwelling must be retained (not transferred) per 40 acres. d) One detached dwelling unit, including mobile homes where the Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists, per each preexisting lot or parcel of less than 40 acres. For the purpose of this provision, a preexisting lot or parcel is one that was in existence on or before June 22, 1999 and is: 1) a lot or parcel which is part of a subdivision recorded in the public records of Collier County, Florida; or 2) a lot or parcel which has limited fixed boundaries, described by metes and bounds or other specific legal description, the description of which has been recorded in the public records of Collier County Florida on or before June 22, 1999; or 3) a lot or parcel which has limited fixed boundaries, for which an agreement for deed was executed prior to June 22, 1999. In order to retain these development rights after any transfer, up to one dwelling must be retained (not transferred) per each lot or parcel. e) Habitat preservation and conservation uses. f) Passive parks and passive recreational uses. g) Essential services, as authorized in Sending Lands. h) Oil extraction and related processing, excluding earth mining. 10. Native Vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. 11. Adjustment to the Sending Land Boundaries. For all properties designated Sending Lands where such property is contiguous to a Sending Land/Neutral Land boundary or Sending Land/Receiving Land boundary, the County will provide written notice to the property owners to advise of the opportunity to submit additional data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate a change to the boundary is warranted. Said written notice will be provided within three months of the effective date of these Rural Fringe amendments. Within one year from the date these notices are sent, the County will initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider boundary changes, based upon the data and analysis, as may be warranted. Under the following conditions, adjustments may be proposed to Sending Land boundaries: a) The property is contiguous to Neutral or Receiving Lands; b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property does not contain characteristics warranting a Sending designation; c) An adjustment to the Sending land boundary requires an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 18 of 29 11. Clustering: For Sending Lands Parcels a minimum of eighty (80) acres, or an aggregation of parcels where each is a minimum of forty (40) acres, clustering is allowed in accordance with the following provisions: a) The maximum lot size allowable for a single-family detached dwelling unit is one acre. b) The clustered development shall be located on the site so as to provide to the greatest degree practicable: protection for listed species habitat; preservation of the highest quality native vegetation; connectivity to adjacent natural reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation, maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. D) Additional TDR Provisions: Collier County has amended its land development regulations to adopt a formal process for authorizing and tracking the Transfer of Development Rights. This process includes the following provisions: 1. The establishment of a simple, expeditious process whereby private property owners may, by right, “sell” residential dwelling units from lands designated as Sending Lands. Said units (TDR Credits) may then be transferred by right to lands designated as Receiving Lands, or to Urban Lands where authorized. Once established, the TDR program shall be administratively reviewed and approved, requiring no further public hearing or Board approval if consistent with the provisions for administrative approval. 2. The establishment of a process for tracking and recording all TDR Credits in the public records of Collier County. This shall include the identification of the entity or department responsible for on-going administration of the TDR program. In addition, the County shall consider the feasibility of establishing a “TDR Bank,” to be administered by the County or some other not-for-profit governmental or quasi- governmental public agency established for this purpose. A primary objective of the TDR Bank is to make funds available to support the TDR program by offering initial minimal purchase prices of TDR Credits. 3. Limitations and Procedures: a) TDR Credits shall not be generated from Sending Lands where a conservation easement or other similar development restriction prohibits residential development. b) The generation of TDR Credits through the severance of residential density from Sending Lands shall be recorded in public records utilizing a legal instrument determined to be appropriate by the County Attorney’s Office. c) Said instrument shall clearly state the remaining allowable land uses on the subject property after all, or a portion, of the residential density has been severed from the property. d) Where residential density has been severed from Sending Lands, such lands may be retained in private ownership or may be sold or deeded by gift to another entity. 4. The TDR process shall be the only mechanism to achieve increased density within Receiving Lands, excluding: the Density Blending provisions of this Plan;, Housing 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 19 of 29 that is Affordable in the Plan; and any density bonuses authorized in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. 5. A 25-year prohibition on generating TDR Credits from any parcel, or portion thereof, within Sending Lands has been cleared for agricultural purposes after June 19, 2002. 6. A TDR Bonus Credit shall be issued to the owner of private property for each five (5) acre parcel or legal nonconforming lot of record designated Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands, at the transfer rate of one (1) additional TDR Bonus Credit for each five acres or legal nonconforming lot of record, utilized for a conservation use. A perpetual easement shall be placed on lands used for conservation uses to protect these lands in perpetuity. A restrictive covenant in favor of Collier County will be placed on lands used for conservation restricting the use in perpetuity to protect against non - conservation development. 2. Buffers Adjacent to Major Public Rights-of-way: In order to maintain and enhance the rural character within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, within one year of adoption of this amendment, Collier County will adopt land development regulations establishing buffering standards for developments adjacent to existing or proposed arterial and collector public roadways. These standards shall include, but are not limited to: applicability provisions, including establishing a minimum project size below which these requirements shall not apply; the degree to which water features, including water management lakes and canals, may be a part of this buffer; credits for existing native vegetation that is to be retained; and, credits toward any open space and native vegetation preservation requirements. 3. Rural Villages: Rural Villages may be approved within the boundaries of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District in order to: maximize the preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitat within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; to reduce the need for residents of the District and surrounding lands to travel to the County’s Urban area for work, recreation, shopping, and education; and, to enhance the provision of limited urban and rural levels of service through economies of scale. Rural Villages shall be comprised of several neighborhoods designed in a compact nature such that a majority of residential development is within one quarter mile of Neighborhood Centers or Village Center. Neighborhood Centers may include small scale service retail and office uses, and shall include a public park, square, or green. Village Centers shall be designed to serve the retail, office, civic, government uses and service needs of the residents of the village. The Village Center shall be the primary location for commercial uses. Villages shall be surrounded by a green belt in order to protect the character of the rural landscape and to provide separation between villages and the low density rural development, agricultural uses, and conservation lands that may surround the village. Villages shall be designed to include the following: a mixture of residential housing types; institutional uses; commercial uses; and, recreational uses, all of which shall serve the residents of the Village and the surrounding lands. In addition, the following criteria and conditions shall apply, except for those modifications that are identified in the North Belle Meade Overlay: A) Process for Approval: The Collier County Land Development Code includes provisions for the establishment of Rural Villages. These provisions establish specific 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 20 of 29 development regulations, standards, and land use mix requirements. Subsequent to the creation of these provisions, Rural Village applications shall be submitted in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone and, where applicable, in conjunction with a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) application as provided for in Chapter 380 of Florida Statutes, or in conjunction with any other Florida provisions of law that may supersede the DRI process. B) Locational Restrictions: 1. A Rural Village shall not be located any closer than 3.0 miles from another Rural Village. 2. No more than one Rural Village may be located in each of the distinct Receiving Areas depicted on the FLUM. 3. 1. A Rural Village shall have direct access to a roadway classified by Collier County as an arterial or collector roadway. Alternatively, access to the Village may be via a new collector roadway directly accessing an existing arterial, the cost of which shall be borne entirely by the developer. 4. 2. A Rural Village shall be located where other public infrastructure, such as potable water and sewer facilities, already exist or are planned. C) Rural Village Sizes, and Density, and Design: 1. Rural Villages shall be a minimum of 300 acres and shall utilize Rural Village standards herein and within the LDC. A Rural Village shall have and a maximum of 1,500 acres, except within Receiving Lands south of th e Belle Meade NRPA where the maximum size may not exceed 2,500 acres. The Rural Village size is exclusive of the required green belt area. Rural Villages shall include a Village Center and a minimum of two distinct neighborhoods. 2. The minimum and maximum gross density of a Rural Village shall be 2.0 units per gross acre and 3.0 units per acre, respectively. The density calculation for a Rural Village may include the base residential density permitted for the green belt area, if such density is shifted to the Rural Village area. 3. Density shall be achieved as follows: a) The base density for the Agricultural/Rural Designation of 0.2 dwelling units per acre (1.0 dwelling units per five acres) for lands within the Rural Village, and the land area designated as a green belt surrounding the Rural Village, is granted by right for allocation within the designated Rural Village. b) The additional density necessary to achieve the minimum required density for a Rural Village shall be achieved by any combination of TDR Credits and TDR Bonus Credits. For each TDR Credit acquired for use in achieving the minimum density in a Rural Village, one Rural Village bonus unit shall be granted. c) Additional density between the minimum and maximum amounts established herein may be achieved through any of the following, either individually or in combination: 1) Additional TDR Credits. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 21 of 29 2) TDR Bonus Credits. 3) A one-half (0.5) unit bonus for each (1) unit that is provided for low income residents. 4) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre allowed for each additional acre of native vegetation preserved exceeding the minimum preservation requirements set forth in Policy 6.1.2 of the CCME. 5) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre as provided in Policy 6.2.5 (6)b. of the CCME. 4. Greater than 50 percent of residential development shall be located within one quarter mile of a Neighborhood Center or the Village Center. 5. Rural Villages shall include a Village Center and a minimum of two distinct neighborhoods. D) Land Use Mix: 1. Acreage Limitations 1. Neighborhood Center Characteristics a) Small scale service retail and office uses allowed; maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .5 b) Parks and Public Green Spaces required; minimum of one (1) percent of total Village acreage 2. Village Center Characteristics a) Floor Area Ratio or Intensity 1. Retail and Office allowed; maximum FAR of 0.5 2. Civic, Government, and Institutional Services allowed; maximum FAR of 0.6 3. Group Housing allowed; maximum FAR of 0.45 4. Transient Lodging allowed; maximum of 26 units per acre net b) Goods and Services required; minimum of 53 sq. ft. gross building area per dwelling unit c) Civic, Government and Institutional Services required; minimum of 10 sq. ft. per dwelling unit a) Neighborhood Center ‒ 0.5% of the total Village acreage, not to exceed 10 acres, within each Neighborhood Center. b) Neighborhood Center Commercial – Not to exceed 40% of the Neighborhood Center acreage and 8,500 square feet of gross leasable floor area per acre. c) Village Center ‒ Not to exceed 10% of the total Village acreage. d) Village Center Commercial ‒ Not to exceed 30% of the Village Center acreage and 10,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area per acre. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 22 of 29 e) d) Research and Technology Parks allowed; must be – Cconsistent with the provisions of the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District, excluding paragraph j; the Park shall not exceed 4% of the total Village acreage. f) Civic Uses and Public Parks ‒ Minimum of 10% of the total Village acreage. E) Open Space and Environmental Protection: 1. Greenbelts: In addition to the requirements for parks, village greens, and other open space within the Rural Village, a greenbelt averaging 200 300 feet in width but not less than 2100 feet in width, shall be required at the perimeter of the Rural Village. The Greenbelt is required to ensure a permanent un-developable edge surrounding the Rural Village, thereby discouraging sprawl. Greenbelts shall only be designated on Receiving Lands. The allowable residential density shall be shifted from the designated Greenbelt to the Rural Village. The greenbelt may be concentrated to a greater degree in areas where it is necessary to protect listed species habitat, including wetlands and uplands, provide for a buffer from adjacent natural reservations, or provide for wellfield or aquifer protection, Golf courses and existing agriculture operations are permitted within the greenbelt, subject to the native vegetation preservation requirements specified below in paragraph 2. However, golf course turf areas shall only be located within 100 feet of the Greenbelt boundaries (interior and exterior boundary); further, these turf areas shall only be located in previously cleared, or disturbed areas (see CCME Policy 6.1.2(1)). 2. Open Space and Native Vegetation Retention. a) Native Vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 6.1.2. b) Open Space: Within the Rural Village and required Greenbelt, in aggregate, a minimum of 40% of Open Space shall be provided. 3. An environmental impact statement for the Rural Village and surrounding greenbelt area shall be submitted in accordance with Policy 6.1.7 of the CCME. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 23 of 29 F) Fiscal Neutrality: A Rural Village may only be approved after demonstration that the Village will be fiscally neutral to county taxpayers outside of the Village. 1. An analysis shall be conducted and submitted in conjunction with the PUD rezone and/or DRI application evaluating the demand and impacts on levels of service for public facilities and the cost of such facilities and services necessary to serve the Rural Village. This evaluation shall identify projected revenue sources for services and any capital improvements that may be necessary to support the Village. Additionally, this analysis shall demonstrate that the costs of providing necessary facilities and services shall be fiscally neutral to County taxpayers outside of the Village. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following: a) Stormwater/drainage facilities; b) Potable water provisions and facilities; c) Reuse or “Grey” water provisions for irrigation; d) Central sewer provisions and facilities; e) Park facilities; f) Law enforcement facilities; g) School facilities; h) Roads, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and pathways; i) Solid Waste facilities. Development phasing and funding mechanisms to address any impacts to level of service in accordance with the County’s adopted concurrency management program. Accordingly, there shall be no degradation to the adopted level of service for public facilities and infrastructure identified above. G) As part of the development of Rural Village provisions, land development regulations shall identify specific design and development standards for residential, commercial and other uses. These standards shall protect and promote a Rural Village character and shall include requirements for parks, greens, squares, and other public places. In addition to the public spaces required as a part of a Village Center or Neighborhood Center. Rural Villages shall incorporate a Village Park and neighborhood parks. In addition, the following shall be addressed: 1. Rural Village, Village Center and neighborhood design guidelines and development standards: • A formal street layout, using primarily a grid design and incorporating village greens, squares and civic uses as focal points. • Neighborhoods and the village center will be connected through local and collector streets and shall incorporate traffic calming techniques as may be appropriate to discourage high-speed traffic. • Consideration shall be given to the location of public transit and school bus stops. • Pedestrian paths and bikeways shall be designed so as to provide access and interconnectivity. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 24 of 29 • The siting of both schools and housing units within the village shall consider the minimization of busing needs within the community. • Each Rural Village shall be served by a primary road system that is accessible by the public and shall not be gated. The primary road system within the village shall be designed to meet County standards and shall be dedicated to the public. • Access drives shall not be required to meet County standards. • A Rural Village shall not be split by an arterial roadway. • Interconnection between the Rural Village and abutting developments shall be encouraged required. 2. Specific allocations for land uses including residential, commercial and other non- residential uses within Rural Villages, shall include, but are not limited to: • A mixture of housing types, including single-family attached and detached, as well as multi-family. Projects providing affordable housing as required in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay contained in the Collier County Land Development Code shall receive a credit of one-half (0.5) units for each (1) unit constructed. Collier County shall develop, as part of the Rural Village Overlay, a methodology for determining the rental and fee-simple market rates that will qualify for such a credit, and a system for tracking such credits. • A mixture of recreational uses, including parks and village greens. • Civic, community, and other institutional uses. • A mixture of lot sizes, with a design that includes more compact development and attached dwelling units within neighborhood centers and the Village Center, and reduced net densities and increasingly larger lot sizes for detached residential dwellings generally occurring as development extends outward from the Village Centers. A mixture of retail, office, and services uses. 3. Specific development standards, including but not limited to, maximum net densities; required yards; landscaping and buffering, and building heights. 4. If requested by the Collier County School Board during the PUD and/or DRI review process, school sites shall be provided and shall be located to serve a maximum number of residential dwelling units within walking distance to the schools. Accordingly, schools, if requested, shall be located within or adjacent to the Village Center. Where a school site is requested and provided, a credit toward any applicable school impacts fees shall be provided based upon an independent evaluation/appraisal of the value of the land and/or improvements provided by the developer. H) For the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade Receiving Areas, within one (1) year from the effective date of adoption of these amendments, staff will initiate a study to evaluate the public infrastructure needs, maximum density allowance, employment opportunities, and design parameters, and propose appropriate GMP and/or LDC amendments. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 25 of 29 4. Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards ‒ The requirements, limitations and allowances of this District shall not apply to, affect or limit the continuation of existing uses. Existing uses shall include: tho se uses for which all required permits were issued prior to June 19, 2002; or projects for which a Conditional use has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002; or, projects for which a Rezone petition has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002 – inclusive of all lands not zoned A, Rural Agricultural; or, land use petitions for which a completed application has been submitted prior to June 19, 2002. The continuation of existing uses shall include on- site expansions of those uses if such expansions are consistent with or clearly ancillary to the existing uses. Hereafter, such previously approved developments shall be deemed to be consistent with the Plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies and for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and they may be built out in accordance with their previously approved plans. Changes to these previous approvals shall also be deemed to be consistent with the Plan's Goals, Policies and Objectives for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as long as they do not result in an increase in development density or intensity. ***********************************text break************************************** V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES [Page 99] A. Area of Critical State Concern Overlay The Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) was established by the 1974 Florida Legislature. The ACSC is displayed on the Future Land Use Map as an overlay area. The ACSC encompasses lands designated Conservation, Agricultural/Rural, Estates and Urban (Port of the Islands, Plantation Island and Copeland). Chokoloskee is outside the boundaries of the Big Cypress ASCS. Two areas located within the boundaries of the ACSC are exempt from the ACSC regulations: Everglades City: and, Ochopee, which is described as all of Sections 27, 28, 33 and 34, Township 52 South, Range 30 East. ***********************************text break************************************** B. North Belle Meade Overlay [Page 102] The North Belle Meade (NBM) Overlay is depicted on the FLUM. Uses shall be as provided for in Receiving, Neutral, NRPA and non-NRPA Sending Lands, except as provided herein for Neutral Lands in Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and shown on the North Belle Meade Overlay Section 24 Map. Development and preservation standards within this Overlay shall be as provided herein. ************************************textbreak************************************* 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 26 of 29 C. Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay (BMHEO) [Page New] The purpose of the BMHEO is to restore natural flow ways and rebalance freshwater flows into two natural systems – Naples Bay and Rookery Bay. Naples Bay has been adversely impacted over the years from an abundance of fresh water from the Golden Gate Canal; and, Rookery Bay from increased salinity caused by too little freshwater inflow. The Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan is a county initiative designed to address these adverse impacts with a series of hydrologic improvements to rebalance these two natural systems while rehydrating approximately 10,000 acres of land within and adjacent to the Picayune Strand State Forest to reestablish historical flows through this area. As a result, lands within the BMHEO will have standing water at varying levels depending on the location of these lands within the Overlay. The Lands within the Core Hydration Area will be impacted by a larger volume of water and for a longer period, and lands within the Primary and Secondary Flow Ways will be impacted to a lesser degree (refer to BMHEO Map). Lands within the BMHEO are under public and private ownership. Recognizing the public benefit achieved through these hydrologic enhancements, private property owners within the BMHEO will be eligible to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights Program, as provided within the RFMUD TDR provisions herein. ************************************textbreak************************************* CD. Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay [Page 120] The purpose of the Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay designation is to protect endangered or potentially endangered species and to identify large connected intact and relatively unfragmented habitats, which may be important for these listed species. NRPAs may include major wetland systems and regional flow-ways. These lands generally should be the focus of any federal, state, County or private acquisition efforts. NRPAs are located in the following areas: 1. Clam Bay Conservation Area (within Pelican Bay Plan Unit Development); 2. CREW (Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed); 3. North Belle Meade; 4. Belle Meade; 5. South Golden Gate Estates; NRPAs located in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District are identified as Sending Lands. Owners of Pprivate property owners within these NRPAs may transfer residential development rights from these important environmentally sensitive lands in accordance with Sending Lands provisions. Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) shall have the following standards: 1. Vegetation Retention and Site Preservation - Calculated at the higher value of 90% of the native vegetation present, or 90% of the total site area, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE. Applicable standards provided for in CCME Policy 6.1.2 shall also apply; 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 27 of 29 2. Listed species protection shall be provided for as specified in CCME Policy 7.1.2; 3. Permitted and conditional uses for publicly owned lands within an NRPA Overlay shall be those as set forth under the Conservation Designation. 4. For privately owned lands within a NRPA Overlay and designated Sending Lands, permitted and conditional uses shall be those as set forth in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District for Sending Lands. 5. For privately owned lands within a NRPA Overlay and designated Estates, permitted and conditional uses shall be those as set forth in the Estates Designation within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, in recognition of Florida’s private property rights laws. As these privately owned Estates Designated lands are acquired for conservation purposes, the Plan will be amended to change the Designation to Conservation. 6. There are approximately 15 sections of privately owned land within a NRPA Overlay that are not designated Sending and are not located within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (where all Sending Lands are located). Eight (8) of these sections, known as the “hole-in-the-doughnut,” are located within the South Golden Gate Estates NRPA and surrounded by platted Estates lots, almost all of which have been acquired by the State under the Florida Forever program as part of the Picayune Strand State Forest. The remaining seven (7) sections are within an approved mitigation bank located north and west of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Uses on these lands are limited to restoration and mitigation and, at the completion of this restoration process, these lands will be deeded to a land management entity for conservation purposes. As these privately owned Agricultural/Rural Designated lands are acquired for conservation purposes, the Plan will be amended to change the Designation to Conservation. Until such time, in recognition of Florida’s private property rights laws, permitted and conditional uses for these privately owned lands shall be those set forth in the Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District. 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 28 of 29 Exhibit A [PL20200002234] 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 02/15/2022 mrm 29 of 29 Exhibit A [PL20200002234] 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit-A- 021622 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) ‒ 1 ‒ Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMMUNITY PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: APRIL 1, 2021 RE: PETITION PL20200002234, STAFF-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] INTRODUCTION: The proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments found in Resolution Exhibit A are derived from public and staff input, and direction by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) at three public workshops in January, May and June of 2017, and at their September 25, 2018 meeting. These amendments are presented to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) in its capacity as the County’s Land Planning Agency under Florida Statutes and as the County’s Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), for consideration at the Transmittal stage public hearings. BACKGROUND: In 1997, Collier County adopted significant amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and submitted them to the State for review and comment. The State determined the amendments did not provide the necessary regulatory protections for environmentally sensitive lands, lacked measures for preventing the premature conversion of agricultural land to other land uses, and did not adequately discourage urban sprawl. As a result, the State issued a Final Order on June 22, 1999 (ACC-99-002) that required the County amend the GMP to: 1) provide protections for prime agricultural lands; 2) direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands and upland habitat to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed species and their habitat; and, 3) provide measures to curtail urban sprawl by encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. Over a three-year period, numerous public meetings were conducted culminating in the County adopting GMP amendments establishing the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) regulations, respectively, to address the findings in the Final Order. The RFMUD consists of approximately 77,000 acres and was adopted in 2002 by Ordinance 02-32. The RFMUD provides a transition between the Urban and Estates designated lands and between the Conservation and RLSA designated lands to the east. The RFMUD includes regulations and incentives to protect natural resources and private property rights. The RFMUD allows for appropriate density and intensity of uses, and a mixture of urban and rural levels of services, including limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, commercial uses, and essential service uses. 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 01. CCPC Staff Report RFMUD Transmittal.FINAL (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) ‒ 2 ‒ Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is separated into three areas – Sending Lands, Neutral Lands and Receiving Lands. Sending Lands: • Highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity • Includes significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species • Permitted and Conditional Uses are limited • Residential density at a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres or legal lot of record • Ability to sever residential development rights and transfer them to Receiving Lands (Transfer of Development Rights – TDR) • Four types of TDR Credits (Base, Early Entry bonus, Environmental Restoration and Maintenance bonus, and Conveyance bonus), all at a ratio of 1 TDR Credit per five acres or lot of record Neutral Lands (Hatched Areas on Map): • Higher ratio of native vegetation and habitat values than Receiving Lands • Includes native vegetation and habitat for listed species but not at values of Sending Lands • Permitted and Conditional Uses allowed per Agricultural zoning district (no change) • Residential density at a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres or legal lot of record (no change) Receiving Lands: • Lands most appropriate for development and to which residential density may be transferred from Sending Lands • Lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value • Lands generally disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations • Permitted and Conditional Uses allowed per Agricultural zoning district, with allowance for expanded land uses • Residential base density at a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres or legal lot of record; and, allowance to achieve 1 dwelling unit per acre through TDR process, with a minimum project size of 40 contiguous acres Sending Lands Receiving Lands Receiving Lands Sending Lands 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 01. CCPC Staff Report RFMUD Transmittal.FINAL (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) ‒ 3 ‒ Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments Receiving Lands – Rural Villages: • The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) allows a single Rural Village (RV) in each of the 4 Receiving Areas • RV must be located where public infrastructure exists or is planned • RV must have access to a roadway classified as an arterial or collector roadway • RV may have access to arterial roadway via new collector roadway that is paid for by developer • RV may only be approved after demonstrating RV is fiscally neutral or positive to taxpayers outside of Village • RV is highest density and intensity development allowed by RFMUD RESTUDY: On February 10, 2015, the Board directed staff to initiate the RFMUD restudy. The focus areas of this restudy included complementary land uses, economic vitality, transportation and mobility, and environmental stewardship, all through a public outreach effort. The Board appointed an ad hoc advisory committee, the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC), to assist in directing the public engagement process of the RFMUD restudy. Unlike prior area restudies, the Board directed that staff, rather than the appointed committee, provide recommendations to the Board for regulatory changes. The RFMUD public outreach effort included six (6) public workshops, and meetings with stakeholders, many who provided valuable input and analysis. The evaluation of community input received through the restudy workshops reinforces and supports the amendments to improve the TDR program and achieve the overriding RFMUD goals. The RFMUD restudy public outreach and staff assessment resulted in the RFMUD White Paper. The White Paper provides the framework for the restudy effort conducted by staff and serves to further inform the Collier County Planning Commission and the public on these efforts. The RFMUD White Paper results in recommendations for improving the RFMUD and TDR Program by further protecting the environment, conserving agricultural lands, addressing development characteristics, and establishing new development standards. On January 3, 2017, the RFMUD White Paper was presented to the Board. At that public workshop, staff discussed increasing residential density on Receiving Lands within Rural Villages and outside of Rural Villages; a TDR Bank as a catalyst for the TDR Program; and, donations of Sending Lands when no governmental agency accepts the donation. The Board directed staff to discontinue the consideration of a TDR Bank; provide additional data and analysis for Receiving Lands development patterns; and, provide information on Sending Lands donations for future Board direction. At the second RFMUD public workshop on May 11, 2017, staff presented to the Board various development scenarios, including density ranges, housing diversity, mobility options, and opportunities for economic development. The Board directed staff to provide additional information on agricultural uses, TDR bank alternatives, and costs for conservation land management. At the final RFMUD workshop on June 20, 2017, staff presented to the Board the following amendments and concepts for Board direction: 1) promote economic vitality by allowing business park/employment center outside of the Rural Villages; 2) remove the maximum acreage and leasable floor area limitations for the Village Center and Research and Technology Park within a Rural Village; 3) modify TDR requirements for multi-family from 1 TDR to 0.75 TDRs per unit and eliminate the TDR requirement for defined affordable housing; 4) eliminate the minimum $25,000 price for the Base TDR; 5) provide additional TDR credits to Sending Lands owners, and where possible, apportion equally to all owners regardless of location; 6) allow TDRs for bona fide agricultural operations on Sending Lands; 7) allow landowners who have not conveyed their properties to participate in applicable program changes; 8) 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 01. CCPC Staff Report RFMUD Transmittal.FINAL (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) ‒ 4 ‒ Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments expand concept of donation when approved by the BCC; 9) adopt standard whereby County agrees to take title of land donated by Sending Lands owners where no public agency will take the land; and, 10) allow TDRs for agriculture and conservation uses when secured by perpetual easements on Receiving and Neutral Lands. The purpose of this petition is to bring forward those RFMUD Growth Management Plan amendments directed by the Board at their June 20, 2017 workshop (Attachment E) and further directed at their September 25, 2018 Board meeting (Attachment F), which staff recommends. Note: The proposed amendments do not include changes to the existing density provisions for non- Rural Village and Rural Village development in the North Belle Meade (NBM) and Belle Meade Receiving Areas; and do not increase the number of Rural Villages allowed in these areas. Staff is proposing a comprehensive study of the NBM and Belle Meade Receiving areas as part of these amendments (refer to Resolution Exhibit A, page 24, paragraph H). The study will address sustainable long-term growth by developing a coordinated approach to infrastructure planning, establishing appropriate density and intensity of uses, addressing economic diversity, and providing opportunities for greater environmental protection. There are infrastructure constraints in this area, notably, limited transportation network. The study will address the mixture of land uses adequate to result in a sufficient internal capture rate. The staff team agreed that a comprehensive planning effort in the Belle Meade area is essential to achieving and furthering the goals of the RFMUD and TDR Program. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RFMUD: The below summary of RFMUD proposed amendments represent recommendations of County staff. The recommendations include strategies to promote economic vitality, incentivize greater protection of agriculture and natural resources, and provide for complementary land uses. The amendments are intended to create incentives to encourage increased participation in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and Transfer of Development Rights Program. Sending Lands 1. Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property attributes. 2. Make TDR credits available to Sending owners with existing agricultural uses. In Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) locations, only existing passive agricultural operations, excluding aquaculture, would qualify. Passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan. [For NRPA locations, see attached countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM)] 3. Allow landowners who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. 4. Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and provide 2 TDRs for base severance of dwelling unit rights, subject to any additional credits assigned. 5. Provide for Board approval to convey land to a not-for-profit entity or land trust by gift. 6. Government entities, other than the State of Florida, with lands designated North Belle Meade Overlay (NBMO) may qualify for conditional use approval for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. [For NBMO location, see attached countywide FLUM] 7. Allow landowners with large Sending Lands parcels to cluster dwelling units, retaining the one unit per 40-acre standard. 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 01. CCPC Staff Report RFMUD Transmittal.FINAL (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) ‒ 5 ‒ Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments 8. Implementation of the Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan initiative for the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay (by adding a TDR bonus for owners of Sending Lands participating in this initiative). Neutral Lands: 1. Allow TDR credits for existing agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual easements. 2. Remove the 40-acre minimum project size for clustered development. Receiving Lands: 1. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park. 2. Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for existing agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements. 3. Provide new measures for mixed-use standards, consistent with the RLSA provisions for SRAs – Stewardship Receiving Areas. 4. Development over 300 acres shall use the Rural Village provisions. 5. Allow for affordable workforce housing projects outside of a Rural Village (stand-alone) and allow at a higher density. 6. Incentivize affordable workforce housing projects by allowing a commercial component to the development. Urban Designation: 1. Eliminate the one-mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. [For Urban Residential Fringe location, see attached countywide FLUM] 2. Eliminate the requirement to purchase TDRs when utilizing the Urban Residential Infill density bonus provision. 3. Increase TDR demand by adding requirement that any GMP amendment that proposes a density increase in the Urban Mixed-Use District or RFMUD must utilize TDR credits to achieve that density increase. Growth Management Plan Amendments (GMPA) – Alternatives to Board Directed GMPAs 1. Density in Receiving Lands outside of Rural Villages – the Board directed an increase from a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per acre to 2 dwelling units per acre for all lands. Staff recommends this density increase only for the two Receiving Lands area along Immokalee Road due to road capacity and other potential infrastructure concerns. 2. Density in Rural Villages (RV) – Staff recommends density in RV remain at 2-3 dwelling units per acre, but to further study the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade Receiving Lands to determine if adequate infrastructure may be available to accommodate greater density. 3. Promote economic vitality outside of Rural Villages by allowing Business and Industrial uses as identified as Florida Qualified Target Industries. 4. Size of Rural Village: Staff recommends retaining the maximum size of the RV to allow for further study, including infrastructure needs, maximum density, employment opportunities, and design parameters. 5. Rural Village Greenbelt – Staff recommends reducing the greenbelt width, not eliminate, to provide for the transition of uses and maintain rural character. 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 01. CCPC Staff Report RFMUD Transmittal.FINAL (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) ‒ 6 ‒ Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CREDIT CALCULATIONS: These amendments have the potential to incentivize participation in the RFMUD and TDR Program by addressing economic vitality, land uses, and environmental stewardship. Greater participation in the TDR Program will allow for additional protection of agricultural operations, protection of natural resources and listed species and their habitat, and curtail urban sprawl – all while offering compensation to owners of Sending Lands for their loss of development rights with the adoption of the RFMUD in 2002. The tables below identify the development potential in the four (4) Receiving Lands areas based on the proposed amendments and utilization of TDR credits to entitle development, and the TDR credit supply. TABLE 1 TDR Demand Potential Location Development Type/Intensity Calculations North Receiving Lands Rural Village – Immokalee Rd. Rural Village +1,998 acres 1.5 DU/A = 3,000 DUs and 3 DU/A = 4,000 DUs Required TDRs 1,137 TDRs Non-Rural Village – no eligible acreage Required TDRs 0 TDRs Northwest Receiving Lands Rural Village – no eligible acreage Required TDRs 0 TDRs Non-Rural Village +788 acres @ 2 DU/A without 40-acre requirement for TDRs 60% Participation = 913 DUs Required TDRs 724 TDRs NBM Receiving Lands Rural Village (min. 2 DU/A & max. 3 DU/A) 1,500 acres 2 DU/A = 3,000 DUs and 3 DU/A = 4,500 DUs Required TDRs 2,700 TDRs Non-Rural Village +1,839 acres @ 1 DU/A with 40-acre requirement for TDRs 60% participation = +1,103 DUs Required TDRs 880 TDRs Belle Meade Receiving Lands Rural Village (min. 2 DU/A & max. 3 DU/A) 2,500 acres 2 DU/A = 5,000 DUs and 3 DU/A = 7,500 DUs Required TDRs 4,500 TDRs Non-Rural Village @1 DU/A, with 40-acre requirement for TDRs +4,191 acres 60% participation = +2,514 DUs Required TDRs 1,198 TDRs Sum of all Receiving Lands TOTAL TDRs 11,139 TDRs Sum of all Receiving Lands TOTAL DUs 20,530 DUs Note: The calculations in the table are estimates only. The TDR calculations are based on a 60% participation rate for clustering DUs outside of Rural Villages (RV) as noted in the White Paper and assumed the development of three (3) RVs, one each in the North Receiving Lands, North Belle Meade (NBM) Receiving L ands, and Belle Meade Receiving Lands – the North Receiving Lands RV has preliminary approval to develop at a lower density and lower TDR utilization rate. 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 01. CCPC Staff Report RFMUD Transmittal.FINAL (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) ‒ 7 ‒ Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments Table 2.0 - Existing TDR Supply Potential Type of TDR Number of TDRs Base TDR 2,433 Early Entry TDR Bonus 2,433 Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus (Total includes 954 TDRs not yet redeemed) 3,387 Conveyance Bonus (Total includes 458 TDRs not yet redeemed) 2,891 Total 11,144* *Note: This figure reflects 100% TDR severance rate for all remaining eligible Sending Lands. The White Paper reflects a severance rate of +50% (based on Staff assumptions). The TDR supply potential of 6,278 in Table 2.2 reflects this +50% severance rate. Table 2.1 – Additional Proposed TDR Supply Potential Type of TDR Number of TDRs Belle Meade Flow Way TDR Bonus (100% utilization in the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay = 560 new TDRs) 560 Sending Lands Existing Agriculture TDR Bonus (100% utilization in all Sending Lands = 1,407 new TDRs; staff assumed 80% utilization in North Sending Area, and 30% in the NBM and Belle Meade Sending Lands) 446 Neutral Lands Existing Agriculture TDR Bonus (100% utilization in all Neutral Lands = 1,266 new TDRs; staff assumed 10% utilization) 126 Receiving Existing Agriculture TDR Bonus (100% utilization in all Receiving Lands = 2,110 TDRs; staff assumed utilization only on the 6Ls farming operation in the Belle Meade Receiving area and only at 50% due to unique microclimate conducive to existing agricultural uses.) 611 Total TDRs 1,743 Note: Early Entry TDR bonus credit will be replaced with a second TDR Base Credit. 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 01. CCPC Staff Report RFMUD Transmittal.FINAL (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) ‒ 8 ‒ Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments Table 2.2 – Total TDR Supply and Demand Potential TDR Potential Supply: (6,278 Existing TDRs + 1,743 Proposed TDRs) 8,021 TDR Potential Demand: 11,139 Estimated Surplus/Deficit (3,118) Based upon the County’s expert on TDR Programs during the creation of the RFMUD, a successful TDR Program must have a significantly larger TDR demand than available supply. Therefore, any changes to the Program need to result in maintaining that ratio. There are numerous variables affecting the TDR supply and demand, including parcel size, property location, availability of infrastructure, existing and allowed land uses, value of TDR credits, awareness of the TDR Program/ease of participation in the Program, etc. The above tables reflect one plausible development scenario for each Receiving Lands area and supply of TDR Credits. The previously referenced need to study the Belle Meade area would require careful consideration of the supply/demand ratio. Staff recommended amendments are included in strikethrough and underline format in the attached Resolution Exhibit A. After the preparation of, and legal review of, the Resolution Exhibit A, staff identified additional changes needed, as follows: 1) Add a Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Map; and, 2) Resolution Exhibit A, page 24, Paragraph H), 2nd line: insert “initiate a study to” after “staff will.” LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: 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 non-conforming 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. The 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. 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 01. CCPC Staff Report RFMUD Transmittal.FINAL (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) ‒ 9 ‒ Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the Land Planning Agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward the proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Growth Management Plan amendments to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to Transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies. Attachments: • Resolution Exhibit A Text • Attachment RFMUD White Paper • Attachment RFMUD White Paper, Appendix A – Public Outreach • Attachment RFMUD White Paper, Appendix B – Mitigation Feasibility Study • Attachment RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C – TDR Bank Capitalization Report • Attachment RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D – TDR Economic Report • Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 • Attachment F RFMUD Executive Summary, dated September 25, 2018 • Attachment G Stakeholder Comments • Attachment H Countywide FLUM • Attachment I Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Map 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 01. CCPC Staff Report RFMUD Transmittal.FINAL (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy White Paper Prepared by the Growth Management Department, Planning and Zoning Division, Community Planning Section Staff BCC Workshop January 3, 2017 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper Table of Contents Page Section 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………1 Section 2: Background…………………….…………………………………………………………………….………………….……..……..5 Section 3: Planning Process……………………………………………………………………………………….………………………....10 Section 4: Findings and Initial Recommendations…………………………………………………….………………………….. 32 Appendix A: Public Outreach Appendix B: North Belle Meade Mitigation Feasibility Report Appendix C: TDR Bank Memo Appendix D: TDR Supply and Demand List of Tables Table 2-1 RFMUD Sending Parcel and Acreage Totals by Area………………………………………………..……………….7 Table 2-2 RFMUD TDR Credits Processed of Pending Process……………………………………………………..…………..8 Table 2-3 Outstanding TDR Credits………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 Table 3-1 RFMUD Development Characteristics…………………………………………………………………..………………..23 Table 3-2 Measuring the Mix in the RFMUD Village and RLSA Village…………………………………………………….27 List of Figures Figure 1-1 RFMUD Sending and Receiving Areas……………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Figure 2-1 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Transactions Sending Parcels to Receiving Projects…....8 Figure 3-1 Sending, Neutral and Receiving Lands Recommendations Survey Results……………..……………..13 Figure 3-2 Committed Highway Projects for Construction by 2020………………………………………….…………….17 Figure 3-3 Freight Activity Centers………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 Figure 3-4 Transportation Study Areas…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20 Figure 3-5 Collier Well-Being Index………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….. 24 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper Section 1: Introduction This White Paper provides a conceptual framework to address elements of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) restudy. The RFMUD restudy is the first of four restudies focused on eastern Collier County, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on February 10, 2015. Focus areas of all four restudies include complementary land uses, transportation and mobility, environmental stewardship and economic vitality. As the restudies unfold, relationships and synergies between the study areas are identified and maximized. The Community Planning staff in the Zoning Division of the Growth Management Department provides this document as a first point of direct contact with elected officials to describe the history and status of the RFMUD (Section 2), the planning process , including outreach and sources of data and analysis (Section 3), and findings and initial recommendations (Section 4). This paper is supplemented by appendices of importance at this juncture, final quarter of FY 2016. Appendix A contains summaries of public workshops as well as communications from stakeholders with their remarks subsequent to our distribution of a first draft of initial recommendations on July 13, 2016. Appendix B contains a memo from a TDR consultant on the provision of a County sponsored TDR Bank. Appendix C is the Phase 1 Feasibility Report for a Mitigation Bank in North Belle Meade. One reason to bring the RFMUD restudy forward in report form is to lay the groundwork of information relating to the RFMUD, the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program and the ideas and perceptions of its stakeholders. Another important reas on is that, given the complexity of the elements within the RFMUD and TDR program, a conceptual approach should be a preferred way to begin. Many elements or ideas for change are related to many other program elements. Often, a change in one aspect of the program echoes in other program elements. By considering the breadth and scope of potential changes together, a better understanding of these interrelationships emerges. Put another way, it i s helpful in a program of this complexity to move from more general concepts at first to more specific proposals later. As understood by staff at the beginning of this restudy in 2015, the original goals of the program should be maintained, deriving from the Final Order in 1999, through the assessment period and adoption of elements and regulations from 2002 to 2004. These include:  Protect wetlands, wildlife and habitat from unrestrained growth RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 1 of 62  Protect agricultural land from premature conversion to other uses  Direct growth potential to appropriate locations  Utilize creative land use planning techniques, including new towns, satellite communities, clustering, mixed use and open space Along with retention of the original goals and the geographic (Sending/Neutral/Receiving) designations that were made, restudy goals also include:  Improve the TDR credit system o Achieve proper balance of credits (optimize supply and demand) o Incentivize preservation and stewardship o Ensure reasonable demand for and availability of credits in Receiving areas  Identify agencies or entities for long term ownership and maintenance  Review and improve development uses, regulations and standards, based on: o Community values o Sustainability o Economic development o Consistency with area needs, other sub-area needs and County policies Some of the coordination called for in the course of the restudy requires close collaboration with other County Departments or outside agencies, often at the expense of a strict adoption or implementation timetable. For example, planning for affordable hou sing, mobility, watershed and infrastructure require knowledge and recognition of parallel efforts, each moving along its own trajectory and timetable. Staff is mindful that interdepartmental and intergovernmental coordination help yield the optimal result. The RFMUD contains approximately 77,000 acres; lands designated RFMUD are not contiguous. One of the interesting observations that emerged early on in the restudy is that there are significant differences in the character and status of the four main Se nding areas and the four main Receiving areas. For consistency, we have labeled the RFMUD sub-areas as follows (see Figure 1-1): Sending:  North  North Belle Meade- NRPA  North Belle Meade-West  South Belle Meade Receiving:  North RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 2 of 62  West  North Belle Meade  South Note that the Findings and Initial Recommendations in Section 4 are conceptual and contain changes that would be suitable for the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the Land Development Code (LDC) or both. Following feedback and direction from White Paper presentations, staff, with consultation from the County Attorney’s Office, will sort through the appropriate regulatory locations for proposed program changes, and return with specific amendment proposals for the Growth Management Plan first. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 3 of 62 IMMOKALEE RD COLLIER BLVDDAVIS BLVD RADIO RD IMMOKALEE RD E GOLD EN GATE BLVD LIVINGSTON RD WILSON BLVD TAMIAMI TRL EI 75CR 858 EVERGLADES BLVD DESOTO BLVD I 7 5 RANDALL BLVD R U R A L F R I N G ERURAL F R I N G EMIXED U S E D I S T R I C TMIXED U S E D I S T R I C T Í 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles RECEIVING SENDING NEUTRAL North BelleMeade NRPANorth BelleMeade - West South Belle Meade North Sending North Bel leMeade South North West Figure 1-1 RFMUD Sending and Receiving Areas RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 4 of 62 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper Section 2: Background In June 1999, the State of Florida Final Order, Case ACC-99-002, found the County’s Growth Management Plan lacking in protection for environmentally sensitive areas, failing to adequately discourage urban sprawl and failing to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land. The Final Order required the following modifications to the GMP to address the issues within three specified areas. 1. Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas. 2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal species and their habitats. 3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential c onversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but no t limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. In order to address these concerns, the County created the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. The Growth Management Plan was amended in 2002 to include the majority of today’s RFMUD provisions and the basic structure of the TDR program. It was amended soon thereafter, to include bonus TDR provisions and provisions incorporating an intervener agreement known as the North Belle Meade Overlay. The implementing Land Development Code (LDC) provisions, reflecting and implementing all of these GMP amendments were adopted in 2004. Only miscellaneous amendments have been made since that time. The RFMUD contains approximately 77,000 acres. It provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands, between the Urban and Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA), and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is separated into three specific areas, Sending Lands, Neutral Lands, and Receiving Lands. Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity. These sending lands generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. The uses within the Sending Lands are limited RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 5 of 62 to a narrow list of permitted and conditional uses. The current regulations allow for the maximum density of one (1) dwelling unit per 40 acres or, one (1) dwelling unit per lot or parcel of less than 40 acres, which was recorded on or before June 22, 1999 (and non- conforming lots <5 acres which existed as of October 15, 1974 or January 5, 1982, depending upon location). Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development units may be transferred from Sending Lands. These lands have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations. Within the Receiving Lands the base residential density allowable is one (1) unit per five (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum (non-village) density achievable in Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per acre, with a minimum project size of 40 contiguous acres. The RFMUD also allows Rural Villages in the Receiving areas. Rural Villages must be located where public infrastructure exists or is planned, including direct access to an arterial or collector roadway. With the creation a Rural Village, the sense of community and convenience can be increased, emphasizing mixed use, social and civic interaction and walkability. However, the current development standards for Rural Villages do not easily accommodate neighboring communities and Districts. Neutral Lands have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development. Assessment data indicated that Neutral Lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation, and thus higher habitat values, than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but these values do not approach those of Sending Lands. Therefore, these lands are appropriate for limited development, if such development is directed away from existing native vegetation and habitat. A lower maximum gross density is prescribed for Neutral Lands when compared to Receiving Lands : 1 dwelling unit per 5 gross acres (0.2 units per acre). The TDR program is a major component of the RFMUD, as it allows the transfer of development units from Sending parcels to Receiving parcels. The Collier program is somewhat unique in its structure, using a series of TDR credit types that can be sold and used for Receiving development. From a 5 acre area, an Owner might achieve 4 TDRs: Base credit; Early Entry credit; Restoration and Maintenance credit; and Conveyance credit. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 6 of 62 As noted in the Table 2.1, the RFMUD Sending land is comprised of thousands of parcels, mostly 5 and 10 acres in size. Sending Land acreage, although 40,973 in total, yields only 16,643 privately held acreage, capable of earning and selling TDR credits. Table 2.1 RFMUD Sending Parcel and Acreage Totals by Area Sending Area # of Parcels # of Owners Acres South Belle Meade 353 227 5,905 North Belle Meade -NRPA 760 340 6,451 North Belle Meade-West 373 271 3,074 North 60 45 1,213 Private Owned Total 1,546 883 16,643 Government Owned 606 1 24,330 Private and Government Owned Total 2,152 884 40,973 Source: GIS rev. March 2016 Note: Government owned parcels stated separately; purchase or prior TDR Conveyance The program set a minimum price point for the Base TDRs at $25,000. The Early Entry expiration date was extended several times over the years, most recently to 2019. Although the concept of “conveyance TDRs” was intended to boost the number of TDR credits and transfer the property ownership into government hands, no governmental agency has been willing to accept Sending lands in North Belle Meade, or in Section 11 (T 48S; R 26 E) in the North Sending area. Despite these issues and the intervening economic downturn, there have been TDR transfers and redemptions in both the West Receiving area and in the Urban Residential Fringe. To date, several developments have used the cluster residential development option in the form of gated communities. In the RFMUD, non-village density is capped at 1 unit per acre and includes the communities of Twin Eagles South, Lamorada, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Golf Club of the Everglades. In the Urban Fringe, densities are generally capped at 2.5 units per acre and include entitled communities such as Naples Reserve, Hacienda Lakes, Lords Way, San Marino, Lido Isles and Rockledge. These developments have an approved total of 6,786 units; the majority of units are detached single family. As shown in Table 2-2, approximately 3,953 TDR credits have been processed. These TDR credits were generated from approximately 6,532 acres. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 7 of 62 Table 2-2 RFMUD TDR Credits Processed or Pending Process TDRs Base Credits Processed 1,326.10 Early Entry Bonus Credits Processed 1,326.10 R&M Bonus TDR Credits Processed 905.32 Conveyance Bonus Credits Processed 395.82 TDRs Pending Process 658.40 Total 4,611.74 As shown in Table 2-3, under the current system, approximately 10,947 TDRs remain to be processed. These TDR credits are associated with approximately 16,363 acres of Sending Land. The theoretical credits under the present system both processed and outstanding, total approximately 15,558. Of this total, approximately 25% have been issued. Table 2-3 Outstanding TDR Credits Outstanding TDR Credits Base TDR Credits 2,403.67 Early Entry Bonus TDR Credits 2,403.67 R&M Bonus TDR Credits 2,804.67 Conveyance Bonus Credits 3,335.02 Total 10,947.03 To date, approximately 2,129 TDRs have been redeemed to support the increased density found in the Receiving area development projects. These transactions between Sending Lands and Receiving Lands are shown on Figure 2-1. Given the activity that has occurred to date, the greatest development potential in Receiving Lands will be the North, North Belle Meade and South Receiving areas, where the majority of the changes adopted as part of the RFMUD restudy will occur. Based on the difficulty for Sending owners to generate the restoration and maintenance cr edit, or the conveyance credit, TDR supply under the current system is estimated to be far less than shown in Table 2-3. Staff’s assessment estimates a more realistic credit supply of approximately 5,500 TDRs. The demand assessment prepared by staff assumes one village each in the North Receiving area, the North Belle Meade Receiving area, and the South receiving area, along with about 60 percent of the remaining vacant proper ty using the cluster provisions. This scenario would require approximately 13,443 TDR credits. This significant difference between the TDR supply and likely demand demonstrates an imbalance in the program. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 8 of 62 RANDALL BLVD EVERGLADES BLVD NDESOTO BLVDEVERGLADES BLVD SDESOTO BLVDOIL WELL RDOI L WE L L GR A D E R DEVERGLADES BLVD NIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RDWILSON BLVD I-75I-75 GOLDEN GATE BLVD RADIO RDGOLDENGAT E P K W Y COLLIER BLVDIMMOKALEE RD DAVIS BLVDIMMOKALEE RD E 1ST ST SGREEN BLVD GOLDEN GATE BLVD PINE RIDGE RD RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD WILSON BLVD OIL WELL RD TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E LEECOUNTY §¨¦75 !(951 !(951 £¤41 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) TRANSACTIONSSENDING PARCELS TO RECEIVING PROJECTS HERITAGE BAY QUARRY LAMORADA TWINEAGLES HACIENDALAKES THE LORD'SWAY NAPLESRESERVE MOCKING BIRDCROSSING §¨¦75 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG. AICPGROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTDATE: JANUARY 29, 2016 Í £¤41 !(951 GOLF CLUB OFTHE EVERGLADES TWINEAGLESSOUTH !(951 RF-Sending RF-Receiving RF-Neutral Govt. Owned Parcels Quarry Lamorada Mockingbird Crossing RECEIVING PROJECTS Twin Eagles Golf Club of the Everglades Hacienda Lakes Heritage Bay Naples Reserve The Lord's Way SENDING PARCELS* The Lords Way(1,100 ac, 193 credits) Quarry(64 ac, 18 credits) Twin Eagles(2,542 ac, 1,271 credits) Mockingbird Crossing(397 ac, 95 credits) Lamorada(538 ac, 213 credits) Golf Club of the Everglades(14 ac, 44 credits) Hacienda Lakes(252 ac, 113 credits) Heritage Bay(84 ac, 33 credits) Naples Reserve(204 ac, 40 credits) * Credits shown are only those redeemed as of Jan. 2016, and do not necessarily represent all credits generated or needed for project buildout. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 9 of 62 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper Section 3: The Planning Process In early 2015, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) directed staff to initiate a restudy of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD), along with three other master plans east of County Road 951: Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP); Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA); and the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP). To support the RFMUD planning effort, the BCC initiated the public participation process through the adoption Resolution 2015-111 establishing a 7 member Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC). The functions, powers, and duties of the GMOC are to aid and assist the public participation phase of the regulatory review. This includes: 1. Assist in determining the most effective venues and dates to hold the public presentations: 2. Assist in composing the information materials to be presented to the public at community meeting at various locations throughout the study area . 3. Assist in determining the agendas for public meetings; 4. Assist in providing consistency between the planning efforts. In reviewing proposals for program change, the GMOC scope will be “high level and non - granular, emphasizing consistency, sustainability and economic vitality.” The GMOC set their schedule to meet quarterly throughout the restudies planning timeframe. They met three times through June, 2016 providing input to staff on community outreach schedule and presentation materials. With the guidance of the GMOC, this restudy process was a focused, stakeholder effort. All interested parties were encouraged to participate in public workshops, on-line surveys and in direct communication with staff. Public Outreach To engage landowner participation in the RFMUD restudy, letters were mailed to over 800 RFMUD property owners informing them of the restudy and the public workshop schedule. A total of six public workshops were held from January, 2016 through May, 2016. A summary of each meeting is attached as Appendix A, Public Outreach Summary. The first three public workshops were held during evening hours at the IFAS Center and focused on the RFMUD Sending Lands. Fifty to sixty people attended each workshop. During the first workshop there was strong sentiment among Sending Land owners that the program should RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 10 of 62 not have been devised in the way it was; many thought that the RFMUD governing provisions should be abandoned altogether. Through the public workshop process, some came to understand that the program was created as a result of litigation and the State’s Final Order; that the program has been in place for over ten years; that TDR credits have been redeemed and converted to density; and that the County needs to move forward and not back. The public workshops for the Sending Lands focused on the important issues to the landowners including improving the economic viability of the program, promoting smarter development patterns and protecting natural resources. Staff continuously encouraged owner input on how to improve the program. Several techniques were used for this outreach: public presentations; comment cards; breakout group exercises; on-line surveys; telephone calls; and individual meetings. The public was encouraged to explore resources on the website, including a library of materials and video-taped meetings. The first public meeting was introductory in nature. Staff summarized the history and current status of the RFMUD and the TDR program. Participants were encouraged to express opinions on the rules adopted over a decade earlier, and staff outlined the anticipated progression of the study and the public involvement phase going forward. The meeting summary can be found in Appendix A, Public Workshop #1. The second public workshop focused on issues related to the Sending Lands in North Belle Meade. A panel of local experts was seated to discuss possible solutions for the Sending Lands long-term ownership and maintenance. The full discussion, questions and responses are found in Appendix A, Public Workshop #2. The third and final public workshop focusing on Sending Lands topics included two majo r components. First, staff provided an overview of the economic considerations involved in TDR transfers; and second, a list of changes suggested by the public was vetted using breakout group approach. Each group discussed the potential changes, ranked their agreement and reported back to the entire group. The full discussion, questions and responses are found in Appendix A, Public Workshop #3. In summary, through the public workshop process, Sending Land participants agreed upon the following:  Add TDR credits to all sending lands regardless of location or attributes, such as higher natural resource values or watershed improvement potential.  Eliminate the $25,000 minimum price for a base TDR credit.  Allow TDR Credits to be used outside of the RFMUD, but agreement to where to use the credits was not defined.  Reduce or eliminate TDR application fees. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 11 of 62  County staff should offer free workshop assistance to complete TDR application process.  Improve the link between buyers and sellers through an improved listing or a TDR bank.  Create a TDR bank.  Allow TDR credits for agriculture preservation.  Allow additional family home if agricultural land owner has over 20 acres.  Collier County should be managing entity of Sending Lands.  Long term maintenance cost should be paid for by a County mitigation program. Following the Sending Lands workshops, staff focused on the Neutral and Receiving Lands. Approximately sixty residents attended the workshops, of which about half had not attended the Sending Lands workshops. Staff presented the future development potential allowed under the current program, including vacant land, allowed land uses, density and intensity. Break out groups were invited to provide feedback on several key questions including: specific issues and concerns about future development; improvements or changes for the Receiving Lands; what is liked best about the Receiving Lands; and opinions about the Neutral Lands. All responses to the questions are included in Append ix A, Public Workshop #4. Members of Collier County’s consultant team, AECOM, wrapped up this workshop with a primer on different kinds of development models with a focus on sustainability. This presentation was well received by participants with many asking for copies of the PowerPoint slides. The fifth workshop built on the previous workshop discussion of development potential and patterns. Participants were invited to vision future development through a “framework mapping” exercise. Two of the RFMUD Receiving areas were used as examples for participants. The exercise allowed participants to experience how these areas might be planned by identifying destinations, development areas, street networks and green infrastructure. The results demonstrated the values expressed in previous workshops: more village mixed-use development and less single-use gated community development. The mapping exercises are included in Appendix A, Public Workshop #5. The final workshop provided a forum for residents and stakeholders to review ideas provided by the public through previous workshops, surveys, and correspondence, which were incorporated into the staff’s initial recommendations. Each initial recommendation was presented and discussed. Participants were then asked to rank each one from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The survey results are shown in Figure 3-1. In conclusion, the public workshops were dynamic and well attended. Participants were fully engaged in identifying issues, concerns and potential solutions. Many of the initial recommendations included in this white paper stemmed from public input. The survey results RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 12 of 62 Sending and Neutral Lands Recommendations Survey Results 26-May, 2016 0%20%40%60%80%100% Additional credits should be provided to balance the anticipated demand from Receiving Areas. Sending Land owners, if they participate, should benefit from additional credits. Additional credits should not favor one Sending Land location over another. Additional credits should be provided to those who entered the program early. TDRs should be awarded also for owners who commit to keeping their land in agricultural production Eliminate minimum pricing on Base TDRs. Improve the Buyer/Seller registries. Reduce cost and complexity of applications. Create a County-sponsored TDR bank that can buy credits from Sending Lands owners The County should accept land that owners wish to donate, if no other agency is willing. The County should finance maintenance of donated Sending Land through a mitigation bank, if feasible. If a mitigation bank is not a feasible funding source, require a donation to the County with the land, equivalent to all or a portion of any additional TDRs issued. Allow a second dwelling unit to dedicated farming operations of at least 20 acres. Study recreational uses that could be compatible on donated lands that go beyond "passive recreation." Eliminate the use of TDRs in urban areas if they come from RFMUD Sending Lands. Extend the same advantages to Neutral Land owners who want to commit to agricultural uses by offering TDRs. Reward Neutral Land owners with TDRs for preserving habitat or native vegetation under a conservation easement. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 13 of 62 Receiving Lands Recommendations Survey Results 26-May, 2016 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Allow business park stand-alone uses to increase employment opportunities in research technology and other targeted businesses. Revise village rules to allow larger commercial and employment areas. Increase density allowed in rural villages to 4 units per gross acre (TDRs required) Increase density allowd in non-village development to 2 units per acre (TDRs required) and remove 40-acre minimum size Analyze arterial roadway capacity issues. Enhance requirements for greater project connectivity. Consider roadway design standards that promote low speed and safety. Add requirements for transit stops in large developments, business parks or villages. Allow TDRs in Receiving Areas for protection of native vegetation/habitat or agriculture. Reward projects that advance the greater public interest (examples: greenway connections, flowway connections). Incentivize mixed-use developments by studying potential impact fees for mixed-use. Use overlays or optional design standards that promote greater certainty in review process. Developments complying with zoning overlays should get approval through simple BCC majority or Hearing Examiner process. Hearing Examiner can approve individual deviations. Hearing Examiner can approve business park proposals. Modify the TDR requirements to 0.5 credit for multi-family units and 0 credit for target industry/business park uses Currently no provisions for stand-alone commercial. Propose design guidelines (no strip) and use of TDR credits (ex, 1 credit per 6,000 SF). Additional incentives for innovative green designs, such as solar power, zero net water, aquifer storage and recovery sites, etc. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 14 of 62 show, through the public outreach process, that consensus was reached on the initial recommendations put forward in the final workshop. In addition to public workshops, public outreach incl uded numerous interviews, meetings and telephone calls with citizens, agency representatives, stakeholders and media. In fact, prior to public workshops, at least 15 one on one interviews were conducted to obtain factual information and initial opinion. Ultimately, staff met 3 times with the Rural Fringe Coalition (development group), and twice with representatives from Conservancy, Florida Wildlife Federation, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and Collier Citizens Council. Necessarily, horizontal communication within the County Managers agency was frequent. Data Analysis Staff was directed to address four major topic areas through this planning effort: 1) Environment; 2) Land Use; 3) Transportation and Mobility; and 4) Economic Vitality. Through the first several months of the planning process, staff gathered and analyzed data relative to the major topics from several sources with the intent to understand and coordinate major planning efforts, recent or on-going, in the County including, but not limited to:  Current RFMUD Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code sections  The Master Mobility Plan (2012)  MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (2015)  TDR Activity Log and Comprehensive Planning data (2016)  East of CR 951 Final Report (2008)  Collier Interactive Growth Model (2008)  Picayune Restoration Plan (2008)  Watershed Management Plan (2011)  North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Study (2013)  Utility Master Plans (2008, 2015)  Towards Better Places: Collier County Community Character Plan (2001)  Wellfield Protection Zones; Aquifer Recharge Areas  Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce “Opportunity Naples” (2014)  Current national planning studies During the past decade, many studies and efforts have addressed Collier County’s environment, transportation, land use, and economic vitality. Many of the recommendations found in previous studies relate to and can be implemented in the RFMUD. National planning studies, RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 15 of 62 like those conducted in Collier County, continue to focus on implementing planning policy toward sustainability, smart growth and multi-modal principles. Environment The seminal documents relating to environmental issues are the very subject of this restudy: the Growth Management Plan RFMUD provisions and related LDC provisions. The RFMUD, as indicated in Section 2, Background, was designed following challenges to the County’s existing and proposed plans for eastern Collier County, and was necessitated due to State action. Specifically with respect to Sending Lands downzoning and TDR incentives, environmental goals were intended to fulfill the directives of the Final Order: “Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats.” The core RFMUD provisions, now nearly 15 years old, are a major area of focus in this restudy. In 2015 and 2016, Collier’s RFMUD regulations were vetted through public meetings with residents and stakeholders, as described above. Feedback from staff and public resulted in the need to bring quantitative and technical analysis to bear on environmental issues. As watershed planning is one of the major components of environmental restora tion in Sending Lands, the County’s Watershed Management Plan (2011) emerges as a key source of data and analysis for environmental aspects of the RFMUD. In turn, that plan resulted in the appointment of the Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Plan (GGWIP) Technical Ad Hoc Advisory Committee and its successor, the current Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan (CWIP) Technical Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. RFMUD restudy staff has attended and participated in those committee meetings since September, 2015. There are many important issues centric to both RFMUD regulations and watershed improvement programs. For example, the RESTORE grant funding initiative presents a specific opportunity to balance water surplus and water deficits within the watersheds in RFMUD a nd Golden Gate Estates planning areas; staff has attended and participated in numerous meetings with Project Managers, state and federal agency officials and consultants. The RESTORE initiative informs priorities and coordination of effort within RFMUD Sen ding areas. In order to further incentivize TDR program participation and at the same time recommend sustainable long-term management and protection of environmentally important Sending Lands, a Phase 1 North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank Feasibility Study was commissioned. If feasible, adoption of a ROMA or similar program could allow a means for County ownership with long term funding that could favor transportation budgeting, and incentivize Sending owner participation. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 16 of 62 Collier County has had success in the past in mitigating its own impacts. The Caracara Prairie Preserve Conservation Bank (and successor Trust Fund) saved the County $346,100 (26%) in Panther Habitat Unit (PHU) costs, as compared to a private mitigation bank, in permitting its Resource Recovery Business Park in 2014. A discussion of the North Belle Meade mitigation bank concept is included in Section 4 and the Phase 1 Report is attached as Appendix B. Staff will look to the BCC for direction in carrying this study forward to its next phase . Related to all aspects of the major topic areas is the ongoing economic modelling that addresses the balance of credits from Sending Lands to Receiving Lands. Scenario modelling is applied to assure appropriate credit supply and demand so that additional credits can incentivize Sending participation and allow adequate credit resourcing for future development. It is understood by our consultant that additional credits will be recommended, but that the number of credits and their distribution rely on a myri ad of factors, making scenario modelling an important tool in restudy data and analysis. These scenarios will become a part of the CCPC and BCC presentations and will ultimately help answer the quantitative question regarding additional credits within the system. Finally, additional consultation is underway with respect to TDR banks. TDR bank analysis will provide the pros and cons of entering into a banking system for the purpose of assuring confidence and liquidity in the TDR transfer system. The first deliverable is attached as Appendix C. The concepts are further discussed in this paper in Section 4, (C.3). Transportation Every day more than 116,000 auto work trips are completed within Collier County. Many of these trips are generated in eastern Collier County as residents make the commute to jobs in the coastal area. The Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is Collier County’s guiding transportation document. The purpose of the LRTP is to assist Collier County in cultivating its transportation vision through the next 20 years. It identifies needed improvements to the network, and provides a long-term investment framework that addresses current and future transportation challenges. LRTP goals are:  Ensure the Security of Transportation System for Users  Protect Environmental Resources  Improve System Continuity and Connectivity  Reduce Roadway Congestion  Promote Freight Movement RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 17 of 62  Increase the Safety of the Transportation System for Users  Promote Multi-modal Solutions  Promote the Integrated Planning of Transportation and Land Use The LRTP stresses, the key to enhancing mobility for users of the transportation system is to improve connectivity and continuity through the system, and especially across all modes. The MPO recognized the importance of prioritizing projects that enhance connectivity by including system continuity and connectivity as two of the several project selection criteria. Connectivity and continuity are also important for bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes. Users of the transit system rely on bicycle, pedestrian or park-and-ride facilities in order to “make the connection.” Connectivity and system continuity is about advancing an interconnected multi-modal transportation system. The LRTP committed highway projects for construction by 2020 are nearly all located in eastern Collier County, and several are wit hin Receiving Lands (Figure 3-2). Figure 3-2 Committed Highway Projects for Construction by 2020 RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 18 of 62 Freight Activity Centers (FACs) and Network are also identified in the LRTP. The growing importance of freight movement has been reflected in the latest federal transportation authorizing legislation, MAP-21. Recognizing the contribution that the movement of freight makes to the State’s economy, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) created the Office of Freight Logistics and Passenger Operations to establish policies and plans investments that enhance Florida’s economic development efforts. As a result, special attention was given to freight movement and is reflected in the needs assessment. These FACs contribute to the economic well-being of Collier County. As shown on Figure 3-3, two Receiving Areas, which include significant mining and agricultural operations, are designated as secondary freight activity centers numbers 6 and 8. Figure 3-3 Freight Activity Centers The LRTP also identifies future study areas to further define and clarify the scope of improvements needed in the area. Three study areas were identified, and one serves the RFMUD. The Green Boulevard Extension/North Belle Meade Study Area extends eastward from CR-951 to surround the North Belle Meade Area from Golden Gate Estates to I-75 and eastward RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 19 of 62 to Everglades Boulevard. The purpose of the study is to define future collector road network in this area. A number of corridors that would enhance circulation throughout the area have been identified, as illustrated on Figure 3-4. The study effort would determine the feasibility and preferred alignment for the identified corridors or alternative s that may be developed during the course of the study. Figure 3-4 Transportation Study Areas Additionally, in the North Belle Meade Receiving area, following the recommendations of the East of 951 Bridge Study, Collier County has programmed several bridges. Two bridges within the North Belle Meade Receiving Area are identified for construction. Bicycle, pedestrian and transit needs are identified within the LRTP, however these are specific to existing network infrastructure. Planning for multi-modal needs within the RFMUD will be guided by the Receiving Area development standards, along with the Collier County Master Mobility Plan (MMP). A major effort in understanding Collier County’s mobility was the Master Mobility Plan (2011). The MMP considered six planning sub-areas, including the RFMUD. The MMP developed a long-term vision to aid in planning for the county’s mobility, land use, and infrastructure needs RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 20 of 62 at population buildout. The primary goal of the MMP is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and traffic demands specifically by reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled while at the same time protecting habitats, environmentally sensitive lands and agriculture. The Board of County Commissioners on January 24, 2012, reviewed and accepted the MMP strategies developed in cooperation with the Collier County Planning Commission through an enhanced public involvement process. Related to the RFMUD, the MMP recommends a new multi-modal Mobility Analysis, done at the time of development application, to create the needed linkage between land use and transportation policy. A Mobility Analysis would expand the current methodology found in a Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) by addressing not only the automobile, but also i ncluding analysis of transit, bicycle and pedestrian mobility. Components of a Mobility Analysis measure the reduction in number or length of external automobile trips. Mobility Analysis Components Mixed Use Trip Generation Model (or similar technique) to calculate external trips (internal capture), external walk trips, external transit trips, etc. For single-use development, a demonstration of what VMT-reduction strategies/techniques are to be used An analysis of current and proposed transit access An analysis of local street connectivity An analysis of non-motorized travel suitability Further addressing the need for a multi-modal network, in 2014, the Florida Department of Transportation adopted a Complete Streets policy. The goal is to implement policy that promotes safety, quality of life, and economic development. FDOT specifically recognized that Complete Streets are context-sensitive and requires design that considers local land development patterns and built form. The overall intent of a Complete Streets policy is to provide safe access for all road users— pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users, and motorists—of all ages and abilities. Although design features vary based on local context, basic elements should include wide sidewalks, well- marked or raised crosswalks, traffic calming measures, protected bike lanes, and pedestrian safety islands. Complete Streets can help reduce costs and improve health by significantly reducing crash rates, injuries, and fatalities. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 21 of 62 Congested transportation networks are generally caused by low density, single -use development with sparse connectivity and the majority of users on the network during the same peak hours. Collier County’s transportation planning efforts and FDOT are in agreement- to enhance mobility it is critical to plan for a multi-modal system that serves all users of all ages, is interconnected, and with continuity. Transportation planning efforts have identified several efforts within the RFMUD inc luding new corridors, bridges, FAC designations, and areas for further study. This signifies considerable attention is being given to the transportation network surrounding the RFMUD. Land Use Growth is sustainable when it diversifies our economy, provides a more affordable lifestyle through housing and transportation choices, fosters design that encourages social, civic, and physical activity, and preserves a thriving natural environment and agriculture lands. The RFMUD land use policies support guiding sustainable principles, but as identified through the public outreach process and this restudy, there is room for improvement. There are three land use designations in the RFMUD; Sending, Receiving, and Neutral. The overall goal of the program is to protect the natural resources within Sending Lands by directing future growth to the Receiving Lands. Upon the full realization of the program, the Sending Lands will remain substantially undeveloped, supporting quality habitat for listed species and functioning to improve the watershed and quality of surrounding estuaries and bays. Neutral Lands will remain low density as large estates lots able to support some agriculture uses, open space and habitat. Receiving Lands, determined to be those most suitable to accommodate future growth, will be developed. The current RFMUD development standards, summarized in Table 3-1, allows for three development options: 1) base rights development; 2) clustering; and 3) mixed-use village. To date, several developments have occurred in the western Receiving area. Each of these developments, Golf Club of the Everglades, Mockingbird Crossings, Lamarado, Heritage Bay and Twin Eagle used the clustering option with 1 unit per acre. These developments are marketed as “active adult communities” or “private gated communities.” Each development is generally single-family residential, was planned independently of the other, and has little or no connection to neighboring development. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 22 of 62 Table 3-1 RFMUD Development Characteristics Typical Characteristics RFMUD Base Rights RFMUD Clustering RFMUD Village Size Minimum 5 acres Minimum 40 acres 300-2,500 acres Residential Gross Density 1 unit per 5 acres 1 unit per acre Minimum 2 Maximum 3 units per acre Land Use*  Ag  SF and MF  Staff housing  Family Care Facilities  Farm labor housing  Sporting and Recreation camps  Essential Services  Golf Courses  Ag  SF and MF  Staff housing  Family Care Facilities  Farm labor housing  Sporting and Recreation camps  Essential Services Golf Courses  Diversity of SF and MF with a minimum of 2 neighborhoods  Neighborhood Center max 10 acres, 8,500 SF leasable floor area/ac  Village Center max 10% total village area, 10,000 SF leasable floor area/ac  Research & Technology park max 4% total village acreage  Civic and public parks min 10% total village acreage Recreation and Open Space N/A Min 70% of gross acres  40% open space  Green belt 300’ average width Transportation N/A N/A  Formal grid design  Pedestrian paths and bikeways for access and connectivity *Bold denotes required RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 23 of 62 During the public workshops, participants stated they prefer that the RFMUD develop with more mixed-use development and less gated communities as has been occurring in the RFMUD. Towards Better Places, The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida (2001) states, “creating new neighborhoods with interconnectivity and greater density is the only way to avoid the worst-case scenario presented by the sprawl approach. New neighborhoods should be based on a sound pattern of streets and lots. A wider variety of housing choices should be made available by reintroducing traditional neighborhood concepts as an alternative to balance the many gated subdivisions that have been built over the past 20 years.” The body of national research on negative impacts of sprawl continues to grow. Studies have expanded beyond the interest of transportation and land use professionals to the Community Health Departments across the nation. A growing body of research indicates mixed-use, appropriate placement of buildings, easy-to-reach parks, multi-modal transportation have an extraordinary impact on community health. “One of the strongest health/land use correlations is between obesity and the automobile: one California study showed each additional hour spent in a car per day is associated with a 6 percent increase in body weight, whereas every kilometer (0.6miles) walked each day is associated with a 5 percent decrease, according to a study in British Columbia.”1 This correlates with the local Blue Zones well-being assessment of Collier County where the lowest well-being indicators were found in areas east of CR-951 surrounding the RFMUD including, Golden Gate Estates, areas of low density and longer commutes (Figure 3-5). The Urban Land Institute, (ULI) has been using health studies to promote healthy communities through design. Physical design affects human behavior at all scales—buildings, neighborhoods, communities, and regions. The places in which we live, work, and play can affect both our mental and physical well-being. Our built environment offers both opportunities for and barriers to improving public health and increasing active living.1 Figure 3-5 Collier Well-Being Index RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 24 of 62 The Florida Department of Health in Collier County is also advocating healthy communities principles, striving to educate the community on the link between health and the built environment. They are working to promote community design that will increase active living and healthy lifestyles by advocating for a network of connected b ike and pedestrian pathways, accessible transit and places where people can age in place. In ULI’s Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places, they advocate “All comprehensive plans should incorporate health. It provides the opportunity to make explicit the connection between development and health, to elevate health among planning considerations, and to lay the groundwork for a healthy community for generations to come. A tool to use as a guide to measuring health impacts is the health impact assessment (HIA). An HIA helps evaluate the potential health effects of a plan, project, or policy before it is built or implemented. HIAs bring potential public health impacts and considerations to the decision-making process for plans, projects, and policies that fall outside the traditional public health arenas, such as transportation and land use. It is a “health lens” that can help increase positive health outcomes and minimize adverse health outcomes. San Francisco has been an early adopter of HIAs, using the tool on diverse projects, such as neighborhood plans, affordable housing, and highway projects. The development community, local government, or both in cooperation can develop HIAs. This guidance helps communities make informed choices about improving public health through community design.” Collier County may consider the HIA as an option in measuring the effectiveness of developments increasing positive health outcomes. Mixed-use development has dimensions beyond land use. Healthy places are also found to provide for mix incomes, generations, and housing type. This relates directly to affordable housing. The RFMUD currently requires approximately 10 percent of residential units in villages to be affordable. The issue of the need for affordable housing withi n the RFMUD was clearly stated in Mr. William Poteet’s letter to staff dated June 6, 2016, “The future Rural Fringe plans must include specific opportunities for affordable housing for our entire workforce, not just first time responders or those classified as “work force housing.” Affordable housing must include a mix of apartments, multi-family and possibly single family opportunities.” While, Collier County’s current comprehensive affordable housing study may provide greater guidance on principles to include in the RFMUD, the program can be improved through this process through greater density and removing the TDR credits currently required for affordable housing. To meet the public’s ideals of more mixed-use villages, the RFMUD should incentivize mixed- use development and villages using a variety of tools to entice desired mixes and densities. Incentives that are currently used include higher density, more intense uses, and bonus TDRs, however these incentives have not yet produced a village within the RFMUD. Current density RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 25 of 62 for a village is now limited to 3 units per acre. Density is arguably the most powerful tool controlled by Collier County to create a more sustainable development. Density that is well designed and assembled makes transit and retail more viable, and supports more services close to homes. Studies agree, density needed to support viable transit is 7 units per acre.2 Higher densities also make walkability possible, and great design makes it enjoyable. Density necessarily requires a high percentage of multifamily homes in a neighborhood thereby providing a greater range of residential units, increasing affordable housing opportunities. For example, the image from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Visualizing Density, shows a new project in Huntersville, NC. This new neighborhood is 6.3 units per acre and will offer a robust mix of residential units. Well-designed density is vital to a strong economic foundation in any neighborhood as it brings a critical mass of local employees and customers to support a variety of community needs. Increasing density in the RFMUD was well supported through the public outreach process. By strategically increasing the number of dwelling units per acre, Collier County will go a long way toward meeting the sustainable housing and transportation objectives within the RFMUD. In addition to higher density, incentives being used in other areas include a mixed-use impact fee index. The County’s transportation impact fee consultants from Tindall Oliver shared with staff that this type of impact fee has been found to encourage mixed -use by lowering overall project impact fees by 10 to 30 percent. The measure for mixed-use villages is found to be different in Collier County’s eastern lands. The RFMUD and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) have different standards for measuring the mix. Table 3-2 shows the RFMUD establishes guidance for maximum village center and leasable square feet, and a minimum size for civic and public parks. The RLSA measures the mix of uses with direct correlation of residential unit, such as goods and services minimum 25 square feet per residential unit. Another difference between the RFMUD and the RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 26 of 62 RLSA is allowed development patterns. The RLSA policies provide only for the village or town option, with the exception of a small 40 acre hamlet. The RFMUD has no such requirem ent so single-use, residential development can consume 40 acres or 4,000 acres. The RFMUD guidelines for measuring mixed-use and village size could be improved by bringing consistency between the standards found in these two TDR plans. Table 3-2: Measuring the Mix in the RFMUD Village and RLSA Village Typical Characteristics RFMUD Village RLSA Village Size 300-2,500 acres 100-1,000 acres Density 2-3 UPA 1-4 UPA Land Use*  Diversity of SF and MF with a minimum of 2 neighborhoods  Neighborhood Center max 10 acres, 8,500 SF leasable floor area/ac  Village Center max 10% total village area, 10,000 SF leasable floor area/ac  Research & Technology park max 4% total village acreage  Civic and public parks min 10% total village acreage  Diversity of SF and MF  Goods and Services Minimum 25 SF/DU. Max FAR .5  Civic/Institutional Min 10 SF/DU Max FAR .6  Group Housing FAR .45  Lodging 26 UPA net *bold is required The village option, over the sprawl option, will be far more beneficial to Collier County, including Golden Gate Estates. Villages will increase tax revenue, support jobs, goods and services needed in eastern Collier County, and reduce commute times for some now traveling to the coastal area. Research shows, “mixed-use, walkable downtown developments generate ten times as much tax revenue per acre, save almost 40 percent on up front infrastructure costs, and result in about 10 percent lower costs for service delivery than sprawl development .3 Economic Vitality Achieving prosperity in eastern Collier County challenges consideration for land use and transportation strategies to balance environmental, social and economic interests. Guidance for the RFMUD is found in Opportunity Naples (2014), an economic development strategy that will advance economic opportunity for all residents of Greater Naples. The process for Opportunity Naples leveraged the thoughts and opinions of Greater Naples residents and leaders. Public input and stakeholder perspectives, along with a thorough analysis of the Collier RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 27 of 62 County’s competitive position, directly informed the process. Several identified challenges can be directly related to the RFMUD:  Workforce growth trends;  Site availability; and  Impact fees. Opportunity Naples found, “growth trends in Collier County’s age dynamics risk the future sustainability of the local workforce. Collier County’s 25 to 44 year old population is proportionally smaller than every comparison area except Sarasota County, as is Collier’s percentage of 0 to 19 year old residents. Without an influx of younger workers migrating to the County or a spike in birth rates, Greater Naples could face a significant shortfall of replacement workers for future retirees. Likewise there will be an occupational shortage in Collier County if qualified workers aged 24 to 44 are not recruited to the area to replace retirees .” This age group, and most specifically the millennials, is one of the most sought-after market segments. So how can Collier County’s RFMUD land use policy support the attraction and retention of this demographic? Study after study shows millennials are increasingly choosing vibrant, healthy, walkable communities and rejecting the automobile-centric land use patterns of the generations before them. Further supporting mixed-use and integrating health into planning and development policy can become an economic development strategy—a tool to attract a skilled workforce and to build a sustainable economic base. Incentivizing mixed-use, healthy communities within the RFMUD is critical to attract the workforce needed to diversify and sustain eastern Collier County’s economy. A mixed-use, healthy community can provide economic advantage by appealing to millennials who, as a generation, place more value on active lifestyles. In fact, The Rockefeller Foundation and Transportation for America commissioned a survey in 2014, through which 80 percent of millennials reported that they wanted to live in a walkable neighborhoods.4 Similarly, a 2011 AARP survey found that the vast majority of seniors want to live within a half mile of common daily goods and services such a grocery stores, drug stores and doctor’s offices.5 Developers can create enduring value by meeting these demands. Mixed-use places will gain a competitive advantage, using healthy community design as a way to attract investment in the community, foster growth, and increase revenues. This point of view is backed up by serious research. Today, prospective office tenants prefer amenity-rich mixed-use centers (also known as “live-work-play” locations) over single-use office parks by a margin of 83 to 17 percent, according to a 2014 study by the NAIOP Research Foundation, which represents the commercial real estate industry in the US. The report's bottom line: "… RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 28 of 62 any company wanting to attract and retain young educated workers who prefer live, work, play locations needs to locate in a compact, mixed-use, walkable place, either downtown or in the suburbs." Countless other studies have explored how physical design and walkability impact the economic prosperity and growth of a community. For example, in Asheville, NC, it was found that property taxes for downtown mixed-use development projects yield an 800 percent greater return on a per-acre basis than large, single use projects near city limits.6 And, In the 30 largest metro regions in the U.S., office space located within the more walkable urban parts of the metro commands and average of 74 percent more rent -per square-foot than elsewhere in the metro.7 Collier County has a limited supply of land available for new development and there is high competition for residential land uses. The development trend in the RFMUD has been gated residential communities. In fact, nearly all of the “West” Receiving area has built out in this pattern, leaving little room for future business uses. This is one of the largest challenges Opportunity Naples found to Collier County’s economic diversity - “suitable, large-scale, pad- ready development sites.” Under the current RFMU policies, businesses would only be allowed within the Village option. Therefore, at this time, any business willing to locate within the RFMUD would need to find residential partners to go through a rezoning process to create a Villa ge in order for the business to locate within the RFMUD. For Collier County’s competitive edge, land use policies within the RFMUD need to provide greater flexibility for business development. Allowing stand - alone business parks and light industrial uses that are designated in zoning overlays would provide more sites readily available for development. This would directly address the business community’s identified barrier, a lack of certain in the rezone process. At the same time, by allowing businesses as permitted uses, shorten approval times may be realized. This can be accomplished through business park zoning overlays or by establishing criteria similar to the conditional use process where compatibility can be determined by the Hearing Examiner. The last item, impact fees, is always up for debate in Collier County. There are processes in place that can provide businesses impact fee credits or waivers and other incentives to address this issue. At the same time, as discussed under the land use incentives, a new mixed-use impact fee has the potential to reduce development impact fees within a mixed-use project by 10 to 30 percent. This type of impact fee may provide the reduced fees sought by the business community. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 29 of 62 To support economic vitality in the RFMUD Collier County needs to leverage the mixed-use, healthy community advantage to stay competitive and relevant to the new generations needed for the workforce. This means supporting land use policy that incentivizes mixed -use development and villages within the RFMUD. “Many businesses are increasingly making their expansion, relocation, and new business development decisions based on which communities are most walkable.”8 The villages within the RFMUD should be designed to accommodate the desires of both businesses and their workforce – a focus on vibrant, mixed-use communities that support transportation choices and health lifestyles. While villages may take years to come to fruition in RFMUD, land use policy should also be able to rapidly respond to business opportunities that are ready to locate in the RFMUD . This is accomplished by allowing business uses outside of a village in appropriate locations, with approvals as promptly as possible. These steps will support the economic diversification of eastern Collier County. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 30 of 62 Footnotes 1ULI. 2013. Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places. http://www.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/10-Principles-for-Building-Healthy-Places.pdf 2 Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy. 2006. “ Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence.” Opolis: An International Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies. Vol. 2, Issue 1, Article 3. 3 Mariel Alfonzo. 2015. “Making the Economic Case for More Walkability.” Urban Land. Urban Land Institute. http://urbanland.uli.org/sustainability/houston-economic-case-walkability/ 4 Global Strategy Group. 2014. Rockefeller Millennials Survey. Transportation for America. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/about-us/news-media/access-public-transportation-top/ 5 AARP. 2012. 2011 Boomer Housing Survey. http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/il/2012/2011-Boomer-Housing-Survey- AARP.pdf 6 Badger, Emily. 2010. “The Simple Math that can Save Cities from Bankruptcy.” The Atlantic: City Lab. http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/03/simple-math-can-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/ 7 Gary Pivo and Jeffrey D. Fisher. 2001. “The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Investments”. Real Estate Economics 39.2. 185-219. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gpivo/Walkability%20Paper%208_4%20draft.pdf 8 Public Sector Consultants. 2016. Creating 21st Century Communities: Making the economic case for place. http://smartgrowth.org/creating-21st-century-communities-making-economic-case-place/ RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 31 of 62 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper Section 4: Findings and Initial Recommendations 1 Last revised: 12/17/16 The findings and initial recommendation below emerged from the public engagement, data and analysis discussed in Section 3. These are initial recommendations and reflect an approach that begins with general principles. Once settled in broad concept, more specificity will be brought forward as the process moves to Growth Management Plan amendments and Land Development Code amendment processes. The issue topics discussed herein are organized under the areas of: SENDING LANDS: A. TDR Credit System B. Credits and Areas Outside of the RFMUD C. TDR Program Management D. Sending Land Management E. Other Program Suggestions NEUTRAL LANDS RECEIVING LANDS: A. Land Use and Economic Vitality B. Transportation and Mobility C. Development Standards and Process For ease of use, this Section includes different ink color. The different ink colors reflect: Issue identification and background Bold narrative is public input Staff’s initial recommendations Impacts to stakeholder interests For simplicity, throughout this section, owners of parcels within RFMUD Sending Lands will be denoted as “Sending owners”; owners of parcels within RFMUD Neutral Lands will be denoted as “Neutral owners”; owners of parcels within RFMUD Receiving Lands will be denoted as “Receiving owners”. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 32 of 62 SENDING LANDS A: TDR CREDIT SYSTEM 1. Minimum Sales Price, Buyer and Seller One of the most frequently heard recommendations related to TDR credits is the elimination of the minimum $25,000 sales price for Base TDR credits. Since the adoption of the Bonus credit system in late 2004, there have been two classes of credits in the system: Base TDR credits, which are subject to the minimum sales price, and Bonus TDR credits, which are not. The TDR system was designed to be “market driven”; however, minimum pricing requirements interferes with willing buyer/willing seller free market principles. A true market rate should be maintained so that credit sale prices reflect actual market conditions. With the possible exception of a County TDR bank, market price should be left solely to market forces. The present requirement creates distortion in the market price of bonus credits compared to base credits, frequently selling for just a fraction of the base price. The Rural Fringe Coalition reports combining a base TDR with a bonus TDR results in a current market average price of $13,500 per TDR. A single market price for all credit types requires the elimination of separate treatment for base credits compared to bonus credits. A corollary of a unified TDR value is the elimination of any use restriction (based on TDR credit type) as presently interpreted in village development. (See staff recommendations: Receiving/Village). Staff initial recommendation: Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR. All groups generally support this provision: the Coalition, Sending owners, interested citizen groups and environmental advocates have supported this elimination. In the opinion of staff, no interest group would be adversely affected by this change. 2. Additional Credits to Sending Owners An analysis of likely credit availability and likely (long term) credit demand reveals an imbalance between supply and demand. Under its “likely case” scenario, County staff estimated that demand would ultimately be more than double the supply under the current program structure. Further economic analysis provides scenario planning to address proper balance and suggest additional credits for Sending owners. Alternatives may need to be considered because RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 33 of 62 changes in Receiving Lands rules will also affect the balance. Use of credits for incentivized development and increase in allowed density in Receiving Lands must be factored into the equation. For purposes of this White Paper, recommended minimum and maximum densities in Receiving Lands provide the analytical framework for scenario testing, provided in Appendix D: “TDR Economic Analysis”. The County’s consultants illustrate the provision of four (4) additional TDR credits to Sending owners, along with collateral bonuses and credits, as a test of market penetration under increased density and credit recommendations. As further guidance refines density and additional credit goals, economic scenario testing will be adjusted and refined. At present time, the illustration provided in Appendix D should be reviewed as an example and as a platform for further discussion. It was suggested by some individuals that credit balance could be achieved by allowing the same credits (existing credit structure) to count more favorably in the hands of Receiving owners for development purposes. It is true that a mathematical application could result in the same economic balance by using this approach. On the other hand, by using a combination of approaches, a more tailored result is possible. Thus, additional TDRs can be used both as compensation to Sending owners and as incentives to Receiving owners. With respect to the application of additional credits for the be nefit of Sending Land owners, a number of recommendations have been made by stakeholders, including prioritization (more bonus credits) for: NRPA lands; parcels that are 10 or 20 acres or greater; lands that require higher level of restoration; lands that remain in private ownership with agreements with Forestry Service for controlled burns; lands that remain in private ownership with agreements for flow ways across property; lands that retain agriculture activity; lands that are donated to accommodate flow ways; lands that are donated where habitat value is highest; or, all sending lands regardless of attributes. Many of these recommendations were made in the Rural Fringe Coalition’s “White Paper” (January, 2015); many were echoed in correspondence, surveys and public meetings. Meeting participants were more favorable to the “all Sending Lands equally” approach than to all others listed above. Staff is highly supportive of this approach due to simplicity and equity in application. Staff also anticipates that this general preference may yield to some limited exceptions, such as a scenario in which no governmental or other entity can be established to own and maintain environmentally sensitive properties (see D.2, below). Additional TDR credits to add liquidity to the supply/demand balance is a central and fundamental change to the existing TDR program. By providing more potential credits to Sending owners, they will derive more compensation through the program than presently RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 34 of 62 possible. At the same time, the additional liquidity will place downward pressure on TDR price, thus making credits slightly less expensive for development. As described in Appendix D, the ultimate recommended number of additional bonus credits will depend on adopted TDR incentives in the Receiving Lands, the minimum and maximum densities applicable to Receiving villages and non-village development, and additional or contingent incentives applied to specific areas within Sending Lands. A final true-up of the credit system, and therefore additional credit needs in Sending Lands, must necessarily await consideration of density availability in Receiving Lands. A “what if” scenario tool has been completed by a consulting economist, and will help inform the discussion. Staff is confident that overall credit demand from Sending Lands will not diminish due to adopted changes following the restudy. Therefore, staff is confident that at least two (2) additional TDR credits per 5 acres should be anticipated for Sending program activity; and that more may be possible, depending on support for recommended changes in the Receiving Lands. Staff initial recommendation: Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property attributes. The addition of 2 or possibly more credits available for Sending owner TDR participation will result in more affordable credits for development and a greater overall return to Send ing owners. This was a fundamental tenant suggested by the Rural Fringe Coalition and well received by Sending owners in meetings and by survey. To the extent that a greater financial return incentivizes Sending owners to enter the program, conservation groups have been enthusiastic. All groups benefit from this proposed change. Sending owners had many different points of view on distribution of additional credits; the notion that all sending area owners would be subject to the same TDR availabilities was favored by five out of six groups in the Public Workshop break-out table exercise. Because of the nature of the various options, it is clear that “equity” is favo red over parochial interests of owners. Thus, all Sending owners would benefit equally. 3. Agricultural Uses Under current rules, parcels located in Sending Lands are eligible for TDR severance credits. However, TDR severance is abated for 25 years “from any parcel, or portion thereof…cleared for agricultural purposes after June 19, 2002”. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 35 of 62 The Final Order, dated June 22, 1999, directed the County to conduct assessments that included, at a minimum, provisions to “protect prime agricultural areas” and to “prev ent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses” (p.11). In addition, uses remaining in NRPA areas were limited to single family dwellings per parcel and agricultural uses (p. 14). There is no specific directive in the Final Order to encourage new agricultural uses other than the protection of “prime agricultural land” in general. The extent to which this language applies to RFMUD Sending Lands could be debated. On the other hand, nothing in the Final order would prohibit the County from removing disincentives, or in incentivizing appropriate agricultural activity. The RFMUD rules adopted in 2003 and 2004 discourage agriculture on Sending Lands by eliminating the possibility of creating TDR credits for any land put in agricultural use after 2002. The rationale for this provision may have been based on the concept that agricultural operations were more widespread and established in the RLSA; by comparison, a relatively small amount of agricultural activity was found in RFMUD Sending areas. However, there may be agricultural activities that are consistent and compatible with environmental goals. For example, land managers in the area have maintained that passive agriculture, specifically grazing, is a cost-effective way to reduce invasive plants. The suitability of the environment for agricultural activity beyond grazing is limited. It is possible that an owner will find that a non-NRPA property is suitable for growing certain crops or landscape materials given the specific location. Further reduction of density in western North Belle Meade may be a desirable trade-off for the allowance of more active agricultural uses in that location. However, an administrative or conditional use review may be appropriate to avoid conflicts with large scale land management practices such as prescribed burns or with water management initiatives. When asked about views concerning agricultural incentives, five of six groups at break-out table exercises (Public Workshop #2) concluded that TDR credits should be provided to incentivize agricultural activity in Sending Lands. Our first on -line survey indicated that a majority of respondents had plans to continue or commence agriculture on their properties. 76% of persons attending the final Public Workshop #6 agreed that TDRs should be awarded for owners who keep property in agricultural production. Staff initial recommendation: Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to begin or expand a bone fide agricultural operation. In NRPA locations, only passive agricultural operations, excluding aquaculture, would qualify. Passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 36 of 62 Incentivized agricultural use of Sending Land provides a viable alternative to owners who wish to retain a beneficial interest in their properties. If compatible with environmental interests, including water quality, there do not appear to be negative consequences for any stakeholder interest group, so long as a review process is established to assure compatibility. 4. Parcels smaller than 5 acres RFMUD properties smaller than 5 acres are eligible for the TDR program today if legally non- conforming (LNC). That is, a property less than 5 acres created before October 14, 1974, the establishment of the Agricultural Zoning District, Coastal Area, enjoys development rights and, as provided in the GMP, TDR incentives. For example, a full base TDR is available reg ardless of the size of the LNC lot. Conversely, illegal non-conforming lots enjoy no development rights and no TDR availability. In response to an individual petition in 2008, the Comprehen sive Planning Department researched the extent of illegal lots and brought various options to the BCC for consideration. It found 189 non-conforming lots in Sending areas, of which 126 were deemed LNC; 51 were found to be illegal non-conforming and 12 inconclusive, due to lack of available data from Property Appraiser’s Office. An integral part of the analysis concerning non -conforming parcels relates strictly to parcel size. Parcels slightly less than 5 acres can be determined to be legal lots, regardless of date of creation, if the owner can prove that a portion is attributed to ROW taking at some point in time. Of the 51 illegal non-conforming lots and the 12 inconclusive determinations, 24 exceed 4.5 acres in size. Illegal non-conforming parcels enjoy no development rights and this principle should continue. However, a cornerstone RFMUD program goal is the accumulation of parcels and ultimate ownership in a governmental (or other qualified) agency for long term environmental, unified stewardship. Proportional TDR availability would foster that result and provide a reason able exit strategy for owners of such parcels. Documents associated with this transaction would clearly reflect the lack of current development rights and the public purpose for creating the TDR availability. For example, an owner of a 2 acre illegal non -conforming parcel would be eligible for 40% of the TDR credits otherwise available to a 5 acre parcel. When drafting the GMP amendment, a requirement of conveyance would be applied in order to achieve any TDR value from legal non-conforming lots. Further, any property in excess of 4.5 acres should be deemed to be a 5 acre parcel for purposes of this program. Again, actual development rights to be exercised outside of the TDR program would require an LNC determination, as is presently the case. However, as an RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 37 of 62 incentive to enter the program by eliminating a sometimes onerous or inconclusive determination, such parcel would be granted 1 full credit for each base and bonus TDR. Staff initial recommendation: Allow TDR participation for illegal non-conforming properties based on public policy goals, and waive requirements related to proof of LNC status if greater than 4.5 acres in size. This change benefits owners who do not have access or means to achieve proof of LNC status where the property is greater than 4.5 acres in size. It also benefits owners of non-conforming properties created after 1974, by allowing them an exit strategy. There are no known stakeholders who are adversely affected. 5. Retroactivity of Suggested Program Changes As discussed under A-2, Additional Credits to Sending Owners, 2 or more additional TDRs may be provided to further incentivize participation and balance supply with anticipated demand. Approximately one quarter of all Sending acreage has previously entered the program at the Base and Early Entry levels. Of the 6,532 acres where base rights have been severed, 1,979 acres (30%) have been conveyed to a governmental agency. Land owners who have previously entered into a Limitation of Development Rights agreement should be allowed to apply for any additional TDR credits made available as a result of program changes. This would provide an equitable solution to owners who entered the program earlier in time and have not transferred ownership. The supply side of the TDR credit system will be impacted to a significant degree. (Under Scenario 1, Appendix D, 1,863 additional credits would be created retroactively; the actual number will depend on the number of additional bonus credits approved). This additional supply is added to the dynamic analysis at a macro level. Staff initial recommendations: Allow landowner’s who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. The proposition benefits owners who faithfully earned Base TDR credits prior to the current restudy and economic analysis of overall credit needs. One possible inequity could be perceived by prior Sending owners who transferred properties to a governmenta l agency or third party in the past; they no longer have a nexus to the land. No other stakeholder group would be adversely affected. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 38 of 62 6. Early Entry TDR Credits Early Entry TDR credits were adopted as part of the 2004 RFMUD Amendments providing bonus credits to help balance the system. At the time, the Early Entry Bonus was seen as a means to jump-start the program: Sending owners who severed TDRs in the early years would be rewarded for their trust in the program and belief in the likelihood of a successful negotiation and sale. The Early Entry Bonus TDR, when first enacted, was set to expire in three years (2007). It has since been extended several times and is now set for expiration in 2019, 15 years after the start of the program. The time period associated with early participation expired a number of times. Incentives for participation should be monetary, and can fairly reflect the fact that the reference to “early” has become de facto permanent. Staff initial recommendation: Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base sev erance of dwelling unit rights, subject to any additional credits assigned as discussed in A.2, above. No stakeholders will be adversely impacted; this change provides more clarity to the program. The BCC would abandon one potential program “tool”- the potential of non-extension of the Early Entry Bonus credit that exists today. 7. TDR Credits from Receiving Land Within the Receiving Land there are opportunities to further the goals of environmental protection and agriculture preservation. In fact, some of the most valuable agriculture land in Collier County is located in the RFMUD Receiving Land. Collier County has had success in preserving agriculture lands through a system of TDR-like incentives in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. Additionally, there are some limited natural resources found in Receiving areas that are valuable for preservation. Recognizing this, and the need for greater incentives in the RFMUD, stakeholders support the ideas to allow Receiving Lands to generate TDR credits for the purpose of retaining agricultural uses/rights and/or where greater environmental protection is demonstrated. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 39 of 62 Staff initial recommendation: Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements, secured by appropriate easements in favor of Collier County. Preserving agriculture in Collier County will benefit the overall agriculture economy, and the stakeholders involved in agricultural operations. Preserved areas will not be available for future development. B: TDR CREDITS AND AREAS OUTSIDE THE RFMUD 1. Urban Residential Fringe and the One Mile Rule Development within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF), mile-wide buffer between the urban area and the RFMUD, has a base density for development of 1.5 units per acre. Given its location, the GMP describes its purpose: “to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area” to the east. Additional density can be added through the purchase of TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the URF. Up to 1 unit per acre can be added in this way, although specific properties were gra nted slightly higher allocations through private plan amendment petitions. Also as a result of private plan amendment petitions, the requirement of obtaining TDRs from Sending Lands within one mile , in order to increase density, was modified for the Naples Reserve PUD and the San Marino PUD. Private GMP Amendments have established the precedent to derive TDRs from the Sending Lands beyond 1 mile, reflecting Board direction. The vast majority of URF acreage is now entitled for Planned Unit Developments. Of the total 5,500 acres, only 371 acres remain in agricultural zoning. Regardless of policy considerations for or against this geographical allowance, a change to the Urban Residential Fringe rules to reflect this Board direction would provid e consistency for the remaining areas that have not been entitled and may wish to increase density through the TDR mechanism. Staff initial recommendation: Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 40 of 62 This change favors the majority of Sending owners whose holding s are outside the one mile band, although the additional demand is very small. It negatively impacts Sending owners whose holdings are within the one mile band, and may have purchase d such property in expectation of higher return for sale of those TDRs. Again, looking forward, this potential demand is very small. 2. The Urban Residential Infill Bonus Provision The Residential Infill Bonus (Density Rating System, Future Land Use Element) encourages infil l within urban areas, outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area. Parcels less than 20 acres are eligible, under certain conditions, for 3 additional dwelling units. The first of these must be derived from the purchase of a TDR from the RFMUD. This density bonus provision is intended to incentivize compatible in-fill development in the Urban Mixed Use District, but has been seldom used. Removal of the TDR component would eliminate a barrier to what is intended as an incentive to foster in -fill development; likewise, it would eliminate a minor demand uncertainty in calculating the supply/demand ratio in the RFMUD. Staff initial recommendation: Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential Infill bonus provision. The community at large would benefit from urban infill development at appropriate locations; no other stakeholders are significantly affected. 3. Golden Gate Estates TDRs for Environmental Protection Unlike allowable uses of TDRs outside of the RFMUD, no locations outside of the RF MUD currently provide additional sources of TDRs for use within RFMUD. The Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan (CWIP) Ad Hoc Advisory Committee (CWIP Committee) is currently studying the technical implications of various goals and strategies associated with wetland areas in Northern Golden Gate Estates. The Watershed Management Plan (2011) identifies an area within Golden Gate Estates as North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Area. This area, as well other low-lying areas in Golden Gate Estates could be considered as additional Sending locations related to the RFMUD TDR program. I n-holdings within Red Maple Swamp and Winchester Head (managed by Conservation Collier) or other important areas could also be considered. The Ordinance creating the Growth Management Oversight Committee included within the Committee’s scope an evaluation of consistency among restudies. Watershed issues are one of the topic areas where consistency and coordinatio n have been frequently mentioned. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 41 of 62 Historically, the Rookery Bay watershed started in the North Golden Gate Estates area, sheetflowed through North Belle Meade and South Belle Meade, then outflowed into the Rookery Bay estuaries. The historic Rookery Bay watershed has been heavily influenced by the Golden Gate canal, and various stormwater projects have been identified by the Watershed Management Plan, accepted by the BCC in 2011, to address the problem. Diversion or attenuation of stormwater before it reaches the Golden Gate canal is one of those projects, and continues to be the subject of discussion at the CWIP Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. Any extension of TDR Sending credits to an area outside of the RFMUD must be cautiously considered. Additional Sending areas should be limited in acreage and prioritized for wetland or flowway preservation, as determined by the BCC. Staff recommends coordination and accommodation of this concept through various incentives and programs, including the TDR program, only for select and high value (wetland/flowway) parcels. By allowing a number of parcels to receive TDR credit allowance under the program, watershed goals can be more easily met. One important consideration is the volume of donations made possible through the TDR program within Golden Gate Estates. The RFMUD and its TDR program has been a relatively “closed” program, particularly from the Sending or supply side. It is important to consider the effect on value if additional supply is added. Staff believes, for example, that a progra m limited to 400 acres in total, derived from property owners of the most valuable parcels (from a water attenuation perspective) would be appropriate. It would equate to a roughly 2-3% impact in total supply (depending on program details), and could be considered a de minimis impact to TDR price, according to the economic consultant for this restudy. It is important to note that this concept will be vetted in the context of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy as well. The TDR concept is related to, and will be affected by, a parallel initiative that would provide incentives for combining smaller lots into larger lots in North Golden Gate Estates- an initiative that will reduce some of the floodplain impacts of smaller lots and aid in aquifer recharge. Staff initial recommendation: Accommodate implementation measures recommended by the CWIP committee and the Watershed Management Plan that are consistent with TDR program success. Where TDRs are used as an incentive, limit the number of credits for critical wetland parcels to avoid significant impacts to the TDR credit system. C: TDR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 42 of 62 1. General Administration Under the current program, the Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division administers the TDR program. Administration includes the intake of applications and related requirements for severance of development rights (Base and Early Entry TDRs), Restoration and Maintenance TDRs, Conveyance TDRs, transfers of credits, redemptions of credits and lost certificates. Administration reflects the private sector basis of the program- willing sellers and willing buyers who plan and arrange their purchase and sale transactions. At the same time, it is designed to protect system integrity and accuracy through a carefully maintained Activity Log, tracking each parcel and related credits through time, including final use d uring the platting process when redemption of identified credits are recorded. In addition to these functions, the Division maintains both a Buyers List and a Sellers list, to facilitate identification for interested parties. While some new listings have occurred recently, the County understands that these lists have not worked well in the past. The Buyer and Seller lists have provided names, phone numbers and numbers of credits sought or available for sale. However, the listings typically lack an offering price by either buyer or seller. In addition, these lists have been difficult for some parties to easily locate on the County’s website. There is room for improvement based on the needs of the parties. Staff initial recommendation: At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from potential buyers and sellers. County staff would not incur additional expense in improving communications for the benefit of all parties. No stakeholders are negatively affected. 2. Cost Components for Sending Owners Cost components for Sending owners include application fees as well as other out of pocket costs associated with obtaining Base and Bonus TDRs.  Application fees for Base TDR severance with early Entry Bonus: $250 plus $25 per TDR issued  Application fee for Restoration and Maintenance TDR: $250  Application fee for Transfer of TDRs: $250 RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 43 of 62  Application fee for redemption of TDRs: $250  Restoration and Maintenance TDR: Private Land Management Plan (LMP) requires surety bond  Professional work product: o Legal sketch and description (Base TDR) o Title search for CEs or other land use restrictions (Base TDRs) o Preparation of LMP, qualified biologist (Private R&M plan) o Title work, preparation of deed, doc stamps (Conveyance TDRs) o Title insurance (Conveyance TDRs) o Negotiation with Governmental agency (Conveyance TDRs) o Potential brokerage fees for sale of the TDRs o “The County recommends that you consult with an attorney” (Base TDR application form) Application fees fall disproportionately on small Sending owners. An owner of a 5 acre tract would pay $775 in application fees for 5 acres, in order to obtain all 4 TDRs. This fee is in addition to professional fees associated with the work. To obtain Base and Early Entry TDRs, a title search is required, along with sketch and description. Legal advice is recommended in the process. More substantial work is involved in a private Land Management Plan for the Restoration and Maintenance TDR. Professional real estate services are typically required for the conveyance TDR, since the receiving entity will require a standard title search and documentary stamps will be required. There are limited possibilities for additional County staff assistance with some processes, in the future. For example, staff could supply a legal sketch and description through its GIS Section or other appropriate Division. A standard or model Land Management Plan could be develop ed by the Environmental Planning Section to reduce professional fees. Collier County devised a sophisticated and important program to protect environmentally sensitive lands in the RFMUD Sending areas, allowing Sending owners to “choose” to participate, but providing TDRs as an incentive and as just compensation for the change in FLUE designation and zoning. Costs and complexity to Sending owners cannot be eliminated; however, where possible, these should be reduced. The recommendation regarding a TDR Bank, below, would take this concept further. Staff initial recommendation: RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 44 of 62 Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product required for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances, provided by County staff. The reduction or elimination of application fees would result in an im pact to taxpayers, since the administration would not have an enterprise fund component. Likewise, additional work assignments for County staff would be borne by County taxpayers. Sending owners would benefit from these changes by reducing cost and complexity in the process of obtaining TDR credits. All stakeholders would benefit from increased participation by Sending owners. 3. TDR Bank The recommendation for a TDR Bank may be the single-most powerful recommendation made by staff. As many important community members have expressed the concern that “the TDR system is broken,” a bank would provide confidence in the system on many levels. It would demonstrate that the County is committed to the program and its success. It would provide assurance to small Sending owners that TDR severance will result in a monetary return within a reasonable timeframe, thus spurring program participation. It would provide assurance to the development community that TDRs will be available when needed, so that locating, structuring and executing numerous small transactions can be avoided. The current GMP provisions covering the TDR process state ”…the County shall consider the feasibility of establishing a ‘TDR Bank’, to be administered by the County or some other not-for- profit governmental or quasi-governmental public agency established for this purpose” (FLUE, Designation Description Section: B.1 (D)(2)). In its White Paper dated January, 2015, the Rural Fringe Coalition included the recommendation to consider a TDR bank to help foster the program. Its rationale included the high cost to developers to aggregate smaller parcels to derive TDRs or to purchase from many uncertain sellers. Likewise, the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association recommends its use to facilitate the process. A TDR bank is an intermediary between seller and buyer, which can be designed in many different ways. Either a division within the County Manager’s agency or a non-profit organization can serve in this role. It typically requires a substantial fund to allow purchase of land or purchase of credits from Sending owners. The fund becomes replenished through the sale of credits to Receiving entities, which must possess the necessary credits in order to obtain a development order (plat or SDP). RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 45 of 62 The creation of the initial fund may come from dedicated tax revenue, general revenue, sale of credits derived from County-owned property, TDRs provided to the County through the program, or other means. In the TDR Bank Capitalization report (Pruetz and Gunnells: “Placeworks”; Appendix C; dated December, 2016), Rick Pruetz, FAICP, a nationally recognized TDR program expert, outlines the many possible ways to create a TDR bank in Collier County. This report is included as Appendix C. It covers the advantages and disadvantages of using a bank in the context of the RFMUD program, noting that its chief importance lies in the fact that the County wishes to promote significant Sending land severance in the short term while expecting demand over a lengthy period of time. This “time lag” points to the importance of a bank in achieving environmental success and Sending owner fairness; at the same time, it requires a significant hold ing period before the County could sell its inventory, costing taxpayer dollars. Pricing of Banked TDRs would support a separate market-driven (direct Sending/Receiving) exchange and price point. The bank would not purchase TDRs for more than the market r ate, and should consider a higher resale rate so as not to frustrate non -bank sales. For reasons stated in this analysis, Mr. Pruetz favors a capitalization approach using bonded dedicated millage to create an account of sufficient size to purchase TDRs, holding them until demanded. Once a point of equilibrium is reached, the fund becomes self-sustaining- TDRs sold to the development community provide funds to purchase more. Ultimately, fund principal is recovered in the bank and can be used to support oth er environmental initiatives or returned to taxpayers through reduced millage. The Placeworks Capitalization report illustrates the funding required over an initial 5 year period when the Bank would be actively buying a substantial number of credits, and a 30 year period during which the credits would be sold and the bank funding returned. Other funding means are available, and could be supported without the use of public dollars for capitalization; however, none of these options addresses the “time lag” i ssues. These options include the use of County owned land to derive initial TDRs for the bank or the issuance of TDRs to the County as a component of the severance process (see related, D.2). Community support for a bank is vital. A fund created for its purpose may serve related purposes, such as funding restoration and management of lands that are not within a state acquisition or potential ROMA mitigation area, Conservation Collier restoration and maintenance funding or capital and O&M related to important hydrological projects. The community would need to recognize and appreciate the value of the conservation involved, its RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 46 of 62 County-wide ecological impact, opportunities for recreation and the value of publicly-owned preserves as a legacy for grandchildren. Staff initial recommendation: The County should consider the appeal of a publicly funded TDR bank and a dedicated assessment and/or bonding for the program, based on an evaluation of costs and benefits. As an indication of stakeholder impact, there was broad support for the TDR bank concept among Sending owners and the development community. Sending owners would enjoy a significant incentive to participate in the TDR program, knowing that compensation for severed credits may be more readily obtained. A bank would shift some of the administrative burden to the County, and administration cost must be considered in addition to capitalization costs. Taxpayers would bear the burden of the time value of the funds along with additional administrative costs. Residents and visitors would benefit from an asset that might otherwise be diminished without intermediary funding, and from the County-wide hydrological benefits that can be achieved. D. SENDING LAND MANAGEMENT: Land management strategies for environmentally sensitive areas, including preserves and open spaces, can take several different forms. One point of agreement among environmentalists, land managers and planners is that management does not happen by itself. As discussed by a panel of experts at Public Workshop #2, the prospect of a “do nothing” scenario following Restriction of Development Rights agreement and the issuance of TDRs, would result in much more extensive infestation of exotic plants and a compromise of viable habitat for important species. Ultimately, the cost to restore lands unattended for a long period of time can increase significantly. Private Land Management Plans are possible, but very difficult because of small and fragmented ownership patterns that do not support a coordinated effort. At the present time, the 4th TDR (bonus credit), “donation to a public agency”, cannot be obtained in several locations, including North Belle Meade and Section 11 (T48S/R26E). For those locations, there are no public agencies that have stated an intention to accept donations. Staff had previously made inquiry to the Division of State Lands, FDEP, to determine whether the State could take title to, and responsibility for, donated parcels in North Belle Meade. The agency described the fact that this area was outside of its acquisition authority under the RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 47 of 62 Florida Forever (Picayune Strand) acquisition program, even if the parcels were donated . Similarly, SFWMD was contacted regarding both North Belle Meade and Section 11 properties, but declined any involvement beyond an advisory role. In contrast, the South Belle Meade area is situated within the Picayune Stand State Forest acquisition area, where donated lands can be held by The Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF) and managed by Florida Forestry Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Here, Sending owners obtain the Restoration and Maintenance bonus credit along with the Conveyance bonus credit by donating the parcel(s) to the state along with a modest fee for restoration and perpetual maintenance. This serves the interests of the State because it is much easier to restore and manage large contiguous land areas than individual parcels. The fragmented pattern of ownership in North Belle Meade and Section 11 is similar to the pattern in South Belle Meade, prior to State acquisition. Again, the most effective means of long term management would be under a unified plan administered by a single agency (or coordinated agencies) for each geographic area. It is not practical or effective to encourage numerous small owners to create or implement plans to maintain or even restore 5, 10 and 20 acre tracts individually, particularly because plans may not be implemented in the same timeframe as neighboring properties. Eradicating and managing nuisance and exotic vegetation requires large scale coordination and timing. For this reason, coupling the Restoration and Maintenance TDR with the Conveyance TDR results in a more effective framework and a simplification for Sending owners. As presently structured in South Belle Meade, two TDRs can be provided for these dual purposes, simply by conveying the property along with an appropriate endowment sum. Finally, rehydration of parts of North Belle Meade has been on the list of priorities listed in the Watershed Management Plan (2011). The potential projects in North Belle Meade for wetland restoration or rehydration should be coordinated with restudy recommendations. Accommodation of such activity would be clearly demonstrated by maximizing the transfers of private parcels into public or quasi-public ownership, thus minimizing the potential for conflict with an otherwise successful watershed program in the future. Options to address this problem, by order of priority; also consider the combination of two or more options in concert: 1. Option One- North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank: RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 48 of 62 During Public Workshop #2, a panel of subject matter experts was convened to discuss North Belle Meade land management in particular, given the lack of interest from State agencies and given the fragmented ownership pattern. The panelists indicated a preference for coordinated ownership and management by a single entity, and agreed that Collier County should take direct responsibility, if no other state or federal agency would accept ownership or management responsibility. Public-private partnerships were also discussed. It was noted that County ownership would provide some County benefits, such as potential recreational opportunities. More specifically, panelists discussed the advantage of creating a mitigation bank option in order to finance the restoration and long term maintenance. The same concept had been suggested previously by an informal scoping meeting with agency peers. In April, 2016, staff launched an initial feasibility study to determine the viability of creating a mitigation bank of any kind. The idea of using mitigation funds from the County ’s own transportation or other capital projects was part of the conceptual framework. If the County could act as project manager for a mitigation bank while saving money over an extended time period, this option would be feasible and program design could b e recommended. The advantage of such a program would be threefold: (1) aid Sending owners in their efforts to obtain all available TDRs, including Conveyance, thus furthering program participation; (2) provide a cost-effective means to County ownership and long-term maintenance of parcels; (3) provide a more cost-effective and coordinated long term approach for mitigation of County projects that impact wetlands or habitat. The initial “Phase 1” Feasibility Study for the creation of a mitigation area is att ached as Appendix B. Conceptually, the bank would complement existing mitigation activities in this area under private ownership. The plan would be adopted by agreement of both state (FDEP) and federal (ACOE) permitting agencies, encompassing the necessary requirements of each. At this time there is a reasonable expectation of approval and financial viability of a Regional Offsite Mitigation Area/In-Lieu Fee program (“ROMA”) in North Belle Meade. Funding to provide restoration, maintenance and management of the ROMA area would come from required mitigation of County-owned infrastructure projects. Notably, the 2040 LRTP cost - feasible plan estimates approximately $11 million and $7 million for wetland mitigation and panther compensation units respectively, associated with construction of new or expanded roadways. The ROMA plan would allow for a competitive use of these mitigation dollars, in turn fostering the preservation and maintenance of parcels within the North Belle Meade Area. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 49 of 62 The Phase 1 study of the North Belle Meade area for potential use as wetland mitigation or habitat compensation indicates the area will not likely yield sufficient cost -effective wetland credits or habitat compensation to be competitive on an open market (sales to private interests). However, it concludes that a ROMA “is potentially feasible and cost-effective, based on broad characterizations of North Belle Meade and a range of reasonable assumptions.” Background data, for example, was derived from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI ) and Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). In short, the Phase 1 Feasibility report concludes that: “A Collier County single -user ROMA/ILF project within North Belle Meade appears to be a cost -feasible generator of wetland mitigation credits and panther habitat compensation if the ROMA/ILF is of sufficient size and properly located to assure long-term support for the Florida panther.” Based on the reasonable expectation of approval and financial viability in Phase 1, a Phase 2 Feasibility Study has commenced to study the ROMA concept in finer grain. Field work will more closely correlate the levels of exotic infestation to site specific areas in North Belle Meade. A mitigation analysis tool, developed for this project, will pr ovide more detailed analysis of the credit generation potential (revenue) and mitigation costs. Additional meetings with all permitting and review agencies will be completed, including USACOE, USFWS, FDEP, and FFWCC. Timelines will be associated with cost and revenue streams, allowing for pro-forma financial analysis of the ROMA and comparison to private mitigation bank costs for County capital projects. In light of the fact that there are a significant number of private permittee responsible mitigation (PRM) parcels in the North Belle Meade area, coordination of activities in a broad geographic area may be an important consideration for permitting agencies as well as the County. To this end, consideration of a public private partnership (PPP), trust agreem ent or third party monitoring might be considered for umbrella cooperation. Staff has identified only one experienced Land Trust operating in Collier County: Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust. This entity has been contacted and began initial discussions with staff; it is not clear at this time whether this Land Trust will wish to play a role in a potential ROMA/umbrella agreement. While the Phase 2 Feasibility Study will provide the County greater assurance of program success, it will not guarantee approval from the permitting agencies. The timeframe for permitting a program of this kind may be up to two (2) years in duration. Because of this factor, a GMPA recommendation would state the options listed here in priority order rather th an mandatory implementation. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 50 of 62 Staff initial recommendation: Complete Phase 2 Feasibility Analysis for a County to County mitigation bank program (ROMA/ILF) to establish a higher confidence of a successful mitigation program that can benefit the TDR program, the environment and Collier County capital spending.. Explore options involving Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) parcels to achieve coordinated or umbrella management options for greater overall land management efficiency. County government would assume responsibilities inherent in a ROMA agreement, although the operation and administrative functions could be assigned under contract. County taxpayers could anticipate some cost savings in the use of a ROMA over more convention al mitigation banking approaches. Taxpayers would also be gaining an asset: ownership of large land areas, ecologically stable, that could be used for passive recreational purposes. Residents and visitors would gain from improved hydrological functionality, providing watershed gains and balances between sheds and in associated groundwater and aquifers. Sending owners in that area would be on equal footing with counterparts in South Belle Meade so as to enjoy th e better availability of the Restoration/Maintenance and Conveyance TDR credits. The environmental community would gain assurance that this valuable resource is managed and protected, both for watershed and for important plant and animal species. Receiving owners would know that the number of TDRs necessary for future projects can be made more readily available, both through the additional credits and through increased Sending owner participation. To the extent that grant funding becomes available for structural rehydration projects in North Belle Meade, additional wetland credits could be realized, resulting in further taxpayer benefits. 2. Option 2- Additional TDR for funding in North Belle Meade and Section 11: It is possible to design an additional TDR only for those properties intended for County ownership. This “County TDR” could supplement other funding. It could be used for “seed money” for purposes of the ROMA engagement, or could form a po rtion of the funds necessary to create an endowment for County owned and man aged areas without a ROMA. Additional contributions should be required, similar to the program in South Belle Meade. For example, if the program changes include two additional TDRs for each 5 acres of Sending Lands, an additional TDR could be assigned where other (non-County) governmental agencies will not take ownership. Instead, the County would assume ownership of the last TDR or equivalent, as part of the conveyance application to the County. Proceeds from the additi onal TDR would go to the County to partially fund the restoration and long term maintenance of the RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 51 of 62 property, to provide seed money for a ROMA/ILF bank and/or to provide seed money for a TDR bank. Along with the value of the last TDR, the County could assess a fee for donation roughly equivalent to that amount required, on average, in South Belle Meade by the Florida Forestry Service. In this way, there would be rough parity between owners in North Belle Meade, South Belle Mead and Section 11. Staff initial recommendation: Establish a special TDR for the benefit of the County where no other entity has been established to take ownership. Also require donors of Sending lands to the County to convey a sum of money or other consideration to partially fund a lo ng term endowment. This concept would be an exception to issuing additional TDRs t o all Sending lands regardless of location. However, the end goal would be to put equal numbers of TDRs in Sending owners’ pockets at the same expense. When considering the opportunity provided to South Belle Meade Sending owners by State acquisition, this provision would be in line with equitable treatment or rough equivalence. Sending Owners would benefit from knowing that the conveyance TDR is available to them, along with any other bonus TDRs. Receiving owners would benefit from the availability of TDRs in general, based on added market liquidity. Financial return to participating Sending owners would be equivalent regardless of location. 3. Option 3- Green Utility Fee/ County Environmental Separate Fund An idea presented by a panelist at Public Workshop #2 was a “Green Utility Fee.” This could be a fee determined on the basis of land use and applied Countywide. No doubt, it could be designed in many different ways. One purpose, like the two Options listed above, would be to provide a fund from which properties donated to the County could be restored and maintained. If initiated by referendum, dedicated millage could fund several environmentally based and related needs from a special fund, allowing the BCC to make annual budget determinations according to annual priorities. For example, the dedicated millage could serve a stormwater utility in its efforts to restore or improve watershed projects in different locations w ithin the County’s sub-basins, could be used to fund perpetual maintenance of Conservation Collier holdings, and could be used for TDR bank capitalization. As noted in the TDR bank discussion (Appendix C), the bank will ultimately realize a return of initial capital, which could then be RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 52 of 62 allocated by the BCC for perpetual maintenance of County holdings such as Conservation Collier Lands or Sending Lands, to additional hydrologic projects, or to other environmental initiatives. Staff initial recommendation: Study the idea of a Collier Environmental Fund and consider whether it should be the subject of a County-wide referendum. Allow various complementary uses of the dedicated fund to support County environmental initiatives. Given its close association with hydrology issues, the concept might also be part of the Stormwater Utility Fee currently under study; revenue could apply to green infrastructure that benefits water quantity, quality, recharge or flood control. Additionally, the green utility fee might encompass a dedicated millage for both County-wide “green” initiatives and the TDR bank capitalization discussed at Sending (C.3). 4. Option 4- Model Land Management Plan and Private Ownership There are circumstances where a private Land Management Plan would be optimal. Some owners do not wish to give up ownership of their land, although they wish to engage in the TDR process up to that point. For example, land holdings are planned as natural amenities of nearby development areas in the western part of South Belle Meade, adjacent to the Urban Residential Fringe. Another example is land maintained for a hunting lodge, where TDRs have been severed from all but 5 acres to make it possible, but no conveyance TDRs are issued. Although applicants for Restoration and Maintenance TDR credits would be required to submit or commission an environmental consultant, the basics of the Land Management Plan and required elements would be in place, eliminating uncertainty and reducing costs to the applicant. Staff initial recommendation: Provide a standard or model Land Management Plan for adoption by owners who wish to provide Restoration and Maintenance activities in return for TDR credits. Private owners would save time, cost and uncertainty in instances where they wish to maintain ownership in their Sending land and also participate in the TDR process. E. OTHER PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 53 of 62 1. Adjust property appraisal for tax benefit on TDR severed lands. Staff reviewed the taxable values associated with Sending Lands where TDRs have been severed. It was found that the land use code assigned to these lands, and the associated value, varies greatly. Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office, a Constitutional branch of County Government, agrees in principle to review market value appraisals where base TDRs are severed. Given the limitation of development rights on such privately maintained land, its lower market value may result in lower tax assessments. Staff has discussed this issue with the Property Appraisers Offices and stands ready to assist with any data needed by that agency. Staff initial recommendation: Staff should provide any data needed to the Property Appraiser’s Office in support of its efforts to review tax assessments based on appraised land values and resulting tax assessments in Sending Lands. Improved assessment outcomes are favorable to Sending owners who have severed development rights but have not transferred ownership. No parties are adversely affected. 2. Allow County-owned (post-conveyance) Sending land to be used for recreational uses. Currently, approved Land Management Plans include only passive recreational uses, consistent with the permitted uses after severance in Sending Lands. The GMP could conceivably contain conditional uses that expand the range of recreational uses, where the County takes ownership, such as North Belle Meade. In general, permitted uses limit recreation to “passive parks and passive recreation uses”. By definition, passive recreation is “characterized by natural resource emphasis and non - motorized activities”. There may be appropriate instances where motorized uses are consistent with environmental preservation. For example, the County may wish to create a modest eco- tourism site for residents and visitors, allowing some off-road transport to and from different locations, or accommodating persons with disabilities to visit some locations. Staff initial recommendation: County-owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for conditional use approval for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Definitions of “active” and “passive” recreation will require further vetting. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 54 of 62 County residents may enjoy greater use of and access to natural areas. No known negative impacts on stakeholder groups. 3. Allow clustering of density on large tracts of land Where parcels or assemblages allow for more than one dwelling unit under base density (1 unit per 40 acres), owners may wish to cluster the units in closer proximity to each other, to infrastructure, etc. Currently, there is no opportunity to create a better de velopment plan than 1 unit per 40 (separate) acres. Allow large land owners to cluster dwelling units, retaining the 1 unit per 40 acre standard, but also allowing 1 additional clustered unit for each additional 40 acres retained. Where development rights are retained on large parcels, owners would enjoy better design alternatives. No stakeholders would be adversely affected. NEUTRAL LANDS: 1. Allow for some participation in the TDR program as allowed in Sending area. Neutral Lands typically enjoy the same uses and restrictions under the RFMUD as were enjoyed under the base agricultural zoning prior to TDR program and RFMUD adoption. However, unlike Sending owners, Neutral owners have no ability to generate and sell TDR credits. Parcels in the Neutral lands can be subdivided into 5 acre parcels, allowing for greater residential density than would be allowed in the Sending Lands. Other non-residential uses are allowed, including agriculture and conservation. Permanent agricultural use or permanent conservation easements are appropriate in Neutral Lands where the quality of the conserved use is demonstrated. In fact, these additional reservations should be encouraged. County staff could make administrative review and approval of applications based on environmental criteria in the Land Development Code. Conservation areas would remain in private ownership and would require conservation easements. Likewise, agricultural uses can be encouraged on Neutral Lands by generating TDRs for permanent agricultural easements, as was suggested for Sending areas. Staff initial recommendation: Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual easements. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 55 of 62 Neutral owners of larger parcels would be provided with a viable choice in preservation of land instead of 5 acre development. The total additional TDRs generated from this change would be very small in comparison to all likely Sending TDRs, and so would not impact Sending owner expectations to any significant degree. 2. Minimum Project Size One additional right provided to Neutral owners within the RFMUD is the ability to “cluster” development. For example, a 40 acre parcel could be subdivided into eight 5 acre parcels; or, using the clustering rules, could place 8 dwelling units on the parcel in closer proximity to one another, fostering the possibility of greater efficiency in infrastructure, among other advantages. Like the recommended change within Receiving Lands, advantages to clustered development would appear to apply to parcels smaller than 40 acres. Efficiency in shared resources as well as social advantages are possible. No increase in overall density would result. Staff initial recommendation: Remove the 40 acre minimum project size for clustered development . This recommendation would benefit Neutral owners of properties 10 acres or greater by providing alternative design possibilities. No other stakeholder group is affected. RECEIVING LANDS A: LAND USE AND ECONOMIC VITALITY Growth presents a tremendous opportunity for progress. It also presents many challenges. What, where and how we build have major impacts to our community and resident’s quality of life. The Receiving lands within the RFMUD total 28,054 acres, of which, 14,531 acres remain vacant and undeveloped. This is where growth will occur in the RFMUD. Currently, the RFMUD provides for an increase in development rights with the us e of TDRs within Receiving lands. Density can be increased using two forms of development, 1) cluster residential, and 2) villages. To date, the only development pattern occurring in the Fringe is cluster residential development in the form of gated communities such as Naples Reserve, Hacienda Lakes, Lords Way, San Marino, Lido Isles, Rockledge (in Urban Fringe at 2.5 units per acre), Twin Eagles South, Lamorada, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Golf Club of the Everglades (in RFMUD at 1 unit per acre). These developments have an approved total of 6,786 units, the majority single family. While these communities are attractive, this single-dimensional RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 56 of 62 development pattern furthers Collier County’s challenges of diversifying the economy, providing affordable housing and financing an overburdened roadway network. During the public workshops participants were clear; the preference for new development in the limited available land in the Receiving area is something different than gated communities. Participants were more favorable towards standalone business/commercial, and mixed-use development. They want to see employment, goods and services, and a mix of housing types in the Receiving areas. One of the most common suggestions for program improvement was to allow employment and goods and services outside of the Village concept. Currently, commercial uses in Receiving lands are limited to locations within approved Villages with a maximum of 10% of the total village area and 10,000 SF leasable floor area per acre. Consensus was found in the need to change the requirements to promote commercial uses within the Receiving lands, not only to support the residents within the Receiving lands, but also for the surrounding area. It was suggested that Rural villages envisioned within receiving areas don’t provide sufficient commercial capacity, and the design criteria for commercial locations within the villages isolate them from major transportation corridors making them infeasible. There should be greater incentives for employment, industrial uses, agriculture research, and technology development. While consensus demonstrated the RFMUD should better support commercial uses, it was also suggested by one commenter that the RFMUD plan is not compatible with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; it eliminates functionality because it creates lost commercial opportunities for the Estates in the RFMUD Plan. The members of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association expressed their thoughts by letter dated April 19, 2016 saying, it is imperative that changes in land use in the RFMUD which borders the Estates be permitted to provide services and employment to compliment the build out of the Estates. The RFMUD can also provide opportunities for employment, economic development, and needed recreational activities to Collier County as a whole. In addition to the suggested changes to commercial uses, many participants expressed desired adjustments to residential uses. The RFMUD clustering provisions currently requires minimum of 40 acres to allow a density increase from 1 unit per 5 acres, to 1 unit per acre. It was suggested to increase base rights for properties less than 40 acres, or to all together eliminate the 40 acre minimum. Some participants thought base rights should increase to 1 unit per 2.5 acres for 5 acre tracts, others thought is should go up to 2 units per acre. Changes in Village density were also suggested and highly supported by the data and analysis referenced in Section 3 of this white paper. “Smart growth” principles support sustainable RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 57 of 62 development patterns that are multi-dimensional, provide for a demographic mix, and support transportation choices; density should be an optimum of 7 units per acre. Increasing the density in the RFMUD will allow greater diversity in residential product, greater efficiency in providing infrastructure and services and lower development costs. Participants were supportive of increased density, and they were passionate about the need to address affordable housing saying, it needs to be a much higher priority in the discussion [of the RFMUD). The Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District plan must have a dynamic affordable housing component built into the plan to avoid both the affordable housing and future workforce crisis. Without it our community will suffer. Currently, the RFMUD addresses affordable housing only in the village concept; “A minimum of 0.2 units per acre in a village shall be affordable housing, which at least 0.1 units per acres shall be workforce housing.” These units are required to use 0.5 TDR credits. Affordable and workforce housing is an on - going challenge for Collier County. Collier County has just initiated the first comprehensive housing plan to address the needs for affordable housing. This plan is reported to be completed by September, 2017. Community Planning staff will closely follow this planning effort and bring forward recommendations implementable through the Comprehensive Plan. Robert Hickey, Senior Research Associate at the Center for Housing Policy, suggested a few methods currently being utilized to work towards broadening housing affordability during a workshop sponsored by United Way. One of the suggested methods can be implemented in the RFMUD and that is “allowing mixed housing such as apartments/condos, manufactured homes, cottage housing and micro homes. This widens the diversity in housing markets, allowing residents to have more affordable alternative options when looking for housing.” Participants in the RFMUD restudy have supported the idea of a mix of housing with particular focus on reducing the required size of units. With the positive national trend in “tiny” or micro homes, the RFMUD can support affordable housing by promoting the acceptance of the size limitations of 600 sq ft. found in the residential zoning districts. Additional recommendation s addressing affordable housing may be incorporated into the RFMUD amendments as influenced by the comprehensive affordable housing plan. Staff initial recommendations 1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of Villages as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district (with exceptions) in locations with access to major collector or arterial roads. 2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park. 3. Explore designating Receiving areas as Innovation Zones. 4. Eliminate the maximum size of a Village. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 58 of 62 5. Consider new measures for mixed-use standards, such those found in RLSA 6. Modify residential density standards:  Clustering – remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre; (higher density for affordable/workforce only projects)  Village – increase density to 7 units per acre  Change minimum Village density to 4 units per acre 7. Development over 300 acres shall use the Village option. 8. Modify the TDR requirements: a. Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily unit. b. Change from .5 to 0 TDR for affordable housing c. Density over 4 units per acre requires 0 TDRs. d. No TDRs for industrial/business park uses. “Opportunity Naples” is a report that heightens the awareness for the need to div ersify the economy, particularly in eastern Collier County. The report found that Collier County needs more suitable, large-scale, pad-ready development sites. Collier County as a whole will benefit from recommended changes allowing business uses in the RFMUD. Increasing density, improving mixed-use requirements and adjusting the TDR credits will promote a diverse and more affordable community, expand mobility choices and engage a healthy and active lifestyle – the development trends sought after by employers, employees and baby boomers. B: TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY The RFMUD is served by a congested arterial network with limited funding for improvements. While development will help pay for impacts to the network, promoting a mix of land uses that shorten trips into the urban area, and is served by transit, will help offset the ever increasing roadway needs. A majority of public comments on transportation emphasized the need to increase roadway network connectivity surrounding the Receiving areas, at the same time keep speed low (< 36 mph). Low speed along with additional wildlife crossings is essential for wildlife preservation. Connectivity is important not only within the Receiving lands, but also connecting surrounding areas to destinations within the Receiving areas such as future employment, goods and services. Other transportation comments support including transportation alternatives such as bus transit. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 59 of 62 There is considerable attention given to transportation planning in eastern Collier County. The transportation study surrounding North Belle Meade will furth er inform the transportation network needed to support the RFMUD. Further consideration and implementation of the techniques identified in the Master Mobility Study will advance Collier County’s goals to achieve a multi-modal community. Staff initial recommendations 1. Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands. 2. Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support Complete Streets and low speed. 3. Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business parks. 4. Develop a methodology for a Mobility Analysis including a standard of measuring a development’s level of interconnectivity such as a “link-node” ratio, and the transit, bicycle and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project and surrounding destinations. The community as a whole will benefit from a multi-modal system that provides for all users, reduces trip lengths and supports greater efficiency in our transportation network. Stakeholders with development interests in the RFMUD should participate in the development of any new methodology created for a Mobility Analysis. C: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROCESS During the public workshops participants were clear; within the Receiving lands they want to create more than houses, a defined place, a live, work, play approach to promote thoughtful community design. Some were so specific to say limit gated communities. The finding of this report and the community input supports greater incentives for village development to promote mixed-use in the RFMUD. To incentivize mixed-use development and business park uses, the development community shared ideas that are process related. Overall, the idea is to find ways to reduce the risk associated with mixed-use development while also providing greater flexibility. Suggestions included, maximize opportunities to develop in Receiving lands through the mostly administrative SDP or Planning processes (subject to compliance with adopted design and development standards). Establish maximum flexibility and administrative or hearing examiner approval process for LDC deviations, and modify the process to follow the SRA RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 60 of 62 designation process where an application for a Receiving Area Village is approved by simple majority vote by BCC. Other participants support the idea to ensure that the current public hearing process for approval of new development within the RFMUD is retained . Specific design standards should be kept to a minimum and should b e placed in the LDC, only as guidelines or in some cases as baseline standards. Wherever possible, provide for incentives rather than regulations to achieve design objectives. Create opportunities for additional flexibility in designing mixed-use projects within receiving lands. Recognizing the distinct differences and potential for each of the Receiving Areas, participants support the idea to establish separate overlays for each of the four distinct Rural Fringe development areas, similar to the North Bell e Meade Overlay which has its own set of development standards. This could be accomplished through Land Development Code amendments. At a minimum, specific design standards found in the Growth Management Plan should be moved to the implementing LDC, and th e LDC standards should be carefully reviewed and amended to support the design concepts identified herein. Developers and industry leaders report that a hurdle to more intense, mixed-use development design is the added cost of impact fees. As stated in Section 3 of this white paper, other communities’ successful implementation of a mixed-use impact fee has shown a ten to thirty percent reduction in impact fees. This reduction could be another strategy to incentivize the type of development desired in eastern Collier County. Staff initial recommendations 1. Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide greater certainty for developers 2. Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlays. 3. Require a housing analysis with a Village application that demonstrates a percentage of employees within the village will have housing accommodations within the village. 4. Initiate study to create an impact fee index for mixed-use. 5. Explore with Collier County Health Department the creation of Health Assessment Index. 6. Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employment zones and mixed-use development, suggest modifications to standards e.g., remove greenbelt requirement. 7. Develop further incentives for innovative features such as solar power, zero net water use, aquifer storage and recovery systems. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 61 of 62 The adoption of zoning overlays could allow both the developer and the public greater certainty in the development standards for Receiving Areas. Modifying some approval processes could allow complying projects to proceed with minimal delay. The intent of the modifications is to diversify the mix of uses including residential product, provide greater certainty, and to support economic development in eastern Collier County. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 62 of 62 Appendix A Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Outreach January – May, 2016 Appendix A Page 1 of 91 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Workshop #1 Introduction to Sending Land January 6, 2016 Introduction: With the purpose to inform the public and become more informed by the public, Collier Community Planning staff, along with consulting partner AECOM, began a series of six public workshops, the first three centered primarily on the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD). This series preceded the workshops intended to discuss Receiving and Neutral Land uses, densities, development standards and the like. Letters were mailed to over 800 individual land owners informing them of the Restudy and upcoming meetings. Many owners live in other cities and states. Therefore, program specifics and opinions for this target segment were shared by telephone and email. Appendix A Page 2 of 91 Our first outreach meeting drew over 65 attendees. These included individuals and families who have unimproved property in Sending areas, families who currently live or conduct agriculture operations on Sending land, and other stakeholders such as environmental interests, developers and consultants. The agenda included on overview of the RFMUD, TDR concepts and basics, history of the program and current issues as identified by staff. The public was invited to identify additional issues, either through the meeting format, through a dedicated e-mail address, or via website survey. Overall, there was strong sentiment from Sending land owners that the program should not have been devised in the way it was, and many thought that the RFMUD governing provisions should be abandoned altogether. Some came to understand that the program was created as a result of litigation and the State’s Final Order, and given that compact, the County needed to move forward and not back. At the same time, most were grateful for a thorough discussion of how the program works today, so that they could add suggestions for improvement during the Re study. Some initial concerns expressed by smaller land owners were the lack of a viable marketplace to sell TDR credits and the uncertainty of sale or sale price. Appendix A Page 3 of 91 Meeting Summary: 1. Welcome and Meeting Objectives Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant for the County addressed the attendees noting the Board of County Commissioners has directed Staff to develop changes to the Growth Management Plan including the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). The purpose of the meeting is to obtain public input on the areas designated as Sending Lands under the Program. 2. Overview and History of the Rural Fringe (RFMUD) TDR Program Mr. Van Lengen presented a Power Point “Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – Introduction for Sending Land Owners” and provided an overview and history of the Program noting:  The RFMUD was developed as a result of a 1999 Final Order stemming from litigation (by the Collier County Audubon Society, Inc. and the Florida Wildlife Federation) that addressed County land use planning issues including establishing the RFMUD.  The goals of the Order were for the County to adequately preserve wetlands, protect critical species and wildlife habitat from unrestrained growth by directing it to appropriate locations within the County.  One avenue implemented within the RFMUD District was a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which identifies sending and receiving lands administered through a program of density credits.  The restudy of the area will focus on the Program’s goal of establishing smarter development patterns, economic viability for those affected and optimal protection of sensitive areas and species. 3. Introduction to Sending Land Issues Mr. Van Lengen noted the sending program encompasses the “North and South Belle Meade” areas of the County, in addition to other smaller sending areas farther north. The density credits available for transfer include base credits (1 credit for a 5 acre parcel or 8 for a 40 acre parcel), an early entry bonus, credit for rest oration/maintenance and conveyance to a governmental entity (each on the basis of 1 per 5 acres). The differences in program specifics between North Belle Meade and South Belle Meade were covered in some detail. It was also noted that watershed planning and transportation planning both need to be considered in arriving at program changes. 4. Current Status of the Program Mr. Van Lengen reported:  The Board of County Commissioners established an Oversight Committee to review specific areas of the Growth Management Plan including the RFMUD. Appendix A Page 4 of 91  The Committee will be meeting on a quarterly basis.  Staff will be holding a series of public meetings to garner input on the issues so deficiencies in the Program may be addressed to ensure it functions as originally intended.  The endeavor is anticipated to last approximately 2 years, with a status report delivered to the BCC by the end of 2016, prior to the formal public hearing process.  A website has been developed by the County to facilitate the endeavor which will provide information on the Committee, ongoing activities, questionnaires for the public and contact information for Staff.  Owners are encouraged to provide input in any format they desire including writing letters and/or emails, calling Staff directly, participating in questionnaires and public meetings, etc. 5. Importance of TDR Program to Owners The restudy of the area will focus on important issues to the landowners in cluding improving the economic viability of the program, ensuring smarter development patterns and protecting sensitive areas and species. Compensation to owners who elect to participate must be addressed. It is important to keep in mind that the TDR program is optional; staff if available to help explain the program so that individual owners can best satisfy their own interests. Aas a restudy, staff is interested in owner input on how to improve the program. During presentation and Question/Answer period, the following items were raised:  There may be increases to the density allowed in the Receiving Lands, however that concept requires additional stakeholder input.  Along with base and early entry density credits, the Program allows credits for restoration of sending lands with the owner developing and implementing a restoration plan, participating in mitigation through a State or Federal Government program, or linking to an existing approved restoration plan.  The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and other agencies participated in the original development of the Program and will be providing input on any proposed revisions to the Program. They also currently participate in the permit process.  Once an owner’s density credits in the Sending Areas are transferred to a party, the sending land owner is free and clear of their use, with the receiving party bearing all responsibilities for use (or non-use) of the credits. Credits can be held for an indefinite period of time.  One option under consideration is developing a land bank for the credits to facilitate the owner’s ability to transfer sending land credits to an outside party. Appendix A Page 5 of 91  The boundaries originally approved for the areas in question will remain unchanged; however the County is seeking to improve the Program with the assistance of the landowners affected by the land use requirements.  Consideration will be given to expanding the allowed uses in the receiving areas and increasing the number of credits made available from sending areas to help balance the program, given that there is likely a larger demand for credits than those available under the Program.  The County will be examining the land values and economic parameters of the Program with the recognition the current system does not reflect market values or a balance between supply and demand. Economists at AECOM will be assisting in this part of the endeavor.  Another aspect the County will be reviewing is the “exchange process” as they recognize under the current format it is a cumbersome endeavor for those involved in the Program.  The program will accommodate the principles adopted by the BCC in the Watershed master Plan. Interested citizens are reminded that they may wish to attend or monitor the Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Program (CWIP) ad hoc committee meetings to learn more. Commissioner Nance addressed the attendees noting he has owned property in the Program area since the 1980’s and was not in favor of the settlement given the means the landowners rights were compromised. He is advocating the restudy and recognizes the Program is not functioning as intended. Commissioner Nance noted the Program was State Mandated and the County recognizes, at this point it is not feasible to propose eliminating the Program or changing the boundaries established. The goal is to increase equity in the Program and allow the owners with sending lands to obtain fair values for their properties. 6. Interactive Discussion/Activity and Questions Mr. Ault encouraged attendees to provide written comments on the cards provided at the meeting or communicate with Staff through any other means they feel comfortable. A questionnaire has been developed and available on the website which aid Staff in addressing concerns identified by interested parties. He requested the owners participate in this endeavor. It can be found at the interactive content button, via website: https://www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies. Appendix A Page 6 of 91 7. Wrap-up and Next Steps Mr. Van Lengen noted the next public meeting is scheduled for January 27, 2016 at 6:30pm. The agenda will center on North Belle Meade and the need for long term ownership and maintenance for properties that use the TDR program. STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Tim Nance Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager (Staff Liaison) Mike Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant Appendix A Page 7 of 91 Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Public Workshop #2 Focus on North Belle Meade Sending Land January 27, 2016 Introduction: This public workshop focused on the topic of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Master Plan (Plan) North Belle Meade Sending area, the associated issues, and generating ideas for potential solutions. Despite a heavy rain event through the afternoon and evening, over 50 people attended. Staff presented a brief overview of the Plan and highlighted the issues unique to the North Belle Meade Sending area (see panel questions, below), with explanations of each issue. The presentation also featured a summary of the public comments provided at the first workshop, and the comments provided from the on-line Sending area survey. Following the staff presentation, a panel was seated to discuss possible solutions to the North Belle Mead issues. The panelists were Bob Mulhere – Planning Director for Hole Montes, Nancy Payton – SW Florida Representative for Florida Wildlife Association, and Tim Durham – Senior Ecologist for Passarella & Associates. Five questions were asked for each panelist’s response. Panel Summary: Five questions posed to panelists and their responses. In Sending areas (where development rights have been removed), what should the fulfillment of conservation goals as conceived in the Plan look like, say, in 20 years? Appendix A Page 8 of 91 Panelist 1. Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) will be under Collier ownership through conveyance/willing sellers and managed by Conservation Collier. NRPA will be rehydrated via Golden Gate Canal diversion, no reservoir. Wildlife crossings or land bridge to connect NRPA and Picayune Strand Forest. Currently listed species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker will be thriving. Collier County will be implementing a North Belle Meade Habitat Conservation Plan for public infrastructure (roads). NRPA becomes destination for pa ssive nature-based recreation Panelist 2. There is a single management entity for Sending Lands, maybe best option Conservation Collier. There is hydrologic sheet flow. Public access for passive recreation. There is significant land connectivity. Panelist 3. Lands are available to public for active recreation such as horseback riding, camping, fishing, and biking. Landowners in Sending area received fair deal and were made whole. If the current pattern of fragmented ownership and maintenance continues, what issues would persist? Panelist 1. With lack of connectivity the same issues today will continue with hydrology and listed species. Exotics will continue to be a problem. If lands are fragments the Plan hasn’t been successfully completed with fair compensation to land owners. Panelist 2. The issues continue with hydrology, economics of land management, and exotics. Panelist 3. Plan goals will not be met – Final Order settlement in question. Inability to manage – remove exotics, restore habitat, enforcement. Natural resource values and wildlife use will diminish What alternatives can you suggest to achieve the vision you first described? (e.g., ownership alternatives; management alternatives?) Panelist 1. Make sure adequate compensation is provided. Simplify the Plan; err on making the landowners whole. Panelist 2. Collier County must step forward to accept the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) conveyance lands. Accept land and bank TDR restoration/endowment money until management can be “conservation of scale;” in the interim, possibly a land trust. Swap program between NRPA and isolated western sending lands. North Belle Meade Habitat Conservation Plan - county mitigates infrastructure impacts in North Belle Meade to help secure large blocks of conservation land. Panelist 3. Increase the TDRs that Sending can generate. There are issues with the cost of restoration and what a landowner gets in return. The process for TDRs must be simple. Appendix A Page 9 of 91 Consider allowing the use of TDRs to mitigate for urban area infill native vegetation requirements. Make it easier for landowners to sell credits. What funding mechanisms can you envision that might be feasible to allow consolidation of responsibility for restoration and maintenance? (e.g., more TDR credits, gran ts, mitigation banking, etc.) Panelist 1. Mitigation bank, or ROMA, may be relevant, but can have challenges. Need to put together the numbers for maintenance cost so it can be better understood what is feasible. Panelist 2. Revive Conservation Collier. Maybe a “green utility fee.” Use mitigation for wetland and wildlife. Partner with downstream communities and agencies that benefit from North Belle Meade rehydration. Panther Refuge is interested in expansion. There are other plans and programs that could coordinate to get results. Panelist 3. Use TDRs in urban area for native vegetation mitigation. Do you have a preferred alternative for ownership and long term maintenance, among the ideas that have been suggested? Panelist 1. Ownership Collier County, and long term maintenance Conservation Collier. Panelist 2. Collier County is best alternative. Panelist 3. Preference is Collier County, would like to see State park with active recreation. Following the panel discussion, the audience provided their comments. Public Discussion Consider increasing TDR demand by decreasing the Receiving area minimum of 40 acres. Make Receiving areas more attractive to worldwide developers, like Celebration, FL. Concerns that the program is the big guy vs. little guy, and animals vs. people. Concerns that eminent domain is coming. Assessed value of land is more than the value of a TDR. No incentive to create TDR. To increase land connectivity and management efficiency, consider working with landowners that have established mitigation lands to convey them to Collier County, with their funds for maintenance. Big developers have their own Sending lands and credits so don’t need to buy others. A non-regulatory R&M should be considered as part of the feasibility for mitigation- i.e. non- mitigation might be simpler and less costly overall. STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Tim Nance Appendix A Page 10 of 91 Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager (Staff Liaison) Mike Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant Panel Biographies Tim Durham – Senior Ecologist for Passarella & Associates Tim Durham has over 30 years experience as the lead environmental consultant for a variety of projects in Florida and the southeast U.S. He has extensive experience preparing local, state and federal permitting documents, providing listed species evaluations, and designing and permitting wetland mitigation and habitat conservation banking. Tim has a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering for the University of Florida and is a member of the Association of Environmental Professionals and Society of Wetland Scientists. Nancy Payton - Florida Wildlife Federation Nancy Payton joined the Florida Wildlife Federation (Federation) in 1994, the same year the Federation opened its Southwest Florida Office in Naples. The Federation was founded in 1936 and is the state affiliate of National Wildlife Federation. As the Southwest Florida Field Representative, she coordinates the Federation’s Western Everglades rural lands and wildlife protection campaigns. These campaigns include growth management, native wildlife protection, land conservation, and habitat preservation. Bob Mulhere - Director of Planning for Hole Montes, Inc. Bob has more than 27 years of professional planning experience. Prior to employment at Hole Montes, Mr. Mulhere operated his own consulting firm. Between 1989 and 2001, Bob was employed by Collier County Government and was the Director of Planning from 1996 through 2001. Mr. Mulhere holds a B.A. in Political Science from St. Michael’s College and a master's degree in Public Administration from Florida Gulf Coast University. In 2010 Bob was named a “Fellow” of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP). Appendix A Page 11 of 91 Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Public Workshop #3 Sending Land: Economics and Ideas for Change February 16, 2016 Introduction: The third of three initial public workshops, all focused on Sending issues, included two major components. First, staff provided an overview of the economic considerations involved in TDR transfers from a Sending Land owner’s point of view. Second, a list of changes suggested by the public was vetted using a table-top group approach; results were shared with all attendees. Again, over 50 people attended; most had attended at least one previous meeting; for eight individuals it was first exposure to the Sending Land meeting series. Meeting Summary: After a refresher on some basic TDR rules as they exist, staff presented a number of facts and observations concerning the economics of transfer. First, the likely supply and demand under current regulations and under potential changed regulations was examined. Next, data derived from arm’s length TDR credit sales (past three years) were compared with land sales over the same period of time, noting significant differences depending on location. The public noted that, depending on the geographic area of a Sending parcel, motivation to enter the program could be significantly different. Finally, staff introduced the concept of a TDR bank: types of Appendix A Page 12 of 91 banks created in various TDR programs nationally, and the pros and cons of doing so. Suggestions, questions and answers followed. Mr. Van Lengen presented a Power Point “Sending Economics and Ideas for Change” noting:  The RFMUD was developed as a result of a 1999 Final Order stemming from litigation (by the Collier County Audubon Society, Inc. and the Florida Wildlife Federation) that addressed County land use planning issues including establishing the RFMUD.  The goals of the Order were for the County to adequately preserve wetlands, protect critical species and wildlife habitat from unrestrained growth by directing it to appropriate locations within the County.  One avenue implemented within the RFMUD District was a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which identifies sending and receiving lands administered through a program of density credits.  The credits for a parcel 5 acres in size are 1 base credit, 1 early entry credit, 1 Restoration and Maintenance credit, 1 conveyance credit, total potential = 4 credits.  The credits for a parcel 40 acres in size are 8 base credits, 8 early entry credits, 8 Restoration and Maintenance credits, 8 conveyance credits, total pot ential = 32 credits.  The restudy of the area will focus on the Program’s goal of establishing smarter development patterns, economic viability for those affected and protection of sensitive areas and species.  If you own a parcel platted prior to 1999 in the sending areas you may either hold the parcel, enter the TDR program, build a home, sell the parcel to someone else to build a home or use it agricultural purposes.  An owner is not required to participate in the TDR Program. There are many legitimate reasons not to participate.  Those in the program may sell their credits to willing buyers for a pre-established rate of $25,000 per base credit; a typical arm’s length sale bundles a bonus credit at $3,000 for a total of $28,000.  Additional credits are available for restoration, maintenance and conveyance.  Arm’s length transaction analysis (staff) shows that the true value of TDRs between willing sellers and willing buyers is approximately $13,500 per credit; the Coalition estimated an approximate value at $14,000. 1. Economics: Your rights; supply and demand; recent data; banking concepts Mr. Van Lengen reported a study has completed in the Belle Meade area identifying the following fair market land values: Appendix A Page 13 of 91 South - $6,000 per acre North East - $3,500 per acre North West - $12,500 per acre He outlined the following examples to determine the funds a sending land owner may derive from the sale of their land or entering the Program. The analysis is based on a 5 acre parcel. It was emphasized that these values represent median sale prices within the past 3 years; they do not predict the value of any individual parcel, as parcel values within these sub-areas vary considerably based on a great number of factors. South Fair market value - $6,000 per acre x 5 acres = $30,000 market value TDR Program - $27,000 per acre (base/early entry credit) + $27,000 restoration maintenance (- $10,000 restoration and maintenance costs) = $44,000 net proceeds. Economically viable/advantageous to participate in the TDR Program. North East Fair market value - $3,500 per acre x 5 acres = $17,500 market value. TDR Program - $27,000 per acre (base/early entry credit) + $27,000 restoration maintenance (-$30,000) for restoration and maintenance costs) = $24,000 net proceeds. Not economically feasible to participate in restoration maintenance aspect of the Program. North West Fair market value - $12,500 per acre x 5 acres = $62,500 market value. TDR Program - $27,000 per acre (base/early entry credit) + $27,000 restoration maintenance (-$30,000 restoration and maintenance costs) = $24,000 net proceeds. Not economically feasible to participate in Program. Appendix A Page 14 of 91 Mr. Van Lengen noted the following:  The means currently available for transfer is through a “Commodity Exchange.”  The Exchange consists of Certificates issued by the County which may be held by the owner indefinitely and redeemed at platting.  The County does provide technical assistance to the owners.  One concept under consideration is a TDR bank where the banking entity would buy and sell the credits.  The bank would have the same attributes as the Commodity Exchange and would directly or indirectly set prices for credits.  It could be operated by the County or an outside agency.  The advantages would include ready buyer for the sending lands owner and stabilize the market prices.  The disadvantages include the upfront costs to develop and ongoing operating costs, economic risk to banking entity.  Property taxes are required by the landowner until the credits are conveyed.  Currently there is a registry list of sellers however the concept is not performing well.  Credits can be resold with no limit on the number of transfers. Under public comments the following was noted:  Concern the developer is being asked to protect lands under the concept and the current cost of a unit is not worth paying for given the return on investment.  Concern there is not a large enough quantity of receiving area for use of the credits – Staff believes there is large future demand. Timing may be an issue.  Concern on maintaining restored lands until conveyance - Staff reported the goal is to make the program more appealing by aligning the supply and demand for the credits. Following the economics portion, attendees participated in a review and ranking exercise, looking at several suggestions made by various stakeholders. Break Out Group Findings A: Credit Systems 1. (RANK) If additional TDR credits can be generated to enhance the returns of Sending Land Owners and make more credits available to buyers, rank the following in order of preference (1-6) as a basis for awarding more credits: a. Land where habitat value is highest Appendix A Page 15 of 91 b. Land that can accommodate a flow way c. Land that retains agricultural uses for a period of time d. Land that requires a higher level of restoration e. Land located in the NRPA overlay (excludes North Belle Meade- West) f. All Sending Land regardless of location or attributes  Five groups found F to be the most important o It incorporates all enhancements  There was no general consensus amongst groups regarding second and third credit priorities.  One group thought location/access/value of land should be an option 2. Should the $25,000 minimum price for a Base TDR Credit be eliminated? Why/Why not?  Yes because the price is average  No it limits sales, remove the set price  Yes because it is a minimum starting point for negotiation. However it should be per acre not per 5 acres.  No  Yes because it creates a free market. Assessment should be in sync with TDR value. Value needs a starting point.  No it’s arbitrary.  Yes/No tie 3. Should credits be used outside of the Receiving Areas for any purpose? Where? Why?  No  Yes but only in urban areas  Yes to anywhere in Collier County deemed suitable for development. This will allow for an increase in TDR value.  Yes for existing urban areas. Credits should also be able to come from other areas.  Yes dependent on population growth. Perhaps Collier Blvd.  Yes at the Golden Gate Golf Course. Appendix A Page 16 of 91 B: Program Management 1. (Y/N) Should application fees be reduced?  Yes  Defer cost until TDR is sold  Fees should be eliminated  Yes Eliminate fees  Yes, cheaper is easier  The TDR bank should be responsible 2. (Y/N) Should the County offer free workshop assistance to owners to complete the severance process?  Yes  Yes it is beneficial to everyone  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes. Need to know the process/rights/values/benefits/risks. Also would like to be informed of the allowances prior to the TDR program as well as the intention of the program. 3. What should be done to link Sellers with Buyers of TDRs?  List is sufficient  List of buyers  Create a bank  Committee with decision makers  County acts as the facilitator  Improve the information website  Create a bank  Establish a County bank  There is an obligation by Collier County  Perhaps a website with multiple listings  Let buyers find sellers  County advisors should know who to call/contact  County facilitation through education and public outreach Appendix A Page 17 of 91 4. Should a TDR “Bank” be established? Who/what agency?  Yes by a third party to ensure easy purchase of large quantities of TDR credits.  Yes by Collier County  Yes if the TDR bank is free and acts solely as a meditation/facilitation process. Collier County should be involved but there should also be a third party option.  Perhaps a not for profit bank  Yes because sender should not have the burden of cost  It would be easier if a TDR “Bank” were established  Developer  County  Who benefits? Profit/Non-Profit C: Sending Land Management 1. Where owners decide to use land for agriculture (with agricultural easement): a. (Y/N) Should the owner earn TDR credits? • Yes  No it seems to be a conflict of program  Yes because land is not being used for development  Yes under the condition that land has already been cleared or has no current habitat value.  Yes  Yes although depends on the location and type of agriculture b. (Y/N) If contiguous land exceeds 20+ acres, should owner also qualify for one additional family home? • No, then seems no longer agriculture  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes but should be on 5 acres instead of 20 2. Should Sending Land in TDR program be owned and maintained by numerous private owners, or by very few larger managing entities? (participating land owners) • The County should be NBM receivers  Program should be flexible enough to accommodate both  Yes  Coalition? Who maintains? To what extent of maintenance?  Numerous smaller entities Appendix A Page 18 of 91 3. If larger managing entities, do you prefer the County, a State agency or a private agency coordinate management? • Collier County  Property owner should be responsible for management  Collier County  One entity 4. (RANK) Should long term maintenance costs be paid for by: a. Donated land through a required contribution (from sale of credits) b. A County mitigation program (fees that come from road building, for example) c. A “green utility fee” paid by all County land owners (real estate tax)  All six groups identified B as the desired designee Additional comments received during break out session:  Additional use in Sending Lands, Full restudy of program  MSTU  Property owners on 5 acres with existing homestead structure should be entitled to some sort of TDR credit for promoting native habitat on those parcels- even if they continue to occupy homestead Appendix A Page 19 of 91 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Workshop #4 Receiving and Neutral Lands: Future Development Potential March 31, 2016 Introduction: Following three public workshops with the focus of the Sending Areas and the Transfer of Development Rights Credits within the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District, the objective of the forth workshop was to engage the public in a discussion of the Receiving and Neutral Areas and the developme nt potential within these lands. Approximately 60 residents attended the workshop; about half had not attended any of the previous RFMUD workshops. To open the meeting, staff presented an overview of the RFMUD plan and process including how development rights are transferred from Sending land to Receiving land. Information was then provided about the development potential of the Neutral and Receiving Areas including how much vacant land was in the different areas, and the allowed land uses, density and intensity. The participants were asked to discuss the information and provide feedback on several questions about the development potential. Appendix A Page 20 of 91 Meeting Summary: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Planning Manager, addressed the attendees, noting the Board of County Commissioners has directed Staff to develop changes to the Growth Management Plan including the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). The purpose of the meeting, the first of at least two Receiving focused meetings, is to look at the current rules and regulations of areas where TDR credits can be sent . Particular emphasis is on design and functionality of these areas in the context of the greater geographic area, including neutral and sending areas, as well as Golden Gate Estates and the Rural Lands Stewardship Areas. Mr. Van Lengen reviewed the scope of all four upcoming restudies, the process diagram indicating steps necessary to complete Comprehensive Plan changes, the role of the Growth Management Oversight Committee, historic goals of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, the out comes of the first three meetings in 2016 involving Sending Land Issues and a timeline indicating a goal for September submission of conceptual changes to the Board of County Commissioners in advance of the formal Hearing process during 2017. Anita Jenkins, Collier County Principle Planner, presented a Power Point on Future Development Potential in Neutral and Receiving areas under current rules:  A review of the TDR exchange program  Density allowed before and after the program was first adopted over 10 years ago, when only agricultural zoning was in place.  40 acres in Receiving areas are required prior to any increase in density via TDRs .  Uses allowed within the new designation of neutral, receiving and Village were illustrated - some uses are voluntary; some encouraged, some required.  Open space and transportation components of development were discussed .  An illustration of nine developments that have redeemed TDRs for increased density was presented.  Acreage and number of parcels for un-entitled land was presented to provide a sense of scale and potential for future development scenarios in Receiving areas .  Similar background was provided to show the quantities of Neutral Land in the program. Following Ms. Jenkins presentation, general remarks were made by attendees and scribed as follows:  Open space integration  How to regulate policy  Is there enough land to make a village? 100-200 Acres more ideal?  Village Regulation: Economic vitality  Opportunity to do something different  Private development dedication  Demographic and economic inclusion  Job creation Appendix A Page 21 of 91  Village Acreage: 200acres  Mix-use development  Proximity to urban area Greg Ault, Collier County consultant with AECOM, introduced a visioning session intended to engage workshop participants in discussing potential development and it’s form and function . Participants were invited to discuss four questions with small groups, approximately 6 to 12 persons each. The majority of participants were land owners within the RFMUD Receiving areas. Break out questions with reports from the six groups resulted in the tabulation of responses below: 1. What are the specific issues and/or concerns about the future growth and development of the Receiving Lands Area?  Not liking it at all  Feel that support services and goods are close enough  Economics job creators outside of the Village to include scarce parcels  Availability of the TDRs and difficulty of acquiring-TDR Bank  Not much receiving land  Are we at capacity now? Ten years to build out?  70% of land dedication to open space seems excessive  Travel commute times are increasing  Additional wildlife crossings are needed  Fear the minimum of 40 acres will increase to 60 acres o Prefer that the acreage minimum decrease instead of increase  Density increase  TDR limits development  No workforce or low-income housing available  No balance/variety in community design  The existing program caters to large developments, not to owners with small amounts of acreage  This program is not meeting the base unit development for Collier County  There is currently no benefit for properties in the base rights category of 1-5 acres  Process for public input: essential services such as utilities, fire, schools, shopping  Roadway capacity: concerns (increase network “connectivity”)  Utility access  Quality of Life amenities  More than houses  Transition Areas  Increased population  Compatible uses  6L’s area potentially appropriate location for mixed use, business parks, non -residential Appendix A Page 22 of 91  TDR required purchase makes process non-voluntary  Pricing mechanism: more expensive as time goes on  Not enough credits or sending areas to purchase  Retain agricultural uses/rights  Property appraiser impacts  Do developers want to buy in the RFMUD 2. What are the improvements/changes you would like to see happen in the Receiving Lands study area?  Limit gated communities  TDR bank  Village regulation re-examined for economic viability  More density in concentrated area  Incentives with receiving area development for enviro protection  New definition of open space for public benefit  Develop some commercial uses in the east  Villages would be good but are there 300 acre parcels  Need more density per parcel  Villages should be 100 acres or 200 acres  20 acre parcels for clustering  Mixed-use, balance development  Live, work, play approach  Private development dedications: parks, streets, etc  Lack of starter homes, would like workforce housing  Smart growth- bike/pedestrian community, interconnectivity  Research/tech development, i.e. ag  Standalone commercial development  A defined place or urban core  Amenities: placement/ integrated  Walking;/biking safety  Demographic mix  Senses/experiences  Sense of arrival connectivity  Re-evaluate size of villages using economic modeling/evaluation to determine appropriate village size  Smaller landowners need to be able to participate in the process, it is currently not happening as well as it should  More flexibility within the same public hearing process  Look at “visioning” for larger receiving areas and plan at the la rger scale  Are cost credits appropriate/viable to utilization in receiving lands? If the credits don’t work, we want to be able to get the development we want and need in receiving Appendix A Page 23 of 91  Reducing minimum acreage size to increase density. i.e. 1 unit per 2.5 acre s for 5 acre tracts  Transportation alternatives such as bus/transit  More thoughtful community design  TDR bank  Allow some sending/receiving flexibility to allow worthwhile regional goals  Bridge access- North Belle Meade (NBM) 3. What do you like best about the Receiving Lands area?  Existing natural conditions  Low density  Close community  Concept of TDRs and trade off of open space versus development  Chance to do something different than current urban style of development  Do we increase size limits of village or multiple villages  Define types of development allowed in each village  Has the ability to be developed reasonably  Nothing  Lower lands have a subtropical climate which provides a better quality of life  Accessibility on the south end to Miami/Naples (mixed opinion)  Flexibility: land acreage  Concentration of development  Reducing sprawl  Buffer area  Keep development (new) to receiving  Most appropriate area for development  Opportunity because of proximity to coastal urban area  Transportation corridor in place 4. Do your same opinions about the Receiving Lands apply to the Neutral Lands?  Allow for incentives to develop  Re-evaluate neutral lands on a periodic basis  No- neutral and receiving lands must stay separate  Yes, in reference to “nothing” comment received for question three  No response for question four, no knowledge of neutral lands  No, concentrate development to receiving  Concerned how much sprawl may impact development  Neutral lands were designed to be a rural area/lifestyle  Leave neutral as is and allow for discussion later Andrew Sheppard, Collier County consultant with AECOM, wrapped up the workshop with a primer on different kinds of development models that are possible in the sub-urban environment. He discussed the Appendix A Page 24 of 91 economic, environmental and social elements that must be balanced to create sustainable communities. Development must provide a return on investment, but also can allow some job creation through a mix of uses. Environmental factors must balance the natural would and basic resources with human needs of the inhabitants. Social factors start first with health and safety, but include associations through families, churches, businesses and organizations. He defined neighborhoods as a ¼ mile or five minute walk from a center point, noting that Villages can accommodate a number of neighborhoods within. Typically a central space with a unique feature(s) provide identity, structure and meaning. He also highlighted the advantages of a road network, rather than a single main corridor, for preserving walkab le and enjoyable places that are more efficient for transportation. Compared to conventional models of development, these newer models provide more open space, social interaction, and health benefits. The attendees were asked to consider how they would like to live in a community, rather than simply asking what it would look like. At the end of the workshop Mr. Van Lengen noted the next public meeting is scheduled for April 26, 2016 at 6:30pm at the same location. A follow up for participation will be provided, so that viewpoints on the most important elements for community design can be provided by participants. Wrap-up and Next Steps Ms. Jenkins noted the next public meeting is scheduled for April 26, 2016 at 6:30pm. The agenda will center on Receiving lands potential development and form STAFF PRESENT: Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager (Staff Liaison) Mike Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant Appendix A Page 25 of 91 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Workshop #5 Receiving Lands Potential Development and Form April 26, 2016 Introduction: The purpose of this workshop was to engage the participants in visioning the future growth potential of the Receiving Areas. Participants gathered around six tables to work on illustrating a development pattern in one of two Receiving Areas, the northern area, or the North Belle Meade area. Meeting Summary: Community Planning staff together with the County’s consultant , AECOM, provided a second meeting for residents and interested stakeholders to review and explore considerations specifically related to the neutral and receiving land uses in the RFMUD. A review of concepts related to currently allowed land uses was followed by a description of “smart growth” principles, leading to a visioning exercise by attendees. Approximately 65 interested persons attended. Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Section, opened the meeting. She greeted the attendees, previewed the agenda, and reviewed the concepts and feedback from the prior meeting. Appendix A Page 26 of 91 Specifically, she covered citizen and stakeholder feedback on several high level questions that had been presented. At the last meeting, attendees provided their perceptions related to:  Concerns about future growth in the area  Improvements to the Receiving Land area rules  What they like best about Receiving Lands areas  Neutral Land issues and improvements Andrew Sheppard, AECOM, reviewed economic, environmental and social components of sustainable communities, comparing those values with the allowed uses under today’s Receiving and Neutral regulations. He continued his observations with a focus on “smart” village attributes - 5 minute walk from clustered development area center to neighborhood center, diversity of housing styles and types, cluster of neighborhoods to create a village, and attributes of a village center. Aesthetics, function and mobility were key factors. Mr. Sheppard introduced the featured “table exercise” for attendees, called framework mapping. The purpose was to experience how a development might plan a large area by identifying destinations, development areas, street networks and green/environmental areas. The task involved group cooperation in identifying edges, landmarks, nodes, centers and connections, both green and roadway. Two of the RFMUD Receiving areas were used as examples- the Northern receiving area and the North Belle Meade receiving area. It was explained that this was hypothetical in the s ense that presenters do not have information supporting actual Village boundaries due to multiple ownerships and assemblage considerations. Results of the group exercise are attached. Appendix A Page 27 of 91 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Workshop #6 Initial Recommendations and Feedback May 26, 2016 Meeting Summary: Community Planning staff together with the County’s consultant, AECOM, provided a meeting for residents and interested stakeholders to review ideas provided by the public through previous workshops, surveys, correspondence, interviews and telephone calls and to provide a list of initial staff recommendations. Approximately 39 interested persons attended. Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager reviewed the growth management study, amendment process and timetable. He provided an overview of the research, data and analysis still ongoing: economic analysis (scenario planning) and mitigation bank feasibility analysis for North Belle Meade. Initial recommendations were explained and grouped under the following headings:  TDR credit ideas affecting Sending owners  TDR program management  Sending Land management  Miscellaneous ideas The community asked and discussed whether increasing the value of credits in the hands of developers would be an alternative to increasing the number of credits issued to Sending owners. Comments were also made in support of agricultural preservation and to express the ongoing concern in the development community that the incremental cost represented by TDRs makes it difficult for adequate return on investment. The point was also made that TDRs should be considered for Northern GG Estates where watershed coordination can be effected. Appendix A Page 28 of 91 Individual surveys were distributed to and completed by the public, covering each of 15 program topics related to the Sending and neutral lands. A numerical representation of the results, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, is shown below. Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Section, reviewed the concepts previously discussed in the Receiving Land meetings, and provided explanations for the series of initial recommendations made by staff. These were included under the following categories:  Land use, density/intensity and economic vitality  Transportation and infrastructure  Environment  Development standards and process Discussion ensued regarding the process of allowing deviations to a zoning overlay, allowable locations for schools, Property Appraiser’s Office valuations, the appropriate number of TDRs granted for excess native vegetation or habitat preserve on Receiving land, water and sewer availability, the relationship of Affordable Housing to affordable living concepts, and the need for the Coun ty to own the economic analytical tool under development. Again, individual surveys were distributed to and completed by the public, covering each of 18 program topics related to Receiving lands. A numerical representation of the results, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, is shown below. Workshop Survey Results: Survey questions asked respondents to rank each initial recommendation as strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. The percentages indicated below provide a percentage of agreement (agree or strongly disagree) to those who responded, without regard to “neutral” responses. Sending and Neutral Issues Additional credits should be provided to balance the anticipated demand from Receiving Areas. Sending Land owners, if they participate, should benefit from additional credits. Agree: 69% Additional credits should not favor one Sending Land location over another. Agree 70% Additional credits should be provided to those who entered the program early. Agree: 72% Appendix A Page 29 of 91 TDRs should be awarded also for owners who commit to keeping their land in agricultural production Agree: 76% Eliminate minimum pricing on Base TDRs. Agree: 75% Improve the Buyer/Seller registries. Agree: 81% Reduce cost and complexity of applications. Agree: 87% Create a County-sponsored TDR bank that can buy credits from Sending Lands owners Agree: 82% The County should accept land that owners wish to donate, if no other agency is willing. Agree: 63% The County should finance maintenance of donate d Sending Land through a mitigation bank, if feasible. Agree: 75% If a mitigation bank is not a feasible funding source, require a donation to the County with the land, equivalent to all or a portion of any additional TDRs issued. Agree: 65% Allow a second dwelling unit to dedicated farming operations of at least 20 acres. Agree: 79% Study recreational uses that could be compatible on donated lands that go beyond "passive recreation." Agree: 63% Eliminate the use of TDRs in urban areas if they come from RFMUD Sending Lands. Agree: 60% Extend the same advantages to Neutral Land owners who want to commit to agricultural uses by offering TDRs. Agree: 76% Appendix A Page 30 of 91 Receiving Issues Allow business park stand-alone uses to increase employment opportunities in research technology and other targeted businesses. Agree: 78% Revise village rules to allow larger commercial and employment areas. Agree: 76% Increase density allowed in rural villages to 4 units per gross acre (TDRs required) Agree: 81% Increase density allowed in non-village development to 2 units per acre (TDRs required) and remove 40- acre minimum size Agree: 78% Analyze arterial roadway capacity issues. Agree: 77% Enhance requirements for greater project connectivity. Agree: 78% Consider roadway design standards that promote low speed and safety. Agree: 75% Add requirements for transit stops in large developments, business parks or villages. Agree: 75% Allow TDRs in Receiving Areas for protection of native vegetation/habitat or agriculture. Agree: 71% Reward projects that advance the greater public interest (examples: greenway connections, flowway connections). Agree: 72% Incentivize mixed-use developments by studying potential impact fees for mixed -use. Agree: 70% Use overlays or optional design standards that promote greater certainty in review process. Agree: 81% Appendix A Page 31 of 91 Developments complying with zoning overlays should get approval through simple BCC majority or Hearing Examiner process. Agree: 80% Hearing Examiner can approve individual deviations. Agree: 60% Hearing Examiner can approve business park proposals. Agree: 62% Modify the TDR requirements to 0.5 credit for multi-family units and 0 credit for target industry/business park uses Agree: 75% Allow stand-alone commercial. Propose design guidelines (no strip) and use of TDR credits (ex, 1 credit per 6,000 SF). Agree: 62% Additional incentives for innovative green designs, such as solar power, zero net water, aquifer storage and recovery sites, etc. Agree: 80% Appendix A Page 32 of 91 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy Public Comments on First Draft of Initial Recommendations Distributed July 13, 2016 Appendix A Page 33 of 91 1 JenkinsAnita From:JenkinsAnita Sent:Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:06 AM To:VanLengenKris; RuralFringeRestudy Subject:FW: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations From: Barry Wood [mailto:b1wood@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 8:58 PM To: JenkinsAnita Cc: Barry Wood; Pete Wood Subject: RE: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations Dear Anita, Thank you for allowing me to respond to the draft findings and recommendations of the Rural Fringe Mixed- Use District White Paper. My son and I own a parcel in the receiving area described in your White Paper, Collier Parcel #00755800005. Unfortunately, we were unable to appear at your public meetings and provide input because we presently live outside of Florida. My comments are primarily directed to the top of page 24 of your draft. Specifically at the very top of that page, there is a discussion on allowing "mixed housing, manufactured homes, cottage homes and micro homes." Immediately following this discussion is the Staff Recommendations highlighted in red lettering. However, Staff makes no recommendation or other comment regarding whether to allow these alternative forms of housing. My family and I would like to place a residence on our 2 1/2 acre parcel (which was established as a lot in 1961, or well before the October 1974 date). We intend to begin this process as early as next year. However, we do not want or need a large, expensive "footprint" dwelling. We would be well satisfied with manufactured housing or possibly micro housing. We would be most satisfied with the least intrusive, least environmentally impactful method of all; namely allow placement of a small pad upon which to place an RV for 5 or 6 months of the year and we take the RV with us when we leave each year. I respectfully urge the Policy Makers of Collier County to please not keep regulations in place which force us and others to build large, expensive, excessive energy consuming structures. I therefore respectfully ask that your staff consider my input and include a recommendation which supports the placement of alternative forms of low cost affordable housing in the lands designated as receiving. I also urge the Policy Makers to consider allowing removable housing. Secondly, your draft just briefly mentions solar. I would respectfully ask you to consider a robust proposal which incentives the use of modern solar technology. Please contact me with any questions or if you would like more information. Appendix A Page 34 of 91 2 Sincerely, Barry Wood From: AnitaJenkins@colliergov.net To: RuralFringeRestudy@colliergov.net Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:09:23 -0400 Subject: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations To all interested: Thank you for your continued participation in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District restudy. Attached hereto is a memo outlining the draft findings and recommendations of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper. We value your input and welcome your suggestions. This is an open, on-going collaborative effort. Final copies of the White Paper will be distributed prior to our first public hearing. We anticipate a presentation to the Collier County Planning Commission August 18, 2016, and the Board of County Commissioners September 27, 2016. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Anita Jenkins, AICP Community Planning Section Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8288 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Appendix A Page 35 of 91 1 JenkinsAnita From:JenkinsAnita Sent:Monday, July 25, 2016 7:48 AM To:VanLengenKris; RuralFringeRestudy Subject:FW: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations From: Ron Inge [mailto:ron@ingeandassociates.com] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 10:23 AM To: JenkinsAnita Subject: RE: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations Thank you for the report summary, it is an excellent summary. I have the following comments: 1. Item 7-the language should be clear that it is not just agriculture preservation that is being encouraged, but also habitat protection. 2. Item 7-consider the addition of the ability to generate more than 2 TDR per 5 acres if the habitat preserved becomes part of a system or if there is a mechanism in place to encourage its maintenance. Thank you, Kris and staff for all the work on this. Ronald E. Inge 5571 Halifax Ave. Fort Myers, FL 33912 Phone 239-454-4999 Fax 239-454-2773 email: ron@ingeandassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above to whom this message was sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: JenkinsAnita [mailto:AnitaJenkins@colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 1:31 PM To: RuralFringeRestudy <RuralFringeRestudy@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations This is being resent to ensure everyone interested receives a copy. From: JenkinsAnita Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:09 PM To: RuralFringeRestudy Subject: Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations Appendix A Page 36 of 91 1 JenkinsAnita From:Dennis P. Vasey [00215@embarqmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, July 19, 2016 5:35 PM To:VanLengenKris Cc:Mark Siverling - NRCS, Naples, FL Subject:Long-term Stewardship Calculator Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Kris, Collier Soil and Water Conservation District has about 25 parcels. Among the issues we grappled with were the long- term financial assurances required to perform initial treatment and then following a Best Management Practice without removing mitigation credits. The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) Long-term Stewardship Calculator was very helpful getting to real costs to accept a land donation. Costs associated with long-term stewardship are inherently difficult to predict and often underestimated. To help tackle this problem, TNC convened national experts to develop a calculator to estimate stewardship costs and to determine the amount that should be set aside to provide a secure source of future funding. Without sour grapes, when we respond to an offer, and there have been several, we always hear: "We're giving you the land! What do you mean we need to pay for accepting it?" When a businessman/woman offers you anything, they have already decided that it costs an arm and a leg to maintain property that doesn't generate revenue for their investors. In perpetuity is a long time and the taxpayer shouldn't have to bear that burden unless there is a cost-benefit and real return on the investment. Conservation and preservation land is a cost leader and it will run you out of money in a hurry. If the parcels can't be used to mitigate public buildings or civil works projects they're worthless. TNC has developed several products, including a spreadsheet for calculating stewardship costs, an accompanying handbook and quick reference guide, and a web-based portal for these resources. This accessible tool helps consolidate and highlight common expenses to improve the ease and accuracy of calculating costs. The calculator was designed to be used for both conservation easements and fee land, and is particularly valuable for use in calculating long-term management costs for mitigation projects to ensure that the full cost of all the mitigation requirements is appropriately covered by permittee. It’s available at no cost through www.nature.org/stewardshipcalculator. If the county is really serious about land ownership it should pursue a land trust that can function as a non profit and accept large and small donations. Duke Appendix A Page 37 of 91 Appendix A Page 38 of 91 Appendix A Page 39 of 91 Appendix A Page 40 of 91 Appendix A Page 41 of 91 Appendix A Page 42 of 91 Appendix A Page 43 of 91 Appendix A Page 44 of 91 Appendix A Page 45 of 91 Appendix A Page 46 of 91 Appendix A Page 47 of 91 Appendix A Page 48 of 91 Appendix A Page 49 of 91 Appendix A Page 50 of 91 Appendix A Page 51 of 91 Appendix A Page 52 of 91 Appendix A Page 53 of 91 Appendix A Page 54 of 91 Appendix A Page 55 of 91 Appendix A Page 56 of 91 Appendix A Page 57 of 91 Appendix A Page 58 of 91 Appendix A Page 59 of 91 August 2,2016 Kris Van Lengen Planning Manager, Growth Management Plan Restudy Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Comments on Stafls RFMUD Draft Recommendations Dear Mr. Van Lengen: SENDING LANDS A. TDR Credit System l. Additional Credits to Sending Owners Here and throughout the paper, there are many recommendations for increasing TDR credits. How do you know that there is a need for so many additional credits to incentivize owners to participate in the program? There isn't an analysis of what the result will be from increasing credits to all sending lands. How do you prevent excess credits from being awarded, so that supply and demand is balanced? Also, what happens to excess credits? once rights are given in terms of TDR credits, landowners will demand a retum. Ifihey can't sell or trade credits-who is on the hook? There needs to be more analysis and justification for awarding all the additional credits discussed here and throughout the paper. Thank you for your outreach to the public on this important endeavor to study and recommend changes to the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. Please consider the comments below on some of the Collier County Planning Division (CCPD) draft recommendations, as you finalize the white paper. Appendix A Page 60 of 91 The CCPD staffrecommends that TDR credits be made available to Sending owners who wish to begin, expand or increase intensity of a bona fide agricultural operation. The County should not adopt this recommendation. In Agricultural use areas, wetlands are often destroyed. Agricultural lands are not conservation lands. In the RLSA, developers are claiming that areas where there are Ag uses such as row crops are disturbed land, of less value to wildlife. Therefore developers claim that there should be no problem developing such land because of their lower ecological value. To grant credits for beginning, expanding or intensifuing agriculture uses is to start a downward path beginning by reducing the ecological value of the Sending lands. 5 Retroactivitv of Sussested Pro gram Chanees iving Lands ccPD staff recommends allowing landowners who have generated TDRs but not yet conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. The CCPD has not articulated what additional benefits are anticipated from retroactive credits. As discussed above, there needs to be an analysis or explanation on the effect ofgranting so many additional credits' 7 2 TDR Credits from Rece 3. Agriculture Use The RFMUD rules currently eliminate TDR credits for any land put in agricultural use after 2002. The purpose was to disincentivize clearing of these environmentally sensitive lands. These rules and policy should remain in place. The Sending lands are so designated because their ecological value for such things as water quality, protecting water flow-way, and preserving wildlife and wildlife habitat. A goal of the TDR program as established was to protect and restore the ecological integrity ofthe Sending lands. Expanding agriculture uses to begin or expand row crops, orto intensif! agriculture use are incompatible uses for the environmental goals for these lands. Intensif,ing agricultural uses could adversely affect Picayune Strand State Forest downstream of the RFMUD area. Appendix A Page 61 of 91 CCPD staff recommends allowing the generation of 2 TDR credits per 5 acres from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection. It is not clear why this change is needed. There should be an articulation of what "agriculture preservation" and "habitat protection" entails. What would the criteria be for each ofthese concepts? D. Sending Lands Management There isn't sufficient information for me to understand fully how the different options put forth will work. The idea of a green utility fee appears to be worth considering. E. Other Program Recommendations CCPD staff recommends that County-owned land in North Belle Meade should qualiff for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Please reject this idea, other than perhaps to consider expanding passive recreational opportunities where appropriate. Sending lands are environmentally sensitive lands, important for water quality, water flow-way, preservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Passive recreational uses are currently allowed where appropriate; these uses can be compatible with the environmental goals. I urge you to reject expansion ofthe range of allowed recreational uses, especially reject any motorized activities. Once you open the door to motorized use, the county may want to allow a golf course, or may be pressured into allowing ORV use-a use clearly incompatible with wildlife and water resources. Allowing expansion of recreational uses could have a negative impact to the ecological integrity of these lands and especially make the land unsuitable for the wildlife it is meant to sustain. RECEIVING LANDS B. Transportation and Public Infrastructure Density Standards and Proc ess 3. Allow County-owned Sending land to be use for recreational uses. aJ Appendix A Page 62 of 91 CCPD staff recommends considering adoption of zoning overlays so as to give developers more certainty and to allow a simple BCC maj ority to approve a project when complying with the overlay. The only benefit appears to be to allow development to proceed faster. The County should not adopt this approach. Given the rapid development of Collier County at this time, there is a lot of public concern now by many residents about growth occurring too rapidly and degradation ofthe quality oflife. Forthis reason, the County should continue the practice of requiring a supermajority vote for a rezone, just as is required for every other rezone project in the County. U \f".d,,*q 4 ) ) Appendix A Page 63 of 91 Wednesday, September 14, 2016 Kris Van Lengen, JD, AICP
 Community Planning Manager
 Zoning Division, Collier County
 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
 Naples, Florida 34104 VIA EMAIL AND USPS Re: Possible Growth Management Plan amendments related to Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Dear Kris, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me recently regarding possible amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan related to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District future land use designation (RFMUD). As you know, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. (1000 Friends) is a statewide not-for- profit membership organization which provides public advocacy related to planning and growth management issues in Florida. 1000 Friends most recently commented on Collier County’s RFMUD review in correspondence drafted jointly with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and sent to the county in July 2015. This letter updates those comments with additional observations based our recent review of the Collier County Growth Management Department (Department) memorandum on the RFMUD review dated July 12, 2016. In this letter, 1000 Friends addresses four subjects in the order you discuss them in your memorandum. They are: increasing the number of credits available from Sending Lands; changes to the management of the transfer of development rights (TDR) program; the character of development in Receiving Lands; and changes to the required procedure for developing Receiving Lands. We greatly appreciate you taking time to review our comments. Collier County’s work to improve the quality of development while providing for the conservation of natural and agricultural lands is of value to Florida. Increasing the number of credits available from Sending Lands 1000 Friends suggests that Collier County carefully study the market for credits before increasing the number of credits available from Sending Lands. Also, 1000 Friends suggests that the county not consider increasing the possible supply of credits from Sending Lands in isolation from considering the development potential of Receiving Lands. The number of credits which Sending Lands may sever should relate to the character of development on Receiving Lands. In setting an amount of credits which Sending Lands may sever, the county should first consider the desired character of development on Receiving lands and should then make the appropriate number of credits available. building better communities ● saving special places Officers: Timothy Jackson, Chair • Victoria Tschinkel, Vice Chair • F. Gregory Barnhart, Secretary • Terry Turner, Treasurer Board of Directors: Courtney Cunningham, Lee Constantine, Jim Nicholas, Susan Trevarthen, Mark Watts Emeritus: Nathaniel P. Reed, Chairman Emeritus, Lester Abberger, Robert Davis, Roy Rogers, Earl Starnes President: Ryan Smart Post Office Box 5948 • Tallahassee, FL 32314-5948 • PHONE 850.222.6277 • FAX 850.222.1117 www.1000friendsofflorida.org • friends@1000fof.org Appendix A Page 64 of 91 Paragraph 1.C)2. of the Growth Management Plan’s description of the RFMUD (RFMUD description) provides that Sending Lands have transferable development credits at the rate of one credit per five acres. Additionally, legal nonconforming lots which are smaller than five acres may sever one credit each. When transferred to the owner of Receiving Lands, one credit allows the development of one residential unit. The Department has suggested increasing the number of credits available in the TDR program in several ways. Two program changes, in particular, would dramatically increase the possible supply of credits. One, the Department has suggested providing two additional credits for every five acres of Sending Land. Two, the Department has suggested making this increase in severable credits retroactive so that owners of Sending Lands which have already severed credits could sever additional credits created by a change in the rules. The Department’s rationale for increasing the number of credits includes the beliefs that increasing the number of credits achievable under the rules will lead to greater compensation for owners of Sending Lands and that the current supply of credits is less than that demanded by applicants to develop Receiving Lands. Whether increasing the possible number of credits would lead to either of these outcomes cannot be known without substantial economic analysis. The county should develop economic data on the demand for credits and on how the supply of credits would grow under proposed rule changes before developing proposals to change the number of credits available from Sending Lands. More significantly, these two considerations—compensation for owners of Sending Lands and the number of credits demanded by applicants to develop Receiving Lands—are best addressed by having a well- functioning market for credits, not by fine tuning the number of credits available to Sending Lands. 1000 Friends suggests that Collier County’s principal concern in setting the possible number of severable credits from Sending Lands should be its policy decision regarding the number of development units appropriate for Receiving Lands. If the supply of credits too greatly exceeds the demand for credits, the county will not accomplish its goal of conserving nature and agricultural lands. Changes to the management of the TDR program 1000 Friends of Florida supports all proposals to increase the efficiency of the transfer of development rights program. The Department has proposed simplifying access to the records that identify the owners of credits, has proposed reducing the fees the county charges owners of Sending Lands for severing credits, and has proposed creating a TDR bank. Each of these changes could reduce the cost and difficulty of TDR transactions. Reducing transaction costs is a key way to help the market for credits function well. The county should continue to explore these opportunities. Character of development in Receiving Lands 1000 Friends supports consideration of changes to the RFMUD description that lead to creation of high quality developed places. The Department memorandum on the RFMUD review encapsulates the need for balance when approving new development. It states, “Growth presents a tremendous opportunity for progress. It also presents many challenges.” Rules that require walkable, mixed-use developments lead to growth that reduces reliance on cars for all transportation needs, improves public health by making walking a reasonable transportation option and contains a variety of development products as the market demands. Increasing residential densities The current maximum density of development on Receiving Lands—without taking advantage of clustering provisions—is a very low one unit per acre. 1000 Friends supports changes to the RFMUD description that allow greater residential densities on Receiving Lands. However, these changes should be balanced with the credit allocations for Sending Lands so that demand for credits promotes conservation of natural and agricultural lands. Put another way, increased allowed density on Receiving Lands should 2 Appendix A Page 65 of 91 not be balanced with increased credits made available to Sending Lands so that changes to the RFMUD description lead to much higher densities in the RFMUD overall. Allowing non-residential development outside of Rural Villages The Department suggests allowing employment uses outside of Rural Villages. While some non- residential uses may be appropriate on Receiving Lands outside of Rural Villages, too liberal of accommodations for these uses would undermine the Rural Village concept. That tool is aimed at creating developments that internally capture traffic trips, accommodate multiple transportation modes and otherwise are high quality, mixed-use developments. Examples of provisions accomplishing this intent include: •Rural Villages must provide a “formal street layout, using primarily a grid design and incorporating village greens, squares and civic uses as focal points.” RFMUD description at paragraph at 3.G)1. •“a greenbelt averaging 300 feet in width but not less than 200 feet in width, shall be required at the perimeter of the Rural Village” RFMUD description at paragraph at 3.E)1. •10% of the area of a Rural Village must be civic uses and public parks. RFMUD description at paragraph at 3.D)1.f. The Department memorandum on the RFMUD review identifies problems with the Rural Village tool including that it isolates non-residential uses away from major transportation corridors and allow too little non-residential use. 1000 Friends urges the county to address these problems while keeping intact the beneficial standards provided by the Rural Village concept. For example, allowing arterial roadways to bisect Rural Villages where those roadways have a design which is sensitive to a walkable, mixed use context would provide greater transportation access to commercial uses while respecting the design of Rural Villages. Community design 1000 Friends supports county efforts to develop better community design standards for Rural Villages. Although not recommended by the Department, the Department memorandum on the RFMUD review notes that some community members suggest prohibiting gated developments. 1000 Friends would support such a change. The Department does recommend developing a standard for measuring the interconnectivity of street networks. While the “link to node” ration is a standard for measuring connectivity, 1000 Friends suggests the county look instead to regulating block size. Professional guidance recommends that regulatory tool as a way to regulate connectivity. Measuring block size is a more straightforward approach to determining connectedness than is the “link to node” ratio. The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines recommends that “block lengths should generally not exceed 660 ft. and the perimeter around a block should not exceed 2,000 ft.” At 31. The New Urbanism Best Practices Guide recommends a typical block perimeter of 1,200 feet with occasional blocks as large as 1,600 feet in perimeter. Fourth Ed., at 151. 1000 Friends suggests that Collier County measure block perimeter in urbanized portions of the county with a well-functioning street network—such as in central Naples—and adopt a block size standard based on what already works well in nearby communities. Changes to the required procedure for developing Receiving Lands A special act of the Florida Legislature relating to Collier County, ch. 2001-344, Laws of Florida, imposes a super-majority requirement to approve land use decisions in the county. The act states, “[n]o change in the zoning ordinance shall become effective except by an affirmative vote of four fifths (4/5’s) of the full 3 Appendix A Page 66 of 91 membership of the governing body.” The Department suggests adopting zoning overlays so that the County may approve development proposals in the RFMUD without subjecting each application to the super-majority requirement. 1000 Friends strongly supports citizen’s rights to a supermajority vote on major planning decisions. That protection is one of five protections promoted through the Citizens Planning Bill of Rights that 1000 Friends promotes. 1000 Friends strongly urges the county to not lessen the amount of review given development decisions in the RFMUD. Again, 1000 Friends greatly appreciates your attention to these comments. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (352) 377-3141 or thawkins@1000fof.org. Sincerely, Thomas Hawkins
 Policy and Planning Director Cc: The Honorable Donna Fiala, District 1
 The Honorable Georgia A. Hiller, Esq., District 2
 The Honorable Tom Henning, District 3
 The Honorable Penny Taylor, District 4
 The Honorable Tim Nance, District 5 4 Appendix A Page 67 of 91 The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, Inc. P.O. Box 990596, Naples, FL 34116-6002 www.estates-civic.org 19 April 2016 Mr. Kris Van Lengen Community Planning Manager Zoning Division, Collier County Government 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 RE: GGEACA's Recommendations for the 2016 Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Update (RFMUD) Mr. Van Lengen: Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association (GGEACA) believes the proximity of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) areas north of I-75 will have considerable impact on Golden Gate Estates. The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association is weighing in on the opportunities and concerns many of our members have expressed related to the current restudy underway. Golden Gate Estates (Estates) remains a platted legacy subdivision which failed to set aside sufficient area for the provision of employment and services to its residents. As a consequence the residents of Golden Gate Estates have been required to commute exceptionally long distances for employment and other necessities. The result has been considerable strain on the Collier Counties fragile existing transportation infrastructure. The 2040 LRTP calls for approximately one billion dollars of transportation improvements, most of it in the Golden Gate Estates Area. The lots in the Estates were originally conceived to be 5 acre ranchettes, over the last 50 years many of these thousands of individually owned lots have been subdivided into parcels as small as 1 ¼ acres. The zoning in Golden Gate Estates provides primarily for residential use with essential government services and limited commercial in several Neighborhood Centers. In recent years two GMP amendments have provided 40 acre commercial centers which lie fallow and undeveloped. The residents of Golden Gate Estates have traditionally rejected proposed redevelopments and increased commercial activity, preferring instead to retain the rural residential character of the Estates. Given these facts, it is imperative that changes in land use in the RFMUD which borders the Estates be permitted to provide services and employment to compliment the build out of the Estates. The RFMUD can also provide opportunities for employment, economic development, and needed recreational activities to Collier County as a whole. Appendix A Page 68 of 91 Mr. Kris Van Lengen GGEACA 2016 RFMUD Recommendations 19 April 2016 Page 2 Changes in RFMUD areas north of I-75 will have influence on the Golden Gate Estates economic and functional components, and vice versa. Current development guidelines in the RFMUD provide for only limited commercial to serve Rural Villages, this is inappropriate and harmful to landowners, the adjoining Estates Community, and Collier County as a whole. GGEACA recommends the following changes in the RFMUD guidelines. A. Transportation Infrastructure - Roads 1.) Prioritization of the Wilson Boulevard Extension south to White Lake Boulevard to link Golden Gate Estates to the North Belle Meade Receiving lands and provide a needed road corridor to the south and west. 2.) Extend White Lake Boulevard east to the proposed new I-75 Interchange east of Everglades Blvd. 3.) Complete the Green Boulevard Extension Study to identify an East-West corridor linking North Belle Meade Receiving lands to CR 951 and points west. B. Water Resources Management 1.) Rehydration and Dispersed Water Storage in North Belle Meade Sending lands to retain / detain storm water and promote groundwater recharge. 2.) Consideration of ASR Wells in Receiving lands, especially Sec15 T49S R27E to retain/detain water from the Golden Gate Main Canal. 3.) Development of the C-1 Connector Canal and weirs to divert storm water east from the Golden Gate Main Canal. C. Services and Economic Development 1.) Add Uses in RFMUD Receiving lands to support Economic Development as recommended and detailed in the Opportunity Naples Study and the recommendations by the Anderson Economic Group. 2.) Add Commercial and Industrial uses in RFMUD Receiving lands to provide needed goods, services, and jobs in Golden Gate Estates and adjacent areas. 3.) Add Affordable Housing uses in RFMUD Receiving lands. Consider increased density incentives for this area. 4.) Add Medical uses and Assisted Living facilities to RFMUD Receiving lands. 5.) Add Institutional and Utility uses in RFMUD Receiving lands. 6.) Add Parks and Sports Complex uses to RFMUD Receiving lands to support Sports Tourism. 7.) Develop appropriate buffers for all Receiving land uses and adjacent Estates, Residential, and Conservation properties. D. Environmental Elements / Management 1.) Develop policies that discourage the migration of climax predators from RFMUD Sending lands into the residential interface in Golden Gate Estates other and adjacent areas. 2.) Consider the establishment of a TDR Bank to facilitate the transfer process. Appendix A Page 69 of 91 Mr. Kris Van Lengen GGEACA 2016 RFMUD Recommendations 19 April 2016 Page 3 The recommended changes permitting non residential land uses in the RFMUD must be applied so as to preserve the rural residential character of Golden Gate Estates To that end, it will be essential to establish appropriate buffers and transitional uses, together with appropriate controls over the location of utility service lines and transportation corridors. To achieve these goals the following recommendations are submitted. 1. Projects directly abutting residential property shall provide, at a minimum, a one-hundred (100) foot wide buffer in which no parking or water management uses are permitted. Twenty-five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer type C as outlined in the LDC. A minimum of fifty (75) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained or created native vegetation and must be consistent with appropriate subsections of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The 100 foot buffer shall not be part of a setback, but will be a separately platted tract. Setbacks shall be a minimum of 50% of the height of any structure other than single family. 2. A solid masonry or concrete wall 8’ high and on a 3’ berm at the development (RFMUD) side of the 100’ buffer shall be required. The buffer area shall be supplemented where needed to assure an 80% opacity is reached within one year. 3. All lighting shall be consistent with the Dark Skies initiative. Parking lot lighting shall be restricted to bollards except as may be required to comply with lighting standards in the Land Development Code (Ordinance #04-41, as amended) and other governing regulations. 4. Rural roadways as typically used within the Golden Gate Estates neighborhoods shall not be used for access or utility conveyance to any new development. Appropriate truck route management tools need to be employed to limit Community impact. We look forward to participating in the upcoming public meetings on the RFMUD and discussions regarding the many issues which will be explored in those meetings. Thank you for your efforts in reviewing the development plans for the areas under study. Sincerely, Michael R. Ramsey President Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Appendix A Page 70 of 91 Appendix A Page 71 of 91 1 JenkinsAnita From:Nancy Payton [nancypayton@fwfonline.org] Sent:Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:21 PM To:VanLengenKris; JenkinsAnita Subject:Thoughts/Comments on RFMUD Recommendations Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Kris and Anita, Here are thoughts and comments on the recommendations presented at the May 26 RFMUD workshop. I added a few of my own, too. Nancy Sending 1. Support exploring additional credits from sending lands 2. Strongly support exploring ag credits from sending lands 3. Strongly support eliminating base price 4. Support exploring a TDR Bank 5. Strongly support County accepting NBM parcels and State of Florida accepting SBM parcels, not sure about sending lands elsewhere… 6. Support reducing cost and time to process 7. Strongly support exploring concept of mitigation bank and maintenance fund 8. Support exploring adjusting appraisals on sending land with base (and bonus?) TDR severed – how much lower? what is the fate of land? Unclear what the advantage to nature will be 9. Support allowing a second dwelling unit for family members on ag preserved sending lands depending on the minimum parcel size and where on the parcel 10. Strongly support dark skies on severed TDR lands 11. Opposed - Red Flag for broader recreational uses on TDR severed sending lands – concerned about uses not compatible with the conservation goals of the TDR program – NO to ATV, BMX or other motorized vehicles, model airplanes, model boats, pickle ball courts, tennis courts, soccer fields, ball parks, polo fields, skateboard venues, mudding trucks, for example… 12. Support no TDR use outside the RFMUD and the Urban Fringe east of 951 13. Strongly support TDRs sent only to receiving lands with central water and sewer Neutral 1. Support exploring ag preserve credits and second family home 2. Support exploring TDRs for high? environmental value 3. FYI – Section 24 is the result of a legal settlement 4. Strongly support dark skies on severed TDR land Receiving Appendix A Page 72 of 91 2 1. Opposed to ag and native habitat/vegetation credits in receiving – based on urban experiences preserves are poorly maintained; prefer to explore additional credits for public greenspace, greenways/blueways, and natural open space (not golf courses) and dark skies 2. Support lifting clustering minimum if results in greenspace (not golf courses or similar active recreation) 3. Strongly support requiring central water/sewer, interconnectivity 4. Support exploring solar, zero net water use, ASR Appendix A Page 73 of 91 ,dvPOTEET PROPERTIES, INC.LoopNet Local Knowledge - Global Service P.O. Box 10667, Naples, FL 34101-0667 (239) 403-3840 Fax (239) 403-3841 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 199, Naples, FL 34105 email: Pote etD Derties@smail.com www. Pot e et p r o p e rti es. c o m J une 6, 2016 Anita Jenkins, ACIP Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL 34104 RE: Rural Fringe lr4ixed-Use District (RFMUD) restudy Deal Ms. Jenkins After attending the final community meeting on the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District restudy meeling il became very clear the issue ofaffordable housing was low on the priority list for Collier County's future lands. Granted. when county staff was asked about the affordable housing issue. Staff stated they planned to illcorporate the overall Affordable Housing policy, which our Con.rmission is currently addressing. However. my gut feeling is that this will not result in any significant resolution ofthe housing crisis occurring today and the aflbrdable housing crisis \\'ill continue until our local government decides to seriouslv addresses the issue. So far I have only seen lip sen,ice liont the counly. not action. I anr very concenred that the issue o1'affordable housing \r,as not pu1 as a high prioritl, use lirr the future areas. Our county commission has demonstrated it has no desire to address the issue within the urban core. They repeatedly deny requests for affordable housing projects. I am not saying their decisions were in error. jusl they demonslrate they do not want projecls u,ithin the urban core. So where to can we look lor a solution. The Rural Fringe is our only option. In two ofthe recenl community lrleetings I attended, less than 5 minutes ofthe five hours of meeting time \\.as given to the subject of affordable housing. I find this troublesome. It needs 1o be a rnuch higher priority in the discussion. The Rural Fringe Mixed-Use Districts will be the only other opportunity lbr our community to get it right Currently the proposed plan that the County is advocating is simply moving our currenl housing lormula done in westem Collier to the East. While this has been a very positive plan for creating the great St^JF Lia Appendix A Page 74 of 91 cor runily \ve live in, it totally ignores those who cannol afford the affluent housing mix offered today. We need our labor force and therelbre need to provide housing options for lhenr. The idea that Lehigh Acres can bc our bedroom communitl'to suppll'labor is a shon lived concepl. As I-ee County further der eJops. plentr ol' job opponunilies \\ ill be created \\'ilhin slron distance ol l.chigl.r eliminatins thetl Ireed itr tlrirc -1(t plus r.niles ttr Crrllier lirl uork. The Rur:rl Fringe \4ired-[ sc [)istrict plan rnusl hare a dylamic allbrdable housing conlponenl built into the plan to avoid both the allbrdable housing and luture workforce crisis. Without it our conunuuitv n,ill suffer. As a Realtor@ and advocate 1br all types of housing and real estate opportunities I ask you to include a section in tlrc plan that u,ill provide aflirrdable housing projects a higher priorit,"- on what is to be de\eioped in the future. We cannot use toda\,'s lirmula lbr grou.th managemenl to cure ihis crisis. There are too luan) reasons u,hy it u,on't happen. The future Rural Fringe plans ntusl include specific opportunities lbr affordable housing lbr our entire u,orkforce. not just firsl linre responders or those classified as "work force housing". Affordable housing musl include a mix of apartments, multi-family, and possibly single family opportunities. We need to create an environment where these projects can be profitable. This will never happen unless you plan lor it. The Rural Fringe is Collier's last opportuniry to get it righl. It starts with the plan so the rest may occur in lhe future. Sinc William H. Poteet, Jr., C REALTOR@ S. GRI. AHWD. CAM CC: Nick Casalanguida Appendix A Page 75 of 91 Page 1 of 9 December 12, 2016 Kris Van Lengen, AICP & Anita Jenkins, AICP Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL RE: Rural Fringe Mixed Use Re-Study Receiving Areas Recommendations Dear Mr. Van Lengen & Ms. Jenkins: In follow up to our meeting on November 3rd, the enclosed information has been compiled on behalf of Neal Communities in regards to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Re-Study White Paper (“White Paper”), and more specifically, Staff’s recommendations regarding increased densities within designated Receiving Areas. As detailed in the White Paper and 2014 “Opportunity Naples Strategy”, Collier County has a limited supply of land available for new development, and there is high competition for residential land uses. There is also is a growing demand for diverse housing stock to facilitate market-driven workforce housing, as a supplement to the County’s existing programs relating to affordable housing. The following analysis outlines opportunities for the Staff to integrate slightly higher densities into the proposed amendments for the RFMUD, in appropriate areas that allow for a logical extension of development patterns; are well-serviced by public infrastructure; and meet additional design criteria. The proposal will directly support the County’s stated goal for a more diverse housing stock in the RFMUD to support the growing eastern Collier County workforce, while upholding the intent of the RFMUD to conserve critical natural resources and native habitat; provide for sustainable land use patterns based upon the existing public investment in infrastructure; protect working agricultural lands; and implement innovative planning techniques to achieve livable, walkable, and well-integrated communities. A. RFMUD Receiving Lands Overview Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as being most appropriate for development, and to which residential development units may be transferred from Sending Lands. These lands have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations. Appendix A Page 76 of 91 Page 2 of 9   The allowable base density in Receiving Lands is one (1) unit per five (5) acres (1 DU/5 AC). There are currently two (2) options for development within the Receiving Lands that allow for densities higher than 1 DU/5 AC as follows:  Village Framework The Village development option allows for densities of up to three (3) dwelling units per acre (3 DU/AC). The minimum project size is 300 acres, and development must be located where public infrastructure exists or is planned, including direct access to an arterial or collector roadway. Villages are also required to provide a diversity of housing types, civic space, and non-residential uses in the form of Neighborhood Centers. Since adoption of the RFMUD provisions in 2004, no development has occurred under the Village development option.  Clustered Development Framework The Clustered development option allows for densities of one (1) dwelling unit per acre (1 DU/AC), with a minimum project size of 40 contiguous acres. Bonus densities of 10% can be achieved through additional preservation and environmental enhancements. There are several communities in the West Receiving Area that have been developed, or are in the process of being developed, under the Clustered development option, including: Twin Eagles South, Lamorada, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Golf Club of the Everglades (GreyHawk). It is important to note that both of these options require extensive use of TDRs to realize the maximum allowable densities, which achieves the RFMUD’s intent for the perpetual conservation of Sending Lands, but adds as substantial cost to the development of these properties. The current price for one (1) TDR is approximately $13,500, as outlined in the White Paper. While the TDR framework is integral to the RFMUD program as it provides a mechanism for the perpetual preservation of environmentally-sensitive Sending Areas, this added development cost directly affects the financial feasibility of development as demonstrated in the TDR program economic analysis prepared by the County’s consultant. The following proposal seeks to off-set those development costs through modified densities in certain areas, while upholding the importance of the TDR program. B. West Receiving Lands The Receiving Lands are divided into four sub-areas: North, West, North Belle Meade, and South. The context and characteristics of each of these Receiving Areas are unique. The focus of this analysis is the West Receiving Area, which is generally located to the east of Collier Boulevard, north and south of Immokalee Road, and west of Wilson Boulevard. See Exhibit A – Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Areas Map. The West Receiving lands are distinguishable from the other three Receiving Land sub-areas due to a variety of factors. First is the extent of build-out. As shown on Staff’s Receiving Area Exhibit dated September 2015 (Exhibit “B” attached), the West Area is strikingly different from the North, North Belle Meade, and South Receiving Areas due to the level of build-out. This exhibit clearly demonstrates the limited inventory of vacant parcels within the West Receiving Area, Appendix A Page 77 of 91 Page 3 of 9   as well as the fragmented nature of remaining vacant parcels. These existing conditions make it virtually impossible to develop a Village within the West Area, thereby limiting the maximum development potential of remaining parcels to 1 DU/AC. Secondly, the West Receiving Area is well-served by existing public infrastructure and urban services. As inventoried on Exhibit “C”, the Property is within 2 miles of elementary and middle schools, parks, libraries, Collier Area Transit Route 27, and two (2) fire stations. According to the County’s adopted Existing and Future Water and Wastewater Service Areas Maps, the majority of the West Receiving Area is within both service areas for the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer services. This Receiving Area is bisected by Immokalee Road, a six-lane arterial roadway. The southern boundary of the Receiving Area is Vanderbilt Beach Road, a two-lane arterial roadway that is anticipated for improvement to a six-lane facility by 2020. The western boundary is Collier Boulevard, a six-lane arterial roadway. This arterial roadway network that frames the West Receiving Area is further demonstration of the public investment in urban levels of infrastructure in this area. Lastly, the West Receiving Area does not contain the same level of environmental sensitivity, and is less proximate/integrated with publicly-owned preserve lands. As evidence on the Collier County “Green Map”, attached as Exhibit “D”, all other Receiving Areas abut large tracts of conservations land on one or more boundaries. Conversely, the West Receiving Area does not directly abut any State, Federal or County Conservation lands, and is predominantly classified as Planned Unit Development (PUD), Plats/Subdivisions, or Other Developed Areas. In sum, the West Receiving Area is the most suitable of the Receiving Areas for development based upon the level of build-out, environmental context, and available public infrastructure and services. Conversely, this Receiving Area is the most limited in terms of allowable development by the RFMUD framework due to the extent of build-out and fragmented ownership of the remaining vacant parcels, which precludes development of a Village at the higher end of the density range. C. Density Analysis As noted above, there have been several communities to develop at a density of 1 DU/AC under the Clustered development option. The resulting development program in each of these projects is virtually identical: gated communities with predominantly single-family detached housing. Currently, housing prices within these communities range from $425,000 to $835,000, which is well above the price range for workforce housing, which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines as “housing that is affordable to households earning between 80 and 120 percent of Area Median Income”, or $65,700. See also Table 3 of this report. Continuing to develop within the Clustered development framework almost certainly ensures that the West Receiving Area will not achieve any level of affordability or diversity in terms of housing stock, and will result in an underutilization in the County’s substantial investment in public infrastructure in this area. This result is recognized in the White Paper as the antithesis of Collier County’s long-term goals for the RFMUD Receiving Areas framework, and requires a re-examining of the existing framework. Appendix A Page 78 of 91 Page 4 of 9   As stated in the White Paper prepared by Collier County, increasing the allowable density within the Receiving Lands will allow greater diversity in residential products. Specifically, Staff has stated, “Higher density is essential in this area in order to provide a greater diversity of housing options and lifestyle choices; decreased spending on infrastructure; increased public transportation ridership and overall mobility; and the ability to preserve larger tracts of open space by clustering density.” As a result of this finding, Staff has recommended an increase in allowable density in the Clustered development option to two dwelling units per acre (2 DU/AC), and up to seven dwelling units per acre (7 DU/AC) under the Village development option. Under the proposed recommendation the West Receiving Area could achieve build-out of its remaining land area with 2 DU/AC with a 10% bonus, or 2.2 DU/AC, as there is limited potential to develop a Village. From a land use standpoint, 2.2 DU/AC is still relatively low suburban density and would result in predominantly single-family detached development patterns. This analysis proffers an alternative recommendation to increase the allowable density to three and a half dwelling units per acre (3.5 DU/AC), solely in the West Receiving Area, and where projects demonstrate compliance with enhanced design criteria and locational standards via the Planned Unit Development rezoning process. By increasing the allowable density to 3.5 DU/AC, developers have a greater ability to provide residential products that do not exist in this general area. The additional density also allows for the mitigation of the substantial cost of TDRs. To illustrate these concepts, Waldrop Engineering, together with Development Planning & Financing Group, Inc. (“DPFG”), modified the Collier County TDR Program Economic Model to recognize an Alternate Scenario of 3.5 DU/AC.1 Table 1: West Receiving Area Alternate Bonus Density Scenario Source: Collier County, Waldrop Engineering, DPFG, 2016 1 The Alternate Scenario added to the Collier County TDR Program Economic Model was configured at approximately 3.0 units per acre as achieving 3.5 units per acre throughout the entire Receiving Area is not practical. Appendix A Page 79 of 91 Page 5 of 9   The TDR Program Economic Model uses the land residual value methodology to compare the development financial feasibility of the baseline, mid-range, and high-range scenarios for the four Receiving Areas. As shown in Table 2, there are currently no high-range options for the West Receiving Area which constrains its development potential and opportunities for housing affordability. However, the Alternate scenario of 3.5 DU/AC significantly improves the development potential for the West Receiving Area. Because the favorable higher densities provided by Village Framework are not possible in the West Receiving Area, the Alternate scenario helps address those inequities. Table 2: Residual Land Value by Receiving Area Including Alternate Scenario in the West RA Source: Collier County, Waldrop Engineering, DPFG, 2016 D. Proposed Policy The following policy language is offered for Staff’s consideration to address the underutilization of the West Receiving Lands, which are largely built-out with urban and suburban levels of development; are in close proximity to goods, services, and employment opportunities; are serviced by urban levels of public infrastructure, including but not limited to: an arterial roadway network, potable water, and sanitary sewer services. Editorial Note: It is understood Staff intends to effectuate text amendments to the following sections of the Future Land Use Element based upon the White Paper. The anticipated changes directed by the White Paper are shown in strikethrough/underline format, while Neal Communities’ proposed changes are shown in strikethrough/double underline format. “A) Receiving Lands: Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development units may be transferred from areas designated as Sending Lands. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations. Various incentives are employed to direct development into Receiving Lands Appendix A Page 80 of 91 Page 6 of 9   and away from Sending Lands, thereby maximizing native vegetation and habitat preservation and restoration. Such incentives include, but are not limited to: the TDR process; clustered development; density bonus incentives; and, provisions for central sewer and water. Within Receiving Lands, the following standards shall apply, except for those modifications that are identified in the North Belle Meade Overlay: 1. Maximum Density: The base residential density allowable for designated Receiving Lands is one (1) unit per five (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum density achievable in Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per acre (two (2) dwelling units per acre. This maximum density is exclusive of the Density Blending provisions. Dwelling Units may only be transferred into Receiving Lands in whole unit increments (fractional transfers are prohibited). Once the maximum density is achieved through the use of TDR Credits, additional density may be achieved as follows: a) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall be allowed for each additional acre of native vegetation preserved exceeding the minimum preservation requirements set forth in Policy 6.1.2 of the CCME. b) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall be allowed as provided in Policy 6.2.5(6)b of the CCME. c) A density bonus of one and a half (1.5) additional dwelling units per acre (for a total density of three and a half (3.5) dwelling units per acre) shall be allowed via the use of TDRs in the West Receiving Area subject to the Clustering provisions in subsection 2 below, and where projects demonstrate the following through the Planned Unit Development rezoning process. i. Projects are directly accessed by, or adjacent to one or more arterial- or collector-level roadways; ii. Projects must connect to Collier County Utilities and demonstrate adequate capacity to service the proposed densities, and connect to reclaimed water service, where available; iii. Obtain written verification as to adequate, existing public services from the sheriff, EMS, fire district, Collier County School Board. iii. A minimum of 10% of the required useable open space must be common open space, exclusive of individual lots. Iv. The maximum lot size allowable for a single-family dwelling unit is 10,000 square feet. 2. Clustering: Where the transfer of development rights is employed to increase residential density within Receiving Lands, such residential development shall be clustered in accordance with the following provisions: Appendix A Page 81 of 91 Page 7 of 9   a) Consistent with the provisions of the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub- elements of this Plan, central water and sewer shall be extended to the project. Where County sewer or water services may not be available concurrent with development in Receiving Lands, interim private water and sewer facilities may be approved. b) The maximum lot size allowable for a single-family detached dwelling unit is one acre. c) The clustered development shall be located on the site so as to provide to the greatest degree practicable: protection for listed species habitat; preservation of the highest quality native vegetation; connectivity to adjacent natural reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation, maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. 3. Minimum Project Size: The minimum project size required in order to receive transferred dwelling units is 40 contiguous acres.” E. McCollum Assemblage Test Case The McCollum Assemblage is a 51+/- acre property and is located north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, east of Massey Street, and west of Douglas Drive in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The property is zoned Rural Agricultural (A) and is designated as with the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) – West Receiving Area. See Exhibit “E attached. The Property is located in a suburban/transitional area of the County, adjacent to existing and approved residential development, golf course communities, large-lot estates, and agricultural uses. It is important to note that the Property immediately abuts the Urban Mixed Use designated lands in the Urban Residential Subdistrict immediately to the west. The subject property also has approximately 2,500 linear feet of frontage on Vanderbilt Beach Road, an arterial roadway that is planned for expansion to six lanes by 2020 per the County’s adopted Long Range Transportation Plan. Development of the Property at 2 DU/AC is shown on Exhibit F, and results in 83 single-family lots, with an average lot size of 7,800 square feet. Based upon the County’s economic model, this development program would result in an approximately sales price of $452,000. Development of the Property at 3.5 DU/AC is shown on Exhibit G. This development program achieves 166 attached “twin villa” units with an average lots size of 4,725 square feet. Applying the County’s economic model to this scenario, the approximate sales price is $259,000. Both development options achieve the 70% required usable open space and will meet the native preservation requirements, based upon available preliminary data. Both developments are able to connect to Collier County Utilities with adequate capacity to service the proposed units, and are not anticipated to impact Level of Service on the surrounding roadway network. Therefore, both development options effectively meet the Appendix A Page 82 of 91 Page 8 of 9   stated goal of the RFMUD by protecting natural resources and native habitat, while supporting a compact and contiguous growth pattern that mitigates urban sprawl. The key differential between the development options, is the higher density program at 3.5 DU/AC achieves all the stated RFMUD goals, while enabling the developer to offer a clustered single-family product type that is priced substantially lower than the traditional single-family homes that dominate the area. The benefits are two-fold. First, this allowable density would facilitate a more diverse development pattern in the Receiving Areas, and provide an alternative to the homogenous pattern of single-family detached communities. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly to the County, the proposal supports market-driven housing opportunities that accommodate the growing demand of Collier’s workforce. Table 3 illustrates how the density bonus of an additional 1.5 units per acre proposed for the West Receiving Area can enhance the County’s workforce homeownership options. Table 3: McCollum Assemblage Density Bonus Impact on Homeownership Affordability Product Type # of Units 2.0 DU/AC # of Units 3.5 DU/AC Home Sales Price Price-To- Income Ratio Household Income Collier County AMI (1) (2) (2) (1) (3) (4) (5) Single Family (SF 250) 0 0 595,290 3.25 $183,000 $65,700 Single Family (SF 120) 0 0 545,139 3.25 $168,000 $65,700 Single Family (SF 80) 0 0 480,660 3.25 $148,000 $65,700 Detached Villa (DV 65) 83 0 452,003 3.25 $139,000 $65,700 Detached Villa (DV 50) 0 0 337,374 3.25 $104,000 $65,700 Attached Villa (TV 35) (6) 0 166 258,566 3.25 $80,000 $65,700 (1) TDR Program Economic Model as provided by Collier County. (2) Calculated by Waldrop Engineering. (3) Typical Price-To-Income Ratio benchmark in the U.S (Texas A&M Real Estate Center). (4) Home Sales Price Devided by Price-to-Income Ratio. (5) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Area Median Income for Collier County. (6) Product type added to TDR Program Economic Model by Waldrop Engineering and DPFG. F. Policy Support/GMP Consistency The proposed policy recommendation is in direct compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, and furthers the stated goals of the RFMUD as follows: Policy 5.3: 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; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County’s Agricultural/Rural designated area, which Appendix A Page 83 of 91 Page 9 of 9   will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Policy 5.5: Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. This shall occur by planning for the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to existing lands designated for urban intensity uses, the Rural Settlement District (formerly known as North Golden Gate), and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, before servicing new areas.” Policy 5.6: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed-use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Continue to review and amend the zoning and subdivision regulations as necessary to allow and encourage such innovative land development techniques. 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.” Thank you for your consideration of the above information. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239) 405-7777 ext. 207, or alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. Alexis V. Crespo, AICP, LEED AP Vice President of Planning Enclosures cc: Patrick Neal, Neal Communities Michael Greenberg, Neal Communities Jason Frost, Neal Communities Lucy Gallo, DPFG Appendix A Page 84 of 91 IMMOKALEE RD COLLIER BLVDDAVIS BLVD RADIO RD IMMOKALEE RD E GOLDEN GATE BLVD LIVINGSTON RDWILSON BLVD TAM I A M I T R L EI 75CR 858 EVERGLADES BLVD DESOTO BLVD I 75 RANDALL BLVD R U R A L F R I N G E R U R A L F R I N G EM I X E D U S E D I S T R I C T M I X E D U S E D I S T R I C T Í 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles RECEIVING SENDING NEUTRAL North BelleMeade NRPANorth BelleMeade - West South Belle Meade North Sending North BelleMeade South North West EXHIBIT A - RFMUD Sending and Receiving Areas Appendix A Page 85 of 91 IMMOKALEE RD IMMOKALEE RD EVERGLADES BLVD SEVERGLADES BLVD PINE RIDGE RD OIL WELL RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD RANDALL BLVD OI L W E L L G R A D E R D 18TH AVE NE GOLDEN GATE BLVD E DESOTO BLVD N56TH AVE NE 43RD AVE NE GREEN BLVD GOLDEN GATE BLVD W CR 84613TH ST SWWHITE BLVD WILSON BLVD N28TH AVE SE 6TH AVE SE 8TH AVE SE 4TH AVE SE 4TH AVE NE 6TH AVE NE 8TH AVE NE 21ST ST SW31ST ST SW2ND AVE SE S 1ST ST17TH ST SW2ND AVE NE 29TH ST SW22ND ST SE27TH ST SW25TH ST SW19TH ST SW23RD ST SW41ST AVE NW 58TH AVE NE 66TH AVE NE 60TH AVE NE 31ST AVE NE 10TH AVE SE 54TH AVE NE 64TH AVE NE 20TH ST SE50TH AVE NE 70TH AVE NE 68TH AVE NE 16TH AVE NE 12TH AVE NE 14TH AVE NE 10TH AVE NE 47TH AVE NE 27TH AVE NE 45TH AVE NE 24TH AVE NE 29TH AVE NE 41ST AVE NE 52ND AVE NE 16TH AVE SW 40TH ST NE62ND AVE NE 35TH AVE NE 20TH AVE NE 37TH AVE NE 22ND AVE NE 39TH AVE NE 38TH AVE SE 40TH AVE SE 30TH AVE SE 36TH AVE SE 26TH AVE SE 24TH AVE SE RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD 20TH AVE SE 34TH AVE SE 18TH AVE SE 32ND AVE SE 12TH AVE SE 14TH AVE SE 16TH AVE SE 22ND AVE SE S 5TH ST8TH ST SE6TH ST SE4TH ST SE18TH ST SE5TH ST SW2ND ST SE16TH ST SE12TH ST SE14TH ST SE10TH ST SE4TH ST NE8TH ST NE6TH ST NE1ST ST SW2ND ST NE1ST ST NW32ND AVE SW 5TH ST NW7TH ST NW3RD ST SW7TH ST SW9TH ST SW3RD ST NW8TH ST NW9TH ST NW6TH ST NW14TH ST NE16TH ST NE10TH ST NE20TH ST NE18TH ST NE12TH ST NE4TH ST NW13TH ST NW22ND ST NE2ND ST NW11TH ST SWDESOTO BLVD S11TH ST NWJUNG BLVD E MANATEE RD 15TH ST SW15TH ST NW17TH ST NW33RD AVE NW 19TH ST NW21ST ST NW39TH AVE NW 24TH AVE NW 35TH AVE NW 31ST ST NW37TH AVE NW 20TH AVE NW 29TH ST NW7TH AVE SW 1ST AVE SW 18TH AVE NW 25TH ST NW22ND AVE NW 16TH AVE NW 44TH ST SW23RD ST NWS 9TH ST5TH AVE SW LELY RESORT BLVD14TH AVE NW 27TH ST NW12TH AVE NW 5TH AVE NW 3RD AVE SW 10TH AVE NW 3RD AVE NW 1ST AVE NW 15TH AVE SW 13TH AVE SW 11TH AVE SW 17TH AVE SW 25TH AVE SW 21ST AVE SW 29TH AVE SW 31ST AVE SW 19TH AVE SW 27TH AVE SW 23RD AVE SW WOLFE RD SUNSHINE BLVD46TH ST NE44TH ST NE42ND ST NEMULBERRY LNTOWER RD STOCKADE R D SORRENTO LN50TH TER SWSU N S E T R DHUNTER BLVDNAPLES HERITAGE DRSILVER LAKES B L V D CAMPANILE CIR AVIAMAR CI RDOGLEG DR46TH ST SW25TH AVE NE UPOLO LN NAVASSA LNPALM DR 12TH AVE NE 29TH AVE NE 31ST AVE NE 22ND AVE NE 2ND AVE NE 14TH AVE NE 33RD AVE NE 39TH AVE NE 24TH AVE NEDESOTO BLVD N2ND ST NE2ND AVE SE 24TH AVE SE 66TH AVE NE 18TH ST NE11TH ST SW20TH AVE NE 6TH AVE NE 15TH ST SW64TH AVE NE 9TH ST SW41ST AVE NE DESOTO BLVD S38TH AVE SE 18TH AVE NE 35TH AVE NE 22ND AVE NE8TH ST NE21ST ST SW5TH AVE SW 5TH AVE NW 14TH ST NE4TH ST NE45TH AVE NE 27TH AVE NE 18TH AVE SE19TH ST SW10TH AVE NE 7TH AVE SW 3RD AVE NW 34TH AVE SE 20TH AVE SE 14TH AVE NE 24TH AVE NE 20TH AVE NE 3RD AVE SW 12TH AVE SE12TH ST NE22ND AVE SE 28TH AVE SE40TH ST NE36TH AVE SE20TH ST NE40TH AVE SE 15TH AVE SW 10TH ST NE12TH AVE NE 13TH AVE SW 4TH AVE SE 26TH AVE SE17TH ST SW22ND ST NE32ND AVE SE 11TH AVE SW 16TH AVE SE 4TH AVE NE 30TH AVE SE 14TH AVE SE 16TH AVE NE 37TH AVE NE 16TH ST NE6TH AVE SE 8TH AVE NE CR 858 10TH AVE NE 10TH AVE SE 22ND AVE NE 8TH AVE SE23RD ST SW45TH AVE NE 1ST AVE NW 10TH AVE NE 24TH AVE NE Í 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG. AICPGROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LEECOUNTY §¨¦75 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 !(951 £¤41 !(951 !(951 £¤41 EXHIBIT B - RECEIVING AREA (SEPTEMBER, 2015) Receiving Area Total Acres: Approx. 27,246 Acres# of Total Parcels: 3,675Receiving Area Vacant Parcels Acres: Approx. 14,937 Acres# of Vacant Parcels: 666 Legend Vacant Parcels(PAO Land Use Code: 0, 10, 40,47,50-69, 70, 92,95,97 & 99) Rural Fringe Boundary Receiving Area Appendix A Page 86 of 91 MASSEY STEVERGLADES BLVDCR 858LIVINGSTON RD NGOLDEN GATE BLVD WGREEN BLVDGOLDEN GATE PKYVANDERBILT BEACH RDPINE RIDGE RD EXTGOODLETTE RD N LIVINGSTON RD STAMIAMI TRL NCOLLIER BLVDIMMOKALEE RDPINE RIDGE RDOLD US 41GOODLETTE RD SSEAGATE DR85%$16(59,&(60$3&2//,(5&2817<)/25,'$0F&ROOXP3DUFHOV010,000 20,000 30,0005,000Feet±%RQLWD*UDQGH'U6XLWH%RQLWD6SULQJV)ORULGD3  )  ZZZZDOGURSHQJLQHHULQJFRP5 Miles4 Miles3 Miles2 Miles1 Mile#*1#*1#*1#*2#*4#*2#*3#*1#*2#*1#*2#*3#*4#*5#*6#*2#*1*UHDWHU1DSOHV6WDWLRQ#*Parks#*10D[$+DVVH-U3DUN*29LQH\DUGV3DUN*15RXWH%XV6WRSSchools%LJ&\SUHVVElementary School2DNULGJH0LGGOHSchool*XOI&RDVW+LJKSchool/DXUHO2DNElementary School9LQH\DUGV Elementary School*ROGHQ7HUUDFH Elementary School#*LegendFire Stations/EMS#*1*UHDWHU1DSOHVStation ##*21RUWK&ROOLHU6WDWLRQ*UHDWHU1DSOHV6WDWLRQ*1/LEUDULHV#*1(VWDWHV/LEUDU\##*2*ROGHQ*DWH3XEOLF/LEUDU\Bus Routes******&ROOLHU&RXQW\6KHUULII&ROOLHU&RXQW\6KHUULII#6KHULII6WDWLRQV#*1§¨§¨EXHIBIT C - URBAN SERVICES & INFRASTRUCTURE Appendix A Page 87 of 91 City Of Marco Island City Of Naples City Of EvergladesSR 29INTERSTATE 75 IMMOKALEE RD OIL WELL RD COLLIER BLVDTAMIAMI TRL E CR 846 SR 82 LIVINGSTON RDTAMIAMI TRL NSR 29 NSAN MARCO RDDAVIS BLVDGOODLETTE RD NPINE RIDGE RD EVERGLADES BLVD NRADIO RD DESOTO BLVD SLOGAN BLVD NSANTA BARBARA BLVDDESOTO BLVD NVANDERBILT BEACH RD GOLDEN GATE BLVD EVANDERBILT DRAIRPORT PULLING RD NEVERGLADES BLVD SCORKSCREW RD GOLDEN GATE BLVD W CO P E L A N D A V E S9TH ST NWILSON BLVD NS 1ST STB A L D E AG L E D R N B A R F I E L D D R N 15TH STOLD US 41S BARFIELD DRS COLL IER BLVD BONITA BEACH RD 111TH AVE N AIRPORT PULLING RD SNE W M A R K E T R D W VANDERBILT BEACH RD EXT º EXHIBIT D - COLLIER COUNTY EXISTING LAND INVENTORIES 0 4.5 92.25 Miles GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG. AICPGROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTREVISED DATE: AUGUST 25, 2016 Big CypressNational Preserve Florida PantherNational Wildlife Preserve Fakahatchee StrandPreserve StateParkPicayune StrandState Forest Ten ThousandIslands NationalWildlife Refuge Everglades National Park Rookery BayNational EstuarineResearch Reserve CREW Okaloacoochee SloughState Forest CollierSeminoleState Park Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park Barefoot BeachPreserve CorkscrewRegionalEcosystemWatershed RFMUD Sending Lands SSA 11 SSA 16 SSA 3 SSA 4 SSA 5 SSA 2 SSA 1 SSA 9 SSA 10 SSA 12 SSA 6 SSA 15 SSA 15 Clam Bay NRPA (Disclaimer: The information provided is to be used for general mapping purposes only. Ground surveying and records search must be used for absolute boundaries/acreages) §¨¦75 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 £¤41 £¤41 £¤41 £¤41 CREW LakeTraffordImpoundment LakeTrafford SSA 7 SSA 13 SSA 14 Corkscrew SwampSanctuary AVE MARIA SRA Revised 08-25-16 Stewardship Areas: 500 Foot Restoration Area Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) Water Retention Area (WRA) Ave Maria SRA Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA) RLSA Program Area Conservation Collier State, Federal or County Conservation Conservation Easement SSA RFMUD Sending Lands ACSC PUD Plats/Subdivisons Estates Other Developed Area(Non-platted golf courses, FPL, government, schools, churches, etc.) RFMUD Boundary City Limits Immokalee urban Area GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Appendix A Page 88 of 91 VANDERBILT BEACH ROADCR-951PROPERTY BOUNDARY B:\Projects\542-01 McCollum Parcels\Drawings-Exhibits\542-01-E06 - Project Aerial\Current Plans\54201E0601.dwg11/1/2016 9:35:42 AMWALDROP ENGINEERING PREPARED FOR: McCOLLUM PARCEL CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS UPDATED: FILE NAME: FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #8636 28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.com PROJECT AERIAL 2016/11/01 54201E0601 0 SCALE IN FEET 200 400 800 EXHIBIT E - AERIAL LOCATION MAP Appendix A Page 89 of 91 VANDERBILT BEACH RD DOUGLAS STREETCOLLIER COUNTY FUTURE ROW RESERVATION NATIVE PRESERVATION AREA MASSEY ST ROW TAKING LAKE OWNER RETAINED PROPERTY AMENITY TRACT NATIVE PRESERVATION AREA LEGEND LAKE OWNER RETAINED PROPERTY LAKEMASSEY STREETR.O.W. RESERVATION OR TAKING R R R R RR R R PERIMETER BUFFER SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (83 DU) 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 200WALDROPENGINEERINGCIVIL ENGINEERING &LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTSSET NUMBER: SHEET : XXX-XX-XX28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.com1 B:\Projects\542-01 McCollum Parcels\Drawings-Exhibits\542-01-E07 - CC White Paper Exhibit\Current Plans\54201E0703.dwg12/8/2016 9:33:05 AMMcCOLLUM (≈51 AC)NEAL COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, LLC.CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANFLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #8636PLAN REVISIONSREV00 <<SUBMITTED / BID SET>> XX/XX/XXEXHIBIT F - SINGLE FAMILY CONCEPT PLAN Appendix A Page 90 of 91 VANDERBILT BEACH RD DOUGLAS STREETCOLLIER COUNTY FUTURE ROW RESERVATION NATIVE PRESERVATION AREA MASSEY ST ROW TAKING LAKE OWNER RETAINED PROPERTY AMENITY TRACT NATIVE PRESERVATION AREA LEGEND LAKE OWNER RETAINED PROPERTY LAKEMASSEY STREETR.O.W. RESERVATION OR TAKING RR R R RR R R PERIMETER BUFFER SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (166 DU) 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 200WALDROPENGINEERINGCIVIL ENGINEERING &LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTSSET NUMBER: SHEET : XXX-XX-XX28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.com1 B:\Projects\542-01 McCollum Parcels\Drawings-Exhibits\542-01-E07 - CC White Paper Exhibit\Current Plans\54201E0702.dwg12/8/2016 9:33:27 AMMcCOLLUM (≈51 AC)NEAL COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, LLC.CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANFLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #8636PLAN REVISIONSREV00 <<SUBMITTED / BID SET>> XX/XX/XXEXHIBIT G - TWIN VILLA/ATTACHED VILLA CONCEPT PLAN Appendix A Page 91 of 91 Appendix B Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy North Belle Meade Mitigation Feasibility Study Appendix B Page 1 of 59 Project No. 16CCG2467 NORTH BELLE MEADE MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY July 2016 Prepared For: Collier County Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 (239) 252-7268 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 Appendix B Page 2 of 59 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An analysis of the potential mitigation values versus costs of utilizing the North Belle Meade for wetland and species mitigation was performed. In the absence of sufficiently detailed data regarding site-specific characteristics (hydrologic conditions, levels and locations of infestations by exotic vegetation, and wetland versus upland acreages) for most of the 1,133 individual parcels comprising the North Belle Meade, this analysis was based on generalized land characteristics. The numerical analysis of the value of potential wetland credits, potential values of uplands for species mitigation (habitat compensation), and the costs associated with the generation of these values were calculated for several hypothetical situations with various combinations of the results presented in graphic form. Without a significant effort to improve the existing hydrologic conditions for more than small areas, analysis data indicates that a particular type of wetland mitigation program known as a single-user Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area (ROMA)/In -Lieu Fee (ILF) provides the most positive cost-benefit ratio. Sufficient wetland credit and habitat compensation demand to warrant consideration of the ROMA/ILF concept is found in Collier County’s 2040 Needs Assessment for future road projects where the projected money needed for wetland mitigation and panther habitat units for Cost-Feasible Roads is $11,058,000 and $6,932,000, respectively. The actual cost to Collier County of the projected transportation-related mitigation/compensation needs could be significantly lower on a per unit basis by using a ROMA/ILF project to generate all or a portion of the needed credits and habitat compensation. Additionally, the funds spent internally purchasing the mitigation/compensation could be used to expand and operate the ROMA/ILF program. A Collier County single-user ROMA/ILF project within the North Belle Meade appears to be a cost-feasible generator of wetland mitigation credits and panther habitat compensation if the ROMA/ILF is of sufficient size and properly located to assure long-term support for the Florida panther. This initial feasibility study concludes that a ROMA/ILF program is potentially feasible and cost-effective, based on broad characterizations of North Belle Meade and a range of reasonable assumptions. To further refine the analysis results and increase the level of certainty regarding the feasibility of portions of North Belle Meade to serve as cost-effective mitigation, further steps are recommended. A more site-specific mitigation evaluation tool, based on the methodology used in this analysis, is currently being developed to allow for efficient evaluations of specific areas within North Belle Meade. This site-specific evaluation tool will allow the input of data gained from limited site reconnaissance of particular parcels or areas to generate site- specific data regarding potential mitigation values and associated costs. The results of this type of analysis, based on more site-specific data, will result in a higher degree of accuracy and allow Appendix B Page 3 of 59 ii for a higher degree of certainty regarding the potential for a specific area or areas to serve as feasible mitigation value generators. Appendix B Page 4 of 59 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 2.0 Analysis Purpose/Goal ......................................................................................................1 3.0 Analysis Constraints .........................................................................................................1 4.0 Overview of Wetland Mitigation Programs ......................................................................2 4.1 Permittee Responsible Mitigation .........................................................................3 4.2 Wetland Mitigation Banking.................................................................................3 4.3 Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area .......................................................................4 4.4 In-Lieu Fee ............................................................................................................4 5.0 Habitat Conservation Banks .............................................................................................4 6.0 Regulatory Agencies .........................................................................................................5 6.1 FDEP/SFWMD .....................................................................................................5 6.2 COE.......................................................................................................................5 6.3 USFWS .................................................................................................................5 7.0 Mitigation Programs – Applicability to North Belle Meade ............................................6 7.1 PRM ......................................................................................................................6 7.2 Wetland Mitigation Bank ......................................................................................6 7.3 ROMA/ILF ...........................................................................................................6 7.4 Habitat Conservation Bank ...................................................................................7 8.0 Mitigation Analysis Framework .......................................................................................7 9.0 Mitigation Numerical Analysis and Results ...................................................................10 9.1 Wetland Credit Generation .................................................................................10 9.2 Upland Credit Habitat (Compensation) Generation ...........................................13 Appendix B Page 5 of 59 iv Table of Contents (Continued) Page 10.0 Mitigation Values............................................................................................................13 11.0 Credit Generation Costs ..................................................................................................14 11.1 Cost Assumptions ...............................................................................................14 11.1.1 Land Costs ..............................................................................................14 11.1.2 Implementation Time Period ..................................................................15 11.1.3 Initial Exotic Treatment Eradication .......................................................15 11.1.4 Treatment Costs ......................................................................................15 11.1.5 Funding of Perpetual Maintenance .........................................................15 11.1.6 Prescribed Burning..................................................................................15 11.1.7 Program Administrative Cost .................................................................16 11.2 Implementation Costs .........................................................................................16 11.3 Total Credit Generation Costs ............................................................................16 12.0 Mitigation Value and Costs Comparisons ......................................................................17 13.0 Discussion of Numerical Analysis Results .....................................................................20 13.1 Areas of Hydrologic Enhancement, Exotic Eradication, and Land Management ..............................................................................................20 13.2 Areas with Exotic Eradication and Land Management ......................................20 13.3 ROMA/ILF .........................................................................................................21 14.0 ROMA/ILF Program Considerations ..............................................................................22 15.0 Permit Process .................................................................................................................25 16.0 Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................26 17.0 Recommended Next Steps – Assuming ROMA/ILF Option ..........................................26 Appendix B Page 6 of 59 v LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Exotic Infestation Scenarios .........................................................................10 Appendix B Page 7 of 59 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Wetland Credits without Hydrologic Enhancement ....................................... 12 Figure 2. Wetland Credits with Hydrologic Enhancement ............................................ 12 Figure 3. Mitigation Value without Hydrological Enhancement ................................... 13 Figure 4. Mitigation Value with Hydrological Enhancement ........................................ 14 Figure Series 5. Mitigation Value versus Cost.......................................................................... 17 Figure Series 6. Wetland Value Only versus Cost .................................................................... 19 Figure Series 7. (Combined) Mitigation Value versus Cost .................................................... 23 Appendix B Page 8 of 59 vii LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. UMAM Worksheets .................................................................................... E1-1 Exhibit 2. Mitigation Value Tables ............................................................................. E2-1 Exhibit 3. Implementation Costs ................................................................................. E3-1 Exhibit 4. Credit Generation Cost Tables .................................................................... E4-1 Appendix B Page 9 of 59 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Under Collier County Contract No. 15-6397/Purchase Order No. 4500167795, Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) has been requested to perform an analysis of the North Belle Meade – Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) for the potential to generate wetland credits and/or wildlife habitat compensation units. The project includes the areas designated as the North Belle Meade West area at approximately 3,100 acres in size and the North Belle Meade NRPA area at approximately 6,500 acres in size. The overall North Belle Meade is comprised of a variety of upland and wetland habitat types. While much of the area is relatively undeveloped, areas of agriculture, pasture, residential, and other land uses exist within the overall North Belle Meade boundary and in the Belle Meade West area in particular. Portions of the North Belle Meade are known to be used by red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), and other species under the protection of state and/or federal laws. The long-term use and value of lands within the North Belle Meade for listed wildlife species is highly dependent on future development patterns and land conservation programs. A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program with areas eligible to send development rights from and areas eligible to receive additional development rights is currently in place for significant portions of the North Belle Meade. This TDR program awards sending unit credits for various limitations on land use with the greatest number of units awarded for removal of all development rights and habitat restoration with the restored lands placed under some form of governmental ownership. 2.0 ANALYSIS PURPOSE/GOAL The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the potential values of lands within the North Belle Meade for wetland mitigation and/or wildlife habitat compensation versus the costs associate with generating any wetland mitigation or habitat compensation values. The primary goal of this analysis is to provide useful information to decision-makers regarding the potential options for long-term management of conveyed or acquired lands within the North Belle Meade. 3.0 ANALYSIS CONSTRAINTS At a combined size of 9,600± acres with 1,133 distinct parcels, parcel-specific habitat evaluations within the North Belle Meade are not possible within the scope of this analysis. The primary available land cover/land use mapping and data sources are the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Of the two sources, the SFWMD Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) mapping provides more accurate and current mapping identifications of existing land uses and land cover. Both the NWI and the SFWMD mapping rely on photointerpretation of high level aerial photography. A limitation of this methodology is the limited ability to identify levels of Appendix B Page 10 of 59 2 infestation by exotic and invasive vegetation species unless the infestation is clearly visible at vegetation canopy height. Without more specific data regarding the extent, type, and locations of exotic vegetation infestation levels, this analysis must rely on hypothetical exotic infestation scenarios as explained in the Mitigation Analysis Framework section. Another constraint of NWI and FLUCFCS mapping is their limited ability to ascertain the hydrologic conditions on sites where the presence or absence of hydrology is not easily discernable from aerial photography. Many areas within North Belle Meade have been subject to hydrologic impacts, primarily from interruption of surface flows or drainage resulting from the Golden Gate canal system. The mapping of over-drained areas that register as wetland based on a mapping of canopy cover types may not accurately capture the fact the area no longer has sufficient hydrology to qualify as wetland. Because the available land use/land cover mapping may not accurately identify wetland versus upland areas, a range of possible upland versus wetland habitat percentages is used in this analysis as more fully explained in the Mitigation Analysis Framework section. 4.0 OVERVIEW OF WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAMS The concept of wetland mitigation is derived from existing state and federal regulatory programs that protect wetlands and replace lost wetland functions through the restoration, enhancement, and protection of existing wetlands or through the creation of new wetlands. Both the state and federal programs contain regulatory language regarding each type of mitigation programs. Wetland mitigation is primarily used to offset the loss of wetland functions resulting from the direct or indirect impacts of projects on state and/or federal jurisdictional wetlands. Elements common to current state and federal wetland mitigation programs include: 1) Goal of no net loss of wetland functions 2) Clearly defined ecological goals and mitigation plan 3) Use of an acceptable wetland functional assessment methodology to assess wetland functions lost by impacts and the replacement wetland functions gained through mitigation 4) The landscape context of any mitigation should be relevant to the wetlands impacted 5) Mitigation must have clearly defined and verifiable success criteria tied to wetland functionality 6) A conservation easement that limits land uses and activities inconsistent with wetland and habitat preservation goals 7) Financial assurances are required to assure mitigation plan implementation 8) Financial assurances are required to assure sufficient funding for perpetual mitigation site management and protection 9) Monitoring and reporting to regulatory agencies This analysis does not provide a detailed breakdown of each program but rather focuses on the key components of each program relative to the North Belle Meade (credit generation and constraining elements of each program). Appendix B Page 11 of 59 3 4.1 Permittee Responsible Mitigation The approach of Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) was once the main form of mitigation, where the applicant proposing a wetland impact would also propose project- specific mitigation to offset any wetland functional loss. The success of PRM was highly variable and PRM is now much less common than the use of mitigation banks or other large scale mitigation programs under both the state and federal wetland regulatory programs. Some parcels within the North Belle Meade have been used for PRM, but the PRM concept involves a case-by-case permitting decision and is not applicable to this analysis. 4.2 Wetland Mitigation Banking Wetland mitigation banking has gained widespread support throughout the country and is now the preferred form of mitigation for both the state and federal regulatory programs. To permit and operate a wetland mitigation bank, the bank site must be clearly defined under the ownership or control of the project sponsor. Wetland mitigation banks are typically large enough to benefit the environment on a landscape scale and are run as businesses with the wetland mitigation credits being the commodity to be sold on the open market. Following a detailed and thorough permitting process, wetland mitigation banks implement a mitigation plan and earn credits for various levels of implementation completion and for verifiable levels of ecological success. Wetland credits can be sold to offset wetland impacts from projects within a prescribed “service area,” typically a defined watershed of combination of watershed. Ideally, the wetland functional assessment methodology used to evaluate project impacts must be the same as the methodology used to assess the wetland functional gains at the wetland mitigation bank site. The State of Florida and the federal government each have their own mitigation banking requirements and regulations, which are similar in many ways. One primary difference is the application of the wetland functional assessment methodology, whereby Florida’s application tends to yield more credits than the federal application. For the purposes of this analysis, the more conservative number of credits likely to be generated under the federal mitigation banking program is used for credit generation calculations. Projects proposing impacts to wetlands in Southwest Florida typically require permit approval under both the state and federal regulatory programs and, therefore, require wetland credits acceptable under both the both state and federal regulatory programs. Local governments or state agencies can establish and operate a wetland mitigation bank. However, to maintain a level playing field with private commercial mitigation banking for credit pricing, government mitigation banking is required to use a “full cost accounting” methodology when calculating the cost of generating credits. Among other things, full cost accounting requires that the fair market value of land be included as a credit generation cost. The end concept and relevance of full cost accounting is explained in more detail later in this document. Appendix B Page 12 of 59 4 4.3 Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area Regional Off-Site Mitigation Area (ROMA) is a defined program under the state of Florida regulatory program for wetlands. The ROMA program is currently available to local governments and some qualified non-profit organizations. ROMA projects (typically referred to as “ROMAs”) have been initiated in several locations around Florida, with varying levels of ecological success. The concept of ROMAs was born out of the desire to consolidate the efforts and funds expended on minor, smaller, and/or disjointed mitigation projects into more cohesive and meaningful mitigation efforts with benefits on a landscape sale. ROMAs have been used to collect funds in a type of early credit sale basis with the defined goal of using the funds to purchase/acquire land and implement a mitigation plan. The sale of these early or “prospective” wetland credits has become an area of regulatory concern because some ROMA projects can take many years to actually implement any mitigation plan elements that produce actual “lift” to existing wetland functions. Credits generated by ROMAs may be sold on the open market, subject to full cost accounting of credit generation costs. 4.4 In-Lieu Fee The federal In-Lieu Fee (ILF) program is similar to Florida’s ROMA program with many of the same benefits and constraints. The ILF program allows for early credits, the collection of fees for land purchases and planned work, and does not always require that the entire proposed ILF area be under the ownership of the applicant. As in wetland mitigation banking, a permit separate and distinct from the state’s permit is required under the federal program. Both ROMA and ILF project areas can include land not yet under a single ownership or control. In addition, ROMAs and ILF projects may be composed of multiple, distinct, and even widely separated parcels, provided the various parcels share an ecological commonality in a landscape context. While both ROMA and ILF programs are primarily for wetland mitigation credit generation, upland areas may be included and their value to listed species can be accounted for within a ROMA/ILF using the same principles discussed under the Habitat Conservation Bank section below. 5.0 HABITAT CONSERVATION BANKS Habitat Conservation Banking involves the long-term management and preservation of existing wildlife habitats for the benefit of specific protected species. Unlike wetland mitigation, which is intended to replace wetland losses (no net loss of wetland function as its goal), habitat conservation is used to protect existing habitat values, where no such protection currently exists as compensation for direct or indirect habitat impacts elsewhere. The terms “compensation” and “habitat compensation” are used throughout this analysis to differentiate units and values derived Appendix B Page 13 of 59 5 from benefits to listed species habitat versus “mitigation” which is used for increases in wetland function. Habitat conservation banks typically provide species-specific compensation units that can be used to offset impacts to other habitat used by a given protected species. Habitat Conservation Banks can be used for more than one species when the bank site has appropriate habitat types and when the required land management and habitat goals of the different species are not in conflict. As with wetland mitigation banking, a habitat conservation bank has a defined service area, specific ecological goals, and requirements for financial assurances for implementation and long-term management. 6.0 REGULATORY AGENCIES For permitting of wetland impacts and associated mitigation requirements in Southwest Florida, the State’s wetlands protection program is administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the SFWMD, and the federal program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The program for permitting of habitat conservation banks is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 6.1 FDEP/SFWMD The FDEP typically permits wetland mitigation banks where a given state water management district has an operational role, financial interest, or other potential conflict. The FDEP solicits and considers input from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) regarding wildlife issues. The SFWMD typically permits all other wetland mitigation banks and also utilizes comments and input from the FWCC. ROMAs are typically reviewed by the FDEP with FWCC input. 6.2 COE Federal review of wetland mitigation or ILF applications involves multiple federal agencies with COE typically taking the role of lead agency. The assigned COE project manager leads a multi-agency team known as an Interagency Review Team (IRT). For a proposed wetland mitigation bank or ILF in the North Belle Meade, the primary IRT participants are most likely to be the COE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the USFWS. 6.3 USFWS Federal review of habitat compensation banks involves the USFWS with input from the FWCC. Appendix B Page 14 of 59 6 7.0 MITIGATION PROGRAMS - APPLICABILITY TO NORTH BELLE MEADE 7.1 PRM PRM is project and parcel-specific and not currently encourage by regulatory agencies. As such, a PRM project is not considered in this analysis. 7.2 Wetland Mitigation Bank The establishment of a wetland mitigation bank within the North Belle Meade is compared as an alternative within this analysis. Challenges inherent with wetland mitigation banking include the need for property ownership or control from the onset of permitting, and a well-defined time schedule for implementation and full success. 7.3 ROMA/ILF For the purposes of this analysis, ROMA and ILF project requirements are considered jointly with the most restrictive element of each program dictating for specific requirements or criteria. A ROMA/ILF project could only be proposed by Collier County or by a qualified non-profit entity for the North Belle Meade. A ROMA/ILF project appears to be a closer fit to the current conditions, opportunities, and constraints of using the North Belle Meade for possible wetland credit and habitat compensation units based on the following elements common to both programs. The proposed project area does not need to be in single ownership or control at the time of project permitting or at the time of initial implementation on areas or phases under permittee’s ownership or control. Early credit sales can be used to acquire land and/or fund implementation of mitigation plan/activities. Required time frames for mitigation implementation and project phases tend to be more flexible with ROMA/ILF projects than with wetland mitigation banking. Open Market ROMA/ILF wetland credits generated by a ROMA/ILF project could be permitted as available to be sold on the open market if the full cost accounting method for credit generation cost is used as the basis for the pricing of credits (explained in more detail in Numerical Analysis Section of this report). Single User ROMA/ILF- An alternative to an open market ROMA/ILF is the single-user ROMA/ILF project. This approach would identify Collier County as the user of the wetland mitigation credits and habitat compensation units from a ROMA/ILF sponsored and supported by Collier County. Under this approach, the hypothetical costs of generating the credits (the full cost accounting methodology) are not required as a basis for credit pricing. This analysis provides the costs to generate credits with and without land costs to differentiate between an open market ROMA/ILF (or wetland mitigation bank) and the single-user ROMA/ILF alternative. Appendix B Page 15 of 59 7 7.4 Habitat Conservation Bank The use of appropriate lands within the North Belle Meade for habitat compensation, as either a separate distinct habitat conservation bank or as a component of a ROMA/ILF project would add a valuable component to a ROMA/ILF project. The North Belle Meade is home to, or used by, a number of state and federally-listed wildlife species including the Florida panther, wood stork (Mycteria americana), and red- cockaded woodpeckers. For the purposes of this analysis, habitat compensation needs and habitat compensation units for the Florida panther are used to represent the potential value of uplands. A more detailed breakdown of other species compensation opportunities is possible but beyond the scope of this analysis. The use of panther as the driver of habitat compensation needs/values is reasonable given the prevalence of panther in the North Belle Meade and the prevalence of panther compensation needs throughout significant portions of Collier County. The permitting of habitat compensation banks for panthers falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the USFWS with concurrence from the FWCC. For lands to be acceptable as compensation they must typically be either reasonably contiguous with a large area of existing conservation lands or large enough to provide a significant percentage of an adult panther home range habitat needs; not located where proximate or regional impacts may occur that would diminish the lands functionality for, or availability, to panther; and able to be actively managed to enhance and protect habitat values important to panther in perpetuity. In the past, the USFWS has expressed reservations regarding the use of smaller and/or disjointed parcels in the North Belle Meade as for panther compensation. Also, concern exists over County road alternatives under consideration and the potential long-term land use patterns. The establishment of wetland mitigation bank or ROMA/ILF project area could potentially allay USFWS concerns. 8.0 MITIGATION ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK The following analysis is based on evaluating the potential value of wetland mitigation and upland habitat compensation versus the potential costs to generate those values for a given area. In this analysis, Wetland Mitigation Value is used as the number of wetland credits generated times the current market per-credit price. Similarly, Upland Mitigation Value is used in this analysis as the number of habitat compensation units generated times the current market price per unit. The concept of Combined Mitigation Value is used to represent the combined values of wetland credits generated (based on market value) plus the value of panther compensation units (based on market value). This can be equated as: Mitigation Value ($) = (# of credits x credit market price) + (# of panther compensation units x compensation unit market price) Appendix B Page 16 of 59 8 Wetland credits are primarily awarded for verifiable increases in wetland functionality and the long-term management and protection of wetlands. The increase in wetland functions is often referred to as “lift.” The primary drivers for ecological lift of wetlands in the North Belle Meade are will likely be the removal and ongoing control of exotic and nuisance vegetation plus the placement of lands into a single, cohesive program for long-term protection and management. Lands with exotic infestations levels too high to reasonably expect wetland revitalization following exotic removal will be cleared and subject to a wetland replanting program. The potential does exist for significant ecological lift if hydrological enhancements can be made to improve the duration and/or depth of water within the hydroperiod wetlands. Much of the North Belle Meade has experienced hydroperiod alterations/impacts from past surface flow and ground flow alterations. Meaningful hydrologic enhancements would involve large scale water routing alterations that would require significant studies and permitting. This analysis includes results for wetland benefits both with and without hydrological enhancements, not to show that hydrological enhancement are probable, but to show the benefits of hydrological enhancements relative to credit/value generation should they occur as coincidental to any large scale hydrology improvement projects in the North Belle Meade. The state’s methodology for assessing wetland functions and wetland functional lift directly credits uplands for wetland functional lift. The methodology accepted by the COE only does so indirectly, consequently the federal program typically assigns lower lift scores than the state for a given area when uplands are present. Because most wetland impacts in Southwest Florida require mitigation under both the state and federal regulatory programs, only wetland lift generated by wetland areas (credits acceptable to both the state and the COE) are considered in this analysis. Upland areas are valued in this analysis based on a key assumption that a given area will be determined to be acceptable for panther habitat compensation by the USFWS and the FWCC. Panther habitat compensation units are given as Panther Habitat Units (PHUs) and the number of PHU a given acre can provide is determined by a USFWS-approved methodology whereby habitat scores ranging from 1 to 10 are assigned based on habitat types (tied to preference of use by panther). For a given area, the total PHUs are the sum of each habitat’s score times the acreage of that habitat type. For the purposes of this analysis, a conservative PHU habitat score of 7 units per acre is assigned to each upland acre. Wetland acreages also provide PHUs in the USFWS methodology and wetland mitigation credits often carry a number of PHUs with them. However, because this analysis is evaluating the potential combined mitigation value of areas, the market price of wetland credits is assumed to include the imbedded PHU value associated with wetland credits. In other words, the value of PHUs from wetland areas is treated as covered in the wetland credit prices. The numbers of wetlands credits that can be generated in many areas within North Belle Meade, absent any hydrologic restoration, are primarily driven by the amount of exotic vegetation present. Currently, available mapping of land cover types in North Belle Meade (National Wetlands Inventory Mapping and SFWMD FLUCFCS mapping) do not including mapping of exotics or their levels of infestation. Without mapping of the location, extent, and relative levels of exotic infestations, an overall analysis of potential credit generation must rely on generalized characteristics of the area. Appendix B Page 17 of 59 9 Should a specific portion(s) or area(s) of the North Belle Meade be defined for mitigation use, site reconnaissance could be performed to estimate exotic levels, and a more detailed site- specific analysis of credit generation potential and credit generation costs could be performed. Absent a clearly defined discrete area(s) for evaluation, the following analysis utilizes four potential scenarios for levels of exotic vegetation typical for the North Belle Meade. Numerical and graphed results in this analysis are normalized to a hypothetical 100-acre parcel size to facilitate visualization and understanding. Fundamentally, the mitigation analysis framework can be given as: • Determination of potential wetland credits generated by wetlands (without hydrologic enhancement) on a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of potential wetland credits generated by wetlands (with hydrologic enhancement) on a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of potential wetland credit generation costs for a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of potential upland habitat (compensation) value for a hypothetical 100- acre parcel for varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of Combined Mitigation Value as the value of wetland credits plus the value of upland compensation for a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of the costs to generate the above, both with and without land costs. • Comparison of Cost of Mitigation Generation versus value of: Wetland Mitigation (without hydrologic enhancement) Wetland Mitigation (with hydrologic enhancement) Wetland Mitigation (without hydrologic enhancement) plus Upland Mitigation Wetland Mitigation (with hydrologic enhancement) plus Upland Mitigation 9.0 MITIGATION NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 9.1 Wetland Credit Generation As indicated in the Mitigation Analysis Framework section, four representative scenarios for exotic vegetation infestation levels are used to approximate a range of habitat conditions typical of the North Belle Meade. These same infestation level scenarios are Appendix B Page 18 of 59 10 used consistently throughout this analysis, including the analysis of costs. The four scenarios used are presented below in tabular form. Table 1. Exotic Infestation Scenarios* Scenario 1 - Generally low levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 80 Minor 0-25% (E1) 20 Moderate 25-50% (E2) 0 High 50-75% (E3) 0 Severe 75-100% (E4) 0 Total 100 Scenario 2 - Generally moderate levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 30 Minor 0-25% (E1) 30 Moderate 25-50% (E2) 20 High 50-75% (E3) 20 Severe 75-100% 0 Total 100 Scenario 3 - Generally moderate to high levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 20 Minor 0-25% (E1) 15 Moderate 25-50% (E2) 20 High 50-75% (E3) 35 Severe 75-100% (E4) 10 Total 100 Scenario 4 - Generally very high levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 0 Minor 0-25% (E1) 10 Moderate 25-50% (E2) 15 High 50-75% (E3) 35 Appendix B Page 19 of 59 11 Scenario 4 (Continued) Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Severe 75-100% (E4) 40 Total 100 *Note: Using a weighted average approach for each infestation scenario with E1 acreages weighted by 1, E2 acreages by 2, E3 acreages by 3, and E4 acreages by 4, and the resultant sum divided by 10 (1+2+3+4) yields a weighted average of 2, 13, 20, 30, indicating a reasonable distribution of infestation scenarios The wetland functional assessment methodology required by the state and primarily used for permitting through COE is the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM). For wetland credit calculations for each land cover type and in general terms, UMAM assigns scores on a per acre basis for existing conditions and for the proposed conditions should a proposed mitigation plan be implemented and successful. The difference between scoring of the existing conditions and the scoring of the with-mitigation conditions is calculated as the ecological lift (also called the “delta”). Factors for “Risk” (based on the likelihood the proposed wetland mitigation will ultimately succeed) and “Time Lag” (the anticipated time difference between when a wetland impact occurs and the associated mitigation reaches a high level of functionality) are selected and used to modify the lift number to arrive at the per acre credit number for that land cover type. To get the total wetland credits, each land cover type acreage is multiplied by the per-acre credit number for that land cover and the results are summed. For this analysis, where the primary credit generation is exotic eradication, the Risk and Time Lag factors are assumed to be negligible because the process of exotic eradication is known to be a successful tool and the ecological benefits begin immediately. The total number of wetland credits that a given area can generate is a function of the number of wetland acres within the area. For areas comprised of both uplands and wetlands, the total wetland credit number must be adjusted down based on the percentage of the area that is upland. For this analysis the following hypothetical upland/wetland ratios are used to provide a range of possible condition as the y-axis on graphs: • 10 Percent Upland/90 Percent Wetland • 25 Percent Upland/75 Percent Wetland • 50 Percent Upland/50 Percent Wetland • 75 Percent Upland/25 Percent Wetland • 90 Percent Upland/10 Percent Wetland Appendix B Page 20 of 59 12 The total number of credits a given area can generate is a function of the UMAM scoring tables for the four infestation level scenarios based on a hypothetical 100± acre parcel size is given in Exhibit 1. The results from the UMAM calculations (Exhibit 1) for the representative upland/wetland land percentages are presented below (Figures 1 and 2). Figure 1 - Wetlands Credits without Hydrologic Enhancement Figure 2 - Wetlands Credits with Hydrologic Enhancement 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 10 25 50 75 90Wetland Credits Wetland % of 100 Acres Wetland Credits w/out Hydro Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 10 25 50 75 90Wetland Credits Wetland % of 100 Acres Wetland Credits w/ Hydro Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Appendix B Page 21 of 59 13 9.2 Upland Credit Habitat (Compensation) Generation Upland credit generation is calculated as the acreage of uplands times an assumed average PHU score of 7 per acre. 10.0 MITIGATION VALUES In order to estimate mitigation values, the following assumptions were used for this analysis: • Wetland Credit Value (per market) = $75,000.00/credit • PHU value = $650.00/PHU • Average PHU Score per acre in North Belle Meade = 7+ • PHU values for wetland credit is already accounted for in wetland credit value • Combined Mitigation Value Equation: Combined Mitigation value = Wetland Mitigation Value + Upland Mitigation Value = (number of wetland credits x credit value) + (number of upland acres x 7 PHU/acre x value per PHU) = (number of wetland credits $75,000/credit) + (number of upland acres x $4,500/acre) Exhibit 2 contains the tabular applications of the Combined Mitigation Value equation with the assumed values for the infestation scenarios and representative percentages of wetlands versus uplands for a 100 acre parcel size. Graphing of the resultant data for the mitigation with and without hydrological enhancement is presented below as Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 - Mitigation Value without Hydrologic Enhancement $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % of 100 Acres Mitigation Value w/out Hydro Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Appendix B Page 22 of 59 14 Figure 4 - Mitigation Value with Hydrologic Enhancement 11.0 CREDIT GENERATION COSTS For the purpose of this analysis and to reduce the number of analytic variables, the costs of generating wetland credits and PHUs are combined as “Credit Generation Costs.” As such, except when denoted otherwise, the term “Credit Generation Cost” can be the considered as the cost to generate a given Mitigation Value. Under the Full Cost Accounting methodology required for mitigation banks selling credits on the open market, the following cost elements must be considered: • Land cost • Implementation costs which include: - Initial exotic treatments/eradication - Five years of ongoing treatment of regrowth - Replanting - Funding of perpetual management - Prescribed burning- where/when appropriate - Program administration cost 11.1 Cost Assumptions For the purpose of this analysis, the following cost assumptions are used. 11.1.1 Land Costs Although per-acre land prices vary within the North Belle Meade, for the purposes of this analysis, an assumed fair market value of $2,250/acre is used. $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % of 100 Acres Mitigation Value w/ Hydro Hydro Scenario 1 Hydro Scenario 2 Hydro Scenario 3 Hydro Scenario 4 Appendix B Page 23 of 59 15 11.1.2 Implementation Time Period The implementation time for mitigation activities is assumed to be five years (typical of most mitigation plans). This analysis uses this five year implementation period to calculate implementation costs for any given phase or discrete area, after which long-term maintenance and management will be funded from the perpetual management account. 11.1.3 Initial Exotic Treatment Eradication For initial exotic treatment, it is assumed that there will be reasonable access to areas requiring treatment, primary treatment methodology will be treat-in-place with minimal off-site removal of material, and treatment areas will be 50 acres or greater. 11.1.4 Treatment Costs For areas with less than 25 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $500 per acre. For areas of 25 to 50 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $1,000 per acre. For areas of 51 to 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $1,500 per acre. For areas of greater than 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $2,000 per acre. Ongoing nuisance/exotic treatments (5 Years) Minimum of 2 treatment events per year will occur for first 5 years. For areas with less than 25 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $25 per acre/year. For areas of 25 to 50 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $50 per acre/year. For areas of 51 to 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $75 per acre/year. For areas of greater than 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $125 per acre/year. Replanting - assume replanting of areas with initial exotic infestation levels at or greater than 75 percent at $3,500/acre. 11.1.5 Funding of Perpetual Maintenance Funding of perpetual maintenance will be $1,025 per acre. 11.1.6 Prescribed Burning $1,500 per 100 acres for initial burn. $600 per 100 acres for second/follow-up burn. Program Administration - assume 8 percent of implementation costs per year as is typically required through permitting process. Appendix B Page 24 of 59 16 11.1.7 Program Administrative Cost Typical administrative costs for ROMA or ILF programs run about 8 percent of implementation costs per year (including land costs) for the implementation period (five years). The actual program costs will be greatly affected by the actual implementation costs. The current environmental conditions in the North Belle Meade vary greatly. Of the various infestation level scenarios and upland/wetland habitat composition combinations given above, the conditions and resulting implementation number for Scenario 3 (moderate to high levels of infestation on Table Q2 (25 percent uplands and 75 percent wetlands) is chosen as a reasonable expectation of potential mitigation lands. The combined implementation cost for these parameters is shown as $244,863 per 100 acres. By rounding this number to $245,000 and adding in land cost of $225,000 per 100 acres then multiplying the sum by 0.08 yields the administrative cost as: ($245,000 + $225,000) x 0.08 = $37,600 Administrative Cost per 100 acres This cost is for an assumed 5-year implementation period. On a per-year basis, the cost would $37,600/5 = $7,520 per 100 acres 11.2 Implementation Costs The implementation costs in wetland areas, for the purpose of this analysis, are considered as the cost of initial treatment of exotic and nuisance vegetation species, five years of ongoing treatment of exotic/nuisance species, clearing and replanting of areas where exotic infestation levels meet or exceed 75 percent, prescribed burning, and funding of the long-term management fund. The costs for all except the funding element are highly dependent on the levels of exotic infestation and the relative percentages of upland versus wetlands for a given site or area. Any upland within a mitigation bank or ROMA/ILF grogram area must also be managed and maintained. The wetland implementation cost plus upland implementation cost are combined to give the combined implementation cost for each situation. The wetland implementation costs, upland implementation costs, and combined implementation costs for the four infestation scenarios under a range of potential upland/wetland ratio situations is found as Exhibit 3. 11.3 Total Credit Generation Costs The Total Credit Generation Costs can be generally described as: Land cost + Combined Implementation Costs + Administration Costs Using the combined implementation costs from the tables in Exhibit 3, and adding the Appendix B Page 25 of 59 17 assumed per 100 acre values for land cost ($225,000) and administration costs ($37,600) yields the total credit generation costs to compare against Mitigation Values for each infestation level scenario across a range up upland/wetland land composition ratios. The data for this numerical operation is provided as Exhibit 4. 12.0 MITIGATION VALUE AND COSTS COMPARISONS Graphically, the cost results from Exhibit 4 can be added to the results for Mitigation Value for each scenario as shown below. The label “hydro scenario” denotes the use of the wetland credit generation scoring used for the “with hydrologic enhancement” condition. The dashed red line indicates to total credit generation cost minus the assumed land value of $2,250/acre. Figure Series 5 - Mitigation Value versus Cost Infestation Scenario 1 - Low Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 2 - Moderate Levels of Exotic Infestation $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % Infestation Scenario 1 Mitigation Value vs Cost Scenario 1 Hydro Scenario 1 Cost (w/land cost) Costs (w/o land cost) $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % Infestation Scenario 2 Mitigation Value vs Cost Scenario 2 Hydro Scenario 2 Cost (w/land cost) Costs (w/o land cost) Appendix B Page 26 of 59 18 Infestation Scenario 3 - Moderate to High Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 4 - High Levels of Exotic Infestation The concept of combined Mitigation Value combines the value of wetland credits with the upland values for panther (or other species) habitat compensation. Should a proposed mitigation banking or ROMA/ILF project area not be approved for species compensation or if a sufficient market does not exist for habitat compensation, then the adjusted actual Mitigation Value would be the value of the wetland credits alone. Graphing of data for wetland credit values only and their associated cost yields the following: $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % Infestation Scenario 3 Mitigation Value vs Cost Scenario 3 Hydro Scenario 2 Cost (w/land cost) Costs (w/o land cost) $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % Infestation Scenario 4 Mitigation Value vs Cost Scenario 4 Hydro Scenario 2 Cost (w/land cost) Costs (w/o land cost) Appendix B Page 27 of 59 19 Figure Series 6 - Wetland Value Only versus Cost Infestation Scenario 1 - Low Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 2 - Moderate Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 3 - Moderate to High Levels of Exotic Infestation $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 10 25 50 75 90Credit Value Wetland % Infestation Scenario 1 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost Scenario 1- Wetland value only Hydro Scenario 1 Cost (w/land cost) Costs (w/o land cost) $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 10 25 50 75 90Credit Value Wetland % Infestation Scenario 2 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost Scenario 2- Wetland value only Hydro Scenario 2 Cost (w/land cost) $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 10 25 50 75 90Credit Value Wetland % Infestation Scenario 3 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost Scenario 3- Wetland value only Hydro Scenario 2 Cost (w/land cost) Costs (w/o land cost) Appendix B Page 28 of 59 20 Infestation Scenario 4 - High Levels of Exotic Infestation 13.0 DISCUSSION OF NUMERICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS With a goal of establishing a mitigation program within the North Belle Meade that is cost- neutral or cost-positive to the Collier County, the following information is reflected in the above results of the numerical analysis: 13.1 Areas of Hydrologic Enhancement, Exotic Eradication, and Land Management For areas where hydrologic enhancement will occur, the potential Mitigation Value is significantly higher than costs under all infestation scenarios and all upland versus wetland land composition combinations where at least ten percent of the site is wetland (Figure Series 5, all infestation scenarios). This is due to the more significant increase in wetland function than can be achieved by rehydration than by exotic eradication and land management alone. The projected costs for any hydrologic enhancement are assumed to be part of other drainage basin restoration initiatives and are, therefore, not reflected in the cost numbers. For the purposes of this analysis, and in particular to remain conservative regarding potential values, the balance of this discussion will focus on analysis data that does not include results from hydrologic enhancements. The benefits and value of any hydrologic enhancements, should they occur, would be additive to the Mitigation Values discusses below. 13.2 Areas with Exotic Eradication and Land Management For areas that would generate wetland functional increase through exotic vegetation eradication, replanting in certain high infestation areas, and land management only (no $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 10 25 50 75 90Credit Value Wetland % Infestation Scenario 4 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost Scenario 4- Wetland value only Hydro Scenario 2 Cost (w/land cost) Costs (w/o land cost) Appendix B Page 29 of 59 21 hydrologic restoration), the amount of wetland credit generation and, therefore, the overall Mitigation Value is significantly less. For areas of low and moderate infestation levels (Infestation Scenarios 1 and 2 – Figure Series 5 and 6) the overall mitigation value actually declines with increased percentage of wetlands on a given area, indicating the area has more value as wildlife compensation than wetland mitigation. For areas of moderate to high infestation levels (Scenario 3 – Figure Series 5), the overall Mitigation Value is relatively unchanged as a function of wetland percentage indicating such areas have about equal wetland Mitigation Value and upland compensation value. Only in Scenario 4 of Figure Series 5, where high levels of exotic infestation is represented, is the value of the land for wetland mitigation higher than it is upland habitat compensation. Under the open market concept (Wetland Mitigation Bank) where the full cost accounting approach is required to set credit prices on an open market, the cost sum that includes land cost (“Cost (with land cost)” line on Figure Series 5 and 6) would need to be applied. For minor, moderate, and even moderate to high levels of exotic infestation (Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 – Figure Series 5 and 6) mitigation lands that contained approximately 30 percent or more wetlands would have a negative net value (Mitigation Value minus Cost) when land cost is accounted for. 13.3 ROMA/ILF Unless hydrologic enhancements can be assured for a sufficiently large given area, the above results indicate a commercial wetland mitigation bank is not likely to yield a financially neutral or positive outcome. Under a single user approach (ROMA/ILF type program) where the land cost does not always need to be a consideration for credit pricing, the numerical analysis shows that a net positive number (for Mitigation Value minus cost) is theoretically possible across a broad range of infestation levels and upland/wetland composition levels. For projects proposed by Collier County (i.e., Collier County Transportation Department, Collier County Utilities Department, or Collier County Parks and Recreation Department) that include wetland impact and/or listed species habitat impacts requiring wetland mitigation and/or habitat compensation, the use of ROMA/ILF credits generated from a portion or portions of the North Belle Meade could represent a net cost savings to Collier County. The County’s current 2040 Long Range Transportation Program needs assessment for cost-feasible future roadway projects indicates an anticipated need for 180 wetland mitigation credits and 6,900 units of panther habitat compensation at projected costs of $11,058,000 and $6,932,000, respectively. Per-unit costs used in the Needs Assessment were $70,000 for wetland credits and $1,000 for panther compensation (PHUs). The actual cost to Collier County of the projected mitigation/compensation could be significantly lower on a per unit basis by using a ROMA/ILF project to generate the Appendix B Page 30 of 59 22 needed credits and habitat compensation. Additionally, the funds spent purchasing the mitigation/compensation could be used to expand and operate the ROMA/ILF program. The concept of establishing and operating a single-user ROMA/ILF project within a portion or portions of the North Belle Meade does appear to be financially feasible based on this analysis. 14.0 ROMA/ILF PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS Historically, ROMA and ILF projects have been permitted and operated with highly varying degrees of success. In a number of cases, monies have been collected under such a program with long delays, and even failure, in actual implementation of the mitigation plan measures. As a result, regulatory agencies have legitimate concerns about the mitigation plan implementation and timely success of proposed ecological benefits. A thorough and accurate tracking and accounting of dollars coming into and out of any ROMA/ILF will be important for a proposed ROMA/ILF project. The concept of a critical mass in terms of land area that can be reasonably - expected to become part of any proposed ROMA/ILF project will be an important consideration. The necessary minimum land area is typically decided with the regulatory agencies on a case-by-case basis. For an area such as North Belle Meade, the FDEP and the COE could conceivable ask for 500± or even 1,000± acres as a minimum project size. A significant advantage of the ROMA/ILF program is the total of the proposed project area does not need to be in the applicant/permittee’s ownership up-front. Ideally, an applicant would own some of the necessary land area and be able to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the balance of the necessary land areas to attain the critical mass can/will be attained in some manner, including the use of collected monies for land purchase. Within the North Belle Meade are a number of land parcels that have already been used for wetland mitigation and are, therefore, not available for further credit or upland compensation; however, the parcels could be counted towards the critical mass consideration. Also, land management of these parcels could possibly be accomplished by a ROMA/ILF project, under a separate agreement, with the projected funds typically spent by the entities responsible for each of the existing mitigation parcels going to the ROMA/ILF (or related entity) in exchange. Within the NRPA portion of North Belle Meade, lands that have not already been used for some form of mitigation and are available for full credit potential total over 2,000 acres. For mitigation banking projects, funding assurance is required for the implementation work (minus the funding of the perpetual management account) during the first five years of the project, or a phase/geographic area of the project. Such assurances take the form of performance bounding or a specialized insurance policy. Alternative assurance options may be available for county governments implementing a ROMA/ILF. Appendix B Page 31 of 59 23 Funding of the long-term management fund has been included in the implementation cost calculations in this analysis in order to conservatively simplify the analysis. Typically, long-term management accounts may be funded to a large degree from funds received from ongoing credit sales over time, rather than as an initial expense of mitigation implementation. While project or project phase implementation is typically a five year period, credit sales may occur over a longer than five year period. Funding of the long-term management account may be spread out over more than five years. The potential ecological benefits of conservation easements are a critical factor an all forms of wetland mitigation or habitat compensation programs. To the degree conservation easements can be shown to eliminate the potential for alternate, less environmentally beneficial land uses, the placement of conservation easements over project lands is valuable. The existence of the County TDR program and the associated limitation on development potential for lands in the TDR program will need to be addressed with the FDEP and the COE. The placement of significant areas of land into a ROMA/ILF program can be reasonably expected to make such lands acceptable to the USFWS and the FWCC for habitat compensation, subject to the landscape context of such lands for long-term panther use. The relative value of upland compensation to the overall (Combined) Mitigation Value is significant in this analysis. This can be demonstrated by graphing the value of wetlands and uplands and wetland mitigation only, versus costs for each scenario on a 1,000± acre hypothetical project size as shown on the Graph Series 7, below. Figure Series 7 – (Combined) Mitigation Value versus Cost Scenario 1 – Low Exotic Infestation Levels $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % … Scenario 1- Low Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost Scenario 1- Wetland and Upland Value Costs (w/o land cost) Scenario 1 -Wetland Value only Appendix B Page 32 of 59 24 Scenario 2 – Moderate Exotic Infestation Levels Scenario 3 – High Exotic Infestation Levels $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % For 1,000-Acre ROMA/ILF Area Scenario 2- Moderate Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost Scenario 2- Wetland and Upland Values Costs (w/o land cost) Scenario 2- Wetland Value only $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % … Scenario 3- High Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost Scenario 3- Wetland and Upland Values Costs (w/o land cost) Scenario 3- Wetland Value only Appendix B Page 33 of 59 25 Scenario 4 – High Exotic Infestation Levels If the use of project uplands for panther habitat compensation is not acceptable to the regulatory agencies, then this analysis suggests ROMA/ILF will only work for: • Areas of low exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 70± percent wetlands • Areas of moderate exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 55 percent wetlands • Areas of moderate to high exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 45 percent wetlands • Areas of high exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 60 percent wetlands 15.0 PERMIT PROCESS The typical process for the permitting of a wetland mitigation bank or ROMA/ILF project basically involves the following steps: 1. Site identification and ecological studies 2. Surveying and preliminary mitigation plan design 3. Pre-application meetings with the FDEP and the COE 4. Prospectus development and submittal 5. Site inspections by regulatory agencies 6. State and federal agencies do, or do not, deem the site and proposed project “appropriate” 7. State and federal application submittals 8. State and federal application reviews 9. Legal reviews 10. Permit issuance $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 10 25 50 75 90Mitigation Value Wetland % For 1,000-Acre ROMA/ILF Area Scenario 4- High Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost Scenario 4- Wetland and Upland Value Costs (w/o land cost) Scenario 4 Wetlands only Appendix B Page 34 of 59 26 From the time of site identification to permit issuance, the overall process can take two to four years. 16.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions are based on the assumption hydrological enhancement is not an available option. A Collier County single-user ROMA/ILF project within the North Belle Meade appears to be a cost-feasible generator of wetland mitigation credits and panther habitat compensation if the ROMA/ILF is of sufficient size and properly located to assure long-term support for the Florida panther. A Collier County single-user ROMA/ILF project within the North Belle Meade appears to be a cost-feasible generator of wetland credits for a site(s) if exotic infestation levels are relatively high and the percentage of wetlands on the site(s) is high. To further refine the analysis results and increase the level of certainty regarding the feasibility of portions of North Belle Meade to serve as cost-effective mitigation, further steps are recommended. A more site-specific mitigation evaluation tool, based on the methodology used in this analysis, is currently being developed to allow for efficient evaluations of specific areas within North Belle Meade. A selection of potential ROMA/ILF areas should be performed. Then limited site reconnaissance coupled with the use of existing aerials could yield more refined information regarding levels of exotic infestation and the extent of wetlands for each selected area. Information gained from such efforts should be input into the new analysis tool to gain more site-specific results. This site-specific evaluation will allow the input of data gained from limited site reconnaissance of particular parcels or areas to generate site-specific data regarding potential mitigation values and associated costs. The results of this type of analysis, based on more site-specific data, will result in a higher degree of accuracy and allow for a higher degree of certainty regarding the potential for a specific area or areas to serve as feasible mitigation value generators. 17.0 RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS - ASSUMING ROMA/ILF OPTION As indicated previously, this analysis relies on certain assumptions and anticipated regulatory agency positions regarding certain issues, including the use of North Belle Meade lands for panther compensation, the impacts of the County’s TDR program on potential credit generation, scoring of wetland functions, and possible alternatives for financial assurances. Discussions and/or meetings with the FDEP, the COE, and the USFWS with the overall North Belle Meade as the initial focus should occur to discuss and resolve issues related to the TDR program’s potential impact on wetland credit generation and the appropriateness of certain portions of North Belle Meade for panther compensation in a ROMA/ILF project. A clear Appendix B Page 35 of 59 27 understanding and agreement on these issues would significantly aid in the selection of appropriate lands for consideration for placement in a conceptual ROMA/ILF. Sites identified for potential inclusion in a ROMA/ILF conceptual plan could then be assessed on a more site-specific basis and the analysis tools developed by this analysis could be used to evaluate the potential value and costs for each site. Appendix B Page 36 of 59 EXHIBIT 1 UMAM WORKSHEETS Appendix B Page 37 of 59 E1-1 w/o with w/o with w/o with a Wetland - No Exotics 72.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 2.40 b Wetland-E1 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.60 c Wetland- E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00 d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00 e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00 Subtotal 90.00 3.00 a Wetland - No Exotics 60.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 2.00 b Wetland-E1 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.50 c Wetland-E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00 d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00 e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00 Subtotal 75.00 2.50 a Wetland - No Exotics 40.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 1.33 b Wetland- E1 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.33 c Wetland-E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00 d Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00 e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00 Subtotal 50.00 1.67 a Wetland - No Exotics 20.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.67 b Wetland- E1 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.17 c Wetland- E2 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00 d Wetland- E3 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00 e Wetland- E4 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00 Subtotal 25.00 0.83 a Wetland - No Exotics 8.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.27 b Wetland- E1 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.07 c Wetland- E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00 d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00 e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00 Subtotal 10.00 0.33 NORTH BELLE MEADEUMAM WORKSHEETS WETLAND MITIGATION FUNCTIONAL SCORING July 2016 PhaseUMAM Acres FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic LevelPolygon No. UMAM WORKSHEET 1 of 2 WETLAND CREDIT GENERATION PER 100 ACRES (WITHOUT HYDROLOGIC LIFT and WITHOUT UPLAND CREDIT GENERATION) SCENARIO 1 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands SCENARIO 1 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands SCENARIO 1 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands Risk Pres. Fact RFG CreditsHydrologyCommunityLocation SCENARIO 1 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands SCENARIO 1 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands Existing w/out UMAM Proposed w/ UMAM Delta T-factor Appendix B Page 38 of 59 E1-2 w/o with w/o with w/o with a Wetland - No Exotics 27.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.90 b Wetland-E1 27.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.90 c Wetland- E2 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.20 d Wetland- E3 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.20 e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00 Subtotal 90.00 4.20 a Wetland - No Exotics 22.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.75 b Wetland-E1 22.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.75 c Wetland-E2 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.00 d Wetland- E3 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.00 e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 55 5 6 8 2.300 0.733 -1.567 1.00 1.00 N/A -1.567 0.00 Subtotal 75.00 3.50 a Wetland - No Exotics 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.50 b Wetland- E1 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.50 c Wetland-E2 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.67 d Wetland- E4 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.67 e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00 Subtotal 50.00 2.33 a Wetland - No Exotics 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.25 b Wetland- E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.25 c Wetland- E2 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.33 d Wetland- E3 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.33 e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.00 Subtotal 25.00 1.17 a Wetland - No Exotics 3.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.10 b Wetland- E1 3.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.10 c Wetland- E2 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.13 d Wetland- E3 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.13 e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00 Subtotal 6.00 0.47 UMAM Worksheet 1 of 2 (Continued) Polygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic Level UMAM Acres Phase Existing w/out UMAM Proposed w/ UMAM SCENARIO 2 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands SCENARIO 2 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands SCENARIO 2 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands SCENARIO 2 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands SCENARIO 2 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands Location Hydrology Community Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits Appendix B Page 39 of 59 E1-3 w/o with w/o with w/o with a Wetland - No Exotics 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.60 b Wetland-E1 13.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.45 c Wetland- E2 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.20 d Wetland- E3 31.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 2.10 e Wetland-E4 9.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.90 Subtotal 90.00 5.25 a Wetland - No Exotics 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.50 b Wetland-E1 11.25 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.38 c Wetland-E2 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.00 d Wetland- E3 26.25 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.75 e Wetland-E4 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.50 Subtotal 75.00 4.13 a Wetland - No Exotics 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.33 b Wetland- E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.25 c Wetland-E2 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.67 d Wetland- E4 17.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.17 e Wetland- E4 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.50 Subtotal 50.00 2.92 a Wetland - No Exotics 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.17 b Wetland- E1 3.75 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.13 c Wetland- E2 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.33 d Wetland- E3 8.75 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.58 e Wetland- E4 2.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.25 Subtotal 25.00 1.46 a Wetland - No Exotics 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.07 b Wetland- E1 1.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.05 c Wetland- E2 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.13 d Wetland- E3 3.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.23 e Wetland- E4 1.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.10 Subtotal 3.50 0.58 UMAM Worksheet 1 of 2 (Continued) SCENARIO 3 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands SCENARIO 3 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands SCENARIO 3 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands SCENARIO 3 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands SCENARIO 3 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands Location Hydrology CommunityPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic Level UMAM Acres Phase Existing w/out UMAM Proposed w/ UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits Appendix B Page 40 of 59 E1-4 w/o with w/o with w/o with a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00 b Wetland-E1 9.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.30 c Wetland- E2 13.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.90 d Wetland- E3 31.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 2.10 e Wetland-E4 36.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 3.60 Subtotal 90.00 6.90 a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00 b Wetland-E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.25 c Wetland-E2 11.25 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.75 d Wetland- E3 26.25 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.75 e Wetland-E4 30.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 3.00 Subtotal 75.00 5.75 a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00 b Wetland- E1 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.17 c Wetland-E2 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.50 d Wetland- E4 17.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 1.17 e Wetland- E4 20.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 2.00 Subtotal 50.00 3.83 a Wetland- No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00 b Wetland- E1 2.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.08 c Wetland- E2 3.75 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.25 d Wetland- E3 8.75 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.58 e Wetland- E4 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 1.00 Subtotal 25.00 1.92 a Wetland- No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.00 b Wetland- E1 1.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 8 8 0.700 0.733 0.033 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.033 0.03 c Wetland- E2 1.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.10 d Wetland- E3 3.50 N/A 8 9 5 5 7 8 0.667 0.733 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.23 e Wetland- E4 4.00 N/A 8 9 5 5 6 8 0.633 0.733 0.100 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.100 0.40 Subtotal 1.00 0.77 Note: Scenarios 1,2,3, and 4 represent succesive increasing levels of infestation by exotic vegetation UMAM - Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology UMAM Worksheet 1 of 2 (Continued) SCENARIO 4 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands SCENARIO 4 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands SCENARIO 4 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands SCENARIO 4 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands SCENARIO 4 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands Location Hydrology CommunityPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic Level UMAM Acres Phase Existing w/out UMAM Proposed w/ UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits Appendix B Page 41 of 59 E1-5 w/o with w/o with w/o with a Wetland - No Exotics 72.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 12.00 b Wetland-E1 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 3.00 c Wetland- E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00 d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00 e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00 Subtotal 90.00 15.00 a Wetland - No Exotics 60.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 10.00 b Wetland-E1 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 2.50 c Wetland-E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00 d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00 e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00 Subtotal 75.00 12.50 a Wetland - No Exotics 40.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 6.67 b Wetland- E1 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.67 c Wetland-E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00 d Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00 e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00 Subtotal 50.00 8.33 a Wetland - No Exotics 20.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 3.33 b Wetland- E1 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.83 c Wetland- E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00 d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00 e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00 Subtotal 25.00 4.17 a Wetland - No Exotics 8.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.33 b Wetland- E1 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.33 c Wetland- E2 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00 d Wetland- E3 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.00 e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00 Subtotal 10.00 1.67 HYDRO SCENARIO* 1 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 1 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 1 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 1 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 1 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands Location Hydrology Community Existing w/out UMAM Proposed w/ UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG CreditsPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic Level UMAM Acres Phase NORTH BELLE MEADE UMAM WORKSHEET 2 of 2 WETLAND CREDIT GENERATION PER 100 ACRES (WITH HYDROLOGIC LIFT and WITHOUT UPLAND CREDIT GENERATION) Appendix B Page 42 of 59 E1-6 w/o with w/o with w/o with a Wetland - No Exotics 27.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 4.50 b Wetland-E1 27.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 4.50 c Wetland- E2 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.60 d Wetland- E3 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.60 e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00 Subtotal 90.00 16.20 a Wetland - No Exotics 22.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 3.75 b Wetland-E1 22.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 3.75 c Wetland-E2 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.00 d Wetland- E3 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.00 e Wetland-E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00 Subtotal 75.00 13.50 a Wetland - No Exotics 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 2.50 b Wetland- E1 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 2.50 c Wetland-E2 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 2.00 d Wetland- E4 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 2.00 e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00 Subtotal 50.00 9.00 a Wetland - No Exotics 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.25 b Wetland- E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.25 c Wetland- E2 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.00 d Wetland- E3 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.00 e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00 Subtotal 25.00 4.50 a Wetland - No Exotics 3.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.50 b Wetland- E1 3.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.50 c Wetland- E2 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.40 d Wetland- E3 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.40 e Wetland- E4 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.00 Subtotal 6.00 1.80 UMAM Worksheet 2 of 2 (Continued) HYDRO SCENARIO* 2 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 2 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 2 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 2 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 2 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands Location Hydrology CommunityPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic Level UMAM Acres Phase Existing w/out UMAM Proposed w/ UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits Appendix B Page 43 of 59 E1-7 w/o with w/o with w/o with a Wetland - No Exotics 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 3.00 b Wetland-E1 13.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 2.25 c Wetland- E2 18.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.60 d Wetland- E3 31.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 6.30 e Wetland-E4 9.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 2.10 Subtotal 90.00 17.25 a Wetland - No Exotics 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 2.50 b Wetland-E1 11.25 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.88 c Wetland-E2 15.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.00 d Wetland- E3 26.25 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 5.25 e Wetland-E4 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 1.75 Subtotal 75.00 14.38 a Wetland - No Exotics 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.67 b Wetland- E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.25 c Wetland-E2 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 2.00 d Wetland- E4 17.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.50 e Wetland- E4 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 1.17 Subtotal 50.00 9.58 a Wetland - No Exotics 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.83 b Wetland- E1 3.75 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.63 c Wetland- E2 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.00 d Wetland- E3 8.75 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.75 e Wetland- E4 2.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.58 Subtotal 25.00 4.79 a Wetland - No Exotics 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.33 b Wetland- E1 1.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.25 c Wetland- E2 2.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.40 d Wetland- E3 3.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.70 e Wetland- E4 1.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.23 Subtotal 3.50 1.92 UMAM Worksheet 2 of 2 (Continued) HYDRO SCENARIO* 3 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 3 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 3 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 3 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 3 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands Location Hydrology CommunityPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic Level UMAM Acres Phase Existing w/out UMAM Proposed w/ UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits Appendix B Page 44 of 59 E1-8 w/o with w/o with w/o with a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.00 b Wetland-E1 9.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.50 c Wetland- E2 13.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 2.70 d Wetland- E3 31.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 6.30 e Wetland-E4 36.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 8.40 Subtotal 90.00 18.90 a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.00 b Wetland-E1 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 1.25 c Wetland-E2 11.25 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 2.25 d Wetland- E3 26.25 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 5.25 e Wetland-E4 30.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 7.00 Subtotal 75.00 15.75 a Wetland - No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 8 8 8 9 0.800 0.867 0.067 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.067 0.00 b Wetland- E1 5.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.83 c Wetland-E2 7.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.50 d Wetland- E4 17.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 3.50 e Wetland- E4 20.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 4.67 Subtotal 50.00 10.50 a Wetland- No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.00 b Wetland- E1 2.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.42 c Wetland- E2 3.75 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.75 d Wetland- E3 8.75 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 1.75 e Wetland- E4 10.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 2.33 Subtotal 25.00 5.25 a Wetland- No Exotics 0.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.00 b Wetland- E1 1.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 8 9 0.700 0.867 0.167 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.167 0.17 c Wetland- E2 1.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.30 d Wetland- E3 3.50 N/A 8 9 5 8 7 9 0.667 0.867 0.200 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.200 0.70 e Wetland- E4 4.00 N/A 8 9 5 8 6 9 0.633 0.867 0.233 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.233 0.93 Subtotal 1.00 2.10 Note: Scenarios 1,2,3, and 4 represent succesive increasing levels of infestation by exotic vegetation *The label "Hydro Scenario" indicates the UMAM scoring includes functional lift for hydrological enhancements UMAM - Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology UMAM Worksheet 2 of 2 (Continued) HYDRO SCENARIO* 4 at 25% Wetlands/ 75% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 4 at 10% Wetlands/ 90% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 4 at 75% Wetlands/ 25% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 4 at 50% Wetlands/ 50% Uplands HYDRO SCENARIO* 4 at 90% Wetlands/ 10% Uplands Location Hydrology CommunityPolygon No.FLUCFCS TYPE - Exotic Level UMAM Acres Phase Existing w/out UMAM Proposed w/ UMAM Delta T-factor Risk Pres. Fact RFG Credits Appendix B Page 45 of 59 EXHIBIT 2 MITIGATION VALUE TABLES Appendix B Page 46 of 59 E2-1 NORTH BELLE MEADE MITIGATION VALUE TABLES Mitigation Value Tables without Hydrology Lift Scenario 1 A B C D E F G H Percentage of Wetlands (per 100 acres) Wetland Credits Generated Wetland Credit Unit Value ($/Credit) Wetland Credit Value Upland Acres PHU Value ($/per Upland Acre) Upland Value ($) Total Mitigation Value (per 100 acres) 10 0.33 75,000 $23,750 90 4,500 $405,000 $428,750 25 0.83 75,000 $62,250 75 4,500 $337,500 $399,750 50 1.67 75,000 $125,250 50 4,500 $225,000 $350,250 75 2.50 75,000 $187,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $300,000 90 3.00 75,000 $225,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $270,000 Scenario 2 A B C D E F G H Percentage of Wetlands (per 100 acres) Wetland Credits Generated Wetland Credit Unit Value ($/Credit) Wetland Credit Value Upland Acres PHU Value ($/per Upland Acre) Upland Value ($) Total Mitigation Value (per 100 acres) 10 0.47 75,000 $35,250 90 4,500 $405,000 $440,250 25 1.17 75,000 $87,750 75 4,500 $337,500 $425,250 50 2.33 75,000 $174,750 50 4,500 $225,000 $399,750 75 3.50 75,000 $262,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $375,000 90 4.20 75,000 $315,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $360,000 Scenario 3 A B C D E F G H Percentage of Wetlands (per 100 acres) Wetland Credits Generated Wetland Credit Unit Value ($/Credit) Wetland Credit Value Upland Acres PHU Value ($/per Upland Acre) Upland Value ($) Total Mitigation Value (per 100 acres) 10 0.58 75,000 $43,500 90 4,500 $405,000 $448,500 25 1.46 75,000 $109,500 75 4,500 $337,500 $447,000 50 2.92 75,000 $219,000 50 4,500 $225,000 $444,000 75 4.38 75,000 $328,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $441,000 90 5.25 75,000 $393,750 10 4,500 $45,000 $438,750 Appendix B Page 47 of 59 E2-2 Scenario 4 A B C D E F G H Percentage of Wetlands (per 100 acres) Wetland Credits Generated Wetland Credit Unit Value ($/Credit) Wetland Credit Value Upland Acres PHU Value ($/per Upland Acre) Upland Value ($) Total Mitigation Value (per 100 acres) 10 0.77 75,000 $57,750 90 4,500 $405,000 $462,750 25 1.92 75,000 $144,000 75 4,500 $337,500 $481,500 50 3.83 75,000 $287,250 50 4,500 $225,000 $512,250 75 5.75 75,000 $431,250 25 4,500 $112,500 $543,750 90 6.90 75,000 $517,500 10 4,500 $5,000 $562,250 Mitigation Value Tables with Hydrology Lift Hydro Scenario 1 A B C D E F G H Percentage of Wetlands (per 100 acres) Wetland Credits Generated Wetland Credit Unit Value ($/Credit) Wetland Credit Value Upland Acres PHU Value ($/per Upland Acre) Upland Value ($) Total Mitigation Value (per 100 acres) 10 1.67 75,000 $125,250 90 4,500 $405,000 $530,250 25 4.17 75,000 $312,750 75 4,500 $337,500 $650,250 50 8.33 75,000 $624,750 50 4,500 $225,000 $849,750 75 12.50 75,000 $937,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,050,000 90 15.00 75,000 $1,125,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,170,000 Hydro Scenario 2 A B C D E F G H Percentage of Wetlands (per 100 acres) Wetland Credits Generated Wetland Credit Unit Value ($/Credit) Wetland Credit Value Upland Acres PHU Value ($/per Upland Acre) Upland Value ($) Total Mitigation Value (per 100 acres) 10 1.80 75,000 $135,000 90 4,500 $405,000 $540,000 25 4.60 75,000 $345,000 75 4,500 $337,500 $682,500 50 9.00 75,000 $675,000 50 4,500 $225,000 $900,000 75 13.50 75,000 $1,012,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,125,500 90 16.20 75,000 $1,215,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,260,000 Appendix B Page 48 of 59 E2-3 Hydro Scenario 3 A B C D E F G H Percentage of Wetlands (per 100 acres) Wetland Credits Generated Wetland Credit Unit Value ($/Credit) Wetland Credit Value Upland Acres PHU Value ($/per Upland Acre) Upland Value ($) Total Mitigation Value (per 100 acres) 10 1.92 75,000 $144,000 90 4,500 $405,000 $549,000 25 4.79 75,000 $359,250 75 4,500 $337,500 $696,750 50 9.58 75,000 $718,500 50 4,500 $225,000 $943,500 75 14.38 75,000 $1,078,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,191,000 90 17.25 75,000 $1,293,750 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,338,750 Hydro Scenario 4 A B C D E F G H Percentage of Wetlands (per 100 acres) Wetland Credits Generated Wetland Credit Unit Value ($/Credit) Wetland Credit Value Upland Acres PHU Value ($/per Upland Acre) Upland Value ($) Total Mitigation Value (per 100 acres) 10 2.10 75,000 $157,500 90 4,500 $405,000 $562,500 25 5.25 75,000 $393,750 75 4,500 $337,500 $731,250 50 10.50 75,000 $787,500 50 4,500 $225,000 $1,012,500 75 15.75 75,000 $1,181,250 25 4,500 $112,500 $1,293,750 90 18.90 75,000 $1,417,500 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,462,500 Appendix B Page 49 of 59 EXHIBIT 3 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Appendix B Page 50 of 59 E3-1 NORTH BELLE MEADE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Implementation costs for wetland areas can be considered as the cost of the following for a 5- year period: Initial treatment/eradication of exotic and nuisance vegetation Five years of ongoing treatment of exotic and nuisance vegetation Replanting of areas with 75 percent or greater levels of exotic vegetation Prescribed burns where and when appropriate Funding of the long-term management fund For the purpose of this analysis, the need and/or cost for prescribed burning of wetland areas during the five year implementation period is assumed to be negligible relative to other costs. Implementation Cost for Wetland Areas by Infestation levels For areas with less than 25 percent (E1) exotic/nuisance infestation Initial treatment $500/acre Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $25) $125/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre Total $1,650/acre For areas with 25 to 50 percent (E2) exotic/nuisance infestation Initial treatment $1,000/acre Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $50) $250/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre Total $2,275/acre For areas with 51 to 75 percent (E3) exotic/nuisance infestation Initial treatment $1,500/acre Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $75) $375/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre Total $2,900/acre For areas with greater than 75 percent (E4) exotic/nuisance infestation Initial treatment $2,000/acre Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $125) $625/acre Replanting $3,500/acre Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre Total $7,150/acre Appendix B Page 51 of 59 E3-2 For areas with no exotic or nuisance vegetation present Initial treatment N/A Five years of ongoing treatment (5 x $125) $60/acre Replanting N/A Funding of perpetual management $1,025/acre Total $1,085/acre The above information is presented in tabular form below. Table E3-1. General per acre Implementation Costs Summary for Wetland Areas Infestation Level Implementation Cost Per Acre None $1,085 Minor (E1) $1,650 Moderate (E2) $2,275 High (E3) $2,900 Extreme (E4) $7,150 The actual implementation costs for any given area will greatly depend on the range of initial initial habitat values (primarily exotic/nuisance infestation levels). Use of the four infestation level scenarios described above to calculate the probable implementation costs for different degrees of exotic infestation yields to results shown in Table E3-2, below. Table E3-2. Implementation Costs by Scenarios (Per 100 Wetland Acres) Scenario 1- Low Infestation Levels Infestation Level Unit Cost per 100 Acres of Wetlands Percentage of Land with Infestation Level Implementation Cost None $108,500 80 $86,800 Minor (E1) $165,000 20 $33,000 Moderate (E2) $227,500 0 0 High (E3) $290,000 0 0 Extreme (E4) $715,000 0 0 Total $119,800 Scenario 2 – Mostly Low to Moderate Levels of Infestation Infestation Level Unit Cost per 100 Acres of Wetland Percentage of Land with Infestation Level Implementation Cost None $108,500 30 $32,550 Minor (E1) $165,000 30 $49,500 Appendix B Page 52 of 59 E3-3 Scenario 2 – Mostly Low to Moderate Levels of Infestation (Continued) Infestation Level Unit Cost per 100 Acres of Wetland Percentage of Land with Infestation Level Implementation Cost Moderate (E2) $227,500 20 $45,500 High (E3) $290,000 20 $58,000 Extreme (E4) $715,000 0 0 Total $185,550 Scenario 3 - Mostly Moderate to High Levels of Infestation Infestation Level Unit Cost per 100 Acres of Wetland Percentage of Land with Infestation Level Implementation Cost None $108,500 20 $21,700 Minor (E1) $165,000 15 $24,750 Moderate (E2) $227,500 20 $45,500 High (E3) $290,000 35 $101,500 Extreme (E4) $715,000 10 $71,500 Total $264,950 Scenario 4 - Mostly High Levels of Infestation Infestation Level Unit Cost per 100 Acres of Wetland Percentage of Land with Infestation Level Implementation Cost None $108,500 0 0 Minor (E1) $165,000 10 $16,500 Moderate (E2) $227,500 15 $34,125 High (E3) $290,000 35 $101,500 Extreme (E4) $715,000 40 $286,000 Total $438,125 Implementation Costs for Upland Areas Exotic and nuisance vegetation commonly occurs in both wetlands and uplands in Southwest Florida. The costs presented for the four scenarios above are primarily representative of treatment costs for wetland systems. Treatment costs for upland areas are typically less because prescribed burning can be used as an effective management component of any exotic vegetation eradication program. Prescribed Burn Costs The cost to burn land is highly variable depending on the amount of fuel load present, the linear feet of burn lines that need to be established, the size of the area to be burned, the types of habitat present, and other factors. For the purposes of this analysis, an assumed cost of $850 per 100 Appendix B Page 53 of 59 E3-4 acres of uplands will be used for the initial burn event and $600 per 100 acres for the follow-up burn likely to be required during the five year implementation period. Prescribed burns are also a useful management tool for certain types of wetland habitats. The use of fire in wetland areas often reduces the need to treat exotic and nuisance species; therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, the cost of burning wetlands, where appropriate, is assumed as accounted for in the costs for ongoing treatments of exotic/nuisance vegetation in wetland areas. The costs for implementation for upland areas can be generally defined as: Initial Burn Cost + Follow-up Burn Costs + funding perpetual management fund Using the assumed estimated cost numbers for 100 acres this equation yields: $1,500 + $600 + ($1,025/acre x 100 acres) x = $104,600 per 100 acres for upland implementation costs Combined Wetland and Upland Implementation Costs For a given 100-acre area, the combined implementation costs can generally be calculated as: (Percent Upland x $104,600) + (Percent Wetland x Implementation Costs for given levels of infestation) The following tables give the combined implementation costs for the four infestation level scenarios for a 100-acre area with upland/wetland ratios of 10/90, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, and 90/10 to represent a range of upland/wetland land composition types. Table E3-4. Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 10 Percent Uplands/90 Percent Wetlands Infestation Levels Wetland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland/Wetland Composition 10 Percent Uplands/90 Percent Wetlands Wetland Cost Upland Cost Combined Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $107,820 $10,460 $118,280 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $166,995 $10,460 $177,455 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $238,455 $10,460 $248,915 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $394,312 $10,460 $404,772 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands Infestation Levels Wetland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland/Wetland Composition 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands Wetland Cost Upland Cost Combined Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $89,959 $26,150 $116,109 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $139,163 $26,150 $165,313 Appendix B Page 54 of 59 E3-5 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands (Continued) Infestation Levels Wetland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland/Wetland Composition 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands Wetland Cost Upland Cost Combined Implementation Cost Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $198,713 $26,150 $244,863 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $328,594 $26,150 $357,744 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 50 Percent Uplands/50 Percent Wetlands Infestation Levels Wetland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland/Wetland Composition 50 Percent Uplands/50 Percent Wetlands Wetland Cost Upland Cost Combined Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $59,900 $52,300 $112,200 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $92,775 $52,300 $145,075 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $132,475 $52,300 $184,775 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $219,063 $52,300 $271,363 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 75 Percent Uplands/25 Percent Wetlands Infestation Levels Wetland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland/Wetland Composition 75 Percent Uplands/25 Percent Wetlands Wetland Cost Upland Cost Combined Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $29,950 $78,450 $108,400 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $46,388 $78,450 $124,838 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $66,238 $78,450 $144,688 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $109,532 $78,450 $187,982 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands Infestation Levels Wetland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland/Wetland Composition 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands Wetland Cost Upland Cost Combined Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $11,980 $94,140 $106,120 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $18,555 $94,140 $112,695 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $26,495 $94,140 $120,635 Appendix B Page 55 of 59 E3-6 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands (Continued) Infestation Levels Wetland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland Implementation Cost per 100 Acres Upland/Wetland Composition 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands Wetland Cost Upland Cost Combined Implementation Cost Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $43,812 $94,140 $137,952 Appendix B Page 56 of 59 EXHIBIT 4 CREDIT GENERATION COST TABLES Appendix B Page 57 of 59 E4-1 NORTH BELLE MEADE CREDIT GENERATION COST TABLES The total cost to generate Mitigation Value is the combined costs of: Land + Implementation + Program Administration Land value is assumed at $2,250 per acre = $225,000 per 100 acres Program administration cost is assumed as $37,600 per 100 acres over a 5 year period The following table gives the total costs for the four infestation level scenarios for a 100± acre area with upland/wetland ratios of 10/90, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, and 90/10 to represent a range of upland/wetland land composition types. Table E4-1. Total Credit Generation Cost Infestation Levels Upland/Wetland Composition 10 Percent Upland/90 Percent Wetland Combined Implementation Cost Land Cost Administrative Cost Total Credit Generation Cost Scenario 1 $118,280 $225,000 $37,600 $380,880 Scenario 2 $177,455 $225,000 $37,600 $440,055 Scenario 3 $248,915 $225,000 $37,600 $511,515 Scenario 4 $404,772 $225,000 $37,600 $667,372 Infestation Levels Upland/Wetland Composition 25 Percent Upland/75 Percent Wetland Combined Implementation Cost Land Cost Administrative Cost Total Credit Generation Cost Scenario 1 $116,109 $225,000 $37,600 $378,709 Scenario 2 $165,313 $225,000 $37,600 $427,913 Scenario 3 $244,863 $225,000 $37,600 $507,463 Scenario 4 $357,744 $225,000 $37,600 $620,344 Infestation Levels Upland/Wetland Composition 50 Percent Upland/50 Percent Wetland Combined Implementation Cost Land Cost Administrative Cost Total Credit Generation Cost Scenario 1 $112,200 $225,000 $37,600 $374,800 Scenario 2 $145,075 $225,000 $37,600 $407,675 Scenario 3 $184,775 $225,000 $37,600 $447,375 Scenario 4 $271,363 $225,000 $37,600 $533,963 Appendix B Page 58 of 59 E4-2 Table E4-1. (Continued) Infestation Levels Upland/Wetland Composition 75 Percent Upland/25 Percent Wetland Combined Implementation Cost Land Cost Administrative Cost Total Credit Generation Cost Scenario 1 $108,400 $225,000 $37,600 $371,000 Scenario 2 $124,838 $225,000 $37,600 $387,438 Scenario 3 $144,688 $225,000 $37,600 $407,288 Scenario 4 $187,982 $225,000 $37,600 $450,582 Infestation Levels Upland/Wetland Composition 90 Percent Upland/10 Percent Wetland Combined Implementation Cost Land Cost Administrative Cost Total Credit Generation Cost Scenario 1 $106,120 $225,000 $37,600 $386,720 Scenario 2 $112,695 $225,000 $37,600 $375,295 Scenario 3 $120,635 $225,000 $37,600 $383,235 Scenario 4 $137,952 $225,000 $37,600 $400,552 Appendix B Page 59 of 59 TDR Bank Capitalization Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District TDR Program December 20, 2016 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Prepared for: Collier County Zoning Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 239-252-2400 Prepared by: PlaceWorks 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana CA 92707 714-966-9220 placeworks.com 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page i Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 RFMUD Restudy ....................................................................................... 1 TDR Program Background ........................................................................ 2 Sending Areas ............................................................................................................. 2 Receiving Areas ........................................................................................................... 2 TDR Program Activity .................................................................................................. 4 Public Sentiment About the TDR Program .............................................. 4 TDR Banks ................................................................................................ 4 Report Organization ................................................................................ 6 2. TDR BANK BENEFITS ........................................................ 7 TDR Bank Benefits ................................................................................... 7 Accelerate Sending-Area TDR Sales ............................................................................ 7 Create a Revolving Fund ............................................................................................. 7 Supplement the Private Market ................................................................................. 7 Stabilize Prices and Foster Certainty ........................................................................... 7 Market and Promote the TDR Program ...................................................................... 8 Demonstrate Commitment ......................................................................................... 8 Challenges to Establishing a TDR Bank .................................................... 8 Competition for Public Funds ..................................................................................... 8 Holding Time ............................................................................................................... 8 Preservation Support .................................................................................................. 9 Adequate Funding ....................................................................................................... 9 Specific RFMUD Benefits ......................................................................... 9 Near-Term Support ..................................................................................................... 9 Ease of Acquisition .................................................................................................... 10 Perpetual Land Maintenance .................................................................................... 10 3. FUNDING OPTIONS .......................................................... 11 Traditional Public Funding ..................................................................... 11 Types of Public Funding ............................................................................................ 11 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page ii Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization Advantages of an Ad Valorem Tax ............................................................................ 12 Disadvantages of an Ad Valorem Tax ....................................................................... 12 TDR Surcharge ....................................................................................... 13 TDRs from County-Owned Property ...................................................... 13 4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ..................................................... 15 Initial Funding Objective ........................................................................ 15 Receiving Area Buildout......................................................................... 15 TDR Bank Cash Flow Table ..................................................................... 18 Cash Inflow ............................................................................................................... 18 Cash Outflow ............................................................................................................ 18 Balance to Purchase Additional TDRs ....................................................................... 20 Final Repayment ....................................................................................................... 20 Millage Rate ........................................................................................... 20 5. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 21 APPENDIX ................................................................................ 23 Appendix C-1: Traditional Public Funding Examples ............................. 23 Partnerships with Preservation Organizations ......................................................... 23 Conservation Bonds .................................................................................................. 23 General Fund ............................................................................................................ 24 Severing TDRs from Government Purchased Property ............................................ 24 Dedicated Ad Valorem Property Tax ........................................................................ 24 Appendix C-2: TDR Bank Staffing ........................................................... 25 Warwick Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania ............................................... 25 New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Bank ..................................................... 25 King County, Washington TDR Bank ......................................................................... 26 List of Preparers ..................................................................................... 29 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Sending and Receiving Areas, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, 2016 ...................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Completed TDR Credit Transfers, RFMUD, 2016 .................................... 5 Figure 3: Actual and Projected Household Growth, West Receiving Area, 2005 to 2040 .............................................................................................. 16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Projected Number of Household by Receiving Area, 2016 to 2050 ...... 17 Table 2: Illustrative TDR Bank Cash Flow, RFMUD, 2017 to 2050 ....................... 19 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page iv Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 1 1. Introduction As part of the restudy of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) Transfera- ble Development Rights (TDR) program, Collier County wants to explore the es- tablishment of a TDR bank. This report describes TDR banks, the potential role and benefits of a bank for the RFMUD TDR program, and how a bank could be funded. The report also provides an economic analysis to determine the amount of funding that should be considered for the bank and the millage rate that would be needed if property taxes provide the initial funding. The report is intended to provide a framework for public discussion about establishing a TDR bank. RFMUD RESTUDY The Board of County Commissioners directed the restudy of the RFMUD in Feb- ruary 2015. In August 2016, the Collier County Growth Management Department published background information, findings, and recommendations in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy White Paper. In preparation for the White Pa- per’s distribution to the BCC in December 2016, modifications were made. For brevity’s sake, this report highlights portions of the White Paper relevant to a TDR bank. Readers of this report are encouraged to download 1 and read the White Paper for a complete presentation of the RFMUD Restudy. The restudy is based on the understanding that Collier County will maintain the goals of the RFMUD program as established by the 1999 Final Order and subse- quently refined in elements and regulations adopted from 2002 to 2004. To bet- ter achieve those goals, the restudy aims to improve the TDR credit system, se- cure the capability for long-term maintenance of protected sending areas and im- prove the potential for successful receiving area development. The December 2016 white paper lists 41 initial recommendations including the following: The County should consider the appeal of a publicly funded TDR bank and dedicated assessment and bonding for the program, based on an evaluation of costs and benefits. Board direction will allow a focused analysis including projected costs. (Restudy White Paper, Chapter 4, Section C(3)) 1 http://www.colliergov.net/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-division/community- planning-section/rural-fringe-mixed-use-district-rfmud-transfer-of-development-rights- tdr-rest 1. Introduction 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 2 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization TDR PROGRAM BACKGROUND The RFMUD TDR program encourages development to occur in areas with less environmental value (receiving areas) rather than areas with high environmental value (sending areas). Figure 1 on the opposite page shows the sending and re- ceiving areas in the RFMUD. The buying and selling of TDR credits is a private-market transaction that com- pensates sending area property owners with payments for the TDR credits. It compensates receiving area property owners by allowing higher-value higher- density development. The conservation and preservation of high-environmental- value areas benefits the public. And, the more compact development in the re- ceiving areas can benefit the public through lower costs for public facilities and services. Sending Areas Under the TDR Program, approximately 41,000 acres of land with high environ- mental value are identified as sending areas, although only 16,700 acres are pri- vately owned. Generally, development in these areas is restricted to no more than one dwelling unit per 40 acres, or smaller lot in existence prior to 1999. In lieu of developing this land, property owners may sever and sell TDR credits. For each five acres in a parcel 2, the TDR program allocates the property owner one base credit and one early entry credit. One additional restoration and mainte- nance (R&M) credit is available if the property owner restores the land in accord- ance with program requirements. Finally, one more TDR credit is available if the property is conveyed to a public agency for long-term conservation and preser- vation. Thus, a five-acre parcel can have up to four TDR credits. Receiving Areas The TDR program identifies approximately 28,000 acres of land with less environ- mental value as receiving areas, 14,000 acres of which are vacant. Generally, land in receiving areas is limited to one dwelling unit per five acres. However, property owners in the receiving area can develop at higher densities by purchasing a TDR credit for each housing unit over one per five acres, up to a maximum density of one unit per acre. 2 Partial credits are allocated for the portion of the parcel over five acres. In addition, le- gally non-conforming parcels less than five acres in size are allocated TDR credits as though they contained five acres. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 3 Figure 1: Sending and Receiving Areas, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, 2016 Source: Collier County. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 4 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization TDR Program Activity To date, 4,600 TDR credits covering 6,500 acres have been processed or are pend- ing process. Of these, 2,100 have been used to increase density in receiving area development projects. Figure 2 on the opposite page shows where TDR credits have been transferred from and to. Nationally, Collier County’s RFMUD is consid- ered a success story. However, since the 2008–09 recession, the pace of TDR transactions has slowed. PUBLIC SENTIMENT ABOUT THE TDR PROGRAM Six public workshops, 15 interviews and numerous calls, surveys, and meetings were conducted with citizens, agency representatives, stakeholders and the me- dia for the RFMUD restudy in 2016. As detailed in the white paper, some stake- holders are dissatisfied with the pace of transfer activity. Stakeholders also gen- erally agree that the receiving areas could absorb the supply of TDRs in the send- ing area. However, the bulk of demand for TDRs will occur in the future, creating a gap in demand that frustrates those sending area landowners who want to sell their TDRs sooner rather than later. As discussed in Part 2 of this report, TDR banks are a potential solution to this concern. TDR BANKS TDR banks acquire TDRs from sending-area property owners, hold them until needed, and sell them to developers to use for receiving site development pro- jects. When adequately funded, TDR banks can buy TDRs from willing sellers in the near term and hold them for eventual sale to developers in the future, as TDR demand increases. One of the conclusions reached in the restudy public work- shops was to explore establishing a TDR bank. Most often, the local government establishes and operates the TDR bank, or a public agency established by the government. However, some TDR banks are managed by separate organizations, such as non-profit conservancies, using pol- icies and procedures established by the government in question. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 5 Figure 2: Completed TDR Credit Transfers, RFMUD, 2016 Source: Collier County. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 6 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization REPORT ORGANIZATION Part 2 of the report describes the benefits of creating a TDR bank, and Part 3 evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of several alternative ways of capi- talizing a TDR bank. Part 4 provides an economic analysis to determine an appro- priate amount of initial funding for a TDR bank and the millage rate that would be needed, if this is the route the county were to use to fund the initial capitali- zation. Part 5 provides a summary of the report’s recommendations. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 7 2. TDR Bank Benefits TDR BANK BENEFITS Ways in which TDR banks have benefitted other TDR programs illustrate the value a bank could have for Collier County. Accelerate Sending-Area TDR Sales During the RFMUD Restudy meetings, sending area property owners reported that there were not enough TDR buyers because there were many entitled but not yet constructed development projects. This is a typical case in which a TDR bank can provide a valuable service. A bank could buy TDRs from sending area owners in the short term and sell them when receiving area TDR demand mate- rializes. Create a Revolving Fund TDR banks recoup their original expenditures as they sell TDRs. Banks can then use the proceeds from those sales for further TDR acquisitions, to achieve other public goals (such as ongoing operations and maintenance of preserves), and to repay the initial funding. Effective TDR banks convert what would otherwise be a one-time public expenditure into a revolving fund for preservation. This can be an important feature in the context of securing public funding for a TDR bank. Supplement the Private Market TDR banks provide receiving area developers with an alternative source of TDRs. In a private market transaction, the developer must find, contact, and negotiate with one or, usually, more sending area property owners to purchase TDRs. With a TDR bank, a developer knows how many TDR credits are available, what the price will be, and what the process is to obtain the credits. The existence of a TDR bank does not, in and of itself, guarantee that sufficient credits will be available when developers need them. An underfunded bank may face challenges maintaining an adequate supply of TDR credits. The purpose of this report’s analysis is to determine the amount of funding needed to ensure that a TDR bank would be sufficiently capitalized. Stabilize Prices and Foster Certainty TDR banks help stabilize TDR prices, especially over time as supply and demand move in and out of balance with economic cycles. A bank provides price certainty 2. TDR Bank Benefits 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 8 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization for sending area property owners when they consider whether to participate in the TDR program. A bank also allows developers to analyze the financial feasibility of a potential development with a degree of certainty that TDR credits will be available in the future at the assumed price when they have to buy the credits. Market and Promote the TDR Program TDR banks often provide program marketing, administration, transaction facilita- tion and other functions. These efforts produce more successful programs, and they benefit private market transactions. TDR programs without a bank still per- form these functions. However, local governments that invest in a TDR bank are more likely to protect that investment by adequately staffing and funding these functions. Demonstrate Commitment Establishing and funding a TDR bank demonstrates to property owners and de- velopers the local government’s commitment to TDRs. Furthermore, a bank funded by a voter-approved tax measure, or professional polling, demonstrates overall community support for the TDR program and conservation. In turn, this demonstrated commitment helps motivate sending area property owners to more seriously investigate and consider participating in the TDR program rather than waiting on the sidelines. CHALLENGES TO ESTABLISHING A TDR BANK Even with the benefits a bank provides for TDR programs, there are challenges to setting up an effective TDR bank. Competition for Public Funds TDR banks can be self-sustaining for as long as there is a supply of TDRs and de- velopment capacity to use them. Nevertheless, a bank requires some initial fund- ing from public coffers. Securing public funding presents challenges, especially considering competition for limited public dollars. The initial public funding that goes into a TDR bank becomes a revolving fund, continuing to pay for additional conservation over time, in contrast to many other alternatives which tend to be one-time uses of money. In addition, if the funding is provided through an in- creased millage rate, the TDR bank would be drawing from new funds rather than competing for support from the county’s general fund. Whatever the source, suc- cessfully obtaining public funds requires a robust public engagement process. This is even more so if a public vote will be needed. Holding Time The length of time the bank may be expected to hold TDRs until there is demand to sell them can become a concern. This is especially true if a debt obligation is 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 9 used to finance the initial bank capitalization, and TDR sales are needed to repay the debt. It is less of a concern if an increase in ad valorem property tax directly funds the initial capitalization or secures the debt obligation that funds the initial capitalization. Either way, the holding time should be less of a concern in Collier County because the TDR program has been effective for many years and has already used 2,100 TDR credits. The economic analysis in this report uses a conservative approach that assumes a lengthy period before TDR sales occur at a substantial rate. The county should avoid making overly-optimistic projections about how fast the bank will recycle the initial funding for additional TDR purchases. Preservation Support TDR banks can hold TDRs for a long time with minimal criticism if citizens appre- ciate the public benefits secured by the banks purchase of TDRs. For example, TDR banks in King County, Washington and Palm Beach County, Florida purchased TDRs from land that ultimately became parks, nature preserves and open space. This consideration may be less important in Collier County because a bank is likely to experience some sales in the short term. Nevertheless, the public engagement process should publicize the benefits from bank purchases of TDRs. Adequate Funding Establishing a TDR bank with inadequate funding can result in calls for additional public funding and can also discourage sending area property owners from par- ticipating in the TDR program. This is especially true when receiving area demand is slow. Sending area property owners are more likely to be patient if they see TDR bank sales generating funding for additional TDR purchases. The RFMUD TDR program’s successful track record should lessen concerns about the length of time before the bank is able to make new purchases after the initial funding has been used. SPECIFIC RFMUD BENEFITS In addition to the general benefits a bank provides for a TDR program, there are three specific RFMUD TDR issues that a bank could address. Near-Term Support In the public engagement process for the RFMUD restudy, sending area property owners expressed concern about the slow pace of current and near-term receiv- ing area demand for TDRs. A well-funded TDR bank could satisfy the current send- ing area desire to sell TDRs. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 10 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization Ease of Acquisition Receiving area developers have expressed their concern that obtaining TDRs has become and will continue to become more difficult and discourage their interest in participating in the TDR program. TDRs have been severed from many of the larger parcels and the ones that are easiest for severing TDRs. The smaller the sending area parcels with available TDRs, the more property owners a developer must negotiate with and the more cumbersome the process. A TDR bank ensures a ready supply of TDRs when developers need them. And depending on the pro- cesses the county would establish, a TDR bank could have a fairly simple and ef- ficient sales procedure. Perpetual Land Maintenance Conveying land to the Florida Forestry Service has been an effective way to en- sure perpetual land maintenance in the South Belle Meade sending area. The county is examining the possibility of establishing an environmental mitigation bank, or Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA), in the North Belle Meade send- ing area. This would provide a cost-effective way for the county to mitigate the impacts of its transportation and other infrastructure projects and provide a pos- sible solution to perpetual land management and hydrology capital improve- ments for properties from which TDRs have been severed in the selected geo- graphic area. TDR banks often sell TDRs for a slightly higher price than they pay to purchase them. A part of this difference in prices can be used to repay the initial funding for the bank. If the TDR bank is funded with a dedicated millage rate increase, the amount generated for repayment could also be used for other conservation pur- poses, including maintenance of properties conveyed to the county after TDR credits have been severed. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 11 3. Funding Options Typically, local governments initially fund TDR banks with public funding, ranging from general fund to a voter approved tax. The first section below describes the traditional public funding. The next two sections describe less-traditional but nev- ertheless possible capitalization options. TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FUNDING There are several types of public funding that Collier County could consider if it decides to establish a TDR bank. This section provides a brief description of these types of funding and then discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a dedi- cated ad valorem tax relative to the other types of public funding. The appendix provides more detailed descriptions of these types of public funding with exam- ples from other programs. Types of Public Funding Partnerships with Preservation Organizations Local governments can stock TDR banks by partnering with land preservation pro- grams that traditionally restrict land with generic conservation easements rather than TDR easements. Although these most often take the form of purchase of development rights (in which the rights are retired rather than transferred to a receiving area), some programs have used the funding to create a true TDR pro- gram. Conservation Bonds The voters of local jurisdictions can approve conservation bonds. Rather than use this money once for traditional acquisition of land or easements, some commu- nities sever the TDRs from land they preserve and resell them in a TDR bank. General Fund Local governments can devote general fund money to capitalizing a TDR bank. King County, Washington started its TDR bank with a $1.5 million loan. The TDR program repaid the loan in full, with interest, in 2016. Bank funding may change each year depending on changing constraints on the general fund. Severing TDRs from Government Purchased Property Local governments buying parkland or protecting nature preserves can sever de- velopment rights and deposit them into the TDR bank. 3. Funding Options 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 12 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization Dedicated Ad Valorem Property Tax Local governments can dedicate an increase ad valorem property tax to fund the initial capitalization of a TDR bank. Depending on the total funding desired and the amount of tax revenue generated, this tax could be for a limited number of years, with TDRs purchased in each year directly from the tax revenue generated. When the revenue generated cannot fund the initial capitalization adequately in a few years, the tax revenue could be used to secure bond financing, with the debt repaid by the tax revenue over a longer time period. For a RFMUD TDR bank, the amount of funding needed, which is determined in the next part of this re- port, could probably be directly generated over five years, without using bond financing. Advantages of an Ad Valorem Tax Quick Start to TDR Purchases A dedicated ad valorem tax could generate sufficient revenues to begin making a significant number of TDR purchase in the near term. A conservation bond could also begin in the near term, albeit slightly longer to obtain voter approval. The other types of public funding would take many years to make a significant amount of TDR purchases. Ability to Satisfy More Sending Area Property Owners The RFMUD Restudy White Paper reaffirms the goal of treating all sending area properties the same. With the other types of funding, which will not be able to make a significant number of purchases in the near term, the county would have to prioritize purchases because there would likely be many more interested TDR sellers than could be accommodated with the limited funds. This would be less of an issue with an ad valorem tax and with a conservation bond. Funding for Other Public Purposes An ad valorem tax and a conservation bond could be structured to generate rev- enues for other public benefits, most notably the long-term maintenance or hy- drological enhancement of preserved lands from which TDRs have been severed. Because they generate much less revenue, the other types of public funding would not pay for other public benefits. Disadvantages of an Ad Valorem Tax The primary disadvantage of a conservation bond is the need to obtain voter ap- proval. We assume that an ad valorem property tax to directly fund a TDR bank would not require voter approval. Given the numerous benefits of a TDR bank, there may be a strong case for voter approval of a conservation bond. However, the time and cost involved with the referendum process should be considered. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 13 The county directly appropriating from the general fund to a special fund for a TDR bank could avoid the cost and time of voter approval. Given the challenge of obtaining voter approval, a natural inclination would be to rely on the state and federal government to fund the TDR bank through grants and loans. Certainly, there is no reason not to use that funding when available. However, there are no such programs that could fully provide the amount of funding determined necessary in the next part of this report. TDR SURCHARGE At least one TDR program, if not more, requires that developers pay a surcharge to the jurisdiction for every TDR credit used in a TDR development project. At one time, the City of Los Angeles required a public benefit payment of $35 per square foot of transferred floor area. The revenue generated was used for affordable housing, open space, historic preservation, public transportation, and public and cultural facilities. Although the amount has changed, it is still a highly effective means of generating funding for improvements in downtown Los Angeles. Collier County could use the revenue from a surcharge for multiple community benefits in the RFMUD, which might involve capitalizing a TDR bank. This ap- proach has the advantage that it does not rely on public funding. Unless, how- ever, the county could require payment of the surcharge on entitled but not yet constructed projects, this alternative would not generate substantial funds for a TDR bank until the development market in the RFMUD returned in strength, and by then, the case for establishing a TDR bank would be much weaker. The bigger disadvantage to this approach is that it does not generate additional money for conserving sending area properties. A separate report, TDR Analysis Report, analyzed the financial feasibility of receiving area development and de- termined the dollar amount that developers could afford to pay to acquire TDRs. To pay a surcharge, each development project would need to pay less to purchase TDRs. This reduction could be in the average TDR price or in a change in the trans- fer ratio so that fewer TDR credits would be required. Either way, a surcharge would be a zero-sum gain in the amount of funding flowing to sending area prop- erty owners. TDRS FROM COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY As an alternative to funding the initial capitalization of a TDR bank, the county could sever TDR credits from land the county owns in the sending areas. Those TDR credits could then be deposited in the bank or sold and the proceeds depos- ited in a TDR bank. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 14 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization Collier County owns about 300 acres of land in RFMUD sending areas. Although purchased for other reasons, these properties would qualify as sending sites un- der the TDR program. The county could itself become a seller of TDRs severed from these properties and use the sale of these TDRs as initial capitalization of a RFMUD TDR bank. This approach would not require new county investment. However, it would also not generate new revenue for purchasing TDR credits until the development mar- ket in the RFMUD returned in strength, and by then, the case for establishing a TDR bank would be much weaker. Furthermore, this approach would not gener- ate an adequate amount of initial funding for a TDR bank. If the 300 acres of county-owned property received the maximum number of TDR credits, for exam- ple eight per five acres, it would result in 2,400 credits (or 12 percent of the the- oretical supply), or $24 million. While this would not be sufficient to fully fund the TDR bank, it would be a good start to full capitalization. Furthermore, these cred- its could be severed and transferred to the bank quickly so the bank is able to sell TDRs while it awaits voter approval for a conservation bond. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 15 4. Economic Analysis 4. Economic Analysis This part of the report provides an economic analysis that identifies a target amount for the initial funding of a TDR bank and projects an annual cash flow for the bank. The target is based on reasonable assumptions and conservative esti- mates. However, there is no exactly right number. The target is intended to serve as a starting point for public discussions, and the result of those discussion may be a different target that is equally reasonable. INITIAL FUNDING OBJECTIVE The objective of the initial funding of a TDR bank is to fund the purchase of one- half of the likely supply of TDR credits. A separate study, TDR Analysis Report, determined the likely supply of TDR credits across the four sending areas. The likely supply is 16,400. Therefore, the objective of the initial funding is to enable a TDR bank to acquire 8,200 TDR credits. The TDR Analysis Report recommends a target price of $10,000 per TDR credit. At that price, the initial funding should be about $82 million. Assuming that the ini- tial funding is provided by a dedicated ad valorem property tax over five years, the $82 million in initial funding equates to about $16,420,000 each year for ac- quiring TDR credits. RECEIVING AREA BUILDOUT Because the TDR bank would reinvest the proceeds from the sales of TDR credits, the bank’s cash flow depends on the rate of development in the receiving areas. The economic analysis begins by projecting the rate of development. Because the west receiving area has experienced the most development to date, its development pattern is used as a model for the other three receiving areas. Figure 3 shows the number of households in the west receiving area from 2005 to 2015 and Collier County’s current projection for this area through 2040. The chart shows that this area had relatively rapid growth from 2006 to 2012. From 2012 onward, the growth rate slows, but the area maintains a steady level of growth. The analysis assumes that the other three receiving areas will experience the same amount of household growth over the first six years of substantial develop- ment, followed by a straight-line trend until they reach their assumed buildout. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 16 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization The analysis makes the following assumptions about the other three growth ar- eas: + The North receiving area will begin substantial development starting in 2022 and will fully buildout by 2040. + The North Belle Meade receiving area will begin substantial development in 2027, and it will be 50 percent builtout by 2050. + The South Belle Meade receiving area will begin substantial development in 2035, and it will be 35 percent builtout by 2050. Based on these assumptions, Table 1 on the following page shows the projected number of households in each receiving area from 2016 to 2050. The yearly in- crease in the number of households determines the number of TDR credits needed. The final column in Table 1 shows the number of TDR credits projected to be purchased each year. Figure 3: Actual and Projected Household Growth, West Re- ceiving Area, 2005 to 2040 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using data from Collier County. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Actual Projected 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 17 Table 1: Projected Number of Household by Receiving Area, 2016 to 2050 West North North Belle Meade South Belle Meade Annual TDR Demand 2016 1,990 2017 2,070 66 2018 2,150 67 2019 2,230 69 2020 2,310 70 2021 2,370 58 2022 2,440 120 152 2023 2,510 120 63 2024 2,580 190 113 2025 2,650 260 114 2026 2,710 380 142 2027 2,770 550 120 275 2028 2,830 770 120 224 2029 2,870 1,640 190 748 2030 2,870 2,500 260 716 2031 2,870 3,370 380 755 2032 2,870 4,240 550 794 2033 2,870 5,100 770 833 2034 2,870 5,970 1,060 883 2035 2,870 6,830 1,350 120 976 2036 2,870 7,700 1,630 120 886 2037 2,870 8,560 1,920 190 935 2038 2,870 9,430 2,210 260 935 2039 2,870 10,300 2,490 380 975 2040 2,870 10,300 2,780 550 351 2041 2,870 10,300 3,070 770 389 2042 2,870 10,300 3,350 1,700 929 2043 2,870 10,300 3,640 2,620 929 2044 2,870 10,300 3,930 3,550 929 2045 2,870 10,300 4,220 4,480 929 2046 2,870 10,300 4,500 5,400 929 2047 2,870 10,300 4,790 6,330 929 2048 2,870 10,300 5,080 7,250 929 2049 2,870 10,300 5,360 8,180 929 2050 2,870 10,300 5,650 9,100 929 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 18 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization TDR BANK CASH FLOW TABLE The projected cash flow for the TDR bank is based on the following assumptions: + The target price for TDRs is $10,000. + To balance the cash flow and ensure that the initial funding is repaid, the bank would purchase TDRs for $9,921 per credit and would sell TDRs for $10,079 per credit; the difference would create an opportunity for the private market while offsetting, in part, the county’s administrative cost. + The bank would use 51.4 percent of the proceeds from the sales of TDR credits to purchase new credits in the following year. + The bank would use 47.1 percent of the proceeds from the sales of TDR credits to repay the initial funding. + The bank would use 1.5 percent of the proceeds from the sales of TDR credits to offset, at least partially, administrative costs, up to $100,000 in a single year (see appendix for a discussion of administrative costs). + The bank should repay the initial funding within 30 years. Table 2 on the following page shows what the cash flow for the TDR bank would be under these assumptions. Cash Inflow The first column shows the cash flowing into the bank from the initial capitaliza- tion. Based on the assumptions, the amount reflects the initial funding objective discussed on page 15 ($81.5 million to purchase 8,200 TDR credits at a price of $9,921 per credit) spread equally over five years. The second column indicates the cash flowing into the bank from its sales of TDR credits based on the projected demand (see Table 1 on page 17) and a sales price of $10,079 per credit. The third column is the total cash inflow each year, the sum of the first two columns. Cash Outflow The fourth column is the amount that the bank would generate to help offset the county’s cost to administer the TDR program and the TDR bank. The amount is 1.5 percent of the proceeds from the bank’s sales of TDRs each year, up to an assumed maximum of $100,000 per year. The fifth column is the amount that the bank would provide to repay the initial funding. The county could dedicate this funding to one or more purposes. The funds could be deposited into the general fund to reimburse taxpayers. The county could use the funds to preserve and 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 19 Table 2: Illustrative TDR Bank Cash Flow, RFMUD, 2017 to 2050 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Year Initial Capitalization Cash Inflow from TDR Sales Gross Cash Inflow Cash Outflow to Help Offset Administration Cost Cash Outflow to Repay Initial Capitalization Balance Available for TDR Purchase 2017 16,290,000 666,000 16,960,000 (10,000) (314,000) 16,630,000 2018 16,290,000 679,000 16,970,000 (10,200) (320,000) 16,640,000 2019 16,290,000 692,000 16,980,000 (10,400) (326,000) 16,650,000 2020 16,290,000 706,000 17,000,000 (10,600) (332,000) 16,650,000 2021 16,290,000 588,000 16,880,000 (8,800) (277,000) 16,590,000 2022 1,535,000 1,540,000 (23,000) (723,000) 790,000 2023 631,000 630,000 (9,500) (297,000) 320,000 2024 1,143,000 1,140,000 (17,100) (538,000) 590,000 2025 1,154,000 1,150,000 (17,300) (543,000) 590,000 2026 1,432,000 1,430,000 (21,500) (674,000) 740,000 2027 2,774,000 2,770,000 (41,600) (1,306,000) 1,430,000 2028 2,257,000 2,260,000 (33,900) (1,063,000) 1,160,000 2029 7,543,000 7,540,000 (100,000) (3,551,000) 3,890,000 2030 7,214,000 7,210,000 (100,000) (3,396,000) 3,720,000 2031 7,608,000 7,610,000 (100,000) (3,582,000) 3,930,000 2032 8,006,000 8,010,000 (100,000) (3,769,000) 4,140,000 2033 8,395,000 8,400,000 (100,000) (3,953,000) 4,340,000 2034 8,901,000 8,900,000 (100,000) (4,191,000) 4,610,000 2035 9,839,000 9,840,000 (100,000) (4,632,000) 5,110,000 2036 8,925,000 8,930,000 (100,000) (4,202,000) 4,620,000 2037 9,427,000 9,430,000 (100,000) (4,438,000) 4,890,000 2038 9,428,000 9,430,000 (100,000) (4,439,000) 4,890,000 2039 9,823,000 9,820,000 (100,000) (4,625,000) 5,100,000 2040 3,534,000 3,530,000 (53,000) (1,664,000) 1,820,000 2041 3,924,000 3,920,000 (58,900) (1,847,000) 2,020,000 2042 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000 2043 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000 2044 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000 2045 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000 2046 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000 2047 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) (4,409,000) 4,860,000 2048 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) 0 9,260,000 2049 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) 0 9,260,000 2050 9,365,000 9,360,000 (100,000) 0 9,260,000 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 20 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization maintain lands from which TDRs have been severed and which have been con- veyed to the county. The county could use the revenue for an environmental fund for estuary health, aquifer health, and hydrological capital improvements. Balance to Purchase Additional TDRs The final column in Table 2 is the difference between the annual cash inflow and cash outflow. This is the amount that the bank would have available each year to reinvest in the purchase of additional TDRs. The initial funding would enable the bank to purchase 8,200 TDR credits; the amount the bank would reinvest could enable the purchase of up to 9.000 additional credits by the time the bank repays the initial funding. Final Repayment The data shows that the bank would be able to repay the initial funding by 2047. Once the bank has repaid the initial capitalization, it could become self-sustain- ing, each year buying and selling TDRs per market demand. The county could de- cide instead to phase the bank out after the initial funding has been repaid. MILLAGE RATE The cash flow presented Table 2 assumes that the initial capitalization is directly funded through an increased millage (established through the county budget or approved by the voters) dedicated to a special fund or a direct appropriation by the BCC from the general fund. In terms of 2017 taxable value, the $16.3 million for initial funding in each of the first five years would be equivalent to approxi- mately 0.21 mills. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 21 5. Recommendations 5. Recommendations Based on input from the RFMUD Restudy, there is a desire among sending area property owners to sever and sell TDR credits. However, there is weak demand for TDR credits for receiving area development projects, even though the long- term demand appears to be strong. To bridge the gap between the supply of cred- its that could be available in the near term and the demand that may not materi- alize in the near-term, we recommend that Collier County establish a TDR bank for the RFMUD and that the county provide funding upfront for the initial capital- ization of the bank. The most effective way to capitalize a TDR bank would be for the BCC to increase the millage rate and direct the increased revenue to a special fund for the TDR bank. If an increase of 0.21 mills is feasible, over five years the county could suf- ficiently capitalize the TDR bank to acquire one-half of the likely supply of TDR credits. If a 0.21 mills tax rate increase is not feasible, the county could ask the voters to approve a conservation bond, which could be repaid with a lower millage rate over a period longer than five years. With the time required to schedule and con- duct an election on the bond and the time to issue bonds, this approach would extend the timeline for when the county could begin purchasing TDR credits. Nev- ertheless, this approach would still be an effective means to bridge the gap be- tween the near-term potential supply of TDRs and the long-term demand. We also recommend that the county consider how best to use the revenues gen- erated by the bank’s sales of TDRs. The investment in the bank’s capitalization could serve double duty. First, the initial funding can be recycled, creating a re- volving fund for TDRs and a self-sustaining TDR bank for as long as there is supply and demand for TDR credits. Second, the repayment of the initial funding can, in- turn, fund other needed and desired public benefits, including conservation and maintenance of preserved lands and hydrological capital improvements. Reim- bursing the general fund is also a worthy goal, but because the prepayment may take 30 years, the annual impact may be less noticeable. Finally, we recommended the county explore the various assumptions laid out on pages 16 and 18. These assumptions lead to one illustrative cash flow program, but there is no single correct program. A different set of assumptions that better match the Collier County context and values may result in an equally valid level of capitalization. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 22 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalization This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 23 Appendix APPENDIX C-1: TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FUNDING EXAMPLES Partnerships with Preservation Organizations Local governments can stock TDR banks by partnering with land preservation pro- grams that traditionally restrict land with generic conservation easements rather than TDR easements. Pennsylvania leads the US in the amount of preserved farm- land largely due to the incentives provided by the state’s purchase of develop- ment rights program, funded by a voter approved $100-million bond and ciga- rette taxes. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, with 85,510 acres protected as of 2010, leads the nation in preserved farmland using a combination of grants from the state and by appropriating almost $1 million of County tax dollars per year for several years to farmland preservation. In most Lancaster County townships, state, county and local taxes buy traditional easements and then wait for future cash infusions. In contrast, Warwick Township partners with Lancaster County (and/or the Lancaster Farmland Trust) to fund TDR easements and the County allows Warwick to bank and resell the resulting TDRs with the stipulation that all TDR sale proceeds be applied to additional land preservation. To date, Warwick’s TDR program has preserved more than 1,560 acres of farmland, which is over 12 percent of the township’s total land area. Conservation Bonds The voters of local jurisdictions can approve conservation bonds. Rather than use this money once for traditional acquisition of land or easements, some commu- nities sever the TDRs from land they preserve and resell them in a TDR bank. In Palm Beach County, Florida, voters approved a $100 million bond that was used to acquire 35,000 acres of environmentally-sensitive land. The 9,000 TDRs sev- ered from this land are sold by the Palm Beach County TDR bank at commissioner- established prices ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 each with sale proceeds ded- icated to expansion and maintenance of the nature preserve system. At a more modest level, Burlington County, New Jersey started its bank by the issuance of a $1.5 million county bond; the TDRs banked by this bond were instrumental to the success of Chesterfield Township’s award-winning TDR program. Appendix 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 24 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalizatio General Fund Local governments can devote general fund money to capitalizing a TDR bank. King County, Washington started its TDR bank by including $1.5 million in its 1999 budget with the stipulation that this start-up capital be repaid when the TDR Bank’s cash balance exceeded $2 million; in 2016, the TDR Bank exceeded that balance and the TDR Bank refunded the initial capitalization to King County. Man- heim Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania stocked its TDR bank by buying TDRs with general fund money and holding them for resale. Severing TDRs from Government Purchased Property Local governments can dedicate a portion of tax revenues to acquire TDRs in the course of buying parkland and protecting nature preserves. These TDRs then con- stitute the inventory of the government’s TDR bank. In King County, Washington, the revenue dedicated to open space, called Conservation Futures, has been used to buy TDRs for its TDR bank. In a single transaction, King County used $22 million of Conservation Futures funding to protect 90,000 acres of forest east of Seattle, with the resulting 990 TDRs placed in the TDR bank for resale. To date, TDR ac- quisitions have preserved 141,500 acres in King County. Dedicated Ad Valorem Property Tax Collier County could put a referendum before the voters asking for approval of using a small portion of property tax to fund the acquisition of TDRs from the RFMUD and possibly other areas in need of preservation in Collier County. If the county used this tax revenue to finance a bond, a substantial amount of money could become available in the near-term future to buy and hold TDRs for resale when the receiving area entitlement is depleted and demand for TDRs increases. As these banked TDRs are sold, the proceeds could be used again to preserve additional land (and bank additional TDRs) and/or fund the restoration/mainte- nance of the preserved land. The ability of TDRs to recycle an initial amount of public money may make this technique more appealing to voters than typical open space bond measures. In addition, this new program could set aside suffi- cient money for an endowment fund to assure restoration and perpetual mainte- nance of land conveyed to the county by the TDR program if money is needed for this purpose because the mitigation bank or ROMA has not materialized. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 25 APPENDIX C-2: TDR BANK STAFFING This appendix discusses possible staffing needs in the event that Collier County decides to create a TDR bank. TDR programs and banks vary significantly in scale, activity and ambition. They also change over time. This memo provides examples from three programs spanning that range of diversity. Warwick Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania At the smaller end of the scale, Warwick has preserved 24 farms with 1,560 acres (about 12 percent of the total land area) with its TDR program since 1991. A War- wick Township administrative assistant estimates that one percent of her time is needed to keep records of acquisitions and sales. With the Town Manager, Town Planner and Town Solicitor similarly devoting one percent of their time TDR bank transactions require a total of less than 0.1 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employee. New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Bank At the other end of the spectrum, the New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Bank was created by the State of New Jersey to facilitate a TDR program operating in 53 municipalities within seven counties occupying a land area of one million acres. The program has preserved almost 52,000 acres as of 2015. New Jersey funded the bank with a state appropriation of $5 million in 1985. The bank has purchased 1,581 credits and private parties have purchased 1,896 credits to date. The bank has sold 775 credits and private parties have sold 1,088 credits to date. Staffing for the bank has changed significantly over time. In the early 1980s, the New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Bank was staffed by one part-time di- rector and a secretary. By 2005, the year in which credit prices peaked, the New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Bank staff consisted of two full-time admin- istrators, one full-time outreach person, a part-time data entry clerk, and a fulltime secretary. At a separate location, the New Jersey Pinelands Commission in 2005 processed applications using one full time planner, one part-time GIS per- son, one part-time planner in the Development Review office (to determine allo- cations, review deeds, process paperwork), two part-time supervisors and a part- time secretary. Consequently, the total staff for the two offices in 2005 was roughly eight FTE positions. Today, the separate office for the Pinelands Development Credit Bank has been closed and the banking functions have been absorbed by staff at the Pinelands Commission roughly consisting of one full-time planner, one part-time adminis- trator, one part time Development Review staffer, one part-time GIS technician, one part-time director and presumably one half time administrative assistant, or 3.5 FTE personnel. Bear in mind that the Pinelands Development Credit Bank has not received new capitalization from public sources for over 30 years (although it 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 26 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalizatio has gotten public money to buy and retire credits since then). Also, the level of bank activity is low at this point despite the vast size of the planning area. In an August 18, 2016 conversation, the Pinelands Commission’ Chief Planner, who now also wears the hat of Pinelands Development Credit Bank Executive Director, commented that the person in charge of a TDR bank should ideally work fulltime exclusively on bank responsibilities. A TDR bank director can rely on expertise in other offices that are needed to run the bank but that do not require a full-time person devoted exclusively to the bank (legal, GIS, computing and planning staff for processing applications). However, she also mentioned that a truly active pro- gram is labor intensive: recruiting participants and guiding them through the pro- cess is very time consuming. Some landowners will have little understanding of easements and title reports much less TDR details. If the Pinelands Development Credit Bank were to receive a significant shot of new public capitalization, at least one additional fulltime position would need to be added and possibly some cur- rently half time positions would become fulltime in order to actively promote, facilitate and administer the program. She did not offer a number but assuming that three current part time positions became full time and if one additional full time position were added, the Pinelands program staff would grow from 3.5 FTE to six FTE positions. King County, Washington TDR Bank From the standpoint of scale, activity and ambition, the TDR bank in King County, Washington may be the best model for Collier County. This program has pre- served 145,000 acres to date. The King County TDR Bank works intensively with Seattle and other incorporated cities within the county to reach inter-jurisdic- tional transfer agreements which often include incentives and highly innovation features like revenue sharing between the cities and the county. The King County program also sometimes offers to pay for amenities in cities that enter into agree- ments to accept TDRs from land under county jurisdiction and TDRs held by the King County TDR bank. Negotiating these inter-jurisdictional agreements is labor intensive and represents a type of work that probably is not on the near-term horizon in the event that Collier County chooses to start a bank. King County started its TDR bank in 1999-2000 with a $1.5 million loan from the county budget. The bank must repay this loan when its cash balance exceeds $2 million. But the bank never reaches this cash balance because it quickly uses all revenue to buy more TDRs. (Due to an impending large acquisition, the bank cur- rently must exceed this cash balance per an agreement with Seattle; but this is acknowledged to be a necessary exception to the original loan agreement). 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 27 The bank is also partly stocked with TDRs purchased with money from the county’s Conservation Futures Fund, (a portion of property tax dedicated to land preservation). King County likes to use the TDR bank for acquisitions because the revenue from TDR sales creates a perpetual revolving fund for preservation. The King County TDR Bank Manager estimates that TDRs transferred to the bank re- sulting from Conservation Futures funding has totaled roughly $7.5 million over the years, an average of $500,000 annually although these acquisitions actually vary from year to year. Conservation Futures has also paid about $2.5 over the program’s 15-year history for amenities within incorporated cities that sign agreements to accept TDRs from the county; this additional $2.5 million in fund- ing assists the work of the TDR bank although it does not directly add any TDRs to the bank inventory. The TDR bank is sometimes the holder of a conservation easement on land preserved by non-TDR means; in some instances, the bank has severed and banked TDRs from these properties. The TDR bank office does more than buy and sell TDRs. It: + Maintains a registry of would-be buyers and sellers of TDRs to facilitate private as well as public transactions + Maintains records of all transactions + Documents current conditions on land offered as sending sites by owners + Administers 95% of public and private transactions; sometimes the bank gets assistance from private brokers but the bank staff is still involved in every transaction at a minimum to provide information and document the prices charged for the TDRs + For large transactions, the bank works with title and escrow services (a single King County TDR bank transaction bought 990 TDRs by preserving 90,000 acres east of Seattle for $22 million) + Oversees drafting of the conservation easement + Creates the TDR certificates (305 certificates to date) + Records all easements and certificates with county recorder + In other words, administers and/or monitors all aspects of every transac- tion with the exception of retiring the TDRs upon approval of a receiving site project wanting bonus development potential. The TDR Bank Manager is 0.7 FTE on TDR bank work. A position that mostly han- dles a non-TDR task (impact mitigation) spends 0.2 FTE on TDR bank work and a 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page 28 Collier County | TDR Bank Capitalizatio third position is budgeted to devote 0.4 FTE to TDR bank data management and stakeholder assistance. This adds up to 1.3 FTE within the TDR bank. This is sup- plemented by another 1.2 FTE of support services in other offices who handle tasks like ongoing monitoring of preserved sites, real estate professionals and le- gal assistance. Consequently, 2.5 FTE accomplish the work of the TDR bank and the sending site end of all TDR transactions, public and private. As mentioned above, the only task not included in this total is conducted by the planners in the development review section who extinguish the TDRs upon approval of receiving site applications. The TDR Manager said that if the annual funding increased sig- nificantly, such as a $10 million infusion of capital to buy TDRs, he would ask for one more position to market the program, prioritize acquisitions and supplement the one-on-one assistance to stakeholders. Then he would evaluate whether any additional temporary positions were needed to handle a spike in acquisitions. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy December 20, 2016 Page 29 LIST OF PREPARERS This report was prepared by Steve Gunnells, Chief Economist at PlaceWorks and Rick Pruetz, FAICP, of Planning and Implementation Strategies. Steve’s works with communities to bridge the gap between long-range planning, policies, and economic development; with community organizations and special districts to fund and implement priority projects; and with developers, to guide project decision-making and obtain entitlements based on sound economic and market analysis. Steve previously worked as a community planning and economic development consultant for communities and developers in Michigan and Ohio. He has also served as the field director for a consulting team on a World Bank project in Yemen, an Economic Development Fellow with the International Eco- nomic Development Council, and a county Planning Director in Virginia. Rick is the leading national TDR practitioner, having prepared TDR studies and ordinances for over 30 communities. In addition, Rick lectures and writes exten- sively on TDRs, including the book Saved by Development: Preserving Environ- mental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights in 1997 and coauthoring The TDR Handbook: Designing and Implementing Transfer of Development Rights Programs in 2012. Currently, Steve and Rick are collaborating to assist the New Jersey Highlands Re- gional Council with re-evaluating the Highlands Regional TDR Program, helping Santa Fe County, NM, to establish a TDR bank for the county’s new TDR program, recommending revisions to the Irvine, CA, TDR program for the Irvine Business Complex, and supporting the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to develop and adopt improvements to its regional TDR program. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Page A-30 Project Name | Report Title PLACEWORKS: Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles • Inland Empire • San Diego 3 MacArthur Place | Santa Ana CA 92707 | 714.966.9220 | www.placeworks.com 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 05. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix C TDR Bank Capitalization Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy TDR Supply and Demand Recommendations for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District TDR Program December 13, 2016 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Prepared for: Collier County Zoning Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 239-252-2400 Prepared by: PlaceWorks 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana CA 92707 714-966-9220 placeworks.com 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................... V Receiving Area Development Scenarios ............................................. v Housing Type and Density .............................................................. v Financial Feasibility of Receiving Area Development ........................... v TDR Credit Demand ..................................................................... vii Current TDR Supply ..................................................................... vii Recommended TDR Program Modifications ...................................... ix Proposed Supply and Demand ........................................................ x INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1 TDR Program Background ............................................................. 1 Purpose and Intent ....................................................................... 1 Time Frame ................................................................................. 2 Report Organization ...................................................................... 2 RECEIVING AREA ANALYSIS ............................................. 3 Financial Feasibility Generally ........................................... 3 Developer View of Financial Feasibility ............................................ 3 Financing and IRR ........................................................................ 3 Residual Land Value ..................................................................... 4 Pro Forma Assumptions .................................................... 4 Construction Loan ......................................................................... 4 Permanent Loan and Sale of Rental Product ..................................... 4 Timeline ...................................................................................... 5 Revenue Assumptions ................................................................... 5 Cost Assumptions ......................................................................... 5 Workforce Housing ....................................................................... 6 Development Types ....................................................................... 6 Development Scenarios ................................................................. 6 Development Potential ...................................................... 7 Baseline Scenario ......................................................................... 7 Mid-Range Scenario ...................................................................... 8 High-Range Scenario .................................................................... 8 TDR Demand ................................................................ 12 SENDING AREA ANALYSIS .............................................. 15 Current TDR Supply ....................................................... 15 Theoretical Supply ...................................................................... 15 Likely Supply Assumptions ........................................................... 16 Table of Contents 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page ii Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand Likely Supply ............................................................................. 17 TDR Program Modifications............................................. 18 Increase the Number of TDR Credit ............................................... 18 Institute Neutral and Receiving Credits .......................................... 18 Golden Gate Estates .................................................................... 18 Credits for Conveyance to County .................................................. 18 Price Change ............................................................................. 19 Proposed TDR Supply .................................................... 19 Final TDR Supply and Demand ....................................... 19 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page iii List of Figures Figure 1: Number of New Residential Dwelling Units at Buildout by Housing Type and Development Scenario, All Receiving Areas ................................................................................. vi Figure 2: Average Residual Land Value by Receiving Area and by Development Scenario ......................................................... vi Figure 3: TDR Credit Demand at Buildout, by Receiving Area and by Development Scenario ................................................... vii Figure 4: Estimate Theoretical and Likely Supply of TDR Credits by Sending Area, 2015 ...................................................... viii Figure 5: Estimated Current Supply and Buildout Demand for TDR Credits by Development Scenario ......................................... viii Figure 6: Proposed Supply and Buildout Demand for TDR Credits by Development Scenario ................................................... 20 List of Tables Table 1: Construction Cost Assumptions ........................................ 5 Table 2: Acreage by Receiving Area and Development Type ............. 6 Table 3: Development Program by Receiving Area, Baseline Scenario ............................................................................. 9 Table 4: Development Program by Receiving Area, Mid-Range Scenario ........................................................................... 10 Table 5: Development Program by Receiving Area, High-Range Scenario ........................................................................... 11 Table 6: Number of TDR Credits Required by Receiving Area and by Development Scenario ................................................... 12 Table 7: Cost to Acquire TDR Credits and Resulting Residual Land Value by Development Scenario........................................... 13 Table 8: Current Theoretical TDR Credit Supply by Sending Area, 2016 ............................................................................... 16 Table 9: Likely Percentage Participation in TDR Program Under Current Standards, 2016 .................................................... 17 Table 10: Estimate of Current Likely Supply of TDR Credits, 2016 ....................................................................................... 17 Table 11: Proposed Theoretical and Likely Supply of TDR Credits by Sending Area, 2016 ...................................................... 19 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page iv Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page v Executive Summary Executive Summary Nationally recognized as a success story, Collier County’s Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program has slowed since the 2008–09 recession. The TDR program restudy explores ways to bolster the program, ensure that development in receiving areas can and does use TDR credits, and facilitate the con- servation and preservation of sending area lands with high environmen- tal value. This report seeks to inform these aspects of the restudy. The report focuses on improving the balance between the supply of and demand for TDR credits. Receiving Area Development Scenarios The report analyzes three potential development scenarios for the re- ceiving areas. The baseline scenario considers single-family detached housing that achieves a gross density of one dwelling units per acre and more intense village development—with a mix of multifamily and other housing types—at a density of three dwelling units per acre, which is broadly how the receiving areas have been developed to date. The mid- range scenario considers single-family detached housing at a gross den- sity of two units per acre and village development at four units per acre. The high-range scenario illustrates development at higher densities cap- italizing on reduced requirements for TDR credits—single-family subdi- visions at a gross density of two units per acre and villages at seven units per acre. These development scenarios do not represent new zoning require- ments. Rather, they are intended to illustrate the impact of density and types of development on the long-term demand for TDR credits. Housing Type and Density Figure 1 on the following page shows the total number of new housing units by housing type at buildout for each development scenario. Across all three scenarios, single-family detached housing would be the most common housing type. However, by providing for more attached and multifamily housing and smaller lot subdivisions for detached housing, the mid-range and high-range scenarios achieve greater overall densi- ties. The baseline scenario would buildout at a gross density of 2.2 units per acre, the mid-range scenario at 3.5 units per acre, and the high-range at 5.7 units per acre. Financial Feasibility of Receiving Area Development Gross density affects the financial feasibility of development and, thus, the amount that development projects can afford to pay to purchase TDR credits. Financial feasibility is often signified by the residual land value. The residual land value is the amount a developer can afford to pay to acquire land for a development project, while still earning a standard return on investment (usually a 15 percent internal rate of return). 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page vi Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand Figure 2 shows the residual land value for each receiving area under each development scenario. As the data show, the baseline scenario generates the lowest residual land value in each receiving area, and the high-range scenario generates the highest. This is important because higher residual land values typically indicate greater incentives to the developer to build these projects and to purchase the necessary TDR credits. The residual land value is also important in absolute terms, because a developer cannot undertake a development project if the re- sidual land value is less than the cost to acquire the land. As discussed below, achieving a higher residual land value is one reason the report recommends a change in the price of TDR credits. Figure 1: Number of New Residential Dwelling Units at Buildout by Housing Type and Development Scenario, All Receiving Areas Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. 0 30,000 60,000 90,000 Baseline Scenario Mid-Range High-Range Single-Family Detached Condos and Townhouses Apartments Affordable Housing Figure 2: Average Residual Land Value by Receiving Area and by Development Scenario Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. $- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 North West Belle Meade South Scenario Total Baseline Scenario Mid-Range High-Range 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page vii TDR Credit Demand Figure 3 shows the number of TDR credits needed to buildout each receiving area under each development scenario. The analysis finds that the baseline scenario would require 28,200 credits, and the mid- range scenario would require 37,300. Because the high-range scenario would provide more units at village densities above four units per acre and more affordable housing units (credits are not required for units above four units per acre and for affordable housing units), it would need 28,800. This is the fewest number of TDR credits per total num- ber of housing units, which contributes to the higher residual land val- ues. Current TDR Supply The theoretical supply of TDR credits is the total number of TDR credits to which each receiving area parcel that has not severed credits is en- titled. Based on data from Collier County, the analysis estimates that the current theoretical supply is 9,530 TDR credits. Because some property owners will not want to sell the TDR credits, the analysis cre- ates a model of the likely supply of credits based on the net value of credits to sending area property owners and the value per acre at which unimproved and agricultural land has sold in each sending area over the past three years. Using this model, the analysis estimates that the current likely supply is 6,420 credits. Figure 4 shows the current theo- retical and likely supplies of TDR credits for each sending area. The estimated supply of credits is significantly lower than the potential demand for credits at buildout of the receiving areas. Figure 5 shows this difference. Figure 3: TDR Credit Demand at Buildout, by Receiving Area and by Development Scenario Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Baseline Scenario Mid-Range High-Range South Belle Meade West North 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page viii Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand Figure 4: Estimate Theoretical and Likely Supply of TDR Credits by Sending Area, 2015 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using data from Collier County. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 South Belle Meade North Belle Meade- NRPA North Belle Meade- West North Theoretical Supply Likely Supply Figure 5: Estimated Current Supply and Buildout Demand for TDR Credits by Development Scenario Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using data from Collier County. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Baseline Mid Range High Range Likely Supply Theoretical Supply Potential Demand 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page ix Recommended TDR Program Modifications Based on the difference between the estimated supply and the potential demand for TDR credits and based on input received through several public workshops in the first part of 2016, Collier County is considering several modifications to the TDR program. This report recommends the following modifications to reduce the discrepancy between TDR supply and demand. 1. Allocate Additional TDR Credits Significantly reducing the difference between the supply of and demand for TDR credits will require allocating additional TDR credits to sending area properties. Rather than eliminating the difference, though, the ad- ditional credits should still maintain less supply than demand in order to incentivize receiving area property owners and developers to pur- chase TDR credits sooner rather than later and to maintain some up- ward price pressure to support the recommended sales price. Based on the analysis and public input, this report recommends an additional four TDR credits for properties that have not yet severed any credits and two additional credits for those parcels that have severed and sold some credits (the base credit and the early entry credit) but that still retain the potential R&M credit and the conveyance credit. These additions would increase the theoretical supply by more than 10,000 credits. 2. Institute Neutral and Receiving Credits Base on public input, there is a desire to provide program flexibility by allocating credits that developers could obtain by providing public ben- efits in neutral and receiving area development projects. If limited to 1,000 additional credits, less than five percent of the total theoretical supply with all of the recommendations implemented, this should have a negligible impact on the marketability of sending area credits. Pro- gram requirements to limit the number of these credits on a single pro- ject could further minimize the sending area impact. 3. Limit New Golden Gate Estates Credits The county is considering allocating a limited number of new TDR cred- its to support conservation of high environmental value lands in Golden Gate Estates. The report recommends limiting any such additional cred- its to 200 to 400, which would be less than two percent of the total theoretical supply, to avoid impacts on the marketability of sending area TDR credits. 4. Establish Credits for Conveyance to County Capitalizing on the theoretical supply of TDR credits will require estab- lishing a county program or a conservation organization to accept con- veyance of properties after TDRs are severed, if the Florida Forestry Ser- vice is not an option. The report recommends allocating one additional TDR credit in the sending areas when the property is conveyed to the county or another organization. The funds generated by the sale of this final TDR credit would go to the county or other organization to help offset the costs of long-term maintenance. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page x Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand 5. Lower Price of TDR Credits A lower average TDR price would help ensure that the higher density development patterns that the county desires for the RFMUD are finan- cially feasible. The market should move to a lower TDR price in re- sponse to the increase in the supply of TDR credits resulting from the modifications described above. Based on the analysis in this report, we recommend that a TDR bank establish a price of $10,000 per TDR credit if the county moves forward in establishing a TDR bank. Proposed Supply and Demand With the recommendations described above, the theoretical supply would be 20,520 TDR credits, 79 percent of the potential TDR demand under the high-range scenario. If current RFMUD growth trends con- tinue, this balance should last for two or more decades of development before the TDR program will need a new restudy. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page 1 Introduction Collier County is conducting a restudy of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD). In response to the 1999 Final Order, the county adopted various revisions to the RFMUD from 2002 to 2004. Included in the revisions was the establishment a Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program. TDR Program Background Under the TDR Program, approximately 41,000 acres of land with high environmental value are identified as sending areas. Generally, devel- opment in these areas is restricted to no more than one dwelling unit per 40 acres. In lieu of developing this land, property owners may sever and sell TDR credits. For each five acres in a parcel 1, the TDR program allocates the property owner one base credit and one early entry credit. One additional restoration and maintenance (R&M) credit is available if the property owner restores the land in accordance with program re- quirements. Finally, one more TDR credit is available if the property is conveyed to a public agency for long-term conservation and preserva- tion. Thus, a five-acre parcel can have up to four TDR credits. The TDR program identifies approximately 28,000 acres of land with less environmental value as receiving areas, 14,000 acres of which are 1 Partial credits are allocated for the portion of the parcel over five acres. In addition, legally non-conforming parcels less than five acres in size are allo- cated TDR credits as though they contained five acres. vacant. Generally, land in receiving areas is limited to one dwelling unit per five acres. However, property owners in the receiving area can de- velop one additional single-family detached housing unit for each TDR credit they purchase from a sending area or one additional multifamily dwelling unit for each 0.75 TDR credits purchased. Collier County’s RFMUD TDR Program is nationally regarded as a TDR success story. However, since the 2008–09 recession, the use of TDRs has slowed greatly. The restudy is, in part, a response to the changes in the real estate development market since the recession. Purpose and Intent The purpose of this report is to analyze the current supply and demand for TDRs in the RFMUD and to evaluate several proposed modifications to the program in relation to supply and demand. The report is intended to support public discussion and decision-making for the proposed modifications. Under a separate study, the county is evaluating the po- tential to establish a TDR bank. This report is also intended to inform the TDR bank analysis. Introduction 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page 2 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand Time Frame With over 14,000 acres of development potential in the receiving areas, buildout will most likely be a matter of decades. This report does not limit itself to immediate market demand and remains cognizant that there will undoubtedly be significant and possibly unexpected shifts in residential market preferences over the coming decades. The Baby Boom generation spans 20 years and only started entering retirement age in 2010, after the recession. The Millennial generation, larger than the Baby Boom, is just now entering the household-forming and family-forming stages of life. Some survey data suggest that these demographic groups may have different housing and neighborhood preferences than did previous generations at these stages of life. Report Organization The first part of the report analyzes the demand for TDR credits. The second part analyzes the supply and the relationship of supply to de- mand. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page 3 Receiving Area Analysis The receiving area analysis quantifies the number of TDRs needed to build out each of the receiving areas and, importantly, the total dollar amount that is financially feasible for new development to pay to ac- quire TDRs. The three main factors influencing financial feasibility are the cost of purchasing land, the cost of construction, and the sales price or rents the developer will earn. A myriad of other factors affect financial feasibility to a lesser degree. Financial Feasibility Generally Developer View of Financial Feasibility In a typical development project, the developer seeking entitlement and permits (i.e., the individual staff sees as the face of the project) provides a small part of the needed equity investment. A wealthy individual may provide the majority of equity on smaller projects; on larger projects, the majority of investment may come from a group of investors, institutional investors (such as insurance or pension funds), or real estate invest- ment trusts. Obtaining the equity investment is never automatic. The developer must convince these potential partners to invest in the pro- ject. For a conventional development project, these investors will likely ex- pect a minimum return on their investment of about a 15 percent IRR (internal rate of return). For riskier projects, the developer must provide a higher return. Some characteristics that can necessitate a higher re- turn include: + New product types in a market (such as the first vertical mixed-use building in an area) + Discretionary permitting (which may be perceived as something that will depend on public mood) + Length of the entitlement process (the longer the time frame, the more chances for market or political conditions to change) + Projects in jurisdictions perceived to have an unstable political en- vironment (different votes on similar projects or active litigious citi- zen groups) For the purposes of this report, the analysis assumes that the types of development analyzed would require a typical 15 percent IRR. Financing and IRR The investor’s return is measured against the amount of investment and the amount of time for the investment and profit to be returned. The amount of financing in the project does not directly affect the IRR, ex- cept as it affects the total amount of equity required and the total amount returned to the investors. The construction loan may have a rate of about 7 percent, depending on the loan fees and other terms of the loan. Using financing for more Receiving Area Analysis 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page 4 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand of the total development costs reduces the total equity required and improves the IRR the investors will realize. However, the developer usually cannot get the construction loan with- out entitlement and control of the land. Every expense before that is paid with equity investment. Most expenses after that are paid with borrowed money. For a typical development project, the developer may be able to finance one-half of the land acquisition cost and use the equity investment for the other half. For the site work, construction, and other soft costs after entitlement, about 84 percent of costs are covered with borrowed money Residual Land Value The financial feasibility of a development project is determined through a pro forma analysis. A pro forma is simply a spreadsheet. Expected development costs, revenues, and financing assumptions are entered, and then the spreadsheet determines how much the developer can af- ford to pay for the land and still achieve a target IRR. This amount is the residual land value. When the residual land value is greater than the land costs, the project is financially feasible. When the residual land value is less than the land costs, the project is not financially feasible, and the developer could not afford to purchase the land. The two key determinants of residual land value are the allowable amount of development and the rents or sales value new development will generate. Increasing the allowable development densities and in- tensities has no effect if prevailing rents and sales values cannot cover the cost of construction. Similarly, high per-square-foot rents and sales values have no effect if a site cannot be developed with enough floor space to cover the cost of land acquisition. Pro Forma Assumptions Construction Loan The pro forma model assumes that a construction loan, with a 7.1 per- cent rate, would cover 50 percent of the land acquisition costs and 84 percent of the construction cost, based on information from real- tyrates.com. Permanent Loan and Sale of Rental Product The pro forma model assumes that the for-rent products would be leased by the developer for five years and then sold. The pro forma model assumes that the permanent loan, which pays off the construc- tion loan and covers the five-year period until the product is sold, would have a rate of 5.1 percent and a term of 25 years, based on information from realtyrates.com. The pro forma model assumes that the revenue from the sale of the rental product would be the expected net operating income in the first year after the sale, divided by a capitalization rate of 9.2 percent, less selling expenses of 6 percent. The net sales proceeds are based on a 15 percent tax on capital gains, 25 percent tax on accumulated depre- ciation, and payoff of the permanent loan. The debt service coverage 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page 5 ratio for the permanent loan is assumed at 1.41, based on information from realtyrates.com. Timeline The pro forma model uses a simplified timeline. It assumes that site work would begin on the day after closing on the land acquisition. There would be 3 months of site work followed by 9 months of construction. After construction, for-sale products would sell in three equal amounts of the next 3 months, and for-rent products would be fully leased upon completion. This schedule would be ambitious even for a small project. In reality, buildout of each receiving area would likely take at least a decade, if not several decades. Furthermore, it will likely be several years before development of a single receiving area begins in earnest. Modeling such a long, complex development scheme involving many different devel- opers and projects would require a range of assumptions that would not be any more realistic than the simplified timeline used in this analysis. Revenue Assumptions The pro forma model assumes a vacancy and operations allowance of 10 percent for residential and retail products and 12.5 percent for busi- ness campus development. Retail lease rate is assumed at $13.50 per square foot per year based on a survey of asking lease rates. Residential leasing rates are based on a model of asking lease rates by unit size and number of bedrooms and assume a 15 percent premium for a new product. The model assumes a 3 percent per year escalation in rents. Sales values for residential units are based on an analysis of housing sales data in zip codes 34120 and 34117. Cost Assumptions Table 1 provides the general construction cost assumptions used in the pro forma. In addition, the model assumes soft costs at 15 percent of hard costs. It also assumes a 3 percent land acquisition cost for due diligence. The pro forma model assumes that any demolition costs Table 1: Construction Cost Assumptions Site Work Site prep $2.50 / sq. ft. Landscaping and open space amen- ities $2.50 / sq. ft. Onsite Infrastructure Water and sewer $225 / linear foot Well and septic allowance $10,000 Roadways $10 / sq. ft. Construction Single-family detached $75 to $90 / sq. ft. Single-family attached $106 / sq. ft. Multifamily apartments and condos $110 / sq. ft. Stand-alone retail/commercial $100 / sq. ft. Business campus $135 / sq. ft. Residential-over-retail mixed use $140 / sq. ft. Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page 6 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand would be negligible. Finally, the model assumes a $10,000 allowance per unit for development impact fees. Workforce Housing The analysis assumes that 10 percent of the housing stock will be built for and occupied by low- and moderate-income households. These housing units are a mix of townhouse and apartments. The construction costs for workforce housing units average about 8 percent lower than the market rate units. The rents vary on unit size and the expected household size. On average, though, the workforce housing unit rents are about 49 percent of the market rate rents. Development Types The pro forma model analyzes three development types. Table 2 sum- marizes the acreage of each development type in each receiving area. Clustered Single-Family Detached. Clustered single-family detached de- velopments are a mix of housing and lot sizes. The specific mix depends on the planned density, which varies with each development scenario. Village. The village developments provide a mix of smaller-lot single- family detached housing, townhouses, condos, and apartments. The specific mix depends on the planned density, which varies with each development scenario. Single-Family Large Lot. The model assumes that a small portion of each receiving area would be developed for large-lot single-family de- tached housing. These areas would be developed at a density of one unit per five acres and therefore would not require TDRs. Table 2: Acreage by Receiving Area and Development Type Development Type North West Belle Meade South Clustered 422 324 720 Village 2,570 2,630 6,090 SF Large Lot 160 634 969 Total Area 2,570 583 3,590 7,780 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. Development Scenarios The pro forma model evaluates three development scenarios: Baseline Scenario. Under the baseline scenario, clustered develop- ments would be built out at a density of one unit per acre and villages would achieve a density of three units per acre. Mid-Range Scenario. Under the mid-range scenario, clustered develop- ments would be built out at a density of two units per acre and villages would achieve a density of four units per acre. High-Range Scenario. Under the high-range scenario, clustered devel- opments would be built out at a density of two units per acre and vil- lages would achieve a density of seven units per acre. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page 7 Development Potential This section describes the amount of development that could occur un- der each of the development scenarios. The development program laid out for each scenario is specifically intended to maximize the develop- ment potential in order to quantify the potential theoretical demand for TDRs. In actual practice, the receiving areas may not buildout at the maximum densities, and not all property owners will necessarily choose to develop or sell their land for development. Nevertheless, it is im- portant to estimate the potential theoretical demand for TDRs to provide an understanding of the balance between TDR supply and demand. The development potential covers over 14,000 acres across the four receiving areas. Needless to say, the buildout of these areas would oc- cur over decades. It is reasonable to expect market demand and hous- ing preferences to change over this time-frame. Some of the housing products included in the development potential may satisfy present-day market demand and other products may rely on future changes in mar- ket demand. Finally, these scenarios do not reflect changes to the underlying zoning requirements in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. These scenarios are intended to illustrate how possible refinements to the TDR program, such as reductions in the number of TDRs required for higher-density villages or reductions in the developer’s cost for TDRs, might result in different development patterns and residential densities. The incentive to developers can be seen in the residual land value for each develop- ment scenario. In addition, the total development investment identified for each scenario is indicative of the property tax base that would gen- erate property tax revenues for Collier County. Baseline Scenario Table 3 on page 9 summarizes the development potential under the baseline scenario. The four receiving areas could be developed with 35,700 housing units. Of these, 27,400, or 76.6 percent, would be single-family detached houses. Of the total number of housing units, 3,400, or about 10 percent, would be affordable workforce housing. The gross density across the four receiving areas would be 2.5 units per acre. The average residual land value across the four receiving areas would be $71,000 per acre. Among the receiving areas, the average residual land value would range from a low of $28,700 in the West receiving area to a high of $86,100 in the North receiving area. However, this result is not surprising because the West receiving area, with only clus- tered single-family detached development, would be the least dense, and the North receiving area, with only village development, would be the highest density. The total amount of development investment across the four receiving areas would be $11.3 billion at full buildout. The investment among the receiving areas would range from a low of $209 million in the West receiving area to a high of $6.1 billion in the South receiving area. This result is also not surprising, because the West receiving area has al- ready been substantially developed and there is the least amount of 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page 8 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand land area remaining to be developed. Similarly, the South receiving area is the largest of the four and has more than half of the land area to be developed across all four areas. Mid-Range Scenario Table 4 on page 10 summarizes the development potential under the mid-range scenario. Under this scenario, the total number of housing units would increase by 12,800, or 36 percent over the baseline sce- nario. The number of single-family detached housing units would in- crease by 1,400, and single-family detached housing would account for 59 percent of the total housing. The majority of the increase would come from multifamily housing, with 3,660 more condos and 5,460 more apartments. The gross density across all four receiving areas would be 3.3 dwelling units per acre. With the mid-range scenario, the average residual land value across the four receiving areas increases to $98,300 per acre. The increase in density—more housing units on the same acreage of land—drives the increased in residual land value. Similarly, the increased number of housing units drives the increase in the total amount of development investment. Under the mid-range sce- nario, the total development investment would be $13.9 billion at buildout. This is an increase of $2.6 billion, or 23 percent, over the baseline scenario. High-Range Scenario Table 5 on page 11 summarizes the development potential under the high-range scenario. The total number of housing units would increase to 82.400, 70 percent more than in the mid-range scenario and 131 percent over the baseline scenario. The total number of single-family detached housing units would increase to 38,900, but because there is substantially more housing among the other types, single-family de- tached housing would account for only 47 percent of the total housing stock. There would be 8,150 single-family attached townhouses, 10 percent of the total housing. Multifamily housing—15,010 condos and 20,330 apartments—would account for 43 percent of the total hous- ing. Across the four receiving areas, the gross density would be 5.7 dwelling units per acre. With the increase density of development, the average residual land value under the high-range scenario rises to $150,600 per acre. This is 53 percent higher than the mid-range scenario and 112 percent higher than the baseline scenario. The total development investment would be 19.8 billion, which is 42 percent more than under the mid- range scenario and 75 percent more than the baseline scenario. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page 9 Table 3: Development Program by Receiving Area, Baseline Scenario Total North Receiving Area West Receiving Area Belle Meade Receiving Area South Receiving Area Number of Housing Units Single-family detached 27,400 5,830 450 6,400 14,690 Single-family attached 2,880 660 0 670 1,550 Condominiums 1,600 360 0 370 860 Multifamily 3,860 880 0 900 2,090 Total number of housing units 35,700 7,720 450 8,340 19,200 Gross density (du/acre) 2.5 3.0 0.8 2.3 2.5 Number of workforce housing units 3,400 770 0 790 1,830 Share of total number of housing units 10% 10% 0% 9% 10% Roadways (CL miles) 250 50 6 59 134 Stormwater management / open space (acres) 3,578 605 160 897 1,915 Share of site area 26% 24% 28% 25% 25% Average residual land value ($/acre) 71,000 86,100 28,700 66,600 71,200 Total development investment ($) 11,334,000,000 2,389,000,000 209,000,000 2,657,000,000 6,079,000,000 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page 10 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand Table 4: Development Program by Receiving Area, Mid-Range Scenario Total North Receiving Area West Receiving Area Belle Meade Receiving Area South Receiving Area Number of Housing Units Single-family detached 28,800 5,820 880 6,730 15,420 Single-family attached 5,060 1,150 0 1,180 2,730 Condominiums 5,260 1,200 0 1,220 2,830 Multifamily 9,320 2,120 0 2,170 5,030 Total number of housing units 48,500 10,300 880 11,300 26,010 Gross density (du/acre) 3.3 4.0 1.5 3.1 3.3 Number of workforce housing units 4,500 1,030 0 1,050 2,420 Share of total number of housing units 9% 10% 0% 9% 9% Roadways (CL miles) 268 52 9 63 143 Stormwater management / open space (acres) 3,506 601 145 881 1,879 Share of site area 26% 23% 25% 25% 24% Average residual land value ($/acre) 98,300 116,700 54,500 92,200 98,400 Total development investment ($) 13,931,000,000 2,847,000,000 376,000,000 3,255,000,000 7,453,000,000 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page 11 Table 5: Development Program by Receiving Area, High-Range Scenario Total North Receiving Area West Receiving Area Belle Meade Receiving Area South Receiving Area Number of Housing Units Single-family detached 38,900 8,110 880 9,070 20,840 Single-family attached 8,150 1,860 0 1,900 4,400 Condominiums 15,010 3,420 0 3,490 8,100 Multifamily 20,330 4,630 0 4,730 10,970 Total number of housing units 82,400 18,020 880 19,190 44,300 Gross density (du/acre) 5.7 7.0 1.5 5.3 5.7 Number of workforce housing units 7,910 1,800 0 1,840 4,270 Share of total number of housing units 10% 10% 0% 10% 10% Roadways (CL miles) 310 62 9 73 166 Stormwater management / open space (acres) 3,385 574 145 852 1,813 Share of site area 25% 22% 25% 24% 23% Average residual land value ($/acre) 150,600 185,300 54,500 140,900 150,800 Total development investment ($) 19,820,000,000 4,192,000,000 376,000,000 4,625,000,000 10,628,000,000 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page 12 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand TDR Demand TDR credits are required for each dwelling unit above a density of one unit per five acres. One full credit is required for single-family detached dwelling, and 0.75 TDR credits is required for each single-family at- tached dwelling and each multifamily unit. The total number of TDR credits required for a development is reduced by one for each affordable housing unit and reduced by one for each unit above a density of four units per acre. Table 6 provides the number of TDR credits required for each receiving area under each development scenario. With the least amount of development, the baseline scenario results in the lowest demand for TDR credits. The high-range scenario has the largest amount of development. Because many of the additional hous- ing units are in village developments with seven units per acre, though, it requires substantially fewer TDR credits than the mid-range scenario and only slightly more credits than the baseline scenario. Because the number of TDR credits is based on the amount of devel- opment in each development scenario, the cost for each TDR credit has a direct relationship to financial feasibility. One option the county is considering would seek a lower average price per TDR accompanied by an increase in the number of credits allocated to sending area property owners. The next chapter explores the impact of such a change on the supply of TDR credits. Table 7 shows the potential impact on the re- ceiving areas. With a reduction in the average cost to acquire TDR credits from $13,500 to $10,000, the total amount that would be used to purchase TDRs would decline by nearly $100 million in the baseline scenario, $130 million in the mid-range scenario, and slightly more than $100 million in the high-range scenario. With the reduction in cost for TDR credits, the average residual land value would increase by $6,700 un- der the baseline scenario, $8,900 for the mid-range scenario, and $7,000 for the high-range scenario. With a reduction in the average cost per TDR credit, fewer dollars would be required for receiving area projects, and the financially feasibility of development projects would be improved. It is worth stating again that the development scenarios are not zoning requirements. Rather, they illustrate different levels of density and development intensity that could occur in response to the TDR program requirements. Lower residual land values indicate that developers are less likely to develop projects Table 6: Number of TDR Credits Required by Receiving Area and by Development Scenario Receiving Area Baseline Scenario Mid-Range Scenario High-Range Scenario North 6,150 7,890 5,950 West 340 760 760 Belle Meade 6,550 8,650 6,680 South 15,140 19,990 15,380 Total Demand for TDR Credits 28,200 37,300 28,800 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page 13 at the higher density and intensities, and higher residual land values indicate that developers are more likely. Thus, with lower residual land values fewer developers may develop projects that require TDRs or may develop projects that require fewer TDR credits, with the result that less money gets transferred from receiving areas to sending areas. Table 7: Cost to Acquire TDR Credits and Resulting Residual Land Value by Development Scenario Baseline Scenario Mid-Range Scenario High-Range Scenario Total Demand for TDR Credits 28,200 37,300 28,800 Average Cost per TDR Credit: $10,000 Cost for TDR Acquisition $281,800,000 $372,900,000 $287,700,000 Average Residual Land Value $71,000 $98,400 $150,600 Average Cost per TDR Credit: $13,500 Cost for TDR Acquisition $380,400,000 $503,400,000 $388,300,000 Average Residual Land Value $64,300 $89,400 $143,600 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page 14 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page 15 Sending Area Analysis The sending area analysis estimates the current theoretical supply of TDRs that have not yet been severed from sending area properties. Based on the average sales price of TDRs and the average sales price per acre for unimproved parcels of land in each of the sending areas over a three-year period, the analysis estimates the percentage of prop- erty owners who would likely be willing to sell TDR credits. Theoretical supply and likely supply are distinct but important terms. The theoretical supply is the number of TDR credits there would be if every sending area property owner who has not already severed TDR credits were to sever every possible TDR they could. However, not every owner will sever credits. The likely supply is the number of credits that would be available based on a percentage of sending-area property owners participating in the program under a set of assumptions de- scribed in this chapter. As the analysis presented in this chapter shows, the likely supply of TDR credits in the sending area is substantially below the demand for TDR credits identified in the previous chapter. The remainder of the chapter explores various ways to increase the supply of TDR credits. Current TDR Supply Theoretical Supply The theoretical supply is based on the current allocation of TDR credits. For each five acres and for each legally conforming parcel less than five acres, there is one base credit and one early-entry credit, plus one po- tential restoration and maintenance credit and one potential convey- ance credit. The current theoretical supply is the number of TDR credits that could exist if each of these credits were applied to every eligible parcel that has not already severed TDR credits. Table 8 on the following page provides the current theoretical supply of TDR credits for each sending area. The data for potential R&M credits and potential conveyance credits reflect the outstanding credits poten- tially available to parcels for which the base credit and early entry cred- its have been severed. Non-participating parcel credits reflect the four total credits that could be allocated to every other parcel that has not yet participated in the TDR program. The current theoretical supply is 9,530 TDR credits. This is substan- tially less than even the lowest estimated demand, 28,200 under the baseline scenario. Sending Area Analysis 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page 16 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand Likely Supply Assumptions The model for the likely supply of TDRs is based on the net value to a sending area property owner of selling all available TDR credits versus the value of selling the property outright. The model uses sales of unimproved agricultural and vacant land in each of the sending areas. Using the average sales price per acre and the standard deviation over the past three years, the analysis creates a normal distribution curve to model the sales price in each sending area. For a particular sales value, the model determine what percentage of properties would sell at or below that priced per acre. In South Belle Meade, for example, the average sales price is $8,740 per acre and the standard deviation is $5,935. The normal distribution for these values suggests that two-thirds of property transactions would sell at or below $11,300 per acre. There were too few sales in the North sending area, so the model uses the data for North Belle Meade– NRPA to estimate the sales values for the North area. The average sales price in the North Belle Meade–NRPA sending area is $3,970 per acre and is $22,360 in the North Belle Meade–West sending area. The value of severing and selling TDR credits is based on the following assumptions: + The average sales value per TDR credit is $13,500 with four credits for an eligible five-acre parcel Table 8: Current Theoretical TDR Credit Supply by Sending Area, 2016 South Belle Meade Potential R&M credits 90 Potential conveyance credits 580 Non-participating parcel credits 2,020 Subtotal 2,700 North Belle Meade-NRPA Potential R&M credits 190 Potential conveyance credits 230 Non-participating parcel credits 3,190 Subtotal 3,610 North Belle Meade-West Potential R&M credits 3 Potential conveyance credits 3 Non-participating parcel credits 2,540 Subtotal 2,550 North Potential R&M credits 120 Potential conveyance credits 120 Non-participating parcel credits 440 Subtotal 680 Total 9,530 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using data from Collier County. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page 17 + The property owner incurs a cost of 3 percent of gross sales value for legal and other sales costs + In the South Belle Meade sending area, property owners incur a cost of $2,500 per acre for restoration and conveyance to the Florida Forest Service + In other sending areas, property owners incur a cost of $2,000 per acre for up-front restoration cost and $1,050 per acre for long-term maintenance as part of conveying the property to a conservation or similar organization Table 9 provides the average sales value per acre in each sending area, the net value per acre property would realize from selling TDR credits, and the likely percentage of property owners that would sever and sell their TDR credits under the current TDR program standards. The net TDR sales value per acre in the South Belle Meade sending area is slightly higher than in the other sending areas because the cost to con- vey property to the Florida Forest Service is lower than the estimated cost to convey property to a conservation or similar organization in the other areas. Likely Supply Table 10 combines data from Table 8 and Table 9 to estimate the likely supply of TDR credits under the current TDR program. Neither the likely supply, 6,420 TDR credits, nor the theoretical supply, 9,530 credits, is anywhere close to the estimated potential demand of 28,000 to 37,000 TDR credits. Thus, modifications to the TDR program are war- ranted if it is to support the planned development of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. Table 9: Likely Percentage Participation in TDR Program Under Current Standards, 2016 Sending Area Average Sales Value per Acre Net TDR Sales Value per Acre Portion of Sales at or Below TDR Sales Value South Belle Meade 8,740 7,980 45% North Belle Meade-NRPA 3,440 7,430 100% North Belle Meade-West 22,360 7,430 36% North 3,440 7,430 100% Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using sales data from Collier County. Table 10: Estimate of Current Likely Supply of TDR Credits, 2016 Sending Area Current Theoretical Supply Estimated Percentage Participation Current Likely Supply South Belle Meade 2,700 45% 1,210 North Belle Meade-NRPA 3,610 100% 3,600 North Belle Meade-West 2,550 36% 930 North 680 100% 680 Total 9,530 67% 6,420 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using sales data from Collier County. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page 18 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand TDR Program Modifications Based on the demonstrated differences between the supply and de- mand for TDR credits and the input received from a series of public workshops in the first part of 2016, a number of possible modifications could reduce the discrepancy between the supply and demand. Increase the Number of TDR Credit The most direct approach is to simply allocate more TDR credits to sending area properties. To equalize the theoretical supply and demand of TDR credits would require adding from 5.85 credits under the base- line scenario to 8.90 credits under the mid-range scenario for each five- acre parcel. Even with these additional credits, the likely supply would still range from 80 to 84 percent of the theoretical supply. There will be some property owners who prefer to retain ownership and the current use of their property rather than selling the TDR credits. The final supply and demand model assumes that four additional TDR credits will be added to the four existing TDR credits available to each five-acre parcel. In addition, the model assumes that two credits are also added to those parcels that have severed and sold some credits (the base credit and the early entry credit) but that still retain the po- tential R&M credit and the conveyance credit. In total, the number of new TDR credits added to the theoretical supply is more than 10,000, which is more than double the theoretical supply under the current TDR program. Institute Neutral and Receiving Credits The model assumes that 1,000 neutral TDR credits would be made available. These are credits that developers could obtain by providing public benefits in neutral and receiving area development projects. Golden Gate Estates A fairly insignificant number of TDR credits, 200 to 400, could be made available to aid in the conservation of sensitive lands in Golden Gate Estates. This would be one to two percent of the total number of theo- retical credits, which should minimize any impact to the marketability of sending area TDR credits. Credits for Conveyance to County One of the challenges to the TDR program is finding an agency or con- servation organization to whom property can be conveyed and who can maintain property after TDRs are severed. This applies in areas where the property cannot be conveyed to the Florida Forestry Service. One solution, which the county is exploring, would allocate one addi- tional TDR credit in the sending areas. When the other TDRs are sev- ered and the property is conveyed to the county or another organization, this additional credit could also be sold. However, the funds generated by the sale of this final TDR credit would go to the county or other organization to help offset the costs of long-term maintenance of the property. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page 19 Price Change The final possible change explored in the supply and demand model is a lower price per TDR. Currently, the average price of TDR credits is $13,500. For a five-acre parcel, the current allocation of four potential credits could result in a total TDR value of $10,800 per acre, before accounting for costs for restoration and conveyance. With an increase to eight TDR credits, the free market would likely respond by lowering the average price. With eight credits and a reduction in price to $10,000, the total TDR value increases 48 percent to $16,000 per acre. The lower the price would help ensure that the higher density develop- ment patterns that the county desires for the RFMUD are financially feasible. If large swaths of the RFMUD are not financially feasible to develop at these densities, then no development or lower density devel- opment will occur, resulting in decreases in the demand for TDR cred- its. The number of credits allocated and the price become immaterial if developers do not seek to buy TDR credits in the first place. As shown in Table 7 on page 13, the residual land values resulting from a $10,000 TDR price should be an effective incentive to induce develop- ers to construct the higher density types of development. Proposed TDR Supply Table 11 shows the theoretical and likely TDR supply by sending area if the modifications described in the previous section were imple- mented. The theoretical supply would increase from 9,530 to 20,520, 115 percent more credits. Finally, the likely supply would increase from 6,420 to 16,420, 156 percent more credits. The overall participation rate would increase from 67 percent to 80 percent. This is important because it means that a larger share of send- ing area property would be conserved. Final TDR Supply and Demand The potential demand for TDRs—28,200 to 37,300, depending on the development scenario—would still exceed the likely supply of 16,420 and even the theoretical supply of 20,510 credits. Figure 6 shows the difference between the projected demand and the proposed theoretical and likely supply of TDR credits. The theoretical supply equals 78.7 percent of the high-range scenario buildout demand. Table 11: Proposed Theoretical and Likely Supply of TDR Credits by Sending Area, 2016 Sending Area Theoretical Supply Estimated Percentage Participation Likely Supply South Belle Meade 5,720 76% 4,710 North Belle Meade-NRPA 7,640 100% 7,850 North Belle Meade-West 5,730 41% 2,350 North 1,230 100% 1,350 Golden Gate Estate 200 85% 170 Total 20,520 80% 16,420 Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using sales data from Collier County. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page 20 Collier County | TDR Supply and Demand A goal of the TDR program is to maintain an excess of demand over supply in order to incentivize receiving area property owners and devel- opers to purchase TDR credits sooner rather than later. This excess de- mand should also provide upward pressure to support the sales price of TDR credits. Figure 6: Proposed Supply and Buildout Demand for TDR Credits by Development Scenario Source: PlaceWorks, 2016. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Baseline Mid Range High Range Likely Supply Theoretical Supply Potential Demand 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use December 13, 2016 Page 21 This page intentionally left blank. 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use Page A-22 Project Name | Report Title Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles • Inland Empire • San Diego 3 MacArthur Place | Santa Ana CA 92707 | 714.966.9220 | www.placeworks.com 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 06. RFMUD White Paper, Appendix D TDR Econ Report (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use 9.A.9Packet Pg. 150Attachment: 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (21721 : Rural 9.A.9Packet Pg. 151Attachment: 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (21721 : Rural 9.A.9Packet Pg. 152Attachment: 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (21721 : Rural 9.A.9Packet Pg. 153Attachment: 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (21721 : Rural 9.A.9Packet Pg. 154Attachment: 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (21721 : Rural 9.A.9Packet Pg. 155Attachment: 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (21721 : Rural 9.A.9Packet Pg. 156Attachment: 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (21721 : Rural 9.A.9Packet Pg. 157Attachment: 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (21721 : Rural 9.A.9Packet Pg. 158Attachment: 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (21721 : Rural 9.A.9Packet Pg. 159Attachment: 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (21721 : Rural 9.A.9Packet Pg. 160Attachment: 07. Attachment E Minutes of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop, dated June 20, 2017 (21721 : Rural 9.A.10Packet Pg. 161Attachment: 08. Attachment F RFMUD Executive Summary, dated September 25, 2018 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy 9.A.10Packet Pg. 162Attachment: 08. Attachment F RFMUD Executive Summary, dated September 25, 2018 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy 9.A.11Packet Pg. 163Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 164Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 165Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 166Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 167Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 168Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 169Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 170Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 171Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 172Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 173Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 174Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 175Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.11Packet Pg. 176Attachment: 09. Attachment G Stakeholder Comments (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.12Packet Pg. 177Attachment: 10. Attachment H Countywide FLUM (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.13Packet Pg. 178Attachment: 11. Attachment I Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Maps (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy 9.A.13Packet Pg. 179Attachment: 11. Attachment I Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Maps (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy February 16, 2022 Michael Bosi, AICP, Zoning Director C. James Sabo, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager Collier County Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL 34114 Re: Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Restudy – Proposed FLUE Changes HM File. 2021.028 Gentlemen: On behalf of several clients who are landowners within the RFMUD, please see the information provided below and attached documents, with recommendations for your consideration. Background: The RFMUD Restudy was directed by the BCC in early 2015, after a White Paper, entitled Report on the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – Recommendations for Programmatic Changes, was presented to the BCC on behalf of a coalition of RFMUD landowners. Now, some 7 years later, in 2022, the RFMUD Restudy (“Restudy”) considerations are finally being considered by the BCC. On December 14, 2021, the BCC continued the presentation by staff on recommended changes to the RFMUD, directed staff to conduct public outreach, and to schedule a BCC workshop on the Restudy. There was also discussion related to recommendations for potential changes, as may be warranted, to TDR generation rates from Sending lands. It is anticipated that staff will make a recommendation for potential BCC workshop date(s) at the March 2022 BCC hearing. I have previously provided staff with recommendations to the staff proposed changes and provided public testimony regarding the same at the May 20, 2021, CCPC hearing. I have also indicated that, on behalf of my clients, we support the proposed changes, specifically as recommended for approval by the CCPC. The BCC Executive summary indicates that staff has incorporated the CCPC recommended changes in their recommendation. In addition to my previous comments and public testimony regarding the changes to the RFMUD, I offer the following for staff consideration related to TDR generation rates (from Sending Lands). Staff prepared a White Paper in advance of a 2017 BCC Workshop. The White Paper provided an analysis of the number of outstanding potential TDR Credits at that time, based upon the number of privately owned acres of Sending Lands that had not, at that time, severed TDRs form their land (see Tables below). 9.A.14 Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Correspondence-Mulhere (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 2 of 7 H:\2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx Source: Collier County Staff 2017 Whiter Paper Source: Collier County Staff 2017 Whiter Paper Source: Collier County Staff 2017 Whiter Paper 9.A.14 Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Correspondence-Mulhere (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 3 of 7 H:\2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx In April of 2021, leading up to the CCPC hearing on proposed RFMUD amendments, the staff updated the TDR information, as follows: Source: Collier County Staff Report, April 1, 2021 Source: Collier County Staff Report, April 1, 2021 Source: Collier County Staff Report, April 1, 2021 9.A.14 Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Correspondence-Mulhere (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 4 of 7 H:\2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx Source: Collier County Staff Report, April 1, 2021 There are two sides to the TDR equation that must be addressed as part of this Restudy; the “Supply” side and the “Demand” side. It is clear from actual experience in the process of entitling Receiving Lands that: 1. The currently available Conveyance TDR is not achievable in most cases; 2. Owners of smaller Sending Lands parcels, do not perceive a sufficient value to motivate them to sever TDRs1 3. At present, there simply are not enough TDRs available in the marketplace to entitle the remaining Receiving Lands; 4. Given the current market price for TDRs of +/- $15,000 per TDR, the lack of readily available TDRs for purchase, the additional cost for development in most of the remaining RFMUD vacant lands, and the current maximum allowable density of 1.0 DU per acre on Non-Village Receiving Lands, there simply is not sufficient market attraction as the cost to develop is greater than the potential return. The Supply side should be addressed by increasing the number of TDRs that can be generated from Sending Lands. Doing so will increase the return to the Sending Landowner, creating a much greater incentive to sever TDRs.2 The effect of this increase, on the Demand side, will be to reduce the per TDR market price (simply by having more TDRs available for purchase), and to increase the market attraction to acquire TDRs for use in Receiving areas. 1 For example, severing the base TDRs (now recommended by staff to be 0.4 TDRs per 5 acres) and obtaining the one (1) Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus Credit (0.2 TDRs per 5 acres) yields 3 TDRs. At current estimated market price of $15,000 per TDR, that is $45,000. However, after subtracting the cost of the process, and the exotic removal and ongoing responsibility to maintain the land exotic free (estimated at $10,000), the actual return to the Sending Land parcel owner for serving these TDRs is maybe $35,000, at best. 2 For Example, if the owner of a 5 acres Sending Land parcel can generate 6 TDRs from that parcel (2 base TDRs and 3 Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus Credits, will yield $62,500 at $12,500 per credit). Even after assuming a cost of $10,000 to go through the severance process and to remove exotics (the return to the Send Landowner $52,500 significantly higher than the current potential return. 9.A.14 Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Correspondence-Mulhere (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 5 of 7 H:\2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx One of the major policy objective (of the TDR program) was to compensate Sending Land owners for the lost value they incurred when the adopted RFMUD program was adopted.3 Adjusting the program to increase the number of TDRs that can be generated from Sending Lands will increase the number readily available in the marketplace and reduce the per TDR cost, while providing a greater return to Sending Land owners, ultimately furthering the policy objective of compensating Sending Land owners for lost value. The exhibit below identifies the Receiving Areas numerically (labeled 1 through 4 for ease of reference). Excerpt from Collier County FLUM - RFMUD Designated Lands Receiving Area 1 (the northern most Receiving area), consisting of 1998 acres, is included in its entirety in proposed Immokalee Road Rural Village (IRRV) MPUD. Assuming IRRV MPUD is approved, the property owner will need to acquire some 1,137 TDRs from Sending Lands outside of the proposed MPUD. Receiving Area 2 is, for the most part, developed. Given the development pattern, a Rural Village cannot be developed in this area. There are approximately 788 acres of land that could be aggregated in some fashion, to be developed under the Non-Village scenario. At a max density of 1.0 DUs per acre, that would require 630.4 TDRs. At a maximum allowable density of 2.0 DUs per acre for Non-Village development (as recommended by staff) that would require 1,418.4 TDRs. Receiving Areas 3 (North Belle Meade) and 4 (Belle Meade) are largely undeveloped, with significant active agriculture and mining use. Receiving Area 3 (North Belle Meade) may include a Village of up to 1,500 acres. Staff analysis indicates that, assuming a 1,500-acre Village is developed, that leaves 1,839 acres of undeveloped Non-Village Receiving Land. Area 3 includes an additional 578 acres of land to be designated Receiving on the County-owned Hussey Settlement Property. It is unclear if the additional 578 3 The density on Sending Lands was reduced from 1 unit per 5 acres to 1 unit per 40 acres. The permitted uses on Sending Lands were significantly limited, and even more so for Sending Lands within a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA). The required nati ve vegetation retention was increased to 80% (and 90% with a NRPA). 9.A.14 Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Correspondence-Mulhere (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 6 of 7 H:\2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx acres of Receiving was factored into the staff’s analysis. Assuming a 1500-acre Village is developed, the remainder of Non-Village Receiving Land would be 2,417 acres (inclusive of the additional 578 acres of Receiving Lands from the Hussey Settlement). That Non-Village acreage will require 1,933.6 TDRs at a density of 1.0 DUs per acre. The 1,500-acre Village would require 1275 TDRs at 2.0 DUs per acre and 2,025 TDRs at 3.0 DUs per acre. 4 Receiving Area 4 (Bell Meade) is the largest of all the Receiving Areas containing approximately 6,691 acres of land, according to staff’s Table 1 TDR Demand Potential. Receiving Area 4 (Belle Meade) may include a Village of up to 2,500 acres. Assuming 2,500-acre Village is developed, that would require 2,100 TDRs at 2.0 DUs per acre and 3,350 TDRs at 3.0 DUs per acre. The remaining 4,101 acres of Non-Village land would require 3,280.8 TDRs. Based upon above assumptions, there are approximately 13,656 acres of undeveloped Receiving Lands. Removing the 1,998 acres of IRRV MPUD Receiving Lands, that leaves approximately 11,658 undeveloped acres. The Table (TDR Demand Scenarios) provides the estimated TDR demand to entitle the remaining undeveloped Receiving Lands at a low and at a high range, assuming 4,000 acres of future Rural Village at both 2.0 DUs per acre and 3.0 DUs per acre, and for the remaining undeveloped Non- Village Receiving Lands, a TDR Demand at a density of 1.0 DU per acre and at 2.0 DUs per acre. TDR Demand Scenarios (1-23-2022) Based upon the April 2021 Staff Report. Table 2.2 (Total TDR Supply and Demand), there is a deficit of +/- 3,118 TDRs (assuming a 60% utilization rate). The changes recommended herein to effectively double the reasonably achievable TDR generation rate from 3 per 5 acres of Sending to 6 per 5 acres of Sending, 4 1 Rural Village Bonus Credit is granted for each TDR acquired. Villages are required to provide 0.2 units per acre of affordable housing and receive 0.5 bonus units for each affordable housing unit provided. The formula is as follows. In the case of a 1,500-acre Village in Receiving Area 3 (North Belle Meade): 1,500 x 2.0 = 3,000 DUs 3,000 - Minus the based density of 0.2 DUs per acre (300 DUs) is 2,700 2,700 - Minus the Affordable Housing Bonus of 150 units 2,550. 2,550 - 2,550 is then split between TDRs credits (1,275) and Village Bonus Units (1,275). Using the same formula, at 3.0 DUs per acre, 2,025 TDRs are needed. 1,275 - 1,275 TDRs and/or TDR Bonus Credits are needed to entitle 1,500-acre Village at 2.0 DUs per acre. At 3.0 DUs per acre, 2,025 TDRs and/or TDR Bonus Credits are needed. Using the same me formula, a 2,500-acre Village in Receiving Area 4 (Belle Meade) will require 2,100 TDRs at 2.0 units per acre, and 3,350 TDRs at 3.0 DUs per acre. 9.A.14 Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Correspondence-Mulhere (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 7 of 7 H:\2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx will create increased availability of TDRs in the marketplace and reduce the per TDR cost. This will also significantly increase the utilization rate. The result will be an increase in the amount of return to Sending Landowners for lost value (as was the primary TDR policy objective). Of course, the severance and utilization of TDRs should be monitored annually, as adjustments may be warranted. The use of TDRs to increase market rate density in the Urban Area, in certain locations, including but not limited to the remaining undeveloped portions of the Urban Residential Fringe, should be reevaluated as well. Concluding Comments and Recommendations: There is no perfect solution to effectively address the supply and demand equation as there are many variables, and the free market is always in a state of flux. However, the most reasonable and effective process is to adjust the TDR equation and then to monitor the outcomes resultant from those adjustments. The following struck-through/underlined changes to the TDR generation rates for Sending Lands are suggested. It is also suggested that an annual review be conducted, to determine whether adjustments or additional change ae necessary. Also, I want to reiterate support for the proposed amendments to the RFMUD consistent with the Planning Board’s motion, and as revised by staff to be consistent with that motion. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or wish to discuss these recommendations further. Sincerely, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP President/CEO Enclosures as noted. cc: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire - Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester Donald R. Schrotenboer David Torres, CEO - Florida Star Development Jaime Weisinger - Lipman Family Farms Michelle Mosca, AICP, Collier County Principal Planner 9.A.14 Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Correspondence-Mulhere (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Attachment “A” Proposed Amendments to Collier County GMP Future Land Use Element TDR and TDR Bonus Generation Rates B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Sending, Neutral, and Receiving Designations: C) Sending Lands: Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. 1. Sending Lands are located entirely within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and are depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Based upon their location, Sending Lands are the principal target for preservation and conservation. Private Property owners of lands designated as Sending Lands may transfer density to Receiving Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and to lands within the Urban Designated Area subject to limitations set forth in the Density Rating System. All privately owned lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay are designated Sending Lands. (XIV) 2. Base Severance Rate:1 Development rights may be severed from Sending Lands at a maximum rate of 0.2 0.6 TDR credits per acre (13 TDR Credit per five acres). Utilization of TDR Credits and TDR Bonus Credits in Receiving Lands may only occur in whole number increments (fractions are prohibited). In the case of legal nonconforming lots or parcels in existence as of June 22, 1999, where such lot or parcel is less than 5 acres in size, one three (3) TDR Credits may be severed from said lot or parcel. 3. Conditions Applicable to Base and Bonus TDR Credits: a) Base TDR Credits may not be severed from Sending Lands where a conservation easement or other similar development restriction prohibits residential development. b) The severance of credits shall be recorded in public records utilizing a legal instrument determined to be appropriate by the County Attorney’s Office. Said instrument shall clearly state the remaining allowable lands uses on the subject property after all, or a portion, of the residential density has been severed from the property. c) Where development rights have been severed from Sending Lands, such lands may be retained in private ownership or may be sold or deeded by gift to another entity. d) The bonus provisions set forth in subsections 4 through 5 6 below are applicable to properties from which TDR Credits were severed prior to and subsequent to the effective date of this amendment. e) These bonus provisions set forth in subsections 4, 5, and through 6, below are also applicable to the North Belle Meade Overlay provisions of the Future Land Use Element. 1 The proposed increase effectively doubles the number of TDRs and TDR Bonus credits that can currently be achieved from the Base TDR combined the Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus (from 3 to 6 TDRs and TDR Bonus Credits. 9.A.14 Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Correspondence-Mulhere (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) f) Any Sending Lands from which TDR Credits have been severed may also be utilized for mitigation programs and associated mitigation activities and uses in conjunction with any county, state or federal permitting. g) No Conveyance Bonus Credits shall be available without provision of a plan for management and maintenance as authorized in subsection 4 below (the Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus). 4. Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus: Three (3) additional TDR Bonus Credits may be issued to the owner of each five-acre parcel or legal nonconforming lot of record. This Bonus shall be granted upon the County’s acceptance of a Restoration and Management Plan (RMP) that is consistent with a listed species management plan that includes habitat management, the removal of exotics and the maintenance of the land exotic free. In the event the RMP includes restoration of areas that were either previously cleared for farming or other for purposes, or areas that require supplemental plantings to create a functional native habitat, including upland, wetland and wading bird habitat, one (1) additional Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus may be granted for each restored acre. The property owner may contract with any of the government agencies or contractors deemed qualified by the County for implementation of the RMP. The property owner shall provide financial assurance, in the form of a performance surety bond or similar financial security acceptable to the County, that the RMP shall remain in place and be performed until the earlier of the following occurs: a) Viable and sustainable ecological and hydrological functionality has been achieved on the property as measured by the success criteria set forth in the RMP. b) The property is conveyed to a county, state or federal agency, as provided for in subsection 5 below. c) Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay (BMHEO): For Sending Lands properties in private ownership located within, or partially within, the BMHEO, one (1) additional Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus Credit shall be granted for a total of up to four (4) TDR Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus Credits per five (5) acres or per legal nonconforming lots or parcels in existence as of June 22, 1999, where such lot or parcel is less than 5 acres in size. This additional Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus Credit shall be granted when: 1) The property owner provides a “Flow-Way Easement” to Collier County; and 2) The property owner removes the invasive exotic plants from the parcel. The County will assume responsibility for recording of the easement and for perpetual exotic maintenance of the parcel as a condition of the property owner granting the easement. In the alternative, should the County or any other public conservation agency, accept by gift the conveyance of fee simple title of any parcel within or partially within the BMHEO, as provided for in Paragraph 5., below, the property owner shall be granted four (4) TDR Bonus Credits, subject to any conditions placed upon the property owner as a part of that conveyance. 9.A.14 Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Correspondence-Mulhere (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 5. Conveyance TDR Bonus:2 A TDR Bonus Credit shall be issued to the owner of each five (5) acre parcel or legal nonconforming lot of record designated as Sending Lands, at the transfer rate of one (1) additional TDR Bonus Credit for each five acres or legal nonconforming lot of record for conveyance of fee simple title to a federal, state, or local governmental agency, or to a not-for- profit entity or land trust approved by the Board of County Commissioners, by gift. 2 To date the Conveyance Bonus Credit has, for the most part, not been achievable. 9.A.14 Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Correspondence-Mulhere (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Underlined text is added; struck through text is deleted 1 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION [Page 25] *********************************** text break***************************************** I. URBAN DESIGNATION [Page 25] ************************************text break**************************************** A. Urban Mixed Use District [Page 27] *********************************** text break **************************************** Port of the Island is a unique development Port of the Islands is a unique development, which is located within the Urban Designated Area, but is also totally within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. However, a portion of the development was determined “vested” by the State of Florida, thus exempting it from the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Further, there is an existing Development Agreement between Port of the Islands, Inc. and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs dated July 2, 1985, which regulates land uses at Port of the Islands. Port of the Islands is eligible for all provisions of the Urban Mixed Use District in which it is located to the extent that the overall residential density and commercial intensity does not exceed that permitted under zoning at time of adoption of this Plan. *********************************** text break **************************************** 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. *********************************** text break **************************************** 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict [Page 28] The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either “a” or “b” below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided below for the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements, including the routing of all on-site and appropriate off-site water through the project’s water management system, and a fair share cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal/out-fall system made necessary by new development in the Subdistrict. a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit (transferable development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, with the following exceptions: i. Properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Underlined text is added; struck through text is deleted 2 of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; or, ii. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density; or, iii. Up to 1.52 additional units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the 196.4 acre portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: *********************************** text break **************************************** 2. Density Bonuses [Page 53] *********************************** text break **************************************** d. Residential In-fill [Page 54] To encourage residential in-fill in urban areas of existing development outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, a maximum of 3 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if the following criteria are met: (a) The project is 20 acres or less in size; (b) At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer; (c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses; (d) The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent property; (e) There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels; and (f) The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in-fill residential density bonus and was created prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989;. (g) Of the maximum 3 additional units, one (1) dwelling unit per acre shall be transferred from Sending Lands; and (h) Projects qualifying under this provision may increase the density administratively by a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre by transferring that additional density from Sending Lands. ***********************************text break************************************************ f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus [Page 54] To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted as follows: (a) From Urban designated areas into that portion of the Urban designated area subject to this Density Rating System, in accordance with 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. For projects utilizing this TDR process, density may be increased above and beyond the density otherwise allowed by the Density Rating System. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Underlined text is added; struck through text is deleted 3 (b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development. (c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit per gross acre, with the following exceptions: i. Properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. ii. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density increase. iii. Up to 1.52 additional units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the 196.4 acre portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000- 10, as amended, excepting the ±39 acres located in the South ½ of the Southwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. **********************************text break**************************************** II. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION [Page 74] **********************************text break**************************************** B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District [Page 76] The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is identified on Future Land Use Map. This District consists of approximately 93,60077,200 acres, or 76% of Collier County’s total land area. Significant portions of this District are adjacent to the Urban area or to the semi-rural, rapidly developing, large-lot North Golden Gate Estates platted lands. Agricultural land uses within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District do not represent a significant portion of the County’s active agricultural lands. As of the date of adoption, of this Plan Amendment, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District consisted of more than 5,550 tax parcels and includeds at least 3,835 separate and distinct property owners. Alternative land use strategies have been developed for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, in part, to consider these existing conditions. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Underlined text is added; struck through text is deleted 4 The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural/Rural and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District employs a balanced approach, including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources and private property rights, providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in designated areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities, commercial uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the District. In order to preserve existing natural resources, including habitat for listed species, to retain a rural, pastoral, or park-like appearance from the major public rights-of-way within this area, and to protect private property rights, the following innovative planning and development techniques are required and/or encouraged within the District. 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. 1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Sending, Neutral, and Receiving Designations: The primary purpose of the TDR process within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is to establish an equitable method of protecting and conserving the most valuable environmental lands, including large connected wetland systems and significant areas of habitat for listed species, while allowing property owners of such lands to recoup lost value and development potential through an economically viable process of transferring such rights to other more suitable lands. Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, residential density may be transferred from lands designated as Sending Lands to lands designated as Receiving Lands on the Future Land Use Map, subject to the provisions below. Residential density may not be transferred either from or into areas designated as Neutral Lands through the TDR process. A) Receiving Lands: Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development units may be transferred from areas designated as Sending Lands. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations. Various incentives are employed to direct development into Receiving Lands and away from Sending Lands, thereby maximizing native vegetation and habitat preservation and restoration. Such incentives include, but are not limited to: the TDR process; clustered development; density bonus incentives; and, provisions for central sewer and water. Within Receiving Lands, the following standards shall apply, except for those modifications that are identified in the North Belle Meade Overlay: 1. Maximum Density, except for Housing that is Affordable: The base residential density allowable for designated Receiving Lands is one (1) unit per five (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum density achievable in Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per acre for the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade Receiving Lands; and, two (2) dwelling units per acre for the two Receiving Lands areas along Immokalee Road. This maximum density is exclusive of the Density Blending provisions. Dwelling Units may only be transferred into Receiving Lands in whole unit increments (fractional transfers are prohibited). Once the maximum density is achieved through the use of TDR Credits, additional density may be achieved as follows: a) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Underlined text is added; struck through text is deleted 5 be allowed for each additional acre of native vegetation preserved exceeding the minimum preservation requirements set forth in Policy 6.1.2 of the CCME. b) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall be allowed as provided in Policy 6.2.5(6)b of the CCME. 2. Maximum Density for Housing that is Affordable: For a project providing housing that is affordable, a maximum density of twelve and two-tenths (12.2) units per acre is allowed, consistent with Section 2.06.00 of the LDC, subject to rezone approval, and subject to the approval of an “Affordable Housing Agreement.” TDR credits are not required, nor allowed, to achieve density. 3. Clustering: Where the transfer of development rights or provision for housing that is affordable is employed to increase residential density within Receiving Lands, such residential development shall be clustered in accordance with the following provisions: a) Consistent with the provisions of the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub- elements of this Plan, central water and sewer shall be extended to the project. Where County sewer or water services may not be available concurrent with development in Receiving Lands, interim private water and sewer facilities may be approved. b) The maximum lot size allowable for a single-family detached dwelling unit is one acre. c) The clustered development shall be located on the site so as to provide to the greatest degree practicable: protection for listed species habitat; preservation of the highest quality native vegetation; connectivity to adjacent natural reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation, maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. 3. 4. Minimum Project Size: The minimum project size required in order to receive transferred dwelling units is 40 contiguous acres, except no minimum project size is required for the Receiving Lands areas along Immokalee Road. 5. Project Size: Where TDR Credits are utilized, the project size must be less than three hundred (300) acres. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 6 4.6. Emergency Preparedness: a) In order to reduce the likelihood of threat to life and property from a tropical storm or hurricane event, community facilities, schools, or other public buildings shall be designed to serve as storm shelters if located outside of areas that are likely to be inundated during storm events, as indicated on the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricane Map for Collier County. Impacts on evacuation routes, if any, must be considered as well. Applicants for new residential or mixed use developments proposed for Receiving Lands shall work with the Collier County Emergency Management staff to develop an Emergency Preparedness Plan to include provisions for storm shelter space, a plan for emergency evacuation, and other provisions that may be deemed appropriate and necessary to mitigate against a potential disaster. b) Applicants for new developments proposed for Receiving Lands shall work with the Florida Forest Service and the Managers of any adjacent or nearby public lands, to develop a Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan that will reduce the likelihood of threat to life and property from wildfires. This plan will address, at a minimum: project structural design; the use of materials and location of structures so as to reduce wildfire threat; firebreaks and buffers; water features; and, the impacts of prescribed burning on adjacent or nearby lands. 5. 7. Allowable Uses: Uses within Receiving Lands are limited to the following: a) Agricultural uses; b) Single-family residential dwelling units, including mobile homes where a Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists. c) Multi-family residential structures shall be permitted under the Residential Clustering provisions of this plan, subject to the development of appropriate development standards to ensure that the transitional semi-rural character of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is preserved. These development standards shall include, but are not limited to: building heights, design standards, buffers, and setbacks. d) Rural Villages, subject to the provisions set forth in II. B.3 of this element. e) Dormitories, duplexes and other types of staff housing, as may be incidental to, and in support of, conservation uses. f) Group housing uses subject to the following density/intensity limitations: • Family Care Facilities: 1 unit per 5 acres; • Group Care Facilities and other Care Housing Facilities: Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) not to exceed 0.45. g) Staff housing as may be incidental to, and in support of, safety service facilities and essential services; h) Farm labor housing limited to 10 acres in any single location: • Single family/duplex/mobile home: 11 dwelling units per acre; • Multifamily/dormitory: 22 dwelling units/beds per acre. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 7 i) Sporting and Recreational camps within which the lodging component shall not exceed 1 unit per 5 gross acres; j) Essential services. k) Golf courses or driving ranges, subject to the following standards: (1) The minimum density shall be as follows: (a) For golf course projects, including both freestanding golf courses and golf courses with associated residential development: one TDR credit shall be required for every five (5) gross acres of land area utilized as part of the golf course, including the clubhouse area, rough, fairways, greens, and lakes, but excluding any area dedicated as conservation that is non-irrigated and retained in a natural state. Any residential development associated with the golf course shall have a minimum density of one (1) dwelling unit per five acres. (2) Golf courses shall be designed, constructed, and managed in accordance with the best management practices of Audubon International’s Gold Signature Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (3) In order to prevent the contamination of soil, surface water and ground water by the materials stored and handled by golf course maintenance operations, golf courses shall comply with the Best Management Practices for Golf Course Maintenance Departments, prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, May 1995 September 2012. (4) To protect ground and surface water quality from fertilizer and pesticide usage, golf courses shall demonstrate the following management practices: (a) The use of slow release nitrogen sources; (b) The use of soil and plant tissue analysis to adjust timing and amount of fertilization applications; (c) The use of an integrated pest management program using both biological and chemical agents to control various pests; (d) The coordination of pesticide applications with the timing and application of irrigation water; (e) The use of the procedure contained in IFAS Circular 1011, Managing Pesticides for Golf Course Maintenance and Water Quality Protection, May 1991 (revised 1995) to select pesticides that will have a minimum adverse impact on water quality. (5) To ensure water conservation, golf courses shall incorporate the following in their design and operation: (a) Irrigation systems shall be designed to use weather station information and moisture-sensing systems to determine the optimum amount of irrigation water needed considering soil moisture and evapotranspiration rates. (b) As available, golf courses shall utilize treated effluent reuse water consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element Objective 1.4 and its 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 8 policies; (c) Native plants shall be used exclusively except for special purpose areas such as golf greens, fairways, and building sites. Within these excepted areas, landscaping plans shall require that at least 75% of the trees and 50% of the shrubs be freeze-tolerant native Floridian species. At least 75% of the required native trees and shrubs shall also be drought tolerant species. (6) Stormwater management ponds shall be designed to mimic the functions of natural systems: by establishing shorelines that are sinuous in configuration in order to provide increased length and diversity of the littoral zone. A Littoral shelf shall be established to provide a feeding area for water dependent avian species. The combined length of vertical and rip-rapped walls shall be limited to 25% of the shoreline. Credits to the site preservation area requirements, on an acre- to- acre basis, shall be given for littoral shelves that exceed these littoral shelf area requirements. (7) Site preservation and native vegetation retention requirements shall be the same as those set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. These areas are intended to provide habitat functions and shall meet minimum dimensions as set forth in the Land Development Code. These standards shall be established within one year. l) Commercial development as permitted as part of an approved Rural Village. Within one year of adoption of these amendments, the County will develop appropriate standards for commercial development within Rural Villages, with particular focus on design, scale, and access provisions that will maintain the rural character or semi-rural character of the District. m) Research and Technology Parks, consistent with the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict provided for in the Urban designation, and within an approved Rural Village. Within one year of adoption of these amendments, the County will develop appropriate standards for Research and Technology Parks within Rural Villages, with particular focus on design, scale, and access provisions that will maintain the rural character or semi-rural character of the District. n) Business and Industrial Uses as identified as Florida Qualified Target Industries. Within one (1) year from the date of adoption of this amendment, the LDC shall be amended to provide design standards, development standards, and locational criteria. o) Neighborhood commercial uses within Affordable Housing projects. Within one (1) year from the date of adoption of this amendment, the LDC shall be amended to provide uses, design standards, development standards, and locational criteria. n) p) Zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or other similar uses. o) q) Public educational plants and ancillary plants. p) r) Facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste. q) s) Community facilities, such as, places of worship, childcare facilities, cemeteries, social and fraternal organizations. r) t) Sports instructional schools and camps. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 9 s) u) Earthmining, oil extraction and related processing. t) v) Asphalt and concrete batch-making plants. u) w) Travel trailer recreational vehicle parks, provided the following criteria are met: 1) The subject site is abutting an existing travel trailer recreational vehicle park site; and, 2) The subject site is no greater than 100% the size of the existing abutting park site. v) x) Parks, open space, and recreational uses. w) y) Private schools. 6. 7. Density Blending shall be permitted subject to the provisions set forth in the Density Rating System. 7. 8. Open Space and Native Vegetation Preservation Requirements: a) Usable Open Space: Within Receiving Lands projects utilizing TDR Credits greater than 40 acres in size shall provide a minimum of 70% usable open space. Usable Open Space includes active or passive recreation areas such as parks, playgrounds, golf courses, waterways, lakes, nature trails, and other similar open spaces. Usable Open Space shall also include areas set aside for conservation or preservation of native vegetation and lawn, yard and landscape areas. Open water beyond the perimeter of the site, street right- of-way, except where dedicated or donated for public uses, driveways, off- street parking and loading areas, shall not be counted towards required Usable Open Space. b) Native Vegetation Preservation: Native vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. 8. Adjustment to Receiving Lands Boundaries. For all properties designated Receiving Lands where such property is contiguous to a Receiving Land/Sending Land boundary, the property owner may submit data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate that a change in the boundary is warranted. Within one year from the effective date of this provision, the County may initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider such boundary changes upon a showing of the following: a) The property is contiguous to Sending Lands; b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property contains characteristics warranting a Sending designation; and c) An adjustment to the Receiving Lands boundary will not adversely affect the TDR program. B) Neutral Lands: Neutral Lands have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development. Available data indicates that Neutral Lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation, and thus higher habitat values, than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but these values do not approach those of Sending Lands. Therefore, these lands are 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 10 appropriate for limited development, if such development is directed away from existing native vegetation and habitat. A lower maximum gross density is prescribed for Neutral Lands when compared to Receiving Lands. Additionally, certain other uses permitted within Receiving Lands are not authorized in Neutral Lands. Within Neutral Lands, the following standards shall apply: 1. Maximum Density: 1 dwelling unit per 5 gross acres (0.2 units per acre). 2. Clustering: Clustering of residential development is allowed and encouraged. Where clustered development is employed, it shall be in accordance with the following provisions: a) If within the boundaries of the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District, and consistent with the provisions of the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub- elements of this Plan, central water and sewer shall be extended to the project. Where County sewer or water services may not be available concurrent with development in Neutral Lands, interim private water and sewer facilities may be approved. b) The maximum lot size is one acre. c) The clustered development shall be located on the site so as to provide to the greatest degree practicable: protection for listed species habitat; preservation of the highest quality native vegetation; connectivity to adjacent natural reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation, maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. d) The minimum project size shall be at least 40 acres. 3. Allowable Uses: a) Agricultural uses; b) Single-family residential dwelling units, including mobile homes where a Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists. c) Multi-family residential structures shall be permitted under the Residential Clustering provisions of this plan, subject to the development of appropriate development standards to ensure that the transitional semi-rural character of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is preserved. These development standards shall include, but are not limited to: building heights, design standards, buffers, and setbacks. d) Dormitories, duplexes and other types of staff housing, as may be incidental to, and in support of, conservation uses. e) Group housing uses subject to the following density/intensity limitations: • Family Care Facilities: 1 unit per 5 acres; • Group Care Facilities and other Care Housing Facilities: Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) not to exceed 0.45. f) Staff housing as may be incidental to, and in support of, safety service facilities and essential services; g) Farm labor housing limited to 10 acres in any single location: • Single family/duplex/mobile home: 11 dwelling units per acre; 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 11 • Multifamily/dormitory: 22 dwelling units/beds per acre. h) Sporting and Recreational camps, within which the lodging component shall not exceed 1 unit per 5 gross acres; i) Essential services. j) Golf courses or driving ranges, subject to the following standards: (1) Golf courses shall be designed, constructed, and managed in accordance with the best management practices of Audubon International’s Gold Signature Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2) In order to prevent the contamination of soil, surface water and ground water by the materials stored and handled by golf course maintenance operations, golf courses shall comply with the Best Management Practices for Golf Course Maintenance Departments, prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, May 1995 September 2012. (3) To protect ground and surface water quality from fertilizer and pesticide usage, golf courses shall demonstrate the following management practices: (a) The use of slow release nitrogen sources; (b) The use of soil and plant tissue analysis to adjust timing and amount of fertilization applications; (c) The use of an integrated pest management program using both biological and chemical agents to control various pests; (d) The coordination of pesticide applications with the timing and application of irrigation water; (e) The use of the procedure contained in IFAS Circular 1011, Managing Pesticides for Golf Course Maintenance and Water Quality Protection, May 1991 (revised 1995) to select pesticides that will have a minimum adverse impact on water quality. (4) To ensure water conservation, golf courses shall incorporate the following in their design and operation: (a) Irrigation systems shall be designed to use weather station information and moisture-sensing systems to determine the optimum amount of irrigation water needed considering soil moisture and evapotranspiration rates. (b) As available, golf courses shall utilize treated effluent reuse water consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element Objective 1.4 and its policies; (c) Native plants shall be used exclusively except for special purpose areas such as golf greens, fairways, and building sites. Within these excepted areas, landscaping plans shall require that at least 75% of the trees and 50% of the shrubs be freeze-tolerant native Floridian species. At least 75% of the required native trees and shrubs shall also be drought tolerant species. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 12 (5)(3) Stormwater management ponds shall be designed to mimic the functions of natural systems: by establishing shorelines that are sinuous in configuration in order to provide increased length and diversity of the littoral zone. A Littoral shelf shall be established to provide a feeding area for water dependent avian species. The combined length of vertical and rip-rapped walls shall be limited to 25% of the shoreline. Credits to the site preservation area requirements, on an acre- to- acre basis, shall be given for littoral shelves that exceed these littoral shelf area requirements. (6)(4) Site preservation and native vegetation retention requirements shall be the same as those set forth in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District criteria. Site preservation areas are intended to provide habitat functions and shall meet minimum dimensions as set forth in the Land Development Code. These standards shall be established within one year. k) Zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or other similar uses. l) Public educational plants and ancillary plants. m) Facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste. n) Community facilities, such as, places of worship, childcare facilities, cemeteries, social and fraternal organizations. o) Sports instructional schools and camps. p) Earthmining, oil extraction and related processing. q) Parks, open space, and recreational uses. r) Private schools. s) Existing units approved for the Fiddler’s Creek DRI may be reallocated to those parts of Sections 18 and 19, Township 51 South, Range 27 East added to Fiddler’s Creek DRI together with part of Section 29, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, at a density greater than 1 unit per 5 gross acres provided that no new units are added to the 6,000 previously approved units, which results in a gross density of 1.6 units per acre for the Fiddler’s Creek DRI; and further provided that no residential units shall be located on that part of Section 29 within the Fiddler’s Creek DRI; and further provided that South Florida Water Management District jurisdictional wetlands impacted by the DRI in said Sections do not exceed 10 acres. 4. Native vegetation and preservation requirements: Native vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. 5. Density Blending shall be permitted subject to the provisions set forth in the Density Rating System. 6. Adjustment to Neutral Lands Boundaries. For all properties designated Neutral Lands where such property is contiguous to a Neutral Land/Sending Land boundary, the property owner may submit data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate that a change in the boundary is warranted. Within one year from the effective date of this provision, the County may initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider such boundary changes upon a showing of the following: a) The property is contiguous to Sending Lands; 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 13 b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property contains characteristics warranting a Sending designation; and c) An adjustment to the Neutral Lands boundary will not adversely affect the TDR program. C) Sending Lands: Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. 1. Sending Lands are located entirely within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and are depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Based upon their location, Sending Lands are the principal target for preservation and conservation. Private Property owners of lands designated as Sending Lands may transfer density to Receiving Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and to lands within the Urban Designated Area subject to limitations set forth in the Density Rating System. All privately owned lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay are designated Sending Lands. 2. Base Severance Rate: Development rights may be severed from Sending Lands at a maximum rate of 0.2 0.4 TDR credits per acre (1 2 TDR Credits per five acres). Utilization of TDR Credits and TDR Bonus Credits in Receiving Lands may only occur in whole number increments (fractions are prohibited). In the case of legal nonconforming lots or parcels in existence as of June 22, 1999, where such lot or parcel is less than 5 acres in size, one two (2) TDR Credits may be severed from said lot or parcel. 3. Conditions Applicable to Base and Bonus TDR Credits: a) Base TDR Credits may not be severed from Sending Lands where a conservation easement or other similar development restriction prohibits residential development. b) The severance of credits shall be recorded in public records utilizing a legal instrument determined to be appropriate by the County Attorney’s Office. Said instrument shall clearly state the remaining allowable lands uses on the subject property after all, or a portion, of the residential density has been severed from the property. c) Where development rights have been severed from Sending Lands, such lands may be retained in private ownership or may be sold or deeded by gift to another entity. d) The bonus provisions set forth in subsections 4 through 6 7 below are applicable to properties from which TDR Credits were severed prior to and subsequent to the effective date of this amendment. e) These bonus provisions set forth in subsections 4 through 6 below are also applicable to the North Belle Meade Overlay provisions of the Future Land Use Element. f) Any Sending Lands from which TDR Credits have been severed may also be utilized for mitigation programs and associated mitigation activities and uses in 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 14 conjunction with any county, state or federal permitting. g) No Conveyance Bonus Credits shall be available without provision of a plan for management and maintenance as authorized in subsection 4 below (the Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus). 4. Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus: One (1) additional TDR Bonus Credit may be issued to the owner of each five-acre parcel or legal nonconforming lot of record. This Bonus shall be granted upon the County’s acceptance of a Restoration and Management Plan (RMP) that is consistent with a listed species management plan that includes habitat management, the removal of exotics and the maintenance of the land exotic free. The property owner may contract with any of the government agencies or contractors deemed qualified by the County for implementation of the RMP. The property owner shall provide financial assurance, in the form of a performance surety bond or similar financial security acceptable to the County, that the RMP shall remain in place and be performed until the earlier of the following occurs: a) Viable and sustainable ecological and hydrological functionality has been achieved on the property as measured by the success criteria set forth in the RMP. b) The property is conveyed to a county, state or federal agency, as provided for in subsection 5 below. c) For Sending Lands properties in private ownership located within, or partially within, the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay (BMHEO), the Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus Credit shall be granted when, within two (2) years of the effective date of this provision: (1) the property owner provides a “Flow-Way Easement” to Collier County; and, (2) the property owner removes the exotics from the parcel. The County will assume responsibility for the recording of the easement and the perpetual exotic maintenance of the parcel as a condition of the property owner granting the easement. 5. Conveyance TDR Bonus: A TDR Bonus Credit shall be issued to the owner of each five (5) acre parcel or legal nonconforming lot of record designated as Sending Lands, at the transfer rate of one (1) additional TDR Bonus Credit for each five acres or legal nonconforming lot of record for conveyance of fee simple title to a federal, state, or local governmental agency by gift; or to a not-for profit entity or land trust, approved by the Board of County Commissioners, by gift. 6. Early Entry TDR Bonus: An Early Entry TDR Bonus shall be available in the form of an additional one TDR Credit for each base TDR Credit severed from Sending Lands from March 5, 2004, or until September 27, 2022, unless further extended by resolution by the Board of County Commissioners. Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits may be used after the termination of the bonus period. 6. Agriculture TDR Bonus: a) A TDR Bonus Credit may be issued to the owner of private property for each five (5) acre parcel or legal nonconforming lot of record designated Sending Lands (non-NRPA), at the transfer rate of one (1) additional TDR Bonus Credit for each five acres or legal nonconforming lot of record, utilized for an existing bona fide agricultural activity. A restrictive covenant in favor of Collier County will be placed 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 15 on lands used for agriculture restricting the use to a bona fide agricultural use in perpetuity to protect against non-agricultural development. b) A TDR Bonus Credit shall be issued to the owner of private property for each five (5) acre parcel or legal nonconforming lot of record designated NRPA Sending Lands, at the transfer rate of one (1) additional TDR Bonus Credit for each five acres or legal nonconforming lot of record, utilized for an existing bona fide passive agricultural activity. A restrictive covenant in favor of Collier County will be placed on lands used for agriculture restricting the use to a bona fide passive agricultural use in perpetuity to protect against non -agricultural development. 7. Belle Meade Flow-Way TDR Bonus: Private property owners of land located within or partially within the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay (BMHEO), as depicted on the BMHEO Map, may sever development rights from Sending Lands at a maximum rate of 0.2 TDR credits per acre (1 TDR Credit per five acres) or legal nonconforming lot of record in exchange for providing a “Flow-Way Easement” to Collier County. Eligibility is limited to within two (2) years of adoption of the establishment of the BMHEO. Eligible parcels are identified on the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Area Flow- Way TDR Bonus Credit Eligibility Map, adopted by separate resolution (Res. 20-XXX). 78. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are limited to the following: a) Agricultural uses consistent with Chapter 823.14(6) Florida Statutes (Florida Right to Farm Act). b) Detached single-family dwelling units, including mobile homes where the Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres or one dwelling unit per lot or parcel of less than 40 acres, which existed on or before June 22, 1999. For the purpose of this provision, a lot or parcel which is deemed to have been in existence on or before June 22, 1999 is 1) a lot or parcel which is part of a subdivision recorded in the public records of Collier County, Florida; or 2) a lot or parcel which has limited fixed boundaries, described by metes and bounds or other specific legal description, the description of which has been recorded in the public records of Collier County Florida on or before June 22, 1999; or 3) a lot or parcel which has limited fixed boundaries, for which an agreement for deed was executed prior to June 22, 1999. c) Habitat preservation and conservation uses. d) Passive parks and other passive recreational uses. e) Sporting and Recreational camps, with which the lodging component shall not exceed 1 unit per 5 gross acres. f) Essential Services necessary to serve permitted uses identified in Section 7.a) through 7.e) such as private wells and septic tanks. g) Essential Services as follows, necessary to serve Urban area or the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District: utility lines, except sewer lines; sewer lines and lift stations, only if located within non-NRPA Sending Lands, and only if located within already cleared portions of existing rights-of-way or easements; and, water pumping stations and raw water wells. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 16 h) Essential Services necessary to ensure public safety. i) Oil and gas exploration. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized to minimize impacts to native habitats. 8. 9. Conditional Uses: a) The following uses are conditionally permitted subject to approval through a public hearing process: (1) Essential services not identified above in 7.f). Within one year, Collier County will review essential services currently allowed in the Land Development Code and will define those uses intended to be conditionally permitted in Sending designated lands. During this one-year period or if necessary, until a comprehensive plan amendment identifying conditionally permitted essential services, no conditional uses for essential services within Sending designated lands shall be approved. (2) Public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facilities, and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities, shall be permitted within Section 25, Township 49S, Range 26E, on lands adjacent to the existing County landfill. This shall not be interpreted to allow for the expansion of the landfill into Section 25 for the purpose of solid waste disposal. (3) Commercial uses accessory to permitted uses 7.a), 7.c) and 7.d), such as retail sales of produce accessory to farming, or a restaurant accessory to a park or preserve, so long as restrictions or limitations are imposed to insure the commercial use functions as an accessory, subordinate use. (4) Oil and gas field development and production. Where practicable, directional- drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized to minimize impacts to native habitats. (5) Facilities for resource recovery and for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste, for a ±29 acre property located within the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 49S, Range 27E, provided previously cleared or disturbed areas are utilized so as to avoid impacts to native habitats and to protect existing conservation easement areas from new or expanding uses. This shall not be interpreted to allow for the establishment or expansion of facilities for landfilling, dryfilling, incinerating, or other method of onsite solid waste disposal. (6) Active recreational uses only on lands owned by government entities other than the State of Florida and designated North Belle Meade Overlay, subject to criteria and/or definitions established in the LDC. b) In addition to the criteria set forth in the Land Development Code, Conditional Uses shall be allowed subject to the following additional criteria: (1) The applicant shall submit a plan for development that demonstrates that wetlands, listed species and their habitat are adequately protected. This plan shall be part of the required EIS as specified in Policy 6.1.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. (2) Conditions may be imposed, as deemed appropriate, to limit the size, location, 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 17 and access to the conditional use. 9. 10.Where residential density is transferred from Sending Lands, allowable uses shall be limited to the following: a) Agricultural uses consistent with Chapter 823.14(6) Florida Statutes (Florida Right to Farm Act), including water management facilities, to the extent and intensity that such operations exist at the date of any transfer of development rights. b) Cattle grazing on unimproved pasture where no clearing is required; c) Detached single-family dwelling units, including mobile homes where the Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres. In order to retain these development rights after any transfer, up to one dwelling must be retained (not transferred) per 40 acres. d) One detached dwelling unit, including mobile homes where the Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists, per each preexisting lot or parcel of less than 40 acres. For the purpose of this provision, a preexisting lot or parcel is one that was in existence on or before June 22, 1999 and is: 1) a lot or parcel which is part of a subdivision recorded in the public records of Collier County, Florida; or 2) a lot or parcel which has limited fixed boundaries, described by metes and bounds or other specific legal description, the description of which has been recorded in the public records of Collier County Florida on or before June 22, 1999; or 3) a lot or parcel which has limited fixed boundaries, for which an agreement for deed was executed prior to June 22, 1999. In order to retain these development rights after any transfer, up to one dwelling must be retained (not transferred) per each lot or parcel. e) Habitat preservation and conservation uses. f) Passive parks and passive recreational uses. g) Essential services, as authorized in Sending Lands. h) Oil extraction and related processing, excluding earth mining. 10. 11. Native Vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. 11. Adjustment to the Sending Land Boundaries. For all properties designated Sending Lands where such property is contiguous to a Sending Land/Neutral Land boundary or Sending Land/Receiving Land boundary, the County will provide written notice to the property owners to advise of the opportunity to submit additional data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate a change to the boundary is warranted. Said written notice will be provided within three months of the effective date of these Rural Fringe amendments. Within one year from the date these notices are sent, the County will initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider boundary changes, based upon the data and analysis, as may be warranted. Under the following conditions, adjustments may be proposed to Sending Land boundaries: a) The property is contiguous to Neutral or Receiving Lands; b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property does not contain characteristics warranting a Sending designation; c) An adjustment to the Sending land boundary requires an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 18 12. Clustering: For Sending Lands Parcels a minimum of eighty (80) acres, or an aggregation of parcels where each is a minimum of forty (40) acres, clustering is allowed in accordance with the following provisions: a) The maximum lot size allowable for a single-family detached dwelling unit is one acre. b) The clustered development shall be located on the site so as to provide to the greatest degree practicable: protection for listed species habitat; preservation of the highest quality native vegetation; connectivity to adjacent natural reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation, maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. D) Additional TDR Provisions: Collier County has amended its land development regulations to adopt a formal process for authorizing and tracking the Transfer of Development Rights. This process includes the following provisions: 1. The establishment of a simple, expeditious process whereby private property owners may, by right, “sell” residential dwelling units from lands designated as Sending Lands. Said units (TDR Credits) may then be transferred by right to lands designated as Receiving Lands, or to Urban Lands where authorized. Once established, the TDR program shall be administratively reviewed and approved, requiring no further public hearing or Board approval if consistent with the provisions for administrative approval. 2. The establishment of a process for tracking and recording all TDR Credits in the public records of Collier County. This shall include the identification of the entity or department responsible for on-going administration of the TDR program. In addition, the County shall consider the feasibility of establishing a “TDR Bank,” to be administered by the County or some other not-for-profit governmental or quasi- governmental public agency established for this purpose. A primary objective of the TDR Bank is to make funds available to support the TDR program by offering initial minimal purchase prices of TDR Credits. 3. Limitations and Procedures: a) TDR Credits shall not be generated from Sending Lands where a conservation easement or other similar development restriction prohibits residential development. b) The generation of TDR Credits through the severance of residential density from Sending Lands shall be recorded in public records utilizing a legal instrument determined to be appropriate by the County Attorney’s Office. c) Said instrument shall clearly state the remaining allowable land uses on the subject property after all, or a portion, of the residential density has been severed from the property. d) Where residential density has been severed from Sending Lands, such lands may be retained in private ownership or may be sold or deeded by gift to another entity. 4. The TDR process shall be the only mechanism to achieve increased density within Receiving Lands, excluding: the Density Blending provisions of this Plan;, Housing that is Affordable in the Plan; and any density bonuses authorized in the Rural Fringe 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 19 Mixed Use District. 5. A 25-year prohibition on generating TDR Credits from any parcel, or portion thereof, within Sending Lands has been cleared for agricultural purposes after June 19, 2002; except for the Agriculture TDR Bonus Credit provision. 6. A TDR Bonus Credit shall be issued to the owner of private property for each five (5) acre parcel or legal nonconforming lot of record designated Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands, at the transfer rate of one (1) additional TDR Bonus Credit for each five acres or legal nonconforming lot of record, utilized for a conservation use or an existing bona fide agricultural use. A perpetual easement shall be placed on lands used for agriculture or conservation uses to protect these lands in perpetuity. A restrictive covenant in favor of Collier County will be placed on lands used for agriculture restricting the use in perpetuity to protect against non -agricultural development. 2. Buffers Adjacent to Major Public Rights-of-way: In order to maintain and enhance the rural character within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, within one year of adoption of this amendment, Collier County will adopt land development regulations establishing buffering standards for developments adjacent to existing or proposed arterial and collector public roadways. These standards shall include, but are not limited to: applicability provisions, including establishing a minimum project size below which these requirements shall not apply; the degree to which water features, including water management lakes and canals, may be a part of this buffer; credits for existing native vegetation that is to be retained; and, credits toward any open space and native vegetation preservation requirements. 3. Rural Villages: Rural Villages may be approved within the boundaries of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District in order to: maximize the preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitat within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; to reduce the need for residents of the District and surrounding lands to travel to the County’s Urban area for work, recreation, shopping, and education; and, to enhance the provision of limited urban and rural levels of service through economies of scale. Rural Villages shall be comprised of several neighborhoods designed in a compact nature such that a majority of residential development is within one quarter mile of Neighborhood Centers or Village Center. Neighborhood Centers may include small scale service retail and office uses, and shall include a public park, square, or green. Village Centers shall be designed to serve the retail, office, civic, government uses and service needs of the residents of the village. The Village Center shall be the primary location for commercial uses. Villages shall be surrounded by a green belt in order to protect the character of the rural landscape and to provide separation between villages and the low density rural development, agricultural uses, and conservation lands that may surround the village. Villages shall be designed to include the following: a mixture of residential housing types; institutional uses; commercial uses; and, recreational uses, all of which shall serve the residents of the Village and the surrounding lands. In addition, the following criteria and conditions shall apply, except for those modifications that are identified in the North Belle Meade Overlay: A) Process for Approval: The Collier County Land Development Code includes provisions for the establishment of Rural Villages. These provisions establish specific development regulations, standards, and land use mix requirements. Subsequent to the creation of these provisions, Rural Village applications shall be submitted in the 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 20 form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone and, where applicable, in conjunction with a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) application as provided for in Chapter 380 of Florida Statutes, or in conjunction with any other Florida provisions of law that may supersede the DRI process. B) Locational Restrictions: 1. A Rural Village shall not be located any closer than 3.0 miles from another Rural Village. 2. No more than one Rural Village may be located in each of the distinct Receiving Areas depicted on the FLUM. 3. 1. A Rural Village shall have direct access to a roadway classified by Collier County as an arterial or collector roadway. Alternatively, access to the Village may be via a new collector roadway directly accessing an existing arterial, the cost of which shall be borne entirely by the developer. 4. 2. A Rural Village shall be located where other public infrastructure, such as potable water and sewer facilities, already exist or are planned. C) Rural Village Sizes, and Density, and Design: 1. Developments with Rural Villages shall be a minimum of 300 acres shall utilize Rural Village standards herein and within the LDC. A Rural Village shall have and a maximum of 1,500 acres, except within Receiving Lands south of the Belle Meade NRPA where the maximum size may not exceed 2,500 acres. The Rural Village size is exclusive of the required green belt area. Rural Villages shall include a Village Center and a minimum of two distinct neighborhoods. 2. The minimum and maximum gross density of a Rural Village shall be 2.0 units per gross acre and 3.0 units per acre, respectively. The density calculation for a Rural Village may include the base residential density permitted for the green belt area, if such density is shifted to the Rural Village area. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 21 3. Density shall be achieved as follows: a) The base density for the Agricultural/Rural Designation of 0.2 dwelling units per acre (1.0 dwelling units per five acres) for lands within the Rural Village, and the land area designated as a green belt surrounding the Rural Village, is granted by right for allocation within the designated Rural Village. b) The additional density necessary to achieve the minimum required density for a Rural Village shall be achieved by any combination of TDR Credits and TDR Bonus Credits. For each TDR Credit acquired for use in achieving the minimum density in a Rural Village, one Rural Village bonus unit shall be granted. c) Additional density between the minimum and maximum amounts established herein may be achieved through any of the following, either individually or in combination: 1) Additional TDR Credits. 2) TDR Bonus Credits. 3) A one-half (0.5) unit bonus for each (1) unit that is provided for low income residents. 4) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre allowed for each additional acre of native vegetation preserved exceeding the minimum preservation requirements set forth in Policy 6.1.2 of the CCME. 5) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre as provided in Policy 6.2.5 (6)b. of the CCME. 4. Greater than 50 percent of residential development shall be located within one quarter mile of a Neighborhood Center or the Village Center. 5. Rural Villages shall include a Village Center and a minimum of two distinct neighborhoods. D) Land Use Mix: 1. Acreage Limitations 1. Neighborhood Center Characteristics a) Small scale service retail and office uses allowed; maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .5 b) Parks and Public Green Spaces required; minimum of one (1) percent of total Village acreage 2. Village Center Characteristics a) Floor Area Ratio or Intensity 1. Retail and Office allowed; maximum FAR of 0.5 2. Civic, Government, and Institutional Services allowed; maximum FAR of 0.6 3. Group Housing allowed; maximum FAR of 0.45 4. Transient Lodging allowed; maximum of 26 units per acre net 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 22 b) Goods and Services required; minimum of 53 sq. ft. gross building area per dwelling unit c) Civic, Government and Institutional Services required; minimum of 10 sq. ft. per dwelling unit a) Neighborhood Center ‒ 0.5% of the total Village acreage, not to exceed 10 acres, within each Neighborhood Center. b) Neighborhood Center Commercial – Not to exceed 40% of the Neighborhood Center acreage and 8,500 square feet of gross leasable floor area per acre. c) Village Center ‒ Not to exceed 10% of the total Village acreage. d) Village Center Commercial ‒ Not to exceed 30% of the Village Center acreage and 10,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area per acre. e) d) Research and Technology Parks allowed; must be – Cconsistent with the provisions of the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District, excluding paragraph j; the Park shall not exceed 4% of the total Village acreage. f) Civic Uses and Public Parks ‒ Minimum of 10% of the total Village acreage. E) Open Space and Environmental Protection: 1. Greenbelts: In addition to the requirements for parks, village greens, and other open space within the Rural Village, a greenbelt averaging 300 feet in width but not less than 200 feet in width, shall be required at the perimeter of the Rural Village. The Greenbelt is required to ensure a permanent un-developable edge surrounding the Rural Village, thereby discouraging sprawl. Greenbelts shall only be designated on Receiving Lands. The allowable residential density shall be shifted from the designated Greenbelt to the Rural Village. The greenbelt may be concentrated to a greater degree in areas where it is necessary to protect listed species habitat, including wetlands and uplands, provide for a buffer from adjacent natural reservations, or provide for wellfield or aquifer protection, Golf courses and existing agriculture operations are permitted within the greenbelt, subject to the native vegetation preservation requirements specified below in paragraph 2. However, golf course turf areas shall only be located within 100 feet of the Greenbelt boundaries (interior and exterior boundary); further, these turf areas shall only be located in previously cleared, or disturbed areas (see CCME Policy 6.1.2(1)). 2. Open Space and Native Vegetation Retention. a) Native Vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 6.1.2. b) Open Space: Within the Rural Village and required Greenbelt, in aggregate, a minimum of 40% of Open Space shall be provided. 3. An environmental impact statement for the Rural Village and surrounding greenbelt area shall be submitted in accordance with Policy 6.1.7 of the CCME. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 23 F) Fiscal Neutrality: A Rural Village may only be approved after demonstration that the Village will be fiscally neutral to county taxpayers outside of the Village. 1. An analysis shall be conducted and submitted in conjunction with the PUD rezone and/or DRI application evaluating the demand and impacts on levels of service for public facilities and the cost of such facilities and services necessary to serve the Rural Village. This evaluation shall identify projected revenue sources for services and any capital improvements that may be necessary to support the Village. Additionally, this analysis shall demonstrate that the costs of providing necessary facilities and services shall be fiscally neutral to County taxpayers outside of the Village. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following: a) Stormwater/drainage facilities; b) Potable water provisions and facilities; c) Reuse or “Grey” water provisions for irrigation; d) Central sewer provisions and facilities; e) Park facilities; f) Law enforcement facilities; g) School facilities; h) Roads, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and pathways; i) Solid Waste facilities. Development phasing and funding mechanisms to address any impacts to level of service in accordance with the County’s adopted concurrency management program. Accordingly, there shall be no degradation to the adopted level of service for public facilities and infrastructure identified above. G) As part of the development of Rural Village provisions, land development regulations shall identify specific design and development standards for residential, commercial and other uses. These standards shall protect and promote a Rural Village character and shall include requirements for parks, greens, squares, and other public places. In addition to the public spaces required as a part of a Village Center or Neighborhood Center. Rural Villages shall incorporate a Village Park and neighborhood parks. In addition, the following shall be addressed: 1. Rural Village, Village Center and neighborhood design guidelines and development standards: • A formal street layout, using primarily a grid design and incorporating village greens, squares and civic uses as focal points. • Neighborhoods and the village center will be connected through local and collector streets and shall incorporate traffic calming techniques as may be appropriate to discourage high-speed traffic. • Consideration shall be given to the location of public transit and school bus stops. • Pedestrian paths and bikeways shall be designed so as to provide access and interconnectivity. • The siting of both schools and housing units within the village shall consider the minimization of busing needs within the community. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 24 • Each Rural Village shall be served by a primary road system that is accessible by the public and shall not be gated. The primary road system within the village shall be designed to meet County standards and shall be dedicated to the public. • Access drives shall not be required to meet County standards. • A Rural Village shall not be split by an arterial roadway. • Interconnection between the Rural Village and abutting developments shall be encouraged required. 2. Specific allocations for land uses including residential, commercial and other non- residential uses within Rural Villages, shall include, but are not limited to: • A mixture of housing types, including single-family attached and detached, as well as multi-family. Projects providing affordable housing as required in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay contained in the Collier County Land Development Code shall receive a credit of one-half (0.5) units for each (1) unit constructed. Collier County shall develop, as part of the Rural Village Overlay, a methodology for determining the rental and fee-simple market rates that will qualify for such a credit, and a system for tracking such credits. • A mixture of recreational uses, including parks and village greens. • Civic, community, and other institutional uses. • A mixture of lot sizes, with a design that includes more compact development and attached dwelling units within neighborhood centers and the Village Center, and reduced net densities and increasingly larger lot sizes for detached residential dwellings generally occurring as development extends outward from the Village Centers. A mixture of retail, office, and services uses. 3. Specific development standards, including but not limited to, maximum net densities; required yards; landscaping and buffering, and building heights. 4. If requested by the Collier County School Board during the PUD and/or DRI review process, school sites shall be provided and shall be located to serve a maximum number of residential dwelling units within walking distance to the schools. Accordingly, schools, if requested, shall be located within or adjacent to the Village Center. Where a school site is requested and provided, a credit toward any applicable school impacts fees shall be provided based upon an independent evaluation/appraisal of the value of the land and/or improvements provided by the developer. H) For the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade Receiving Areas, within two (2) years from the effective date of adoption of these amendments, staff will evaluate the public infrastructure needs, maximum density allowance, employment opportunities, and design parameters, and propose appropriate GMP and/or LDC amendments. 4. Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards ‒ The requirements, limitations and allowances of this District shall not apply to, affect or limit the continuation of existing uses. Existing uses shall include: those uses for which all required permits were issued prior to June 19, 2002; or projects for which a Conditional use has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002; or, projects for which a Rezone 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 25 petition has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002 – inclusive of all lands not zoned A, Rural Agricultural; or, land use petitions for which a completed application has been submitted prior to June 19, 2002. The continuation of existing uses shall include on- site expansions of those uses if such expansions are consistent with or clearly ancillary to the existing uses. Hereafter, such previously approved developments shall be deemed to be consistent with the Plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies and for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and they may be built out in accordance with their previously approved plans. Changes to these previous approvals shall also be deemed to be consistent with the Plan's Goals, Policies and Objectives for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as long as they do not result in an increase in development density or intensity. ***********************************text break************************************** V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES [Page 99] A. Area of Critical State Concern Overlay The Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) was established by the 1974 Florida Legislature. The ACSC is displayed on the Future Land Use Map as an overlay area. The ACSC encompasses lands designated Conservation, Agricultural/Rural, Estates and Urban (Port of the Islands, Plantation Island and Copeland). Chokoloskee is outside the boundaries of the Big Cypress ASCS. Two areas located within the boundaries of the ACSC are exempt from the ACSC regulations: Everglades City: and, Ochopee, which is described as all of Sections 27, 28, 33 and 34, Township 52 South, Range 30 East. ***********************************text break************************************** B. North Belle Meade Overlay [Page 102] The North Belle Meade (NBM) Overlay is depicted on the FLUM. Uses shall be as provided for in Receiving, Neutral, NRPA and non-NRPA Sending Lands, except as provided herein for Neutral Lands in Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and shown on the North Belle Meade Overlay Section 24 Map. Development and preservation standards within this Overlay shall be as provided herein. ************************************textbreak************************************* 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 26 C. Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay (BMHEO) [Page New] The purpose of the BMHEO is to restore natural flow ways and rebalance freshwater flows into two natural systems – Naples Bay and Rookery Bay. Naples Bay has been adversely impacted over the years from an abundance of fresh water from the Golden Gate Canal; and, Rookery Bay from increased salinity caused by too little freshwater inflow. The Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan is a county initiative designed to address these adverse impacts with a series of hydrologic improvements to rebalance these two natural systems while rehydrating approximately 10,000 acres of land within and adjacent to the Picayune Strand State Forest to reestablish historical flows through this area. As a result, lands within the BMHEO will have standing water at varying levels depending on the location of these lands within the Overlay. The Lands within the Core Hydration Area will be impacted by a larger volume of water and for a longer period, and lands within the Primary and Secondary Flow Ways will be impacted to a lesser degree (refer to BMHEO Map). Lands within the BMHEO are under public and private ownership. Recognizing the public benefit achieved through these hydrologic enhancements, private property owners within the BMHEO will be eligible to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights Program, as provided within the RFMUD TDR provisions herein. ************************************textbreak************************************* CD. Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay [Page 120] The purpose of the Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay designation is to protect endangered or potentially endangered species and to identify large connected intact and relatively unfragmented habitats, which may be important for these listed species. NRPAs may include major wetland systems and regional flow-ways. These lands generally should be the focus of any federal, state, County or private acquisition efforts. NRPAs are located in the following areas: 1. Clam Bay Conservation Area (within Pelican Bay Plan Unit Development); 2. CREW (Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed); 3. North Belle Meade; 4. Belle Meade; 5. South Golden Gate Estates; NRPAs located in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District are identified as Sending Lands. Owners of Pprivate property owners within these NRPAs may transfer residential development rights from these important environmentally sensitive lands in accordance with Sending Lands provisions. Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) shall have the following standards: 1. Vegetation Retention and Site Preservation - Calculated at the higher value of 90% of the native vegetation present, or 90% of the total site area, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE. Applicable standards provided for in CCME Policy 6.1.2 shall also apply; 2. Listed species protection shall be provided for as specified in CCME Policy 7.1.2; 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted 27 3. Permitted and conditional uses for publicly owned lands within an NRPA Overlay shall be those as set forth under the Conservation Designation. 4. For privately owned lands within a NRPA Overlay and designated Sending Lands, permitted and conditional uses shall be those as set forth in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District for Sending Lands. 5. For privately owned lands within a NRPA Overlay and designated Estates, permitted and conditional uses shall be those as set forth in the Estates Designation within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, in recognition of Florida’s private property rights laws. As these privately owned Estates Designated lands are acquired for conservation purposes, the Plan will be amended to change the Designation to Conservation. 6. There are approximately 15 sections of privately owned land within a NRPA Overlay that are not designated Sending and are not located within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (where all Sending Lands are located). Eight (8) of these sections, known as the “hole-in-the-doughnut,” are located within the South Golden Gate Estates NRPA and surrounded by platted Estates lots, almost all of which have been acquired by the State under the Florida Forever program as part of the Picayune Strand State Forest. The remaining seven (7) sections are within an approved mitigation bank located north and west of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Uses on these lands are limited to restoration and mitigation and, at the completion of this restoration process, these lands will be deeded to a land management entity for conservation purposes. As these privately owned Agricultural/Rural Designated lands are acquired for conservation purposes, the Plan will be amended to change the Designation to Conservation. Until such time, in recognition of Florida’s private property rights laws, permitted and conditional uses for these privately owned lands shall be those set forth in the Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District. 9.A.15 Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: 12. CCPC Resolution & Exhibit A Text -RFMUD Restudy (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA)) 9.A.16 Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: legal ad - agenda ID 21414 (21721 : Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy Amendments (GMPA))