The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 03/16/2023COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 March 16, 2023 9: 00 AM Edwin Fryer- Chairman Joseph Schmitt, Environmental - Vice -Chair Paul Shea, Environmental - Secretary Christopher Vernon Robert Klucik, Jr. Randy Sparrazza Commission District 3 - Vacant Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Planning Commission Page I Printed 31912023 March 2023 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. PL20220003739-Justin's Village Rezone -An Ordinance of the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, rezoning a portion of Justin's Village to increase density, by amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate Zoning Atlas Map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) zoning district with a Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay -Residential Subdistrict (GTZO-R) to a Residential Multi-Family-12 (RMF-12) with a Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay -Residential Subdistrict (GTZO-R), to allow up to 28 total multi -family dwelling units on 2.33f acres of property located south of Lots 6 and 18, Breeze of Calusa Subdivision, on Justin's Way, approximately 500 feet south of Calusa Avenue, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III] Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 31912023 March 2023 2. PL20210001906 - 5196 23rd Ct SW (Rezone) - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, rezoning a single family lot in Golden Gate City to multifamily, by amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Residential Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) Zoning District to a Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) Zoning District, to allow up to 2 total multi -family dwelling units on 0.29f acres of property located at 5196 23rd Ct SW, Naples, Florida, on Lot 1, Block 198, Golden Gate Unit 6, in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Planner III] 3. PL20230000930 — US 41 East Overlay and Transportation Concurrency Exception Area Expansion GMPA — A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing an amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to add the Us 41 East Overlay to allow certain economic development uses within the Corridor segments; and, allow increased height and density, and certain economic development uses in Regional Centers and Community Centers through incentives; and amending the Transportation Element and maps to expand the South US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area; and furthermore directing transmittal of the proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Planner III) 4. PL20200002234 — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy GMPA — An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan of the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, relating to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy and specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and map series to require transfer of development rights for comprehensive plan amendments for increased residential density in the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Sub -district and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Sub -district 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, 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 adopted amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Planner III) B. Noticed 10. Old Business 11. New Business Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 31912023 March 2023 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn Collier County Planning Commission Page 4 Printed 31912023 9.A.1 03/16/2023 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Doc ID: 24627 Item Summary: PL20220003739-Justin's Village Rezone -An Ordinance of the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, rezoning a portion of Justin's Village to increase density, by amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate Zoning Atlas Map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) zoning district with a Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay -Residential Subdistrict (GTZO-R) to a Residential Multi-Family-12 (RMF-12) with a Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay - Residential Subdistrict (GTZO-R), to allow up to 28 total multi -family dwelling units on 2.33f acres of property located south of Lots 6 and 18, Breeze of Calusa Subdivision, on Justin's Way, approximately 500 feet south of Calusa Avenue, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, CSM, Planner III] Meeting Date: 03/16/2023 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal — Zoning Name: Nancy Gundlach 02/08/2023 3:27 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 02/08/2023 3:27 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Skipped 02/10/2023 4:28 PM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 02/21/2023 12:52 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/22/2023 5:13 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/27/2023 11:19 AM Zoning James Sabo Review Item Skipped 02/27/2023 2:55 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Review Item Completed 02/28/2023 11:43 AM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 03/09/2023 9:41 AM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 03/16/2023 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 5 9.A.1.a Cofer County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: MARCH 16, 2023 SUBJECT: PL20220003739, JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Applicant/Owner: SMH Properties of SWFL, Inc. 2001 Airport Road South Naples, FL 34112 REQUESTED ACTION: Agent: Chris Hagan, P.E. Hagan Engineering, LLC 1250 Tamiami Trial North # 203b Naples, FL 34102 The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, rezoning a portion of Justin's Village to increase density, by amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate Zoning Atlas Map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) zoning district with a Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay - Residential Subdistrict (GTZO-R) to a Residential Multi-Family-12 (RMF-12) with a Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay -Residential Subdistrict (GTZO-R), to allow up to 28 total multi -family dwelling units; and by providing an effective date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 2.33± acre parcel is located south of Lots 6 and 18, Breeze of Calusa Subdivision, on Justin's Way, approximately 500 feet south of Calusa Avenue, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the location map on the following page) PL20220003739, JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE February 8, 2023 Page 1 of 12 Packet Pg. 6 (auozaa a6e111n s,ul;snr `6£LC000ZZOZ-ld : LZ9VZ) CZ-8-Z aBBIM sul;snr-1210d321 J=j`dls :;u8wLj3L'U r ❑ 2 G x " O p � d 10 w0guels N r z 2 N t ❑ 0 L) � m as Le {S �o W � � hb'Msw�snr li}Awn r err l�lanov 3E39em � I r N a. rL 0 :1, ll�tl LL m N ^ Jy r lu F CDLL M VV VV — .�Y Q ad Mai Puy % J � illism f in AQ r i 1 - 1 In �a 1� JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE, PL20220003739 Page 2 of 12 CL m 0 N February 8, 2023 r` (OuozON 06ell!n s,u!;sn£ `6£L£000ZZ0Z-ld : LZ9VZ) CZ-9-Z a6sll!n su!;sn£--LNOd321 A=I`d1S :;u0ua MOV JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE, PL20220003739 February 8, 2023 00 d) a m a Page 3 of 12 9.A.1.a PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner proposes to rezone the subject 2.33± acre property from the RMF-6-GTZO-R zoning district to the RMF-I2-GTZO-R zoning district to allow for 28 multi -family dwelling units. The proposed multi -family development is an extension of the previously approved and partially constructed single-family development to the north known commonly known as Justin's Village. An affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Agreement will be utilized to allocate 14% of the total units to residents or families earning less than 50% of the Adjusted Median Income (AMI) for Collier County. (Please see Attachment A -Proposed Rezone Ordinance). The Conceptual Master Plan depicts a 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer around the perimeter of the property. A 43-foot side yard building setback is depicted along the western property line abutting the existing single-family homes along Andrew Drive. Access to the site will be from Justin's Way. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: The site is currently undeveloped with a current zoning designation of RMF- 6-GTZO-R and with a proposed zoning designation of RMF-I2-GTZO-R SURROUNDING: North: Partially developed single-family residences with a zoning designation of Residential Multi- cm family-6 Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay -Residential (RMF-6-GTZO-R) I* N M East: Developed offices with a zoning designation of Commercial Intermediate -Gateway Triangle o Zoning Overlay -Mixed Use (C-3-GTZO-MXD) N a) South: Mobile Home Park with a zoning designation of Commercial Intermediate -Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay -Mixed Use (C-3-GTZO-MXD) c West: Developed single-family with a zoning designation of Residential Multi-family-6 Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay -Residential (RMF-6-GTZO-R) JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE, PL20220003739 February 8, 2023 Page 4 of 12 Packet Pg. 9 9.A.1.a AERIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed Rezone. In order to achieve the density of 28 units, an Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Agreement will be utilized to allocate 14% (four units) of the total units (28 units) to residents or families earning less than 50% of the Adjusted Median Income (AMI) for Collier County. For further information, please see Attachment C-AHDB Agreement. Comprehensive Planning staff has found the proposed Rezoning consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. For further information, see Attachment B-GMP Consistency Review. Transportation Element: The Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined the project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, which states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE, PL20220003739 February 8, 2023 Page 5 of 12 Packet Pg. 10 9.A.1.a consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five-yearAUIRplanning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways." According to the Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) dated October 25, 2022 (revised), provided with this petition; the proposed Justin's Village Rezone Development will generate a projected total of +/-47 PM peak hour two-way trips on the following roadway segments with the listed capacities according to the 2021 and 2022 AUIR: Roadway Link/1D Current Peak 2021 2021 2022 2022 Hour Peak AUIR AUIR AUIR AUIR Direction Service LOS Remaining LOS Remaining Volume/Peak Capacity Capacity Direction Airport Tamiami Trail 2,700/South C 1,036 C 1,046 Pulling East Road (US 41)/6.0 CR-31 Note: The proposed development has a de minimus (less than 1%) impact on the adjacent roadway segment. Based on the 2021 and 2022 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for this development within the 5-year planning period. Additionally, the proposed development represents a de minimus impact on the adjacent road network. Therefore, the subject Rezone can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff evaluated the petition. The subject 2.33± acre property has been found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the CCME. JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE, PL20220003739 February 8, 2023 Page 6 of 12 Packet Pg. 11 9.A.1.a Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.08. F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establishes the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC (Board of Collier County Commissioners), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Rezone Findings." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and is recommending approval. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address environmental concerns. The property has been historically maintained cleared of native vegetation. Therefore, the Master Plan does not show a preserve since no minimum preservation is required. No listed animal species were observed on the property. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Service staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. Utility Review: Utilities staff reviewed and approved this petition. The project lies within the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD). Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available. Any improvements to the CCWSD's wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utility acceptance. The project lies within the City of Naples potable water service area. Housing Review: Housing staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval of the proposed Rezone subject to the adoption of the companion AHDB Agreement. Planninz & Zoninz Review: As previously stated, the proposed multi -family development is an extension of the previously approved and partially constructed single-family development to the north known commonly known as Justin's Village. The petitioner proposes to rezone the subject 2.33± acre property from the RMF-6-GTZO-R zoning district to the RMF-12-GTZO-R zoning district to allow for 28 multi -family dwelling units. A total of four of the units will serve families earning less than 50% Adjusted Median Income (AMI) for Collier County. JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE, PL20220003739 February 8, 2023 Page 7 of 12 Packet Pg. 12 9.A.1.a The Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay standards for residential development are: - Front yard: 10 feet - Side yard: 7.5 feet - Rear yard: 15 feet - Building height: 35 feet The Conceptual Master Plan depicts setbacks that are the same or above the required setbacks. A 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer has been provided around the perimeter of the property. A 43-foot side yard building setback is depicted along the western property line abutting the existing single-family homes along Andrew Drive. Access to the site will be from Justin's Way. Approval of this petition should not be contrary to the requirements of the LDC, and the uses allowable in the proposed multi -family development will act as a transition between the commercial development to the east and the single-family development to the west. To date, no letters of objection or support have been received. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08. F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings when applicable" (The criteria are italicized, Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in regular font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). 2. The existing land use pattern. The subject site is currently zoned RMF-6-GTZO-R with a proposed zoning designation of RMF- 12-GTZO-R. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern is characterized by partially developed single-family to the north, developed commercial to the east, developed mobile home park to the south, and developed single-family residential to the west. The multi -family uses proposed in this petition should not create incompatibility issues. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. As previously stated, the subject site is already zoned multi -family. It is not an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE, PL20220003739 February 8, 2023 Page 8 of 12 Packet Pg. 13 9.A.1.a 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. As shown on the zoning map on page two of this staff report, the existing district boundaries are logically drawn. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. According to information provided by the petitioner, this rezone request is in response to the increased demand for affordable housing. Furthermore, the workforce residents will be located close to the resident's probable employment at St. Matthew's. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change from RMF-6-GTZO-R and with a proposed zoning designation of RMF-12- GTZO-R will not substantially change the allowable uses on the subject site. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the project at this time. This project was evaluated for GMP consistency as shown in that section of this report. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. This development should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas; thus the development proposed, if approved, should not negatively affect light and air permeation into adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The subject site is already zoned residential. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion this rezone will not adversely impact property values in the adjacent area. JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE, PL20220003739 February 8, 2023 Page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 14 9.A.1.a 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Properties to the west of this property are already developed and other surrounding properties are mostly developed as previously noted. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed rezone should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed development complies with the GMP, a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property could be developed under the existing zoning. However, according to the petitioner, a rezone is sought to provide more affordable housing options. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county As previously stated, the subject site is already zoned residential multi -family. In addition, the proposed development complies with the GMP requirements for the uses proposed. The GMP is a policy statement that has evaluated the scale, density, and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout Collier County. Staff believes that the zoning district will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the proposed zoning district would require some site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE, PL20220003739 February 8, 2023 Page 10 of 12 Packet Pg. 15 9.A.1.a regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) will be minimized. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant duly noticed and held the required meeting on December 15, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. at the Salvation Army Church, located at 3170 Estey Avenue, Naples, Florida. Four people along with the applicant and County Staff attended the meeting. For further information, please see Attachment B- NIM Summary. The meeting ended at approximately 6:10 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report for content and legal sufficiency on February 6, 2023. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed rezone is consistent with the applicable provisions of the GMP and the uses allowable in this rezoning will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff has provided Rezone Findings to support this contention. Therefore, Planning & Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20220003739, Justin's Village Phase 2 Rezone to the Board of County Commissioners with the following condition of approval: 1. The companion AHDB Agreement shall be adopted concurrently with the Justin's Village Phase 2 Rezone. JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE, PL20220003739 February 8, 2023 Page 11 of 12 Packet Pg. 16 9.A.1.a Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed Rezone Ordinance Attachment B: GMP Consistency Review Attachment C: AHDB Agreement Attachment D: NIM Summary Attachment E: Application JUSTIN'S VILLAGE PHASE 2 REZONE, PL20220003739 February 8, 2023 Page 12 of 12 Packet Pg. 17 ORDINANCE NO.2023- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REZONING A PORTION OF JUSTIN'S VILLAGE TO INCREASE DENSITY, BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY-6 (RMF-6) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A GATEWAY TRIANGLE ZONING OVERLAY -RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GTZO-R) TO A RESIDENTIAL MULTI- FAMILY-12 (RMF-12) WITH A GATEWAY TRIANGLE ZONING OVERLAY -RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GTZO-R), TO ALLOW UP TO 28 TOTAL MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON 2.33f ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LOTS 6 AND 18, BREEZE OF CALUSA SUBDIVISION, ON JUSTINS WAY, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF CALUSA AVENUE, IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PL20220003739) WHEREAS, Chris Hagan, P.E., of Hagan Engineering, LLC, on behalf of SMH Properties of SWFL, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property; and WHEREAS, SMH Properties of SWFL, Inc., entered into an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement with Collier County to achieve eligibility for the requested density under the Growth Management Plan, recorded at Official Records Book , Page , as amended from time to time, in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: [22-CPS-02275/ 1755 885111 Justin's Village Phase 2 / PL20220003739 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 18 9.A.1.b SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property more particularly described in Exhibit B, located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) Zoning District with a Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay -Residential Subdistrict (GTZO-R) to a Residential Multi- Family-12 (RMF-12) Zoning District with a Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay -Residential Subdistrict (GTZO-R) to allow up to 28 multi -family units on 2.33± acres, subject to the conditions shown in Exhibit D. Exhibits A, B, C, and D are attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Derek D. Perry Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A: Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit B: Legal Description Exhibit C: Location Map Exhibit D: Conditions of Approval 2023. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (22-CPS-02275/ 175 5 88 5 / 11 Justin's Village Phase 2 / PL20220003739 Page 2 of 2 Rick LoCastro, Chairman C Packet Pg. 19 s,ugsnr `6£L£000ZZOZ-1d : LZ9VZ) H£Z-ZO-ZO eoueuipap euozeN posodoad-V 4uaua43e;;d :;uauayoe;;y EXHIBIT A N k x � W 0 a � U y O fV/1 M b31N18 3eY RM .B. 3Ml .SI ^ I I I I I I O I I ��ypI I jII 8 m I I �I I 1 I , 1 I 1 I I I I , I W W 2 w U C I O M O � I I a d `§ c W M 0 Q z I I LL fo m a F I m i l f _ 7 N .] q n e 0. 5i l 2 E" z LL i ibI W - qF h d a i W d O a = �j f z zmedrz^ kd3ifrle z W �e --------I � I 6 I O I$ r--I a o d o�LIJ M dI h E I r - - - III O II 3 II � III O II I III i II I I III � II III II I I o � xI I O 6 b I I� - ~. b3 . .o s) 13nd VSnWO ------------ -----_—_-- --— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6--�--� Y N K aLL I i i [22-CPS-02275/1755885/1] 9.A.1.b EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Tract "A" lying South of an easterly extension of the South line of Lot 18 to the East right-of-way line of Justins Way, Tract "B" and all of Lots 7 through 12, 19 through 23, Breeze of Calusa, Plat Book 59, Pages 16 through 17 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. [22-CPS-02275/1755885/ 1 ] Justin's Village Phase 2 / PL20220003739 Page I of 1 Packet Pg. 21 9.A.1.b EXHIBIT C LOCATION MAP Location Map [22-CPs-02275/1755885/ 1 ] Justin's Village Phase 2 / PL20220003739 Page I of I Packet Pg. 22 9.A.1.b EXHIBIT D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. As documented in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, as amended from time to time, SMH Properties of SWFL, Inc. has agreed to construct 4 rental units for residents at or below the very low income category (50 percent or less of County median income). [22-CPS-02275/1755885/1] Justin's Village Phase 2 / PL20220003739 Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 23 9.A.1.c GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Planner III, Zoning Services Section From: Rachel Hansen, Planner 1I1, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: February 9, 2023 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: RZ-PL20220003739 PETITION NAME: Justin's Village Phase II Rezone REQUEST: Rezone the subject property (+2.33 acres) from RMF-6-GTMUD-R, Residential Multi- family-6 zoning district (maximum of 6 dwelling units/acre) with Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District -Residential Subdistrict to RMF-I2-GTMUD-R and utilize an Affordable Housing Density Bonus on the portion of the property outside Activity Center #16 (+0.735 acres) to permit a residential development with a total of 28 multi -family dwelling units which will serve graduates of the St. Matthew's House/Justin's Village lifestyle improvement programs. LOCATION: The subject site is located on the south side of Calusa Avenue, approximately 350 feet west of Airport -Pulling Road (C.R. 31), in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban — Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (# 16), and Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), and is within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay —all as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map. The Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential uses at a maximum density as determined by application of the Density Rating System, and a variety of non-residential uses, including parks, recreation and open space uses, and essential services as defined in the Land Development Code (LDC). The Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict allows residential uses at a maximum density of 16 dwelling units/acre, mixed use developments, the full array of commercial uses, essential services, and other non-residential uses. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay is intended to promote redevelopment projects and limits density on the subject site to 12 dwelling units/acre. To achieve the requested 28 multi -family dwelling units, the applicant is proposing the use of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) per the rating system outlined in LDC Section 2.06.03. Fourteen percent (4 units) of the total 28 units will be provided for those earning less than 50% of Collier County's Area Median Income (AMI), resulting in a density bonus of 7.4 dwelling units/acre. Because the AHDB is only applicable to the area of the subject property designated Urban Residential, the density calculation breaks down as follows: Packet Pg. 24 9.A.1.c 1.595 acres (Activity Center) x 12 dwelling units (DUs)/acre = 19.14 DUs 0.735 acres (Urban Residential) x (base density 4 DUs/acre + bonus 7.4 DUs/acre) = 8.41 DUs The resulting total allowable density is therefore 27.55 DUs, rounded to 28. In reviewing for compliance with Policy 5.6 and Policies 7.1 - 7.4 (shown below) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) staff provides the following analysis in [bracketed bold text.] Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.] Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The subject site does not abut an arterial or collector road as identified in the Transportation Element.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [As a non- PUD rezone petition, a master plan is not required. However, it is apparent that the only available site access is the existing access from Calusa Avenue.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [All surrounding properties are developed.] 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. [As a non- PUD rezone petition, a master plan is not required and little detail is provided. However, the site must provide sidewalks and open space per the LDC. With respect to how this development provides a range of housing prices and types, 4 of the 28 units will be provided for those earning less than 50% of Collier County's AMI.] Based upon the above analysis of proposed uses and densities, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone petition to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element. PETITION ON CITYVIEW Packet Pg. 25 9.A.1.d This space for recording AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this 25 h day of April 2023 by and between SMH Properties of Southwest Florida, Inc. (the "Developer") and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (the "Commissions") (and collectively, the "Parties") RECITALS; A. The Developer owns a tract of real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein parentheses the quote property. It is the Developer's intent to construct a maximum of 28 residential units (the "Units") at a density of 12 units per gross acre on the property. The gross acreage of the property is 2.33 acres (1.595 acres inside Activity Center #16 and 0.735 acres outside Activity Center #16). The number of affordable units constructed by the Developer shall be four (4), representing 14 percent of the total number of residential units approved in the development. B. In order to construct the Units, the Developer must obtain a density bonus from the Commission for the property as provided for the land development code (LDC) § 2.06.00 et seq., which density bonus can only be granted by the Commission and utilized by the Developer in accordance with the strict limitations and applicability of set provisions. C. The Commission is willing to grant a density bonus to the Developer authorizing the construction of four (4) bonus units on the property, if the Developer agrees to construct affordable housing units as specified in this agreement and in accordance with LDC section § 2.06.00 et seq. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval and grant of the density bonus of 7.4 units per acre requested by the Developer and the benefits conferred thereby on the property, Page 1 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 26 9.A.1.d and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Developer and the Commission hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Developer Agreements. The Developer hereby agrees to provide the following affordable housing units in accordance with this agreement and as specified in exhibits A through G attached hereto and incorporated herein: a. four (4) of the 28 units will be provided for those earning less than 50% of Collier County's Area Median Income (AMI). b. All affordable units will be rentals. c. The units will include multifamily units with a variety of bedroom types. d. No affordable housing unit in the development shall be rented to a tenant whose income has not been verified and certified in accordance with this division as a low or very low-income household, as applicable. Such verification and certification shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be submitted to the county manager or designee for approval. Tenant income verification and certification shall be repeated annually to assure continued eligibility. If, upon annual recertification, a household's income is determined to not exceed 50% of the applicable area median income limit for Collier County, the unit shall be determined to be in compliance with this agreement so long as the following conditions exist for the applicable unit and household: Households with income certified as less than 50% of AMI will be charged the rent at the current 50% level; If household income of any tenant occupying an affordable unit exceeds 50% of AMI, that unit will no longer qualify as an affordable unit and the Developer shall offer the next vacant unit designated market rate unit to a qualified household to meet the minimum of four (4) affordable units e. Any rent charged for an affordable housing unit rented will not exceed the amount published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation for Collier County adjusted by income level, family size, and number of bedrooms and updated annually. f. The following provisions shall be applicable to the affordable units: i. Defined terms. For purposes of this agreement, "phasing" shall mean: (a the phased construction of buildings or structures and separate and Page 2 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 27 9.A.1.d distinctive stages as shown on a PUD master plan, subdivision master plan or site development plan; Or (b) in developments where phase construction is not depicted on a PUD master plan subdivision master plan or site development plan, the construction of buildings or structures in a clearly defined series of starts and finishes that are separate and distinct within the development. ii. Median Income. For the purposes of this Agreement, the median income of the area as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shall be the then current median income for the Naples Metropolitan Statistical Area, established periodically by HUD and published in the Federal Register, as adjusted for family size as shown on the tables attached hereto as Exhibit C, which Exhibit shall be adjusted from time to time in accordance with any adjustments that are authorized by HUD or any successor agency. In the event that HUD ceases to publish an established median income as aforesaid, the Parties hereto shall mutually agree to another reasonable and comparable method of computing adjustments in median income. iii. Eli ig bilityand Qualification of Renter. Family income eligibility is a three step process: 1) submittal of an application by a prospective Renter; 2) verification of family housing unit provided under the affordable housing density bonus program prior to being qualified at the appropriate level of income (very -low, low, moderate or gap income) in accordance with this Section; 3) certification of Renter eligibility by the Community and Human Services Division. The Developer shall be responsible for qualifying Renters by accepting applications, verifying income, and obtaining income certification for all affordable units in the subject development. All applications, forms and other documentation required by this Agreement shall be provided to Page 3 of 25 (�i Packet Pg. 28 1/26/2023 9.A.1.d Community and Human Services Division. Qualification by the Developer of any persons as an eligible Renter family shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the monitoring and enforcement program in LDC§§ 2.06.05 and 2.06.06, respectively. 1. Application. A potential Renter shall apply to the Developer, owner, manager, or agent to qualify as a low-income family for the purpose of renting and occupying an affordable housing unit pursuant to the affordable housing density bonus program. The preliminary application for affordable housing unit shall be provided to Collier County community and Human Services Division as shown in exhibit D, attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference herein. 2. Income Verification and Certification. No affordable housing unit in the development shall be rented whose household income has not been verified and certified in accordance with this agreement and LDC § 2.06.05. 3. Income Verification. The Developer shall obtain written verification from the potential occupant (including the entire household) to verify all regular sources of income (including the entire household). The most recent years federal income tax return for the potential occupants (including the tire household) may be used for the purpose of income verification. The verification shall be valid for up to one hundred eighty (180) Days prior to occupancy. Upon expiration of the 180-days, the information may be verbally updated from the original sources for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented by the person preparing the original verification. After this time, a new verification form must be completed. The Affordable Housing Applicant Income Verification form shall be provided to the Community and Human Services division as shown in Exhibit E, attached to this Agreement incorporated by reference herein. Page 4 of 25 n Packet Pg. 29 1/26/2023 9.A.1.d 4. Income Certification. Upon receipt of the Preliminary Application for an affordable housing unit and Applicant Income Verification form, the Developer shall require that an income certification form be executed by the potential occupant (including the entire household) prior to occupancy of the affordable housing unit by the occupant. Income certification shall assure that the potential occupant has an appropriate household income which qualifies the potential occupant as eligible to occupy an affordable housing unit under the affordable housing density bonus program. The Affordable Housing Applicant Income Certification form shall be provided by the Community and Human Services Division as shown in Exhibit F, is attached to this Agreement and is incorporated by reference herein. Random Inspections. Random inspection of files containing required documentation to verify occupancy in accordance with this Agreement and LDC § 2.06.00, may be conducted by the Community and Human Services Division upon reasonable notice. t v . Annual Progress and Monitoring Report. The Developer shall provide the Community and Human Services Division an annual progress and monitoring report regarding the delivery of affordable housing units throughout the period of their construction and occupancy. The annual progress monitoring report shall, at a minimum, provide any information reasonably required to ensure compliance with the LDC § 2.06.00, or subsequent amendments thereto. The report shall be filed on or before September 30th of each year and the report shall be submitted by the Developer to the Community and Human Services Division. Failure to complete and submit the monitoring report to the Community and Human Services Division within 60 days from the due date shall result in a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00) per day unless a written extension not to exceed 30 days is requested prior to the expiration of the 60 day submission deadline. No more than one such extension may be granted in Page 5 of 25 1/26/2023 �p Packet Pg. 30 9.A.1.d a single year. v. Occupancy Restrictions. No affordable unit in any building or structure on the property shall be occupying by the Developer, or any person related to or affiliated with the Developer, or by a resident manager. vi. Density Bonus. The Commission hereby acknowledges that the Developer has met all required conditions to qualify for a density bonus, in addition to the base residential density of four units per acre and is therefore granted a density bonus of 7.4 density bonus units per acre, for a total density (total = density bonus units per acre X gross acreage) of 12 units/ac, pursuant to LDC § 2.06.00. The Commission further agrees that the Developer may construct thereon, in the aggregate and maximum number of 28 units on the property provided the Developer's able to secure building permit(s) from Collier County. vii. Commission Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, the Commission acting through the Community and Human Services Division or successors covenants and agrees to prepare and make available to the Developer any general information that it possesses regarding income limitations and restrictions which are applicable to the affordable unit(s) viii. Violations and Enforcement. It shall be a violation of this Agreement and LDC § 2.06.00 to sell or occupy, or attempt to sell or occupy, and affordable housing unit provided under the affordable housing intensity promise program except as specifically permitted by the terms of this Agreement, or to knowingly give false from misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the Community and Human Services Division or by any other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by LDC § 2.06.00. Collier County or its designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The method of enforcement for breach or violation of this agreement shall be at the option of the Commission by criminal enforcement pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.69, Florida statutes, or by civil enforcement as a Page 6 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 31 9.A.1.d allowed by law. ix. Certificate of Occupancy. In the event that the Developer fails to maintain the affordable units in accordance with this Agreement or LDC § 2.06.00, as amended, at the option of the Commission, building permits or certificates of occupancy, is applicable, may be withheld for any future planned or otherwise approved unit located or to be located upon the property until the entire project is in full compliance with this agreement and with LDC § 2.06. 00, as amended. x. Assignment by Commission. The Commission may assign all or part of its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having jurisdiction over the property provided that it gives the Developer 30 days advance written notice thereof. The Developer may not assign, delegate or otherwise transfer all or part of its duties, obligations, or promises under this agreement to any successor in interest to the property without the express written consent of the Commission, which consent may will be withheld for any reason whatsoever. Any attempt to assign the duties, obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to the property without the express written consent of the Commission as required by this section shall be void ab initio. xi. Severability. Any section, phrase, sentence or portion of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed as separate, distinct, and independent provision, and all other provisions shall remain effective in binding on the Parties. xii. Notice. And he knows his desired or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall either be personally delivered or shall be sent by mail, postage prepaid, to the parties at the following addresses: Page 7 of 25 n Packet Pg. 32 1/26/2023 9.A.1.d To the Commission: Collier County Community and Human Services 3339 E Tamiami Trail Building H, Suite 211 Naples, Florida 34112 To the Developer: SMH Properties of South West Florida, Inc. 2001 Airport Road, South Naples, Florida 34112 With copy to: xiii. Authority to Monitor. The parties here to acknowledge that the Collier County Community and Human Services Division or its designee, shall have the authority to monitor and enforce the Developers obligations here under. xiv. Indemnify. The Developer hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold Collier County and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from and against any and all claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses, professional fees, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and all the costs of litigation and judgments arising out of any claim, willful misconduct or negligent act, error omission, with liability of any kind made by the Developer, its agents or employees, arising out of or incidental to the performance of this agreement. xv. Covenants. The Developer agrees that all of its obligations hereunder shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the property and against every person than having any ownership interest at anytime and from time to time until this agreement is terminated in accordance with section 13 below. However, the parties agree that if the Developer transfers or conveys the property to another person or entity, Developers shall have no further obligation here Page 8 of 25 �2 Packet Pg. 33 1/26/2023 9.A.1.d under and any person seeking to enforce the terms thereof shall look solely to the Developer's successor and interest for the performance of set obligations. xvi. Recording. This agreement shall be recorded at county's expense and the official records of Collier County, Florida. xvii. Entire Agreement. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto and shall in year two and be binding upon the respective heirs, successors, and assigns. xviii. Termination. Each affordable housing unit shall be restricted to remain and be maintained as the required affordable housing as provided in the LDC § 2.06.04. xix. Modification. This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by the written agreement of both parties. xx. Discrimination. 1. The Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents shall discriminate against any owner/renters or potential owner/renters because of said owner/renters' race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or handicap. 2. When the Developer advertises, sells or maintains the affordable housing unit, it must advertise sell, and maintain the same and non- discriminatory manner and shall make available any relevant information to any person who is interested in purchasing such affordable housing unit. 3. The Developer agrees to be responsible for payment of any real estate commissions and fees for which it is liable in the purchase and sale of affordable units. 4. The affordable housing units shall be intermixed with, and not segregated from, the market rate dwelling units in the development. The square footage, construction and design of the affordable and gap housing unit shall be the same as the market rate dwelling units in the development. All physical amenities in the dwelling units, as Page 9 of 25 �r') Packet Pg. 34 1/26/2023 9.A.1.d described in item number seven of the Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Exhibit G, shall be the same for market rate units and affordable units. For developments where construction takes place in more than one phase, all physical amenities as described in item number (7) and the Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Exhibit G, shall be the same in both the market rate units and the affordable units in each phase. Units in the subsequent phase may contain different amenities and units in the previous phase so long as amenities for market rate units and affordable units for the same within each phase and provided that in no event may a market rate unit or affordable unit in any phase containing physical amenities less than those described in the Developer application. xxi. Phasing. The percentage of affordable housing units to which the Developer has committed for the total development shall be maintained in each phase and shall be constructed as part of each phase of the development on the property. Developer commits to 14 percent affordable housing units for this project, with 14 percent of the units in each phase consisting of affordable units. xxii. Disclosure. Developer shall not disclose to persons, other than the potential buyer, renter, or blender of the particular affordable housing unit or units, which units in the development are designated as affordable housing units. xxiii. Consistency. This agreement and authorized development shall be consistent with the growth management plan and land development regulations of Collier County that are in effect at the time of development. subsequently adopted laws and policy shall apply to this agreement and to the development to the extent that they are not in conflict with the number, type of affordable housing units and the amount of affordable housing density components approved for the development. xxiv. Affordable Housing Density Bonus Development Agreement. This Page 10 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 35 9.A.1.d agreement is a distinct and separate agreement from the "development agreements" As defined by section 163.3220, Fla. Stat., as amended. xxv. Preapplication. Developer has executed and submitted to the development services department the Developer application for affordable housing density bonus, a copy of which is attached to this agreement as exhibit G and incorporated by reference herein. xxvi. Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Florida. xxvii. Further Assurances. The parties here too shall execute and deliver, in recordable form if necessary, any and all documents, certificates, instruments, and agreements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent of the agreement. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any document requested by the Developer to exhibit that this agreement has terminated accordance with the provision of paragraph 13 above. SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 11 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 36 9.A.1.d IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Deputy Clerk Witnesses: Witnes Printed Name-?efea !� Witness ,n/I Printed Name: � i (� e LON Rick LoCastro, Chairman DEVELOPER: SMH Pro erties of Sr est Florida, Inc.* By: Printed Name and Title: Lit ZVOOL to lr CE6 *SMH Protaprties of Southwest Florl0 , Ine. Approved as to form and legality: Derek D. Perry Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Affordable Housing Units/Base Monthly Rents Exhibit C - Income and Rent Level Exhibit D - Preliminary Application for Affordable Housing Unit Exhibit E - Applicant Income Verification Exhibit F - Applicant Income Certification Exhibit G - Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus Page 12 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 37 9.A.1.d EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Tract "A" lying South of an easterly extension of the South line of Lot 18 to the East right-of-way line of Justins Way, Tract "B" and all of Lots 7 through 12, 19 through 23, Breeze of Calusa, Plat Book 59, Pages 16 through 17 of the public records of Collier County, Florida. Adjacent Lands: All that part of Tract "A" lying North of an easterly extension of the South line of Lot 18 to the East right-of-way line of Justins Way, and all of Lots Ithrough 6, and 13 through 18, Breeze of Calusa, Plat Book 59, Pages 16 through 17 of the public records of Collier County, Florida. Page 13 of 25 O V-) Packet Pg. 38 1/26/2023 9.A.1.d EXHIBIT B Affordable Housing Units/Base Monthly Rents 2022 HUD Income and Rent Limits: Percentage 1 Income Limit by Number of Persons In Household Rent Limit by Number of Bedrooms in Unit Coun (Metro) Category 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 6 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 5 Collier County 30% 19850 22,650 25.500 28,300 32.470 37.190 41.910 46.630 Refer HUD 496 531 637 759 929 1.106 (Naples-Immokalee- 50% 33,060 37,760 42.450 47.160 60,960 64,700 68.500 82.260 66.010 69.782 120 886 1,061 1,226 1,367 1.609 MarooIsland MSA) 80% 52,850 60.400 67.950 75,450 81,500 8T550 93,600 99.6, 105.618 111.651 1,321 IA15 1.698 1.961 2,188 2.415 Median: 98.600 120% 79.320 90,800 101.890 113,160 122.280 131,280 140.400 149,400 168,424 167.477 1.983 2,124 2.647 2.943 3.282 3,022 140% 92 54C 105 706 118.860 132,020 142,660 153,160 163,800 174,301 1fM,828 195,390 2 3+3 2 47A 2 971 3,433 3 829 4,226 (1) Base residential density allowed in this development 4 units/acre. (2) Gross acreage is 2.33 (1.595ac within Activity Center + 0.735ac outside Activity Center). (3) Maximum number of affordable housing density bonus units allowed in this development pursuant to LDC § 2.06.00 is (4) units. (4) Gross residential density of this development (including affordable housing density bonus units) 12 units an acre. (5) Percentage of affordable housing units pledged by the Developer (as a percent of the total number of units in the development)14 percent 2.06.03 AHDB Rating System A. The AHDB rating system shall be used to determine the amount of the AHDB which may be granted for a development, based on household income level, type of affordable housing units (owner- occupied or rental, single-family or multi -family), and percentage of affordable housing units in the development. To use the AHDB rating system, Table A below, shall be used. Table A shall be reviewed and updated, if necessary, on an annual basis by the BCC or Its designee. Table A. Affordable Housing Density Bonus (Additional Available Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre) Maximum Allowable Density Bonus by Percent of Development Designated as Affordable Housing-" Product (% of MI 10% 1 20% 30% 40% 50% 1 60% 70% 80% 1 90% 100% Gap >120-_c140)4. , 1 2 3 1 4 5 1 6 7 8 n/a n/a Moderate >80-5120 4 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Low >50-580) 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 Very -Low 70 B_ 9 10 11 12 12 1 12 12 12 _ 14% of Development at less than 50% AMI = Density Bonus of 7.4 units/ acre. ' Total Allowable Density = Base Density ♦ Affordable Housing Density Bonus. In no event shall the maximum gross density exceed that which is allowed pursuant to the GMP. Develop-ts with percentages of affordable housing units which fall in between the percentages shown on Table A shall receive an AHDB equal to the lower of the two percentages It Iles between, plus 1/10 of a residential dwelling unit per gross acre for each additional percentage of affordable housing units in the development. Where more than one type of affordable housing unit (based on level of income shown atoye) is proposed far a development, the AHD8 for each type shall be calculated separately. After the AHDB calculations for each type of affordable lousing unit have been completed, the AHDB for each type of unit shall be added to those for the other type(s) to determine the maximum AHDB available for the development. In no event shall the AHDB exceed 12 dwelling units per gross acre. Owner -occupied only. ' May only be used in conjunction with at least 20%at or below 120% MI. Page 14 of 25 1/26/2023 .`) Packet Pg. 39 9.A.1.d ' EXHIBIT C INCOME AND RENT LIMITS Pursuant to LDC § 1.08.02, moderate income is 80% to 120% of the median income, low income is 50% to 80% of the median income in very low-income is less than 50% of the median income. Collier County 2022 Median Income- $98,600 Number of Members in Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 50% 33,050 37,750 42,450 47,150 50,950 54,700 58,500 62,250 80% 52,850 60,400 67,950 75,450 81,500 57,550 93,600 99,600 120% 79,320 90,600 101,800 113,160 122,280 131,280 140,400 149,400 140% 92,540 105,700 118,860 132,020 142,660 153,160 163,800 174,300 Rental Rates based on # Bedrooms ONE BEDROOM UNIT TWO BEDROOM UNIT THREE BEDROOM UNIT FOUR BEDROOM UNIT 50% $885 $1,061 $1,226 $1,367 80% $1,415 $1,698 $1,961 $2,188 120% $2,124 $2,547 $2,943 $3,282 140% $2,478 $2,971 $3,433 $3,829 Page 15 of 25 1/26/2023 C� Packet Pg. 40 9.A.1.d ' EXHIBIT D PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE- HOUSING UNIT Date Occupancy Desired: Your Name: Co -Tenant Name Present Address: Name of Landlord Landlord's Address: Date of Application: Amt. Of Sec. Deposit: Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes _ No Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes _ No Street City State Zip Telephone No. How Long at this Address: Street City State Zip Telephone No. If you have resided at your present address less than 3 years, please state previous address: Street City State Zip Telephone No. Name of Previous Landlord Street City State Zip Telephone No. APPLICANT: Present Employers Name Address and Telephone No. How long with Present Employer: Job Title Gross Salary: Hourly $ Weekly $ Every 2 Weeks $ Monthly $ Social Security Number Birth Date Previous Employers Name Address and Telephone No. How long with Previous Employer Job Title CO -TENANT: Page 16 of 25 1/26/2023 O Packet Pg. 41 a 9.A.1.d ' Present Employers Name _ Address and Telephone No. How long with Present Employer: Gross Salary: Hourly $ Weekly $ Social Security Number Previous Employers Name Address and Telephone No. How long with Previous Employer Job Title Every 2 Weeks $ Monthly $ Birth Date Job Title NAMES OF ALL WHO WILL OCCUPY APARTMENT BIRTH DATE SEX AGE SOCIAL SECURITY 1. 2. 3. PERSONAL REFERENCES (Not Relatives 1. Name: Address: Known: 2. Name: Address: Known: Page 17 of 25 How Long How Long 1/26/2023 O Packet Pg. 42 9.A.1.d I EXHIBIT E AFFORDABLE- HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME VERIFICATION Date: Applicant's Name: Co -Tenant's Name: : Present Address: Social Security Number Social Security Number Street City State Zip Telephone No. I hereby make application for a single family unit at I hereby declare and reveal all of my sources of income. I am aware that to leave out, omit or fail to report my assets or forms of income from pensions, stocks, bonds, real property rent, sale or ownership is a fraudulent act punishable by law. Knowingly falsifying information on this form is cause for refusal of occupancy. I hereby certify that this will be my permanent residence and that I have no other assisted housing. I understand that this information is for the purpose of computing my annual income to determine my qualification to buy an affordable housing unit. I understand that I am not required to surrender my ownership or rights or claimed property, pensions or capital gains, etc. Applicant Co -Occupant = Amount Frequency Amount (D Frequency Received of Pay Received of Pay a 4) Wages/Salary $ $ $ $ E Bonuses $ $ $ $ a Tips $ $ $ $ Commissions $ $ $ $ Interest Income $ $ $ $ Trust Fund Income $ $ $ $ Page 18 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 43 9.A.1.d ' Unemployment $ $ $ $- Workman's Compensation $ $ $ $_ Welfare $ $ $ $- Food Stamps $ $ $ $- Social Security $ $ $ $- Social Security Disability $ $ $ $_ Supplemental SSI $ $ $ $_ Family Assistance $ $ $ $_ Child Support $ $ $ $_ Veterans Benefits $ $ $ $_ Widows Benefits $ $ $ $. Union Pension $ $ $ $. Self -Employment Business, Silent Partner, etc. $ Private Insurance Pension $ $ $ $ TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME e THE VERIFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR'S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE AFFORDABLE UNIT. THE SAME MUST BE EXECUTED FOR EACH OCCUPANT OF THE HOUSEHOLD WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME. FAILURE TO REPORT ALL SOURCES OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME WILL RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION FOR TENANCY IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT. Page 19 of 25 1/26/2023 C, Packet Pg. 44 9.A.1.d ' EXHIBIT F AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME CERTIFICATION APPLICANT: Present Employer: Address: Street I, (Applicant)_ on this certification form. STATE OF FLORIDA ) ss COUNTY OF COLLIER) Job Title: City State Zip hereby authorize the release of information requested The foregoing was acknowledged before me by personally known to me or has produced Witness my hand and official seal this (notary seal) My Commission Expires: day of Signature of Applicant . Who is as identification. 20 Notary Public Page 20 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 45 9.A.1.d EMPLOYER CERTIFICATION Applicant's Gross Annual Income or Rate or Pay: $ Number of Hours Worked (Weekly): . Frequency of Pay: Amount of Bonuses, Tips, or other Compensation Received: $_ Monthly Annually Supervisor STATE OF FLORIDA ) ss COUNTY OF COLLIER) The foregoing was acknowledged before me by personally known to me or has produced . Who is as identification. Witness my hand and official seal this day of , 20 (notary seal) Notary Public My Commission Expires: THE CERTIFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR'S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE AFFORDABLE UNIT. Page 21 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 46 9.A.1.d EXHIBIT G DEVELOPER APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS Pursuant to LDC § 2.06.01 please complete this form and submit it with any accompanying documentation to the Community Development & Environmental Services Division, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. A copy must also be provided to the Collier County Economic Development & Housing Division at the same address. All items requested must be provided. 1. Please state what zoning districts are proposed by the applicant, if any, on the property and the acreage of each; RMF-12 GTZO-R, 2.33 acres (1.595ac within Activity Center + 0.735ac outside Activity Center). 2. Has an application for rezoning been requested in conjunction with the affordable housing Density bonus? NYes ❑ No If yes, state date of application 5/12/2022 and if the request has been approved, state the Ordinance number N/A. 3. Gross density of the proposed development 12. Gross acreage of the proposed development. 2.33 (1.595ac within Activity Center + 0.735ac outside Activity Center). 4. Are affordable housing density bonus units sought in conjunction with an application for a planned unit development (PUD)? 0 Yes NNo. If yes, please state name and location of the PUD and any other identifying information. 5. Name of applicant SMH Properties of South West Florida, Inc. Name of land Developer if not the same as Applicant: 6. Please complete the following tables as they apply to the proposed development. Page 22 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 47 9.A.1.d TABLE I Total Number of Units in Development Type of Unit # of Rental # of Owner -Occupied Efficiency 0 �> 1-Bedroom 0 0 2-Bedroom 28 Rental Units (2-4 beds) 0 3-Bedroom See above 0 4-Bedroom See above 0 Total 28 0 TABLE II Number of Affordable Housing Units Committed to GAP Income (120%-140%AMI) Type of Unit # of Rental # of Owner -Occupied Efficiency N/A 0 1-Bedroom N/A 0 2-Bedroom N/A 0 3-Bedroom N/A 0 4-Bedroom N/A 0 Total N/A 0 Number of Affordable Housing Units Committed to Moderate Income (80%-120%AMI) Type of Unit # of Rental # of Owner -Occupied Efficiency N/A 0 1-Bedroom N/A 0 2-Bedroom N/A 0 3-Bedroom N/A 0 4-Bedroom N/A 0 Total N/A 0 Number of Affordable Housing Units Committed to Low Income (50%-80%AMI) Type of Unit # of Rental # of Owner -Occupied Efficiency 0 0 1-Bedroom 0 0 2-Bedroom 0 0 3-Bedroom 0 0 4-Bedroom 0 0 Total 0 0 Page 23 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 48 9.A.1.d Number of Affordable Housing Units Committed to Very -Low Income (<50%AMI) Type of Unit # of Rental Efficiency 0 1-Bedroom 0 2-Bedroom 4 Rental Units (2-4 beds) 3-Bedroom See above 4-Bedroom See above Total 4 Page 24 of 25 # of Owner -Occupied 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 49 9.A.1.d 7. Please provide a physical description of the affordable units by type of unit (very low income, low income, moderate, income, gap income) and by number of bedrooms. Include in your description, for example, the square footage of each type of unit, floor coverings used throughout the unit (carpeting, tile, vinyl flooring); window treatments; appliances provided such as washer/dryer, dishwasher, stove, refrigerator; bathroom amenities, such as ceiling exhaust fans; and any other amenities as applicable. Attach additional pages as Exhibit "D" if needed. The project will consist of 28 rental apartments. It is anticipated that the apartments will be two to four bedrooms with bathrooms and a kitchen, with centrally located laundry facilities. All the apartments will exceed 750 square feet, and all necessary kitchen appliances will be provided. All new appliances will be EnergyStar rated and toilets will be minimum water flush. Please supply any other information which would reasonably be needed to address this request for an affordable housing density bonus for this development. Attach additional pages if needed. N/A Page 25 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 50 9.A.1.e HAGAN ENGINEERING Re: 12-15-2022 NIM Meeting Synopsis Justin Village Rezone PL 202200003739 This letter and the attachments to document the Neighborhood Informational Meeting for the Justin Village Rezone held on December 15, 2022. Attached to this synopsis please find the sign in sheet, the exhibits and the NIM affidavit with attachments for the project. The meeting was attended by three members of Saint Matthew's House Properties, three members from Hagan Engineering, 3 county staff members, a representative from the Naples Daily News, a representative from the Bayshore CRA and four public residents. The meeting began at 5:30 PM in the Salvation Army church per the attached Advertisement. Dwight Nadeau started the meeting off with a presentation outlining the rezone application. This was revisited as several members of the public joined the meeting late. The floor was then opened for questions and the following issues were noted: • Resident's recovery program • Renter restrictions • Density and affordable housing density bonus • Resident's pedestrian • Public access to rentals • Graduate relapse rates for treatment • Sober house separation • Unit density and intensity • HOA operation and maintenance • Master planning at site development plan permitting • Zoning history • Saint Matthew House properties and operations • Building height • Parking restrictions • Regional flooding question The specific discussion is shown in the attached video link. 1) 12-20-2022 NIM Video link I believe this fully documents are NIM meeting. Sincerely, AA-, - Chris Hagan 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com Packet Pg. 51 Co 6Y County 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239) 2S2-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STANDARD REZONE APPLICATION LDC Section 10.02.08 Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code PROJECT NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC Name of Applicant if different than owner: Address: 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH City: Naples Telephone: 239-774-0500 Cell: E-Mail Address: info@stmatthewshouse.org Name of Agent: Chris Hagan P.E. Firm: Hagan Engineering, LLC Address: 1250 Tamiami Trail N #203b City: Naples Telephone: 239-228-7742 Cell: 239-851-8239 E-Mail Address: Chris@haganeng.com PROPERTY INFORMATION State: FL ZIP: 34112 Fax: State: FL ZIP: 34102 Fax: Provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application, if space is inadequate, attach on separate page: • If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; • The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre -application meeting; and • The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: 1 5as 25E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Breeze of Calusa Plat Book: 59 Page #: 16 & 17 Property I.D. Number: See Legal Description Q _ 0 N d m a> 0 _ 0 M M O O 0 N N O N J a N O N 0 r M Q CL a w a� a a� E s U fC a 09/28/2017 1 Packet Pg. 52 Co er county 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 2S2-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Size of Property: 280+/-_ft. x 390+/- ft. = 101,495 Total Sq. Ft. Acres: 2.33 Address/ Genera! Location of Subject Property: 3180 Justins Way/ located approximately 215 feet west of Airport Road, lying south of Calusa Avenue. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N RMF-6 GTZO-R Existing Justin's Village single-family housing S C-3 GTZO-MXD Palm Lake Mobile Home Park E C-3 GTZO-MXD Commercial Office Bldg. & Office Park (Standford Ct) W RMF-6 GTZO-R Single -Family Homes If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page) Section/Township/Range: 11 50S 25E Plat Book: 59 Page #: 16 & 17 Property I.D. Number: See Legal Description Lot: Block: Subdivision: Breeze of Calusa (aka Justin's Village) Metes & Bounds Description: REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: RMF-6 GTZO-R Zoning district(s) to the RMF-12 GTZO-R Present Use of the Prooertv: Vacant residential land zoning district(s). Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the subject property: Multi -family housing Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. _ 0 N d m a> 0 _ _ C Cl) M O 0 0 N N O N J a N to _ 0 r Q 0. a w E 0 a E s U fC Q 09/28/217 1 Packet Pg. 53 40 Co er County 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net ASSOCIATIONS 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Requirement: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: East Naples Civic Association Mailing Address: 3823 Tamiami Trail East, #274 City: Naples Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: City: City State: FL Zip: 34112 State: ZIP: State: ZIP: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC section 10.02.08, staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, please provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, future land use map and elements of the Growth Management Plan. 2. The existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property for the proposed change. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment (rezone) when necessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 54 m _ 0 N m a� ca Y) w 0 a; M M O O 0 N N O N J a ti N to le N 0 cc U Q a a w w m E r a a� E s 0 a Co*er County 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliereov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code Ch. 106, art. II], as amended]. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? No. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ❑■ No if so please provide copies. 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 55 9.A.1.f Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collieraov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR STANDARD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC Address: 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH City: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34112 Telephone: 239-774-0500 Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: info@stmatthewshouse.org Address of Subject Property (If available): 3180 JUstins Way City: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34112 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section/Township/Range: 11 /50S /25E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Breeze of Calusa (aka Justin's Village) Plat Book: 59 Page #: 16 & 17 Property I.D. Number: See Legal Description Metes & Bounds Description: TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System d. Package Treatment Plant e. Septic System Provide Name: Collier County (GPD Capacity): I TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED I a. County Utility System b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System d. Private System (Well) Provide Name: City of Naples Total Population to be Served: 56 (14 units @ 4pp occupancy) Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water -Peak: 3.9 gpm Average Daily: 14,000 GPD B. Sewer -Peak: 3.1 gpm Average Daily: 11,200 GPD Q _ 0 N d _ 0 M M O O O N N O N J a N O N 0 r Q 0_ a w a� E a a� E U 0 a 09/28/217 1 Packet Pg. 56 Coder C014"t y 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliereov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: January 2024 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. Site currently receives water service from City of Naples and sewer service from Collier County. The existing gravity sewer system will be modified to accommodate the revised site plan. However, gravity sewer service will be provided to offsite facilities Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre -application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. _ 0 �a Q a a w m E 0 r r a a� E s 0 M r a 09/28/217 1 Packet Pg. 57 Coder County 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Standard Rezone Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 Pre -Application meeting notes 1 ✓Li Project Narrative 1 ✓El Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Utility Provisions Statement with sketches 1 ✓ ❑ Signed and Sealed Survey 1 ✓ Conceptual Site Plan 1 ✓ Architectural Rendering ✓ List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 1 ✓ Warranty Deeds 1 Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 ❑ ✓ Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous 1 Elsurveys RI Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. ❑ Historical Survey or waiver request 1 ✓ Traffic Impact Statement, with applicable fees 1 ✓ School Impact Analysis Application — residential projects only 1 ✓ Electronic copy of all documents and plans 1 ✓ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan." m c 0 N m a� ca Y) w 0 a; M M 0 0 0 N N 0 N J a ti N W le 04 09/28/217 1 Packet Pg. 58 9.A.1.f Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliereov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following additional reviewers: Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director ❑ Historical Review ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson ❑ Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams and David Berra ❑ Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay ❑ School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart ❑ Other: Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -application meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre -application meeting will be required) Rezone Petition (regular): $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) o Additional Fee for 5th and subsequent reviews: 20% of original fee Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $750.00 Listed/Protected Species Survey: $1,000.00 Estimated Legal Advertising: o CCPC- $1,125.00 o BCC- $500.00 Transportation Fee: o Methodology Review: $500.00 (Additional fees to be determined at Methodology meeting) :1 School Concurrency Review: If required, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Owner Sig 1421s AIA4;AAJ d to 2•� ZO ZZ Date' Q� a 0 N d m a> 0 a; Cl) M 0 0 0 N N 0 N J a N W Applicant/Owner Name (please print) 09/28/217 1 Packet Pg. 59 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Coder County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR STANDARD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): SMH Properties of SWFL, Inc. Address: 2001 Airport Road South Telephone: 239-774-0500 Cell: City: Naples State: FL E-Mail Address: info@stmatthewshouse.org Address of Subject Property (If available): City: Naples 3180 Justins Way State: FL ZIP: 34112 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Fax: ZIP: 34112 Section/Township/Range: 11 50 S /25 E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Breeze of Calusa (aka Justin's Village) Plat Book: 59 Page #: 16 & 17 Property I.D. Number: See Legal Description Metes & Bounds Description: TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System Provide Name:. d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): e. Septic System Collier County I TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED I a. County Utility System b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System d. Private System (Well) Provide Name: City of Naples Total Population to be Served: 17 New DU * 2.5 = 42.5 = Use 43 Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water -Peak: 7,735 GPD B. Sewer -Peak: 12.8 GPM Average Daily: 5,950 GPD Average Daily: 4,250 GPD 09/28/217 Pa e 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 60 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliereov.net • Co er County 2900 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: January 2024 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. Site currently receives water service from City of Naples and sewer service from Collier County. The existing gravity sewer system will be modified to accommodate the revised site plan. However, gravity sewer service will be provided to offsite facilities. Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre -application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 61 9.A.1.f PL202200003739 Justin's Village Standard Rezoning Legal Description All that part of Tract "A" lying South of an easterly extension of the South line of Lot 18 to the East right-of-way line of Justins Way, Tract "B" and all of Lots 7 through 12, 19 through 23, Breeze of Calusa, Plat Book 59, Pages 16 through 17 of the public records of Collier County, Florida. Adjacent Lands: All that part of Tract "A" lying North of an easterly extension of the South line of Lot 18 to the East right-of-way line of Justins Way, and all of Lots 1 through 6, and 13 through 18, Breeze of Calusa, Plat Book 59, Pages 16 through 17 of the public records of Collier County, Florida. JV_STD_RZ Legal_Desc_revl Packet Pg. 62 (auozab a6ellin s,ui;snr `6£LC000ZZOZ-ld : LZ9VZ) uoi;e3ilddV-3 ;uauayoelly :;u8wt43ePv Q W LU U N U 7cz u a L O Q m U W °' cZ O z ca m O �c�L O O U I--, LO 0 O N cz o Eva, as ❑ Q W ❑ DO Q 3 W Vf LL W v }' C: ra r E Ln f6 Q� N a--� C1 V) Z T aj E E �= cu N � �Ln — 4; cu N 4: >-C a a U U LL (n Y V t V W a W m 0 W V W MH 1i W a 3 LL. O W a O U > CL C L O Q C�� c O > U) 6 cz a) Q 0- Cc 0 ct �O�1'� L V/ C Y F C� m a� IMINIMINI aEi V) w N VA W -impal >- N n A- — N � vN c�a V C +� t U C U Y c� t cz U V v UCC � r� N Q C1 N r = U c�i ++ ❑N Q Q •� n 0 a 41 c6 O a C a cm T X Q Q ❑ U- 0 Q m C �. �. O ❑ ❑ Q Q U L. Q— C;) O V r9 a� rn a L C = C a- O V Y � a o 3 tkO c c cai O Q. m O Q 4- O lD N OA r6 aQ. ^_ O C O U U O N U — " as U � C c� 2 U� O U CU Q O -0 c cr- OA O Cf) O C Q O O (n += > �Cc m O Cz 00 .= a)a) co � = a U)o M ai C) D O } C (t to (Z ; U 6-5C Q ❑ Q O a) cc; cu L a �3 w CIS i O N L c Ca cZ O EEcis O0 a� � ❑ LL ❑ � C >> cz a) a) X o cm Q Q N CJ N ON CD � m EY oo vs ' cn O O X co > > m E << - mC3) _ �> � O ❑LL❑LL E - vOf Q QQ2IL ano) CO) a m U m a (auozab a6ellin s,ui;snr `6£LEOOOZZOZ-ld : LZ9VZ) uoi;e3ilddV-3 ;uauayoelly :;u8wt43ePv L O E L IZ Y po 00 O u C7 a 4� d y j O I-- pOp � X Ln LL (UO > LL Q co n -a UCL � O � O O II LL W C O O U M II= CL m f7 d O cm 3 Q Lq 0 toN a o. 11 U' O Gl C � Z Il m •� iF 4- O U c ar CL v a H u v � Q o EA tZ (� a O Ln N N v E � c O co l� L r aj Q c v `a O O a) U O_ v Lf1 O N U L C � co � C 3 O N (LA+J N N CL i v = CL N f0 � I I 0 U m LL Y co a) d 11 CL I 00 r-I O N O M M 9.A.1.f tti�' P F \ ll 44�o' ONTHE GULF UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 380 RIVERSIDE CIRCLE • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 TELEPHONE (239) 213-5051 • UTILITIESFORMS@NAPLESGOV.COM November 1, 2022 Chris Hagan Hagan Engineering 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, FL 34102 chris@HaganEng.com Subject: Potable Water Service Availability for Justin's Village (aka Calusa Breeze) Justin's Way, Naples, FL 34112 — City File No. 14-27 Dear Mr. Hagan: In response to the request for a Letter of Availability for potable water service (domestic and /or irrigation use) for the proposed Justin's Village project received via email on Oct 25, 2022. This office has reviewed the subject site for available potable water service. Based on the referenced information and review, this office confirms the following: 1. The subject property is located within the City of Naples potable water service area. 2. The City of Naples has adequate treatment plant capacity for the proposed project. 3. This project has been previously permitted, constructed, and accepted as Calusa Breeze with final acceptance letter dated December 17, 2015. The new owner wishes to rezone the southern half of the site to a multifamily use. This will replace the permitted remaining 11 home sites with 28 multifamily units for a total of 40 units on site. 4. The proposed improvements must meet current City of Naples Utilities Standards and must be submitted to the Utilities Department for review and approval. 5. Should the scope of proposed project change to impact City utility services, the project's engineer of record shall remain responsible to contact the City for appropriate reviews and analysis. This letter does not imply or guarantee that adequate potable water distribution main facilities of sufficient size and capacity exist at the property; such utilities as may be needed for new site development shall remain the developer's responsibility to design, permit and construct. Based on the above, this office has no objections to this project subject to appropriate reviews by all utility service providers (including the City of Naples), Collier County, and the Fire District. Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 65 9.A.1.f Should you have any questions or require any additional information or action from this office, please do not hesitate to call this office at (239) 213-5051 or e-mail dmking@naplesgov.com. Sincerely, Denise King, Utilities Permit Coordinator Cc: Michelle Baines, P.E., Interim Utilities Director Bob Middleton, Utilities Director David Banter, Utilities Inspector Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 66 Co*,r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercountvfl.eov 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: Standard Rezone (RZ) Date and Time: Wednesday 6/22/22 at 3 : OOPM Zoom Assigned Planner: Nancy Gundlach Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: Justin's Village Phase 2 (RZ ) PL#: 20220003739 Property ID #: See attached list Current Zoning: RMF-6-GTMUDR Project Address: Justins Way Rd City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34112 Applicant: Chris Hagan, Hagan Engineering Agent Name: Chris Hagan Phone: 239-228-7742 1250 Tamiami Trl N, Suite 203B, Naples FL 34102 Agent/Firm Address: City: State: Zip: Property Owner: SMH Properties of SWFL Inc. Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: 2 .3 ii. Proposed#of Residential Units: multi -Family Project iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: V. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 67 COAT Count y 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercountyfl.gov Meeting Notes 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note - link is https://www.colIiercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093 Zau)VV G ��S �GLt✓�- 7.elwWP� / Z.&w.ye-n, f-DA- /hl� P✓1e.T�_T Cy G e," l f%4C 1, - l�� ► Cv �Zrtc�' �1rzr�. �vl i 7 IJVy 741i. rrV& Ortiz Ci-,lm — ��•� P4,6•e n��rvlt.l��Y/+,n_ �I Puuy, FeMR. 2n,►yzy � Ci+�GCiV',v Lfx� �,�ioFLa lD (J J )ch4,,X t94-6 -— S a,c.w J ►'tzr t Jv FL) If Site is within the City of Naples Water Service Area please send to Naples Utilities and Planning Departments. Then, if the petition is submitted, we are to send it (by email) to the four persons below in their Utilities and Planning Depts. - along with a request that they send us a letter or email of "no objection" to the petition. Bob Middleton RMiddleton(oinaplesQov.com Allyson Holland AMHolland(cDnaplesaov.com Robin Singer RSinger(a)naplesaov.com Erica Martin emartin(cDnaplesaov.com Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 2 of 5 a� _ 0 N d d f� N C N ow M ti M O 0 0 N N O N J IL rl- N to It N 0 R Q a Q w c d E s 0 0 r Q r am E s 0 Q Packet Pg. 68 9.A.1.f CO*.-r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountyfl.gov (239) 252-2400 Meeting Notes I C b 1VI /0 �1�7,✓ivc rV (, — 1 'L�i4w ter✓ S ¢�- �iev� /�/c�i �2� Oyu `3A4-)u L) - 4�)..� 1 1 �1� fl4 �I C I ✓1 " �nz�.t?T©ni e Jv�f�.Un�� - it 1-7)i4cA Pn /1/ �/ U Other required documentation for submittal (not listed on application): Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all required data. Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 69 9.A.1.f ThomasClarkeVEN From: HansenRachel Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 4:08 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Cc: GundlachNancy Subject: PL20220003739 - Justin's Village Phase 2 (RZ) pre-app notes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged m c Hi Tom, 0 Below are my notes for the Justin's Village rezone pre-app: aD a� - The applicant proposes a rezone from RMF-6 to RMF-12, increasing the base density to 12 dwelling units/acre. The subject property is within Activity Center #16, which allows up to 16 units/acre. A small southern portion of v, the subject property is not within the Activity Center boundary, but the proposed density of 12 units/acre can be distributed throughout the project per the FLUE. - Please note that the Affordable Housing Density Bonus table in LDC section 2.06.03 requires that the units c designated affordable be a percentage of the gross project units. o N N Rachel Hansen CD N Principal Planner ii Planning & Zoning Division Rachel. Hansen(cDcolliercountvfl.gov o 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 N Phone: (239) 252-1442 0 �a CO ley County CL Q "Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://aoo.gl/eXivgT." w c m Information contained in this email is subject to verification by the Zoning Manager and/or Planning Director; if this information is t being used as a basis for the purchase/lease of a property or as a guide for the design of a project, it is recommended that a Zoning Verification Letter or Zoning Certificate Application is submitted to zoning services. Applications for a Zoning Verification Letter can Q be found here: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=69624 Zoning Certificate applications can be found here: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/vour-government/divisions-f-r/operations- m regulatory-management/zoning-or-land-use-application/zoning-other-land-use-applications t 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. Packet Pg. 70 9.A.1.f ThomasClarkeVEN From: BrownCraig Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 5:16 PM To: ThomasClarkeVEN Subject: RE: Pre-app Research for -Justin's Village Phase 2 (RZ) - PL20220003739 Attachments: Straight Rezone checklist 2016.doc Thomas, Here are my notes. Please address how the proposed project is consistent with Conservation Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1 and Objective 7.1. Give a brief explanation for the clearing of the property that has occurred (historic aerial or permits ect ect). No Fee or Environmental Data required. Craig Brown Principal Environmental Specialist Development Review Division (239) 252-2548. How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey. We appreciate your Feedback! From: ThomasClarkeVEN <Thomas.Clarke@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 2:28 PM To: AshtonHeidi <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; BeardLaurie <Laurie.Bea rd@colliercountyfl.gov>; BrownCraig <Craig.Brown @colliercountyfl.gov>; CookJaime <Jaime.Cook@colliercountyfl.gov>; CrotteauKathynell <Kathynell.Crotteau@colliercountyfl.gov>; PerryDerek <Derek.Perry@colliercountyfl.gov>; OrtmanEric <Eric.Ortman@colliercountyfl.gov>; FaulknerSue <Sue.Faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov>; CastroGabriela <Gabriela.Castro@colliercountyfl.gov>; SantabarbaraGino <Gino.Santabarbara@colliercountyfl.gov>; RaineyJenniferA <JenniferA.Rainey@colliercountyfl.gov>; MoscaMichele <Michele.Mosca@colliercountyfl.gov>; OrthRichard <Richard.Orth@colliercountyfl.gov>; KlopfParker <Parker.Klopf@colliercountyfl.gov>; AshkarSally <Sally.Ashkar@colliercountyfl.gov>; SawyerMichael <Michael.Sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov>; TempletonMark <Mark.Templeton@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: GundlachNancy <Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov>; HansenRachel <Rachel.Hansen @colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Pre-app Research for Justin's Village Phase 2 (RZ) - PL20220003739 Good Afternoon All, Sorry about the late notice again. Please see the Attached Pre-App Research for Justin's Village Phase 2 (RZ) - PL20220003739. See County Clerk for Ordinance 2022-12 which applies here. (file too large to include) i-�� Packet Pg. 71 9.A.1.f Environmental Straight Rezone (non-RFMU) Project Name T4611wiS Vitz,v& -c— The Preserve is not required to be designated at the time of Rezone for a Straight Rezone as long as a site plan is not included with the resolution. 1. Is the project is in compliance with the overlays, districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties? (CON, ST, PUD, RLSA, RFMU, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08; 4.08.00) 2. Submit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser's office) and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. Application Contents 424). PROVIDE AT TIME OF REZONE The following 3-10 are to be provided only in the case that a detailed site lan is beingprovided with the Rezone 0 N wo Ordinance. Otherwise the following are to be provided at time of SDP/Plat a� 3. Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as "Preserve" on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07.A.2). �a TO BE DONE AT TIME OF PLAT > JA 4. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. c y amount and ratios permitted to be created on -site or mitigated off -site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.13-1); 3.05.071; 3.05.07.H. Ld-e). P547 M TO BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF PLAT/SDP M 0 0 5. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H.1.b. N NEED TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT AT TIME OF PLAT/SDP N J 6. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, IL be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off -site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A. 1 -4) v NEED TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT AT TIME OF PLAT/SDP c 0 7. Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory m structures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be Q permitted within 10' of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve (i.e. a stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide cross -sections for each preserve boundary identifying all w site alterations within 25'. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) c NEED TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT AT TIME OF PLAT/SDP E 8. Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required, when so warranted. (LDC 10.02.02.A.2.f) Listed Species - P522 PROVIDE AT TIME OF PLAT/SDP a r 9. Provide Environmental Data identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off -site m E preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm U fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 3.08.00) PROVIDE AT TIME OF PLAT/SDP a 10. Site Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved only in the case that a detailed site plan is being provided with the Rezone Ordinance. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2) Fees: Listed Species Survey fee will be required at time of Plat/SDP. Packet Pg. 72 c 9.A.1.f ThomasClarkeVEN From: SawyerMichael Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:20 AM To: ThomasClarkeVEN; GundlachNancy Subject: Justin's Village Pre App Meeting Notes Thomas, Please check the TIS required box on the pre app checklist as well as methodology on the next page with a note that methodology will be by email to staff. Please also add the following notes: Transportation Planning: Methodology meeting by email required and provide note on TIS cover sheet that fee will be collected at time of Rezone submittal. Address all transportation elements of the GMP. Provide trip limit based on TIS using standard language: "The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval." Sincerely, Michael Sawyer Project Manager Transportation Management Services Department Transportation Planning 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 239-252-2926 michael. sawyer(iDcolliercountyfl. gov 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. c 0 M .Q Q. Q w c d E s Q c d E s 0 Q Packet Pg. 73 Co*,r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountvfl.gov (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet PL# 20220003739 Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email El Maggie Acevedo North Collier Fire 252-2309 macevedo@northcollierfire.com Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov Shar A.Beddow MSM/Deputy Fire Marshal - Greater Naples Fire 241-1422 sbeddow@gnfire.org L Ray Bellows Zoning, Planning Manager 252-2463 raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov rie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown @coiliercountyfLgov ❑ Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst. County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov Thomas Clarke Zoning Operations Analyst 252-2584 thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jamie Cook Development Review Director 252-6290 Jaime.cook@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Gabriela Castro Zoning Principal Planner 252-4211 gabriela.castro@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Maggie DeMeo North Collier Fire 252-2308 pdemeo@northcollierfire.com �i e r-,tc EvleFeq P-€ vmy Utility Planning 252-1037 erit#eq°@colliercountyfl.gov `i Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-4312 timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov Sue Faulkner I GMP - Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov I Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov 1 Storm Gewirtz, P.E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtz@colliercountyfl.gov C 1 Cormac Giblin, AICP Development Review -Planning Manager 252-5095 Cormac.giblin@colliercountyfl.gov ancy Gundlach, AICP Zoning Principal Planner 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov Rachel Hansen GMP — Comprehensive Planning 252-1142 Rachel. hansen@colIiercountyfLgov 1 Richard Henderlong Zoning Principal Planner 252-2464 richard.henderlong@colliercountyfl.gov F1 John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov Alicia Humphries Right -Of -Way Permitting 252-2326 alicia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov i Anita Jenkins Planning & Zoning Director 252-5095 Anita.jenkins@colliercountyfl.gov E John Kelly Zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Parker Klopf GMP —Comprehensive Planning 252-2471 1 Parker.klopf@colliercountyfl.gov Troy Komarowski North Collier Fire 252-2521 tkomarowski@northcollierfire.com Sean Lintz North Collier Fire 597-9227 slintz@northcollierfire.com ❑ Diane Lynch Operations Analyst 252-8243 diane.lynch@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Thomas Mastroberto Greater Naples Fire 252-7348 thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov 1 Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jack. mckenna@colIiercountyfLgov Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 74 9.A.1.f Coer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountyfl.eov (239) 252-2400 f_i Matt McLean, P.E. Division Director - IF, CPP & PM 252-8279 matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Richard Orth Stormwater Planning 252-5092 richard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Eric Ortman Zoning Principal Planner 252-1032 Eric.Ortman@colliercountyfl.gov LL Derek Perry Assistant County Attorney 252-8066 Derek. perry@colIiercountyfLgov Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandi.pollard@colliercountyfl.gov Todd Riggall North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com ❑' Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Development Review Principal Project Manager 252-2905 brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ James Sabo, AICP GIMP, Comp Planning Manager 252-2708 james.sabo@colliercountyfl.gov Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov El Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Linda Simmons North Collier Fire 252-2311 Linda.Simmons@colliercountyfl.gov El Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-2475 mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov Connie Thomas Client Services Supervisor 252-6369 Consuela.thomas@colliercountyfl.gov El Jessica Velasco Client Services 252-2584 jessica.velasco@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jon Walsh, P.E. Building Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review Manager 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Christine Willoughby Development Review - Zoning 252-5748 christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov U Daniel Zunzunegui North Collier Fire 252-2310 Daniel.Zunzunegui@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email Updated 1/12/2021 Page 1 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 75 9.A.1.f S P� zv�Lz- 3 7.3 5 Q Participant= (1 �;. Find a participant thomas clarke (Host, me) © Chris Hagan O► m Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner QJ o N d Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager pa a, Cormac Giblin / / y c Craig Bro�,vn t�r� owe e �; '� N of M Da-Jcl Feltz CD O O © N DebrahForester C,,L �4 / c N J d Gino Santabarbara—77,Xptcr reeS /V 0 N to Is Jill Pvlesner % C►:� c 0 Laura CieJohn / tf r,+lMuskat 'r Crt Q w c Parker Klopf. Seni.,, Ask to Unmute m Q R.achelHansen —C-wCP / CD' Q r c v RicharrlGrth ' Sivn,.rrw�T�r-- /V 0 0 E sawyermichael Packet Pg. 76 9.A.1.f Applicant/Agent may also send site plans or conceptual plans for review in advance if desired. PL2O22O003739— Justin's Village Phase 2 (RZ) - Planner: Nancy Gundlach Assigned Ops Staff: Thomas Clarke STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE -APPLICATION MEETING INFORMATION • Name and Number of who submitted pre-app request — Chris Hagan, Hagan Engineering, 239-228-7742 • Agent to list for PL# - Chris Hagan, Hagan Engineering • Owner of property (all owners for all parcels) — SMH Properties of South Florida Inc., 2601 Airport Road Naples, FL 34112 • Confirm Purpose of Pre-App: (Rezone, etc.) — The purpose of the meeting is to rezone the development parcel in the RMF-6-GTMUD-R zoning district. Attached please find preliminary rezone documents for review. • Please list the density request of the project if applicable and number of homes/units/offices/docks (any that apply): This request is to convert a portion of the RMF-6-GTMUD-R to RMF-12-GTMUD-R for 2.3 acres. • Details about Project: Complete build out of Justin's Village with multi -family product. REQUIRED Supplemental Information provided by: Name: Chris Hagan, Hagan Engineering Title: Principal Engineer Email: Chris@Haganeng.com Phone: 239-228-7742 Cancellation/Reschedule Requests: Contact Danny Condomina-Client Services Supervisor danny.condomina@colliercountvfl Phone: 239-252-6866 Created April 5, 2017 Location: K:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Zoning Staff Information Packet Pg. 77 9.A.1.f Justin's Village Phase 2 (RZ) — PL20220003739 The ownership of all Parcels listed is SMH Properties of SWFL INC Justin's Village Standard Rezoning Legal Description The South 347.2 ±feet of Tract A, Tract B, Lots 7-12, and Lots 19-23 Breeze of Coluso Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 59, Page 16, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Collier County Property Appraiser Address: Folio Numbers: 24729000040, No address 24729000024, 3153 Justins Way Naples, FL 34112 24729000189; 3180 Justins Way 24729000202; 3176 Justins Way 24729000228; 3172 Justins Way 24729000244; 3168 Justins Way 24729000260; 3164 Justins Way 24729000286, 3160 Justins Way 24729000422, 3175 Justins Way 24729000448, 3171 Justins Way 24729000464: 3167 Justins Way 24729000480: 3163 Justins Way 24729000503, 3159 Justins Way Adjacent Lands: The North 457.9 ± feet of Tract A, Lots 1-6, and Lots 13 —18 Breeze of Caluso Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 59, Page 16, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Owned by SMH Properties of Southwest Florida, Inc. Packet Pg. 78 Co*.r County 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Standard Rezone Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 Pre -Application meeting notes 1 Project Narrative 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Z Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Utility Provisions Statement with sketches 1 ❑ Signed and Sealed Survey 1 Conceptual Site Plan 1 Architectural Rendering ❑ List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 1 Warranty Deeds 1 Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys 1 .Q 1 ❑ ❑ Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. ❑ ❑ ❑ Historical Survey or waiver request 1 Traffic Impact Statement, with applicable fees --epp 6&-Tekj ; 1 School Impact Analysis Application — residential projects only 1 Electronic copy of all documents and plans 1 *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan." m c 0 N a� a� a� c Y 0 ai M ti M O 0 0 N N O N J d N O le N 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 79 CoM.r County 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following additional reviewers: Bayshore/Gateway Tria gle Rede elopm nt: Executive Director pe ion ❑ Historical Review City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director DwImmokalee Water/Sewer District: Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams and David Berra 'Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Other: uAL4( (,� G�if�s - Q.�,Q�;�.� Other: wyl—t'r+— — ��LPVt; FEE REQUIREMENTS j/ Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -application meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre -application rpeeting will be required) -(/Rezone Petition (regular): $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) o Additional Fee for 51h and subsequent reviews: 20% of original fee Vomprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $750.00 Listed/Protected Species Survey: $1,000.00 / Estimated Legal Advertising: cb/ CCPC- $1,125.00 �CC- $500.00 V Transportation Fee: /t4.e ku oc�_vG y", �rnL "7 /Hb �J�{F fCFJ{k #x-" o Methodology Review: $500.00 Additional fees to be determined at Methodology meeting) 6,,,'§chool Concurrency Review: If required, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Owner Signature Applicant/Owner Name (please print) Date d c 0 N a� a� a� R Y) c :r a; M ti M 0 0 0 N N O N J a N W le 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 80 9.A.1.f co'LLier c01.1.ty Growth Management Department ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliercountyfl.gov or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the address listed below. This form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to the pre -application meeting. Please allow 3 business days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below. Complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type). ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use Permit) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIN (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat) ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑✓ RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) See Legal Description T50, R25, S11 FOLIO (Property ID) Number(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) See Legal Description included in the application materials STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) See Legal Description included in the application materials • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right-of-way • SURVEY (copy — only needed for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Justin's Village PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Justin's Village Phase II PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) Justin's Way SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP or AR or PL # 20130001575 Addressing Checklist (Rev 12/2021) Page 1 of 2 m c 0 N N a� a� 0 N c N ai CO) ti M O 0 0 N N O N J d r- N to N c 0 r 0 .Q Q. Q w c m E t U 0 Q ;.o c W E U ca Q Operations & Regulatory Management Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.coll iercountyfl.gov Packet Pg. 81 9.A.1.f Collier County Growth Management Department Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application, indicate whether proposed or existing) Justin's Village Phase II Please Return Approved Checklist By: DEmail ❑Personally picked up Applicant Name: SMH PROPERTIES OF SWFL INC Phone: (239) 774-0500 Email: info@stmatthewshouse.org Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 24729000040 Folio Number see attached Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: Date: 6/24/2022 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR A NEW FORM SUBMITTED. Addressing Checklist (Rev 12/2021) Page 2 of 2 Operations & Regulatory Management Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 www.coll iercountyfl.gov Packet Pg. 82 9.A.1.f Justin's Village Standard Rezoning Legal Description The South 347.2f feet of Tract A, Tract B, Lots 7-12, and Lots 19 -23 Breeze of Calusa Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 59, Page 16, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Collier County Property Appraiser Folio Numbers: 24729000040; 24729000024; 24729000189; 24729000202; 24729000228; 24729000244; 24729000260; 24729000286; 24729000422; 24729000448; 24729000464; 24729000480; 24729000503. Address: No address 3153 Justins Way, Naples, Florida 34112 3180 Justins Way "" 3176 Justins Way "" 3172 Justins Way "" 3168 Justins Way "" 3164 Justins Way 3160 Justins Way 3175 Justins Way 3171 Justins Way 3167 Justins Way 3163 Justins Way 3159 Justins Way Adjacent Lands: The North 457.9f feet of Tract A, Lots 1-6, and Lots 13 -18 Breeze of Calusa Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 59, Page 16, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Packet Pg. 83 COi V Count 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.col I i ergo. net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address SMH Properties of Southwest Florida, Inc. % of Ownership 100 2001 Airport Road South Naples, FL 34112 Florida Not for Profit Corporation Officer/Director Details Attached If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: I Name and Address I % of Ownership Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 84 C0 er County 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address Date of Contract: of Ownership f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: 9. Name and Adi Date subject property acquired 08/23/2018 ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 85 Co eMr County 9.A.1.f COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Date of option: 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 1O/ZS 2aZy Agent/Owner Sig D to &JZ I r, I- A;AJ Agent/Owner Name (please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 86 D:w 9.A.1.f yJ� Jf f fJ! l� I r /ll! �i111� III! '. l.1!: ,y PJylli 4! ,.:•ii !._ &oartment of State / Division of Corporations / Search Records / Search by En ity Name / Detail by Entity Name Florida Not For Profit Corporation SMH PROPERTIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. Filing Information Document Number N11000009725 FEI/EIN Number 45-3756563 Date Filed 10/13/2011 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 Changed: 04/30/2021 Mailing Address 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 Changed: 04/30/2021 Registered Agent Name & Address BROODER, STEVE 2601 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 Name Changed: 04/30/2021 Address Changed: 06/08/2020 Officer/Director Detail Name & Address Title CEO BROODER, STEVE 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 Title Board Chairman Packet Pg. 87 1 9.A.1.f Fumo, Henry 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 Title VC Loukonen, Rachael 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 Title Asst. Secretary Mullins, Peggy 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 Title Controller Miller, Cris 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2021 04/30/2021 2021 09/06/2021 2022 01 /24/2022 Document Images 01124/2022 — ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 09/06/2021 —AMENDED ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/30/2021 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 06/08/2020 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/2912019 — ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 02/1312018 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04120/2017 — ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/21/2016 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/28/2015 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 03/12/2014 — ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 03114/2013 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 11/26/2012 -- Reg. Agent hangs View image in PDF format 07/16/2012 -- Reg. Agent Ch ngg View image in PDF format 04113,12012 — ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 10/13/2011 -- Domestic Non -Profit View image in PDF format Packet Pg. 88 1 PL202200003739 9.A.1.f Justin's Village Standard Rezoning Legal Description All that part of Tract "A" lying South of an easterly extension of the South line of Lot 18 to the East right-of-way line of Justins Way, Tract "B" and all of Lots 7 through 12, 19 through 23, Breeze of Calusa, Plat Book 59, Pages 16 through 17 of the public records of Collier County, Florida. Adjacent Lands: All that part of Tract "A" lying North of an easterly extension of the South line of Lot 18 to the East right-of-way line of Justin Way, and all of Lots lthrough 6, and 13 through 18, Breeze of Calusa, Plat Book 59, Pages 16 through 17 of the public records of Collier County, Florida. JV_STD_RZ_Legal_Desc_rev1 Packet Pg. 89 INSTR 5604317 OR 5546 PG 1240 RECORDED 8/24/2018 12:13 PM PAGES 2 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $27,650.00 REC $18.50 CONS $3,950,000.00 9.A.1.f This Instrument Prepared by: Christopher Langen, Esq. Langen & Langen,P.A. P.O. Box 398570 Miami Beach, Florida 33239-8570 Return to: Harold J. We reEsq. Coleman, avanai`ch & Koester, P.A. 4001 TamiamfraijNorth, Suite 300 Naples FL 34103� tX �, ODD • e6 Property Appraiser's Parcel Identification (Folio) No.: f8'1 THIS INDENTURE is made' this DEVELOPERS, LLC, a Florida limi E. Palm Midway, Miami Beach, FL 3 INC., a Florida not -for -profit corpox Naples, FL 34112, Grantee. WARRANTY DEED day WITNESSETH, that said Grantor, for and in hand paid by said Grantee, and other good and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and s forever, the following land situate, lying and of August, 2018, between CALUSA BREEZE company, Grantor, whose post office address is 115 ,MH PROPERTIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, ye post office address is 2001 Airport Road South, Lots 1, 3 through 23, inclusive and Tracts A anc to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 59, Collier County, Florida. of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), in N aeration, the receipt of which is hereby N Lntee, and Grantee's heirs and assigns r County, Florida, to wit: .o of Calusa, according the Public Records of SUBJECT TO: 1. Taxes for the year 2018 and subsequent years; 2. Conditions, restrictions, limitations, reservations, easements angl` ther agreements of record affecting the Property; and 3. Applicable zoning, land use and subdivision ordinances and/or agreements. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances theretAblonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple title forever. Packet Pg. 90 *** OR 5546 PG 1241 *** 9.A.1.f AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that it is fully seized of said land in fee simple; that it has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that it hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances except for taxes for 2018 and all subsequent years; and easements, restrictions, covenants, limitations and conditions of record, if any. 4 IN WITNESS MMUM OF, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and d8vof6d,`v, in our presence: c.r)'Ih OP3'e, A to/DaAJrL1nl dE I Lx d v , Witness L"J'Zi STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged t Christopher Langen as Manager of Calusa Breeze D company, who is personally known to me; or who pro, identification. y��..ezj.,, Simone � Cosnm6ss n� Gerson 166375 Expires: D¢emker 7, 2021 Bonded thru-Aam Plotuy Calusa Breeze Developers, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: Christopher Langen, Manager 2.3 day of August, 2018, by C, a Florida limited liability as Packet Pg. 91 r Department of State New Filing Section Division of Corporations P. O. Box 6327 COVER LETTER Tallahassee, FL 32314 z c 0 N SUBJECT: SC'n 1 � (PROPOSED CORPORATE NAME - MUST INCLUDE SUFFIX) c Enclosed are an original and one (1) copy of the articles of incorporation and a check for: ❑ $70.00 er 78.75 Filing Fee iling Fee & Certificate of Status r FROM: � -%s an/ 2 —Name (Printed or typed) a a �- , 1� rn I A m � t 2ft t L /1%a li. t 10 W Address E t r City, State & Zip r c a� Daytime Telephone number VA "N M A 4-9 it Li o u:5 .6rZ maiT3dress:� oT�e used for future annual report notilicatiion NOTE: Please provide the original and one copy of the articles. Packet Pg. 92 9.A.1.f ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF SMH PROPERTIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. t�7 -- F' � C7 A Florida Non -Profit Corporation u; 2v r� cn C:) The undersigned incorporator hereby forms a not -for -profit corporation under Chapter 617 of the Florida statutes. ARTICLE I NAME The name of the corporation is SMH Properties of Southwest Florida, Inc. ARTICLE II PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND ADDRESS The address of the principal office of the corporation is 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, Florida 34112 and the mailing address of the corporation is 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, Florida 34112. ARTICLE III DURATION The corporation shall exist perpetually, and the corporate existence will commence on the filing of these articles by the Secretary of State of the State of Florida. ARTICLE IV CORPORATE PURPOSE This corporation is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations' under section 501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code, and for the following purposes: 1. Any and all lawful purposes not for pecuniary profit. 2. The corporation is formed for the purpose of, the benefit of, St. Matthew's House, Inc. _n F_ M 0 a� c a o N o: a� a� Y) c M ti M O 0 0 N N O N J d N to N c 0 .Q a a W r_ E t 0 r r Q r c a� E �a a i Packet Pg. 93 9.A.1.f ARTICLE V RESTRICTIONS No part of the net earnings of the corporation shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributable to its members, trustees, officers, or other private persons, except that the corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the purposes set forth in Article Fourth hereof. No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall be carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these articles, the corporation shall not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on (a) by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under section 501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future tax code, or (b) by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under section 170(C)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. ARTICLE VI DISSOLUTION Upon dissolution of the corporation, assets shall be distributed for one or more exempt purposes within the meaning of section 501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code, or shall be distributed to the federal government, or to a state or local government, for a public purpose. Any such assets not so disposed of shall be disposed of by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction of the county in which the principal office of the corporation is then located, exclusively for such purposes or to such organization or organizations, as said Court shall determine, which are organized and operated exclusively for such purposes. ARTICLE VII DIRECTORS The number and the method of election of the directors of the corporation is set forth in the by-laws. Packet Pg. 94 9.A.1.f ARTICLE VIII INITIAL DIRECTORS The names and addresses of the initial Board of Directors of the corporation are: Rick Fumo - Director 15262 Burnaby Drive Naples, Florida 34110 Ronald W. Gustason - Director 2375 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 110 Naples, FI 34103 Vann R. Ellison - Director 2001 Airport Road South Naples, Florida 34112 ARTICLE IX INITIAL REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT The street address of the initial registered office of this corporation is 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, Florida 34112, and the name of the initial registered agent at that address is Vann R. Ellison ARTICLE X INITIAL INCORPORATOR The name and address of the initial incorporator is Ronald W. Gustason, 2375 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 110, Naples, Florida 34103. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the sole incorporator hereinbefore named, for the purpose of forming a corporation under t e Florida Non -Profit Corporation Act has executed these Articles of Incorporation this JO ,day of October, 2011. S Ronald W. Gustason, incorporator Packet Pg. 95 9.A.1.f STATE OF FLORIDA z" f COUNTY OF COLLIER --i The foregoing Articles of Incorporation were acknowledged before me this ay of October, 2011, by Ronald W. Gustason, as sole incorporator of SMH PROPER ' F© SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. He is personally know to me or has provided as identification. c Notary Public — sign ure Notary Public State of Florida Diana C Young 1 \ f C My Commission DD971027 �J p, EXpirSa Qti IW014 Notary Public — Pr nt Name Commission no. ACCEPTANCE BY REGISTERED AGENT Vann R. Ellison, having been designated to act as registered agent, hereby states that he is familiar with, and accepts, the obligations of that position. Vann R. Ellison K a Packet Pg. 96 2022 FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT FILED 9•A.1.f DOCUMENT# N11000009725 Jan 24, 2022 Entity Name: SMH PROPERTIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. Secretary of State 4611242404CC Current Principal Place of Business: 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES. FL 34112 Current Mailing Address: 2001 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 US FEI Number: 45-3756563 Certificate of Status Desired: No Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: BROODER, STEVE 2601 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES, FL 34112 US The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: STEVE BROODER 01/24/2022 Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date Officer/Director Detail Title CEO Title BOARD CHAIRMAN Name BROODER, STEVE Name FUMO,HENRY Address 2001 AIRPORT RD S Address 2001 AIRPORT RD S City -State -Zip: NAPLES FL 34112 City -State -Zip: NAPLES FL 34112 Title VC Title ASST. SECRETARY Name LOUKONEN, RACHAEL Name MULLINS, PEGGY Address 2001 AIRPORT RD S Address 2001 AIRPORT RD S City -State -Zip: NAPLES FL 34112 City -State -Zip: NAPLES FL 34112 Title CONTROLLER Name MILLER, CRIS Address 2001 AIRPORT RD S City -State -Zip: NAPLES FL 34112 I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that I am an officer or director of the corporation or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 617, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. SIGNATURE: STEVE BROODER CEO 01/24/2022 Electronic Signature of Signing Officer/Director Detail Date Packet Pg. 97 9.A.1.f AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) j Stave Brooder (print name), as CEo & Registered Agent applicable) of SMH Properties of Southwest Florida, Inc. (title, if under oath, that i am the (chooseone) owner {company, If a licable), swear or affirm applicant contract purchaser[nand that: T. i have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and trade a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Hagan Engineering l-Lc in any matters regarding this petition inclt.lding t through 2 above. to act as our/my representative "Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the carp, pres. or v_ pres_ • if the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member," • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership. partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the general partner" of the named partnership. • if the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustees name and the words "as trustee". • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership, Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that 777Z; 4� e & Z4- ZC�OZ-7-�� STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Th$ foregoing instrument was acknowleged before me by means of hysicai presence or �_ ay of�� 2p Oonline notarization this by (printed name of owner or quafifier) Lr Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: ErAre personally known to me E] Has produced a current drivers license 0 Has produced as identification. !Votary Signature: CF108-COA-001154155 REV 3/4/2020 �T Notary Public State of Florida Jill M. Mesner �S My Commission HH 032704 'O Expires 0811MO24 Packet Pg. 98 9.A.1.f .,strict SCllooj � o �Zcolfier C0010`� Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [�] type of application request (one only): �✓ School Capacity Review F1 Exemption Letter F7Concurrency Determination 0 Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, Project Name: Justin's Village Phase II Project Information: Municipality: collier Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): See Legal Description Location/Address of subject property: 3153 Justins Way, Naples, FL 34112 Closest Major Intersection: Airport Road and US 41 II. Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): SMH Properties of SW Florida, Inc. Agent/Contact Person: Chris Hagan P.E. Hagan Engineering LLC (Attach location map) (Please note that if agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: 1250 Tamiami Trail N #203b, Naples, FL 34102 Telephone#: 239-228-7142 Fax: Email Chris@HaganEng.com I hereby certify th tatements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are t a ect to the best of my knowledge. Owner`& Authorized III. Develovment Information o?- l%— Zo?z Date Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation: Urban Mixed Use Gateway Overlay Proposed Land Use Designation: Urban Mixed Use Gateway Overlay Current Zoning: RM F-6 GTZO-R Proposed Zoning: RM F-12 GTZO-R Project Acreage: Unit Type: SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: 14 Total Units Proposed by Type: 28 Is this a phasedproject: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. m c 0 N m as ca rn w M M O O O N N O N J a ti N O N C O a Q Q Q W C d E 0 r r Q m E s 0 w Q Date/time stamp: Packet Pg. 99 a) U) m i Q a) O 4- U () O a a) A C O ;— C (Q U .Q Q Q a) L a) a) Q E O U O O CD O— m a) a) O i (auozab a6ellin s,ui;snr `6£LEOOOZZOZ-ld : LZ9VZ) uoi;e3ilddV-3 ;uauayoelly :;u8wt43ePv °-b -� FCn L t� i O N O O N O N M � N O � N N p N N 9.A.1.f Types of Reviews: School Impact Analysis: This review should be divided into two categories: School Capacity Review (land use and rezonings), and; Concurrency Determinations (site plans and subdivisions). School Capacity Review is the review of a project in the land use and rezoning stage of development. It is a review of the impact of the development on school capacity and is considered long range planning. This may o be a review resulting in mitigation being required. In situations where the applicant may be required to mitigate, capacity may be reserved dependent on the type of mitigation. Concurrency Determination is the review of residential site plans and subdivisions to determine whether > there is available capacity. When capacity is determined to be available a School Capacity Determination �n Letter (SCADL) will be issued verifying available capacity to the applicant and the local government. If a project exceeds the adopted level of service standards, the applicant is afforded the option of a negotiation period that may or may not result in an executed/recorded mitigation agreement Mitigation at this stage is expressed as a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement. For those residential developments that may have an impact but are otherwise exempt from concurrency, an exemption letter will be prepared for the applicant o upon request. For those residential developments that are determined to not have an impact, a letter of no N impact will be prepared for the applicant upon request. a N J Exemption Letter: a N An applicant may request an Exemption Letter as documentation for the local government. These are projects I that would be exempt from school concurrency review or projects that do not impact the public schools. Exemptions from school concurrency are limited to existing single family or mobile home lots of record; o amendments to previously approved site plans or plats that do not increase the number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type; age restricted communities with no permanent residents under the age of 18; or residential site plans or plats or amendments to site plans or plats that generate less than one student; or are a authorized as a Development of Regional Impact (Chapter 380, F.S.) as of July 1, 2005. w Concurrency Determination Amendment: An applicant may request an amendment to a previously issued School Concurrency Determination or to anCU application being processed. This review may require additional staff time beyond the initial concurrency a determination review and results in a modified determination being issued. An amendment could result in a negotiation period and/or a mitigation agreement being issued or a previously approved determination being E modified and reissued. a Packet Pg. 101 9.A.1.f PL20220003739 Narrative Page 1 of 6 PL20220003739 Justin's Village Phase II Rezoning from RMF-6 GTZO-R to RMF-12 GTZO-R Narrative and Basis for Approval SMH Properties of Southwest Florida Inc., is proposing to rezone the south half of the Breeze of Calusa Subdivision from the existing RMF-6 GTZO-R (RMF-6) Zoning District to the RMF-12 GTZO-R (RMF-12) Zoning District to allow the development of twenty-eight (28) multi -family dwelling units. While the 2.3f acre rezoning property is currently entitled with 14 dwelling units pursuant to the existing zoning, only 11 lots have vested rights having been platted. The Petitioner is proposing to utilize a Density Bonus for affordable housing by committing to thirty percent (30%) of the Bonus Units to be allocated to residents or families earning less than eighty percent (80%) of the Adjusted Median Income for Collier County. Rental apartments are contemplated to primarily serve the participants or graduates of the St. Matthews House/Justin's Village lifestyle improvement programs. Further, many of the residents will derive most of their, or their family's income from the many St. Matthew's House community support business here in Collier County. The proposed rezoning is appropriate and timely for this growing area of the community. The majority of the subject property lies within Activity Center 16, and the entire property and surrounding area are in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, and a part of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zoning District. Subsequent to the 2006 adoption of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District, the property was rezoned in 2014 from C-1/T GTMUD-MXD and RMF-6 GTMUD-R Zoning Districts to the existing RMF-6 GTMUD-R (now RMF-6 GTZO-R, Ord. 22-12) Zoning District. These overlay designations and zoning are the result of the Board of County Commissioner's June, 2000 adoption of the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Plan. As stated in the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, "The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area." The County paid particular attention to the various development and redevelopment opportunities within the GTZO District regulations of the LDC so as to provide specific development standards for particular land use types. The subject rezoning property can be developed in complete compliance with the LDC, and have all relevant compatibility assurances applied to the standard rezoning ordinance without having to create a special purpose PUD. The Petitioner controls all of the property within the boundaries of the Breeze of Calusa Subdivision, with the northern half being developed with single-family homes and commonly known as Justin's Village. The increased demand for additional workforce housing from the community services operated by St. Matthews House was the catalyst for the proposed change to the development intent of the subject property. The rezoning property has 11 dwelling units with vested rights pursuant to the platting of the property and having made contributions to public infrastructure. The residential density increase proposed in this rezoning will be utilized to provide for those needed workforce residences in close proximity to the resident's probable employment. This in itself is a smart growth practice which may result in lessor impacts to the roadway network. This new multi -family development intent will allow for the construction of apartment residences that will managed by a St. Matthew's House entity and may be referred to as Justin's Village Phase II. All of the residential development within the rezone property will be owned and maintained by a St. Matthew's House entity. Many if not all of the future residents of the new apartments will be participating in, or graduates of the St. Matthew's House lifestyle improvement programs. Given this central management by St. Matthew's House, a standard of quality and consistency in appearance can be maintained, and therefore a greater assurance for reduced compatibility concerns may be anticipated if compared to an unregulated apartment complex. The Petitioner is aware of prior historic compatibility measures applied to the western boundary of the rezone property and respects the intent of those measures wherein future multi -family structures proximate to that western boundary will be limited to two -stories in height and be no closer than 43 feet (Derived from 25' design setback plus 18' parking space depth). While no development plan has been provided with this TV_STD_RZ_NBFA_v2 Packet Pg. 102 9.A.1.f PL20220003739 Narrative Page 2 of 6 application, the Petitioner will not object to carefully worded dimensional standards/stipulations be applied to the western boundary to ensure compatibility with the neighboring homes. Buffering is equally important as stormwater detention and conveyance, so buffering requirements must not inhibit storage or conveyance. This Petition application and support documentation was prepared following the requirements of Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code, and LDC Section 10.02.08. As specified in said LDC Section, the Petitioner has prepared the below responses to the required findings for standard rezonings. 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, future land use map and elements of the Growth Management Plan. Response: The subject rezoning property lies within the Urban -Mixed Use District as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUE Policy 1.1). Further, the majority of the rezone property lies within Activity Center #16, where higher intensity commercial land uses and greater residential densities (up to 16 dwelling units per acre) are directed. With respect to land use, the rezoning property lies within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, where the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District on the Future Land Use Map, and are further governed by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (Overlay) within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). These Overlay provisions of the FLUE direct that residential densities be derived from the Density Rating System and those Overlay provisions. As stated previously, while the subj ect property lies within Activity Center # 16 which could generate a residential density as high as 16 dwellings unit per acre, and further, the density bonuses offered by the Density Rating System could generate 16 dwelling units per acre, the Overlay provisions tend to limit densities to 12 dwelling units per acre. While not GMP related, linkage to the LDC does not provide for the RMF- 16 Zoning District in the GTZO-R District. With respect to the Future Land Use Element, this Standard Rezoning Petition is compliant with and promotes the intent of: Policy 4.8, where the proposed rezoning is provided for by the County's adoption of the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Plan to allow "alternative land uses and incentives that may be necessary to encourage redevelopment"; Policy 5.3.c., where the requested residential density (12 du/ac) is no greater than the residential densities specified for the respective zoning overlay district; Policy 5.6. where the proposed multi -family development resulting from the rezoning approval will be compatible and complementary to the surrounding land uses with the compatibility measures proposed by the Petitioner and the development standards provided for by the LDC; Policy 7.4. where the proposed redevelopment of the southern portion of the existing subdivision will be rezoned to provide for "a blend of densities" in "walkable communities" with a "range of housing types and prices"; Policy 7.7. where the proposed redevelopment of the subdivision allowed through the approval of this rezoning will implement the smart growth policies of the GMP and LDC by providing workforce housing in close proximity to employment centers thereby reducing impacts on the public roadway network. With respect to the Transportation Element, this Standard Rezoning Petition is compliant with and promotes the intent of - Policy 5.1, where the proposed rezoning, if approved would allow add 17 residential dwelling units to the 11 vested single-family units that were platted and already added to the transportation network. That nominal increase of residential units would be less than the prescribed trigger levels of impacts to the adopted Level of Service of roadway links impacted by the proposed development; Policy 5.2, As stated above the projected traffic resulting from the redevelopment of the rezoning property would have very little impact on surrounding roadway links, and may be found to be "de minimis impact" TV_STD_RZ_NBFA_v2 Packet Pg. 103 9.A.1.f PL20220003739 Narrative Page 3 of 6 With respect to the Housing Element, this Standard Rezoning Petition is compliant with and promotes the intent of - Objective 1, where the proposed redevelopment of the existing subdivision resulting from the approval of this rezoning will "provide new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing needs of legal residents with very -low, low, moderate and affordable workforce incomes..."; Objective 2, where the proposed rezoning will "increase the number of affordable housing units, by the methods contained in Objective 1 and subsequent policies, for very -low, low, moderate and affordable workforce income residents with the assistance of for -profit and not -for -profit providers of affordable housing, within the County and its municipalities." 2. The existing land use pattern. Response: The subject rezoning property is bounded on the north by single-family uses in the developed portion of the Breeze of Calusa Subdivision (a.k.a.: Justin's Village Phase I, and further north, parking for commercial land uses in the MXD Subdistrict. The subject rezoning property is bounded on the east by the developed commercial office park Stafford Court and a three-story commercial office building all within the C-3 Intermediate Commercial Zoning District of the GTZO Mixed Use Subdistrict. The rezoning property's southern boundary is adjacent to an antiquated mobile home park in the C-3 Intermediate Commercial Zoning District. It is appropriate to contemplate this adjacent land use will transition to one of the higher intensity commercial or mixed -use land uses permitted in the C-3 District of the GTZO-MXD Subdistrict. Finally, the rezoning property is bounded on the west with developed single-family homes in the RMF-6 Zoning District of the GTZO Residential Subdistrict. The predominance of commercial zoning and land uses along the eastern parcel boundary are those expected to be along primary roadways within designated Activity Centers. Following Euclidean Zoning principals, higher intensity commercial land uses in commercial zoning districts transition to higher density residential land uses in residential zoning districts, with a decreasing progression of residential densities moving away from the higher intensity commercial areas. The subject rezoning property is appropriately located and sized to accommodate a greater density to provide for the requested housing near the employment opportunities within Activity Center 16. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Response: The installation of the proposed RMF-12 District within this area of the GTZO-R is appropriate and commonly used as a transitional district between higher intensity commercial districts and lower density residential districts. 4. W ether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property for the proposed change. Response: No, past County leadership's approval of the existing zoning boundaries are not without basis or illogical. The State's past growth management acts, data, analysis and public participation were the basis for the existing Zoning Atlas. These same factors will be applied to the review of this rezoning as it responds to changing needs for workforce housing in the community. 5. W ether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment (rezone) when necessary. Response: The proposed rezone is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such rezone to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. The County recognized the need for special attention to be paid to the Gateway Triangle area, so much so that the Gateway Redevelopment Area was created, a new Overlay District was created in the FLUE, and the GTZO District was added to the LDC. As this vibrant area of the community redevelops, new TV_STD_RZ_NBFA_v2 Packet Pg. 104 9.A.1.f PL20220003739 Narrative Page 4 of 6 community needs are identified which can be addressed through additions to the Zoning Atlas such as this zoning request which is grounded in community improvement. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Response: The western portion of the subject property is adjacent to the urban single family residential zoning district and is developed with single-family homes. Through the zoning and zoning mapping history of the subject property particular compatibility attention has been paid to that western boundary wherein Ordinance 92-77 limited building height to two -stories and a twenty -five-foot landscape buffer be provided. While these historic compatibility assurances were not applied to the existing Zoning Ordinance 2014-38, the Petitioner will carry this commitment forward with this rezoning request where future multi -family development will be restricted in the same manner. Building massing will be oriented to the east, with buffering provided along the west. Central management of the residences by a St. Matthew's House entity will provide for a consistency in appearance and regular maintenance, and with this, a greater assurance for reduced compatibility concerns may be anticipated. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Response: The proposed rezoning will add 14 dwelling units above the existing 11 platted single-family residential lots, with a maximum 28 units available for multi -family development on the subject property. This moderate increase in residential density, will likely be found to be a de minimis impact on the roadway network with the intended land use change from single-family to multi -family. Further, this workforce housing project will be proximate to the probable employment of its residents which will have the potential to lessen traffic on the local streets. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Response: The proposed rezoning property lies within an established subdivision with operational surface water management system. The proposed increase in residential density will not overly impact the drainage improvements of the neighborhood, and any additional runoff will easily be provided for within the boundaries of the property before discharge. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Response: No, the future development of the multi -family land uses approved through this rezoning will be governed by the compatibility measures contained in the LDC. The development standards of the RMF-12 GTZO District and other provisions of the County's regulations will address any potential development related impacts as to glare, lighting, and air quality. 10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area. Response: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. TV_STD_RZ_NBFA_v2 Packet Pg. 105 9.A.1.f PL20220003739 Narrative Page 5 of 6 Response: Surrounding properties are developed and future redevelopment is provided for by the Growth Management Plan and the LDC. No, the approval of the requested rezoning will not deter the opportunities for redevelopment of adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Response: The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Response: No, the property certainly can be developed in accordance with the existing zoning as evidenced by the existing platted subdivision. It is the community demand for additional workforce housing that the provisions of the GMP and LDC can be applied to appropriately increase density, as in the case of this rezoning request. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Response: No, the proposed zoning change and increase in density is in response to the community demand for more affordable workforce housing opportunities. The zoning district and density requested is an appropriate transition from the more intensive commercial land uses abutting the neighborhood. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Response: It may be possible to identify alternative urban lands that may accommodate the demand for additional affordable workforce housing. These sites may need density changes also, but certainly those alternative sites would not be as proximate to the intended resident's places of employment as this this site affords. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Response: The subject rezoning property, having been platted and infrastructure installed, would require little obvious modification to allow the development of the site with the intended multi -family apartment residences. Any further site alterations would be permitted through the administrative review processes prescribed by the LDC and other applicable Federal, State, and/or County regulations. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code Ch. 106, art. II], as amended]. Response: The subject rezoning property has been platted and Certificate of Public Facilities Adequacy has been issued for 11 single-family homes. The proposed rezoning will allow an additional 14 multi -family residences, and the site is intended to be developed with up to 28 apartment residences. The overall impact to public facilities as a result of the approval of the requested rezoning will be negligible given the lessor public facility impacts of apartment land uses when compared to single-family land use public facility impacts. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. TV_STD_RZ_NBFA_v2 Packet Pg. 106 9.A.1.f PL20220003739 Narrative Page 6 of 6 Response: The Petitioner anticipates carefully crafted compatibility stipulations be applied to the adopting zoning ordinance that would relate to the western boundary of the proposed RMF-12 GTZO-R Zoning District. JV_STD_RZ_NBFA_Q Packet Pg. 107 0 x .$ o 666 R C7 W 70 N�JJp U C, U J N R w 0 a a �'o33 0 LL K M 0 H - c7 co - Ld W J = Z_ y o - J L W _ L a 5no O - w a I'I 0 III II � I I T I I II z II I I II —___----II III III9 Al ? —J I j II I I ; I I I II III I.I I I I I I III II I III I N z O � 0 1 1 N z °�w� 'L a � '09) 3AV VSf1w0 4 CN9 � mn Z'z z o �zg © �42 Wa W O 2 W x 4 i r+ lose ' 1 o� i 5 a w �U wCIO c� z cnz k o ._ �H s �c w ' w z 0 � M O a N O '7� N F �z z © a�a W 2 W f f` ry Q nw r—000—d: zsn, 41— ,w4- 0 x x 7 w a � as <� U � F acn o o M a3JJae 3dtlasa— ,8, 3du ,sL G a ry O II II I i I wl I �I I �I I I I o f al I I I 931 I wI I U d N M Lu I I m a'E Rey M W M 9 - a p o O O 'z m LL E ml IN IN _ N �IILLICI w � _v — rA ti 1-2 I p I I V v Elf w w EnEM;v Of mom f z I I a —Jn8 311-141 3dAL ,A. ,SL 31NY3WS35tlOOOV3 o Z �MU ��II�NJI IIIhIItl3Jn9 IItIIIW�o` W=:3n O lNi3 II�II FIiI Ir II N3ItldYuO ,SSll— — 10 1Y35tl3 3a��ObNMda_SL _ IleII III I I II � III I I 3 Z .II I I I I II I O l II �'II III I III I ,,I I O e I II I I I � L i I �dJae 3dbasaN�, .S I N o x Iw = O f l oIN ci o w Q g - I O� N N m tl3J nB 3dMJSONtl1 ,0 9) IiAv vsmvo -- --- -- —_ ---_ -- — --C--------- IN a i s LL � T 3 1 9.A.1.f © HAGAN ENGINEERING Michael Sawyer, Project Manager October 25, 2022 Transportation Management Service Department Transportation Planning 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34104 Re Justin's Village — PL 20220003739 Traffic Impact Study Revised Dear Mr. Sawyer, This letter is submitted to update the Traffic Impact Study for the referenced project. Justin's Village (fka Breeze of Calusa) was previously permitted with construction being accepted in 2018 as a single-family subdivision with a total of 23 lots. SMH Properties of SWFL, Inc. purchased the entire project after acceptance in 2018 and renamed the project Justin's Village. SMH purchased and/or built the existing single-family homes. The proposed rezoning will change the existing southern 2.33 acres of the site from RMF-6 GTZO-R to RMF-12 GTZO-R. The northern remainder of the project will stay RMF-6 GTZO-3 and consist of 12 single-family homes/lots. This rezoning application will slightly change the build out traffic impacts expected and previously permitted. The site has one access point on Calusa Avenue. The access is a "tee" intersection with no opposite aligning or off -set roadways. Calusa Avenue has another "tee" intersection to the west with Andrew Drive that ties south to US41. East of the connection on Calusa Avenue is a channelized intersection with Airport Road. The channelization allows for: Southbound Airport Road incoming Northbound Airport Road incoming Southbound Calusa Avenue outgoing The existing roadway connections will be maintained. No new turn lanes or median openings are proposed as required for the project. After the methodology discussion, it was determined that the study should concentrate on the distribution of the trips and their impact on the existing roadway network. METHODOLOGY Email correspondence between July 5 and 13, 2022, document our development of the approved TIS methodology form for this project (Attached as TIS Methodology Form - Appendix A). We agreed on the process to calculate and distribute the trips for the existing and future development of the project. Initial review of the rezoning submission generated a request to modify the trip generation calculations and update this report. 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com Packet Pg. 111 9.A.1.f PLAN CHANGES The Petitioner has asked that the zoning designation be changed to utilize the existing infrastructure and allow for replacing 14 single-family lots with 28 multi -family units. The revisions will not change the access points and only moderately increase the existing permitted trips. The proposed use change will increase unit counts and generate any additional traffic will not have a significant impact on the existing and proposed roadway system approved plans. TRIP GENERATION The project connection to Calusa Avenue is not proposed to change and will remain in the current configuration. The project will have a maximum trip generation equal to the existing 12 single-family lots (ITE 9210) and 28 multi -family units (ITE #220) trip generation rates. Calculations were revised to use fitted curve formulas from the 1 Itn Edition ITE manual. Based on this, the Trip Generation Calculations for the project have been attached as Appendix B. These calculations yield: Combined Totals Average daily trips 400 ADT with 50% in and 50% out = 200 in and 200 out AM Peak hour in 43 VPH with 26% in and 74% out = 11 in and 32 out PM Peak hour out 47 VPH with 63% in and 37% out = 30 in and 17 out Existing permitted use is 28 single-family lots. This generates an AADT of 313 trips. This proposed change will result in a 28% increase in traffic. This is still insignificant in the grand scheme of the overall analysis. DISTRIBUTION Petitioner proposes to maintain existing roadway infrastructure with the northern access drive onto Calusa Avenue with a trip distribution of 20% west and 80% east. The AADT distribution should be equally split from inbound and outbound. This yields percent totals: Roadway segment Eastbound on Calusa Avenue Westbound on Calusa Avenue Northbound on Andrew Drive Southbound on Andrew Drive Northbound on Airport Road Southbound on Airport Road Totals Inbound Outbound 5% 20% 20% 5% 5% 0% 0% 5% 7.5% 0% 12.5% 20% 50% + 50% = 100% The sections of Calusa Avenue, Airport Road and Andrew Drive adjoining the project site will not exceed their capacity. The maximum trip count expected on Calusa Avenue daily trips is estimated to be 300 per day. The Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition puts the D/E Level of Service (LOS) threshold for a local street at 1,000 vehicles per day. The development of this project should not need to include improvements to these streets to support the expected additional traffic. 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com Packet Pg. 112 9.A.1.f The entering trips will come from Calusa Avenue both directions, Airport Road northbound left turns and southbound right turns. The trips will leave from Calusa Avenue westbound to Andrew Drive and eastbound to Airport Road. The Annual Average Daily Trips (AADT) have been distributed by percentage as outlined above and shown on Appendix C. This was done with the understanding that we will have a total of 400 trips per day to be distributed on the roadway network. The maps have been modified to note trip counts at the intersection so that each segment can be checked for the expected number of daily trips associated with the referenced project. PM Peak Hour two-way trip distribution is shown on Appendix D. The PM Peak Hour trip distribution is shown on Appendix E. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Average background traffic growth rates were estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate. Table 1, Background Traffic without Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build -out year 2025. Table 1 Background Traffic without Project (2021-2025) Roadway Link CC Roadway Link 2021 Traffic Project 2025 Projected Link Location Annual Count Traffic Background ID# Station Traffic Annual Traffic Volume Volume (trips) Growth w/out Project Rate (trips) (%/v r) Airport Road 552 South of Davis 31,511 2.0% 34,109 (CR 31) Boulevard (SR 84) Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are taken from the Collier County 2021 Traffic Counts (Appendix F) and review of aerial photography. We understand that the County is not considering changes to this roadway segment. The existing roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 2, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Table 2 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Roadway CC AUIR Roadway Link Exist Min. Exist Future Link Link ID# Location Roadway Standard Capacity Project LOS Volume Build Out Roadwav Airport Road 552 Davis 6D D/E 55,300 6D (CR 31) Boulevard (SR 84) 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com Packet Pg. 113 9.A.1.f Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network — Link Analysis Collier County has set Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway system. The traffic links impacted by the project were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future (2025). The Collier County Traffic Circulation Element guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if project volume capacity exceeds 2% of the 10% of the LOS C capacity for the link directly accessed by the project. None of the projected traffic demands reach this level. Based on these criteria, this project does not create a significant or adverse impact to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed segments are projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2025 future build -out conditions. Table 3, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the roadway network closest to the project. Table 3 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) — With Project in the Year 2025 Roadway Link CC Roadway Back Roadway 2030 w/ %Vol Min Min AUIR Link Ground Link, Project* Capaci LOS LOS Link Location traffic (Project * ty exceeded exceeded ID# (Table Vol Impact without with 1) Added)* by Project? Project? Project Yes/No Yes/No Airport Road 552 South of 34109 SB-160 34269 0.05% No No (CR 31) Davis Boulevard (SR 84) *Values taken from Appendix D AADT distribution **2025 projected volume with project volume added Turn Lane Analysis Connection to subject project is proposed via a median opening at the "tee" intersect with majority of trips sent to the channelized Airport Road. Airport Road is a six -lane north - south urban divided arterial under Collier County jurisdiction and has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. Based on MOT Index 301 (Appendix G) notes design speed of 45 mph in a urban condition does not require turn lanes. Peak hour turning movements of 16 vph is also below the turn lane threshold. Improvement Analysis Based on the link analysis and trip distribution, the proposed project has n significant impact on Airport Road. The current Level of Service for these road segments will not be changed by the proposed development. This project's impact is negligible in the future capacity analysis of the collector roadway network. No new additional collector or arterial roadway improvements at this location are warranted. There is adequate and 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com Packet Pg. 114 9.A.1.f sufficient current and future roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed development generated trips without adversely affecting the adjacent roadway network level of service. Mitigation of Impact A portion of the dwelling units noted in the Petition are currently vested and were considered in order to prepare the current and many of the past AUIRs that are the basis for the Capital Improvement Program. The Petitioner proposes that at the time of unit development the owner will pay the appropriate additional Collier County Road Impact Fee to reimburse the County for the roadway improvements costs in that "Impact Fee District". These improvements should be limited to the local streets. A preliminary estimate of the potential Road Impact Fees (Appendix H) for the replacing 14 single- family units with 28 multi -family units outlined in the preceding narrative. The original build out development of the project incurred $186,070 of roadway impact fees. Replacement with 12 single-family and 28 multi -family units yields a total of $291,600 of road impact fees. This is an increase of $105,530 which is a 57% increase in the dollar amount to be paid as compared to the 12% actual traffic increase from this project. Based on these findings we believe the requested zoning change traffic impact is minimal and more than offset by the increased roadway impact fee. Sincerely, Christopher D. Hagan, P.E. FL Reg #38649 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com Packet Pg. 115 DocuSign Envelope ID: 802C9695-2189-4D8A-86A7-DAF99ED122F1 9.A.1.f APPENDIX A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date:7-8-22 Time: 8:00 am Location: Email People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) Christopher Hagan 2) Dwi-ght Nadeau 3) Michael Sawyer 4) 5) Studv Preparer: Preparer's Name and Title: Chris Hagan Organization: Hagan Engineering Address & Telephone Number: 1250 Tamiami Tr N. #203B Napes, FL 34102 239-228-7742 R_eviewer(s): Reviewer's Name & Title: Mike Sawver. Proiect Manaizer Collier County Transportation Planning Department Reviewer's Name & Title: Organization & Telephone Number: 239-252-2926 Applicant: Applicant's Name: SMH Properties of South Florida Address: 2601 Airport Rd Naples, FL 341 Il Telephone Number: 239-400-283 l Proposed Development: Name: Justin's Place Phase 2 Location: Breeze Court and Justin's Way, west of Airport Pulling Road Land Use Type: From RMF6 GTZO-R to RMF12 GTZO-R ITE Code #: 210- Single Family Residential Detached #220- Multifamily Residential low rise C:IUserslChrisVippDalaUcaAMtrosotAWindowsVNefCechelConlent 0udook18P3P2JPUl TIS ACh loml 07-08-2022 Justins Village Phase 2 doc Packet Pg. 116 DocuSign Envelope ID: 802C9695-2189-4D8A-86A7-DAF99ED122F1 9.A.1.f Proposed number of development units: Additional 17 multi -family units Other: Description: TIS will be for the combination of the existing 12 single family residential units plus the addition of 28 multifamily units to replace the previously permitted 23 single family units as proposed with the rezone request. Zoning Existing: RMF-6 GTZO-R Comprehensive plan recommendation: Requested: RNIF-12 GTZO-R Findings of the Preliminary Study: Study Type: Small Scale TIS X Minor TIS ❑ Maior TIS ❑ Studv Area: Boundaries: Standard 2%, 2%, 3% impact standard Additional intersections to be analyzed: Breeze Court and Airport Road Horizon Year(s): 2025 Analysis Time Period(s): 5 years Future Off -Site Developments: N/A Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: N/A Pass -by trips: Internal trips (PUD): Transmit use: Other: Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: 2025 Methodology & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estimates: Site -trip generation: ITE C:IUserslChrisVlppDelalLocaAAAaosofAWindowsONelCachelConlent.o11flo0kI6P3P2JPUITIS Meth form 07-08-2022 Justins Village Phase 2.doc Packet Pg. 117 DocuSign Envelope ID: 802C9695-2189-4D8A-86A7-DAF99ED122F1 9.A.1.f Trip distribution method: From Breeze Court 80% east to Airport Pullinh, 20% west. All these hzadinu east will turn south on Airport Pulling, due to channelized intersection condition. Traffic assignment method: N/A Traffic growth rate: standard 201•0' C:IUserslChiislAppDatalLocaAMcrosoMWindDmVNelCechelContentOullookl6P3P2JPUITIS Meth loan 07-08-2022 Jus6ns Village Phase 2 doc Packet Pg. 118 DocuSign Envelope ID: 802C9695-2189-4DBA-86A7-DAF99ED122F1 9.A.1.f Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) NONE Accidents locations: Sight distance: Queuing: Access location & configuration: Traffic control: Signal system location & progression needs: On -site parking needs: Data Sources: Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: Requirements: Miscellaneous: SIGNATURES Study Preparer Reviewers Applicant C:IUserslChrislAppDalalLocafuLfcrosolAWindowsVNefCachelConlenf.Ou0ook19P3P2JPUITIS Wfh form 07-08-2022 Jus0ns Village Phase 2 doc Packet Pg. 119 9.A.1.f Appendix B - Trip Generation Calculations Single Family Detached Housing (#210) for 12 Dwelling Units (X) AADT Vehicle Trip Ends Versus Dwelling Units for Average Weekday Avg Rate = 9.43 T/DU Ln(T) = 0.92 Ln (X) + 2.68 (0.92(Ln 12)) + 2.68 = 143.45 AADT Use 144 50% in + 50% out = 72 in and 72 out AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends Versus Dwelling Units for Average Weekday Avg Rate = 0.70 T/DU Ln(T) = 0.91 Ln (X) + 0.12 (0.91(Ln 12)) + 0.12 = 10.82 AMPH Use 11 26% in + 74% out = 3 in and 8 out PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends Versus Dwelling Units for Average Weekday Avg Rate = 0.94 T/DU Ln(T) = 0.94 Ln (X) + 0.27 (0.94(Ln 12)) + 0.27 = 13.54 PMPH Use 14 63% in + 37% out = 3 in and 2 out Multifamily Housing — Low Rise (#220) for 28 Dwelling Units (X) AADT Vehicle Trip Ends Versus Dwelling Units for Average Weekday T = 6.41 T/DU (28 units) + 75.31 = 254.79 AADT Use 256 50% in + 50% out = 128 in and 128 out AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends Versus Dwelling Units for Average Weekday T = 0.31 T/DU (28 units) + 22.85 = 31.53 AADT Use 32 24% in + 76% out = 8 in and 24 out PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends Versus Dwelling Units for Average Weekday T = 0.43 T/DU (28 units) + 20.55 = 32.59 AADT Use 33 63% in + 37% out = 21 in and 12 out TOTALS AADT 144 + 256 = 400 200 fN and 200 OUT AMPH 11 + 32 = 43 11 fN and 32 OUT PMPH 14 + 33 = 47 30 fN and 17 OUT Packet Pg. 120 9.A.1.f Single -Family Detached Housing (210) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 174 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 246 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 9.43 4.45 - 22.61 2.13 uata riot ana tquation N W d F_ 30000 20000 10000 X 00 X X X / / X I / / X 1000 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.92 Ln(X) + 2.68 2000 - - - - - Average Rate RI= 0.95 3000 m _ 0 N m m a� ca Yn w rn 0 M M 0 0 0 N N 0 N J a ti N W le N _ O r cc t) Q Q Q uJ _ E Q v ca w Q General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000-399) 219 Packet Pg. 121 9.A.1.f Single -Family Detached Housing (210) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 192 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 226 Directional Distribution: 26% entering, 74% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.70 0.27 - 2.27 0.24 Data Plot and Equation 2000 a w n F= 1000 u �_X X oa X X X i X 1000 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.91 Ln(X) + 0.12 2000 - - - - - Average Rate RI= 0.90 XI 220 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 3 Packet Pg. 122 9.A.1.f Single -Family Detached Housing (210) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 208 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 248 Directional Distribution: 63% entering, 37% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.94 0.35 - 2.98 0.31 Data Plot and Equation W a F- 3000 2000 1000 'X X X .' X XX X �. X X X X X X x X X u 0 1000 2000 3000 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.94 Ln(X) + 0.27 RI= 0.92 m _ 0 N m a� ca Yn w M M 0 0 0 N N 0 N J a ti N to le O M t� Q a a w c m r a _ m E s v c,s a General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000-399) 221 Packet Pg. 123 9.A.1.f Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (220) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 22 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 229 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 6.74 2.46 - 12.50 1.79 Data Plot and Equation 4000 x X 3000 x x N x C W �x 0 d 2000 x F x x x x x x 1000 x �X X X' 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 6.41(X) + 75.31 RI= 0.66 m _ 0 N m m a� ca Yn 0 M M O O O N N O N J a ti N O le _ 0 M t1 Q Q Q W _ E Q _ E V Q 254 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 3 Ite Packet Pg. 124 9.A.1.f Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (220) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 49 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 249 Directional Distribution: 24% entering, 76% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.40 0.13 - 0.73 0.12 LJdLd r-IUL d11U r_gUdL1U11 300 200 F.. X 100 / / X rr ■ XC■ x ■ X■ X X ■ / X X■' X X ° 0 1000 2000 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.31(X) + 22.85 RI= 0.79 m _ O N m m ca Yn w rn M M O O O N N O N J a ti N O le 04 O r Ia L1 Q IZ Q W _ Q m E s c>s w a General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000-399) 255 Packet Pg. 125 9.A.1.f Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (220) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 59 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 241 Directional Distribution: 63% entering, 37% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.51 0.08 - 1.04 0.15 Data Plot and Equation 500 400 200 100 X X X ?X X X X X X X i i fri f i X ,' I�. X X X X i 41 X X X ° 0 1000 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.43(X) + 20.55 - - - - - Average Rate RI= 0.84 2000 256 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 3 Ve Packet Pg. 126 (auozGM GBEIIIn s,ui;snr `6£L£000ZZOZId LZ9tiZ) uoi;eoilddd-3;uowLjoe;;V :;uGwtj3B;;d , Q N N ci ■ ■ ■■ a Z o z z o zLA m z +, a• W Z � ° O a • WI H o J �U � w ICN4 W z f - Q N E— o• murl 0 •e� �a Q a t —j • • • • • - • (14 N LO u - _ 160 I m 09 L 40 i LAM ` 0 Ob �0 - O �T i 0 ai CD Z_ z 0 N W W 00 LL U LU � C� u1 Q z W � � Q as zM Hy N W W co W x 0 zo �za �M N Q O QLL � � N � O O �2za (auozGM GBEIIIn s,uijsnr `6£L£000ZZOZId LZ9tiZ) uoi;eoilddd-3 juowLjoejjv :juewtj3Bjjdco N �..,i. wSEWIPIOWIL a� w �N � M E-I ++ Z rrrr z ° g' W' z O tC z o Q a w ° z [� " z o w z r- N _ M z '- • • • • • tT W N low N lf" a F+I 04 N CD z z 0 N W W 00 LL U W it W W W it w Q as m �i M f-i O 04 Hy N 1 ui W x z z Z aro � M N Q _O O QLL H N N O C N L za 0 9 z N O O N_ K (auozGM GBEIIIn s,uijsnr `6£L£000ZZOZId LZ9tiZ) uoi;eoilddd-3 juauayoejjv :juewtj3Bjjd a, o � N r Q se' ki. SEWIPIOW \ CDce)� z a z Z �t Z M Y V Z o m W a (DI z o F� w N M z N - '- �— • • • • • t T 0 U CA w N c� low • e a N ani l N CD 14 I Itl 0 c z '' kk" o O N K N ' <o w i CD Z_ Z 0 N W w 00 LL U W it W W Q Z W it w Q as ~J ' m ll��--�1 z 0 04 Hy N P4 W co W x �zz Z aro � M N Q _O � QLL H N N O C N L za } DocuSign Envelope ID: 802C9695-2189-4D8A-86A7-DAF99ED122F1 9.A.1.f Collier County Quarterly ADT Traffic Count Report 2021 APPENDIX F C o '� N U Q � Location Q1-2021 Q2-2021 Q3-2021 Q4-2021 613 Q 111lh Avenue North east of Vanderblt Or CR 901 15.380 16.906 10.109 12,451 585 Q 111th Avenue North west of Vanderbilt Or (CR 901) 7,486 8.726 5.578 5,299 553 Q Airport Rd (CR 31) north of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 47,809 47.313 39 858 41.908 501 Al ort Rd CR 31 north of Golden Gate Parkway.CR 886 36.911 38.723 32.819 35.917 693 Airport Rd CR 31 north of North Road 50,648 53,651 44.520 49,620 599 Airport Rd CR 31 north of Orange Slassam Or 39.165 41.600 34,931 39.116 0 Airport Rd CR 311 north of Pine Ridge Rd CR 698) 45.665 46,112 37,162 45,895 543 Q Airport Rd CR 31 north of Tamiami Trail (US 41/SR 90) 32.856 34.991 28,932 29.636 659 Q Airport Rd CR 31 north of Vanderbilt Beach E�rt B62) 31.108 32,424 26,831 30.019 552 0 Ai artRd (CR 31 south oFDavis Blvd SR 84) 32,520 33.848 28,708 30.869 533 Airport Rd CR 31 south of Golden Gate Parkway CR 866 50.840 44,052 39,796 43,315 554 Q Airport Rd CR 31 south of Immokalee Rd CR 846) 25,117 24,656 20,773 28,547 502 D Airport Rd CR 31 south of Plne Ride Rd CR 896 46.016 47,070 34,849 45.186 21 Q Bayshore Or north of Week Avenue 16.524 16.065 13.856 13.398 653 Q Bonila Beach Rd SCR 865 west of vanderblt Dr CR 901 28,803 21.380 16,4B6 23.044 626 A Cam Keais Rd south of Immokalee Rd CR 846 6,208 660 A Ca rl Blvd CR 952) west of Collier Blvd SR 951 4,681 610 Q Carson Rd north of Lake Trafford Rd (CR 890) 5,123 4.910 4,831 5,787 618 A Chokaloskee Causeway south of Plantation Parkway 1,753 573 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) north of Davis Blvd SR 84 63.483 60,537 60,998 58.916 584 Q Collier Blvd CR 951 north of Golden Gale Blvd 30,301 32.487 27.038 30,518 525 Collier Blvd CR 951 north of Golden Gale Pk CR 886) 30.425 30,660 21,318 24.081 536 Q Collier Blvd CR 951 north of Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) 47.236 46.234 40.804 43.21 B 602 Q Collier Blvd CR 951 north of Rattlesnake Ham Rd CR 864 44,235 48.939 36,351 41,282 532 Q Collier Blvd CR 951 north of Tamiami Trail US 41iSR 90 35.329 44.052 32,146 35,044 607 0Calller Blvd CR 951 south of Golden Gate Pk1 CR 886 31,061 33,109 28.715 30,780 655 a Collier Blvd CR 951 south of Immokalee Rd CR 846 36,360 40.2671 31.235 35.243 57 Collier Blvd CR 951 south of Lely Cultural Blvd 43,883 49,130 35,469 41,695 803 0 Collier Blvd CR 951) south of Rattlesnake Ham Rd CR 884 41,816 45,965 34.078 39,045 627 a Collier Blvd SR 951 south of Capri Blvd CR 952 37.460 2B,335 25.357 34,256 557 a Canter Blvd SR 951 south of Tamiami Trail US 411SR 90 49.763 50,686 37.441 42,821 520 Q County Barn Rd north of Rattlesnake Ham Rd (CR 864) 5,300 4,834 4,304 5.173 641 A County Bam Rd south of CC R&B Facility 5,749 5191 Q lCounty Barn Rd south of Davis Blvd SR B4 7.272 6,747 6.078 7 295 582 A CR 29 south of Tamiami Trail US 411SR 90 3.124 619 Q CR 846 east of SR 29 4,507 3,229 3.179 4.119 559 Q Davis Blvd (SR 84 east of Airport Rd CR 31 29.820 28.979 23.453 25,107 658 0 Davis Blvd (SR 84) east of Kin 's Way 33.040 32.604 23.727 29.391 558 Davis Blvd SR 84 west of Airport Rd CR 31 28.931 28,775 22.304 23,642 601 Q Davis Blvd SR 84) west of Collier Blvd (CR 951) 28.270 32,789 22.156 24,219 560 Davis Blvd SR 84 west of Radio Rd CR 856 15.545 17,616 13.731 15,592 530 Q Davis Blvd SR 84 west of Santa Barbara Blvd 24,894 26,364 21.6551 23,746 638 A Desoto Blvd north of Golden Gate Blvd 3,903 639 A Desoto Blvd south of Golden Gate Blvd 3.524 635 S Everglades Blvd north of bit Well Rd CR 858 11.837 10,965 12,608 fi36 Everglades Blvd north of Golden Gate Blvd CR 676 8.797 8,468 637 S Everglades Blvd south of Golden Gate Blvd CR 8761 8,197 8.766 722 A Golden Gate SW CR 876 east of Everlgades Blvd 5.502 652 O Golden Gate Blvd CR 876) east of Wilson Blvd 26,215 26.361 26.860 27.630 678 Q Golden Gate Blvd CR 675) west of Wilson Blvd 27,929 28,484 28,599 29.467 531 Q Golden Gate Blvd east of Collier Blvd CR 951) 29.759 32.217 29,744 32,010 5081 Q I Golden Gate Pk CR 886 east of Airport Rd CR 31) 49,964 56.1821 41,626 48.893 591 Golden Gate Pk CR 886 east of Livingston Rd CR 881 51,159 57,301 42,915 51,724 505 0 Golden Gate Pk CR 886) east of Santa Barbara Blvd 32,789 34.054 24,775 26,592 507 a Golden Gate Pk CR 886 west of Airport Rd (CR 31) 49,980 55.957 29,120 47,814 510 Q Golden Gate Pk CR 886 west of Collier Blvd CR 951- 18,478 19.990 19,336 19,240 530 Q Golden Gate Pk CR 886) west of Goodlette Rd CR 851) 31.060 32,248 24,700 28,893 509 Golden Gate Pk CR 886 west of Santa Barbara Blvd W839 39.384 24,315 37,038 05 Q Goodlette Rd CR 851 north of 22nd Avenue North 34,636 38.813 23,001 33,100 595 0 Goodlette Rd CR 851 north of Orange Blossom Or 24,293 26.330 16,3881 23.060 581 Goodlette Rd (CR 851) north of Pine Ridge Rd CR 896 25,253 27,927 21.370 24,699 569 Q Goodlette Rd (CR B51) south of First Avenue South 31,985 27,055 23,618 29,571 504 Q Goodlette Rd (CR 851) south of Golden Gate Pk (CR 886) 53,968 57.876 35,893 51,558 594 CL Goodlette Rd CR B51 south of lmmokalee Rd CR 846 14,965 15.144 12.321 13,780 596 Q Goodlette Rd CR 851 south of Oran a Blossom Or 25,656 28.128 20.935 25.126 506 CL Goodlette Rd CR 851) south of Pine Ridge Rd CR 896) 31,512 35.991 20.014 32,872 642 Green Blvd east of Santa Barbara Blvd 11,65E 12,657 11.345 643 Q Green Blvd west of Colller Blvd CR 951 10,593 8,077 7,171 7,673 5831 A I Gulfshore Or south of Saywiew Or 4,434 625 Q Immokalee Rd CR 846) east of Goodlette Rd CR 851 41,152 51,616 42.599 45.627 567 Q Immokalee Rd CR 846 east of Airport Rd (CR 31) 44,523 38,752 47.092 52.786 593 Immokalee Rd CR 846 east of Collier Blvd CR 951 51.097 53,985 45,59E 50,853 Immokalee Rd CR 846 east of Tamiami Tr US 41/SR 45) 43.982 46.993 38.103 41.862 675 Q Immokalee Rd CR 846 east of Wilson Blvd 38.770 29,922 38.54B 38.569 5211 0 Immokalee Rd CR 846 north of Stockade Rd 16.516 13 722 9,217 17,157 671 a Immokalee Rd CR 846 south of Corkscrew Sanctuary Rd 9.687 8.715 8.828 9,870 586 Q Immokalee Rd CR 948 south of 011 Well Rd CR 858 35.915:37,826 32.662 39,365 656 mmoksEee Rd CR 846) west of Collier Blvd CR 951) 51.13402142751 48.888 72 Immokalee Rd CR 84B west of Ever lades Blvd. 9,046046 8.237 9.396 679 Immokalee Rd CR 846 west of 1-75 SR 93 60,579613 52.909 58.942 565 Q ImmokaleeRd (CR 846) west ofTamiami Tr (US 41/SR 45) 16.643428 12.459 13,106 4 Immokalee Road CR 846 East 3 miles east of 29 South 2054207 1.353 1,709 d C O N d d f0 N C r� to 7 O Cl) I'- m O O O N N O 04 J a I- N W C O r fC V CL CL Q LU C d E t V rC Q r� d E t U t4 Q 4/6/2022 Packet Pg. 130 DocuSign Envelope ID: 802C9695-2189-4D8A-86A7-DAF99ED122F1 Collier County Quarterly ADT Traffic Count Report 2021 9.A.1.f d .� c U a. H Location Q1-2021 Q2-2021 Q3-2021 Q4-2021 677 0 Immokalee Road CR 846 east of Everglades Blvd 8,3711 8,371 BA 171 9,4313 674 Q Immokalee Road CR 846) west oFWPsop Blvd 43,715 46,448 41,005 42,411 631 J & C Blvd west of Ai art Rd CR 31 10,194 10,570 7.026 8.161 ET A Jane's Scenic Or west of SR 29 546 609 0 Lake Traffod Rd lCR 890 west of Carson Rd 9.601 9.028 8.703 8.938 551 Q Lake Traffod Rd CR 890) west of North 15th St (SR 29) 15.325 14.870 13.714 14,610 690 Livingston Rd CR B81) 1.5 M north of Golden Gate Pk CR 8861 26316 29,772 22.438 25.340 574 Livingston Rd CR 881 north of Mediterra 15,058 15.668 15,707 19.232 575 a LivingstonR 981 h or PlnaRi e R q 31.180 33.576 27,131 31,863 687 Livin ston Rd (CR 881 south of Golden Gate Pk CR 886 32.416 34.3441 28,4881 29,779 597 Livingston Rd CR 881 south of Immokalee Rd CR 846) 34.533 36.3117 26.826 33,001 576 Livingston Rd CR 881 south of Vanderbilt Beach Rd R 862 36,430 38,132 2%279 34,545 673 Q Livingston Road CR 881) north of Immokalee Road CR 846 35,032 9,046 28.263 33.750 86 Livingston Road CR 881) north of Radio Road CR B56 24,043 23,902 18.819 21.214 507 Logan Blvd north of Pine Ridge Rd CR 896 13,236 12.505 11.641 12,727 44 Q Logan Blvd north-oFVanderbiit Beach Rd CR 862 13.674 13.210 10,627 12,21E 654 a Logan Blvd south of Vanderbilt Beach Ext CR 862) 10,7151 12.0511 10.462 11,840 5B8 Logan Blvd/Santa Barbara Blvd south of Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896 30.987 31,151 28,789 30.96E 664 Main St SR 29 west of South 1st St CR 846) 13.356 11,52E 11,337 12.600 723 S Manatee Rd east of Collier Blvd CR 951) 6,076 4.491 592 Q Naples Blvd west of Cosce Entrance 12.115 11,832 9.266 12.065 612 Q New Market Rd CR 29 A east of Main S[ SR 29 12,016 10,791 10,934 12,744 550 Q New Market Rd CR 29A west of $reward St 6.362 8,558 8,113 9.976 683 0 North 15th St SR 29) south of Lake Trafford Rd CR 890) 19.039 18.008 16,175 663 Q North 15th St SR 29 north of Lake Trafford Rd CR 890 18,052 13,062 13,142 13,973 590 North First SI north of Maln St SR 29 12,210 10,6771 10,264 12.487 69 Q North Road west of Airport Road CR 31 2,936 2,418 1,915 3,004 545 Q Oakes Blvd north of Vanderbilt Beach Rd CR 862 10.961 13,279 9.347 10,987 682 Oakes Blvd south of Immokalee Rd CR B46) 3,747 3,567 3,043 3,808 725 Oil Well Rd CR 858 east of Big Cypress Elem Sch 19.438 21.510 17,742 22.525 694 Oil Well Rd CR B58east of Everglades Blvd 9.761 10,294 B,72B 11,203 649 0 Oil Well Rd CR 8565) east of Immokalee Rd CR 846 21,533 23,911 19,865 25,230 a d U 41 (CR 887) at Lee oun in; 17,561 17,406 15,642. 20,086 697 Orange Blossom Dr east of Airport Rd 11.769 11,691 8.673 9,927 647 Orange Blossom Or east of Timberline Or 10.85131 11,7071 9,352 9,970 526 Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) east of Airport Rd CR 31 62.0221 64.6771 57.130 62.938 514 Q Pine Ridge Rd CR 898east of Goodlette Rd CR 851) 46.675 50.4431 44,166 47,134 626 Pine Ridge Rd CR 896 east of LIOn stop Rd CR 881 45.693 57,0971 50.220 56,372 53 Pine Ridge Rd CR B96 east of Logan BlvdlSanta Barbara Blvd 25.760 26,0401 24,106 24,979 512 Pine Ridge Rd CR 898 east of Tamiami Trail US 41ISR 45 39,057 43,3501 27.753 38.033 515 O Pine Rid a Rd (CR 696)west of AI ort Rd CR 31) 57.001 60,5971 44.544 57,618 600 Pine Rid a Rd (CR 896) west of Logan Blvd/Santa Barbara Blvd 41,501 39.116 36.766 37.211 662 Q Pine Ridge Road east ofWhippaorwill Lane 60,595 65,813 57,006 64.049 634 A Plantation Parkway east of CR 29 402 544 Q Radio Rd CR 656 east of Airport Rd CR 31 21,337 22,961 19,882 21,717 589 a Radio Rd CR 656 east of Santa Barbara Blvd 20,122 21,071 17.690 18,772 685 Q Radio Rd CR 856) west of Davis Blvd SR 84 13.915 15.204 12.306 13,760 527 0 Radio Rd CR 856 west of Santa Barbara Blvd 27.283 29408 21.088 26.652 688 O Radio Road CR B56 east of Livingston Road CR B81 26,025 25,297 24.189 27,158 5891 Q I Radio Road CR B5(kwest of Living stun Road CR 881 24.7011 25,894 22.656 23,543 721 A Randall Blvd east of Everglades Blvd(Midway to Desoto Blvd) 3.07611 551 a I Randall Blvd east of Immokalee Rd CR 846 14,969 14,559 13.561 15,281 516 Q IlRattlemake Ham Rd CR 6641 east of Tamiami Tr US 411SR 90 21,596 23,164 16.867 1 B 319 51B 0 Rattlesnake Ham Rd CR 854 west of Collier Blvd CR 951 15,996 17.865 10.309 16,201 517 Rattlesnake Ham Rd CR 864 west of County Dam Rd 18.381 17.197 14.933 16,908 534 0 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd CR 864 east of County Barn Rd 17.135 16,689 14.162 15,620 648 S Sanctuary Rd north of Immokalee Rd CR 84fi 1,099 678 537 Q Santa Barbara Blvd north of Davis Blvd SR 84) 30.548 32,905 27.397 30,368 529 Q Santa Barbara Blvd north of Golden Gate Pk CR 886) 27,451 29,835 24.129 25,073 606 0 Santa Barbara Blvd north of Radio Rd (CR 856) 39,848 42,626 35.384 37,923 702 a Santa Barbara Blvd south of Davis Blvd 15,aB1 17,873 14.698 15.782 526 Q Santa Barbara Blvd south of Golden Gate Pk CR 886) 42,480 45,416 38.105 38.701 511 Q Seagate Dr west of Tamlami Trail US 411SR 45 19,016 20.497 15.899 16,523 a owlawn r Wort o aws v ) 523 Q Shadowlawn Or south of Davis Blvd SR 84 5,32B 6,095 5.411 5,303 549 Q South First St CR 846 south of Main St SR 29 18,546 17.930 16.837 18,704 665 A SR 29 north of Farm Worker's Village 9,171 qj 615 A A SIR 29 nortri of SR 29 north of Tamlami Tra t' US 411SR 90 2,841 696 a SR 29 south of Oil Well Road 5,579 5,540 5.162 6,5571 SR 82 west of SR 29 561 Q ITamiami Tr US 41ISR 45) south of Pine Ridge Rd CR 896 49,555 52,418 42,719 45.939 563 a Tamiami Tr US 41ISR 45 south of Vanderbilt Bch Rd CR 862 49.490 48.087 43.269 46,524 72 Tamiami Tr US 41 /SR BD east of Rattlesnake Ham Rd CR 864 43.333 47.334 35.445 39.292 546 Tamiami Trail US 41/SR 4 at Lee County Line 40.059 42,739 31.824 37.343 564 Q Tamiami Trail US 411SR 45 north of Immokalee Rd CR 864 57.030 62.100 49.091 56,441 562 Tamiami Trail US 411SR 45 north of Pine Ridge Rd CR 896 47,359 46,048 41.434 44,895 577 Q Tamiami Trail US 41/SR 45) south of 99th Avenue North 53.244 56.525 44,D41 48,153 604 Q Tamraml Trail US 41ISR 90 east of Airport Rd CR 31) 57.917 63,178 48.820 52,351 60 Tamiami Trail US 41/SR 90 east of Cotter Blvd CR 951 23,837 23 001 16,19fi 22,159 545 Tamiami Trail US 411SR 90 east of0avis Blvd SR 84) 35.90D 3")25 29.695 3D,619 Tamiami Trail US 411SR 90 east of SR29/CR 29 4 319 Q 4/6/2022 Packet Pg. 131 DocuSign Envelope ID: 802C9695-2189-4D8A-86A7-DAF99ED122F1 Collier County Quarterly ADT Traffic Count Report 2021 9.A.1.f c O � � U CLLocation F 01-2021 Q2-2021 Q3-2021 Q4-2021 5711 0 ITarniami Trail US 41/SR 90 west of Collier Blvd SR 951 40.6741 38,9921 30,121 36,632 570 Q Tamlaml Tral US 411SR 90 west of San Marco Rd CR 92 7.370 4.868 5,226 6,153 617 A Tamiami Trail (US 4VSR 90) west of SR291CR 29 4,806 698 Thomassdn Dr, west of US 41 14,103 6,419 6,376 7.670 524 Q Vanderbilt Bch Rd CR 852 west of Tamiami Tr (US 4VSR 45) 23,304 24.314 18,753 18,634 646 Vanderbilt Beach Ezt (CR 052) east of Pelican Ride 32.974 37,140 27,642 37.211 579 Q Vanderbilt Beach Rd CR 882) east of Airport Rd CR 31 47,024 51,119 42,612 44,959 668 Q Vanderbilt Beach Rd CR 862) cast of Goodlette Rd (CR 851) 33,572 37.291 30,236 35,303 630 0 Vanderbilt Beach Rd CR 862 east of Livingston Rd(CR 881) 47.478 53,404 40,966 45,372 668 Vanderbilt Beach Rd CR 862 east of Vineyards Blvd 42.344 47.133 36;229 43,514 580 Q Vanderbilt Beach Rd CR 862) west of Coffer Blvd CR 951 32,139 35.434 28,237 33,286 667 a Vanderbilt Beach Rd CR 862) west of Oakes Blvd 49.168 55.237 41,735 49,420 629 0 Vanderbilt Beach Road CR 862) west of Livingston Road CR 881) 46,419 50.684 40,962 45,661 78 Vanderbilt Dr CR 901 north of 111th Avenue North 11,399 11,629 6.631 7,997 633 Q Vanderbilt Dr (CR 901) north of Vanderbilt Bch Rd CR 862) 6,621 6.934 4,506 5.616 54 Vanderbilt Dr CR 901 north of Wiggins Pass Rd GR 888 12,713 13,651 7.651 9.404 632 Q Vanderbilt Dr CR 901 south of 111th Ave N 9,065 9,975 5,901 7,300 64010 lVineyards Blvd south of Vanderbilt Beach Rd (CR 862) 5,012 5.701 7.736 6.089 611 0 Westclock Rd west of North 15th St SR 29 4,142 3.897 3,904 4.015 670 a Wiggins Pass Rd CR 888 east of Vanderbilt Dr (CR 901) 9.5571 11.095 5,964 7.933 669 a Wiggins Pass Rd CR 888 west of Tamiami Tr US 411SR 45 10,655 7.889 6,351 9,134 80 Q Wilson Blvd north of Golden Gate Blvd (CR 876) 7,447 8.307 8,277 8.364 676 Q Wilson Blvd north of Immokalee Rd CR 846 2.325 2.038 2.171 2.117 6B1 a Wilson Blvd south of Golden Gate Blvd GR 876 314 328 361 377 650 Wilson Blvd south of Immokalee Rd CR W 9.018 8.836 8,563 8,883 ADT: Annual Daily Traffic for the period — The counts are both dfredlofls of bevel. T IS of Count A = Annual Count Stations Q = Quartedy Count Stations _ S = Semi -Annual Count Stations t` N O N C O r O V CL CL Q W C d E t c� to Q r d E M U fC Q 4/6/2022 Packet Pg. 132 TURN LANES - CURBED AND UNCURBED MEDIANS FLUSH AND/OR CURBED SEPARATION DESIGN NOTES 1. 11 W-:., SIT f--1 GENERAL NOTES FLUSH AND/OR CURBED SEPARATION DESIGN NOTES 1. 11 W-:., SIT f--1 GENERAL NOTES RAISED SEPARATION "I", DOUBLE LEFT TURNS EJ11 CI 1 —ol soll Bnr Z, -3, La FLUSH AND/OR CURBED SEPARATION TYPE E CURB AND GUTTER TYPE F —t � 7��7 4 a -4;. —1- TI—.,v RAISED SEPARATION TYPE A TYPE 8 TYPED` SINGLE LEFT TURNS CURB —11—� 1� I - sl�llll I'll -1-11 Is - I'll, 1" 1-1 —, or Curb 4od C111 & 61-1 T,—. S- Yl 3� --s - "N"., ,, —,,- ... - "1 "Ws""' " """ '". Na 32 MEDIAN CURB AND TRAFFIC SEPARATOR JUNCTURE DETAILS FDOT DESIGN STANDARDS 2013 TURN LkNES APPENDIX G 301 1 I Packet Pg. 133 1 9.A.1.f DocuSign Envelope ID: 802C9695-2189-4D8A-86A7-DAF99ED122F1 APPENDIX H Impact Fee Calculator - Complete TPIPPR20220061758 Building Use Single -Family Detached Location: Collier County Fire District: Greater Naples Fire Living Area Per Unit: 2000 # of Units: 23 Total Area per Unit: 2500 Water and sewer impact fees are NOT INCLUDED. Please see fee scredule or call 239-252-6237. — Estimated Impact Fees Cost Impact Fee Emergency Medical Services Fire Cost grin $3,267.61 Government Buildings $21,489.82 ]ails $11,481.37 Law Enforcement $13,499.85 Library $7,729.15 - Parks Regional i $61,969.36 Parks Community I $21,478.09 1 (Roads $186,070.1301 Schools — — — — — — $212,159.42 I Total Fee $541,794.67 Disdaimer:This calculator was designed as a tool to enable an applicant to estimate impact fees. The impact fee rates provided are consistent with the adopted Impact Fee Ordinance. There are many factors that may affect the total assessment, including determination of land use and credits for previous structures. Estimates derived from this module shall not substitute for the final fees calculated by County staff. Water and Sewer Impact Fees are not included in these calculations. Please see fee schedules or call 239-252-6237. Portal Home I New Calculation Packet Pg. 134 DocuSign Envelope ID: 802C9695-2189-4D8A-86A7-DAF99ED122F1 9.A.1.f Impact Fee Calculator - Complete p^^ TI<IPPR2022006 Building Use: faulty -Family Apr;, Location: Collier County Fire District: Greater Naples Fire Living Area Per Unit: 1200 # of Stories: 2.00 # of Units: 28 Total Area per Unit: 1500 Water and sewer impact fees are NOT INCLUDED. Please see fee xchedule or call 239-252-6237. _ Estimated Impact Fees Cost Impact Fee Cost Emergency Medical Services $1,890.00 —,I Fire $9,240.00 Government Buildings $12,430.32 ]ails $6,409.48 Law Enforcement $8,303.68 Library $4,473.84 Parks Regional $34,446.72 Parks Community $12,745.60 Roads $194,600.00! Schools $79,637.32� Total Fee $364,176.96 Disclaimer:This calculator was designed as a tool to enable an applicant to estimate impact fees. The impact fee rates provided are consistent with the adopted Impact Fee Ordinance. There are many factors that may affect the total assessment, including determination of land use and credits for previous structures. Estimates derived from this module shall not substitute for the final fees calculated by County staff. Water and Sewer Impact Fees are not included in these calculations. Please see fee schedules or call 239-252-6237. Portal Home New Calculation Packet Pg. 135 DocuSign Envelope ID: 802C9695-2189-4D8A-86A7-DAF99ED122F1 9.A.1.f Impact Fee Calculator - Complete prin TMPPR20220061760 Building Use: Single -Family Detached Location: Collier County Fire District: Greater Naples Fire Living Area Per Unit: 2000 # of Units: 12 Total Area per Unit: 2500 Water and sewer impact fees are NOT INCLUDED. Please see fee schedule or call 239-252-6237. — Estimated Impact Fees Cost Impact Fee cost Emergency Medical Services $1,704.84 Fire $6,600.00 Government Buildings Jails Law Enforcement Library Parks Regional 1 Parks Community Roads Schools Total Fee $11,212.08 $5,990.28 $7,043.40 I $4,032.60 $32,331.84 $11,205.96 $97,OB0.00 $105,474.48 $282,675.48 Disclaimer:This calculator was designed as a tool to enable an applicant to estimate impact fees. The impact fee rates provided are consistent with the adopted Impact Fee Ordinance. There are many factors that may affect the total assessment, including determination of land use and credits for previous structures. Estimates derived from this module shall not substitute for the final fees calculated by County staff. Water and Sewer Impact Fees are not included in these calculations. Please see fee schedules or call 239-252-6237. Portal Home I New Calculation d C O N d d f� N C to 7 Cn M O O O N N O N J a N O N C O r M V Q O_ Q W C d E t c� to Q r d E t U Q Packet Pg. 136 9.A.1.f This space for recording AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 2(Ev�ay of Qn UOY-C , 2023 d thc by and between SMH Properties of South West Florida, Inc. (the Developer") an Collier County Board of County Commissioners (the "Commission"), collectively, the "Parties". RECITALS; A. The Developer owns a tract of real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein parentheses the quote property. It is the Developer's intent to construct a maximum of 28 residential units (the "Units") at a density of 12 units per gross acre on the property. The gross acreage of the property is 2.33 acres (1.595 acres inside Activity Center #16 and 0.735 acres outside Activity Center #16). The number of affordable units constructed by the Developer shall be four (4), representing 14 percent of the total number of residential units approved in the development. B. In order to construct the Units, the Developer must obtain a density bonus from the Commission for the property as provided for the land development code (LDC) § 2.06.00 et seq., which density bonus can only be granted by the Commission and utilized by the Developer in accordance with the strict limitations and applicability of set provisions. C. The Commission is willing to grant a density bonus to the Developer authorizing the construction of four (4) bonus units on the property, if the Developer agrees to construct affordable housing units as specified in this agreement and in accordance with LDC section § 2.06.00 et seq. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval and grant of the density bonus of 7.4 units per acre requested by the Developer and the benefits conferred thereby on the property, Page 1 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 137 9.A.1.f and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Developer and the Commission hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Developer A�,reements. The Developer hereby agrees to provide the following affordable housing units in accordance with this agreement and as specified in exhibits A through G attached hereto and incorporated herein: a. four (4) of the 28 units will be provided for those earning less than 50% of Collier County's Area Median Income (AMI). b. All affordable units will be rentals. c. The units will include multifamily units with a variety of bedroom types. d. No affordable housing unit in the development shall be rented to a tenant whose income has not been verified and certified in accordance with this division as a low or very low-income household, as applicable. Such verification and certification shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be submitted to the county manager or designee for approval. Tenant income verification and certification shall be repeated annually to assure continued eligibility. If, upon annual recertification, a household's income is determined to not exceed 50% of the applicable area median income limit for Collier County, the unit shall be determined to be in compliance with this agreement so long as the following conditions exist for the applicable unit and household: Households with income certified as less than 50% of AMI will be charged the rent at the current 50% level; If household income of any tenant occupying an affordable unit exceeds 50% of AMI, that unit will no longer qualify as an affordable unit and the Developer shall offer the next vacant unit designated market rate unit to a qualified household to meet the minimum of four (4) affordable units e. Any rent charged for an affordable housing unit rented will not exceed the amount published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation for Collier County adjusted by income level, family size, and number of bedrooms and updated annually. f. The following provisions shall be applicable to the affordable units: i. Defined terms. For purposes of this agreement, "phasing" shall mean: (a the phased construction of buildings or structures and separate and Page 2 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 138 9.A.1.f distinctive stages as shown on a PUD master plan, subdivision master plan or site development plan; Or (b) in developments where phase construction is not depicted on a PUD master plan subdivision master plan or site development plan, the construction of buildings or structures in a clearly defined series of starts and finishes that are separate and distinct within the development. ii. Median Income. For the purposes of this Agreement, the median income of the area as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shall be the then current median income for the Naples Metropolitan Statistical Area, established periodically by HUD and published in the Federal Register, as adjusted for family size as shown on the tables attached hereto as Exhibit C, which Exhibit shall be adjusted from time to time in accordance with any adjustments that are authorized by HUD or any successor agency. In the event that HUD ceases to publish an established median income as aforesaid, the Parties hereto shall mutually agree to another reasonable and comparable method of computing adjustments in median income. iii. Eliudbilit. and Qualification of Renter. Family income eligibility is a three - step process: 1) submittal of an application by a prospective Renter; 2) verification of family housing unit provided under the affordable housing density bonus program prior to being qualified at the appropriate level of income (very -low, low, moderate or gap income) in accordance with this Section; 3) certification of Renter eligibility by the Community and Human Services Division. The Developer shall be responsible for qualifying Renters by accepting applications, verifying income, and obtaining income certification for all affordable units in the subject development. All applications, forms and other documentation required by this Agreement shall be provided to Page 3 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 139 9.A.1.f Community and Human Services Division. Qualification by the Developer of any persons as an eligible Renter family shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the monitoring and enforcement program in LDC§§ 2.06.05 and 2.06.06, respectively. 1. Application. A potential Renter shall apply to the Developer, owner, manager, or agent to qualify as a low-income family for the purpose of renting and occupying an affordable housing unit pursuant to the affordable housing density bonus program. The preliminary application for affordable housing unit shall be provided to Collier County community and Human Services Division as shown in exhibit D, attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference herein. 2. Income Verification and Certification. No affordable housing unit in the development shall be rented whose household income has not been verified and certified in accordance with this agreement and LDC § 2.06.05. 3. Income Verification. The Developer shall obtain written verification from the potential occupant (including the entire household) to verify all regular sources of income (including the entire household). The most recent years federal income tax return for the potential occupants (including the tire household) may be used for the purpose of income verification. The verification shall be valid for up to one hundred eighty (180) Days prior to occupancy. Upon expiration of the 180-days, the information may be verbally updated from the original sources for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented by the person preparing the original verification. After this time, a new verification form must be completed. The Affordable Housing Applicant Income Verification form shall be provided to the Community and Human Services division as shown in Exhibit E, attached to this Agreement incorporated by reference herein. Page 4 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 140 9.A.1.f 4. Income Certification. Upon receipt of the Preliminary Application for an affordable housing unit and Applicant Income Verification form, the Developer shall require that an income certification form be executed by the potential occupant (including the entire household) prior to occupancy of the affordable housing unit by the occupant. Income certification shall assure that the potential occupant has an appropriate household income which qualifies the potential occupant as eligible to occupy an affordable housing unit under the affordable housing density bonus program. The Affordable Housing Applicant Income Certification form shall be provided by the Community and Human Services Division as shown in Exhibit F, is attached to this Agreement and is incorporated by reference herein. Random Inspections. Random inspection of files containing required documentation to verify occupancy in accordance with this Agreement and LDC § 2.06.00, may be conducted by the Community and Human Services Division upon reasonable notice. iv. Annual Progress and Monitorin, Report. The Developer shall provide the Community and Human Services Division an annual progress and monitoring report regarding the delivery of affordable housing units throughout the period of their construction and occupancy. The annual progress monitoring report shall, at a minimum, provide any information reasonably required to ensure compliance with the LDC § 2.06.00, or subsequent amendments thereto. The report shall be filed on or before September 30th of each year and the report shall be submitted by the Developer to the Community and Human Services Division. Failure to complete and submit the monitoring report to the Community and Human Services Division within 60 days from the due date shall result in a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00) per day unless a written extension not to exceed 30 days is requested prior to the expiration of the 60 day submission deadline. No more than one such extension may be granted in Page 5 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 141 9.A.1.f a single year. v. Occupancy Restrictions. No affordable unit in any building or structure on the property shall be occupying by the Developer, or any person related to or affiliated with the Developer, or by a resident manager. vi. Density Bonus. The Commission hereby acknowledges that the Developer has met all required conditions to qualify for a density bonus, in addition to the base residential density of four units per acre and is therefore granted a density bonus of 7.4 density bonus units per acre, for a total density (total = density bonus units per acre X gross acreage) of 12 units/ac, pursuant to LDC § 2.06.00. The Commission further agrees that the Developer may construct thereon, in the aggregate and maximum number of 28 units on the property provided the Developer's able to secure building permit(s) from Collier County. vii. Commission ApTeement. During the term of this Agreement, the Commission acting through the Community and Human Services Division or successors covenants and agrees to prepare and make available to the Developer any general information that it possesses regarding income limitations and restrictions which are applicable to the affordable unit(s) viii. Violations and Enforcement. It shall be a violation of this Agreement and LDC § 2.06.00 to sell or occupy, or attempt to sell or occupy, and affordable housing unit provided under the affordable housing intensity promise program except as specifically permitted by the terms of this Agreement, or to knowingly give false from misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the Community and Human Services Division or by any other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by LDC § 2.06.00. Collier County or its designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The method of enforcement for breach or violation of this agreement shall be at the option of the Commission by criminal enforcement pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.69, Florida statutes, or by civil enforcement as a Page 6 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 142 9.A.1.f allowed by law. ix. Certificate of Occupanc\ . In the event that the Developer fails to maintain the affordable units in accordance with this Agreement or LDC § 2.06.00, as amended, at the option of the Commission, building permits or certificates of occupancy, is applicable, may be withheld for any future planned or otherwise approved unit located or to be located upon the property until the entire project is in full compliance with this agreement and with LDC § 2.06. 00, as amended. x. Assi,nment by Commission. The Commission may assign all or part of its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having jurisdiction over the property provided that it gives the Developer 30 days advance written notice thereof. The Developer may not assign, delegate or otherwise transfer all or part of its duties, obligations, or promises under this agreement to any successor in interest to the property without the express written consent of the Commission, which consent may will be withheld for any reason whatsoever. Any attempt to assign the duties, obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to the property without the express written consent of the Commission as required by this section shall be void ab initio. xi. Severability. Any section, phrase, sentence or portion of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed as separate, distinct, and independent provision, and all other provisions shall remain effective in binding on the Parties. xii. Notice. And he knows his desired or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall either be personally delivered or shall be sent by mail, postage prepaid, to the parties at the following addresses: Page 7 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 143 9.A.1.f To the Commission: Collier County Community and Human Services 3339 E Tamiami Trail Building H, Suite 211 Naples, Florida 34112 To the Developer: SMH Properties of South West Florida, Inc. 2001 Airport Road, South Naples, Florida 34112 With copy to: xiii. Authority to Monitor. The parties here to acknowledge that the Collier County Community and Human Services Division or its designee, shall have the authority to monitor and enforce the Developers obligations here under. xiv. IndemniA!. The Developer hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold Collier County and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from and against any and all claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses, professional fees, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and all the costs of litigation and judgments arising out of any claim, willful misconduct or negligent act, error omission, with liability of any kind made by the Developer, its agents or employees, arising out of or incidental to the performance of this agreement. xv. Covenants. The Developer agrees that all of its obligations hereunder shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the property and against every person than having any ownership interest at anytime and from time to time until this agreement is terminated in accordance with section 13 below. However, the parties agree that if the Developer transfers or conveys the property to another person or entity, Developers shall have no further obligation here Page 8 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 144 9.A.1.f under and any person seeking to enforce the terms thereof shall look solely to the Developer's successor and interest for the performance of set obligations. xvi. Recording. This agreement shall be recorded at county's expense and the official records of Collier County, Florida. xvii. Entire A��reement. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto and shall in year two and be binding upon the respective heirs, successors, and assigns. xviii. Termination. Each affordable housing unit shall be restricted to remain and be maintained as the required affordable housing as provided in the LDC § 2.06.04. xix. Modification. This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by the written agreement of both parties. xx. Discrimination. 1. The Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents shall discriminate against any owner/renters or potential owner/renters because of said owner/renters' race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or handicap. 2. When the Developer advertises, sells or maintains the affordable housing unit, it must advertise sell, and maintain the same and non- discriminatory manner and shall make available any relevant information to any person who is interested in purchasing such affordable housing unit. 3. The Developer agrees to be responsible for payment of any real estate commissions and fees for which it is liable in the purchase and sale of affordable units. 4. The affordable housing units shall be intermixed with, and not segregated from, the market rate dwelling units in the development. The square footage, construction and design of the affordable and gap housing unit shall be the same as the market rate dwelling units in the development. All physical amenities in the dwelling units, as Page 9 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 145 9.A.1.f described in item number seven of the Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Exhibit G, shall be the same for market rate units and affordable units. For developments where construction takes place in more than one phase, all physical amenities as described in item number (7) and the Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Exhibit G, shall be the same in both the market rate units and the affordable units in each phase. Units in the subsequent phase may contain different amenities and units in the previous phase so long as amenities for market rate units and affordable units for the same within each phase and provided that in no event may a market rate unit or affordable unit in any phase containing physical amenities less than those described in the Developer application. xxi. Phasing. The percentage of affordable housing units to which the Developer has committed for the total development shall be maintained in each phase and shall be constructed as part of each phase of the development on the property. Developer commits to 14 percent affordable housing units for this project, with 14 percent of the units in each phase consisting of affordable units. xxii. Disclosure. Developer shall not disclose to persons, other than the potential buyer, renter, or blender of the particular affordable housing unit or units, which units in the development are designated as affordable housing units. xxiii. Consistency. This agreement and authorized development shall be consistent with the growth management plan and land development regulations of Collier County that are in effect at the time of development. subsequently adopted laws and policy shall apply to this agreement and to the development to the extent that they are not in conflict with the number, type of affordable housing units and the amount of affordable housing density components approved for the development. xxiv. Affordable Housinu Densitv Bonus Development Agreement. This Page 10 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 146 9.A.1.f agreement is a distinct and separate agreement from the "development agreements" As defined by section 163.3220, Fla. Stat., as amended. xxv. Preapplication. Developer has executed and submitted to the development services department the Developer application for affordable housing density bonus, a copy of which is attached to this agreement as exhibit G and incorporated by reference herein. xxvi. Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Florida. xxvii. Further Assurances. The parties here too shall execute and deliver, in recordable form if necessary, any and all documents, certificates, instruments, and agreements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent of the agreement. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any document requested by the Developer to exhibit that this agreement has terminated accordance with the provision of paragraph 13 above. SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 11 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 147 9.A.1.f IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Witnesses: By: Deputy Clerk Rick LoCastro, Chairman DEVELOPER: SMH Pro erties of S7est Florida, Inc. Witne By: Printed Name GL II Printed Name and Title: -V e-Zv000l c Witness Printed Name:-r e 5 Approved as to form and legality: Assistant County Attorney CEO Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Affordable Housing Units/Base Monthly Rents Exhibit C - Income and Rent Level Exhibit D - Preliminary Application for Affordable Housing Unit Exhibit E - Applicant Income Verification Exhibit F - Applicant Income Certification Exhibit G - Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus Page 12 of 25 1/26/2023 Packet Pg. 148 9.A.1.f HAGAN ENGINEERING Re: 12-15-2022 NIM Meeting Synopsis Justin Village Rezone PL 202200003739 This letter and the attachments to document the Neighborhood Informational Meeting for the Justin Village Rezone held on December 15, 2022. Attached to this synopsis please find the sign in sheet, the exhibits and the NIM affidavit with attachments for the project. The meeting was attended by three members of Saint Matthew's House Properties, three members from Hagan Engineering, 3 county staff members, a representative from the Naples Daily News, a representative from the Bayshore CRA and four public residents. The meeting began at 5:30 PM in the Salvation Army church per the attached Advertisement. Dwight Nadeau started the meeting off with a presentation outlining the rezone application. This was revisited as several members of the public joined the meeting late. The floor was then opened for questions and the following issues were noted: • Resident's recovery program • Renter restrictions • Density and affordable housing density bonus • Resident's pedestrian • Public access to rentals • Graduate relapse rates for treatment • Sober house separation • Unit density and intensity • HOA operation and maintenance • Master planning at site development plan permitting • Zoning history • Saint Matthew House properties and operations • Building height • Parking restrictions • Regional flooding question The specific discussion is shown in the attached video link. 1) 12-20-2022 NIM Video link I believe this fully documents are NIM meeting. Sincerely, AA-, - Chris Hagan 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com Packet Pg. 149 9.A.1.f Sign In Sheet Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) for rezoning PL20220003739 December 15, 2022 Name Street Address Speaking? ❑Yes C 2 /a - des Nb /V ❑ Yes ❑ Yes f"i v:%rr c�� I 1 ci►�.,�,.� v.� ❑ Yes Comes ❑ Yes L6��w❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ Yes Packet Pg. 150 I Y •i (auozGN 06ellin s,ui;snr `6£L£000ZZOZ-ld : LZ9-PZ) uoi;eoilddd-3;uewt4oe;;V :;uewt43e;;v T LO T Cb a m m a (auozGN 06ellin s,ui;snr `6£L£000ZZOZ-ld : LZ9-PZ) uoi;eoilddV-3;uewt4oe;;V :;uewt43e;;v ■ O � � n 1■ 9 W � — II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I y II I I I I I I I I I II II I II W 'i 'i I U ilp O M ICI w W M O w l l w a 6 s m9'I N CL Nlla wl I II � II 3 I w LL o l l m l o l I o l l I 4 1 1I�I III J I I I II W o Of I zl I I a O — — — a a 3a sow .a. IN III Iw LL I of M I AI 11 0 III L III ua_sva aamroa II s; --"�� s� I II O III III � _,II I.I II III M O III � ;I I I III I III 3 'III � I Z :II I I I a II j I � II III L� I I II ne 3ddnsa�� I I .s x� 6 wl N E X () m U i a�ene aarosaen mo , Ili — — — — (M/2! '09) � I i v li cn Of m3 3nYdsmdo K I A m z Q o°C ^ G� K Z z Q Q js 3a=f°0z>� ac O O O Z u Z O 0 p W LL E I N a m m a 9.A.1.f AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Afi State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this OLkday of r , 2022 by tu.��.tS �o��n who is personally known to me or who has produced `��c�y Qx `J- &sZ as identification. of Notary Public) vc-1::1. Printed Name of Notary G:\NIM Procedures/Affidavit Of Compliance - NIM Oct2OIO.Doc (Notary Seal) Notary Public State of Florida Marisela L Navas My Commission WZI[IJU&M GG 949290 1Exp.01/21/2024 a�. Packet Pg. 153 9.A.1.f HACAN ENGINEERING November 28, 2022 Re: Justin Village Rezone PL 202200003739 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that a formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of a standard rezoning from RMF-6 GTZO-R to RMF-12 GTZO-R for the following described property: Approximately 2.3 acres of land within the southern one half (1/2) of the existing Breeze of Calusa Subdivision lying 240 feet west of Airport Road, fronting on Calusa Avenue, in south Naples. The petitioner is asking the County to approve this application to allow development of multi -family residences on the described property which will be owned and controlled by the Saint Matthews's House organization. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to become fully aware of our development intentions and to give you an opportunity to participate in the approval of the form of development. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Thursday, December 15, 2022 at Salvation Army Church located at 3170 Estey Avenue, Naples. At this meeting the petitioner will make every effort to illustrate how the property will be developed and to answer any questions. Remote meeting access will be available 24 hours in advance of the meeting, with invitation provided by Hagan Engineering whose email is: chris@haganeng.com. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me. Sincerely, Chris Hagan 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, FL 34102 (t) 239-228-7742 (c) 239-851-8239 Chris (d) HaganE ng. c o m www.haganeng.com 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com Packet Pg. 154 4- (auozGN a6eIHA s,uilsn£ `6£L£000ZZOZ-ld LZ917Z) uoi;e3ilddV-3;uGwL43BI)V :IuGwt43ePv T a ppT rdoom`ooSoS000000mm°' o�nooSa0000000000a00000 d g�m00000SmSN�o�oBoQooSeRoo�meeoo° ooS.00.ooS0000000000000�00000 mm nB000000000000e�°oo:�or� Y s�mnmmrnmmrmmmrrvrvrvrrrmmrnommem�mrmrvrvdmmmmrvrvrvrvmmm$mmrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrvrv------ rvrvrvrvrvrvrv��mmmmrvrvry z d O N U C O a w F10 10 ¢ o a p x o a w o m n z m a ❑ N o oN ew m m ry ry `z- � J R JJN O N Oa O ^ m m OJ U OJ m n ry n m m o ry n v m m n m m o v n ou Z Z Z O O n Off^m FpF LL 0 �Qa 00� m oo---------000�o o_� m000 LLO CO R f H'p Znaumi C�LL��ry w 6m0 ZZa nm ccoo� N o000pooUU UUU000.❑00�0❑ODUR� a000 rvor..%8" m C 00" '8 no zzzzz.........-zzz F�rrmp o000 Z' O Z--UZZZmmZZm aN +N UUW Om O ��"��zZZZZZZZZZZZZ=ZZZom n Z 7i .- F �QQ¢JJJ�ZJJ� rv+ Irv+ aaa <Q¢QI- a mmm4mmmmmJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ�LL m<aa mmm M� 'I'LLtrr, J .22 =JJ JJ ZZZZ-zzzzzzzz z .ZZ. ZZZ �� JJJJ� ❑o�J7JJJJJJ��i��E2�� n m + a s 5 O E n O ry ry tt ry E N a E 3 >> JCQj mYJmrc❑�OmYmmm�ap�❑i�m��-t��m�E- Oz0a¢omZr�o3❑3iOm�rmf--'O�rm�Jipso�mF3❑im^rm��JFOuam❑�a,NOum❑m�aOZo�mz��oSJzEoarSa�=F=-3JO❑ZO¢JoO=ow¢JO=o¢J��rmmcWCLLoW0OoNa»0ZowNwN�u�rmmr^mm�0mmwwrm�Ormm�FmmwmFFos3�a ��-J�dmoaONWaCom �"`¢+��c�J»�p�NrOUmaa' �<-�<E-�a�-�a�-m�mJ+�JtiJo�J�Jo»��Jc�5Jo»�5J0�7o7�Jo�o�0Zo�0zaQ0Eo0=2❑o2z�o=2zoZ z❑aJozoJCzzrv¢JozoaJoz❑JozZ❑�oz❑a��CZ �oFpJ+ mw,0 �20mmOo ZZM M.2 . .c.0000�v7 ...00000000 -oo�C,0�omJmmmomo ❑0000c0000zooc ococcc000uuUUoboa�a uu. FUzo-ZJ prz�J o w¢uU0 M000c --MMMM<<<<WMmmmmaaaa¢aaaa=============---momm'mmwwmm wJQmmmmmaoNNzoNNNN.. mr <Oix u22 w wrzwaa.arcttr w......Jaawwoww°owwoaNZJa r ¢E�E.sEJ Toc000c cJoraJ oCo Z ZN33NN33N3zzm000NNm3zNN�332332N3uc33333uuuuz33333uuoouuuuuuoouuuuuc:uoc:uuuuu5z63 Uuc a � ° ° I �m of - o�rv,z iz _ Im I� N -- - ICI --I--- Im illly -�i �a �a� = m rvrvrvrvry rvrv�rvrv��rvrvry W�WJ LLLL LLLL Nz� LLLLLL � - wwww��""�wwwww�wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww�wwwwwWwwwwwwwwwwwwwww�w"www 5 JJJJ�JJ n a aaJ�Jooaaa�aaaaaaaa<0 -aaZZoZaZ.5Z=oZZZaa<. 2ZZ.—ZZZZaZaZaa ZaaZaZaZaZallaZaaa ZaZa2a2aaZaaZaaZaaZaaZaaZaZaZa.aallaZaZaZn=Ja=Ja=Jaa=Ja=�=Ja=JaZJa Za=Ja=Ja=Ja ZaallaZJa aZ2¢JZaOwZJaa2s ZaZaaZ 3 no EW 's $ e !' a n U g e g E V N mg x Y Y R O Q O O 0 a O fd E aq4°1 K❑ NN 333 0 R p 2O Q Z Z w Q ¢JZU QO; z V 1 O ��0 3rvry >r f w.Zax=aF�..QLL<rvO22LL��a°a_m❑�Nrv�❑�i~Q�/1ma�o.w oW >ryNryirvn �m�. Q,.o¢- Orv�p(n� p�UUQ�._<nwNU�mary zws¢,-_-c,w. ❑mW¢Wc�_cCi_�-. raamrc¢�S. mra<S�waUa�wrcWza 2 wU¢ Ww mao wwJOwK❑wo c ,. rO_w-U3_.;r >Q¢00 QwD�map ww�wwiOmt a;=T��wra°aa °oozw� zzQQaa N wmmmmmE m m m o mm m mmm m m m m m ;_mma,,md 4a0mC'arLLJut »0..t 0_�;❑�>- :- u i "3 i 3 0 EE -O w v,p w J W C_k > i ii U Z = a> ~ 2 C Z Z ^ ❑ K a 2 ii G C C � o'w - ¢m❑ �K U❑❑❑�.w Joz ¢ �:. -_- w - = �. capc ac aka as aaa u�a-_'�--- me J� wN0 aO,, OOC C"JzQom �(m9-CCpCOGOCCCOGOCCO0000UCOGCUU�" 9 f ~ C O Z❑ W W Z I 1 Z a W 41 w K I 4 O w 0 0 0 U U C. U U U C: U U t. U U U U U U Fwpa m �• a y - R w a (� a W W N �^ K L9a aCF 'UncvC'aaxam3",�; V,apawa os cow?LLwzSwU�Q��ooaca0000ceoo cccooccocccc�s�c`u ra c -�msdwa�a��w ca 2a2 22a Fa �oaaz��o'o�WaaU - me wa sa awa awa :W, _ L;o>aaJ O Fo �vva¢ ucu`�,a ¢xi_ -- - W—U, �acec¢c�� zaua rv,.,nzcamk�T 0000daa vac <� m=J ,'c`T_s ouaii;�> 'wuww�uwww ��w wLLLL-wwwwwwwLL Wau W u K¢ m 6 0 0 0 U U U U U U U o O O O W a (7 2 2 2 2___ C i f _ Z Z C O O U G tJ G U U C O O O O C G 0 0 0 b 0 0 p' O U C'.L is ft c (auozab a6ellin s,ui;snr `6£LE000ZZOZ-ld LZ9VZ) uoi;e3ilddV-3 ;uauayoelly :;uauayoejjv Q 000 _�nry rv��n�vo$$000�000000 0000000 0000 rvrvrv��mrvrv�$m�mm�n-------n--n---��rvrvnrvrvmpprvrv^^^e$$��""�� c� Z 0 �o o 00 f c LLo rr r jpl 3 30 1 � LL� o� 0 UL 2aE a r.m cc 0 z o w I >o 0 0 w r rc mO O 3 �r r o �^ a R o rc u, 0 c z zzzazzz m"_' pH M J J J J J J o s-2RZOs zW 0 n ry J J J J J J J a. �" O p R ZZZZzZ2 3 d IOJZrva 0`0000000 gc 3 OJ a �i a 0 �2 0000000 �n ¢w Z 0 0 0 O. O O Z 22ZZZZ�^.�FHn O NUVvn e�nm^mm��mmrvrvrvry oZOU v OeF e 0000000+ ^ c ¢a^tirrrr-�r^^^^^�^�r^r^^^ x w o uoouuu zzz �o¢�0000000000❑00000000000p d� o "� a aaaaaaNJJ❑ w w r ry � $ro � s z0z ma Z z0 Z ❑ ¢ ' O U O z Nj3m Qv MJ- Ozo ¢+ �U_UE _ _ O z Z OOmiu mry ry o VWi��UIY � nvl~i 4l�mmmUR W Z r rFrHHHs��2 v: vl �ln �n r, �OFrf W m 000.2xo Y Z2000000 ozoops — ooN oo- - zzzzzzimoowaafa aaa aaaaaa aa¢aaawouzOc00aaa� 0000�oiw ❑OOOOO�NUU ¢aa ¢¢ ¢¢a¢¢ U�OUY Y � Y OUO¢ �ZaaQYYNYY��J�J�J�JJJ�JJJJJJ »j�J� Uammm-�m�rvmmmmUa�¢ J JJmmmmw-Jm00m0��U��UaaaaaJ��QQmu3'a a- m0 -m> 0 NmFzw�aaaa¢aaaaaa¢a aaaaa zz wwzzz z p ¢aa uO0❑ ouuoo00ouoo❑u❑uO U U —oco hlav33 w 35�53r�a3 _www_w_www�ao0`o�ii000000000000000000.0.000ci°Oaa��iiij¢¢¢g� o ^�ww�wwwNNNNNNHNNNHH Z ��o0�o�0�o�o"az000❑m�-3-3NW¢HW¢HW¢H¢N¢N¢ ww¢w ury�rvooaxaxax �O+0x3o3xo3x30xJ¢o¢J¢a wOCww�o00oNNHwI w^1 ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢giwwWwWwwwWwwWWWWWwz cJor zs3s��J0]JJJJ 0o0w mmmmm¢mmmmmmmmmmmmm¢mm3 uummm333zmmmmuouw m� da o ao NeNp Np�p �rNpc.N �o iip rirylllp io �o oT 'r p �XSXXXXXXXRXXX�,X XX5XX5X5R5XXXXRXXA �,X XXXRXXXX�X�,X�XRXRRXXo ll z �anaaaa'wwwnwnwwwwuwawwwwwawawwwawawawawawauaa"Jaaanwaawnwnwawwuaawwaawnwaawaawawawnawaaaw wwww�'mx a aaa zaaaaa¢¢aaaaaaaaaaa¢aaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aia o zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz�zzi�izzza 00 ¢ ............ x........ ❑ J J J J J J J 7 7 J J J J J J J J 0 0 a'�p30303o303g.'c30a�cwro¢nW�0¢��¢0¢❑Zwwww� a¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢.o¢O¢O¢O¢O¢J¢ wmwZy000000 OoOOOOOOoOOOOOOO aa00.................... oaoaoxw¢❑r❑¢nWv❑¢¢�mQ¢¢Qwr5a0a50wrra 0a0000aaaa a 0Ooo0o0000000a ��u>w ❑ Fxx J. aa v av av cv �t zFec U>r an an WO� �� Ya¢�zz¢ w¢ "swsw's'wo zo< z EzZzz a ¢< aowwu000¢i �raz°°soogo00000002000000000000000O� 000 caaozm.o�N a?ozs esacpo � o_ W- UJJJJUJ N�� ¢222Z22 ZZ22222Z=Z=ZZZ22 L- � WGaFZU c LLLL�LLzc>>�m0 3u3i o,m�3v3i33mu3i3�v3i3ww�33W3333 zz°�uuu wc¢ccw¢ro LLwzzaafO33� ..c.000wOOQO❑ 000000000000cO0000cO000cOc�j=¢`�zaoW o�uouwUo=a c� Jwww wLLwwwwwww w w °O` ^ ^w aowpwu a❑ N xxaaa W¢aaaao�wpppppLLwwpwppppwHE pppwpppppw � W z,auuaa`JrcaaaNa¢o �ZUUJwm Oar000ccoococ000c000cooccoccpxx=�6� Jw2V¢mwp�awp ��w `�1�¢¢ ¢¢c"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aws�k^�Jcoo�o3aa<uz.^¢° aaa aaxo0�zz xo��xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-a o�E��a �uzO¢��E » J¢ w aaa aww��wv�i�v�i v�i ��i,w v�i v�iv `v�i v�Fi v�i v�i�`So� - �0000r aaa¢¢¢¢¢ 9.A.1.f t v 5 4:) a I t PART OF THE USATODAY NETWORK Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 HAGEN ENGINEERING 1250 TAMIAMI TRL N #20313 NAPLES, FL 34102 ATTN CHRISTOPHER HAGA Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared who on oath says that they serve as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida , for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 1211/2022 Subscribed and sworn to before on DECEMBER 1 ST. 2022 otary, S e of uni of n My commission ryes: 1 ,/0 PUBLICATION COST: $1,008.00 AD No: GC10981749 CUSTOMER NO: 972793 PO#: PUBLIC NOTICE AD SIZE: DISPLAY AD W/ MAP 3X10 NANCY HEYRMAN Notary Public State of Wisconsin Packet Pg. 157 9.A.1.f NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by Chris Hagan, PE, of Hagan Engineering, LLC, representing SMH Properties of SWFL, Inc. on Thursday, December 15, 2022, commencing at 5:30 PM at the Salvation Army Church located at 3170 Estey Avenue, Naples. Subject Property: Approximately 2.3 acres of land within the southern one half (1/2) of the existing Breeze of Calusa Subdivision, lying 240 feet west of Airport Road, fronting on Calusa Avenue in south Naples. The property owner is petitioning Collier County to rezone from RMF-6 GTZO-R to RMF-12 GTZO-R to allow for multi -family development to be owned and controlled by the Saint Matthews's House organization. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owner/ developer and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, or e-mail by December 10, 2022 to: Chris Hagan 250 Tamiami Trail N #203b Naples, Fl 34112 (239) 228-7742 Chris@haganeng.com NRGC1M1?4"1 9.A.1.g SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED Chris Hagan, PE WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER C¢IYNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER PL2022003 1250 Tamiami Trail N #203b SIGNATURESIGNATURE7 ENT STREET OR P.O. BOX Chris Hagan, PE NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) Naples, Florida 34102 CITY, STATE ZIP STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER J� The foregoing i trument was sworn to and subscribed before me this day of �T Il -utw , 20.231 by ChriS w impersonally known to me or who produced FL as identification and who did/did not take an oath. I (( p LISANDRA GARCIA Signature of Nr try Puq �� Notary Public., 8-late 3 Florida Gurun,;ssr n?; GG 332525 1 is Pity comm. expires i%iay 8, 2023 L I - Printed Name of Notary My Commission Expires: P,0 20 23 (Stamp with serial number) 1 Rev. 3/4/2015 Packet Pg. 159 49L -74 �n pt low 4 W N CN LLJ LU owe CL Cr E - �� M"(6 CN a LU E = 0 cd 7-- C) V.— �-- :D Cno co LL - W- >- CX3. :z C) LU U LU 0 -e rj U) 14 C14 UJ US cr LU LU 8 0 M LU Mumma C.) U- f� U- =) g =� C:� (D W " CO (/) co C410 " C=, w LU Q- C-> rvo M C, Ui - Uj C) C'o " �:> zz c' cif :R "ll (D C--4 - CJI Z Ul Y), :Z: I C) (5 >- 2M U3 LLJ U3 >. (Z) :D Cj) C> 4L35; C)f ESQ- coma C (Z) CD co =3 0 'L U < 0Y Cl) Mumma C'j Cr_ CZUj Uj C, LU 6 Div LU zM co Uj M boo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % 77 -7� ee- AV . pl� 9.A.2 03/16/2023 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Doc ID: 24703 Item Summary: PL20210001906 - 5196 23rd Ct SW (Rezone) - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, rezoning a single family lot in Golden Gate City to multifamily, by amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Residential Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) Zoning District to a Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) Zoning District, to allow up to 2 total multi -family dwelling units on 0.29f acres of property located at 5196 23rd Ct SW, Naples, Florida, on Lot 1, Block 198, Golden Gate Unit 6, in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Planner III] Meeting Date: 03/16/2023 Prepared by: Title: — Zoning Name: Tim Finn 02/16/2023 2:10 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 02/16/2023 2:10 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 02/17/2023 4:54 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/22/2023 5:17 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/27/2023 11:22 AM Zoning James Sabo Review Item Skipped 02/27/2023 2:46 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Review Item Completed 02/27/2023 3:10 PM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 03/01/2023 5:00 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 03/16/2023 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 161 9.A.2.a CoffieT GO-Uffty 000110%� %W0%.- ft. STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 16, 2023 SUBJECT: RZ-PL20210001906; 5196 23RD CT SW Owner: SOGNARE LLC 3606 Enterprise Ave, Suite 386 Naples, FL 34104 REOUESTED ACTION: Agent: Gina R. Green, P.E. Gina R. Green, P.A. 3310 lst Ave NW Naples, FL 34120 The applicant is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Residential Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) Zoning District to a Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) Zoning District to allow up to 2 total multi -family dwelling units on 0.29+/- acres of property. The subject property is located at 5196 23rd Ct SW, Naples, Florida, on Lot 1, Block 198, Golden Gate Unit 6, in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26, East, Collier County, Florida. (see location map, page 2) RZ-PL20210001906; 5196 23" Ct SW Revised: February 17, 2023 Page 1 of 9 [22-CPs-02251/1771778/11 Packet Pg. 162 9.A.2.a LDS 1S M9 0 0 Q Q LL i■ V J t lei [, ^ H N N IV INftI M m � ^ V - E-(� N 41 LL I'h� V r 0 @I W j x 0 0 9 N M W SR Q Q Q' a Q Q ul T Q O S L N# ✓ s $1`p . v: v, N 4--L h1S IS 910&j a� cl e �`r SA .fir ' Z S MA FuZS d •7� C~7 O � � v � S3rd�� ,�� r b U w ul h W33, 41friCM s Y� CZ Y A1S IS 4fS S"t N Reie�P��i� Vu 4� &3 3�d Ct SW LD O m C) CD 4 r [�1 C) N J n (D 0 W OL Page 2 of 9 U) t+ U 'a Cl) N a) 0 Q. N c N E z u to r Q Packet Pg. 163 9.A.2.a PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The approximate 0.29-acre subject property is currently zoned as Residential Single Family (RSF- 3) Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject site to a Residential Multi- family (RMF-6) Zoning District to permit the development of a two-family dwelling. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: 23rd Ct SW (local road) then developed with multi -family residential with a current zoning designation of Residential Multi -family (RMF-6) Zoning District South: Developed with multi -family residential with a current zoning designation of Residential Multi -family (RMF-6) Zoning District East: Developed with single-family residential with a current zoning designation of Residential Single Family (RSF-3) Zoning District West: Hunter Boulevard (local collector road) then developed with multi -family residential with a current zoning designation of Residential Multi -family (RMF-6) Zoning District 0" ts-a CT:,0 4l' ' Aerial Map - Collier County Property Appraiser RZ-PL2021 00190 - 5196 23,d Ct SW ��, 2023 N CO V L M N W r O M r+ C N E t U a r+ r Q Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 164 9.A.2.a GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject site is designated on the Golden Gate City (GGC) Master Plan of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) as Urban Residential. The subject site is 0.29 acres and identified by the Property Appraiser as parcel no. 36314800009. The maximum eligible base density within this subdistrict is 4 DU/acre but may increase by qualifying for allowed density bonuses as noted in the Density Rating System of the Master Plan. The property is also located within a 1 mile of the activity center allowing for a 3-unit boost according to the density rating system bringing the maximum allowed density of 7 DU/acre. Therefore, it is the determination of Comprehensive Planning staff that the proposed rezone to allow residential multifamily development at a density of 6 DU/acre is consistent with the goals of the Golden Gate City FLUE. Transportation Element: The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, which states, "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity ofpermissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " According to the information provided by the applicant, the proposed Rezone request will generate a de minimis number of trips on the adjacent roadway network. The application includes a TIS that indicates the proposed Rezone will result in a transportation impact of +/- 1 PM peak hour trip, or a 0.1 % increase, on the network. Transportation Planning staff agrees that the rezone represents a de minimis impact on the network; therefore, the subject Rezone is found to be consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the petition. The property is 0.29 acres; the project has been found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the CCME. RZ-PL2021 00190 - 5196 23,d Ct SW Page 4 of 9 ��, 2023 Packet Pg. 165 9.A.2.a STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establishes the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. Drainage: The proposed zoning amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed by County staff at the time of site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed this petition. The property is 0.29 acres in size and is not vegetated; therefore, no preservation is required. No listed species were observed on the property. Transportation Review: The Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition request and is recommending approval. Landscape Review: The landscape buffers labeled on the Conceptual Master Plan are consistent with the LDC. Utility Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the Golden Gate wastewater service area of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD). Water services are available via existing infrastructure within the adjacent right-of-way. Sufficient water treatment capacity is available. The project will be served by a private septic system as connections to Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD) services are not readily available. Any improvements to the CCWSD's water or wastewater systems necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the CCWSD at no cost to the County at the time of utility acceptance. Zonin,z Services Review: The current zoning is RSF-3 which permits a single-family dwelling to be constructed. The rezoning is necessary to develop the site with a two-family dwelling. According to the current future land use map for Golden Gate City the subject property is located within the Urban Residential subdistrict permitting 4 units per acre by right as well as being located within a 1-mile activity center allowing a 3-unit acre boost. The subject property is bordered on the north, west, and south by RMF-6 zoning and are developed with two-family dwellings. The proposed rezoning to permit a two-family dwelling is compatible and complementary to the existing two-family dwellings in the vicinity. It is therefore the determination of zoning staff that the proposed rezone from RSF-3 to RMF-6 is comparable and compatible with the surrounding land uses and consistent with the LDC and the Future Land Use Plan for Golden Gate City. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." (Zoning Division staff responses in non -bold): RZ-PL2021 00190 - 5196 23,d Ct SW Page 5 of 9 �, 2023 Packet Pg. 166 9.A.2.a 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff has determined the petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern related to surrounding properties is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this report. The proposed uses will not change the existing land use patterns in the area. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The rezone will not create an isolated district to adjacent and nearby districts. The intent of the proposed RMF-6 zoning district is to permit two-family dwellings that are compatible and complementary to the other existing two-family dwellings in the vicinity. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The existing district boundaries are logically drawn. There are no boundary changes proposed. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of theproposed rezoning necessary. Changing conditions do not make the passage of the proposed rezone necessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Development will meet site design standards set by the LDC. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. As noted above, Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. & Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. It is not anticipated that the rezone request will create drainage problems in the area. County environmental staff will evaluate the stormwater management system and design criteria RZ-PL2021 00190 - 5196 23,d Ct SW Page 6 of 9 �, 2023 Packet Pg. 167 9.A.2.a for compliance with stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage at the time of SDP or PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed rezone from RSF-3 to RMF-6 would not reduce light or air to adjacent areas. Development will meet the site design standards set by the LDC. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. Property value is affected by many factors. It is driven by market conditions and is generally a subjective determination. Zoning alone is not likely to adversely affect property values. Generally, market conditions prevail. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the rezoning would be a deterrent to the improvement ofadjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed rezone, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The existing zoning is Residential Single Family (RSF-3) Zoning District which would permit a single-family home to be constructed. The rezoning is necessary in order to develop the site with a two-family dwelling. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff s position that the proposed rezoning to RMF-6 is not out of scale with the needs of the community or the County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, RZ-PL2021 00190 - 5196 23,d Ct SW Page 7 of 9 �, 2023 Packet Pg. 168 9.A.2.a and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any future development anticipated by the rezoning would require an extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services is consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts to the Level of Service (LOS) will be minimized. I& Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The NIM was scheduled for December 7, 2022, at 5:30 pm at the Golden Gate Community Center, Meeting Room C, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34116. No members of the public were present or participating remotely and therefore no recording or transcript has been available. A copy of the NIM advertising is included in Attachment B — Backup Materials. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report for content and legality on February 16, 2023. RZ-PL2021 00190 - 5196 23,d Ct SW Page 8 of 9 ��, 2023 Packet Pg. 169 9.A.2.a RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Division staff recommends the CCPC forward petition RZ-PL20210001906 5196 23rd Ct SW to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. Attachments: A) Proposed Ordinance B) Application/Backup materials RZ-PL20210001906- 5196 23rd Ct SW Page 9 of 9 E'�5eF2 Wr�Q/4, 2023 Packet Pg. 170 9.A.2.b ORDINANCE NO.2023- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REZONING A SINGLE FAMILY LOT IN GOLDEN GATE CITY TO MULTIFAMILY, BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY-3 (RSF-3) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL MULTI- FAMILY-6 (RMF-6) ZONING DISTRICT, TO ALLOW UP TO 2 TOTAL MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON 0.29t ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5196 23RD CT SW, NAPLES, FLORIDA, ON LOT 1, BLOCK 198, GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6, IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PL20210001906) WHEREAS, Gina R. Green, P.E., on behalf of SOGNARE LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located at 5196 23rd CT SW, Naples, Florida, also described as: Lot 1, Block 198, Golden Gate Unit 6, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 131, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Residential Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) Zoning District to a Residential Multi- Family-6 (RMF-6) Zoning District to allow up to 2 multi -family units on 0.29f acres. A location map and zoning map is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein and by reference [22-CPS-02251 / 1767737/1 ] 5196 23rd Ct. SW (RZ) / PL20210001906 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 171 9.A.2.b made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Derek D. Perry 3 Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A: Location Map 2023. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Rick LoCastro, Chairman [22-C P S-02251 / 176773 7/ 11 5196 23rd Ct. SW (RZ) / PL20210001906 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 172 ((auozab) MS 40 pa£Z 966G - 906W000 ZOZ-ld : £OLVZ) aoueuipap pasodoad - V lUe Lj3ejjNf :4uewg3ejjv I I n� m fit) v t7 N M r 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 OD W O N N N f�V fPV 0 a0 0 0 0 0 N 0 ^ O N O O O O W N I N z W O F Q O J 0 N 0 N 0® N N 0 O a 4 7 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 1 0 Z a s i y;s MS IS gJ6ti 3 3 v, 3 w S� P. w �' Q ti • c`�° �r Cv MS IS gJOS 4 (A N t•) 'I� � MS any PSIS N Q S 9, S M31 PUZS A Ito, or `0 6 Z V T S Jy� � v O 3 3 53rd5 W fI ' V Q a. v W O � 53rd CL 0° M SASS 3tp M N L S T W MS 2I3 L 4abS N MS IS 4JSS �, `J' v, N MS Is glSS N N CL co O N to TO/�\ v/ 0 co 0 J i N E c 0 T" Collier County 9.A.2.c Growth Management Community Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov www.colliercountyfl.gov Collier County Planning Commission Agenda Packet Checklist for PUDs to be submitted by Applicants and Agents Please provide the following documents to support your petition request. Materials to be provided by applicant in a single PDF: ❑� Application • Narrative of rezone request • Property Information • Property Ownership and general description of site ❑� Disclosure of Interest Affidavit of Unified Control ❑� Affidavit of Representation ❑� NIM Information (Sign -in sheet, notes, minutes and/or summary, audio or video recording) ❑� Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Environmental Data Historical/Archeological Survey or Waiver �v_ Utility Letter Deviation Justifications Boundary Survey Amended PUD Ordinance (the last submitted Ordinance with strikethrough — color preferred) Other documents (as needed, on a case -by -case basis) such as relevant prior ordinances, conditional uses, historical documents, any "private or legal" agreements affecting the PUD etc. Write details below. Materials provided by Planner: • Staff Report • Complete Draft Ordinance /Resolution initialed by County Attorney 09/2022 Pa Packet Pg. 174 Coffie' r County 9.A.2.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STANDARD REZONE APPLICATION LDC Section 10.02.08 Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code PROJECT NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): SOGNARE LLC Name of Applicant if different than owner: Rafael Furlan Address: 3606 Enterprise Ave, Suite 386 City: Naples Telephone: 239-404-8187 Cell: E-Mail Address: rafael@sognarehomes.com Name of Agent: Gina R. Green, P.E. Firm: Gina R. Green, P.A. Address: 3310 1 st Ave NW Telephone: 239-348-05000 City: Naples Cell: 239-229-6238 E-Mail Address: ggreeneng@aol.com PROPERTY INFORMATION State: FL ZIP: 34104 Fax: State: FL ZIP: 34120 Fax: 866-720-4823 Provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application, if space is inadequate, attach on separate page: • If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; • The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre -application meeting; and • The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: 21 49 26 Lot: 1 Block: 198 Subdivision: Golden Gate Unit 6 Plat Book: 5 Page #: 131 Property I.D. Number: 36314800009 09/28/2017 Packet Pg. 175 9.A.2.c Coibe' r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Size of Property: 100 ft. x 125 ft. = 12366 Total Sq. Ft. Acres: 0.28_ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: 5196 23rd Ct SW, SE corner of 23rd CT SW and Hunter Blvd ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N RMF-6 RESIDENTIAL-2 FAMILY S RMF-6 RESIDENTIAL-2 FAMILY E RSF-3 RESIDENTIAL -SINGLE FAMILY W RMF-6 RESIDENTIAL-2 FAMILY If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page) Section/Township/Range: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: RSF-3 Zoning district(s) to the RMF-6 zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: VACANT Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the subject property: RESIDENTIAL - 2 FAMILY Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 176 9.A.2.c Codier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 ASSOCIATIONS Requirement: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: City: State: ZIP: EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC section 10.02.08, staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, please provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, future land use map and elements of the Growth Management Plan. 2. The existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property for the proposed change. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment (rezone) when necessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 177 9.A.2.c Coibe' r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code Ch. 106, art. II], as amended]. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? None Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes [E—] No if so please provide copies. 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 178 Codie' r County 9.A.2.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Standard Rezone Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Codr The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 Pre -Application meeting notes 1 ✓ Project Narrative 1 ✓ Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Utility Provisions Statement with sketches 1 ✓ ❑ Signed and Sealed Survey 1 ✓ Conceptual Site Plan 1 ✓ Architectural Rendering it List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 1 ✓ Warranty Deeds 1 Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 ❑ Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous 1 Elsurveys RI Current aerial photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project❑ boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. ❑✓ ❑ Historical Survey or waiver request 1 ❑ ✓ Traffic Impact Statement, with applicable fees 1 ✓ School Impact Analysis Application — residential projects only 1 ✓ :::N- Electronic copy of all documents and plans 1 ✓ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan." 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 179 Coibe' r County 9.A.2.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following additional reviewers: Ej Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director ❑ Historical Review ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson ❑ Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams and David Berra ❑ Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart 0 Other: Fire ❑ Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS F1 Pre -Application Meeting: $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -application meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre -application meeting will be required) IX Rezone Petition (regular): $6,000.00 plus $25.00 an acre (or fraction thereof) o Additional Fee for 5t" and subsequent reviews: 20% of original fee Lx Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $750.00 Listed/Protected Species Survey: $1,000.00 EX Estimated Legal Advertising: o CCPC- $1,125.00 o BCC- $500.00 1� Transportation Fee: o Methodology Review: $500.00 (Additional fees to be determined at Methodology meeting) IX School Concurrency Review: If required, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Agent/Owner Signature GINA R. GREEN, P,E, Date Applicant/Owner Name (please print) 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 180 9.A.2.c NARRATIVE STATEMENT FOR REZONE FROM RSF-3 TO RMF-6 FOR 5196 23RD CT SW, NAPLES, FL 34116 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC section 10.02.08, staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, please provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, future land use map and elements of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed rezone from RSF-3 to RMF-6 will be consistent with the goals, objective, future land use map and elements of the Growth Management Plan. The base zoning of 4 dwelling units per acre and the less than 1 mile proximity of this site to the Activity Center in Golden Gate City allows for a bonus of 3 dwelling units per acre, allow for this site to qualify for 7 units per acre, which equates to 2 units for the 0.29 AC site. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use residential single family. The proposed use is Residential 2 family. The surrounding properties to the north, south and west are improved with residential 2-family structures and are on RMF-6 zoned property. The property to the east is residential single family and is improved with a single-family home. The property to the southeast of this site is improved with a residential 2-family structure. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The rezone of this site will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The properties to the north, south and west are zoned RMF-6 and the property to the east is RSF-3. The change to RMF-6 from RSF-3 will be consistent with adjacent zoning. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property for the proposed change. The existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions since all of the other properties on Hunter Blvd are zoned RMF-6. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment (rezone) when necessary. The changing conditions within the housing market and the need for housing in affordable areas of the Collier County contribute to the need for this zoning change from RSF-3 to RMF- 6. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not adversely affect the living conditions of the neighborhood since the adjacent properties to the north, south and west are improved as residential 2-family structures. Packet Pg. 181 9.A.2.c NARRATIVE STATEMENT FOR REZONE FROM RSF-3 TO RMF-6 FOR 5196 23RD CT SW, NAPLES, FL 34116 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The change from a single-family house to a 2-family structure will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion nor will it be incompatible with the surrounding land use since the adjacent properties on the north, south & west sides of this property were improved as residential 2-family structures. The addition unit will not excessively increase peak volumes or type of vehicular traffic in this area. The construction activities for a 2-family structure is comparable to the construction of a single-family residence. The proposed construction will not no affect to public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed 2 family structure will be constructed under the some stormwater management rules as required by Collier County Land Development that a single-family residence and will not create any drainage problems. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will have a larger side setback for a 2-family structure, which will create more light and air between this site and the existing single family residence to the east of this property. The side setback will increase from 7.5 feet to 10 feet. 10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed change will not seriously affect property values in the adjacent area due to it is compatible with the and the same as most of the adjacent improved uses. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. All of the adjacent properties are improved as 2-family or single-family residences. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed change will not constitute a grant of special privilege to this owner and will not affect the public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Due to the lack of housing in the affordable areas of Collier County, the additional unit this rezone creates is in an area where it is compatible and needed. The site could be improved with a single-family home but developing the site as a 2-family site is consistent with the need in this community. Packet Pg. 182 9.A.2.c NARRATIVE STATEMENT FOR REZONE FROM RSF-3 TO RMF-6 FOR 5196 23RD CT SW, NAPLES, FL 34116 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed change is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood of the County due to the lack of housing in the affordable areas of Collier County, the additional unit this rezone creates is in an area where it is compatible and needed. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. These type of sites for this proposed use are predominantly in this area of the County and there are not many unimproved sites left to develop within the County. The need for rentals in an affordable area in a prime concern in Collier County. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The proposed zoning classification of RMF-6 for the size of this property will only allow 2 units. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration to change the use from a single-family home to a 2-family home is essentially the same. A larger single- family home could be constructed on the property that is the same square footage as the proposed 2-family structure. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code Ch. 106, art. II], as amended]. The proposed 2-family structure is comparable in size to a large single-family structure that could be built on this site. The site could be developed with a septic system at this time since it does not have available central sewer within 200 feet of the site. Therefore the small incremental water demand between a large single family home and a 2--family structure is not significant and will be consistent with the levels of service adopted by the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The zoning change to allow for an additional dwelling unit has no significant impact to this community nor the public health, safety and welfare of the County. Packet Pg. 183 9.A.2.c R. GREEN, P.A. June 28, 2022 Collier County —Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: 5196 23rd CT SW Rezone - 5196 23rd CT SW, Naples, FL Standard Rezone from RSF-3 to RMF-6—Project Narrative Electronically submitted To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this letter as a request for review and approval for a Standard Rezone from RSF-3 to RMF-6 for the vacant proper- ty at 5196 23rd CT SW, Naples, FL 34116. The site is 12,366 square feet, 0.28 acres. It is located at the southeast corner of 23rd CT SW and Hunter Boulevard in Golden Gate City. The site is presently vacant and zoned RSF-3 which allows for a single-family home. The owner proposes to rezone the property to RMF-6 to allow for the construction of a 2-family structure. The base zoning allows for 4 units per acre, this site is within one mile of an activity center and qualifies for a 3 units per acre bonus. The 7 units per acre density would allow this site to be developed with a 2-family structure. The property to the east of this site is zoned RSF-3 and is improved with a single-family home. The sites to the north, south and west are zoned RMF-6 and are improved with 2-family structures. The site has central water distribution for potable water available along Hunter Boulevard. The site does not have central sewer available within 200 feet, therefore a private on -site septic system will provide sewer service. Stormwater management will be pro- vided in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. The site was previously cleared many years ago with the development of Golden Gate City. Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER 3310 1st Avenue NW Naples, Florida 34120 Phone:239-348-0500 Mobile: 239-229-6238 Fax:866-720-4823 Email: ggreeneng@aol.com Packet Pg. 184 9.A.2.c Cottier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 'ROPFRTY n%AiKirRc41ia nISCLOc-1 iRF FnRnn This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: C Name and Address I % of Ownership If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address I % of Ownership If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address I % of Ownership Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 185 Cottier County 9.A.2.c COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: e f f. Name and Address % of Ownership Rafael Furlan 50 Valeria Stadler 50 If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the 'I I IL.CI J, a L U L.RI IUIUIn J, UCI ICI luau ICJ, UI f CII LI ICI J. Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address Date subject property acquired 6/2/2 ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 186 ie COLLIER COUNTY 'wliA M NN 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DR;VE- GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTIVIENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 341.04 (239) 252-2400 FAX, (23 ) 2 2- 35 Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: Any petition required to have property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, 1 attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 6-1-22 Agent r Signature Date Rafael Furlan Agent/Owner Name (please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 187 9.A.2.c FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) 202 000,900 1, Rafael F.nan (print name), as owner/member (title, If applicable) of sognae, L-LC (company, If a licable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) owner=applicant®contract purchaser=and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize Gina Ft. G—n,P.E. to act as ourlmy representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the core. pres. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L L.C.) or Limited Company (LC.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the general partner" of the named partnership. • if the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words as trustee" • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g,, individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties# p ju are th 1 have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts i to in -e rdle. 4,5/-70 gnature Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoingrinstrument was acknowleged before me by means of physi!a Ire or online notarization this 1 'lday of L1r ' 20� �-by (printed name of owner or qualifier) n�tr �() v _r , - . —�-- Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: -Are personally known to me E3 Has produced a current drivers license 0 Has produced as identification. Notary Signature` EREZ P�`cQ;Notary LI%'MARIA - Fl,o;>' public. StateofFloridar Commission # HH C,P\OR-C'f7d-OOPI1155 Oa My Comm. Expires Se Sp49 REV 3l412020 P 30. 2024 d c 0 N N tU L M N co rn N co 0 rn 0 0 0 N 0 N J a M O v is a a 0 m c 0 .a a Q m c d E s R Q c d E t V l6 Q Packet Pg. 188 9.A.2.c EEN, P.A. December 9, 2022 Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division —Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: RZ-PL20210001906; RS3 to RMF-6- 5196 23rd Ct. SW Dear Intake Team: Enclosed please find the following documents in accordance with Collier County's Neighborhood Information Meeting Requirements. • Affidavit of Compliance • Neighborhood Information Meeting advertisement • Neighborhood Information Meeting Letter sent to property owners • Property owner list • Affidavit of Publication • Transcript of Neighborhood Information Meeting • Neighborhood Information sign in list • Powerpoint Presentation shown at the Neighborhood Information Meeting Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, ">" q*-t--� Gina R. Green, P.E. PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER 3310 1st Avenue NW Naples, Florida 34120 Phone:239-348-0500 Mobile: 239-229-6238 Fax:866-720-4823 Email: ggreeneng@aol.com Packet Pg. 189 I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or Condominium and Civic Associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an appli- cation request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighbor- hood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made aformal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed changes and. the date, time and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's lest and a copy of newspaper advertisement, which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance. Ile ,Gina R. Green, P.E. State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of Compliance was acknowledge before me this day of December, 2022 by Gina R. Green, P.E. who is personally known to me. -- (Signature of Notary Public) Panted Name of Notary ry�� Ep:NiotafY Public s0te of Florida =7 Anita M. Senloola 1 s 91 5 My commission GG 918753 00 P".s 10102J 0 or Expires 10/02J2023 (Notary Sea Packet Pg. 191 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIO PETITION 5196 23RD CT SW REZONE RZ 9.A.2.c 6 REZONE FRO RSF-3 TO RMF-6 The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting in person or via Zoom held by Gina R. Green, P.E. of Gina R. Green, P.A. December 7th, 2022 at 5:30 PM Golden Gate Community Center Meeting Room "C" 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34116 Subject Property: Parcel No. 36314800009 k f5 eb � w, MD � � A "A m A m A ~ tn 23fid Ave. SW 23rd PI. SW lard Ct. SW c O ca ra � r Cormida Pkwryr_ The property owner is petitioning Collier County to approve a rezone from RSF-3 to RMF-6 zoning to allow for a duplex/ two-family home to be built on the subject property. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation, review project materials and discuss the project with the owner and Collier County Staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone or e-mail to: Gina R. Green, P.E. Gina R. Green, P.A. 3310 1st AVE NW, Naples, FL 34120 Telephone: (239) 348-0500 Email: ggreeneng@aol.com Zoom Meeting Link: https://usO5web.zoom.us/j/6886024573?pwd=eHJxdlVueD BmOG91 SXlvaFZ Meeting ID: 68 Packet Pg. 192 Passcode: K r ND-GC10976085-01 9.A.2.c GINA R. GREEN, P.A. J November 21, 2022 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that a formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of the 5196 23rd CT SW Re- zone under RZ-PL20210001906 for the vacant property at 5196 23rd CT SW, Naples, FL 34116. The petitioner is asking Collier County to approve this application for a rezone from RSF-3 to RMF-6 to allow a duplex home to be built on the subject property. In compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 7th, 2022 at 5:30 pm at Meeting Room "C" at the Golden Gate Community Center located at 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples FL 34116. If you have any questions, comments or do not feel comfortable attending the meeting in person you have the opportunity to partici- pate virtually via an online zoom meeting. At the meeting, the petitioner will explain the project in detail, record your input as an interested neighbor and answer any questions you may have. The link and passcode for the online zoom meeting are shown below. Zoom Meeting Link: hlt 2s://us05web.zoom.us/j/6886024573?pwd=eHJxdlVueDBmOG91 SXlvaFZSZTRGUT09 Meeting ID: 688 602 4573 Passcode: K6MNOr If you are unable to attend the meeting in person or participate virtually, and have questions or comments, they can also be directed by mail, phone or e-mail to the contact information provided below. PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER 3310 1st Avenue NW Naples, Florida 34120 Phone:239-348-0500 Mobile: 239-229-6238 Fax:866-720-4823 Email: ggreeneng@aol.com Packet Pg. 193 MS 13 PJ£Z 96�S - 906WOO MZ'ld : £OLK) slepejew do)joeS-uoi;eaijddd - 8 juauayaeIld :;uauayaejjv � N � Q � � a oS00000000000000SSS000r00000r00000S0000000ror00000000000000000000SooSooS Y o V K 0 25 U_ a as as � a a iO as as a� C7a a a 0 O a I v � K KK KK tO K K p KN KK Km r� O O O O O K O z O v N v N O o a 00N. ONrn v o _ _ 02O O _ m O ro N O O H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rn �i �irnrnrnrnrn �i �irnrn �i �irnrnrn �irnrn �irnrnrnrnrn �irnrnrnrnrnrnrn �irn �irnrnrnrnrnrnrn �i �irnrnrn �irnrnrn �i �i �irnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn �irn Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N N NN NN NN NN N N N N NN NN N NN NNNN N N N N N N N N N N .......... H H H H H H H H H H H H H H .......... H ............ H H H H H H H H H ..... H H H H H .... H Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H U' z C7z C7C7C7C7C7C7C7C7z C7C7z z z C7z C7C7C7C7C7C7z z C7z z z C7C7z C7C7z z z z z C7C7z C7z z z w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w O O O O p O O p p p p p p p p O p p p O 0 0 p O p p O O p p p p p p O p O O p O 0 0 p O O p p O p p p O p O 0 0 p O p O p p p O p p p p O p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U' U' U' U' C7 U' U' C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 U' C7 C7 C7 U' U' U' C7 U' C7 C7 U' U' C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 U' C7 U' U' C7 U' U' U' C7 U' U' C7 C7 U' C7 C7 C7 U' C7 U' U' U' C7 U' C7 U' C7 C7 C7 U' C7 C7 U' C7 U' C7 a o N v m r j o o m N rnm mN Y, m IN v r� o'�, v rn rn rn N N rn o a M r o o m o 0 o g o N o m o o m o 0 0 0 0 o m o m m o o o o co W 16,616 6 16 6 6 6 & m & �66& A ooro &6 66666666 c��mNN��c �cLL��c �c �c o��o co'o 6 6 & & & d' 1616 '�!c rn(c 112 �6�99 0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J O J J W F LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL J LL LL LL LL LL LL co co co oa oa oa oa oaS nS w w �w w 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 w o- oaoaaNQ aLL aLL oLL oLL oLLf LLf LLf LLi LLf wwww y ooaoH oLLf aLLi aLLi aLLi yLL aLLi aLLi aLLi aLLi a aLLi a w wwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww-wwwwwwwwwwwwwww—wwwwwwwww aaaO aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa i m p o JJ a a w? y y y W W J y 3o N O Q y p J Q y yQw' OO M M > w > J gQ w Kzw o U ZU� ZZc7w w y H N H N > H J K3 a � a � U, C7 wFr riles d,r w w U a U 2� v Z v w o o m pUp K y K K Q W LL oo x 3w oo mN m J d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m m iT) NN N i # 00 p ON > J O N N O J 3Z m Z K 5�7 tq 30 w K H ww Ylli m m woo W w 3 Qp J w w-�9 j a K ury ury 3 0 oo zo g s Q H w W Q m w z g o W w? w w w Q r 3 aJ33 � YZm J o 3 wJ 3� 33j 'w Qo3r a3> �w 3p p 3 w2y� w M ox5oowwR2 6�www wJ3wwo��3wwJ3Fa��3�ww �wJa�3 wUQo wNw�3 ow cog K m K K a o] o K>-- U m Z O w 3 w w w- w w x w m w w w w w w w m w m U w x z< w w- m w w r r �mwr0~ w O O O w Q w W w U Q N O r NE r 'DwQ r Q w O x Q Q a w ww�r w� O Q w U w ury r 0 i i w= U a w N p Up Vx-N Kg NNOK =KZwppm FinaQdm= No wu~i Z �Kk HH~YzaXJ~7KYr~i)wzQ»wpOKr yaK0 inNQ�n pwp =N�vUi Cal a�OU u`"ia J JGGm 2N�dKQ�u~iOZN UQQv� N2N wo NwN OQ>QNm W v� W uNiUz�3�ow No mNC7 p ��d'oZN rKNoaN o W W �m N�w�� pZ� ryw VV -No uNi r�i�m2� V wuoi �i�voio�mrn o 0 o tOQoaM �i NarmOmMMObiKKmNuteriM W 2Q a M K W NNMNMOo GwN0 thONNQ Jx vMuNNi r ul u�N�u��t�t�N��N�wNNt�raa wm M �HN N� m U t�Nt�Nt�NNo�°vvvY NaUu�Nm>t��t� HmmOUNu�NNNu�v z m' o Z g J K Q W Z Z ww o Z. Q�� w w N(D w w ow °-°� �m pW Ow a Q wQ Z w a Z p~ Z o K W aa w Z N >>�~ zw O~ o (w(�� ~ N OU Y w N o OIV KZZ w- W a C7 W �C7O W w2KjpH K�-0 Q Z�- W OOQ O o w a z a w N j H w w a K W O_ w w 0~ K- a a a Q 0 N O w o a s J jy w z p o a a O y p- U o o O Z U m W m O O W r> w a o d U U U Z J o< K U J�awoz�N�oa�agaza��i�� °o ao�z��?a$�a�zw w=� aw o�&Qwa�w ��wr� o agzw C U W x LL J W d K K Z Q= LLp Q Q W w o Q W W 2 Z 0 m m Q QQ pQQ O Y Z J J J J a Z p 2�Q Z IV IV IV IV W J d J W Q LLi 7 U a W 0' C7 O Z 2 2 w pQ o w 22¢ a— '� Ha C7 2 K W K Q 7 7 0 w Z C7 d W CW7 Y w O w w w w O� Z 3' O Y O O Q p O Z K K K w Q O z O O m w w m J o� �p�a aRoozjmyMo--wKU W 7Kw U W �Z U�zmzmw¢ oA3-m'ougr2u uiuiOO2�K x ooMp woo d �5��o M wd ooaw5Eoo��aawwooaw�Qw< 52w QwJwiaaaww�Q�p��Z^ zzz�� o ¢Q�o IL N a a a a a m m U U U U U p p p p p o W W LL ITT LL LL. U' 2 x x x J 7 2 2 2 2 Z 2 a a a a a O w w w w w w o w>> ?i N C7 Final Publication Date 11117/2022 Ad Number GC10976085-01 Publication NAPLES NEWS Market NAPLES Delivery Method Email Number of Affidavits Needed 1 Customer Name GINA R GREEN PA Customer Phone Number 2393480500 Customer Address 3310 1ST AVE NW NAPLES FL 34120 2704 Account Number (if Known) 867894 Customer Email ggreeneng@aol.com Your Name PATTI ROUSE Email Address Prouse@gannett.com Packet Pg. 195 9.A.2.c �ttp�es ��il� dews PART OF -THE USA TODAY NETWORK Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 GINA R GREEN PA 3310 1ST AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34120 ATTN Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared who on oath says that they serve as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida , for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 11/17/2022 Subscribed and sworn to before on NOVEMBER 17TH, 2022 otary, St to of nt o Br Mycommissio e res: PUBLICATION COST: $S39.60 AD No: GC10976085 CUSTOMER NO:867894 ENANCY HEYRMANPO#: PUBLIC NOTICE Public AD SIZE: DISPLAY AD 2X8 f Wisconsin Packet Pg. 196 9.A.2.c NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PETITION 5196 23RD CT SW REZONE RZ-PL20210001906 REZONE FROM RSF-3 TO RMF-6 The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting in person or via Zoom held by Gina R. Green, P.E. of Gina R. Green, PA. December 7th, 2022 at 5:30 PM Golden Gate Community Center Meeting Room "C" 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34116 Subject Property: Parcel No. 36314800009 c r n a to m w n 23rd Ave. SW 23rd PI. SW 23rd Ct. SW 0 °' i.aenrron ;� a Coronada Pkwy. The property owner is petitioning Collier County to approve a rezone from RSF-3 to RMF-6 zoning to allow for a duplex/ two-family home to be built on the subject property. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation, review project materials and discuss the project with the owner and Collier County Staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone or e-mail to: Gina R. Green, P.E. Gina R. Green, P.A. 3310 1st AVE NW, Naples, FL 34120 Telephone: (239) 348-0500 Email: ggreeneng@aol.com Zoom Meeting Link: hftps://usOSweb.zoom.us/*/6886024573?pwd= HJxdl VueD BmOG91 SXlvaFZSZTRGUT09 Meeting ID: 688 602 4573 Passcode: K6MNOr ND-CC10976085-01 Packet Pg. 197 9.A.2.c TRANSCRIPT OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING There was no one in attendance, therefore no minutes. Waited until 5:45 pm Wednesday December 7, 2022. Tim Finn & Gina R. Green were in attendance. Packet Pg. 198 SIGN IN SHEET 9.A.2.c NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING RZ-PL20210001906; RS3 to RMF-6- 5196 23rd Ct. SW NAME ADDRESS NO ONE IN ATTENDANCE OTHER THAN TIM FINN AND GINA R. GREEN, P.E. Packet Pg. 199 R sleua;ew dnMoe8-uoi;eoijddy - 9UG - 906WOUZOZld : £OLVZ) sleiia;eW do)joe8-uoi;eoijddV - 9 4uewLjoej4v :4uewgoe44V N Q rn � 0 N 6) IL z 1 U m IL 9M - 906W006ZOZld : £OLVZ) sleua;eW do)ioe8-uoi;eoilddV - g ;uewLioel4v :;uauayoe14V N Q O n C/D � H CID U Cd n � � H O 4-4 Cn / � � (D � N W /i Q +, M n � w � Cd Cd O 0 O O� W O N Cd > �4 n �O H O O Ll� � T 4--) a) 0 r, �4 O 4 LO w U LO N O Cd cY) M 1 VD •4 � / C ✓ ) ro U r Cd C) r cn C) Cu CO N C) Cd C/J CO VD C%J a--� f4 � OCID 9 w aJ PI r� C/D O ti y .C40 o 0 0 o C� N Co N a m Y V R IL 96LS - 90660004ZOZld : £OLVZ) sleua;eW do)Iae8-uoi4eaiIddy - a ;uewyae;;y :;uewyae;;y V N Q Q) din 1-3-3 3NOZ3H swoisvau _ Yd 'N33N9 N V'NIO �YYRYY E g m 3 `g is Si F - iQ i ------ ------ t------ ------' i __-------------_ _-.v 8� O21VA37/)09 v 2131NnH .tea a ¢ � s S q p A Y R= RI �i o RY $y8g yy#g# 1 €s 4�np� 0M M O N 6) a a� Y V R a 96LS - 90660004ZOZld : £OLVZ) sleua;eW do)joe8-uopooijddy - a ;uewyoe;;y :;uewyoe;;y N Q Q) Wei sxoisws 'V"d 'N33t19w?/ h'N/9 °"''°"s�"s�°":u �N g�4 Ilk q FF Y 3 i y ki 1 + 3 a (TavM-JO-llpla ttll�l .901 nainoo &NnH �*"M"M' C �t !{ Qa a q p be i6 � a- a 0 N 6) IL a� Y V R IL 96LS - 90660004ZOZld : £OLVZ) sleuoloW do)jae8-uoi4eaijddy - a ;uewyae;;y :;uewyoe;;y N Q rn ■eeeeeeeeeeeeeedeeeeeeeeeeeeees ® ■eeeeeee eeeeReeeeeo� eeeeeeeeedeeeeeeee eeeeeeee"Oeeeeeee© ��■em■ee ��eeeeecaa��a��e ■e��edeeeeeeee� _ ■O■��1 ooesZ�dwa „noaes-andO ie3'JJ saomosa olooloaepae io ouolsip oupeuolsop—as Nunw lelo6Jo au7— sdeW R]IIIQegwd Ieol6ol08euoiypuo4slH aW. o° a V; o w_ �w o zw 8� w> �0 o U w4O y� Q LLogO-a W QQ U �za�o x V -8w�� w o o �aEw?w oo�oww A2. 10? �Om8�S m Q LZOVUIG ONINOZ NOISIA3N1SV1 LO 0 N IL a� Y V R IL 9.A.2.c TREBILCOCK CONSULTING SOLUTIONS Traffic Impact Statement Prepared for: 5196 23rd Ct SW Rezone Collier County, Florida 5/2/2022 Prepared by: Sognare Homes Inc. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 3506 Enterprise Ave, Suite 386 2800 Davis Blvd, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239.404.8187 Phone: 239.566.9551 Email: ntrebilcock(@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee — $500.00 Fee Collier Countv Transportation Review Fee — Small Scale Studv — No Fee Note: to be collected at time of first submittal Packet Pg. 206 5196 23,d Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. This item has been electronically signed and sealed by Norman I Trebilcock, P.E., State of Florida license 47116, using a SHA-1 authentication code. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed, and the SHA-1 authentication code must be verified on any electronic copies. Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PTOE, PE FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Blvd, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 2 Packet Pg. 207 9.A.2.c 5196 23,d Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 Table of Contents ProjectDescription.......................................................................................................................................4 TripGeneration.............................................................................................................................................5 Trip Distribution and Assignment.................................................................................................................6 BackgroundTraffic........................................................................................................................................ 6 Existing and Future Roadway Network......................................................................................................... 6 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -Link Analysis............................................................................ 7 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis...................................................................................................................... 8 Hunter Blvd —Turn Lane Warrant.............................................................................................................8 ImprovementAnalysis..................................................................................................................................8 Mitigationof Impact.....................................................................................................................................8 Appendices Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan..........................................................................................................9 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting).................................................................11 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 11th Edition.......................................................................19 Appendix D: Project Access Turning Movements......................................................................................23 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 3 Packet Pg. 208 9.A.2.c 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 Project Description The subject project proposes to rezone the property from RSF-3 to RMF-6. The site is located on the southeast corner of Hunter Blvd and 23rd Ct SW in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Refer to Figure 1— Project Location Map, which follows, and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Figure 1— Project Location Map I The subject project site is currently vacant and has a total area of approximately 0.29 acres. The site is currently zoned as RSF-3. This TIS is in support of the rezone of this property to RMF-6. The property is currently zoned to allow 1 single family unit. The developer proposes to allow the construction of 2 single family attached units. The purpose of this Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) is to document the transportation impacts associated with the proposed request. The traffic report is in agreement with the latest adopted Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures. The project provides the highest and best use scenario with respect to the project's proposed trip generation. Consistent with the recommendations illustrated in Collier County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures, traffic generation associated with the proposed development is evaluated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (TGM), 111h Edition and ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. The ITE land use designation associated with the development program is illustrated in Table 1. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 14 Packet Pg. 209 9.A.2.c 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 Table 1: Development Program ITE Land Use Proposed Land Use ITE Land Use Total Size Code Single -Family Attached Single Family Housing 215 2 Dwelling Units Housing For purposes of this evaluation, the project build -out year is assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2027 planning horizon. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on April 29, 2022 by email (refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist). Connection to Hunter Blvd is proposed as a right-in/right-out access. The proposed site plan can be seen in Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Trip Generation The project's site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 111h Edition and the software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software, most recent version). The ITE recommended trip rates are used for the traffic generation calculations. The ITE — OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 11th Edition. Internal capture accounts for a reduction in external traffic because of the interaction between the multiple land uses in a site. Consistent with the ITE recommendations, no internal capture is considered for this site. The pass -by trips account for traffic that is already on the external roadway network and stops at the project on the way to a primary trip destination. No pass -by reductions are considered for this site. The estimated trip generation is illustrated in Table 2. Table 2: Trip Generation (Rezone — Proposed Conditions) — Average Weekday 24 Hour Two- AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Way Volume ITE Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 215 — Single -Family 2 du 14 0 1 1 1 0 1 Attached Housing Note: du = dwelling units In agreement with the Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net external traffic) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in the Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 15 Packet Pg. 210 9.A.2.c 5196 23,d Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 Collier County 2021 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM. For the purpose of this report, the roadway network concurrency analysis is evaluated based on projected PM peak hour traffic generated by the project. The site access turn lane analysis is evaluated based on the projected traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak hour (refer to Table 2). Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the development was assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and consistent with the transportation methodology (Appendix B). Hunter Blvd is not a Collier County monitored roadway. For the purposes of the roadway network concurrency analysis, Collier County AUIR Roadway Link no. 144.0 Shadowlawn Drive will be used as a similar type roadway for capacity and level of service. All of the project generated traffic will be distributed onto Hunter Blvd with the northbound entering movements to be the peak direction. The entering movements are 1 vph and exiting movements are 0 vph for the PM peak hour. Background Traffic Background traffic growth is based on the peak hour peak direction volumes outlined in the 2021 Collier County AUIR. As Hunter Blvd is not a monitored roadway, it is not included in the AUIR, and the 2021 vehicle volumes are not known. Therefore, a background traffic analysis will not be performed. Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2021 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5-Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements were identified in the Collier County 2021 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build -out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 3: Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 6 Packet Pg. 211 9.A.2.c 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 Table 3: Existing and Future Roadway Conditions CC 2021 2021 Peak Dir, 2027 Peak 2021 2027 2027 Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Min. Peak Hr Dir, Peak Hr Roadway Roadway Standard Link Link ID Location Standard Capacity Capacity Condition Condition LOS # LOS Volume Volume Blvd*r N/A Site 23Access SW o 2U D 800 (EB) 2U D 800 (EB) Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D =4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service *Not a Collier County monitored roadway Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future (2027). The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both of the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. As illustrated in Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 6.02.02 — M.2., once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segment using Collier County TIS criterion, the development's impact is not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments. Table 4: Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) — With Project in the Year 2027 2021 Peak Roadway / Vol CC AUIR Roadway Link Dir, Peak Hr Link, Peak Capacity Roadway Link Link ID # Location Capacity Peak Hr Dir, Impact By Volume (Project Vol Project Added) Hunter Blvd* N/A Site Access to 23rd Ct SW 800 (NB)** NB-1 0.1% Note(s): *Not a Collier County monitored roadway **Based on Collier County Roadway Link no. 144.0 In agreement with the Collier County Growth Management Plan — Transportation Element — Policy 5.2, project traffic that is 1% or less of the adopted peak hour service volume represents a de minimis impact. As illustrated in Table 4, the projected traffic impact is de minimis for the purposes of this application. Based on the LOS evaluation, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. In addition, Hunter Blvd is classified as a local roadway, and it is not a hurricane evacuation route. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 17 Packet Pg. 212 9.A.2.c 5196 23,d Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis Connection to Hunter Blvd is proposed as a right-in/right-out access. The proposed site plan can be seen in Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Turn lane requirements are evaluated based on projected external traffic during the AM and PM peak hour. The project estimated traffic is illustrated in Table 2 and Appendix C of this report. Hunter Blvd is a two-lane, divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph in the vicinity of the project site. Project access is evaluated for turn lane warrants based on Collier County Construction Standards Handbook: (a) two-lane roadways — 40vph for right -turn lane/20vph for left -turn lane; and (b) multi -lane divided roadways — right turn lanes shall always be provided; when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left turn lanes. The estimated project trips at access location are consistent with the fact that 100% of the entering vehicles are turning right and 100% of the exiting vehicles are turning right. Project access turning movements can be found in Appendix D. Hunter Blvd — Turn Lane Warrant The proposed project is expected to accommodate 0 vehicle per hour (vph) and 1 vph northbound right turning movements during AM and PM peak hour, respectively. As such based on the criteria illustrated in the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook, a dedicated right -turn lane is not warranted at the project access location (projected traffic does not meet the 40 vph threshold). Improvement Analysis The concurrency analysis determined that the proposed project is not a significant and adverse traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. In addition, the traffic analysis determined that the projected traffic impact is de minimis. Based upon the results of the turn lane analysis performed within this report, turn lane improvements are not warranted at the project access location. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 18 Packet Pg. 213 9.A.2.c 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 9 Packet Pg. 214 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c s*rrAFm AN& s D SK L=39.27' ----- _AUMMR$ R--25.00' 23rd COURT SW T=25.00' BD' TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ea0'00ro0- \'Er CHB=S45'00 00'W LT NTEIb T E AS PER FUT Ct"5.36' t 7 t' PVh' A 2(PA-PMAL PWT. «i S.I.R. sw F.I.R. 5/r c8- 8203 S9roovo E mor NO to 6 El87' _ U.E.B LOT BLOCK -198 I INLET LAND ARLA=_ 12.766 SO, FT OR 10.26 ACRES II I a 5' OUT Ui �• _ 10.50' 46 oo 12 I LOT-2 BLOCK -19s I I ' m I (IMPROVED) ml I s I I I al I ZI I I I s.sD' i +GCF l I _ I I GUY N PL �a EAST- :.�nc 100.00' FI.R.§w NO I0- 2 ! C04G LOT-20 I LOT -19 u I DRIVEWAY BLOCK -19R o I BLOCK -198 I (IMPROVED) I Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 10 Packet Pg. 215 9.A.2.c 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1 11 Packet Pg. 216 5196 23,d Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c LNZTUL -IJIEETr' G C:HECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a ivoi-ksheet to ensure that no important elements aixe overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply, or -NIA (not applicable). Date: Apd! 29, 2022 Time: N/A Location: NA — Via Email People Amnding: Itiatue; Organization, and Telephone Ntuubers 1) NUchael S23y�er — Collier Cg m!y Transgar#ation PlailiY:iig 2) Nonuan Trebilcock TCS 3) Bailey N4arti.tr TCS Stud- Preparer: Preparer's Name and Title: Norman Trebilcock_ AICP. PTOE_ PE Organization: Trebilcock Coiisultmg Soluttom- PA .''address: 2800 Qa-is Blvd, Naples_ FL 34104 ph 239-566-9551 Rerjewer(s): Reviewef s -Name & Title: Michael Sawyer Organization & Telephone Number: Transpertation Plai ung ph 239-252-2613 Applicant: Applicant's Name: So a re Homes Inc - Address: 3506 Enterprise Ave Suite 386, Maples_ FL 34104 Telephone Niunber: 239-404-8187 Proposed Development: Name: 5196 23 Ct SW Rezone Location: Hunter Blvd and 23"' Ct (refer to Fig.11 Land Use Type: We Family Housing ITE Code #: L[.JC 215 — Sinyle-Family Attached Hrnrsing Description: The TIS is in support of a rezone_ The 5196 23 Ct SW proposes to rezone the property from RSF-3 to R F-6. The property currently zoned to alloiv 1 single family detached unit. The anulicant twonoses that the oronerty be rezoned to Aow 2 single family attached units Zoning Existing: RSF-3 Comprehensive plan recommendation: No change Requested: RezDne to RW-6. Page 1 of 7 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 112 Packet Pg. 217 5196 23,d Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c Fi<T,l — Pr,7jerr Luuttioir Map project Lc�twati�n Fiudings of the Prelirn;t��rr Scut: Project is not located vAdlin a TCN1A or TCEA designated area - Study Shidy type: Since estimated project net new traffic � aluirre i:� less than 50 Phi �'-�vav t k }your tries_ this studv aualifies far a Small Scale TTS_ The TIS will proLide AM-PNI peak hour trip generation. traffic distribution and assipments_ significance test "based on 2°/6121% 3% criterion. roadixay link anah-sis, and site access turn lane analysis. Roadwav cone urency an&sis — based on PNI Peak Hour weekdtay traffic — 20ia#2 %13% criterion. HunterBlvd i.s a local, nvo-lane di- ided road%vay ixith ,a local posted speed limit of 25 mph. All traffic will be distributed on Hunter Bht- Hunter Blvd is not a Collier County monitored roadway. Therefore, for concturency purposes, Sliadowlaim Drive. LAUIR Link TT# 1�.0) i,.Jll be as€tid as a similar roadmuy for capacity and level of semce purposes_ Stud- Type: {if not net increase, operational study i Small Scale TIS Z P. iior TIS ❑ Major TIS ❑ Page 2 of 7 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 13 Packet Pg. 218 5196 23,°' Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c Stud- Area: Bormdanes: West — Hinter Blvd-, North — 23"' Ct Additional intersections to be analyzed: MIA Build -out Year: 2027 Plamiiug Horizon Year 2027 Analysis Time Periods): C'oncurrrency— Pal Pe�kk Hong-, Operational —.AM and MI Peak Horan. Feature Off -Site Ekveloopments: N'A Soiuce of Trip C,enmtion Rates: ITE 1 In Edition Reductions in Iaip {generation Rates: None:1: Pass -by trips (PLM): N, A Internal trips: N/A Transit use: _N/A Other: MA Horizon Year Roadway- Network- lmpivremenm 2027 iethudolog- & Assumptinns: Non -site traffic estimates: Collier County traffic coimts and 2021 AUIR Site -trip generation: OTISS — ITE 11 th Edition Trip distnbution: Engineer Estimate - 100% of traffic on Hunter Blvd Traffic assignment method: project trip generation with back, ground growth Traffic growth rate: historical grot.'ih rate or 21/a minimum Tiuning movement assignment: 100°14 Entering — Right Tru-ti 100% Exiting — Fight Tian Special Features: (fironi preliuunary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: NIA Sight distance: +'A (Queuing: NSA Access location & configuration N'A Traffic control: MUTCD Signal system location & progression needs: MA On -site parking needs: N,'A Data Sources: CC 2021 ALTI1?_� CC Traffic Counts Base maps: NIA Prior study reports: N/A Access policy and jurisdiction: MA Re,.riew process: N/A Requirements: N/44 Miscellaneaus: NIA Page 3 of 7 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 14 Packet Pg. 219 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c Small Scale Study — No Fee X M4 a- r Stud-- $750.00 ?Major Study - $1500.00 Mediodoloe- Fee $500.00 X Inchides 0 intersections Additional Intersections - $500.00 each Allfees +rift be agreed ro drrririg the Iferhodalagy meeriirg and must be paid ra rrarrsporrariarrprzor to our sign -off am the appffeadon. SIGN A.TURE S Pgprvmav,,Treb Uzook, SmddvPreparer NormanTrebilcock Re-"iewer(s) :applicant Page 4 of Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 15 Packet Pg. 220 5196 23,°' Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c Collier Caunty Traffic Impact Study Ret--iew• Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Retrain, Analysis Review. and Sufficiency Reu w s- Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. hiethodolo-.3- Review - $5,000 Fee Methodology Review includes revieur of a submitted methodology statement- including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s), dirt ibuti on, assignment- and re5,iew of a 'Small Scale Study" detenmrination, mitten approvallcomments on a proposed methodology statement, and written conftnnation of a re -submitted, amended methodology statement, and one meeting in Collier Cou.nty, if needed - "Small Scale Study" Rexiew - No Additional Fee (hdudes one sufficiency rejienI Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review, includes: a concuriemy detriu,ination_ site access inspection and confimnation of the snwh• compliance with trip generatiori di tt-ibution and maximum threshold compliance- "Ifinor Stud;- Review-" - $7 0 Fee (includes one suffieieucv re-,iew- Review of the submtted traffic analysis includes,: optional field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, distribution, and assignment concuuency determination confuniation of committed improvements, review of traffic vohu ie data collectedfassernblei , review ofoff-site improvements within the goa-of-way, review of site access and circulation, and preparation and reviewof "sufficiency' ccmments.questions- "Major Studh-ReLiew" - $1,500 Fee (Includes two intersectou anaIrsis and two sufficitncv reviews Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, special trip generation and -or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination confirmmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected'assembled, review of traffic g mAth analysis, review of off -site roadway operations and capacity analysis, re,-iewA of site access and circulation, neigbbor-hood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates, and preparation and review of up to two rounds of'`sufirciency; ' commenis questions m&or recommended conditions of approval Additional intersection Re -hew" - $a00 Fee The review of additional intersections sha11 include the same parameters as outliued in the `lwiajof Study Re-L iew" and shall apply to each intersection above the first t vo intersections included in the "Major Study RL-vie a-.. Addidonal Suffiejetu - Resiews`' - S500 Fee Additional sufficiencyreviews beyond those initially included in the a cpfiate snvh- shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review - Page 5 of 7 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 16 Packet Pg. 221 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c :appendix A: Trip Generation ITE 111 Edition P�ge6of7 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA n 1 17 Packet Pg. 222 5196 23,d Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c P'6fe{t I i;ar matiw% P raleut Name: G1,96 23rd Ct k2 No: Date: altgf2n , Cibr- s%*jFNNIeImt; [o&: Ilipj1postal �.r,lry iwra Namc Analyst's Name; Edition: ripGonaratian Vanua 1.7lth Ed :Land Me Size weekdsy AM Peak Maur PM Peak Maur Entry Exit Entry Eiil Entry Exit 1S-Voela-Fan+IIYA PA*4Haws+E faantial Urbark SNbLlrban1 2 DweEing Units _ €ladurtion U l: Irtarnal U LI Pass -by it 11 1' - Yan-pass•by 7 7- gkal C+ - atal fladuetiem U LI II at#IImeena1 n 0 n m,- alal Pali -by it r i - Total NGA pt ;-6y F F Page 7 of 7 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g F 1 18 Packet Pg. 223 9.A.2.c 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 11th Edition Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 19 Packet Pg. 224 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c Project Information Project Name: 5196 23rd Ct RZ No: Date: 4/29/2022 City: State/Province: Zip/Postal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: Trip Generation Manual, 11th Ed Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit 215 - Single -Family Attached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) 2 Dwelling Units 7 7 0 1 1 0 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nan -pass -by 7 7 0 1 1 0 Total 7 7 0 1 1 0 Total Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totallnternal D D 0 0 0 0 Total Pass -by D D 0 0 0 0 Total Non -pass -by 7 7 0 1 1 0 Wr • Analysis Name: Project Name: Date: State/Province: Country: Analyst's Name: Weekday 5196 23rd Ct RZ 4/29/2022 Land Use Independent Variable 215 - Single -Family Dwelling Units Attached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) (0) indicates size out of range. No. C ity: Zip/Postal Code: Client Name: Edition: Size Time Period 2i01 Weekday Method Average 7.2 Trip Generation Manual, 11th Ed Entry Exit 7 7 50% 50% Total 14 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 20 Packet Pg. 225 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c Weekday Landuse No deviations from ITE. Methods No deviations from ITE_ External Trips 215 - Single -Family Attached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case_ Analysis Name Project Name Date: StatelProvince: Country: Analyst's Name: AM Peak Hour 5196 23rd Ct RZ 4129/2022 Land Use � Independent ` Variabie 215 - Single -Family Dwelling Units Attached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) (0) indicates size out of range. No: C ity: ZiplPostal Code: Client Name: Edition: Size Time Period Method 2(0) Weekday, Peak Average Hour of Adjacent 0.48 Street Traffic, One Hour Behveen 7 and 9 a.m. Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m Landuse No deviations from ITE. Methods No deviations from ITE. External Trips 215 - Single -Family Attached Housing (General Urban/Suburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Ed Entry Exit Total 0 1 1 0% 100% Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 21 Packet Pg. 226 5196 23,d Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c Analysis Name: Project Name: Date: Statef Provi nce: Country: Analyst's Name: PM Peak Hour 5196 23rd Ct RZ 4/2912022 No: City: ZiptPostal Code: Client Name: Edition: Independent LIndep and Use S! Time Period Meth 215 - Single -Family Dwelling Units 20) Weekday, Peak Average Attached Housing HourofAdjacent 0.57 (General Street Traffic, Urban/Suburban) One Hour Betvieen 4 and 6 P.M. (0) indicates size out of range. Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Landuse No deviations from ITE Methods No deviations from ITE_ External Trips 215 - Single -Family Attached Housing (General UrbanlSuburban) ITE does not recommend a particular pass -by% for this case. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Ed Entry Exit Total 1 0 1 100% 0% Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 22 Packet Pg. 227 9.A.2.c 5196 23'd Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 Appendix D: Project Access Turning Movements Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA n 1 23 Packet Pg. 228 5196 23,d Ct SW — Rezone - TIS — May 2022 9.A.2.c Project Site Access Turning Movements Percentage N Project Location i Exit: 100% Enter: 100% Project Site Access Turning Movements by AM and PM Peak Hour N Exit Project Location AM: 1 PM: 0 �...... • , Enter---•-•1 AM: 0 PM: 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P 1 24 Packet Pg. 229 9.A.2.c Coibe' r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR STANDARD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): Sognare, LLC Address: 3606 Enterprise Ave, Suite 386 Telephone: 239-404-8187 Cell: City: Naples State: FL E-Mail Address: rafael@sognarehomes.com Address of Subject Property (If available): 5196 23rd CT SW City: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34116 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section/Township/Range: 24� 26 Lot: 1 Block: 198 Subdivision: Golden Gate Unit 6 Plat Book: 5 Page #: 131 Metes & Bounds Description: Fax: Property I.D. Number: 36314800009 TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System Provide Name:. d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): e. Septic System ✓ ZIP: 34104 I TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED I a. County Utility System ✓ b. City Utility System C. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: 5 Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water -Peak: 910 gpd B. Sewer -Peak: 1.5 gpm Average Daily: 700 gpd Average Daily: 500 GPD 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 230 9.A.2.c Codier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: Sept 2023 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. Site will utilize an on -site private Septic System with Septic tank and Drainfield. Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. The site will connect to the existing water distribution lines adjacent to the site with no extensions required. A private Septic system will provide sewer collection for the site. No new facilities will need to be dedicated. Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre -application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. I PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 H. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. 09/28/217 Packet Pg. 231 NO13M530tlNItlN09 ALlllfl Zz ,s,Qo 9114E ld 'S3ldVN CMS lO 08EZ 9615 a0d 3NOZ38 O8VONVIS O11'38tlN00S E °0 oY U J ° m .00'SZL N1NON "_ g .0 oe o``\ m , mo am \ � 3o ssns rye s � s -- ------ s oo'u F & � o g $ I a s -- - a� y �v yI go ---------------- m a O .00'OE aouono3a �as)reias „ne3a�sa�na3du. ,\ � =ea 1 i /J ® 'es ,00"OOL N1nos J xms �000 Z. ,zse O O M N N p 0 <6' 1 II lal V� O p Z oe in U d N II m U 7— AVM—JO—IHOIRJ lVlbl ,901 abdn37noo 2l31 _ _ �p z g eo 3 5IJJo A.- i , a=NpR. pee 3 GEOMETRIC SURVEYING INC. 9.A.2.c G2804 DEL PRADO BLVD S, SUITE 205 S CAPE CORAL, FL 33904 ASSISTANCE@GEOMETRICSURVEYING.COM (239)-540-6257 (239)-471-2237 ale CTXW d LOCATION SKETCH VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY N 4) SCALE=ALT.S. 5196 23rd COURT SW, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34116 ABBREV/ATIONS A =ARC. ELEV.=ELEVATON AIC =A/RCOND/T/ONERPAD ENCR. =ENCROACHMENT A =ANCHOR EASEMENT F.H.=FIREHYDRANT A.R. =ALUM/NUMROOF F;1P. =FOUND IRON PIPE A.S. =ALUM/NUM SHED F.L R.FOUND IRON ROD ASPH =ASPHALT F.F.E. =F/N/SHED FLOOR ELEVA T/ON B.C. =BLOCKCORNER F.N.D. =FOUND NA/L&DISK BLDG =BUILDING FT. =FEET B.M. =BENCHMARK NF/P =NATIONAL FLOOD/NSURANCEPROGRAM B.O.B. =BAS/SOFBEARING F.N. =FOUND NAIL B.S.L. = BUILDING SETBACKL/NE H =H/GHOR(i/E/GHT) (C) =CALOUL47ED IN.&EG.=/NGRESSAND EGRESS EASEMENT C.B. =CATCH BASIN LCV. =/RR/GAT/ON CONTROL VALVE C.B.S. =CONCRETESLOCKSTUCCO ID? =/DENT/F/CAT/ON/[LEG/BCE C.B.W. =CONCRETEBLOCKWALL CF. =IRON FENCE CH. =CHORD L.B. =LICENSED BUSINESS CH. =CHORD BEAR/NG LP=L/GHTPOLE CC. =CLEAR L1F.E =LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION C.O. =CLEAN OUT L.M.E. = LAKEMAINTENANCEEASEMENT CL.F. =CHA/NL/NKFENCE =MINUTES GME = CANAL MAINTENANCEEASEMENT (M) =MEASURED CONC. = CONCRETE M.B. = MAIL BOX CUP. =CONCRETE UT/L/TYPOLE M.E. =MA/NTENANCEEASEMENT C.P. =CONCRETEPORCH M.H =MANHOLE C.S. =CONCRETE SLAB NAP. =NOTA PART OF C.W. =CONCRETE WALK NAV9=NOR THAMER/CAN✓EFT/CAL DA TUM f988 O.E. =DRA/NAGEEASEMENT NG VO=NAT/ONALGEODETIC ✓EFTKALDATUMf929 D.H. =DRILL HOLE NO ID =NO/DENT/F/CAT/ON D.M.E. = DRAINAGEMAINTENANCEEASEMENT N.T S, =NOTTOSCALE DRIVE =DRIVEWAY #OR NO =NUMBER = DEGREES O/S = OFFSET EB =ELECTRIC BOX O.H. =OVERHEAD R. T.P. = ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PAD O.H.L. -OVERHEAD U77LITYLINES O.R.B. = OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK O.V.H.=OVERHANG SURVEYOR NOTES: PVMT. = PAVEMENT PL. =PLANTER P.B.=FLATBOOK P.G. -PAGE P.L. =PROPERTYL/NE P.C.C. = POINT OF COMPOUND CUR VA TURE P.C.P. =PERMANENT CONTROL POINT P.C.=PO/NTOFCUR✓ATURE P.O.T. = POINT OF TANGENCY P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. -POINT OFBEGINNING P.R.C.=POINTOFREVERSECUR✓ATURE PWY = PARKWAY PRM=PERMANENTREFERENCEMONUMENT P.S M = PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR & MAPPER P.L.S = PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR P.P. =POWERPOLE P.P.S. =POOL PUMP SLAB P.U.E. = PUBLIC UT/L/TYEASEMENT (R) = RECORD R.R. =RAILROAD RES. = RESIDENCE RAN = RIGHT-OFWAY RAD. =RADIUSORRADIAL RGE -RANGE U T = TANGENT L TO =TELEPHONEBOOTH Cl) N T.S.M. = TEM A(OLGG BENCHMARK p T.E TF_CHNOSGNALB TYEASEMEN7 01 TSB = TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX T.S.P. = TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE NY TWP = TOWNSHIP UT/L. = UTILITY UE=UT/L/TYEASEMENT p UP.=U77LITYPOLE 01 W.M WA TER METER W.F. =WOOD FENCE W.P. = WOOD PORCH p W.R. = WOOD ROOF p W.V =WATER VALVE M2=MONUMENTL/NE N C CENTER L/NE N 0 DEL TA J (L LEGEND M ��— —=OVERHEAD UT/L/7YL1l CD —=CENTER[/NE I� �=CONCRETE BLOCK R.O.E. =ROOF OVERHANG EASEMENT SEC. =SECT/ON STUCCO WALL �N... ��,��,��,��,�—=CHA/NL/NKFENCE STY. =STORY —��=IRON FENCE 1/I SWK. =SIDEWALK �fH�__y_—=WOOD FENCE S./IR. S.P.L ONROD =SET IRON PIPE — —=WIRE FENCE =BUILDING SETBACK[/ S.N.D. =SETNA/L&DISK ——=UT/L/TVEASEMENT ate+ S =SOUTH ��=L/M/TED ACCESS R/W S.P. =SCREENED PORCH C =RGE, TWP, SEC,JgSEC, L SV. =SEWER VALVE SECONDS NON. ✓EH/CULAR ACCESS RAN �- • THERE MAY BE EASEMENTS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY. • EXAMINATIONS OF THE ABSTRACT OF TITLE WILL HAVE TO BE MADE TO DETERMINE RECORDED INSTRUMENTS, IF ANY, AFFECTING THE PROPERTY. • THIS SURVEY MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEDICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, ENCUMBRANCES OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD THE SAME THAT MAY NOT BE NOTED OR DEPICTED HEREON. • LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED BY CLIENT OR ATTESTING TITLE COMPANY. • BOUNDARY SURVEY MEANS A DRAWING AND/ OR A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SURVEY WORK PERFORMED IN THE FIELD, COULD BE DRAWN ATA SHOWN SCALEANDIOR NOT TO SCALE; THE WALLS OR FENCES MAYBE EXAGGERATED FOR CLARITY PURPOSES. • EASEMENTS AS SHOWN ARE PER PLAT, UNLESS NOTED OR DEPICTED OTHERWISE. • THE TERM "ENCROACHMENT" REFERS TO ABOVE GROUND INTRUSIONS OF IMPROVEMENTS ONTO SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM ADJOWERS PROPERTY OR ONTO ADJOINERS PROPERTY FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY • ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS SHALL VERIFYZONING REGULATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, SETBACKS AND WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING PLANS WITH CORRECT INFORMATION TO BUILDING AND ZONING OFFICIALS OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITIES FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THEY WILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING PLANS WITH CORRECTPROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS AND PROPOSED FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION WITH DATUM FOR NEW BUILDINGS.TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES IN NEW CONSTRUCTION. • UNLESS OTHER WISE SHOWN RECORD AND MEASURED CALLS ARE INSUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT. • UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE NOT DEPICTED HEREON • UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THIS FIRM HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE UNDERGROUND FOOTINGS ANDIOR FOUNDATIONS. • FENCE OWNERSHIP NOT DETERMINED. • THIS PLAN OF SURVEY, HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE ENTITIES NAMED HEREON, THE CERTIFICATE DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY UNNAMED PARTY. • FENCE TIES ARE TO CENTERLINE OF THE SAME. • WALL TIES ARE TO THE THE FACE OF THE SAME. FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION: THE NFIP FLOOD MAPS HAVE DESIGNATED THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LAND TO BE SITUATED IN: FLOOD ZONE: X500', AH" BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: 11.0 FT. COMMUNITY. 120067 PANEL: 0404 SUFFIX. H DATE OF FIRM: 0511612012 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES WITHIN TWO FLOOD ZONE AREAS. DRAWN BY: I AHV FIELD DATE: 10710812021 SURVEY NO: 121-001551 I 0'Q0 = EX/STING ELE✓AT/ON: Y V la m C SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: G IHERESYCERTIFY THAT THE SKETCH OF THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS (p PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF V PRACTICE SET FORTH BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS "a MAPPERS IN CHAPTER 5J-17.050.052 OF THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, C PURSUANT TO SECTION 472 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES AND THAT THE SKETCH Q HEREON IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. m C By. E 0710812021 E MIGUEL IGARAY (DATE OF FIELDWORK) V PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER LS# 6594 STATE OF FLORIDA Q (NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATUREAND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OFA FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER). _ 4) E REVISED ON.' i c1 REVISED ON. Q SHEET: 1 OF 2 I THIS PAGE IS NOT VALID WITHOUT ALL OTHERS SEAL J. �NSE NUM .:O 6594 BP,p L O * C N STATE OF gQ FLORIDA - �q! SURV�O� L• Packet Pg. 233 GEOMETRIC SURVEYING INC_ 9.A.2.c G2804 DEL PRADO BLVD S, SUITE 205 s CAPE CORAL, FL 33904 ASSISTANCE@GEOMETRICSURVEYING.COM (239)-540-6257 (239)-471-2237 J. G.4n �NSE NUA�'r9 ar ° 65sa eFm < T * 4 N STATE OF �Q FLORIDA �q! B IR\J L.S.#6594 L.B.#8203 5196 23rd COURT SW, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34116 SET TB.M L=39.27' Na uo >s88 R=25.00' 23rd COURT SW T=25.00' 60' TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY A=90°00'00" 9.31 9.54' Q CHB=S45*00'00"W BASIS OF BEARINGS: S90'00'00"E CENTERLINE AS PER PLAT CH=35.36' o t21'PWY M S.I.R. 518" o LB. 8203 S90°00'00"E 75.00'u F co ip �6'U.E.& D.E� 947'INLET53.00' r82' I a vim I VACANT LOT w Z a_ I LOT-1 d g p BLOCK-198 a' CANDOR t 0.281ACRES 2,366 O. FT WO I J . Y � � wl 10.53' aaag; �I I I I o I I a I N I L--� GUY >L45' -" 53.00' 944 _ c6'U DE >�B8' ANCHOR HO U.F oe EAST �6' U.E.& D..� 100.00' o ct r _ N o oa Z CONC. LOT - 20 DRIVEWAY BLOCK-198 I (IMPROVED) t 20' ASPHALT PVMT. F.I.R. 518" NO ID 'r �I NI - —1 0.'15' OUT LOT-2 BLOCK-198 (IMPROVED) LN PL NO ID — LOT -19 BLOCK - 198 SURVEYOR'S NOrE- GRAPHIC SCALE 1. THE HIGHEST CROWN OF ROAD IS 10.08 FT. -30 0 15 30 2. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE REFERRED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988, COLLIER COUNTY BENCHMARK ID: AJ 7562 . ELEVATION IS 9.95' OF NAVD 1988. 1 INCH = 30 FEET LEGAL DESCRIPrION.• LOT 1, BLOCK 198, GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGE 131, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CERTIFICATION.- SOGNARE HOMES LLC. THIS PAGE IS NOT VALID WITHOUT ALL OTHERS DRAWN BY: AHV FIELD DATE: o7lo8l2o21 SURVEY NO: 1 21-001551 SHEET: m c O N N U T tM N to rn tf1 IL 0 rn O O 0 N a N J a M 0 n v N .y a 7 Y v R oD 0 `a a Q m c d E L 0 al to E s V to Q Packet Pg. 234 GEOMETRIC SURVEYING INC. 9.A.2.c G2804 DEL PRADO BLVD S, SUITE 205 S CAPE CORAL, FL 33904 ASSISTANCE@GEOMETRICSURVEYING.COM (239)-540-6257 (239)-471-2237 ale CTXW d LOCATION SKETCH VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY N 4) SCALE=ALT.S. 5196 23rd COURT SW, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34116 ABBREV/ATIONS A =ARC. ELEV.=ELEVATON AIC =A/RCOND/T/ONERPAD ENCR. =ENCROACHMENT A =ANCHOR EASEMENT F.H.=FIREHYDRANT A.R. =ALUM/NUMROOF F;1P. =FOUND IRON PIPE A.S. =ALUM/NUM SHED F.L R.FOUND IRON ROD ASPH =ASPHALT F.F.E. =F/N/SHED FLOOR ELEVA T/ON B.C. =BLOCKCORNER F.N.D. =FOUND NA/L&DISK BLDG =BUILDING FT. =FEET B.M. =BENCHMARK NF/P =NATIONAL FLOOD/NSURANCEPROGRAM B.O.B. =BAS/SOFBEARING F.N. =FOUND NAIL B.S.L. = BUILDING SETBACKL/NE H =H/GHOR(i/E/GHT) (C) =CALOUL47ED IN.&EG.=/NGRESSAND EGRESS EASEMENT C.B. =CATCH BASIN LCV. =/RR/GAT/ON CONTROL VALVE C.B.S. =CONCRETESLOCKSTUCCO ID? =/DENT/F/CAT/ON/[LEG/BCE C.B.W. =CONCRETEBLOCKWALL CF. =IRON FENCE CH. =CHORD L.B. =LICENSED BUSINESS CH. =CHORD BEAR/NG LP=L/GHTPOLE CC. =CLEAR L1F.E =LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION C.O. =CLEAN OUT L.M.E. = LAKEMAINTENANCEEASEMENT CL.F. =CHA/NL/NKFENCE =MINUTES GME = CANAL MAINTENANCEEASEMENT (M) =MEASURED CONC. = CONCRETE M.B. = MAIL BOX CUP. = CONCRETE UT/L/TYPOLE M.E. = AMWTENANOE EASEMENT C.P. =CONCRETEPORCH M.H. =MANHOLE C.S. =CONCRETE SLAB NAP. =NOTA PART OF C.W. =CONCRETE WALK NAV9=NOR THAMER/CAN✓EFT/CAL DA TUM f988 O.E. =DRA/NAGEEASEMENT NG VO=NAT/ONALGEODET/C ✓ERT/CALDATUMf929 O.H. =DRILL HOLE NO ID =NO/DENT/F/CAT/ON D.M.E. = DRAINAGEMAINTENANCEEASEMENT N.T S, =NOTTOSCALE DRIVE =DRIVEWAY #OR NO =NUMBER = DEGREES O/S = OFFSET EB =ELECTRIC BOX O.H. =OVERHEAD R. T.P. = ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PAD O.H.L. -OVERHEAD U77LITYLINES O.R.B. =OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK O.V.H.=OVERHANG SURVEYOR NOTES: PVMT. = PAVEMENT PL. =PLANTER P.B.=FLATBOOK P.G. -PAGE P.L. =PROPERTYL/NE P.C.C. = POINT OF COMPOUND CUR VA TURE P.C.P. =PERMANENT CONTROL POINT P.C.=PO/NTOFCUR✓ATURE P.O.T. = POINT OF TANGENCY P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. -POINT OFBEGINNING P.R.C.=POINTOFREVERSECUR✓ATURE PWY = PARKWAY PRM=PERMANENTREFERENCEMONUMENT P.S M = PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR & MAPPER P.L.S = PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR P.P. =POWERPOLE P.P.S. =POOL PUMP SLAB P.U.E. = PUBLIC UT/L/TYEASEMENT (R) = RECORD R.R. =RAILROAD RES. = RESIDENCE RAN = RIGHT-OFWAY RAD. =RADIUSORRADIAL RGE -RANGE U T = TANGENT L TO =TELEPHONEBOOTH Cl) N T.S.M. = TEM A(OLGG BENCHMARK p T.E TF-CHNOLSGNALB TYEASEMEN7 01 TSB = TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX T.S.P. = TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE NY TWP = TOWNSHIP UT/L. = UTILITY UE=UT/L/TYEASEMENT p UP.=U77LITYPOLE 01 W.M WA TER METER W.F. =WOOD FENCE W.P. = WOOD PORCH p W.R. = WOOD ROOF p W.V =WATER VALVE M2=MONUMENTL/NE N C CENTER L/NE N 0 DEL TA J (L LEGEND M ��— —=OVERHEAD UT/L/7YL1l CD —=CENTER[/NE I� �=CONCRETE BLOCK R.O.E. =ROOF OVERHANG EASEMENT SEC. =SECT/ON STUCCO WALL �N... ��,��,��,��,�—=CHA/NL/NKFENCE STY. =STORY —��=IRON FENCE 1/I SWK. =SIDEWALK �fH�__y_—=WOOD FENCE S./IR. S.P.L ONROD =SET/RONP/PE=BUILDING — —=WIRE FENCE SETBACK[/ S.N.D. =SETNA/L&DISK ——=UT/L/TVEASEMENT ate+ S =SOUTH ��=L/M/TED ACCESS R/W S.P. =SCREENED PORCH C =RGE, TWP, SEC,JgSEC, L SV. =SEWER VALVE SECONDS NON. ✓EH/CULAR ACCESS RAN �- • THERE MAY BE EASEMENTS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY. • EXAMINATIONS OF THE ABSTRACT OF TITLE WILL HAVE TO BE MADE TO DETERMINE RECORDED INSTRUMENTS, IF ANY, AFFECTING THE PROPERTY. • THIS SURVEY MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEDICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, ENCUMBRANCES OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD THE SAME THAT MAY NOT BE NOTED OR DEPICTED HEREON. • LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED BY CLIENT OR ATTESTING TITLE COMPANY. • BOUNDARY SURVEY MEANS A DRAWING AND/ OR A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SURVEY WORK PERFORMED IN THE FIELD, COULD BE DRAWN ATA SHOWN SCALEANDIOR NOT TO SCALE; THE WALLS OR FENCES MAYBE EXAGGERATED FOR CLARITY PURPOSES. • EASEMENTS AS SHOWN ARE PER PLAT, UNLESS NOTED OR DEPICTED OTHERWISE. • THE TERM "ENCROACHMENT" REFERS TO ABOVE GROUND INTRUSIONS OF IMPROVEMENTS ONTO SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM ADJOWERS PROPERTY OR ONTO ADJOINERS PROPERTY FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY • ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS SHALL VERIFYZONING REGULATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, SETBACKS AND WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING PLANS WITH CORRECT INFORMATION TO BUILDING AND ZONING OFFICIALS OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITIES FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THEY WILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING PLANS WITH CORRECTPROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS AND PROPOSED FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION WITH DATUM FOR NEW BUILDINGS.TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES IN NEW CONSTRUCTION. • UNLESS OTHER WISE SHOWN RECORD AND MEASURED CALLS ARE INSUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT. • UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE NOT DEPICTED HEREON • UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THIS FIRM HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE UNDERGROUND FOOTINGS ANDIOR FOUNDATIONS. • FENCE OWNERSHIP NOT DETERMINED. • THIS PLAN OF SURVEY, HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE ENTITIES NAMED HEREON, THE CERTIFICATE DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY UNNAMED PARTY. • FENCE TIES ARE TO CENTERLINE OF THE SAME. • WALL TIES ARE TO THE THE FACE OF THE SAME. FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION: THE NFIP FLOOD MAPS HAVE DESIGNATED THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LAND TO BE SITUATED IN: FLOOD ZONE: X500', AH" BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: 11.0 FT. COMMUNITY. 120067 PANEL: 0404 SUFFIX. H DATE OF FIRM: 0511612012 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES WITHIN TWO FLOOD ZONE AREAS. DRAWN BY: I AHV FIELD DATE: 10710812021 SURVEY NO: 121-001551 I 0'Q0 = EX/STING ELE✓AT/ON: Y V la m C SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: G IHERESYCERTIFY THAT THE SKETCH OF THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS (p PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF V PRACTICE SET FORTH BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS "a MAPPERS IN CHAPTER 5J-17.050.052 OF THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, C PURSUANT TO SECTION 472 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES AND THAT THE SKETCH Q HEREON IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. m C By. E 0710812021 E MIGUEL IGARAY (DATE OF FIELDWORK) V PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER LS# 6594 STATE OF FLORIDA Q (NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATUREAND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OFA FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER). _ 4) E REVISED ON.' i c1 REVISED ON. Q SHEET: 1 OF 2 I THIS PAGE IS NOT VALID WITHOUT ALL OTHERS SEAL J. �NSE NUM .:O 6594 BP,p L O * C N STATE OF gQ FLORIDA - �q! SURV�O� L• Packet Pg. 235 GEOMETRIC SURVEYING INC_ 9.A.2.c G2804 DEL PRADO BLVD S, SUITE 205 s CAPE CORAL, FL 33904 ASSISTANCE@GEOMETRICSURVEYING.COM (239)-540-6257 (239)-471-2237 J. G.4n �NSE NUA�'r9 ar ° 65sa eFm < T * 4 N STATE OF �Q FLORIDA �q! B IR\J L.S.#6594 L.B.#8203 5196 23rd COURT SW, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34116 SET TB.M L=39.27' Na uo >s88 R=25.00' 23rd COURT SW T=25.00' 60' TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY A=90°00'00" 9.31 9.54' Q CHB=S45°00'00"W BASIS OF BEARINGS: S90'00'00"E CENTERLINE AS PER PLAT CH=35.36' o t21'PWY M S.I.R. 518" o LB. 8203 S90°00'00"E 75.00'u F co ip �6'U.E.& D.E� 947'INLET53.00' r82' I a vim I VACANT LOT w Z a_ I LOT-1 d g p BLOCK-198 a' CANDOR t 0.281ACRES 2,366 O. FT WO I J . Y � � wl 10.53' aaag; �I I I I o I I a I N I L--� GUY >L45' -" 53.00' 944 _ c6'U DE >�B8' ANCHOR HO U.F oe EAST �6' U.E.& D..� 100.00' o ct r _ N o oa Z CONC. LOT - 20 DRIVEWAY BLOCK-198 I (IMPROVED) t 20' ASPHALT PVMT. F.I.R. 518" NO ID 'r �I NI - —1 0.'15' OUT LOT-2 BLOCK-198 (IMPROVED) LN PL NO ID — LOT -19 BLOCK - 198 SURVEYOR'S NOrE- GRAPHIC SCALE 1. THE HIGHEST CROWN OF ROAD IS 10.08 FT. -30 0 15 30 2. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE REFERRED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988, COLLIER COUNTY BENCHMARK ID: AJ 7562 . ELEVATION IS 9.95' OF NAVD 1988. 1 INCH = 30 FEET LEGAL DESCRIPrION.• LOT 1, BLOCK 198, GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGE 131, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CERTIFICATION.- SOGNARE HOMES LLC. THIS PAGE IS NOT VALID WITHOUT ALL OTHERS DRAWN BY: AHV FIELD DATE: o7lo8l2o21 SURVEY NO: 1 21-001551 SHEET: m c O N N U T tM N to rn tf1 IL 0 rn O O 0 N a N J a M 0 n v N .y a 7 Y v R oD 0 `a a Q m c d E L 0 al to E s V to Q Packet Pg. 236 2022 FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT DOCUMENT# L16000162993 Entity Name: SOGNARE LLC Current Principal Place of Business: 3606 ENTERPRISE AVENUE SUITE 386 NAPLES, FL 34104 Current Mailing Address: 3606 ENTERPRISE AVENUE SUITE 386 NAPLES, FL 34104 US FEI Number: 38-4013782 Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: MACARTHUR TAVARES, LUCIANE F C/O TAVARES & ASSOCIATES 201 E. PINE STREET, STE. 702 ORLANDO, FL 32801 US FILED 9•A.2.c Feb 27, 2022 Secretary of State 2953608610CC Certificate of Status Desired: No The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. SIGNATURE: Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Authorized Person(s) Detail : Title AMBR Name FURLAN, RAFAEL S Address 3606 ENTERPRISE AVENUE SUITE 386 City -State -Zip: NAPLES FL 34104 Title AMBR Name STADLER, VALERIA Address 3606 ENTERPRISE AVENUE SUITE 386 City -State -Zip: NAPLES FL 34104 Date I hereby certify that the information indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my electronic signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath; that / am a managing member or manager of the limited liability company or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 605, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. SIGNATURE: RAFAEL S FURLAN OWNER 02/27/2022 Electronic Signature of Signing Authorized Person(s) Detail Date d c 0 N d U L M N rn r LO co 0 0 0 _o N 0 N J a c� 0 ti N Packet Pg. 237 INSTR 6083007 OR 5969 PG 1971 E—RECORDED 6/22/2021 2:08 PM PAGES 6 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Doc@.70 $714.00 REC $52.50 INDX $3.00 CONS $102,000.00 9.A.2.c After Recording Return to: Maria D Perez Stewart Title Company 4450 Bonita Beach Road, Ste 6 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 This Instrument Prepared by: Maria D Perez Stewart Title Company 4450 Bonita Beach Road, Ste 6 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 as a necessary incident to the fulfillment of conditions contain in a titl uiance commitment Issued by it Property Appseraarcel I.D. (Folio) Number(s): 36314800009 File No.: 114743 WARRANTY DEED This Warranty Deed; Made tf31st day of May, 2021, by Brian Willliams, Lorenzo Neal Williams, Vada Williams, Clara Carey aka Elaine Williams and Effie B. Johnson, whose post office address is: 11908 Little Violet Cir, Riverview, FL 33578, hereinafter called the "Grantor", to Sognare LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, W0696 post office address is: 5196 23rd Ct SW, Naples, FL 34116, hereinafter called the "Grantee". WITNESSETH: That said Grantor forand,ir pnsideration of the sum of One Hundred Two Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($102,000'.00) arid --other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the Grantee, all that certain land situate in Gooier bounty, Florida, to wit: Lot 1, Block 198, Golden Gate Unit 6, accordlfigto theptat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 131, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. The property is not the homestead of the Grantor(s) under the laws and constitution of the state of Florida in that neither Grantor(s) or any member of the household of Grantor(s) reside thereon. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and,aprtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. ' And the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the ntoi;;)s Iawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell aCtd con ey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same,"gainst the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2020, reservations, restrictions and easements of record, if any. ' (The terms "Grantor and "Grantee' herein shalt be construed to include all genders and singular or plurit as the context indicates.) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and lea( the day and year first above written Packet Pg. 238 OR 5969 PG 1972 9.A.2.c SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES TWO SEPARATE DISINTERESTED WITNESSES REQUIRED Witness Signature: Printed Name: N �Lp �-C vt0 Clar Carey aka Elaine illiams Witness Signatur ti Printed N me: State ofa, Coun}y of 1~Lh The foregoing Instrument was ackn ged before me by means of physical presence or O online notarization, this day of by Clara Carey aka Elaine Williams, who has produced as iden Ication-CMsb Ax"A'!'---, te My Commission Expires: 2� Notary Public Signature` (SEAL) Printed Name: ��iu ,,.Mdr:.' S • b'InOCA6 ❑ Online Notary (Check Box if acknowledgment done by Online Notarization) Edo Mad S. SwM9 Notary Pubtk 54ate<0f 6lorida Cw,jWHH125411 al m El Packet Pg. 239 OR 5969 PG 1973 9.A.2.c SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES TWO SEPARATE DISINTERESTED WITNESSES REQUIRED (� Witness Signature: 1. `—t'"'— Lp"6 I O/I v &A Printed Name: lic- Cgjr Effie 6°JohnsonU Witness Signature: Printed Na e:ar�s Lacs�t State of FI (` County" M v J The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of 13 physical presence or ❑ online notarization, this day of4ft 2021 by Effie B Johnson, who has produced FLn(- as idAntd1Gation. 5rG My Commission Expires: c�d o Notary Pu c Sig (SEAL) Printed Name: z ! W ❑ Online Notary (Check Box if act mwl dgm nt done by Online Notarization) r;MELANM PURDY _ Notary Public, State:of Florida COM*5100GG203181 MY comm, o0res June 24,44 Packet Pg. 240 OR 5969 PG 1974 9.A.2.c SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES TWO SEPARATE DISINTERESTED WITNESSES REQUI Witness Signature: Printed Name: Efrian Williams Witness Signature: Printed Nam#. (o State ofFl . County of The foregoing Instwarnant was acknowledged before me by means ofA physical presence or ❑ onli e notarization, this A--da_of May, 2021 by Brian Williams, who has produced Pas identification. My Commission Expires: Notary Public Si a r (SEAL) Printed Name: Q Online Notary (Check Box if acknowledgment done by Online Notarization)) 1YPc NoWryPubl'k-StatedFlonQe C0mm155ro0 B GG 107730 y ` Comm.&pires1un302021.:,(. "<ne•' Bonded lhrmaNalwrel NotaryAua Packet Pg. 241 OR 5969 PG 1975 9.A.2.c SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING WITNESSE: TWO SEPARATE DISINTERESTED WITNESSES R Witness Signature: Printed Name: Witness Signature:IV fy Printed i ar e; 't ri 1l!7. State a County The foregoing inst"nf'was acknowledged before me by means ofX physical presence or ❑ online notarization, this , daq of May, 2021 by, Lorenzo Neal Williams , who has produced ' as identification. My Commission Expires: Notary Public Si nat (SEAL) Printed Name: ❑ Online Notary (Check Box "rf ac owt"gment done by Online Notarization) i+rw► ASHVSEGEA' 4. Notary Public -State of Wda Commission E GG 107M :yF � My Comm. Expires Jun30,2621 Wed lhro* Wklm,W N,taryA,, Packet Pg. 242 *** OR 5969 PG 1976 *** 9.A.2.c SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO SEPARATE DISINTE Witness Signature: Printed Name: Witness Signature: Printed Name: State of Florid County of The foregoing instrument was notarization, thi&4-day fli WITNESSES IESSES REQUIRED � AV-.,-Vada Williams ed before me by means of"Kphysical presence or q online by, Vada Williams, who has produced s My Commission Expires: Notary Public igntilre (SEAL) Printed Nam . ❑ Online Notary (Check ox if acknow edgrnentolone by Online Notarization) st <aY MARIAPEREZ Notary Public - State of Florida Commission # HH 044949 My Comm. Expires Sep 30,:2024 d c 0 N m fU Cl) CV ca rn L0 to O rn 0 O O N O N J a M O ti Packet Pg. 243 IC(fli MS 13 PJ£Z 96�S - 906WOO MZ'ld : £OLK) slepejew do)joeS-uoi;eaijddd - 8 juauayaeIld :;uauayaejjv FcCqe,4 C � 1.olip x LU a 114 appt Co z p� Q do y — f U) �X a o Qo Q o Z' � z � Ww M H�D > 0 — J w� Q Q YO \ F- C_j d >W�� )<cisg� h a Z �,fl.� cw ti Q fl- "UZ•c c>Y V x a) sU) doJO 4k�(0 �D U Q w c D w ¢ 3 Z c m J 0 y ,ice c c . � O t a c oN acu s w ' # N ram.• CL -- - — a Flunlar BLVd d G U d LkbA t14 �.: •ter; �t { o CL 0 { k cis U U sFi o 0 � � r. �, a rc\f�j 4`r •y� '� ,� t t. `•'71 M fi ,its r _ 9.A.2.d a� c O N N a+ U L M N t0 O r O O 6� O O O T- N O N J a U Q Packet Pg. 247 r7 7,77 •S d "K r �{ (� � W a - 51 4. dd^ „`. �.,v.'y,'J. $iAV:ai�, , .. ,.i;� . , b;r! .:1.I ✓. "a u� � r _ .-Yk 9.A.3 03/16/2023 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Doc ID: 24735 Item Summary: PL20230000930 — US 41 East Overlay and Transportation Concurrency Exception Area Expansion GMPA — A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing an amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to add the Us 41 East Overlay to allow certain economic development uses within the Corridor segments; and, allow increased height and density, and certain economic development uses in Regional Centers and Community Centers through incentives; and amending the Transportation Element and maps to expand the South US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area; and furthermore directing transmittal of the proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Planner III) Meeting Date: 03/16/2023 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal — Zoning Name: Michele Mosca 02/16/2023 5:10 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 02/16/2023 5:10 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Lorraine Lantz Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Zoning Mike Bosi Division Director Zoning Zoning Zoning Growth Management Department Planning Commission Michele Mosca Review Item James Sabo Review Item Mike Bosi Review Item James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Ray Bellows Meeting Pending Completed 02/16/2023 5:39 PM Additional Reviewer Completed 02/22/2023 8:43 AM Review Item Completed 02/23/2023 3:52 PM Completed 02/28/2023 10:16 AM Skipped 02/16/2023 1:31 PM Completed 02/27/2023 4:31 PM Completed 02/28/2023 10:16 AM Completed 03/03/2023 2:08 PM 03/16/2023 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 249 9.A.3.a Co � er Cov�-Kty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: March 16, 2023 RE: PETITION NO. PL20230000930, STAFF -PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, AND MAP TR-4, SOUTH US 41 TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREA, IN THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] REQUESTED ACTION: This proposal consists of a single staff -initiated Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment petition comprised of two components, as follows: 1. Amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series to establish a new US 41 East Overlay for a segment of US 41 East, from approximately Palm Drive (road separating Walmart from Naples Towne Center) to Greenway Road (the Urban- Agricultural/Rural boundary) lying about 3.4 road miles east of Collier Blvd. The Overlay will allow increased density for vertical mixed -use developments within portions of the Overlay and will allow certain economic development uses throughout the Overlay. 2. Create a new map (TR-4.1) depicting the expansion of the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) from its present terminus at the Rattlesnake -Hammock Road and Thomasson Lane intersections with US 41 East, to the southeast along US 41 East to the east side of Mixed Use Activity Center #18 at the intersection of US 41 East and Collier Blvd.; update the tables on the existing TCEA Map (TR-4) to reflect current conditions; and, amend Policy 5.4 of the Transportation Element (TE) to provide a reference to the new TCEA map (TR-4.1). The proposed GMP amendments are reflected in the Exhibit "A" text and maps accompanying the GMP Amendment Transmittal Resolution. BACKGROUND: On February 14, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to engage the East Naples community in a public planning process to identify and incentivize desired land uses and development along the US 41 East (Tamiami Trail) corridor. On April 24, 2018, staff and their consultant team from Johnson Engineering, Inc. presented the US 41 Corridor Study (Corridor Study) to the Board. The Corridor Study included four meetings to engage the public and solicit community input and resulted in recommendations that included: a community -based branding project, land use preferences, strategy to limit undesirable uses, landscaping preferences, and transportation needs. Following the Corridor Study, staff received Board direction to prepare a community development plan for the East Naples community that would establish a vision for the area to guide future development and redevelopment. In January 2020, the consulting firm of Tindale Oliver contracted with the Board to prepare the East Naples Community Development Plan. In October 2020, the East Naples Community Development Plan (ENCDP) was accepted by the Board. The development of the —1— Packet Pg. 250 9.A.3.a ENCDP included an extensive public input process culminating in a community plan that guides land uses and development, promotes various transportation modes, highlights the community's assets/improvements, provides follow-up efforts to address topics of community interest, and provides steps on implementation. The ENCDP prioritizes the development and implementation of a zoning overlay along the US 41 East corridor (Tamiami Trail East), specifically providing for its establishment within 5-years from the date of acceptance by the Board. An objective of the zoning overlay is to enhance the community's sense of place by providing guidance on future development and redevelopment projects that will expand employment opportunities, leisure activities, dining, and shopping to meet the growing needs of the community. In 2021, the County contracted with Johnson Engineering, Inc. to assist with preparing a zoning overlay (US 41 EZO) that implements the ENCDP. The community has been actively engaged with staff and the County's consultant in developing the US 41 EZO for the segment of US 41 East that generally begins at Palm Drive (near the Collier County government center) and extends to the east side of Port of the Islands, exclusive of that segment of US 41 within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. During the months between January and November 2022, the project team conducted staff team meetings, and stakeholder and community meetings to solicit input on the development and design standards for residential, mixed -use, and commercial development, and spacing criteria for commercial uses, in part, to address the undesirable uses identified in the ENCDP. STAFF ANALYSIS: The purpose of this Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is to create a FLUE Overlay to provide for increased density and economic development uses along the US 41 East corridor as proposed in the East Naples Community Development Plan (ENCDP). The US 41 East corridor is a Florida Department of Transportation facility which currently has constrained segments. A portion of the US 41 East corridor is within the South Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA), which excepts properties from link -by -link concurrency. The increased development opportunities allowed by the Overlay could result in increased transportation impacts, most significantly on certain segments of US 41. Given the current modest remaining capacity on US 41 in this area, expansion of the TCEA is beneficial to the transportation network. Future Land Use Element/Future Land Use Map and Series The proposed US 41 East Overlay will implement, in part, the ENCDP. At the adoption hearings for these GMP amendments, staff intends to include the companion Land Development Code (LDC) amendments that will establish an implementing zoning overlay. The Overlay map in the support materials identifies seven different areas where increased density is allowed within mixed use developments (commercial and residential multi -family) - three Regional Centers and four Community Centers. Density increases for mixed use developments within these Centers would be allowed as follows: Regional Centers, up to 20 dwelling units per acre, and Community Centers, up to 16 dwelling units per acre. Land owners would have the option of developing a mixed use project as provided in this Overlay or developing per the underlying future land use designation and applicable FLUE policies. Regional Centers lie within the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Centers 16, 17 and 18 as identified on the Future Land Use Map series). Certain economic development uses are allowed throughout the Overlay. As with the density increase for mixed use development, the development of economic development uses is optional; landowners can choose to develop their property per the underlying future land use designation and applicable FLUE policies. —2— Packet Pg. 251 9.A.3.a The table below identifies the present and proposed density allowances within the Overlay's Community and Regional Centers. Because the underlying future land use designations vary, the presently eligible densities vary. Overlay sub -area Present eligible density Proposed eligible density Centers 3/4/16 DU/A 16 DU/A -Community Regional Centers 4/16 DU/A 20 DU/A DIJ A = dwelling units per acre The Overlay would allow a maximum increase of 3,463 dwelling units; this number reflects 100% participation for all eligible properties and at the maximum allowed density. Staff is of the opinion that the actual participation, even over an extended number of years, will be far less; this is based on the limited number of mixed -use projects built to date despite the County allowing and encouraging such developments since at least 1989. Staff anticipates a participation rate of up to 25% to be more likely to occur in this area, resulting in a maximum increase of 866 dwelling units. Transportation Element/Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) — TR-4 and TR-4.1 Maps: The proposed FLUE Overlay (and Zoning Overlay) is designed to enhance the area by increasing economic development opportunities, improving the variety of housing options, and creating walkable, vibrant areas supported by a network of services. The proposed increased densities and uses align with the purpose of the TCEA by potentially reducing trips on the US 41 East corridor. Transportation Planning staff provided the following information to describe the TCEA and its purpose "Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEA) is an alternative concurrency management system authorized by Florida Statutes to regulate increased traffic volume created by new development while also promoting affordable housing and redevelopment programs as well as development policies designed to control urban sprawl. These systems are used to manage growth - related impacts to transportation facilities on an area -wide basis rather than on a link -by -link basis. A TCEA is designed to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on urban sprawl control policies and redevelopment. Collier County has one TCEA called the South US 41 TCEA. Development located within the boundaries of the South US 41 TCEA is exempt from transportation concurrency requirements so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated using Transportation Demand Management strategies enumerated in the Policy 5.5 of the Transportation Element. Commercial developments within the South US 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation will provide certification to the County transportation planning agency that at least four (4) of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized: a) Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools that is expected to increase the average vehicle occupancy for work trips generated by the development. b) Parking charge that is expected to increase the average vehicle occupancy for work trips generated by the development and/or increase transit ridership. c) Cash subsidy that is expected to increase the average vehicle occupancy for work trips generated by the development and/or increase transit ridership. d) Flexible work schedules that are expected to reduce peak hour automobile work trips generated by the development. e) Compressed workweek that would be expected to reduce vehicle miles of travel and peak hour work trips generated by the development. f) Telecommuting that would be expected to reduce the vehicle miles of travel and peak hour work trips generated by the development. —3— Packet Pg. 252 9.A.3.a g) Transit subsidy that would be expected to reduce auto trips generated by the development and increase transit ridership. h) Bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would be expected to reduce vehicle miles of travel and automobile work trips generated by the development. i) Including residential units as a portion of a commercial project that would be expected to reduce vehicle miles of travel. Residential developments within the South US 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation shall provide documentation to the County transportation planning agency that at least three (3) of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized: a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development (in coordination with Collier Area Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities with connections to adjacent commercial properties. d) Vehicular access to adjacent commercial properties with shared commercial and residential parking." Required Data and Analysis in Support of the Changes to the TCEA: Chapter 163, Part 11, Florida Statutes, contains the statutory provisions pertaining to comprehensive plans (GMP), including the requirement for local governments to adopt a comprehensive plan, the elements required to be included in a comprehensive plan, and the procedures and requirements to amend the comprehensive plan. The statutory provisions relevant to most GMP amendments are identified later in this Staff Report ("Criteria for GMP Amendments in Florida Statutes"). Additionally, Chapter 163.3180(5)(h)l .a., Florida Statutes, provides that the County is to "Consult with the Department of Transportation when proposed plan amendments affect facilities on the strategic intermodal system" (SIS). Interstate 75 (1-75) is the closest SIS facility to the proposed US 41 East Overlay and TCEA expansion area; the other SIS facilities are in the east/central part of the county (SR29 and SR82). The County had their transportation consultant perform an evaluation of the traffic impacts to 1-75 caused by the allowed density increase under the maximum utilization scenario - the 100% density increase (3,463 DUs). The results indicate the impacts to 1-75 are negligible (please see below table). [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] —4— Packet Pg. 253 9.A.3.a US 41 Overlay AADT Comparison R0 Way, Original Approved Model: US41 Overlay POW .out"Ilam Percent 04pae Collier Blvd Fiddler's Creek Pk% Manatee Rd 44,370 44,940 570 1.28% Collier Blvd Manatee Rd US41 47,780 48,680 900 1.88% Collier Blvd US41 Rattlesnake Rd 35,000 35,540 540 1.54% Collier Blvd Rattlesnake Rd Davis Blvd 51,4501 51,530 80 0.16% Collier Blvd Davis Blvd 1.75 59,310 59,200 -110 0.19% 1-75 SR 29 Everglades Blvd 37,200 37,090 -110 0.30% 1-75 Everglades Blvd Collier Blvd 57,640 58,250 610 1.06% 1-75 Collier Blvd Golden Gate Pkwy 90,090 89,470 -620 0.69% 1-75 Golden Gate Pkwy Pine Ridge Rd 108,250 106,000 -2,250 2.08% Rattlesnake Rd US41 Santa Barbara Blvd 21,710 21,890 180 0.83% Rattlesnake Rd Santa Barbara Blvd Collier Blvd 24,240 24,480 240 0.99% SR 29 US41 1.75 3,010 3,010 0 0.00% SR 29 1-75 Oil Well Rd 4,300 4,280 -20 0.47% US41 Goodlette-Frank Rd Davis Blvd 73,240 74,420 1,180 1.61% US41 Davis Blvd R a tt lesna ke Rd 57,890 60,540 2,650 4.58% US41 Rattlesnake Rd Collier Blvd 1 43,7901 46,710 2,920 6.67% US41 lCollier Blvd Manatee Rd 1 20,8501 21,360 510 2.45% AADT = Average Annual Daily Trips However, the evaluation indicated there will be impacts on portions of US 41 East. Collier County completed a [D1 RPM 2045] model run using the maximum number of multifamily dwelling units allowed by the Overlay. The model estimated that the most significant impacts (increases of up to 6.67% of the original volume) will be along US 41 directly. For this reason, Collier County recommends expanding the TCEA from its southeasterly terminus, approximately south of Rattlesnake -Hammock Road (CR 864), to southeast of Collier Blvd. (CR/SR 951). Consistent with the TCEA, the new Overlay is intended to promote redevelopment, affordable housing and infill development. The Transportation Demand Management strategies required by the TCEA coincide with the goals and vision of the Overlay and provide a systematic approach to addressing the congestion in the area. The existing TCEA was adopted in 2004 along with two Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA). As a significant portion of the [at that time, proposed] TCEA was within the Urban Infill and Redevelopment Area aka Bays h ore/G ateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO), certain statutory and State Rule 9J-5 provisions were applicable pertaining to the amount of vacant land allowed, redevelopment strategies, etc. Thus, two tables were included on the TCEA map, one pertaining to vacant lands and one pertaining to land use categories. For the existing TCEA, staff updated the land use and vacant parcel tables using 2022 data from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office; please see below. Existing TCEA, Land Use Table (2022 data) Public Commercial Residential Total Acres 93.07 453.52 429.50 976.09 9.53% 46.46% 44.00% 100% Note: Percent figures do not sum to 100% due to rounding. —5— Packet Pg. 254 9.A.3.a Existing TCEA, Vacant Parcel Table (2022 data) ALL Count: 1725 (100%) Sum of acres = 976.09 (100%) PARCELS VACANT Count: 234 (13.6%) Sum of acres = 105.55 (10.8%) NON- Count: 1491 (86.4%) ( ° ) Sum of acres = 870.54 89.2/ VACANT Similarly, for the TCEA expansion area, staff created land use and vacant parcel tables using 2022 data from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office; please see below. However, none of the expanded TCEA lies within the Urban Infill and Redevelopment Area (B/GTRO), and statutory requirements are less than they were in 2004. TCEA Expansion, Land Use Table Public Commercial Residential Total Acres 406.42 626.73 181.08 1214.23 33.47% 51.62% 14.91% 100% TCEA Expansion, Vacant Parcel Table ALL Count: 640 (100%) Sum of acres = 1214.23 (100%) PARCELS VACANT Count: 106 (16.6%) Sum of acres = 171.39 (14.1%) NON - Count: 534 (83.4%) Sum of acres = 1042.84 (85.9%) VACANT Additionally, the County's subconsultant for the preparation of the US 41 East Zoning Overlay, Fehr Peers, prepared a transportation analysis of the potential vertical mixed -use development on two [sample] parcels along the US 41 East corridor: Lowe's plaza in the southwest quadrant of US 41 East and CR/SR 951, and St. Andrews Square in the northwest quadrant of US 41 East and St. Andrews Blvd. Both parcels are developed with commercial centers. The analysis considered partial redevelopment with vertical mixed use (commercial and residential), which is one of the desired outcomes of the East Naples Community Development Plan and is one of the strategies to lessen transportation impacts. [see attachments: Transportation Analysis Summary 11-29-22 (Fehr Peers Memorandum dated Nov. 29, 2022), and Transportation Plan Review Summary 2-11-22 (Fehr Peers Memorandum dated Feb. 11, 2022)] Environmental Impacts: These amendments increase the allowable density and increase the intensity of commercial uses allowed for certain properties along the US41 East corridor, all of which are designated Urban and most of which are already developed or cleared of native vegetation. Redevelopment or development of these properties is subject to the environmental protection standards in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and LDC, as applicable. Public Facilities Impacts: Based upon review of the most recent AUIR, Annual Update and Inventory Report, there are adequate public facilities to accommodate the allowable density increase (and additional commercial uses) proposed by this amendment (water, wastewater, solid waste, drainage, etc.). Transportation impacts have been previously addressed. —6— Packet Pg. 255 9.A.3.a Criteria for GMP Amendments in Florida Statutes Data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below. Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area's proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.: 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. —7— Packet Pg. 256 9.A.3.a h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Also, the State land planning agency has historically recognized the consideration of community desires (e.g. if the community has an articulated vision for an area as to the type of development desired, such as within a Community Redevelopment Area), or existing incompatibilities (e.g. presently allowed uses would be incompatible with surrounding uses and conditions). LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on February 17, 2023. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element and map series are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2 and 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes. (HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20230000930 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies. —8— Packet Pg. 257 9.A.3.b RESOLUTION NO. 2023- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES TO ADD THE US 41 EAST OVERLAY TO ALLOW CERTAIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT USES WITHIN THE CORRIDOR SEGMENTS; AND, ALLOW INCREASED HEIGHT AND DENSITY, AND CERTAIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT USES IN REGIONAL CENTERS AND COMMUNITY CENTERS THROUGH INCENTIVES; AND AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND MAPS TO EXPAND THE SOUTH US 41 TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREA; AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. [PL202300009301 WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Staff initiated an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to add the US 41 East Overlay; and WHEREAS, on , 2023, the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on , 2023, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have [23-CMP-01147/1770759/1178 Q US41 East Overlay PL20230000930 02/13/23 Page 1 of 2 Words underlined are additions, words struck through are deletions. Packet Pg. 258 9.A.3.b thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this day of , 2023. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LIN Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko 3 Managing Assistant County Attorney Rick LoCastro, Chairman Attachment: Exhibit A — Proposed Text Amendment & Map Amendment [23-CMP-01149/ 1769251 / 1 ]26 US41 East Overlay PL20230000930 02/13/23 Page 2 of 2 Words underlined are additions, words struck through are deletions. Packet Pg. 259 9.A.3.b PL20230000930 Exhibit A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (As amended through Ordinance No. 2022-28, adopted June 28, 2022) GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES GOAL: TO GUIDE LAND USE DECISION -MAKING SO AS TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY NATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WELL PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WHICH PROMOTE THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL DESIRES. OBJECTIVE 1: Promote well planned land uses consistent with Future Land Use Designations, Districts and Subdistricts and the Future Land Use Map to ensure compatibility between the natural and human environments. Policy 1.9: [re -lettered to reflect merger of Ordinance No. 2002-32 and 2002-54] Overlays and Special Features shall include: A. Area of Critical State Concern Overlay B. North Belle Meade Overlay C. NC Square Mixed -Use Overlay D. Natural Resource Protection Area Overlays E. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay F. Airport Noise Area Overlay G. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay H. Urban -Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay I. Coastal High Hazard Area Boundary J. Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay K. US 41 East Overlay L. K—. Incorporated Areas V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES 0 M a) O 0 0 0 M N 0 N J a LO cm K. US 41 East Overlay This Overlav is located along portions of the US 41 East corridor from Palm Drive to Greenway Road. It is comprised of three Regional Centers, four Community Centers, and multiple Corridor segments between those Centers, all of which that are depicted on the Future Land Use Map and US 41 East Overlay Maps. The Overlay is intended to allow mixed use development and economic development and to encourage a pedestrian/transit- friendly development pattern. The Regional Centers allow medium to high intensity mixed use development, commercial, residential development, and certain economic development uses, and are located within Mixed Use Activity Center numbers 16, 17, and 1of18 Words underlined are added; words struck threu^" are deleted 02/13/23 mrm-dw Packet Pg. 260 9.A.3.b 18. The Communitv Centers allow moderate to low intensitv mixed use development commercial, residential development, hotel/motel at a maximum density of 26 units per a acre, and certain economic development uses. The Corridor segments allow low density residential development, commercial development permitted by the underlyingzoning oning W districts. and certain economic development uses. A zoning overlav shall be established within one year of the effective date of this Overlay and include Regional Center, c Community Center, and Corridor Subdistricts. The zoning overlay will provide for allowed uses, design standards, and increased density and/or height for projects in the Q. Regional Centers and Community Centers that include certain design elements such as w vertical mixed use, green building standards, and low impact development standards. w Mixed use development within the Regional Centers and Community Centers of this Overlay will be eligible for increased density and/or height when utilizing incentives 08 outlined in the zoning overlay, and is subject to the following limitations: w 1. Mixed use development within the Regional Centers is eligible for up to twenty (20) dwelling units per acre when utilizing incentives outlined in the zoning overlay, and is not subject to the density rating system. 2. Mixed use development within the Community Centers is eligible for up to > 0 sixteen 06• dwellinguits per acre when utilizing incentives outlined in the N zoning overlay, and is not subject to the density rating system. w 3. For a mixed use development pursuant to paragraph 1. or 2. above, only multi- family dwelling units are allowed. Cn - 4. The maximum height increase for properties within the Regional and Community :3 Centers shall be limited to twenty (20) feet above that permitted by the underlying zoning district. o 0 Residential -only development, mixed use development not utilizing incentives outlined in M N the zoningoverlay, and commercial -only development other than certain economic a development uses, shall be in accordance with the underlying future land use designation and applicable FLUE policies. LO N L. K-. Incorporated Areas FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps US 41 East Overlay Maps 2of18 Words underlined are added; words struck threugI4 are deleted 02/13/23 mrm-dw Packet Pg. 261 9.A.3.b R] E R2 E R] 2012-2025 FUTURE LAND USE MAP Golder Garry Flontle i 2fE Rsa Etlll 881E Ft UP R14E F, F J R- -E I R]]E I RZeE -E -E I R31E I RVE I -E I -E O M a) O O O O M N O N J a LO M N N M N M N O t K UJ ad C O r O N d r-� C d E z V to r� Q 3of18 Words underlined are added; words stpue'( thFeugh are deleted 02/13/23_m rm-dw Packet Pg. 262 9.A.3.b DRAFT C-3 RMF�`rBLfJ�31 �� ZPUD L L RSF4-BZO-R1 C-3-BZOa31 !RSF-"ZOf31 �j �h1=-6-BZWii L 111 TT-r—r C-1-BZO-Rr 1 �I RMFD�ii I EIH�io-R1 Eshihit -k 1~ S 41 East Overlay - Regional ['enter -flap 1 Collier County, Florida C-5 PL 20130000930 RMF-G COG C- 3 u ADOPTED - xxxx 0 250 5DO 1,00O Feet LEGEND (Ord. No. xxx) US 41 East Oved ay - Pnd�wnr..y+ucr a Regional Center Crt,lGP�r+l/ •Y JL -1 U. -pft.crJ {t,W N.pl,vtl Words underlined are added; words struck thre I^" are deleted 02/13/23 mrm-dw O M a) O O O O M N O N J a uO M N M N M N O t K W ad O r 7 O N d E V W, Q 4of18 Packet Pg. 263 9.A.3.b DRAFT L xhibir A PL'_ 0230000930 F r J mow MIN� it 11 1 1 11 111 - 1 Words underlined are added; words struck *"ram" are deleted 02/13/23 mrm-dw O M a) O O O O M N O N J a M N C) N M_ N O t K LJJ 06 C O r 7 O N d C dC G t V y+ Q 5of18 Packet Pg. 264 9.A.3.b DRAFT Exhibit A PL 2 023 00 0093 0 1 1 h r III I i � f f � Words underlined are added; words struck threugI4 are deleted 02/13/23 mrm-dw Cn O M O O O O O M N O N J a 1O M M N M_ N O Z t x w c 0 0 0 a) m E z c� Q 6of18 Packet Pg. 265 9.A.3.b DRAFT Exhibit A PL 20230000930 PU d CS C- Krz--j Diamond MH Enchantina BLVD US 41 East OveOav - Community Center flap 1 Collier County, f1wida 1 PUD GC GC RSF-3 'OG + ADDPTED - xxxx 0 200 400 800 Feet LEGEND (Ord_ No. ?SXX) US 41 East Overlay - F„P�� eiY..p,rr Community Center Words underlined are added; words struck througl4 are deleted 02/13/23 mrm-dw qq Cl) O M a) O O O O M N O N J a LP) M N C) N M_ N O Q t K W C O r O N d C d l: t V Q 7of18 Packet Pg. 266 9.A.3.b DRAFT Exhibit A PL 20230000930 ADOPTED - XXXX (Ord- ND. XXX) US 41 East Overlav - Coinmuuih- Center flap 2 Collier County, Fla»da 0 2DO 40D SDO Feet LEGEND �I I ITI 1 II US 41 East Overlay - CDmmunity Center qqTM, 0 M a) O O O O M N O N J a M C) N M_ N O K W ad 0 rn d C E V Q 02/13/23 mrm-dw Words underlined are added; words struck threugI4 are deleted Packet Pg. 267 9.A.3.b DRAFT E;hibir A PL 20230000930 qq 0 M CD CD 0 M N O N J a M 04 C) N M_ N 0 x W 06 _ O 0 m o_ m E z c� Q 9of18 Words underlined are added; words struck througl4 are deleted 02/13/23 mrm-dw Packet Pg. 268 9.A.3.b DRAFT EshibirA PL 20230000930 US 41 East CK-erlay - Co Center -N-lap 4 Collier County, Flo»da ❑❑M��L�❑ Sandfleld LN ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ AkndrAa L PUd W Kat � LN J C qpCL Q MH:''- C-2 Cecil Ra A PUD Ck PUO palachee-S. c� TR VC 7 MID {Y Z J gas % L` ADOPTED - XKXX 0 20d 40D 800 Feet LEGEND (Ord- no. XXX) �I I ITI I US 41 East Overlay - ,,,p Commu nity Center FY Y'. +I [rr Wrr�Y=m—N!{nW �Pinm Q 10 of 18 Words underlined are added; words struck througl4 are deleted 02/13/23 mrm-dw Packet Pg. 269 9.A.3.b DRAFT Exhibit A Pi. zoxa00009ao US 41 East Overlay - Corridor Map 1 Collier County, Florida log ma mmma �� m % r wee �I■ ■psi �� or i i i.: ■ �� Wj ■� �� ■LIIIIIIIIIIIf11111 � � ' war � `�� * , i • # R • •� yr i 4 ~ ��1■■■■■ ■ =` 7 HERE w t I � i ■ �r��lll � �■ ■IIL 11111 ��Ilr � ■� ■IIIIIIIIIIIIII�IL � ��* mmm �a1� r ■t ■■■■■■■�■■■■S71■*�■■■M■■■■� ADOPTED - XXKX 0 250 Soo i xo Feet LEGEND pd. No. XXX) US 4�1xEast Overlay - PnPod d,' M■ Y� l4GP Cml6ar Gc�IM1 Yw�n�kd�Y�nl RY:116� I Gd OPY1 C� IrP lnsl Words underlined are added; words struck througl4 are deleted 02/13/23 mrm-dw r Cl) V/ O M O O O O M CV O N J a V) M C) N M_ N O X W 06 a O 0 w 1. V WI }I Q 11 of 18 Packet Pg. 270 71r, 9.A.3.b DFUFT Exhibit A PL 20230004930 0 M O O O O O M N O N J d LO M ti N M N M N O a X W 0a c 0 0 N d r C d E t V r a 13 of 18 Words underlined are added; words stpuel( thFeug" are deleted 02/13/23_m rm-dw Packet Pg. 272 MOM uum POO IJ)l 9.A.3.b PL2023000930 Exhibit A TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT (As amended through Ordinance No. 2017-25, adopted June 13, 2017) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** LIST OF TABLES/MAPS/FIGURES MAP Page TR-1* Cost Feasible Network Map — 2040 27 TR-4* and TR-4.1 * South US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) Maps 35- 36 > 0 M w TR-5 Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Map 36 37 1 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 10 M O O O M OBJECTIVE 5: c Coordinate the Transportation System development with the Future Land Use 14 a process Map LO M N Policy 5.4: N Pursuant to Section 163.3180, Florida Statues and the Urban Infill and Urban Redevelopment N Strategy contained in the Future Land Use Element of this Plan, the South US 41 Transportation T- Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) is hereby designated. Development located within the o South US 41 TCEA (Maps TR-4 and TR-4.1) may be exempt from transportation concurrency Q requirements, so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated using the procedures established in Policies 5.5 and 5.6 below, and in consideration of the following: w 0 0 m o_ m E z c� Q 16 of 18 Words underlined are added; words struck througI4 are deleted 02/13/23 mrm-dw Packet Pg. 275 DRAFT ExkMA PL 21238000930 5�1 AVE 5 k, 41 DAVIS SLVO1- t976.09 a a ial Public Connnercial Residential Total Acres Total A 93.07 453.52 42.9�5 9.53% 46.46% 4-4.00% 100% J I r� _l � — mo� 9 L 1 0 41 THOMASSON ORstArrtesruue ALALArlry 12n E a :16 D.1 0.6 —0.9 AMENDED - XXX, XM (Ord- F&.- Wes GIB MAPPING- BETH YANG, AICP TR-4 South US 41 Transportation AJI P.FmK C-1 = 1725 (100%) S- d 276.09; 100%) V—[C-nt = 234 �� 3-6%); Gum aF � = 1 UM i 1 D 8%] Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) N—V�C�= 491�85.4%) B—F.-870.54;8921%) 17 of 18 Words underlined are added; words struck threugI4 are deleted 02/13/23_mrm-dw I Packet Pg. 276 9.A.3.b o w e' N, x f THoMASSON DR Exhibit A i s �❑ ro � RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD 0 � RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD I • � _ LTU RAL Pltn� E; Lely _ ,441 w L1, LELY OR w <F r m ✓ .. 'S% it 4 x Public Ca mme rciall Reside ntiall Total Acres 406.42 626.73 181.08 1214.23 33.47% 51.62% 14.91% 100% r { a 0 U-25 a.5 1 1.5 �J Miles r :>4.,w er.• �.:= I AMENDED XXXX r., ua, �,,,n o.a i-.•n 30rd. No. XM .ic.fr�•::rzs � T. FL 20230000930 Va mil Parmis roary TR - 4.1 M TCEABou ALL PARCELS LC+ah[.64C I11X1`-.; SulY, o•3[re5:!21A 231]J:. ® Mi.ed— AW,iy C.ntF, SAda[ncl South US 41 Transportation IVACAN7 Loun[.iW llfi.fi+51 Sum oS a[res 171.J9ti17._ Eds{ngTra h%utIn Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) N9N"VACANT Lwh[. SId I`�3.-0nl Shc1', o'a[rk5: 1G1l. Sd ItlS.'J£I ArreraYC OWDr Rwcs 18 of 18 Words underlined are added; words stpuek thFeugh are deleted 02/13/23_m rm-dw Packet Pg. 277 9.A.3.c FEHRtPEERS Memorandum Date: November 29, 2022 To: Laura S. DeJohn, Johnson Engineering From: Kathrin Tellez Subject: US 41 East Corridor Zoning Overlay — Focused Transportation Analysis OR27-0077 Introduction The purpose of the US 41 East Corridor Zoning Overlay (project) is to develop a comprehensive N J zoning overlay for the Tamiami Trail East (US 41) corridor, focused on land uses and development a LO standards that enhance the aesthetics, promote economic development and investment, and improve mobility choices within and connecting to the area. The project extents are generally the N properties and activity centers abutting the Tamiami Trail East corridor, from east of the Bayshore/ 04 N Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency boundary to Port of the Islands, excluding N a portion of the corridor through the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. N While no specific development is proposed along the corridor as a part of the zoning overlay, the zoning changes could increase the density and type of development along the corridor. The E purpose of this memorandum is to provide the results of a focused transportation assessment for E two parcels along the corridor under project conditions, reflective of the potential for increased N density. The transportation context of the corridor was described in a technical memorandum dated Q February 11, 2022. This memorandum is organized to provide a brief description of the r_ 0 hypothetical development potential for two parcels along the corridor, the trip generating c L potential of that hypothetical development, and the analysis results, which include intersection a operations and an assessment of vehicle miles of travel. L Overall, the analysis results indicate that infill development along the US 41 corridor in c combination with improved walking, bicycling and transit access has the potential to result in E development patterns that encourage more non -auto trips, and when trips are made in a vehicle, r Q 300 S. Orange Avenue I Suite 1120 1 Orlando, FL 328011 (321) 430-1151 1 www.fehrandpeers.com Packet Pg. 278 9.A.3.c Laura S. DeJohn November 29, 2022 Page 2 of 11 they are expected to be shorter than trips made by new development in other parts of the County. Congested conditions would occur at major intersections along US 41 regardless of the project and focused development on the US 41 corridor would place fewer demands on other portions of the transportation system. Development Potential Two hypothetical development scenarios were developed under the proposed zoning overlay. One site is located to the north of Saint Andrews Boulevard on the east side of US 41 (St. Andrews Square) and the second site is located on west side of US 41 just north of Collier Boulevard (Lowes Infill). Under both hypothetical development scenarios, it was assumed that development would occur on existing surface parking. The following describes the potential development St. Andrews Square • Existing retail to remain unchanged (51,400 square feet) • New retail (7,200 square feet) • Multifamily dwelling units (10 units) Lowes Infill • Existing retail to remain unchanged (150,000 square feet) • New retail (24,360 square feet) • New hotel (150 rooms) • Multifamily dwelling units (42 units) Under the current zoning, residential development of up to 16 units per acre would be permitted on the St. Andrews Square through rezoning the existing commercial acreage to residential zoning. The Lowes Infill Site is eligible for 4 dwelling units per acre for half the site and 16 dwelling units per acre for the other half of the site under current zoning. Neither site has any existing entitled development. Trip Generation Trip generation typically refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a c project might add to the local roadway network. In addition to estimates of daily traffic, estimates w are also created for the peak one -hour period during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) L commute hours, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at their highest. ~ c m The traditional trip generation methods commonly used by traffic engineers can overestimate the z vehicle trip generation of mixed -use developments (MXDs) in urban/urbanizing areas with a r Q Packet Pg. 279 9.A.3.c Laura S. DeJohn November 29, 2022 Page 3 of 11 variety of travel options because the traditional methods do not accurately reflect the amount of internal trip linking or the level of trips made by transit, biking, and/or walking. This can result in higher development costs due to oversized infrastructure, skewed public perception of the likely impacts of development, resistance to approving smart growth projects, and designs that are oriented towards prioritizing vehicle travel which ultimately results in more vehicle travel that can diminish the availably and desirability to travel by other modes. To better account for the evolution of the land uses and the transportation system along US 41 project's as well as the overall County goal of promoting mixed -use development that reduces vehicle trip generation and supports non -auto travel modes, Fehr & Peers used a mixed -use trip generation model, known as MXD+, to estimate project trip generation, pivoting from published trip generation rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11tn Edition). The trip generation results are shown in Table 1 for the St. Andrews Square site and in Table 2 for the Lowes Infill site. As shown in Table 1, the St. Andrews Square site would be expected to generate about 460 trips per day. However, as the development would be within an existing shopping plaza, about 5 percent of trips are expected to remain internal to the site, meaning that someone patronizing the existing retail would also patronize the new development, as well as the potential for someone who lives in the new multifamily development also patronizing the existing or future retail. Given the existing surrounding land use and transportation system context, few people are expected to arrive at the site via non -auto modes — about 10 daily trips. This level of non -auto trip making could be higher as transportation system improvements are made to better connect the site to the surrounding neighborhoods. After the application of pass -by trips to the retail component, these are trips that are already on the roadway system and a visit to the site would be part of an already planned trip, in -fill development at the St. Andrews Square site is expected to generate about 360 daily vehicle trips, including 17 morning peak hour and 41 evening peak hour trips. c m E z U a r Q Packet Pg. 280 9.A.3.c Laura S. DeJohn November 29, 2022 Page 4 of 11 Table 1: St. Andrews Square — Trip Generation Estimates Retail' 7,200 square -feet 390 10 7 17 24 23 47 s Residential — Multi- 10 Units 70 1 3 4 3 2 5 Family Low Rise2 Total Trip Generation 460 11 10 21 27 25 52 Trip Adjustments Internal Capture3 -20 -1 -0 -2 -2 -1 -3 Vehicle Trips Converted to -10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk/Bike/Transit Trips Total Driveway Vehicle Volumes 430 10 10 20 25 24 49 Less Pass -by Trips5 -70 -2 -1 -3 -4 -4 -8 Net New Vehicle Trips to 360 8 9 17 21 20 41 Transportation Network12 Notes: 1. Based on Trip Generation (11" Edition) trip generation rates for land use 822, General Strip Retail, from suburban locations 2. Based on Trip Generation (11" Edition) trip generation rates for land use 930, Multifamily Housing Low Rise. 3. Internal trips, meaning trips that have an origin and destination within the site including the existing retail uses, are expected to comprise 5 percent of daily, 5 percent of morning peak hour and 6 percent of PM peak hour activity. 4. Walk/bike and transit trips are expected to comprise about 2 percent of daily activity with minimal peak hour activity. 5. A pass -by trip reduction of 20 percent was applied to the retail trip generation after the application of internal and non -auto reductions. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022. For the Lowes Infill Site, the infill development potential could generate about 2,800 new trips. After considering the amount of activity that would remain internal to the site, about 10 percent, as well as the potential for walk/bike and transit trips, about 2 percent, the project vehicle trip generation would reduce to about 2,470 trips. After the application of the pass -by reduction, the overall added trips to the transportation system would be about 2,240 trips, including 116 morning peak hour and 213 evening peak hour trips. w t— c 0 .y C 0_ x w Q w t� w J c� a� O N R W 0 M O) O O 0 0 M N O N J d LO M N N N 0 N CD N E E D) I 0 21 QI c 0 ca L 0 Q N C L d E t U a Q Packet Pg. 281 9.A.3.c Laura S. DeJohn November 29, 2022 Page 5 of 11 Table 2: Lowes Infill — Trip Generation Estimates Retail' 24,360 (flare -feet 1,330 34 23 57 81 80 161 s Hote12 150 Rooms 1,200 39 30 69 45 44 89 Residential — Multi - Family Low Rise 42 Units 280 4 13 17 13 8 21 Total Trip Generation 2,870 77 66 743 739 732 277 Trip Adjustments Internal Capture -280 -9 -8 -17 -14 -13 -27 Vehicle Trips Converted to -60 0 0 0 -2 -1 -3 Walk/Bike/Transit Trips5 Total Driveway Vehicle Volumes 2,470 68 58 126 123 118 241 Less Pass -by Trips' -230 -5 -5 -10 -14 -14 -28 Net New Vehicle Trips to 2,240 63 53 116 109 104 213 Transportation Network12 Notes: 1. Based on Trip Generation (11`h Edition) trip generation rates for land use 822, General Strip Retail, from suburban locations 2. Based on Trip Generation (10`h Edition) trip generation rates for land use 310, Hotel, from suburban locations 3. Based on Trip Generation (10`h Edition) trip generation rates for land use 930, Multifamily Housing Low Rise. 4. Internal trips, meaning trips that have an origin and destination within the site including the existing retail uses, are expected to comprise 10 percent of daily, 12 percent of morning peak hour and 10 percent of PM peak hour activity. 5. Walk/bike and transit trips are expected to comprise about 2 percent of daily activity and 1 percent of PM peak hour activity. 6. A pass -by trip reduction of 20 percent was applied to the retail trip generation after the application of internal and non -auto reductions. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022. New land uses that could be developed on either hypothetical development site under current zoning would generate fewer trips than could be generated by development allowed under the zoning overlay. Analysis Results To assess the effect of the rezoning on the transportation system, two types of analysis were conducted. The first is a focused intersection analysis of the intersections closest to the two hypothetical development sites: w c 0 .y C 0_ x w Q w t� Oa w J LL c� a� O N R W to 0 0 M rn 0 0 0 0 M N 0 N J d LO M N N N 0 N CD N E E N N I Q c I 0 M 0 N C L c m E z U 0 r Q Packet Pg. 282 9.A.3.c Laura S. DeJohn November 29, 2022 Page 6 of 11 1. US 41 at Saint Andrews 2. US 41 at Triangle Boulevard 3. US 41 at Celeste Drive 4. US 41 at Collier Boulevard The second analysis is an assessment of vehicle miles of travel (VMT). This relates to how far people travel by vehicle on a typical day — the greater levels of VMT on a per person basis, the more likely congested conditions will ultimately occur as people have to travel long distances for employment, shopping, education, recreation, and other trip purposes. Intersection Operations The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term "level of service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow from a vehicle driver's perspective based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined ranging from LOS A (free -flow conditions) to LOS F (over capacity conditions). LOS E corresponds to operations "at capacity." When volumes exceed capacity, stop -and -go conditions result, and operations are designated LOS F. Collier County and the Florida Department of transportation (FDOT) strive to maintain LOS E operations at the intersections in the study area. Signalized Intersections Traffic conditions at signalized intersections were evaluated using methods developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), as documented in various editions of the Highway Capacity Manua(, for vehicles using the analysis software Synchro 10.0. Different versions of the HCM were applied to different intersections due to limitations within the Synchro software to account for the signal phasing parameters and U-turn movements at some intersections, with the most current version of HCM applied as appropriate. The HCM methodologies calculate control delay at an intersection based on inputs such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, signal phasing and timing, pedestrian crossing times, and peak hour factors. Control delay is defined as the delay directly associated with the traffic control device (i.e., a stop sign or a traffic signal) and specifically includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The relationship between LOS and control delay is summarized in Table 3 for signalized intersections. Packet Pg. 283 9.A.3.c Laura S. DeJohn November 29, 2022 Page 7 of 11 Table 3: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria u Progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. A ` 10.0 Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with > 10.0 to LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. 20.0 Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. > 20.0 to C Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass 35.0 through the intersection without stopping. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result D from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C > 35.0 to ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. 55.0 Individual cycle failures are noticeable. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These > 55.0 to E high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high 80.0 V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C F ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle > 80.0 lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels, and most cycles fail to clear the queue. Source: Highway Capacity Manual. Unsignalized Intersections For unsignalized (all -way stop controlled and side -street stop controlled) intersections, the HCM method for unsignalized intersections was used. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds). The control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in queue. Table 4 summarizes the relationship between LOS and delay for unsignalized intersections. At side -street stop -controlled intersections, the delay is calculated for each stop -controlled movement, the left - turn movement from the major street, as well as the intersection average. The intersection average delay and highest movement/approach delay are reported for side -street stop -controlled intersections. Table 4: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria A Little or no delays <_ 10.0 Packet Pg. 284 9.A.3.c Laura S. DeJohn November 29, 2022 Page 8 of 11 B C D E Short traffic delays Average traffic delays Long traffic delays Very long traffic delays Extreme traffic, delays where intersection capacity exceeded Source: Highway Capacity Manual. Existing Intersection Operations > 10.0 to 15.0 > 15.0 to 25.0 > 25.0 to 35.0 > 35.0 to 50.0 > 50.0 This analysis focuses on the weekday evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak period when traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network are the highest, and when the project generates the most vehicle traffic. Intersection vehicle turning movement counts were conducted in September 2022 on a clear day with typical travel patterns for the time of year. In addition to the count of vehicles traveling through the study intersections, a separate count of bicyclists and pedestrians was also conducted. For the study intersections, the single hour with the highest traffic volumes during the count periods was identified. To reflect conditions during peak season, FDOT guidance regarding seasonal adjustment factors was applied such that the volumes collected in September 2022 are reflective of peak season. Existing intersection operations were evaluated using the methodology described above. The analysis was based on the traffic volumes, lane configurations and existing signal timings obtained from FDOT and the County. Observed peak hour factors' were used at all intersections for the existing conditions analysis. Truck, pedestrian, and bicycle activity was factored into the analysis. The intersection operations results are summarized in Table 5, which shows the intersections in the vicinity of the focused analysis sites operate within the level of service standard. The relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume is given by the peak -hour factor (PHF) as shown in the following equation: PHF=Hourly volume/(4* volume during the peak 15 minutes of flow). The analysis of level of service is based on peak rates of flow occurring within the peak hour because substantial short-term fluctuations typically occur during an hour. Packet Pg. 285 9.A.3.c Laura S. DeJohn November 29, 2022 Page 9 of 11 Table 5: Existing Conditions — Weekday Evening Peak Hour Intersection Operations 1. US 41 at Saint Andrews Signalized E 16 B 2. US 41 at Triangle Boulevard Signalized E 40 D 3. US 41 at Celeste Drive Side-SStpreet E 1 (20) A (C) 4. US 41 at Collier Boulevard Signalized E 69 E Notes: 1. Existing intersection traffic control type (Signal = Signalized, Side -Street Stop = Side -Street Stop control) 2. Whole intersection average delay reported for signalized intersections. Side -Street Stop -Controlled intersection delay presented as Whole Intersection Average Delay (Worst Movement Delay). Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022. Project Conditions To assess operations of the intersections with the proposed land use intensification, the project trip generation estimates were added to the existing traffic counts and the intersection operations analysis was updated. The results are presented on Table 6, which shows that the additional traffic generated from the infill development potential would marginally impact intersection operations along the corridor and all intersections would continue to operate within the established level of service standard. Table 6: Existing with Project Conditions - Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations 1. US 41 at Saint Andrews Signalized E 16 B 16 B 2. US 41 at Triangle Boulevard Signalized E 40 D 43 D 3. US 41 at Celeste Drive Side-SStrreet E 1 (20) A (C) 1 (21) A (C) op 4. US 41 at Collier Boulevard Signalized E 69 E 70 E Notes: 1. Existing intersection traffic control type (Signal = Signalized, Side -Street Stop = Side -Street Stop control) 2. Whole intersection average delay reported for signalized intersections. Side -Street Stop -Controlled intersection delay presented as Whole Intersection Average Delay (Worst Movement Delay). Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022. Packet Pg. 286 9.A.3.c Laura S. DeJohn November 29, 2022 Page 10 of 11 Future Conditions An assessment of future year conditions was also conducted using the regional travel demand model to estimate growth in future travel in the area based on projections of land use development in the County and within the incorporated cities. Overall, the population in the County is expected to increase over 40 percent in the next 30 years, with an almost 70 percent increase in employment, resulting in an annual increase in range of 2 to 4 percent in traffic volumes along the corridor. This is expected to result in more frequent congested conditions and some intersections are projected to exceed their level of service standard. It should be noted that these are development projections and likely may not be realized as envisioned in the travel model. While infill development would contribute worsening congestion along the corridor, it also has the potential to reduce trip lengths and in the long-term encourage some people to walk, bike or take transit instead of a personal vehicle. Vehicle Miles of Travel An assessment of the amount of vehicle miles (VMT) of travel within the county was conducted using the regional travel model to estimate the amount of travel attributed to development within the county. For this calculation, all travel with both the trip origin and trip destination within the county was accounted for in addition to half of the travel with at least one trip end within the county. All regional through traffic — trips that pass through the county but do not stop — was excluded. Using the base year regional travel demand model (2015), it is estimated that land uses within Collier County generate about 7.2 million miles of travel per day, or about 20 miles of vehicle travel per resident per day. This accounts for travel on all roadways within the County and all people regardless of if they drive. In the future year, this level of travel is expected to increase by about 20 percent on a per resident basis, indicating the future development patterns in the County are planned to be more dispersed than current patterns with future residents needing to travel farther for goods and services based on the planned location of residential developments combined with the location of other land uses. Land uses along the southern portion of the US 41 corridor tend to generate slightly more vehicle miles of travel than the regional average due to its location in the southern portion of the county, in the existing condition. However, the amount of travel generated by land uses along the corridor in the future is projected to decrease, meaning that development along the corridor is more location efficient that other planned development elsewhere in the County. Conclusions Overall, the analysis results indicate that infill development along the US 41 corridor in E combination with improved walking, bicycling and transit access has the potential to result in U a Q Packet Pg. 287 9.A.3.c Laura S. DeJohn November 29, 2022 Page 11 of 11 development patterns that encourage more non -auto trips, and when trips are made in a vehicle, they are expected to be shorter than trips made by new development in other parts of the County. Congested conditions would occur at major intersections along US 41 regardless of the project and focused development on the US 41 corridor would place fewer demands on other portions of the transportation system. Please contact Kathrin at k.tellez@fehrandpeers.com or (321) 754-9902 if you have questions. c m E z U a r Q Packet Pg. 288 9.A.3.d FEHR�PEERS Memorandum Date: February 11, 2022 To: Laura S. DeJohn, Johnson Engineering From: Kathrin Tellez Subject: US 41 East Corridor Zoning Overlay — Transportation Policy Overview rU:iiW0181F/I Introduction The purpose of the US 41 East Corridor Zoning Overlay (project) is to develop a comprehensive zoning overlay for the Tamiami Trail East (US 41) corridor, focused on land uses and development standards that enhance the aesthetics, promote economic development and investment, and improve mobility choices within and connecting to the area. The project extents are generally the properties and activity centers abutting the Tamiami Trail East corridor, from east of the Bayshore/ Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency boundary to Port of the Islands, excluding a portion of the corridor through the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize relevant policies and plans that may support, conflict, or hinder the project goals. The specific documents reviewed as a part of this overview include: • East Naples Community Development Plan • Collier MPO Long Range Transportation Plan • Collier County Growth Management Plan, Transportation Element • Collier County Land Development Code • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Guidance Manuals (Access Management and Context Classification) • FDOT Efficient Transportation Decision Making Manual • 2013-2017 All Crash Infographics Development, District 1 This memorandum is organized to provide a brief transportation overview of the study corridor, followed by a summary of key policies, plans and codes from the documented noted above that support, conflict, or hinder the project goals. 250 S. Orange Avenue I Suite 120P I Orlando, FL 328011 (321) 430-1151 1 www.fehrandpeers.com Packet Pg. 289 9.A.3.d Laura S. DeJohn February 11, 2022 Page 2 of 8 Transportation Context The Tamiami Trail East (US 41) is oriented southeast to northwest and connects Miami in the east to Naples and Fort Myers in the north, and beyond. Through the study area, it serves the dual purpose of accommodating regional travel and local connectivity. Travel patterns along the roadway also fluctuate significantly depending on the season due to high levels of tourism and seasonal residents, with the highest levels of activity experienced from late winter to early spring, and significantly lower levels of activity during other times of year. Travel demand along the corridor is consistent between about 10 AM and 3 PM, with peak roadway demands experienced between 4 and 6 PM. The traditional morning peak hour of 7 to 9 AM is generally lower than other times of day, indicating that while the roadway does accommodate the traditional commute trips, its function goes well beyond that of accommodating peak period commute travel, and serves a wide variety of trips throughout the day. Much of the study corridor provides three travel lanes in each direction, with added turn lanes at major intersections and destinations along the corridor. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph) in the northern section of the corridor, increasing to a high of 60 mph as you travel south along the corridor. Average travel speeds are typically within the range of the posted speed limit, with 85th percentile travel speeds generally around 5 to 10 percent higher than the posted speed limit. Vehicle traffic volumes in the northern section of the corridor are approximately 42,000 vehicles per day based on 2019 data available from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Vehicle traffic volumes generally decrease as you travel to the southeast to around 20,000 vehicles per day around Sandpiper Drive and around 3,000 vehicle per day as you travel to Port of the Islands. The roadway network surrounding the corridor can be disjointed in sections, with developments taking access from US 41, but not providing connections to adjacent developments, forcing some travel that could stay on local roadways to the state highway system. Access control has been implemented along the corridor with landscaped medians and channelized left -turns, with full access, signalized intersections spaced at about half -mile intervals, which is appropriate for the current Suburban Commercial Context Zone (C3C). Bicycle lanes are provided along US 41 from the northern end at Bayshore Drive to south of Sandpiper Drive. South of Sandpiper Drive there is a striped area that serves as a defacto bike lane area, although it is not consistently provided. Guidance based on existing traffic volumes and vehicle speeds from the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide indicates that for streets with daily traffic volumes in excess of 6,000 vehicles per day and a prevailing speed of people driving over 30 miles per hour, a separated bike lane or shared use path is an appropriate bicycle facility. Between 3,000 and 6,000 vehicles per day, and speed of people driving up to 30 miles per hour, a buffered bike lane is recommended. For streets with less than 3,000 vehicles per day and people driving less than 25 miles per hour, a shared lane may be appropriate. Based on this guidance, the w c 0 .y C X W a W U H Oa w J ca L as O N W Packet Pg. 290 9.A.3.d Laura S. DeJohn February 11, 2022 Page 3 of 8 existing bicycle facilities along US 41 are not appropriate for the volume and speed of vehicle travel. Sidewalks are consistently provided along US 41. In some locations, they are separated from the roadway by a landscape buffer, and in some instances by a guard rail. In other locations, they are provided adjacent to a travel lane. While new developments along the corridor are required to provide a pedestrian connection from the development to the public street network, many uses were constructed prior to those regulations being in place and pedestrian access to land uses can be limited along some portions of the corridor. While sidewalks are consistently provided, marked and controlled crossing locations of US 41 are infrequent. Numerous transit routes operate along the corridor, with a major transfer point located at the Collier County Government Center, near Airport -Pulling Road. From this transfer point, most of the corridor is accessible via transit. Stops are spaced at about 1/2-mile intervals along the corridor. Some stops are near signalized intersections to provide protected pedestrian crossings to destinations on the other side of the street, while most are not located at pedestrian crossing locations, limiting accessibility to transit stops, and promoting mid -block crossings of US 41. In the past 5-years, approximately 71 people have been killed or seriously injured along this section of roadway, including 13 people riding a motorcycle, 7 people bicycling and 8 people walking. Although people walking and bicycling were involved in less than 5 percent of all collisions, they represent more than 20 percent of people seriously injured or killed. Collisions more frequently occur on the northern section of the corridor between Bayshore Drive and Collier Boulevard. This section of the roadway has the highest level of activity for all travel modes, as well as the greatest density of driveways providing direct access to land uses along the corridor. Plan Review The following summarizes some of the key findings from the review of plans that related to the development/redevelopment of the corridor. For each plan, a general summary of the document and key elements that support, conflict, or hinder project goals. A matrix with additional details is provided as an attachment. East Naples Community Development Plan The East Naples Community Development Plan provides the framework for the Zoning Overlay and provides the vision of balanced development, diverse and quality commercial, beautification and green space, and transportation options. The existing conditions assessment identified that many neighborhoods within the study area were not within a reasonable biking distance of many desired uses, such as libraries, parks, and schools. The plan conceptually identified potential new connections to US 41 and intersection improvements that would modify intersection Packet Pg. 291 9.A.3.d Laura S. DeJohn February 11, 2022 Page 4 of 8 configurations to decrease pedestrian walking distances, slow vehicle turning movements, and increase overall connectivity. As the Zoning Overlay strategies are developed, the overall goals and visions from this plan will be reviewed as tradeoffs are weighed. Collier MPO Long Range Transportation Plan The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) prepares a long range transportation plan (LRTP) every five years with a minimum time horizon of 20 years. The plan serves to identify needed improvements to the transportation network and a long-term investment framework to address current and future challenges. The plan is centered around 10 goals, with various specific objectives to achieve those goals: 1. Ensure the security of the transportation system for uses 2. Protect environmental resources 3. Improve system continuity and connectivity 4. Reduce roadway congestion 5. Promote freight movement 6. Increase the safety of the transportation system for users 7. Promote multimodal solutions 8. Promote the integrated planning of transportation and land use 9. Promote sustainability in the planning of transportation and land use 10. Consider climate change vulnerability and risk in transportation decision -making Most of the LRTP goals and objectives are supportive of the proposed zoning overlay to transform how US 41 continues to develop and be redeveloped. However, goals related to roadway congestion may be contrary to other goals related to safety, climate vulnerability, sustainable land use development patterns and system continuity and connectivity. It may be challenging to achieve some goals if the primary metric used to evaluate the transportation system is a driver perspective delay -based calculation. While it is important to maintain vehicle - capacity, especially on critical evacuation routes, transportation metrics that measure the efficiency of the system from the perspective of connectivity, accessibility, and safety outcomes, such as vehicle miles of travel and access by mode, may be more appropriate metrics to evaluate different land use and transportation network strategies along the corridor. Collier County Growth Management Plan, Transportation Element The Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan identifies the future system needs, strategies for providing intermodal and multi -modal transportation, and connects the transportation element with the land use element. Goals, objectives, and policies are Packet Pg. 292 9.A.3.d Laura S. DeJohn February 11, 2022 Page 5 of 8 articulated that primarily promote the development of a transportation system that is based on the peak hour operations of roadways from the perspective of a vehicle driver. There are goals, objectives, and policies related to transportation safety, multimodal transportation systems, and the coordination of land use development and the transportation system; however, there is not guidance on how decision makers should balance the inevitable trade-offs between goals. For example, widening roadways to provide peak hour congestion relief can result in longer crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections, higher speeds for people driving at all times of day, and especially off-peak periods which can result in worsening safety outcomes, and development patterns that encourage more driving trips rather than walking, bicycling or transit trips. As development is proposed along the corridor, a traditional approach to transportation impact assessments may show that from the perspective of a vehicle operator, the plans are contrary to some county goals, although they would further goals related to safety, multi -modal accessibility, and land use/transportation integration. Additionally, adding more links to the transportation network may serve to disperse travel demand and change some travel modes for existing trips. This would accommodate land use development without significant increases in travel on the state highway system and future analysis should consider these potential shifts in travel demand and travel mode. Collier County Land Development Code The Collier County Land Development Code provides guidance related to parking standards as well as other development standards, such as sidewalk width, site design and development standards and transportation level of service standards. The parking requirements are prescriptive and set minimum parking standards that may not be appropriate for all areas of the County, especially areas that are transitioning to destinations that are easily accessible from adjacent neighborhoods via non -private auto -modes. Along the US 41 corridor, consideration should be given towards setting parking maximums with greater flexibility provided to developers to provide the amount of parking expected to be demanded by a specific use, rather than a prescribed minimum. Some jurisdictions allow for the first 1,500 square -feet of locally serving land uses to be exempt from parking requirements to allow for greater flexibility in the adaptive reuse of existing buildings and to reduce the development cost for new buildings. Some also allow all new on -street parking created by the project to count towards the code - requirement. For example, if a project eliminates 3 curb -cuts, which has the benefit of reducing bike/ped conflict points and can provide 3 additional on -street parking spaces, their parking code requirement would be reduced by three spaces. Some communities are also allowing golf cart/neighborhood electric vehicle parking spaces to count towards the overall parking requirement to encourage trips to activity centers in these lower -polluting, lower speed vehicles, as well as make more efficient use of constrained sites. Packet Pg. 293 9.A.3.d Laura S. DeJohn February 11, 2022 w Page6of8 H c 0 While there is a bicycle parking code requirement, it applies only to commercial developments .y a and sets a maximum number of bicycle parking spaces that need to be provided. It also does not w specify the type of bicycle parking to be provided. In bicycle friendly communities, employment w centers often require long-term bike parking that is covered and typically more secure than a bike rack, as well as showers and lockers to encourage active transportation commutes. For residential °a uses, at least one long-term bicycle space is required for every new multi -family residential unit. :3 J LL The transportation level of service standards, as discussed in the context of the LRTP and the >, Growth Management Plan, have the potential perpetuate current development patterns and ca outcomes and changes to the approach are needed to help achieve the US 41 vision. 0 The development code provides requirements related to site design, orientation, and other N w specific requirements. Elements of the code that could be refined to better help achieve the goals `* articulated in the East Naples Community Development Plan include: D • Require connectivity and reciprocal access between adjacent developments as it would reduce the reliance on the state highway network to accommodate local trips, would reduce overall trip length, and would promote walking and biking within areas. • Prohibit developments with cul-de-sacs and where they must be provided due to a natural barrier, provide a pass -through for walking and bicycling • Identify pedestrian priority areas along the corridor and require minimum width of sidewalks greater than 6 feet. • Update the bicycle facility requirements to align with the FHWA bicycle facility section guidance FDOT Guidance Manuals (Access Management and Context Classification) FDOT has been evolving the approach to planning, designing, and operating the transportation system in response to worsening safety outcomes, and a desire to develop more multimodal transportation systems that move away from prioritizing high-speed vehicle travel. The Access Management Guidebook and the Context Classification Guide will be important resources for the project team to refer to during the course of this project. To achieve the stated goals in the East Naples Community Development Plan, a reclassification of the northern portion of the corridor, generally from the northern end to Collier Boulevard from the current Suburban Commercial (CSC) to an Urban General (C4) will be necessary. A OC context zone is characterized with mostly non-residential developments, large building footprints and large parking lots within large blocks, and a disconnected or sparse roadway network. Within the C4 zone, development is characterized by a mix of land uses set within small blocks with a well-connected roadway network, that usually connects to residential Packet Pg. 294 9.A.3.d Laura S. DeJohn February 11, 2022 Page 7 of 8 neighborhoods immediately along the corridor or behind the uses fronting the roadway. Within the C4 zone, roadway connections are permitted at more frequent intervals, minimum traffic signal spacing on the state highway is reduced providing greater connectivity, especially for people walking, bicycling, and taking transit, and speed limits are generally lower, improving transportation safety outcomes. Coordination with District 1 staff to provide a planned C4 designation for the section of roadway from south of Collier Boulevard to the northern corridor extents should occur as a part of the Zoning Overlay process. As redevelopment occurs, it would be held to the C4 standards. The Access Management Guidebook will be an important resource to consult as concepts are developed for specific segments of the corridor that might involve consolidating driveway, adding new street connections, and eliminating excessive turn lanes that increase pedestrian crossing distances. Guidance is also provided related to driveway designs that may be more appropriate for an evolving roadway are also provided. FDOT Efficient Transportation Decision Making Manual The purpose of the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process is to incorporate environmental considerations into transportation planning to inform project delivery. This process supports the environmental policy of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to "protect and preserve the quality of life, and the natural, physical, social, and cultural resources of the State, while expeditiously developing safe, cost effective, and efficient transportation systems". The ETDM process is applied to roadway projects that add capacity and the screening process for Public Transportation projects with a goal of identifying potential issues that should be further explored during scope development, facilitate timely decision making that considers environmental quality, promote public and environmental technical advisory team participation, provide a link between the planning and Project Development and Environment (PD&E) phases, including the appropriate environmental documentation review, and incorporation of appropriate issue resolution mechanisms during the planning process. The ETDM does not provide specific evaluation metrics, which provides Collier County an opportunity to develop policies and standards that more meaningfully address the concerns of the community along and connecting to the US 41 corridor. FDOT Di Safety Review FDOT District 1 (D1) has placed an emphasis on improving transportation safety outcomes on roadways within D1. Within Collier County, most crashes occur on the CK network, followed closely by Suburban Residential (C3R) classification, primarily because these are the most prevalent roadway types within the County, but they are also the roadways with the highest vehicle volumes and highest speed vehicle travel. A disproportionate number of crashes that Packet Pg. 295 9.A.3.d Laura S. DeJohn February 11, 2022 Page 8 of 8 result in a severe injury or fatality involve a vulnerable roadway user (someone walking, bicycling, or riding a motorcycle) and involve high speeds as a contributing factor. Most fatal crashes on roadways within District 1 are on roadways with more than four travel lanes and posted speed limits of 40 miles per hour or greater. Four, five and six lane roadways with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour or less have the lowest level of fatal crashes within the district. Given these crash trends, the County's plan to evolve the land uses and transportation system along and connecting to US 41 align with the districts goals to eliminate serious injury and fatal crashes on our roadways. Conclusions Our overall review of the existing transportation and policy context along the US 41 corridor between indicates that most local and regional planning documents have policies that are generally supportive of the type of development and transportation system changes proposed as a part of the East Naples Community Development Plan. However, many of these policies and procedures also require an evaluation of roadway capacity from the perspective of vehicle drivers delay and may require an oversupply of vehicle parking. Incorporating development standards that might still consider levels of service for people driving, but also consider safety, network connectivity, overall travel time, vehicle miles of travel, and other metrics that more meaningfully measure the goals of the project would help the County Achieve the vision of enhancing aesthetics, promoting economic development and investment, and improving mobility choices within and connecting to the area. Please contact Kathrin at k.tellez@fehrandpeers.com or (321) 754-9902 if you have questions. Packet Pg. 296 uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-u) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld S£LbZ) Ueld leu!3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv 00 m ri N a V, uj LU Y f W > a bA U � � v f I� O U - O y W W O U z — ® O i Q CD QJ w C/3 V Q) C a= O O V) .� C O O � t � .N C/7 > E > V_ Q O E p n3 r- LLD o U a� O O E LLJ T .O ti O Q = - — E I.--i Q Q O a z a) 0 0 Q n ao o '� �F M W m L L IiA �"i mc O �L c v v Lj— N > N > N p O O L� O p � O N L v .E Q O cz LA—''- O v >_ inn C m O Q 0 COO p O a mn CS'O cp c6 C QJ C p Q1 C) a _N O C Q ~ ~ O OLLJ d a T `S t6 -d 'O N N O 7�OQ1 2!-- O Ocm C=O 'O Lon ti _ vp0 u (N W L O u m v i i ca C +_+ J (a L Q) n3 +� T +_� Q fa .V f6 C7 v Q) > 03 LJ ca fl O cv E U V i L C O i O ca 0C C. z Q � -, Q O H O C2 Q m a m p Q N � Q -)>- z uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld S£LbZ) Ueld leu!3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv CD ri m N Q a oi d r+ w d 2 Y a v R > r M LL7 r— r CM CM 0 IL a -6 U C Z 0 O V u W v w � J � d � Q Z f6 H V1 Q Q "' +J v C u N C U N � N � Q N C � N ' � C N O Z o w W Cn CIO,) O I u Ln l� ~ Z m > W Z O Z W i N C Z � O _V O O Q p Q O Q V -a-0 ~ Q C3 C~C Q Z C= y = Y L O Z Lu C' E 0 0 W G Q = M O W Z > v E Lr Z Q O a Cr >o io is Z W Q Cr G CMu u C-S Y J Q Cam- •c c LLI O O O O O O W r N M m C6 C/3 a H uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv N N M ;I- LO CD lfl N M 't Ln N .--1 -1 M Ln CD m N O -1 M M M M M M M 't 't Ln -1 N ' � U- V co O > O v L N N Q Q N u O O ca Z ca Z O O o O N > N O cn X ca (13 N u0 t� .� : w O N N w r6 +J ca d v Q Q bA C C O O Q Q T I I -� _ T o :e u .< U U U : L1 J W O C O C O a1 V >> co aJ u +' N 7+ m f� Z a O O Z u C O C O E N E E O U U U O ,0 U tom.) O O v�i Q U N N C O L7 C u O v cn co O w Q m co O w C l6 f6 L i U +� N i +' (n N (n d' Z d' N a) (p 2 aJ 2 N vi -0 -6 O � O O Q '✓3 0) Ln �O in O X O O bA O v co - O" U U N m M to M w ca in C 6 m m W J a) d V U a) to 41 to a1 a) a) aJ a) = T c r1 V ¢ +., ¢ v v N 2 N 2 N 2 v aJ N 2 O O co C O C C N N C a1 C a, U C E N i 2 rO tO a'' 'O N U U U U U E a1 O O N C r •m C V -0 cT6 bA N O N O c6 a1 J U N co w J a) C +V.1 "t � +j i + a) i i (n t N N O v O O O O m U s X �O -O > 2 "� A u 2 2 2 H +J H H I-- H d (n LU d Q N to -6 N M 0- S N N M N N� C � io N N I� N 60 N Oi N J O r4 M M N M M M M iy +C•' N *x W v Q m J N C W .x v W Q co J O_ O bi - 2 w L a1 L a) O w w L L aJ L w L W L a) a1 v L i a) L a) L aJ L CO 4 N T M � 1n CO T r— CO m O 7 L =3 Q 7 O 7 O 7 D 7 =5 M 7 7 I-- 1Z CL !Z Q 1Z CL f? f? a bA W W Q W bA bA bA W w w u O bA bA 52 to m � t6 c6 t6 � t6 t6 t6 LL 11 M O I.L LZc6 L = LZ E W EE E ofI..L LL —1;E:2 (n (n cV Izi: Lq Cl O .--I r-I In 1- .--I M ItT It In CD 1l- W W m O 1-1 CV CV N r CV CV CV CV CV CV M M cv 0 v > ca V C 0 o C E > N I I ` U C C CL Q \ = Q to O ca d O :Y d O i a C C O N O C Q a O U U > O V O u v Q U 41 41 +� LI) 0 v ai r C C +� N bA cv cv O aCi E a m m O o U o U vi N d Z N aJ U a) aJ C O X O O C T > O U1�X U WU V) C o Q ucv u Q Eu O O n O O O o Quuu w JO O Q E E E va, Ln E E E d vaO NNdN O O O O O m cv by bE0 C C C C C 2 2 2 c O O N O O o N Q O N co cv co ca co � O 1 a� a� 1 C - '>- a--� m i O U C U C Z vi ca - -' N co co co � a) T �-' ri r-1 l0 Z = � ;1-i d a) a) a) a) a1 N a_+ !n !n d � a) u NE o a! C al al a) V In N U, N fd !6 f6 f6 O E N U= O =) =) O M w v + - O Z Z Z Z Z v a..' C uj 0 N L W w O E Q <n Ln v v '� c � OC ,v -6 � o 0 0 o _Lyn v �; v v 2 v v p v v v w .O .- +J U c0 O O aJ in Ln .O O O N a1 to to > cn N to T to N > Lrl > N 7 co N X L L > a) U > m Z 2 z- 2 2 a) 2 O > m a w d d O of > > LV L; cV M In CO ti CO Ol T -1 -1 -1 -1 .--I -1 -1 u .-I r1 -1 U N N U O a) a) v a) J a) v v a) v a) a) (1) v a) O a) L v L v Q a) L v S- a) v L a) L a) L v CL cn bA bA bA bA co bA bA qA bA bA bA bA W bA W Q w w ` v bA W M C o bA bA i v J iL iL iL iL w �L iL i.L LZ ilz m E LZ LZ i..L LZ 0 iL iL a iL iL LL U iL iL d a! uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv ri d V) uoisuedx3 `d3018 (3fl-ld) AeIJOAO ISe3 �v sn - OE60000EZOZ-ld : SELtiZ) Ueld leuld daON3 :;uGwLj3e;;y 79 h U) n, U O L CL O O a O Q� .j L O.i H LJ Z iz Q. c04D W H V W W �C W F ro on `C e � u rZ V V1 L�n W r-s Ln .p— tA C Q N O M a d d Y V R d uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv > C) (6 O C >. aJ c C cv (6 a) t� 00 V) L L t6 N +, -� +J p p r_ v O p Li C L N p + l6 C a1 O U '+, b 0 O v.) N O c � O v 7 Ul Q z L v > E U C •� O C "� a1 +' QJ O c~ aJ i �O v >' tp +' N j +-' Q C O E o _ aJ a! E O Ln � i t V co bA c0 N N .N NLna•.+ a1 C aN+ OU V J a) ,Ul (6 v �--� +�-+ N O aJ +-� U *' N cp M O F aJ N N O O v N -O N '' -p Q �_ c O iv ci O +N a) u v +>J p a c m E c .x a1 V) u a� p '+ > -p i "O p N` -p C v 6 aJ O ro O0 Q c6 O o O aJ c N aJ aJ ` 0 c a..' •i N by v> V C 7 +' N C o p- fv v) O O +• c a-•' Ca- Q cii O O •N t N >' N N aJ *' O c c6 > i aJ E > O O n U p N O u0 7 O +J c N O 6 .� v o O p U V .� C N C Q p to "'� O O N N > C +-+ f6 +•� a1 a) a) Y ,} 0-0 U C O c6 C ap+ N O Q v N aJ w cc E O c O O f0 {n cn-0 C/D N T O -p E O O O C Lo c E u v E a) -p O m N �L W .0 UA m w>Y-0 = p O o o Up M Ucm p oC caO� OO-0 EQN pav 6 Oy c c C NO LL c C- a1 -O E co N O p O O vap wc°o 6' C �O a m u— 6 O~ CU a)v� E O m c E- +aJv0 � p E•bA V o p VILi a aJ p OY vm O v N� o J J nn N'i a� LLlla.0 Q S 0- WE o cn c _0 a O .� s o 3 �' ° .� ° • . • 0 s uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv 4-n a N O � C N N v m 0 a � ro C N v C m C m m Q D - — cr 3 a � 00 > m mo O C a m v 0 N � " a O C C o m wO' E U N a C Cc: O � O O U L on a)O C > 9 15 0L N u L n o v+ Z, v m m c c v c ` O O 3 •y, U Q Q N N o o_0a fO CVf i d Q 'O G1 sd w c v v v OD N 01 U1 Q U E m Q m L 7 0 a fO c c a m a v to c c c m 'm , w m U c O O Vn C O > C (a > (a O b L '� N U L p O E N O +-' L E p„p cu bA O p p O m O +' c6 cv (0 L N U N C Q E p p v�i O v, > a� N (6 N C N � O i -0 O S '6 in O N N v bA CL C)T E u bcD- tv N (a Q C p v U C (O v, U -O O C N -� U N v ca p--p C O -O O ?� ate., c6 O -O L 0 O N N C tp E O O �, m E -O -6 O a p Z N y N O O E to N bA N in M +, C N N ON +-+ (6 N (o L U L —� N L E (O O O N N N N O E E N v +, v C O v� �� cE E aoc c Et�nv��pU N N �°�`°� �,V) v+� v E p L N 0 C C) m O E Q OL N t E N O V N U +� N ,} E L� �aO v E� ) E u v GO E Q N��a�O f6 N c N L ��o�, v -6 L N Ln 41 U O N L OU C u, N -O O N •C O +� v N O L L .N >, 41 O 7 +� +� U +' L f6 N C +' g -0 > (o (o a, f6 > 0 � v +, v, c c6 L U p +' N bA C � m v E n O N> OL N -p a� a to L U •u, to N .- c >> = O cz OC14 -O N O N E C N N (a N mE u y N p .to M L N ` tx0 +' Q N Q=E 76 >' u O N r -O .� Q -0 � +' +' 4J O C bA C bA M L-0 O i N E p '� cv O O +, (O O> O C m C E O co L +' } O .O N 41 N O U +, C c L v (o ca -0 "0 -0 +J 41 E O L > -O E a-O >, � ca M N -O ' i 0 ',n > N v o o-a� v 'O E O O O U � a�i i.i O u O_ p N p N C (O Q m L-0 N i Of v in -O 0 • • L L O L 0- E Q L (a a Q ,`- 2 E m co , H 0 L C� G V I W cD W W uolsuedx3 V30118 (3f1-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : SUM Ueld IeUl3 dOON3 :;ugwt43ejjv ►_ W L2 M L2 Lw cn a Q -6 N aJ n v O " N L c E O ~ L u C O 4J (U6 •� C -0� � U Q o m -0 a)O Z � :" [ o +c n ~tea ° Ln N bA co co O i a 1 . to 6M+ 0 y cz V c v v T Co u N 7 a) i U N•�CL.0 v Ca•' ru U L C T .i bA O -p + C c cn .— u cn C (n •— a) a) N O (a c � U -0 M a) to N d v O c N N a! W -O O C o Cy c6 C •cn O C E R N v m O '6_ O O C •C N W A y N O O aoo,E �cEa.,r- acipapNE�'noQ•ss n •i aJ N '8 N ,H +� U C .a rl > ar N a1 _0 0 v- p O. R d 'o t Z N v w £S �+ N fl-N �=3 ea � E yr a=,o 7 O EaoM-0 E� v+, o �: �� O'c � c _2 O w c f6 3 •X O Vl H �j X v Lo - _ > t i U '— co 7 O N CL e3 'C = 0 o -O 0 OU C -0 = M f0 N O W 0)M•~ u 3 = �� 0-0 v O E X c O v'oQE EO•Noon _ y p E v a5 +j rO L- nW yEi>uc E m=M V m occo 'E n2 w E 0-W v W'o-0 0 Cam. :3 ■ m v�a LZ cu O C to v o.�'ac vv O x a 'v, ca c p c E O v N Oro O u _O E w N w O O � ac nu Oo Y ccO - CvCOpEpE > �� OSwu cHv a_ LLy (U m o O c a/ 'O — X cL 0 c CL C]. 'v1 f0 0 ar " a+ 0 o m w O O 0 a c E M c A a+ 7 7 L O a 00 E a2_9u b`o c 00 C � M a o +� m oo c �v c �' E 4/ OQ m Oa c E w E c v E O m c > a) u H fO 'O @ uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-u) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv 0 COD N Q � Q O y Ln fV v fl. E vi +' 00 ui p 'Z W N U- O 0 4 a o Q C) v a c o (� Q a c a CO N a W I.-N O N N v T a �1 'O v O J u U U Q a U Z m E 0 c w y Q Q 0�(n C r OC U N m 2 D o a W O N C/i O • • • G r cn W 'r+ v W W +T' O +J o aci o f6 ao E c (6 v N E 7 O O U L � N y p t "O U C Q m T N •tn p I N U T a M cz O N U — ti N _ N O -a c N _O i C O (O 'p (� o a� .0 i � v •- m v C � cv cn `n E E •cc H E O N a N N �--� w N o +J O u +J Ln in in O m Ln "- U L E 0) v) i (a N CM N w O O bA v Q N LO X_ Ln F T Z N t "_ vvi v E -O ca 0 V1 Ltw O x Z a:.� O V U Z v� E c O_ a, m c-O m Q u-0 o u O -2a Q, ,n c m L H (a .- X V) c -a m v 0- O z Q O L O b N N -0� A Ln in <n +J O m -O C U O O u > C (v �; �O u a) S o bbA 0 p v t c C o c t O o_ -o C7 T U •C � C) c .� ao u C)� •> +, Z N (a c C `6 C)+' t E Q C) U O p C C co N U,qA (n C C D > O Cn �O C ap N o -o N o f Q •� o a c o v u u c u c J O (�6 N C +:; o E +-+ C -o In .N N •i -0uO-�O O N v m vN o N v 0QZH -0 a a) ca ; C) c o-0 o UN a H i .-4 V) >O O Z� U \c C � �--v N U Q +� Cl- N cu Z i (a to Q !6 C L W (_: (n Z Q uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv y W � � O Q w M bbn W O o O ° O LL O a Y o Q v N O � b0fu .0 0 a o ° N a a r2 O O Q LU z v c c= v Q ti N 0 O 6 0 W G t6 O #A v H cJ -U u E a Q m u o w 0 O O o Q 0 �i E a r OC U M W a W O N cn W `% W W O cn � v C i — O 0 u u 3 +� O o +,Q n o0 ? 0 0 vv�ovQa 0 a)OOE i0 Naomi C) bA u ' N u Q N u (6 �n 0 a) H C v N bA E O v+ O x S O v c u ca ao'- CM - v •- O o v c t = N> uviai +, c� bA'-cv 03:0c0u W z N�= V) -0 4) C7 CLO O 0 m - . V O u u cn ca} o co�u>- ,m a) W O 'a 7 0 a) ._ _0 C2 ro 0 a) - o x b�D W M= >,c Ox j C cn � v 0- =o Q-0-0CL vns°u z a N C � 41 L � N >, N C v O O O v V, o -a Z N V) Uto U .._ N C •N ro n C NE O 4.1 V) n = v co o a) u � O � -0 E u N N — C co u V)f6 Q1 L ate-+ ru a) .0 � O �. C •?� f6 •� N Q 7 v V) 0 NCo V O Q v c C C C t � N L v N> C -6 � r0 W= O V1 3 O m U � d .O = Ny 3 N m 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv y W � Q w O ti v O O O o LZ a o Q v a 0 o cA Q o Q U- z v c c= a cn .— N O O 6 (A V)N a) C)L a W o r Q y Hof a a U O O LU m O W O p c2 QW E C Q. a Z W u 1� W a C= N v CQ G cn W `% W W V) C O C v L � a N C O U v N Q C OV V O +� F O L -0 O n + > 4CJ +. V)C (6 a 'O 4J U bA E co O VOj tL6 cp CO OU •i w O ++ Q- L L ca O p w o C/) UO _ x_ v= H m 0O -0 N bA S O- U (6 a-+ (13 V) J C O N C C? O •, - v O > i U Zw O V)X a o U = O cn M a c > m x O O (� ' u a� .p > a— W a � v 0 0 N C.Q a O O Q z *' N cm co O n v N O m Z Z Q _ L V) V) a V) 1 N L (p O Y C V N ._ L _ O N � v too > O N to O = U = b.0 Co O cm O p C O N L+ O c7 m CO ate--, N -O y, +>'i C cm Z a"' C C O M C N C bA 0 � N "O CL CM .� O a-+ O CU a O 1 N ..O O > p C C)- f6 L U C O v NO E O O cm O sO Q) C v C V -O Q J _� f a.., •c6 C -p o c a) v a C)(� v N N ao X + Q (A V ca ca c N a) O C E C c O a O v Q f6 a= C-L Q bCA N C V a L 'N 3 � N O R > C .� m.� N -p Q -Q v > O N +-+ L -O � C L V i1 v a G. Z X N W-0 O C � N O E U C T ui U +�, C C N (n V) N M Z Q umsued x] V331 19(]n]=i) ABIGA O JSe3v#Sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:g£ -PZ)umd leul=l dOON3 :juqwt43ejjv 5 ° ° k / j -0( % e= E 2 \ 2 u \ a u=§ g 2 ��k�2%/\�//��f(J �\\ / \ $ / 2 3 E § / \ \ \ 7 / % § / \ E § 3 c— o\ 8± 6 t �) @ a u 3 m o # , o.§ _ u y @ o = E u 0 0 = o = u_ 3 #. = \$ _ 7 = 3 = �. \ u= u\/ o 2 E+, o ° E g 3 0- m=§•- Q E =2®~==E25's±m�=*® \= F s=® w o u u= 2/ /-2• E c 2/\ƒ//\ƒ3�»�/\5& e _� §{}» -0 -a tab0%m/2t=®\== z 22/.A %%•s7g/_ 5/ku\o®2 a C •� _ = 7 _ _ _ _ e m = 3 o u = LLJE3\\/±±sm=3=®\±$\ ®S \ 2 # 2 = _ ® � r E G/_ � \/0 t 9= 3\ t 0Q) J{£% ®e 3 m=® o t= 2 n o u= E$ u&/ E E — E Gt:: 3 = E= = 3#�m±=oE\/% �@{ I�§\ /\ r-v) 5�®� 0-0u \n2�/esCL t 7 a g 8@$$/ \% 7 u W e% 3 7 e=223==�=3E2=nf=3 Z 7 /n=2 C� G CI I _W r L% W W uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv iz C ra U f6 50 V) a U +� C V, a v � � s Ln aA Z3 O L O t� i O u C 6~ O bA cC6 a u U 0, R C C .� +'. ate•+ V) V)(L6 a a i C' OU (6 C f6 Q V) O O c i N U a a O O� -O a Q O-O O a N cv 7 — 2 C N vi a p p .� ~> p +� V) w v +� -a E E o w a a) a L O N b�0 O Q r- O n 0 C Q U m � -0 `a E c Ut OV qCp O E �, O �' t (d U N CL bA a (O a a bM 0- Q V) a a � -0 E +J N uo E>a) 0 +� co a O O N a E E a co a L.a° c t CL O ca ._ O- L L.L — O- � N Q a U V) I a� uolsuedx3 V33118 (3f1-l=i) ABIJOAO P83 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld GUM Ueld Ieul=l dd3N3 :WOW43BIN ri d T } T T TTT► M a m m a 1 J. CQ G CIOID W W W uolsuedx3 V331'8 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : SMIZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;ugwt43ejjv Col. Z O Q G Z W L W J Q Z O 0 G Q Qj 0 t Q� Ln v C/3 N N c' c � N O O 00 c + +J n J a O � ON E C C CC Cn bA c O N 0 �z c6 = L N UD v> +' QJ m by U 6 W E N c"= cOo ~ j a 2 O v O t-- CL Q p Ci N QJ N -p a•.' N _0 ._ c Q 110-0 O to O i CM to c Q� U O > - p Z O O _0 _0 � a V (n O Q @ to E (i Q) C c C/3 O bA O O O E Fu O v O O L J Q m O M co U u : c t w 3 c +� O L c bA .S 7 c U + N O c QJ O E N +� ca E v E E O 16 > p E •= QJ c 2 E O Q m O O O h00 i c cca ,ui, u o c6 Ln O O QJ - V O O v p O (13 y � cUl C: a QJ N +_ i= _O Q bp c Cl E p a) �J E N sl N�E> v� to _O Q) f0 ou '> v Y c v O Q cz H J , d U Q U N bA v O V c O U c bA Q N +•� T fl-'in = N> co -p O .O � N Q O to QJ OU O Q1 '6 O U O Q -O O 0 7 O O N Q� x 0 v C c> O U �O + SZ v z C t d N I— Q' cb Q '6 w v ;� O - N.- N '6 +-+ T c N _ Q1 m +� O 0- bA — cn E in N c O N O N O N c coo v O C) +-+ m 'U u N CM i v N }' -O p cv -p +-' U c6 W v d-0 0 N O N N O tip a O-0 C) '� L c0 � to � 7 N c v by N c— 0 c +� a; v u v N- u o 0 0 O 'O T — c c6 Q1 N co o m O Q! vl c0 C c0 +� ` N c +� <n +� p ca u Q v Q Cr N N w �' bA X Q, N ) v n� .a Q) O C D a, u v v ca E v- O a L C' +_T o c bo O Q c in c n v O c U 'c - w Zvi Z +� bo c z +� C) c .� o in O} p cv U O J ca N' V O W m cn ? -0- CD- Q) N a) U O L Q1 W a--' QJ .� Q) C:� N U •i Q) E vi � - QJ H > c +� U a 'Q co bA c .'n 4.1 N c �y .� + c J c ca vi -p C) d Ln -0 O +T+ cn -O L v Ci > O c N Lap "O O I.L -0 O QJ +J 'O v M v U Q1 bOA i r° O +- O >O Q coo u O N •� �i c Q u c v Q E "O N c p Q1 d fl c V O i N� +� T u «s d V) QJ C T O cv o .� v O o c� O p c L- co co c O +J o c c p Cr +J i v C� N c N Q) Ln u p_ Q C v v G O O a j IWL N 2 Q c O '� p ca C' t v c ca O +, C' o i1 a) c Q c O �O co CCi� f° v O v o; ° c o z +� i E an Z o a bn Q' bA cm c c v Z u u m V)i .N v O p p O _C: Eu u i C� T .1= •� -O -p v Z ou tan co W .� a v V v> I� Z 1 V U E fC5 O i i V s O f/i > C Q) oWc Op a° an �° g c a = o n u n W v o u C v C' co m u w Q 0 m co Cn rm 3: co N N 0 OC Z 3: N co 2 ca 0 N_ M a Y u m d umsued x] V331 19(]n]=i) ABIGA O JSe3v#Sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:g£ -PZ)umd leul=l dOON3 :juqwt43ejjv � � ± ƒ / / _ / �77/ E n (A E > = m I= » § G /¥\§t/ } \E \f $ 3 ° 0 2 2 = m u 5 (L) a o o•- /{Eeeƒ / ° E k j ƒ = 7 E 0\//S 2 L % / / e @ o = Q) /(2 G) �._ > ( u o \ \ 2 : Ln #_"__� _ � o m = — � 7 e % 0 % u % u CL m Q) 2 o m e (n @ 3 & m m $ - E z / § = e � _ G) ± 2 m %cz 'E t $ E w 2 _ 0_® E % -0-6 % 3 0 3 a E / / U- > e G \at 0 u 'B 2 � / q : E E § 0 \ { ƒ . ƒ 0 Ln \ / E 0 0 / E V $ § �2 E 2 E § S� �\ � § 0 0 \ / 7a E 0 & \ / - uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) AelaaAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv M a m m a o S ti Q - r - v � 4. a) C ' W •2 Q O _O v � - N E E O Z5 u C) ■ � Of • m -p O C E a1 v 4' Q O N v u N 'u O U u v n a, N Q H Z) • <n O :E T W i H -O C uj C N C m .N "p O -O E a) N O +' *' v — n3 O "O n co O O Q O p C +, C v u +� C Z u N C � C +--� N a, .5 C > a, O ` +� Q a, O N > O- O a! ro O O- E O 06 C) a, C N C N O- c6 N = C > +� -O O u w O u u v 12 ._ "0 C N ia.p l= t% O C `� in a v a, -0 o n Q +� @ ti Q Q D p .� Q-C > bA O O O U Vn a, E i m E O O C p o I-Vv U MO p U _ _ Q V) > bA > .� �' N O' C y0 RS U N V u 1 d O -p O O N E Q � -0 V f6 - y +-' (a Q, a.' a, E 5 _ u t6 m > a, x s C O +� M y U O. a, c- a a, U c Q a) Q = v -p bA C pp Ul N O �, y E Q y Q c 0 O Q y t fd a, U cn O t �, C Z N v bA v �, Q a, G O i Q O p C O +� U Ln NO O O •N -p 3 U, to N ;, M O N O C ..+ a, O -p c` -p -p !C O_ 'O U v> > p ++ u +J O co to C O a+ cn +J C C C N n3 C dA n3 Y C aJ > N 'O u vi -O O R U O '� v = ` uj O >, O o O qA >, E> 4J m E- O O Ul i (6 H a, s N a, a, w C) +�-� ++ N N •� i0 UI E Q am MC 0 Q N N v m R O -O LO i N N E O N T co N O- O u O O — --+ ,n 1 z - O t Y a O N a a o v ao aL.., o cr—O C Q ON v y C .� G In > u O RS -p U N O O u E �O N O M U .c O cv cu ' N -p N .— Z O W L Ou N N N C O ,} +i-r N a, a, bA M C UA dA N c i tv a, C a, O N C u p O O C a, v O O Q N O C n O n O C a O E Orz O C m = E p O v u v Q p p w p O- C + d H O N > C i C +' t�J aJ "p •p t+'J C !6 2 V 0 C .2 V O T C 01 , O O C + t C- M to v O O v w> C .N 0 p �, d L V Q M m W N O� O, d p W O L *� ro Q Q Q Q V u n N 0 > N v co Q +� N O +� > Vf t V) N H + • • umsued x] V]DI 19(]n]=i) ABIGA O JSe3v#Sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:g£ -PZ)umd leul=l dOON3 :juqwt43ejjv t \: m 3s t E E 3 0 52 0 =��\ /E 0 \)\t t k > > ( k \ k / / / / ƒ — - "0 =um =3t E $ 2 /_ / � a p = m m ±•\/=2§/ %a�7�32 Ul R > \ \ , ( % @. e��>\ _ _ E 2 2 g = e e�®g(A 2a) oc, %z2� \ o c g » e = E E / E / 1 ) /� ¥ / = 3 e e W u / \ 2 o » E 7 3 3 $ 3E23\\% ES33=o# C- U ru D kA D cl:� L7d ,q � � � Q CCU V con Q. Q W Q W 0 CV uolsuedx3 V33l'S (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv a Ql L Q Q z Ln W s: Ln Q1 U L2 U a 0- C3 @ @ Q c T J v � � CO d -o m @ m z r m Y ZO ? N @ C Y z @ J m `m •uni 00 s N m ° Z ami J 3 0 m O o N °_� T 'N o d N L N m .- .- m y ® J W = fl W _ z U x W cn UL d m cn U Il U ©'~ Y 0 - y y y a• O PLOHlemeumaA a6",c J e � .Ilop K �a�yo m a a � E N N � g O I N y J7`y lg—q,eg ueg ,rr .]IIJ'I ybi _A_j m 0Y.�0 > 2i weg /yuno0� - _ i'n Ea9Ye OW Y m 3 pba a © Treviso BaY BLVp m A Yl N N � o a m o Z g s6UDI O N OA18 PoomoNej - = C d-a0. liJ 3 C o - U 1_1 O a Q O - N e L o b o y a aio E � $ E cL L O N O cc O E co rn Q C = co N EO O C. O M 2 p N f? a--+ � R O. O L � E aN-+ Q- fa }' C E Q- E U 0 o L O E� u O= u 3 ., -O M> O u O .0 o O �: r .N +' S E OOG N O Cl C,E +' _0 .0 48 N V N +' t �_ E v o o ayi �.5 > c o E +n o > O O z � _.d bZE v ° >O N a O W � O R y E U c-o u 0-fib C L E m O i N r > _ qA W Z 0 O O O E 2 cn O '5 E a-•r O :5 v 6 u c6 p O O n E v E E u E bA -C > 0 N C ++ p u - V Ln E E O> E Q O O E o E a, O E E> o N a E o 0 O O O - ty vi Q- O EOCL +' L fd ,� E V i E L C t i E L > E E E E •- E E c ~ w n �-o E E �_ E o v� � a -.� E E = o O `6 n> > O} Ou u O E 0 c E 0 o t E u p u co V)n° Eo �' Q +0 E C O � o H a n u-) co u v) E S ew In uolsuedx3 V33l'S (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv -0 O c C Ln O o- i co +J O - U N U � C Ln O N 44NO 0 U Z C= con Q Q W Y W O CV 4 LL- kA a C W Ln CD C db 0 z S�9 U- un ON CD LL u01suedx3 V33l'S (an-l3) AelaaAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :IU8WL10eUv • O aJ 16 0. p C 1= L O bA 'N N L ° E is E Z T c c p O CL ai eo E E O p t . O > N 'w V+ N v0 in a 0 E > N +J N O •O u E o +� 0, ¢ v qo ca c a� 41' o c Q 'C N a; E v) p W m co i O O Ov ' O =� is boEv " Q A N C > H , Em m E w a i= '� *' T p >O m M W c 0 O_ W ai 0 M M +� C -5 o O 3 z t 0 0 M -o w v N �Z E vi S-2 n3 c n n_ S E co 4J Qj c O�UU ® T R T T T T T T T T qj T Y I0 fO I OATH PO° "I J -,g,;e soot y��niams RO ` Y 5a J 1 ffi N n u E T i 4 sEp w N O T O N c6 N 0 a1 +� O p E }' u to N -0 E n3 bA a1 N yf6a) i E 6 0 0 0 E bA O v +L fo N v) 'v1 \ .2 O ON >, V) E Q aJ n3 0 a)Ln O V) �' O Q aJ !6 o n u �' � p v ; E v; tn �s o a' f6 E c co Q — '� +Q N a1 aJ -0 N fO aU-+ t C U N 0 N a1 N C L -o j Q a-•� f6 N i •2 0 +Ln O co O E O vOi N Z 0 N aci N 4,f M v M E z L v °, .' � � +� v�� v U T N O 6 +� E N Q aJ 0 N M 0 O E c v cno v E w L y o f LL' 0 0 g '� v 0 a 0 p M a, E `° o c a o v v) 0 7 +�-+ M 0 v U ,-W 0 V) C).A U +, !6 0 -0 0 _ o o f o'> 3 y o v) v c° a c ao c o v c� n3 o 0 CL o c n n 0- v C U N vOi -0 t t '� a) C O " CL O N vi ut v A c hA E c in .� p O t -0 0 T = c i 0 i o r6 0 N v) !6 O 0- O E v a O� M m c O O - r O N� +) O D 0 V co OU R E a) 7 p •+�> O_ U v) w O E v vw) •E N O a1 U N �O C u V c. U m O +- + 0 aa) 'u a n° a v v°> .E u vs ° v E O V Q Q W Q W O CV uolsuedx3 V33l'S (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv V V,m o z N N o E N? W N Is- _0 O v +O L +, > -0a� 0 c -a,, �a>i O •- O v v W-2O -0 o -0 Co C Q c N a L i c u c p n+ N u N -d N O i .5 � a :V"O o N O ra U1 s N ei U O m OO � (V N O Of v ' a 0L U Q > v O s R co cv N a+0 W E E 7 w o c ca o v> v L m o= >,g Q ";:'c Q f6 V O V O C E .E > cn U O n N N a� t6 C) L � � O a L N O O 41 N Q +� N U C _0 m ate+ U L O � > c a)41 c to Q ,R O c L .N N N U N N 7 cv 0 E N cc) N Dv)wmU-o O o U O O C N v> O N v O O c O, -O o- n o Z O° Lnv Q- - o E a� •f6 a c .� c 0° o o E E 16 3 +L U •� E o _O +� u 0) E a>, � ao� v any .17 c v E N e 0 O +� v c > .. L Q) O e 'r,� e , �• cc � O •< l I l N � N co ESN U v E c v L c r-I O Q (6 i cz V)c v s u O Q co N = L1 O00 O +' v O O L -O N, m N +� O E U o O bA N O tv c N E O_ OL -cocn S 7 G/ L cd N L, 4-1N V N to V N Ln _ L +., .0 c v L a o y L a N R �O �CA +) c Ln u 'a O O co c LM *' O L> cp O 0 m O O O -W 41 O a)O a)o- 'i Q� 'O O u� L t O v Q V) e6 -0 O O Y � v O t v 4J Q 4J O L (6 Q an 4 Q V C N O 4� N O N O 2� E T 'r a rO+ n U O O V) M ra n v -1 > U V N O �O �p O o bzo� �� v O a to v N > O c O + N .c v o =- ao O O c ca E a n O O V) " V +O L O c o c N a� a1.7 o O zv,� E °-0 uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv a, L N (d N c c n r6 76 0 0 cv w E O e � f6 +� c V) Q •N ?> a-+ � a1 f0 Q -O C bA � 0L mO a) p 1} •m C Ln of a1 L v Co +O-' -O > a1 Q O }, i 7 to E N U -cc -p � T•— a, x E p c — O i N O. bA c c E 2 0 O O U N aQ+ a1 V) � Q a1 V)cv Q Q , QLn Q -p a1 Q E E ap a�1 v i -Q c !6 c Co N V) '� a1 v a1 0-0 E V) c o c c U a1 p� a1 0 v� c ' OU a1 V, 0 O N> v ° N E tOo wQ ou c c > � E cp .E '— a1 Q E bA -b cn Q ,U vi 4' !Eo Q- o v) O a)v !Ea�i c > .� z O L C bA s U V E L i OU -0 y "O bA +V) +-+ +� C V) E Q C c i •� f6 N !6 t6 3 R 0 L 0-m i = c Co V p r 3 v U CU a1 `° ai c v , O ° c v E v E Z t O lap O i c O c c O In v Oy c O "p E �_ N vc)E a1 0 >d v 'N O U O to +� O N n O" p C. v vi N O E O >, y V)-0, o >, c E E w a1 E 0 E o = a, u 0O d +N N O 6 Q -a E O} O N E N + `0 >. V) v D VV) E 7 N Z O N O O qq i E •R °�' ac, l°° a1 v 0 O ++ +U a1 -p LO to > &, +� U � G/ a) E 3 O OU O •Ln U O > a1 E N �t by E N L a) t •N T a1 7 O E N N E O N O -O C N C m •� u m 0 E U ,n > 0 C N Q £ Y c W— a1 `a c c O OA S V C 0 E 0 O u c Q C. U +�' E V a1 0 co i CD 0 5, c E L .1 ,� `� -O (O 2 am., U-0 O a, N N H a. c N O .� Q i N O_ Q V d a1 !6 C O— t > ca -p U co O a1 ,� ?� v c6 = E as +� N y co a1 �C vi £ > E -p O by W L No a 0 c ra +� an O E E 1= m > ai — o to a1 ,� v Yo T *' `� U E} c� LO 11 cv a1 N Q fl. O vi v v O O C. C .a O U , p w Q •u = v O GSA •� V C Q t E i T w y .� 'p Q N Q N i a1 Q Q E v c, c O a°'1 c U m O cv a1 O U n C -a m o �, c m Ln LU 0 LE C O OO cO EL av O X bEy i= } +' bu0; N Cz aU,E Q N � N N � �+ O N O c6 s N a-•0 _0 V)i 2- E a1 O i= E 6 -o 'X N w 1p co � a, Q -c a o E m N> N v O by u IA O f0aL--+i i4> v N u> N 'a c M byQ0 O y O O N by 41 +_' O — Eo "o .— E V) N V) O 0 O U ro O tA a V R v O O L O L v= O N O Q 3: M a •— E 1 ca a Q c`a as *—' a1 O p ° +� ap i i U > a1 c _ CZ O o Q by N(v c o 2 .. s .S O ra V) co z- u uq sup x] V] 01 9 n-l=i) AeIJOAO 9e3 �v Sn-0C6000OCZOZ d:§[L Z umd mm] d Q 0 N] eew Lj3q _ C e @ 2 ro E c � • � � � k ® � ,\ 5 2 �a @ � '§ CL u E IAF Z _O � � � Q Q LLJ tbe � } LLJ � O N irro 0) GJ . § t u ra m aj � /ƒ m= o g - s E rMLq �- 2 (V 2 w o o x m wi mo tw'a @ c IF q a � k a umsued x] V331 19(]n]=i) ABIGA O JSe3v#Sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:g£ -PZ)umd leul=l dOON3 :juqwt43ejjv / \ \ff/ /ƒ \ 7 ._ � \/ƒ\ ®0 w � a ± / .� -o \ 0 \ Eg®\ \%5»�C� "j, 0 ° \ \ _0 \ 0 \ $ E # 2 $ ± t / 2 $ + _ 2 Q) ± _ { § \ '00 / / \ u 2 n \ m 0 / / \ a � \ m / e 0.2 -0 = o / S s ± $ § 3 3 . G CoE ® $ � E / o\) o E\ 2 E/ 0 0 5 ® -0 OL -0 I / / E % ± 3 // } \ 2 / cz G, / n u m CL z e— 2± 2 8± _ M o= f t m @ e z e•- _ » 7 2.E a w E /° k 3 'mge-ac \\{S¥\2o }%{}( C�fE a 2� G 2 0 0 _ ® u 2 6 /; / \ E:0 > M 3 m o e 5 ±\_%/ 7 _ - _.o u 0 M 0 -0\2: k\��\�/ -0 0w ��k\//\\ ) 0 0 _ e o= a \U °2#k 2\/E/\/§ \ o # @ t % \ E / « / $ 0 %220-={#± 3 _ ®» @ 0 y 2 E 2°* o—=e 2 g = 0 3@//\ //e/\\:f cm%e= tEƒta u LLI\ 3 } ) � / _0 0 m � /$»2a /3§/7ƒ3\ uolsuedx3 V33l'S (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv aJ � v1 +' C 7 i c qo 7 a) Q� C -0 LA N O X Q- '7n m c -p ' L � L O E Q 00 M N O 00 M � 4) Q aj +1OEO > 7 0 c0 L 0 0 mc 0 0 m a1 u. O G 9 U 4- C do U H1-o aJ H O •i v � O O O L C O N -6 a) Q - CU �- — x Q- 'vj •� m C -p O L (If E O 4J O v L p co a)O 0 c v • i+ O 4-. L U •6 _ �+ L L Q io Q c m • V1 aCCJ �O - 4 wC 0- u Q 4• O c N h0 o f ;� G L fYl C N N aJ �" H OL O E u v a) c ra u. v O cc O vQ O O E i c i vy -C3 7 2 E i U -m- d G U 4- C W U QJ O Q-0 C)c ° v to Q to U E u a) N Q _ + _al • • • o E 0 a) E -p a-' -0 > v to O O a) �,. o v c N E = (V 0 f6 2 E u +J v X c o tm U 0 0 'E > a) 0 v fd a) c E- E b a) a a) .v f0 O *' O c c)N u +J u > `� `~ o m c i Q N E a �-0 N a, a, t a c E T� U C> fB Q u an M O c N O +� c6 -O C a) • .° N QE V) > m-a+, C) a) 6 E v, E a O v E c tv ° E O 0 +J � O O N ° :5 v a) c c O L c (V u ao v E L +J O > N N >, c "O +, c N-0 N T +� > aJ 0 O i v a,a N N E u ri U 'O C N N a) .- O N bA Q N p cn ¢ O? v E O v Ou bp0 0Ln 2� v b�A 0 O to p N +� O .' E v 0-0 -p Lv cz cn w o E � �vi N c •E ° � � '6 Q a) p .E .Q N Q � > v 0 N 0 > = _Q a) 'O Ln a) 7 L -a i U a) c "0 O c6 -0 C p O ,' u i O N O i N E a) p a) E c a1 N .� N Q a) i U S m u t >0- fl- r6 >> i..� a) O -p -. ..O cv CO, N N > O O -O N p r6 u -p E O_ 0 0 Z a) CU � -O "- o v G� u° V) Ecz can E c6 Q i m o v u E N R c 0 i Q ca W v o V aa) c° o E v cv o, -W w +� a) ro f a) c v O Q N >> o }' Q N c -0 �_ o� O N -O r M c '� >' ° p '-' o Z N a) O O Ln v a) u L E fd Q a) a) T 4_ a) u 0 .� V) -0 O N L co T c-6 tv (6 +T, V O v OQ C Co a) co to -0 U +J O v v� C +-+ to O in a) N -0 ca a) a 7 u ,0 > E E + +J O c c co co v O a) i '6 o v O N- W c a) E � a) W C -p a) +J a) i o o ° °„ i c v O °J N E; > t6 a) �' +' p >, E° `° ao nj o° T •c a) .� c C/D u N c a VIA L_ L� :O O a) E C c c c -c p +' O +� n O ' ca v 0 O O N v c .E O L u N 7 v) c X Q 0 o n� u ��-�, t E o -0 0 v w o a) tea, o c � Q+ o� z +' E v Q O i - o-0 0 0 0 � c a) a1 a) c i N p E _O +� O �O O J o .R °�) m¢ E u O E w +' Q N m ¢ E w 2 v u O_ o a) 0 N v a) i O a) 6 '� •}>- N .E a, o a o° Oi� u t a) uci C) p 0 °' L uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) AelaaAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv LL a o 0 0 0 r 0 0 0' a N U-) (N CO LN M I .si`0 a O c v a o ,C3 v Q o a co � v n v a t a) N 0:f v o C v ¢a, L^ N N ��N v a 'o .a J J J N rm C O Q'L O� O� O� `ti O N o U -6 fca n 4 v C5) Oj a z a L N a c c co a 0p M v Q u v c a) °%- s H N Z U +J a) c a N u a O E v E a Q v v E c Ln Ln co a a cc Z) Z)2 a c E :G O a 01 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p N 4 NMM NM�t -4 ay.. N V)M N i O i v tea, O a 0 v� u � c N v a O o ¢�, V) v s v v 'n Y a Ln a i i oA co O bA co O oA co O p +- a) 0 0 a) 0 0 3 L 0 v E O o� o� o� a E $ a u`, a a � M = a a a a a vQj m 3 v O °Q' o o r O � Z! a _� c a Y v L v ao s L U a H O i E Ln �' o o ko 3 u s _ N Q � y O, s Q z V a) (> v O + i `ti c t a) v v v 3 Qj Ll 2 z Z, S I0 O O + v O r N 0icN 0 Q O E E c c _N0a) O a) 6 c OO N U O LQ O cC O—O ti a) N O - O E O o OO O v� LyE O OU E +tiJ M c E !n 'N aONC-.+ OV 6cto `O o a) O -O +La O A O . O O a) ro O cz .X E N N O rt3 -O N O O c N v -� Q O O i£ co v- N _0� c0.) +� Q E v O N to 0- o E °n vOaL) a )cu M- >, O m E O a) -p C) m U aa) E �COO O N O w 0 O m cL > N c V > -p-0 O > O OM UL% a � a- a) V O �"6L-m a) 1 as 7 > W m a cL a O O O O c W a) E E ao 0a) `•i EN m w a t:LoO O Ln 0 E C wL ++v vWt O O E n o N o E ° "o o c E o0C/3 oO c _2 -Y a)oa) +v a- oa v�, RO X OU c N - bD m N u 0 mE X � O ac - L E C Ln O ulE E Ul) vo Ul)O n0 V) U'lO 0 ' O Ut O IO O O E 0U UE 0E U a N ° Q a E Oa,c _ u �n n o c ao OcEaco_ d v Qcmo c O a,• E0O L M m U H a) • H n3 N � � � W C-2 Z O � L.0 � � � Z Q � O ll� umsued x] V331 19(an]=i) ABIGA O JSe3L#Sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:S IZ)umd leul=l dOON3 :juqwt43ejjv =®EE® / S ± d e a n\« •E sumo=u� o = _ _ -» t o 3� @ _ G !E u } 2 E 8 ® oƒ e f a§ w f { 0 / \ \ $ { / S S / > cn ///-0u3: o�°M§»223 k\\ kE/0o z a= E / 2/ =3 w M u e ® CU ems cm \ E = e \ E 77z�3§3f/ \/rE\@\ � /22/"rou u / \ u § ® '4 / @ %LL. / ®$ f & _ - m e/§ z e /2y\\/(/2 .s��®=9? C, $/�S= .2 0 t ) % f ®° / 2§ \ 2 2 / ƒ > g _ _ & m E o _ E _ •E e ® S & % a u cz-a �/(\// a 2± e os m®> o e n s ®_ = 3 7 a\% ±3/\32/±E \ 3- M o°_° o ° e 222222�/®=�® (A / d u e w a- z% n g </ E£ f e a m- a 5 a m LO q a � k a uoisuedx3 `d3018 (3fl-ld) AeIJOAO ISe3 �v sn - OE60000EZOZ-ld : SELtiZ) Ueld leuld daON3 :;uGwLj3e;;y 1 COOD O_ W Z W Z � c H L7 O W p m LLJ Q cc J Lu O o M m 1 N W H a N LU z W O J LU w 0 o O N N O O Q E w 0 O ti v Q } L.L N N N < Q 23 N c c Ll- N of T 6 O V Q E O w E X X V S. co N M 6 a d v R a H a W v 0 W Z J r uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv 3 v v v a v a 1 4- aJ U O C� v a v 0 bD ° o 0-0 a, 0 ° � cl- a CU a, o E E V o co O t O EO Ou u c � m l6 :tl vt E QN OL ti +.+ -0 a1 i .� cNat'`—O' v O v N N co to b�0 aA E ca E O cn �L ° s a� v' c v N.X o c n a O v v v o +� O i>, p ++ v N J X O N Q> M N +.+ a) u ca +L-+ V 7 N N to w C N V V N •i V v ooco� �Y =d, EoJ� Eon° Q v v E u O W x'n ca o f ca �- � E m O v n an a, -0 cv � � c °1 'cn E M o L a o — +6 Q m vi 'O u ) O O O ca >, O vi in v d N> O L -O ra O L i aJ T' O N '+-+ Q O+ OsN }ca aA tcn OLOaO O E -0 � Z � ° NCO O m O a) v c u u n c o O w E c v o M ) a aO a v°vJO �� -° N O C p O txo Y uN o O O , u C ca n a) w N aO i O ii ° E Fa L y '.1 +, a! c 0 N Q V +� J Coca v> OtaO co + O v E> O o V u s > `a c a�i E c> E co a) — ca _0 v c c o a� L +' a ca �; v- ca n E v +� c > vo U °O Otn tn Z w 76 co vE Q a� Qu a u r uolsuedx3 V33l'S (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv O W W 0 Coll z co c.12 z O a O O 0 J_ m O W 2 H O +� a) awn W n-6 O � N N ti O ate-, ate-, O -a U O L C c +, — � L o N OL m L N O O `� 0- aoa�'i N N i V) O E O L =5 V) (v +, U O V) � L C i6 L ti v O r6 u i +u, -0 Q C Ul O V) Ul aO 0 v L a) o °° E °' 0 vca .N a) -6 i U a � � a) �000�,� ai o v O ay +, N 0-0 0) 3 a-o � n -O u `° Z o "o L o f p L t O 'Q L � V) +, •L O M O �O bA Q o .O _O N °; V) N ro O Q L + V) N i Q 0-' V) O +— L o C ao o '� +, C)- w +,a N V) L N -0 C) L O N -0 p +, O N 0 H o m,,.—of O2-0 ou co N M a d r+ d Y V R d � � � W C-2 Z O C-2 L" C003 � � Z Q � O ld� urns x] V] of 19(] n]=i) AB I GA O JS83 �v sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:S M UBld mm] dO O N]:ju eet43qjv �le C.2 0 � � � � � � � z CA) � � � � � � CA) � ±/ �r 7 -0 c ° 0. e o o ƒ\u \n ¥•- < ¥ e 550E/®a=t / \ & E 5 \ J § u . o \ 2 o -0 \ / / o / = n ® ± a = m 2 g g o m _ u 0 -/ m @ d m / \ E f / V) \ \ n o o W 2 z f@ a§ 7 2\ u% Q} 7$ J 2 k\% � f -u7a -E) U / 7 # z> 0 0 2\ k E z = $ E = 2 \ cm R o=» t o u= Lazo oC= J y ± 2 y ° & ± c/== LU/5/»/2{f%§ uoisuedx3 `d3018 (3fl-ld) AeIJOAO ISe3 �v sn - OE60000EZOZ-ld : SELtiZ) Ueld leuld daON3 :;uGwLj3e;;y c � a+ a E CL o 0 a> i oc0 O- o Z w M EE COOD o_ W Z W Z � c V o W ' LLJ m Z Q Q CC J Lu O o M m N W H a N LU H Z w a O LU LU W 0 O O CD CD (V CV T I` ti O p M M Q ti E N W 0 0 C N v Q 4-; _0 LL Q) Q) N Q 2 ate+ C C LPL C� N N N of T o V Q N EE E O LU E V •• • •'o1 1 S. 0 Cl) M 6 a d V m a uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoeUV v p i O di (a -0 6 + o v v u o > o + o v y v i E aQo C j 1E C a O pOLO ON O E O C C/7 fl- ` U 0- O N V = ViCL Z v vo OQ `O C M N c7 _ of C) -p O N U t - cu COO 52 d�A O �n O c ro L + ca v ca « c ai +� c�v o i + v ,N _ .� U 7 ta0 U L% OQa N p O Z cn CQ O aJ v> > E O a) taA �!vE L N cm W o v - N n Q C z "A N c ao ,� c C Z -O c6 .0 � -fl - 1 a1 u U iJ a v 0 y WQ c C bA -O J O O co t N N O ut O p + 0 Q s > p v (o Q a� O =' c v z v) }? bA *' Q c a co 6 v) w C o n3 co o .X QO N p 1 O V) o O O O L hA Q N a) pOp� v LL Vj v v7 d + O N CD fv aJ d -O 2 (n u +-+ J Q .- 7 a Q (n o +- v N 0 Z Q� G Z c; • • 0 • 0 0 0 • • • • � � � W C-2 Z O � L.0 � � � Z Q � � umsued x] V]DI S(]n]=i) ABIGA O JSe3v#Sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:g£ -PZ)umd leul=l dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv C= E2 CoO13 0 � CoO13 0 a � 0 0 m LU 0 u 7 (1) 9°�e/$ \\/cu:� bjO/Q\2\� ^�G@%2\/ .d\/-3m\/\V) %germs.-C:u %CN —00 20/% @/ƒ/\33�\E g=e=22o u ow- E 3 $ / & # 5 a) -6LL%2a)o— eeM-0 n _ 5��=eJ�� asc777/y�3 \ /'[ S a ® e o m £.-.d = _ }/\//��7k =�2S-OZ4 � o .- e o %/\¥G�a)V) ± ±y66�t°� _&o££=�®#�# e/»b°= \�g222\0 e 0 m u-0 —0 u � � � W C-2 Z O � L.0 C003 � � Z Q � ll� umsued x] V331 19(]n]=i) ABIGA O JSe3v#Sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:g£ -PZ)umd leul=l dOON3 :juqwt43ejjv w � � z LU C-M LU z � 0 I-- / \2u\ \/\f g®aCLm°5 �##0M / / [ t ® / / e � \ k -0\ W/ •-._ ± \ Z { § ) / W o o (A @ @=-0 w % g / \ \ ¥ 0 \ \ 2 \ \ 2 = t & 3 m \ G / 2 = m u2o22> <=e==W&a 2 2 \ \ m * ¢ + $ 7 C C o An Z 2 7 � o act W m V Z C-3 Vcm cm L C04D Z � a LLI O � M g a � LU LU � \ \ in Cl) \ � a @ % e \ a. \ t g a % \ k / \ qj � , § / } § � 7 + \ § \\ \ \ / & \k k\ r e » k\ ;[ /G tt §ƒ §/ >/ /t � t E / « c u § « \ & c 7 §£ �m \ \ ) ( Cu \r-\ // Coset ®t u�w §0- jam // was \\\ /. QJ E / /\k In \ k j� ai Q\ /3 °r.1- �2 r \\kk\j 8 \ § ± £ E 7 e ` "r3 W a ƒ C3 In o a 3 A m a g r3 A ) $ a o $a -2 t S f ? & a 2 8 ,=o C3uo��A _ ±§2ƒ\t -C3 § ° tQ)ZuRL.- �cr C3 8%(aK$ §\a\a` Qj § E 2 3 § Ln 'M \ COO � � � C-2 Z O C-2 LLJ C003 � � Z Q � O ld� umsued x] V]DI S(]n]=i) ABIGA O JSe3v#Sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:g£ -PZ)umd leul=l dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv cm k � � � k k � � / ( / 2 / 2 E# \ \ 2 n $22 g / \ G u o n 2 ) { § E \ $ u @ u 3 u = m o3ƒ= a - / #ig 3e3 m §e= =u.s »E_ § / \ 3 % 5 \ / b \ \ 2 / e2 /°j /�/ f33 2 / / S o % ) / k $ ® \ $ [® t (>, 2 ° m 7 z / a o/ 2 u=§ 9 n \_ ® t °� 7 &_ >•- m 2 e m 2\\% f y t �9%a/g§\//gCZf� 3\ _ o a 2\ R\ G) o e° ) 3 u E t % t 2 E '{ o/ 0 7 ui u= 2G) 3 n uj m.§ o¢ m E z 2 uolsuedx3 V33l'S (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv U- an-! v C C):2 ° m N v u C O t t CO 0 0 N� U� >C--3:"oa�� LLI 00 v ° LU t ++ +-' cv V o 0 N v C M •i Cu)N U.)'a b.A v O t6 V � Ll- 0 n Q V O QL + V Ln W oZv? o-° u \vO Cm • i � -a � > u co C C� o Z a; o. o �y�} p i= ��,a0>3 a+, �v flo�— v o �.�. m-0 u �z 0-0 �t� v._v "v H _ C O- o o -UM C O G "O n V y C •N O R J O "0.0 . -� 7 VVj N Q C O_ N JZ m t QC C tp0+_ �+ pC bA 0 M N '0 � N n LU J i� N-a C N -O -0' Q C) -0 ,N W� y N 7 = +� C LE C 0 o N ° ci O H O m ,.- of O2-0 u uolsuedx3 V33l'S (an-l3) AelaaAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv V1 > "� , (6 i C = O 7, - O O = � O Q � �' � N -0 O LO � �+ N � l6 � � N 'a !Ev c6 22 0 +T, O Q= O .� N vOi -0 U O r6 E 6 t6 O >, OO pa) N ' in ,c m° -O > V v=.x O N Q) jO a) O n3 v N o Nn o n vv v o o N v _� —3 _0 toLo °�t:Lo_ co n3 bA Q) C ` c6 M = Q) o a) r O N ro Q1 v m° u aEi co N a -p =O N .� N nz v N v o -O 0 N L ps i O aa U � � Q) xV ' :5O —L oc v o b,L i O-o E vO T='p O+•� O QQ ° = + O OQOO N N Vi c6 O E Q o ' OE V)U — u ° w v E Z) O O 46 C v Q N O C o U� VI > Q O VI N N V)L U0 O vi a O v m MW C0-�= =N � U M .Q) a) w QO i N On3_ W -0 (13 _ _ o (10 J M p N L 6 +J ++ bA Q) U> X_ UA i= E '� p 0 Q) = E p '+-' 'O N bA E M= O J L p 0= c6 v i p= O T ,� O '� i 0 i L t o c6 c6 v L 0 N O +-+ Q U c6 +-+ ,� i .— Q W' +-� O +� QJ E -0 -0 O LL a Q) Q) i dA c6 H Z U c6 N N N cz v v N +, = .O"6_ -0+s ° a) U p + CO -O N uo -O ° -IV,) Q)Utb�0ON Vl O c6 M c6 Q-L, v~ W 76 v C = u E •E vt)z v p c o u u 0 �� a) u= � o- v E o� 2 c6 •E 'o aui o E .� o `° N .E Ln E a v txo c N o o O 0 �' o L o 2 0 Q � -6 ,� Vj -p rz Q i v p= 6� ( T= -p = -O bA c6 Q N a) U Co u c6 N U N C W ° "0 _ N +-� N v fl.. m O v f6 t10.N U N U E N Q) w u .. N N n3 > a-- N c6 U O W fl- Q) O U t c6 U = > = a) QJ L Q) CD c6 c6 N Q) O N fl_ "O Q) m i -O +.+ N n3 c6 i c, cn N *' E '4, t L w vwi '6 N U c6 •� 'O O= M N 2 = O CZ 0 Ln lQ=NT6) p7L v= =+N� •f�6 OO O o O- -0 O >, Q) N "_v>, > b�AON N .V Q �"O co QQ Q) UUON -a ULL- O O VO 1> C a) E >O ° "OW U toz a) Q W (n = — O 41 ° 6 U= U ua 'O Q. CNO" -0 O OO . pO Nc6 V E, -O a) 0 a) -O p E N c6 v i 6 i N N U Q O p O ON b-O -O -° o N N -O o E O p U = - � O Q) a m °0C- +Q66 p° = O UOON= 6 _ +1 E= 6 UO u>�0 NM U I- Co s + Co Mnz v Q ° v = O -0 > u vi t Q) = N E +� = E v W_ i O v N +' *' t6 .� v N -a v ° a) � ' O N O= O= 2 ti T O o U U CZ a) L _ U ca = a1 E Q = c6 O +J .N m Lu i� Q) E>? = N n O 7 O= S O a 0° d 2 t c6 Q O 7 — r6 E Q Q n Z W b a = Z O v+ i t6 > Z c6 U U +� N V H+ O V) O a •= v Q N '6 °O n a) = Q) j �N Op� O c6 p_O O o= Ua� 6 O= -O - p 0 Q) O uO c6 L vN n Q) •N N,Tp}Z "O v n N O M o v = U Q m c6 v >, >, UUQ!Q N UO W Q MO xO O i= w LLI_ = t _ "O C d O d" c6 N`> N O V U U c6 c� > J a) O c a v ao ° u a-C Ln o v v C/� v as E oC E 2 . Q) Q) c�6 Q • ,� �_ — S c6 � aL-+ ._ +� ui a) a = t L E N X N = =O +� O_ -O T .0 O O '- O- m 7 N •0 Q" ~ _ bz -° b0.0 c6 Q1 = O +' Q -O p 'O-' = N 'O N W OC aa)) v n c - _ '`-) cz� �� c vEi =tc � E Q n E E u 2 ru N u L1 a) v ° N y E `6 o E W u o 0 v w Q) O C/a � E a>i w -a p 2 0 3 c n c v a=n � o ° o cn � y N u C� - -a p z z _ `n �° " Q, t S o ? o = z o W c6 �' a) o 15 z .- = a) o a) - aA = � v f6 cz = Q) � V> of a)o� In o � c ° � E ° = o +� c� Q = +� _ .- u v N E p u a) ° Q C .-I Q) +_' = v v E Q) H y .E a) U v N -o = _ _o � � o W Q) a°Ji E ° Q) a) O•_ ? C X -O E LZ cn _~ a° c O ? ru c O O H E v O w cn = Q) Q) C/i W = O +' cm Cc6 N Q) O +� X +-+ bA p p O Z +� >, L 4) X L Q v v W w O a o •i °u �) n a �' v E v 6n o-j� E a) a) ca 6.L� N i +' v O z CJ = v L >= o a= c6 N .� ._ _ Q> L r6 +j = N N U c6 C LLJ V Q¢ cvi V) 0� (z L)-0 N .E w V) °j N v t7 a>i o 0 t uolsuedx3 V33l'S (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv _ O +, .O bA _ C o O W N L N O N Q (z 6 +1 -0 C C O maC) O •X v v oU X E a) — -O E of u a) a) O 2 U v ;° C v 0 u a) an � � —n ) c v > = 6 u—' — - m x U L N Q E C-� bA C � + c6 �, a) a) i E U (o N of i +v E E L 'V) co N O N (p U C E � � u a�i a`ni O_ a O a) L -p T to -O -O cz T to to p O_ N > +' cn -0 M C i 0 �U �O U O 0--a (o .0 L rO -p U Q) O -O O V) _ cn c (o O c E`er s. V) J L O� L� Co c m a-•Qv))!6 O_ L O V) '� p O 6 7 +� V1 � � V) CLO •u � •> L L i( O�(a'v >1a) °t v U +� V c +� n a V) CL E L L U i (1) O co •� C -O co co C aJ E U (o � co CL EO V) N X � N= CL 'O 0 N Q� co a1 cn O V) O N C N H C L E O Li v L U H N E E p- C ,+_+ by U C T a) U C tooL U M Q aJ w o to (O a) E L p- O ,.., > 4) N C L c6 -6 -p a) L •C L +.+ 0 a '0 U +J O VV)- `n v -p u 7 co +O-+ a1 O a) E u (° C° u � E io +� > O O Q v fl Ou to ra N O NO 00 p N � to N O V) .fl i V N � t6 U +, +L = Z O v O 0 a O v v o Q) L + E _n V L L b�0 b�0 O - v E o p a) O-0 aL L V) 0 c y O )' _ u _ co bA _ is a) +' (o L O O N �, v -0 O Q p v a v N C 0 X +� O Q +u OL U a) N to c �a) (" (o f6 a'O X a) u 0_ a) +• U nC) O L~E OR 1 V)a bA CL )iuo Q vO L O E v V) C V1 NQ bb O O > a _ p _Ea)V a) p 0- 0 0- N a"M _ O C C u W C E �E O--o aX= Q o ca-+ . u (V 0 +Q O C O Lo U +•u -0 Q E E co o ff ('? E n -6 E O� u 0-4- E v) N 0 T � c6 O O C t N ut .� O O OL � p C f6 O u C� aJ N= C7 — O C U U co -O U a) a••' T C V) E Q� v c c-a n v v C a) N a) co > c, M c>- U � N `1 a) '— Ln � U V) co Q c p 3 p ca O c C (o ut L T +n co > 'C O_ t O bA N N 00 N a) u O E L -o a) V O +' O a) p� •X m ,0 O V) co co Q a Q V a) V) L Q L O p C C E •> > co (o C _O = O co W O O co (o -p `0 °t v c +' L a) c co o u •— cz>,o N a)-0 o �_U� UU p C p u L a) .O p Z, CLO w`l p- L E p U" c v Q O a, v 6 ca c a) L v a L E n +, c� v a) u c c u O T u a, o� O a) a0 Q a, U a 0 (� -0 E E M (n N E c u bA i5 O v C 4) j. C a) U u O ?+ a) CO > L O •7 C E :EN Q Cv) O W_ O p v Eor E a) N T Q W 0) 'O p aL, a) c a) c (o co N 6 .— .0 > U) O v T E 6 O -p O �, (o (b c c — c O L co a) U co (o m i cO W L E .- •- co N a) C U a) i 'E +�•+ p E co +� .E -d +J p O- C C Q C L O a) U L L-0 (0 0 V) a v oN o E o ° E bA c- io O E .— 3i i O' C,- T C - C O w N= C N +O-� C 1U6 +� +� (d O rl O L> L N ` O p c6 O V) N +� (n 'O "O E v L U -a a) c (o O E v E o u L c C s O O E co E co O T O O C a) a) C M N E 0 >, E -O_ 0 C ro -+ n u a (owno L (o a) a) o c `a > n L E n v E v -o co u co co v � L L v)v > 'O N Co u N C X bA +' E T u -p L O +' (o v a) O� Z3 Q C b a) by N L j N C a) C +-� •0 +-' 'O +� E co c •0 C v cn L C co -OaN-+ c� ,,; a) ate+ E u _ N 'O X t a�i a�i t o aA � o X= E E n a v a) (V Q +J U aA E Un E N u LL v v 7 O O o— E u E E -a -o C u -a -o a) H -o a) ° v E o V) '6 c) V L O a) 7 N +' bA C p_ ,O co +' w O O Q) +' E. +� O O E� p 2 U C 0 'O C 6 + a) '5; (1) cu OC call Q O O V) V) v o E p a o Ln C) Ln o 0 o Ln oO o Lna)p u c 0)CL cCto V) C CL aa)O_ a) a 0 C -0 p c _ u 0 N O N O p O c ��D p W vU O 000OO•c: CO a COO U u M� v n Ln >O a) vLn O o) l (ao " �.+�LOL b UpL a -O L Ln U E VI c +-p o c c aC p-p O Li U 0 c a) X O () O n O N} c p n p n (o u +; � a) . E E Ln V) a) C V) a) O Ln -6 V) a) C V) a) � U a 0 co L �a) C L -Q N -6 �; V) N C U 0 Ln7 E v ti 0 `n u f° o o ro (° Q o O a) -p _0 L O C .� .O OyC 1 T Ln co >T C co T C a) >' Ln +� (a T C co T C a O L 0-0LZQJL cfoo � w O Ma) 2 Nc Oco Q - M �i Eu +O 0vaa1 O 0 _— Ln cV)LO m � 0 Ln 0� � 0) Ln — o E M -0 V) +L� U ��L OU 0- LvO>.L -0 . = a) O N, .� O `) V � v E U uO LE i. + E E L •u o O n = C +c-+ C C b�A 0-0 o 1` Lc ° (n . M a) omu a o_7 � t °L . � a)N _a••+ L+O TO Ln D O E Co.) • • N • • • Ln C (o V) O COO H a W C2 C= W CA Z J uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv O T is E 'O 0 co N O N '� OV m acne 76 N E N C p ; i O m o o r-O C m o- O c O O C 'v E O •u N O o -a o U °- '� O O O N -O O V) c o ca V v E O t 0 ~ E 0- a 48 E O O $ v E N o L V t > a, mO C C U u Ln tL0 _0s v ° E +�•v ° aJ C Vl V) O i a O ra v W 0 -p Ln tL0 C N O + X N p 0 O O ca U c E + L v o Q) a)- C 41 -O V) O '1 oO '6 a a) O O to N O v Ln LnC aJ i +J •N bCA N C - N Q� 'N O c u Vj O Ln •V fa -O C T> N i a1 N to ton � `� O •N , O" N -O U O c t ) ra T,Ln C v c E +o - c bo E- N O 'O Ln ,O Z O E i Q-a O V) C Ln N Ln N N Ln V L N v vI- -0 N V) v u �� o v a c 'n V C � `� N bA N -O N +� p ca +--� N Vj 'N ra E N O C X t N> N N 0- a, to . N , N +' i +--� Nv V c M° E V Q i 7 V C O- t E v .� a' c O ° 'E V) C U O u cLa O O v E O C O N N O O_ N N t v `n N> O V)T fa la L C +' a••+ Ln c V -C vOi u v N -p " O L (Vm p .v O in E 0 0 i1 -O a O O O -O C) +, > N a1 p N 0 Ln •� -O a C C E p m p w M O r I LIj p C� p Nca N tL0 N v U •� L 7 N i' +�-?j •i aT+ 0 E N • C V) O i p V) CO a) a) ca E bA N Q ca N s O b.0 -O +� N a1 fa O O N i1 '7, p C t p t C ut > O ° ca V) v vi O U 0 ra s ra bOA C O i N C ±2 O N O D V> m u N O C -O Ln -O +.. N U C 7 0 +' fa � O C L C N > O C -O ca W -O C C O N -O C p ca O O N O C a) "O O O +, `� V i _ a-- i N u N O m 7 fl- W C to L V) C '� •vf In N to O Q O i u a) to N O �..� M Lo V) U 0 `� d V) .� p v) O C C N O V fa E � Oi vii GW +cu a+cpnp -OtNOno � N 0 UC w = OO O O v a) c GOD +V) C U OO C �N> m � EO E u > au O N-w tL N u O UO V) a U-0 D a! c (V-0 Uc c 0 "O XN V) O -0 Ln C VV) N ++E W o U L0 O > E O a '° c um °U V' TOWn v - � �o o a) O O O i V = a! O O-O u c u + cCNN`a° ° o E°v O Ln O T Lnc O aV) O O v a- E OE> i+c - WOV)a)Qp T v O �u p O p O O cuQ O Qmr v+v V c a O c a)z � E Q 0 v p v aicz X+i O EnE c a E V a aJ Q - o EC -O u vuv0s� a) ruo O o c o o o tea, ) cn �° v v a>i a ,E �' ° E Ln L i N N V) -O C +0.1 Q Q +-� L iA N J N y >j N Z C N> }' v N V w O- N +T+ aJ J C) u N N W N O O C z acn cn �' c E >_ ? �° R v Es cn c o 00 cz aA c ca _ E a v a QL O L V O° M X O v v E N O w O .� p 0 0 0 0 Q bA V C C T N C� c6 U N a1 C N ra N O_ L O CL N N W N V) N t O� v 6 > Q O M ~ v 0 L N p O X v u- �O 7 i a) u N W c�a m U to Q N 0 0 H 0 to +� O u +� N ca O G� u +� O ni G H ca O uolsuedx3 V33l'S (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv N � N x i E O O Q � O_ O Q O co N a! � U O Q i— O' t 0 N 0 L >T n C > o �O •4+ EO n N E O n C N af6i a� c aj W V > ca v n y v N bA v w o .0 a '� bo •°° o o C bA C o a) N L !6 +� 0 N > co +p U E 0 O N 'i V O bA N C)a:cn m o O Q •— t' O +N O Tt u O N T +� a) bA cy O E to L ro O O O QLE a°1pE bao E�.E+�t v C: 'O C) p Q v -0o a�i aLni t }' O a) C Q 00 7 v C d N U .E u a C E L u C X N p C p p , L> Q C i C" N o ,E 0- v a O O -O > +J Q N 0 -0 Q >O 'Q •E p to 0 0 L, O a) y ;} > -O Ln a! O_ to T C _ L O_ +-•, to M .� V) U m C -O T O N = O '� O a L! -0 N +U•' +' N L !6 Q m M a) C) a) .n 2 C �- C by E 'O C V' 6 O -O to v) Vn v) V) aJ aJ C M'+� L' > C Q N Vl CL a C O �6 L cn v N p Q r- = .— V -ca u M v O Q aJ O O N c0 C M a) ClaJ C aJ C a) z� L N U) L L a) a"'' > +� v V)v ca E v mo .Q c; >o C E o .0- o v �O ' n .� bn c (V N V) p o a� O> v v .)n 4(� a >+ M N O> T by V_ X p C E .- T R O C a) U L O L+' O C O aJ N 0 bA C O" O N L N r V O_ +T+ W +�-� .E v � 3: +�-+ OU N E 3 i v v) O v E v 0 0)bD T N N O E N a, in N B C N LL! + N �p -O O O L N N O O 7 O N a) U O _ a� in E O n G O u " O- N ~ M m a` U V) +o v N ,C 'N U L -O c0 i N ;.� T aL-+ f6 -6 "O N N N L~ C C u -O o Z - ° N N O a - E " u co x n Q E a) .°' co O O r= o O O Z) O u c ra d t o 6 Q co v) c+ N a N U O Q c •N in 1 to u E •— p Ou +� Q ca a1 a1 N v (O '— U C O -O C aJ -O C C cn ++ C a1 V E C N O >, N H C m w> +� p m� C u :- a) �n a) O Q 7 bA E v o L C a, v u V) +� +� L +� p c O o Z5 y a, .� -0-0 O d a O O L a, E E - Q C a) V T +' a1 O LL! C V L 7 O Q w L Z m L r Q> aJ >, > 'L s L C 00 `n a! W N a! m C m V) +' -O -C X C +' O a- C v) O +-+ ++ O 6� m bA }' m O_ E E a°10 ~ a s `� °J 'E ° p +V) O lx0 z aJ c a) O -O C a +, aJ i +� aJ LJJ N c L E L C L J >, 0 N C � � E bA �> � Q O O O m V C m N N co iv c t �_ O c a, Q v ca c Zv E s v a� `6= Z C E v u> L ra E_ `L° ~ a) C p x N U -p -0 +� C L Q u ui +.+ a1 O u Q M '6 +J > +� v u L +-+ a� Y N= U +•' ca 'L 8- O cm O bA -0 Ln y LLI C/D •E O Q v -0— E +� a) L v N W c aJ N aJ bA W G- v > N O Q C v X p > O T Q t O N (d V� ca v -O N .� > OC W '> O n Q v E O H > o <a N p E > E +, .v a, u L O C2 a, �, a, �, a, o O Q ao ° T Ln v a, `� y O•v N a! v V) V) W p C •> +�' •� 'O f�N6 O .0 O_ N> m N U U Z 'X O +E > C a v_ a� '+� o V v) +� _ . Q •E L L a� y c +� a' o _ Q v u 0 N C "O -d s p Q U} U w Q E Cc) C Q a) m a1 �, ti LU W O O M 0-0 += O a) C T E L C aJ O a, _ v u '� z> p c api > v _n c p c a>i w> C c o M a1 C L L p a) LU Q aJ av 0 vi w> N O C O L L a1 ca co O �p .0 O C O c, N -O (6 +� +.+ -O C J L U f0 E E L E f6 +� +� �--' L U Q (.`J > +� *Z- Q 0- urns x] V] of 19(] n]=i) AB I GA O JS83 �v sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:S M UBld mm] dO O N]:ju eet43qjv \/ / 8 _.§ /\§ <®$ �f \ =2 -- »\/ / y.\ \e% z=o /\/ (v0 0 0 $\\vi §0 9 2�� =5EE _0}\ Epee 32/E ±2 �� n E @� ° E.2 G yam±= E 0= % $&�ƒ 2 e o m _@ E#3% §\® E #\c= t=== /QV)\ 2�3= §c T § =&cu -Iqqq uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) AelaaAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv � v > c0 Op Ou +1 M 0 0_ N u p a) +-' Q U O s V C E �-0 2.0 o i t O v, o .� "i o 0 N C to C C q0 � V) O V)+J M (p N a) v p cTo is a v o L -0• 0Ei'� bn } W L 00 tP) E O i QC w L O C +- c O •� O a) C O C O O aL p v Q W O 0 V) N Z m 3 cn -O c O p - 0-0 O c n a) }? (6 i 0 Ln a) V) 0 O 0 o p t n c u E c6 'z m E C N r O O (a Q ca C E Ott N.c �. O > E L` .E O_ cv O ca >,N a=•/ 'a cp �, C N -0 )T L Y E E O N W O J O W ,a .Q- O O zO a c cz E(13 3 t > a..' _I_-p m CD cn N v O+ C i; CD- a) � a v U +� 4--+ W a) -O cn +� co v_> M O (a-0 uo -O� cow v v o w N a to a J (o O C _ a) m V' LO M� E +' i Q C L L N a N N co C+� �''Mr—Z N W N aj c Q Q N Q" O vi ap a0) v a) E ? a) � .O o 3 s (a a) c CO U- +� +H C-U c O E iz iz +2 -0 V) C O LL LL -O (p a) (6 O L +J •C- v as L L i (O N "O w O o N (a C a"L O aCi O i Q C aT' G S �n Q o co U N (a ,v Ce3 n n O py N O O Ln ct:� > U taA M c6 Z tao N' r Z O Uj C N vi V) t v> v o m m T CC V)}' u N U n a o p a, c O v t 3 +O c CO (a 3 W V) a) Vate) +, t v v v V) a`ni a) o °�° '> C 6 Z) a) v v N -O v 1 N +.+ q.0 O t -0 O Z C C a) v Ou N +� � }, .V T. O-0 W (p U bA c6 O_ M N Z v .+� '� V V) c .� N v a c C (a O +n- Q V C �' C- ra ca E +� v .'v w •}u—, -p N -6 Q VOi v ra N N N 'N R -O Z 3 0 C 0 c_ _ .0 _ O 3 N (n Q v v> - O Q Y -a p T v O Z V7 O Z +� o a) - 3 v U co E _ N o v a) E o n 3 bn _ Q a) (a C) m — 'a T N cp W 30 C O to u VI N OU cn v c>6 C a) +' u -O ,O N N N C co ,C •� bCA c Q C-'O O -O 00 E O ; a O C u n3 N o 'E O� y L/j N •U i > > N 1 (o E O ti -C M v C H c6 O ' a a) C 6 N 0 LLI Q Q s` c6 +J 2 41 CO O (Y T c0 C O (6 a j .L N �, N T n3 a) Q-0 U T V •3 +� c6 dw LLI a) O v o r° °�° a, 3 a) o V) L +•' p _ 3 T 3 O U �b.A C" (Z m �O m a) N > a°') -O 7 E •U (O LJ (p E W C O N a) J T i � 0 0 c6 3 m `� +� 3 C C' E > •i Q LLI O bA C a) T V)v t0 3 aT O U a — C c0 i0 p c m C O a) O (o a) a) O C N +' (a +J a) C C O .� a) O L O E C 2 Z 6 p E E (o (o (a O a) v i O Q C (o C V V) N •+' C E V)C <Z' CO J U J J (7 .O cm" T> E O to EO O T m <Y (a 3 O v u • 0 • • • • • f6 Q U u O Q Q co W a) V)O E 3 U. M uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv zl O O N bA a, V 6 *p +� } L O. is Q N c n E O > EC c O C 0 > p fl + O + n= N N ) M� C p N v u v U N > S p u Q N Q N c > Q1 C Q N O N �n C +L N '� O U *' O n '_O N c o '� c n v -0 N O Q O L L V L O_ u 0 ca .v U l_l Ou U N E n E O C O, a� C pL bz Ou o C a-.+J V? v -0 0 '- �O Ul ON N O O C o- o `� y0 N V) a- v > N O p N VI LJ11 M i C T C U C C 1 -O_ L= O C co C U c cn > U, N O _� Uca +J cn • C ca O m '— t o m� C=DQ 0 EO �� O O N T co N N N . N c0 N> +cn C X -O C +-+ cn -o Q +O R N bA +' •� E c n Q cn n O CO c *p N '— v p Q- bC..O *' H ro u E Q + V) N c p U V v o N 0 U vi in E V !�6 p (6 N +�.+ N N N -p b.0 C +- u i U a..� N C U N v !6 O biA "O Q i x N�-O X 41 E 0 C C fl_ d -0 + t N T +' Lao E +' c U ca ` o + u > 'F +� aA m O v O N� MC`� V �N+�-+-+ >`IZ cn U 0 c'R•= Z o O ��- N QwN a C O C v) O o N � .T O vi ti N LJ >,� v ` bA-O ON L N E C .� j C t0 E +, 0 Q"p >' L C N .V a� Q m O +-� 7 Q tp 0- N C l6 N M u +� o + c +-� .� ate-+ U N p�v��-' a�v cn. r�cLE QEEr- Qa�� '.p0 V) U cm N O (n N co bA U O U O O n- °+�' O � c� � • • • U- V)'O 0 u E t — I umsued x] V331 19(an]=i) ABIGA O JSe3v#Sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:g£ -PZ)umd leul=l dOON3 :juqwt43ejjv � E 0 w � 0 t Qj / U � q � � t ul< � zi 9 . iz �o E $\a/ ee22// /\%2 m@ 2 x /o /§ o e° 2 E G& \ a 2 2 aj 5 7 § 2 e 7 3 \ { la / -0 \ / = L \ E $ s ,2 \ / / � ® \ \ \fV,3\§%33/7 \77� E& \) /\ e 2 6± Z (2\77=>1E�e Eoi$ cm /\{/3§\ : /( �/ \ 0 E a f e § \ a/ n § / u - t: \ \ 5 \ / \ m= m m �•- 7 w � 3°°° ° \ ° a, o 7 \ \ \ \ } 2 _/ o� e 0 E 2 o w \ R @ k \ x 6 g Z / § V_= 7= g e o= > E � :E 5/ 2 == a- o m e \ 7 / \� \ ( O bn a) C) u c \ U -0 E e a\ 7 E 2 2 k 2 e /$ 5@± .i umsued x] V331 19(]n]=i) ABIGA O JSe3v#Sn-OC6000OCZOZ d:g£ -PZ)umd leul=l dOON3 :Iuqwt43eljv \ _ — • f � \ ` � — - ■ 222{ + /\~\ \}/4 . } cu } / ( \ . � �MAI o — ° ` * cc _ o - / u _] $ m w i $ m § � E / / / § | ) 2 ^ ��/\CL E/ / q 2£ b 2£ G e : mLn E 0 \ _ � q _ - 0 2 " % CL- & � — k � k .— f� § IL - - § � Z § 0 O_ 2 _ § © k f ® [ -0 vm ® p -ej§2� };CL222 — § k \ \ ( kqv ' § k 10 0 3=>£ >�M1 f ° a\§»`b$ SaE§CL 0Li g u E» . E 3,. I I 1-h uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv W LLJ cm N O � �T+ 0 C N f6 CO ro E a>i O C bZ v O > �.� O O v C } O V) a C N O fa 0 U E u v O T 0 b Ll > 0 0 Ul fd C C C 7 0 OCL V, U O ' 0 v) v E 0 -0 v u . v > i E f6 cv Q O > N (d u C "O V C 0 0 Q " 'Q O ca 0- + Q Ou o U- .- vim) L U 0 U O m N v �_ N C O L i N V) in O ca a)of C C t6 L N> .� C 0 'O •> O u O v O N b0 bA i UO i L >` l6 C !U6 N 'U V C_0 N C �O o 0 O 0 -O v 0 C Q u m u E t N 4 Q O O O O t6 6 u an o v O 0 E u c `�' °J f6 i N L f6 N C >- v) m> O w E w +� O Q c6 O 6> C vOi GO a1 CO 0 " V vl L1 L 'U C +J f6 C E M `� Cl. l6 C M U N Q C U v '� u N-0 a .N v) V) u N C •— U O_ m O 0-0 0 �n •� Q C Q E Q N y C u m 0 O O C a v v C N� m N m n 4 v co 0- a� 0 N > a Q) v > C N i 'i -0 <n u v 4J C O 0 v O (n i E E +� N O C a v E a O w v 0 V) " a N +c) +� E E� 0� N N UA i a> 0 X a c ou -0 m a Ou 'c6 c v .E E 0 -O O co 0 V) V) O C N O i a a1 V u ''C a N fU6 N 'C C N- (n O N CL U 0-0 p bA C+- V) O_0 A O i � O N - +a:iO .0 (C6 +� Q N bA c�6 ~ u N 'V N C a E Q C •— d 0 -O C O i O O u v ,m O N N 0 -0 Q ? C Q `n �- U R v co C N �u+ O c6 V C O CO 41 Q Q u V) N N -6 v N In+ v .� ca ..- -0 +� - U bA v i N 0 fa v r a 4J -O f6 N u +--� Q E C f6 t ca u � � ca U Y •� 'ro C O bA n (!1 41 N O O O O .� Q a) � E m� 4! v 0 O� m N L C VO v "O N O !6 v— Q�> 0> J (7 C '� UJ -O +' O" m v O u bA C C C -d _ O -0 O N Ln N : Q M O- C N fa a"' EL N 0 7 0 C V) .N C N O bA 0 E ao E E" c. v a 0 o ao Q a2°U+EaoommEm anOQm.E E. to M d d v d y G z uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv N N D O N •S O N Q N Q-0 O > p T C w o c v O v p *' w C Q -= N = CV +� . *' U "O N to >� N N E _ tUi) N +�-' O Q = O ON O= E EQ Q�E v NE N O E + +o vO Q O � Q aO1cQ t °ovi u o o � voa)> N n O U p OO ONOO O N w L m N 7 t -p 7 N in cn H <n -C -O +� N— U, O C o_ N N co v p v) U ,� O a, = cn O� u 7 `� C O O_ N" O to 'i �..� v x C E 0-0 N +J C N� C. vi C x v by u i cn N N— O _° _� O .° u Q T cep U- Q U c6 bz EO N E O p + N p 0> °- O +� O 0 Q, n U O u O. N O O (n Q Q O O_ 0 O O N +� +J Q O E L= O co O >, O O i ._ Q O +-� t °_ W O_ = v= .� u i O bA a.., Q �j T= C Q Q N +> ,= N . O I`QC,tL vC) O LL-� L u nO� _�N nM O N x O OO O O Q°O "m -0O c0 � v) Q ON U Q) cv f'V MW Z E N C N = _ N '� N = O_ o O - 'N N` > O C) u bA i E w O bA O O O> N co v E u E >, O a� _ 0 v O .0 0 _ Q > -O /� _ +-' C �' = O +J Q m -0 u -O ~ N +.+ -O -O C .L N O c6 cn N 4! ` O c6 N C = U E ?� v u 0 m O -O C C bA }, C O 0 in +-+ N C Q E ca > N bA t O � co� J 0 o� bA vi .E +� Z Q O Q= Q Q co U Q? O v .E > t v N a, E °1 O .� UI cp Q MC a..l 41 bU c0 O o p O = Z +J D u 0 ,> 1) i o f~ 7 C O Q m ti > L v v _ ,} +� _ p w � o > N U +O co -0U N E +L cn O O U bA _ O V t = o LE = v N p Q o +� •� M y C - M v Q cu o o f m (13 u O T O tLO = O +�+ +•I (O C N cn cn Q O bA — cv mEvu"mv)OE O i i N U N V `� > O C J: c O 0 v C O O-p cn bA v 4) _T v U � °� N v V6 N c>o =O E d C T N C v N C a..' N E O Cl-M Q° Q)-0 a � � O O w a � E u 0 a O a` a, G w N C/� c U o� � p p O V O N= __� ;_ C 3: 0 U C Ln ° v- Z In=C-O )M_-°°+ °'_ v' _ _°_ o `oC" w="°'-C O OvLn 'UlC=vi=ao`6 EEE`°-0E_=uo. Oa== My �puu w N� C co ca >_ E= E w E° a, o f co U) o +� E `a v O Q +v _ v C = +� o a� R +� Q O_ co O N "O 0 O O O = Ou N m= O Q 'E C 0 M O° O w= co ° ---o a u o C:) v_ _ C O v E a, v p Q� Q V) E u= _ +' O v) i ca O m U fl- _ , = O v v T ca O n -p v) C O Z N i •N U O Q. - v) O .N N �' )On 00 '> N > +� +, _ •V) = '> c6 u bD to >U O ai � � � V > � -OaE n o E LL4J O aULC-+ N C)O V cm -a O NO Q �Q O �NV M M O �n -p 0- M-WO C u p - N =� O Q ao C E c aA ap ca ,_ ca v Z v > L J u v +J `a > � `a O t = ao C = Mo > V E ao � �° vi v a , W o aa) o N-0 V)° ao o o cz Ln C U LU GC h00 ao.� N f° o ao 7 C O N T H vN) i� ' ' `° '� N L� OQ O N co = N U M 0-O cLa ° O O co cv N_ C u= O +� v) O= N N n= Q ® u- r° E x s t v N m -o v-0 m �' cLo o= N N °�' o o O '� u a, o W -0 Q -0nvV)o�ON_0v�t:Lo a)u U>.L�ai`°�wO 0�o'EEc=o v°'+�S°1= c=a t >, `L° v .o y a=i a� o° o u v w •"-) of 6i _ a, n E C: C -O > ra C U E O N _ U ° cn O t6 v) = E N O_ = J ili _ - N C Q Q �N �N� LU �v N Q� °'��aL� Ez N E �' N co U bA N 7 41 O L n (O u " U c6 O EO O O O p W L c6 .i (a 7 N E L:S CC, m 'i .� C) O d' E P- , C M N 4! , .� •> M U CD V '+-� U = H Z Q = -o 3: '+ uolsuedx3 V30118 (3f1-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : SUM Ueld IeUl3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv (n L CMW to 6 c OA !Eca = N 0 6 a� O 0 U E aJ O t• t O p O L i i •c6 >LLJ Z J O 5 0 L OA y C co c O U V) O_ Q O N a- O E OA .O a1 N a) E E O N Q O -p +T+ (6 c� 'Q M ? O O N V) N , O G� W O v v O a� cn — c °o +� 1� L � W cn u v> N ca L a, v J Q aCoco oa) a E c Q +J a) bA O v c N +J O v a) L V tO a1 to c -C L -a — bA On U V)O Z_ O U a) -6 V Q c Q cri Z a1 _ a) a1 In �i c -O co V1 L L•V) O w U L -'u G V cmc� (n C O c Etc`t---0 O c/3 c� Fo -0*ac°n-ova, Q G (a L o N O a o o v Q +� V)- N E O Q Z f6 L c cc,> M a, v a o Lci J Q H O c +� co a) cn a 0 -0 co — uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) AelaaAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld S£LbZ) Ueld leu!3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv CD Ci � O M Q u n3 +�-I oi U a1 - -0 i � -O CO C -d uI ca a � � 0 � d O c'V bU.O O >, N co N N '� +, ri v) +� E o v t a, c a > a, �c a Q tO O+ r- O O co Q L UO C co Z N v N v V of nz o ca E -coE E + cm OM O O L v v V) c o t aV M d w " �' °� O a, C a' W t C o E cv LL E a) t O o N �o tDz V `° � aUi o Q' + '0 +� .� +J E E avi U s Ln a) + a a c a, o -0 CZ Z a, v o c o Z Q ,� O, . v N u u 0 n > o Sao o c o O o~ Q �y� .� (n O O A v n3 O N O N C C h�0 CO C ate" N W g O Q `a v +-' c g 'o -0 o N C v-0 •� Q v v- 'c v z O v a O O C7 O V)• = L QL N> N C C C O E O V) a� _ U Z u j O m o U O O o c ca v o M V) ca ca o .N Q w o v ti Z n U o U V) > o E+ u a� al n Q v a c6 > v) Q w a O 7 v N Z ~ r c L Q- � N L ~ bA U >, 4` a -O O "6 z U N N Z Q by Q ,O O +, C ._ O O N Q> co C O d Q (13 I..I.J W d O .� +N UO Ln 0 o CO Q Q 00 to O O U6 v > O O C d = C C C +' C U C v 'O O N U w C .0 .O a) a! O~ J LLJ ~Q O aJ b0.0 a1 v' N O tv N -C -0 bp 0 Y U >' C m >, c c Ln N E v o °D Q O v o" n v aEi v nz v *' o •� y '� u O to aL .cz � ~ O O >, O v O Q" O E C N Z 8 o N O O N N o :� y o a, c o d d C/� a> fl °' n u n E v`') a o c nz = °�° •� o v 6 `�° c E v o V- .W 9 � .E Q. N .- Ln u. -0� a c`a v n d ca +� (a n v v bo C N C C C as'"' -6 C fl_ V LL C O y "� C p a) p a! O Q a) O CO Z C r -O to bA -a N -O cz E t v-0 +' c ao E v' v v °1 °�' U _ N `° +L 'O to p v O c vim) -0 O ;n u O bA c d t N v) N �- c bA -0 ,, n w ca E n E v a�i 6 7 v v a �' E `° > v m V) c> 0 a, E-0 o o V) t Ln n r O c m w z O n U a ^ a, a, f6 °' +� c aEi `� a E Gr-c a a v N bn a E LLjC� OTC o ao V) u 0 O c c .E E E o v °n' o L a' o v�i CO �° •E o +� o" ~ Q a a� m H LE n a) v +� v, +� m E v o o c v) c U w �o Q W -o o � E' C o t c c �.� v -o v E U o ti E G O co: c a� v +� O a) U o G R v Q O .N '� t o ca n3 Q d Lt7 3 U t "' E> M cn O i �n Z C O +-+ +' r E O Y = +-+ +� C O T a w C v Q C vNi O Q O v .0 O N T C +� O C v Cl aA c v `> o C7 � '� a>, c E a>, E C G v E v U +f6 E L �_ '- +� a> > vi - Z 1.� v m Q co cv v -o J W t n v Ln o +� v v) T U ? O c o a1 C O �, +' •� N- O Q aa)i +�.+ LW � c C c '� O O O aJ bA N Z CQ O> T E co n O C> v) (6 > O M �C G o 7 C U O N C cp Q G V) 0 T 'L i +� n u c E t c w v) a a��i v E E E n o w u v a� v E E a", •� o a�i a, N v n E c nz O E O N O o n cLo nz 2 L� o nz > i Ln L to i. +� U 7 O +� L.L CO U U Z (v d '� V) a! E L� J O Q O Q W W J O cc; uolsuedx3 V33l'S (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :IU8WL13eUv m C O O O> C N E b�0 C v +_ >O O O 0 0 U N co >+ v O E O °V -O v> �N > O O_ O T V) m C •- '0 0 u •� i i n O > N O i V U"> �' �' c6 Q C t E O U N -0 a W -d N C > E �b.0 O a Z O s li a 0 Q +' U _O C O E � •}' U L U '6 0 UO Q-0 v a N M 0_ C v O Q N - ca -O ca + O V .� C N L � (6 L u o �' N bA d -O N C O +.+ O , C a.., m O EO Q Q. '°d 0 N O N Q E +� W ,--� Q �' N L L v cNo V N N C O i a., U 76 i +�-+ O °- T> �`� U to 2; -° of ca 'u O>> N -O O v O+ O O > C N -O N i_0 Eb U N N ca 0 Y O c6 N O i2 Q m LLFI •Q V) N > v O N a� co O O O N v m 0 u- E C O ° " a W m N > *'0 0- 0 N a)U uVi J w' cOa > cc 41 cv N Q E N C N E ti O i H E .� Z 6 'O cn +-+ bA M _T 0 E t6 > 0 0 ,� ui cz-0� •— ' L N E-j O E -6 E d O LA4 O p V co v v E -O O O E U° v co c Q bA N 4J d CeD �` V) u L O -O -O U a1 o w co E a, E +; v v u° a ca v -5 a, m T E +� i O ca v = s}4v1 :3 Cc N i p C bA Q0 N O S O V) o u O O0 LLI O0 p ° o-vv o o p0�co L' -ov W w. O W U Or° O O vi V � O Q m v> J co C O N N 0 Q = 0 (13 O O ELOU O C co O Q v Q c ro > vi C T >� N C T v C N O i i U b,O N C C T E a ca N O C p Q M v v Q C U Q C E m °" v U U CL -a N C V �o QE E'Q= a)w ,nQ O a, N •O > 0 O_ c0 , o •v> s -a O i O -0N 41 U lL6 N t U a OMEOL r O C Q N� 0 V) V)Q 0 m bA U O U N m E c a C -o (31 O U c0 'L + O cp N Q O cn V v H O cp Q io � + E v O O + _ O 0 Q V 7 U C U Q-0 >> U U .E m u .E u c°o T i C N 0 d C v =3 ° ,n �-- vi M 'J o cz c J USA G OL ., > p w + c O_ v U O In C O ° coo C oU. Nay O � N O a Q O + > i cv N Ci = U C 0 bA C U !i6 +J m O w N +, QCO tw O O N C N +� Z M 'O C 7 cz O V i v U O O }, N co E n� o o~ C � J C C Q> N -O li a.., C OLD C E v Z Q o > is c v C o E cn O O bA C 7 Q co U d N •� O U 0 O •- — a > Z a U C N E O v a E o V c O N N O O ++ C E U o 2: '— m O O O O CO ,N C fa a? N O O O N O V) v a� � 0 d Q 0 Y o T u v _ m O i Iz w O C N U fltt-- O O a)0 U M U o L i -o Q i cz N m = C v Q O c v M a O Q o .o o L 0 E LL V) +� Q , O_ L . y V) C �^ v u N U E O N O cz +, Q Q O co N v L nO C C)U N 0 a LL- v.o� i ;, *� -p bA +4J O U c cn .� a>i C N by O ru V 'i C C U 'O O O N <n 0— Ln O d O to Q d co v E m m E m N T O O -C 'O O !E U�1 i 0 U O O cz t 6 t i .S a i >, E Ln LE s N o 'Q o °U U V) a a Z Q W C G W J C� C 0 cc; uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv 00 41 v E v an 7 O U • N O 0 U� V) C Q Q O u V V a)C O V) C N " V) C O O C � � C O N C E O E O O U E v O T Q+' L V) O N +J -O C N 4J Q E >, N � V N V) i dA > O O O t C -d O C o 41 M E O O Q E N v C V) 0 0 f6 +� O > oA v C } V) C � O O E C C v ca E v v > 0 Z O 0, a U u N N E V) Q � O u O > n v � C � J � � E C Q- � O d N N � E v v V)V) � � L C O � 0 O N _0 C -0 V) O O }, V `U 7 V -O � N LnE 0 o E `� •E IN V E C O Q Q C w Q i O C O � V) O E N N C O Q U V1 V) U A C +J =5 C O v E V N ut V � u) C •� a, E � Q c o � > O O � vOi v � E � v X_ C E v L O .Ul bA N O C +� N Ln V) Q + Q C u) N Q O Q C O O O .- � v O a V v v U -0 N c � v C N +- O E N N O � � U � N V w � •C O Ln v Q � C C � v a, v u O v +� _0 c � v � V N Uf6 x � 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 Ln C O v N C O v O N N C v v O 6- 0 bA C v v v Of uolsuedx3 V33118 On-m) ABIJOAO P83 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : GUM Ueld Ieul=l d(33N3 :WOW43BIN IF 0 Q t— Z CW G W J a O Cfl M C O .w u a� N (n 4, Q a) u C O u a) O 4� � c c a1 E 00 C � O > 0-0 E bA Q = a1 4-1 Q N C >> CaJ i E a)O aJ ++ >+ O f° 0 > 3 o� '0 v o � O � 4 c +1 N c O- O O E 4J Q � E CaO+ 00 �E = O ca O- > +' aJ � 4- C 4� EL -p to c� Qi c E 43 O o u C a) a� v E� o_ CL O O aJ a) > W O O O c W J +w C .w m— c , a� a Q C � a� Ecw aj a' as 0- 0 c � L L t v 3E O o o u .a g c O aP u a) N tf O_ O_ N bA C C u u m Q tN c ai L c m V) 4• c w E tf tla C C fa; a) t E 0 V) a) E O u 7 O a; cv U uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£L'PZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv M N O Y y N v v v v V V to v d O T N N N O T :5 > O fo 0 d •L L L L T O CO J -O T T J J U J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a C O M c 0 v N N c N E > O a E O v N c c 0 u c N v fl_ C v u T v O O U N C C 0 U I W .. AWN i r ro 9.A.3.e East Naples Community Development Plan: Public Involvement Plan September 28, 2020 Introduction Public and stakeholder involvement is integral to the development of the East Naples Community Development Plan. Involvement is understood in this process as comprised of two key parts: outreach and engagement. Outreach refers to the efforts made primarily to spread awareness about and promote the project; community members and stakeholders cannot be involved with a project if they are not aware that it is happening and what the opportunities for involvement are. Engagement as used in this process refers to the activities undertaken to exchange ideas and information once community members and stakeholders are made aware of the project and are participating. The East Naples Community Development Plan is being developed under unique circumstances given the coronavirus pandemic occurring across the country as of early 2020. This plan has been tailored to provide effective public outreach and involvement while also ensuring the health and safety of the public with regards to the virus. The following Public Involvement Plan (PIP) lays out the approach for outreach and engagement activities that will be used during the planning process, with a focus on general community members, department and agency staff, and elected officials. The final section of this plan provides a tentative schedule for these activities. Outreach Raising awareness about a project is important for getting robust participation in workshops, meetings, and online engagement tools. This effort is particularly important for to reach community members, especially those who may not be in formal social networks that may facilitate the communication of information. The following details outreach methods that will be used during the project. Email Notifications The consultant team will develop and maintain an email list for project promotion and information sharing based on community contacts from previous outreach efforts, additional contacts identified by the consultant team in coordination with County staff, and contact information gathered as part of outreach and engagement efforts undertaken during the project. The consultant team will prepare County -branded email blasts with a project -specific email to send to the project email contact list to announce the public workshops and postings of major new project information and/or engagement tools to the project webpage (described later in this plan). The consultant team will contact various organizations in the community (e.g., churches, community service organizations, service providers, non -profits, bike/ped clubs. Car clubs, etc.) via phone and/or email to raise awareness about the project and encourage organization members to join the project mailing list. East Naples Community Development Plan: Public Involvement Plan Packet Pg. 355 9.A.3.e Digital Web and Social Media Outreach The consultant team will post a still advertisement for the project to the local group on the NextDoor application prior to the first public workshop; County staff will also be provided this advertisement for use on the County's social media platforms. The consultant team will run digital ads on select websites and Facebook and Instagram social media platforms to advertise the project and second public workshop (see below) to people visiting those websites within the East Naples study area. This outreach is intended to help reach community members who may not already be connected to the project via existing organization email networks, all while observing social distancing measures. Other Outreach The consultant team will prepare an article to raise awareness about the project for distribution to local media outlets. Engagement Collective Public Engagement Events and Surveys The following public workshops will be held during the project; these workshops include a virtual platform for participants to join remotely and observe social distancing measures in relation to the coronavirus pandemic. • Hybrid Virtual/In-Person Public Workshop 1 (June 2020): the consultant team will plan and facilitate this workshop to present via PowerPoint presentation draft baseline information and findings from Task 2. The workshop will be held on the GoToWebinar digital platform to observe social distancing rules; attendees will also be able to view and participate at the Collier County Commission Chambers. The team will provide the opportunity for the attendees to discuss information with the project team and provide comments during the workshop; the team will also solicit feedback through a digital survey and the project email address (see below) on the preliminary findings, project aims, and project approach identified and summarized from the review of recent planning efforts already undertaken for the area in conjunction with Task 2 analysis findings. This effort will also solicit additional information needed for use as a basis to draft land use scenarios and other recommendations that will be developed in Task 3 of the project. A pre -recording of the presentation, static presentation materials, and the online survey will be made available on the project website (and for broadcasting on the County YouTube account/Collier TV in the case of the recording) in advance of the meeting to gather feedback, especially for those who cannot attend the live workshop. The project email will also be available for additional questions/comments. • Hybrid Virtual/In-Person Public Workshop 2 (September 2020): the consultant team will plan and facilitate this workshop to present via PowerPoint the preliminary goals, recommendations, and land use concepts for the plan based on content from Task 3. The workshop will be held on the GoToWebinar digital platform to observe social distancing rules; attendees will also be able to view and participate at the Collier County Commission Chambers. The event will allow attendees to discuss options with and pose questions to project team members; the project team will solicit feedback from attendees with polling, verbal questions and comments posed during the workshop, written questions/comments submitted through the webinar platform, East Naples Community Development Plan: Public Involvement Plan Packet Pg. 356 9.A.3.e and the project email address. Feedback will inform revisions to goals, recommendations, and land use concepts. Presentation materials will be provided in advance of the workshop on the project website to gather feedback, especially for those who cannot attend the live workshop. The project email will also be available for additional questions/comments. Project Webpage and Email Address The County will develop, host, and keep up to date a webpage on its website to share project information, updates, host the online survey, and solicit contact information to develop the project email list. The County will develop a project -specific email address to provide on the project webpage for community members to send general messages. Commissioner Briefing One briefing with Commissioner Fiala will be held via teleconference to provide a status update on the project and solicit feedback. Stakeholder Interviews Five stakeholder interviews will be conducted during Tasks 2 and 3 to gather information on existing conditions, community needs, and considerations for the development of goals, recommendations, and concepts in Task 3. Stakeholders may include but are not limited to County department staff and other public agencies, such as the County's transportation staff and representatives of the Florida Department of Transportation. These interviews may also be conducted as meetings and used to meet with other project stakeholders, including representatives of the local developer community, the East Naples Civic Association, and local non -profits. Plan Approval Meeting The County Commission approval meeting for the final plan provides a final opportunity for public and elected official consideration and comment on the plan. This meeting will include a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the final plan for comment to be considered and addressed in plan revisions Project Coordination Calls and Milestone Meetings Throughout the project planning process, the consultant team will coordinate with the lead staff from the County overseeing the project. These efforts will include coordination calls at a rate of up to one every two weeks to provide a project status update and discuss next steps; there will also be a project kick-off meeting and two additional meetings (which may be GoToMeetings) to discuss considerations and needs for the Technical Memorandums. East Naples Community Development Plan: Public Involvement Plan Packet Pg. 357 9.A.3.e Schedule Project Kick -Off Meeting February 12, 2020 Coordination Calls Throughout project Stakeholder Interviews February through August Post Involvement Materials Related to Workshop 1 Late April/early May Workshop 1 June 29, 2020 Complete engagement related to Workshop 1 Early July Draft Technical Memorandum 1 Submittal Mid -July Project Milestone Meeting 1 July 17, 2020 Final Draft Technical Memorandum 1 Submittal Mid -August Post Involvement Materials Related to Workshop 2 Early September Workshop 2 September 10, 2020 Commissioner Briefing September 16, 2020 Draft Technical Memorandum 2 Submittal Mid -September Project Milestone Meeting 2 September 23, 2020 Final Draft Technical Memorandum 2 Submittal September 29, 2020 Draft Final Development Plan Submittal September 29, 2020 County Commission Approval Meeting October 27, 2020 Addendum: Outreach and Involvement Outcomes The following graphic included in the final plan summarizes the engagement activities undertaken and the number of participants. A summary of findings from these activities is included in the appendices of supporting documents Technical Memorandums 1 and 2. East Naples Community Development Plan: Public Involvement Plan Packet Pg. 358 9.A.3.e Analysis Et Research Demographics Land Use and Development Community Asset Inventory Existing Document and Program Review Public Engagement Survey: Workshop 1 Material 600+ Workshop 1 91 Workshop 2 166 East Naples Civic Association t0+ (2 Meetings) Local Non -Profits 3 Developers (2 Meetings) 4 County and FDOT Transportation Staff i 4 The following summarizes outcomes from outreach activities: • Project email list: total of 637 subscribers by September 25, 2020 with more than 60 community organization contacts included (e.g., faith -based organizations, civic and business associations, issue -based organizations operating in the area, etc.) • Digital web and social media advertisements: o Date range: August 24, 2020 to September 6, 2020 o Total opportunities to view ads (impressions): 306,218 o Total clicks on ads: 608 (click rate of 0.2%) o Specific statistics by advertisement platform: ■ Social media (Facebook and Instagram) post: 102,583 impressions, 139 clicks, 0.14% click rate ■ Website banner ads: 203,635 impressions, 469 clicks, 0.23% click rate • Media coverage: while the news article developed by the project team was not picked up by any local media outlets, the project was featured in two different media pieces: o Donna Fiala (September 14, 2020) Good to be back!, Coastal Breeze News, https://www.coastaIbreezenews.com/articles/good-to-be-back/ o Patrick Riley (August 24,2020) Collier to hold public workshop seeking input for East Naples Community Development Plan, Naples Daily News, https://www. na plesnews.com/story/news/government/2020/08/24/col I ier-county- public-workshop-seeking-input-east-naples-plan/3099882001/ [This article was also advertised as a link in other articles featured on the Naples Daily News site.] East Naples Community Development Plan: Public Involvement Plan Packet Pg. 359 9.A.3.e EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Technical Memorandum 1: Background Et Needs Assessment November 18, 2020 Prepared for Coo*eY Ciommty Prepared by Tisdale (Oliver East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 360 9.A.3.e Contents 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................1 2.0 Summary of Findings..........................................................................................................3 3.0 US 41 Corridor Study Overview..........................................................................................5 4.0 Demographics....................................................................................................................8 5.0 Land Use and Market Analysis..........................................................................................14 6.0 Community Assets............................................................................................................41 7.0 Policy Review...................................................................................................................62 8.0 Public/Stakeholder Involvement......................................................................................71 9.0 Appendices.......................................................................................................................75 Figures Figure 1: Residential and Non -Residential Share of Square Footage Built by Decade in East Naples.........................................................................................................................................17 Figure 2: Just Values of Single -Family Homes..............................................................................20 Figure 3: Just Values of Condos...................................................................................................21 Figure 4: Share of Single -Family Homes Built or Significantly Renovated by Decade..................24 Figure 5: Location of Single -Family Homes Built or Significantly Renovated by Decade .............25 Figure 6: Median Square Footage of a Single -Family Home in East Naples by Decade ...............27 Figure 7: Existing Land Use Categories Capturing Desired Commercial Uses..............................28 Figure 8: Commercial Development Preferences from 2018 US 41 Corridor Study ....................75 Figure 9: Residential Preferences from 2018 US 41 Corridor Study............................................76 Figure 10: Live/Work and Mixed -Use Preferences from 2018 US 41 Corridor Study ..................76 Figure 11: General Urban Design Preferences from the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study...................77 Maps Map 1: Study Area and Area of Influence.....................................................................................1 Map 2: Study Area from 2018 US 41 Corridor Study.....................................................................6 Map 3: Activity Center Recommendations from the 2018 US 41 Study........................................7 Map 4: Population Density in the Study Area and Countywide.....................................................9 Map 5: East Naples Housing Unit and Population Estimates through 2040................................11 Map 6: Median Income for the Study Area Census Block Groups...............................................12 Map 7: Median Age by Census Block Group in and around Study Area......................................13 Map 8: Existing Land Uses and Roadways in Study Area.............................................................15 Map 9: Location of Housing Types in East Naples.......................................................................18 Map 10: Residential Just Value per Housing Unit in East Naples.................................................22 Map 11: Residential Just Value per Acre in East Naples..............................................................23 a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 361 9.A.3.e Map12: Housing Burden............................................................................................................26 Map 13: Location of Existing Desired Commercial Categories....................................................29 Map 14: East Naples Commercial Square Footage and Demand Estimates through 2040..........31 Map 15: Location of Commercial Leasing Opportunities in the Study area................................32 Map 16: Future Land Uses in East Naples, including Mixed -Use Activity Centers .......................34 Map 17: Vacant Commercial and Mixed -Use Lots with Potential for Commercial Development35 Map 18: Existing Commercial, Excluding Specialized Uses..........................................................37 Map 19: More Likely Redevelopment Areas for Desired Commercial Uses................................38 Map 20: Public Facilities in East Naples.......................................................................................42 Map 21: Travel Time from East Naples Fire Stations to Locations in Study Area ........................43 Map 22: Sherriff's District Boundaries........................................................................................44 Map 23: Driving Time to Reach Community Parks in East Naples...............................................47 Map 24: Driving Time to Reach Regional Park in East Naples.....................................................48 Map 25: Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in East Naples Area ................49 Map 26: Findings from Naples Manor Walkable Community Study 2010...................................50 Map 27: Areas within Walking and Biking Distance of East Naples Libraries..............................51 Map 28: Areas within Walking and Biking Distance of Public Schools in East Naples..................52 Map 29: Areas within Walking and Biking Distance of Community Parks in East Naples ............53 Map 30: Roadways with Federal Functional Classifications in East Naples.................................55 Map 31: Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Cost Feasible Roadway Improvements..56 Map 32: Transit Routes in East Naples........................................................................................58 Map 33: Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Transit Cost Affordable Plan ..........................59 Map 34: Summary of Major Planned Facility/Infrastructure Improvements in the Study Area.. 61 Map 35: Future Land Uses in Study Area....................................................................................63 Map 36: South US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area............................................66 Map 37: Zoning Districts in Project Area.....................................................................................69 Map 38: 10-Year Potential Improvements for East Naples Area.................................................78 Tables Table 1: Use Preferences from 2018 US 41 Corridor Study...........................................................7 Table 2: Existing Land Use Acreage and Share of Acreage in Study Area....................................16 Table 3: Residential Square Footage Built by Decade and Housing Type....................................19 Table 4: Residential Units Built by Decade and Housing Type.....................................................19 Table 5: Commercial Square Footage and Acreage Increases Needed by Benchmark of Residential and Non -Residential Shares of Square Footage........................................................33 Table 6: Build -Out Scenario with No Intensification of Commercial Uses...................................36 Table 7: Parcel Size, Count, and Acreage for Parcels Valued between $10,000 and $1 Million ..38 Table 8: Build -Out Scenario with Intensification of Commercial Land that is Vacant or More Likelyto Redevelop.....................................................................................................................39 Table 9: Average Response Time (Min.) to Calls for Service by District.......................................44 East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 362 9.A.3.e Table 10: Public School Grades in East Naples............................................................................45 Table 11: Major Future Land Use Categories and Allowed Densities in East Naples...................64 Table 12: Table A. Affordable Housing Density Bonus (Additional Available Dwelling Units Per GrossAcre)..................................................................................................................................70 East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 363 9.A.3.e 1.0 Introduction Collier County has contracted with Tindale Oliver to collaborate with the East Naples community and create an East Naples Community Development Plan. Map 1 shows the general focus area for this plan, including a Study Area for running data and spatial analysis for the study, presented later in the technical memorandum. The project team also recognizes the importance of accounting for conditions and development in the surrounding area and will note aspects of this Area of Influence during the preliminary analysis that will affect outcomes (e.g., major retail development, roadway connections, etc.). Map 1: Study Area and Area of Influence This project intends to follow up on the US 41 Corridor Study completed for this area in 2018 (discussed in more detail in Section 3.0). Accounting for findings from the 2018 study, the purpose of the East Naples Community Development Plan project includes the following points • Establish a community vision • Guide future land use and development in the area with the following: o Encourage desired uses and discourage undesired uses East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 364 9.A.3.e o Evaluate commercial development and redevelopment options to promote desired commercial uses o Create and build consensus on land use concepts for the area • Inventory community assets and services • Provide high-level options to promote multiple methods of transportation, such as walking and biking. This Technical Memorandum provides findings from the background assessment which will serve as a basis to develop goals, recommendations, and land use concepts in the later stages of the East Naples Community Development Plan process. This assessment includes data -based and spatial analysis; a review of existing plans and documents related to the area, including a review of the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code; and engagement with the public and specific stakeholders. Findings from the assessment are organized in the remaining sections as follows: • Section 2.0: Summary of Findings — provides key takeaways from the Background and Existing Conditions Assessment. • Section 3.0: US 41 Corridor Study Overview— summarizes the process and key outcomes from the 2018 corridor study that serve as a basis for the East Naples Community Development Plan project. • Section 4.0: Demographics — analyzes available data on population and related characteristics as context for later analysis in the Technical Memorandum. • Section 5.0: Land Use and Market Analysis — compares land uses and development between the East Naples area and the broader county, with additional sections specific to residential and commercial development; the commercial development section looks at how to benchmark and increase desired commercial uses in the project Study Area. • Section 6.0: Community Assets —inventories current assets and services and documents performance and planned improvements. • Section 7.0: Policy Review — summarizes key points in the existing Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code that may be areas of focus for implementation options analyzed in later tasks of the project. • Section 8.0: Public/Stakeholder Involvement — summarizes process and findings from public and stakeholder involvement, with analysis on how these findings will be incorporated into the project. • Section 9.0: Appendices — provides additional related information: o Appendix A: US 41 Corridor Study Development Style Preferences o Appendix B: Additional Transit Improvement Information o Appendix C: Online Public Survey Summary o Appendix D: Public Workshop 1 Recap East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 365 9.A.3.e 2.0 Summary of Findings The following are the key takeaways from this preliminary Background and Needs Assessment on the project Study Area and Area of Influence: • Key aspects of the vision for the area based on public outreach for this project and the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study included the following: o Balanced development: making sure that any new development is of good quality and does not overwhelm existing assets and natural places in the community. o Diverse and quality commercial: the community is seeking more commercial options of higher quality that allow for a broader range of places to shop, eat, and have fun. o Beautification and green space: part of balanced and quality development is ensuring that the development is visually pleasing and that there is ample green space and natural spaces maintained in the community. o Transportation options: future efforts in the area should ensure a range of safe options, including non -motorized options such as walking and biking, with improved connections between neighborhoods and local destinations. • The area generally has good coverage by public facilities and services but would particularly benefit from improvements to provide better transportation options, including non -motorized options such as walking and biking, for localized travel. • The area is generally underserved in terms of non-residential uses, with only 11% of current square footage built as non-residential relative to the unincorporated county as a whole that has a share of 15% non-residential square footage. Some community members expressed concern about adding more commercial development to the area, likely linked to concerns about over -building and crowding the area. The points in the remainder of this summary will help define how to guide future development to moderate it and achieve desired development while limiting undesired development. • The area may already face some potential limitations to adding more commercial uses, which may moderate the amount of development that could be reasonably anticipated. While this planning effort did not involve a comprehensive market analysis, it did include some preliminary outreach and analysis to identify possible limiting factors to development in the area for further consideration: o Roadway connections: there are a limited number of connections between the large residential areas, particularly at the center of the Study Area, and larger roadways that contain most of the commercial businesses in the area. While this land use and transportation pattern can help buffer residential areas, it also can create challenges for neighborhood residents to access commercial and other local destinations, particularly by non -motorized means. It can also limit the East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 366 9.A.3.e locations where new commercial businesses might locate and be compatible with surroundings. o Population density: East Naples is similar to Collier County as a whole in that most of the area is relatively low density (4 persons per acre or below); an interview with representatives of the development community noted this may be a limiting factor to having a local residential base that can support local commercial uses. o Seasonal population: East Naples is also similar to Collier County as a whole in that it has a high estimated seasonal population; this analysis estimated seasonal households at around 60% of total households, based on homestead exemptions and the limited share of rental units relative to total units. This finding indicates there may be some limits to the population that is in the area year-round to support local commercial uses full-time. o General market demand: there may be other factors influencing the market demand for commercial space in the area; while the County does not have control over the private market, this analysis evaluated ways it might influence market demand to attract desirable development. • An important starting point for ensuring desirable future development is to implement limitation on undesired uses and ensure that new development being built is a desirable use for the community. o Limit undesired uses: undesired uses include several auto -oriented uses, such as car washes, fast food establishments, and gas stations, and warehousing. Certain limitations are already in place or are under consideration, such as spacing requirements for gas stations and design requirements in C-4 commercial districts to incorporate warehousing into mixed -use development; this study will look into other ways that these uses might be limited. o Attract desirable uses: desirable uses as identified through outreach from the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study and efforts as part of this plan identified several desirable uses that tended to be commercial, including: retail/shopping, mixed - use and live/work units, restaurants, grocery stores, hotels/resorts, entertainment, services such as healthcare, and businesses that create jobs; respondents to the public survey for this planning effort indicated that restaurants are a particular priority. o Additional comments from the public survey for this plan indicated a desire to ensure ample green space and natural spaces in the area. • Development and redevelopment options to provide additional desired commercial uses should focus primarily on the US 41 corridor and nodes, as well as viable opportunities along Collier Boulevard. • Design is a critical component of desirable future development for the community, based on input from the public survey. Key points of desirable design to incorporate into East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 367 9.A.3.e land use concepts for the East Naples Community Plan include the following, based on visual preferences from the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study outreach efforts and the public survey for this plan: o Buildings set back from the roadways with landscaping o Potential for a range of heights from one to low multi -story, being mindful of concerns about overbuilding o Park once at a cluster of establishments and walk between them; walkable development concepts (e.g., an open mall) • Preferred implementation methods also influence the approach for attracting development and anticipated outcomes. Based on results from outreach completed as part of the 2018 US 41 Corridors Study and the public survey for this planning effort, more moderate measures of a marketing campaign to promote the area and incentives, such as fee reductions/waivers and expedited permitting, has more widespread support relative to more robust measures, such as allowing and encouraging more intense commercial and/or residential development. 3.0 US 41 Corridor Study Overview As mentioned in the introduction, the US 41 Corridor Study completed in 2018 serves as a basis for the East Naples Community Development Plan effort. Map 2 shows the corridor segment of focus for the study; note that the East Naples Community Development Plan expands on this area of focus to include surrounding neighborhoods and other major roadways. The 2018 Study aimed to determine public preferences for future development types and uses along this segment of US 41 so that those types of development and uses could be facilitated and incentivized through Comprehensive Plan policies and Land Development Code updates. Findings were based on input and polling results, including results from visual preference surveys, from three stakeholder meetings and three public meetings held as part of the study. Findings and recommendations emerged from the study that touched on the themes of land use, urban design, transportation, landscaping, and community branding. The East Naples Community Development Plan will build on these findings, focusing particularly on the preferences for land uses and development style as a basis for a vision for the built landscape in East Naples and related activities; these ideas will be incorporated into land use concepts developed later in the East Naples Community Development Plan process to create concepts tailored to the local community context, along with regulatory and incentive options to implement these preferences in future development. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 368 9.A.3.e Naples Keewaydin Island Map 2: Study Area from 2018 US 41 Corridor Study Q Palm Street/Commercial Drive C Naples 4 �- Botanical Raank.nak. Hammock W Garden i Le N ies Manor M r Lely Resort Price Street WS The most desirable and undesirable uses that emerged from the Study are shown in Table 1. Commercial development preferences included strip malls, destination shopping, and hotel/lodging styles; residential development preferences included multi -family options. Preferences also included live/work and mixed -use developments. Appendix A includes more details on the preferred visuals, as well as general urban design preferences. The Study also included support for nodal development, including existing activity centers, as shown in Map 3 East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 369 9.A.3.e Table 1: Use Preferences from 2018 US 41 Corridor Study l Shopping/retail variety Mixed -use, live/work Restaurants Grocery, wholesale club Hotel/resort Self -storage Gas stations Map 3: Activity Center Recommendations from the 2018 US 41 Study Collier County Government Complex Activity Center W1r. Thomasson/Rattlesnake Hammock Activity Center i �1 St. Andrews Square Activity Center •� i OPPORTUNITY j Vincentian/Eagle Lakes Park Activity Center 4 ' , OPPORTUNITY 41?' ` Collier Blvd/US 41 Activity Center .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 370 9.A.3.e 4.0 Demographics Population The Study Area has an estimated permanent population of 50,000, about 14% of the estimated total population for the unincorporated county at 364,000. However, it may face potential challenges in terms of specific population measures, such as population density and seasonal population changes. The population density is generally limited throughout Collier County apart from certain pockets shown in red in Map 4, including parts of the Golden Gate area, coastal communities such as Naples and its surroundings (adjacent to the Study Area), and Immokalee, among others. Much of the Study Area is at four persons per acre or less, which coincides with certain density limitations in the growth management plan due to factors such as the Coastal High Hazard Area where density is limited (see Section 7.0). Interviews with representatives of the local development community indicated that low density could be a limiting factor to achieving certain aims in the Study Area, such as increasing the amount of desired commercial uses, as discussed more in Sections 5.0 and 8.0. Additionally, the area has a sizable seasonal population, like Collier County as a whole. Approximately 57% of non -rental households in the study area are estimated to be seasonal, compared to approximately 53% countywide. Since these residents are only in the area part of the year, they are more limited in the extent to which they can support local businesses. This analysis used properties claiming the homestead exemption (which are owner -occupied, primary residences), based on 2019 Florida Department of Revenue data, to estimate permanent population. While this measure does not account for rental units housing permanent residents (rental units cannot claim the exemption), increases in permanent population from rentals are likely small since traditional multi -family units that are typically rental do not make up a sizable share of total units overall in the area. In the Study Area, there are 2,000 traditional multi -family apartment units, equaling 6% of the total 31,000 housing units in the area; Countywide, there are 22,000 traditional multi -family units, equaling 10% of the total 221,500 units. In the unlikely event that all these rental units housed permanent residents, the seasonal household share estimate would be approximately 54% for the Study Area, 48% countywide. In this case, roughly half of all households would still be seasonal. Some degree of additional rental units may occur in other housing type categories. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 371 uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv C f0 J N m f0 C (0 c E m O J N + f0 M in r- .- U d 9.A.3.e Regarding future population, the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) is one method used for population forecasting based on Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs, see Map 5). The model forecasts that the number of housing units will approach 40,000 and that the population will reach just over 61,000 by 2040; note that the possibility of this growth in the Study Area depends on the land use regulations and future build -out for vacant areas and redevelopment of existing residential, including if more multi -family is built. The Study Area has seen multi- family units being built, as discussed in Section 5.0; however, there are certain limitations on allowable density in parts of the Study Area due to restrictions in the Coastal High Hazard Area and Urban Residential Fringe subdistrict that cover large portions of the Study Area containing sizable amounts of the 187 acres of remaining vacant residential land in the area (see Section 7.0). Depending on these outcomes, there may be some degree of additional permanent population concentrated within the study area to support aims of the East Naples Community Development Plan such as increasing desirable local commercial uses, offsetting some of the effects of lower population density and higher shares of seasonal population. More information on forecasts from this model for commercial demand are provided in Section 5.0. Note that some of the TAZs extend out beyond the boundaries of the study area, yet mainly towards the southwest coastal area where there is a lot of land protected from development; as a result, the increase in dwelling unit and population estimates beyond those strictly within the study area boundaries are likely moderated. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 373 uolsuedx3 V30118 (3f1-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : SUM Ueld IeUl3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv Frm-e- cz Q J w �O H� to = w Ln <WZ ZLD< �jw ado w QU Z tr LL 'n z rn—a �wOa ZJ Z 0 zU 00 J j 3 O a ad aa,9aa�n�, a n an aa. y s N ail Hue,j-aua�pao� a c m E m U L U N H c _N o a � a) E 3 0 o � Q Qj E c E i O a U N a) U n m U Z L a) Ln LU 9.A.3.e Income In addition to population, income is an important factor to consider, particularly in terms of discretionary income available to spend at local shops and businesses. The study area has a sizable median income overall that is comparable to the unincorporated county ($52,679 versus $57,600, respectively). Map 6 shows the variation in median income levels in different parts of the study area, with some falling below the East Naples overall median income to the east of the area and south of US 41, while other areas range up to well above the county median income at nearly $66,000 and $100,000. Mop 6: Median Income for the Study Area Census Block Groups F�MWm r! vie 0 BLVD ` DR $65,676 to ❑ v o m $100, 000 �y` E m a U ti � m o � x O m T mason DR Rattlesnake Hammock RD m S0�J0 Sa�t`�P�a� Gj u �6 41 P $32,001 to $520P680 to S52d.679 $657675 N A0 0.75 1.5 Miles I I I pate So . Cotter County. Cdr., MPO. FDOT, FGDL and US Census Source: American Community Survey 2018 5-Year Estimates Median Income df $19,075 - $35,000 dif $35,001 - $52,679 $52,680 - $65,675 dr $65,676 - $100,000 dif $100,000 - $250,000 10 East Naples Study Area City of Naples Parks/Managed Land CRA Boundary Sabal Palm RD T Age Map 7 illustrates that there is a range of median ages (a middle measure of ages in an area, indicating a typical age) by census block group in and around the Study Area. The community includes working -age residents that may have children at home still, as well as retirement -age residents. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 375 9.A.3.e Map 7. Median Age by Census Block Group in and around Study Area / � /� J � _ �� C J�►i f I ' �5 Median Age 36-45 IL 46-52 53-54 All _,1J City of Naples �` 4� Parks/Managed Land f ' IL i Source: American Community Survey 2018 5-Year Estimates C R d c LL d 0 U Z W r C E t .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 376 9.A.3.e 5.0 Land Use and Market Analysis General Overview A general review of land uses in the area (Map 8 and Table 2) indicates that vacant land in general in the Study Area is limited, at only 6% of overall Study Area acreage. This finding suggests that the area is primarily in a redevelopment mode as opposed to a mode where new development is going in on vacant lots. The configuration of land uses with roadways is also critical to highlight, particularly when analyzing existing commercial uses and considering approaches to increase desirable commercial uses in the Study Area. As Map 8 and Table 2 show, the existing amount of vacant and existing commercial that serve as a starting point for development and redevelopment opportunities is limited at 11% (2% for vacant commercial, 9% for existing commercial), if specialized uses such as golf courses, tourism sites, and parking lots/mobile homes lots are included; however, some of these specialized sites may have more involved considerations for redevelopment (consequently, we have not included them in our more detailed opportunity analysis later in this section). Much of the land in the Study Area is used for residential and utilities (a combined 66% of the total acreage); utilities is used here in the context of map designations to indicate utility and other general right-of-way, groundwater recharge areas, extraction areas (where applicable), and other similar uses (not necessarily public). Additionally, the Study Area lacks a grid pattern roadway network, limiting access between residential neighborhoods at the center of the Study Area and the major roadways, as shown on Map 8. East/west through travel is limited to Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, with US 41 cutting diagonally. North/south through travel can mainly use Collier Boulevard as the direct route (again there is also US 41 cutting diagonally); many of the major collectors providing north/south travel do not continue through the entirety of the Study Area Additionally, there are only six intersections between local and major roads. This land use and roadway configuration could ultimately be a limiting factor for certain project aims such as attracting additional desired commercial uses since commercial thoroughfares are lacking in the heart of the Study Area, yet later stages of this project will evaluate opportunities for improving access between neighborhoods and existing commercial corridors for multiple transportation modes including walking and biking. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 377 9.A.3.e Map 8: Existing Land Uses and Roadways in Study Area Existing Land Use Vacant Resdendal Swpb Farmty de Ltaboe 11on1e dfl Mdb•Fa"(�10 Unas) Condo CoopRewement%fisc lift IAWbTa" (>10 Units) Vaunt Com &m I dil Connrnerwl dr Parkmgrrounst Attramn GO Course Vacant Industnal Induslnal 41 Vacant lnsm venal 41 Institubonal dFI CountylSlaWklmtery 4F schmi No Date IV EastNaplesStudyAroa Cdy of Napes de ParkVMaMged Land 42 CRABdundary _ 11 # MaiwCollector or Arterlal l.4 a `r, CocalNaJor Road intersection Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 with some exceptions to reflect more recent conditions. Calculations based on existing land uses for this report rely on non -adjusted designations in the Florida Department of Revenue database. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 378 9.A.3.e Table 2: Existing Land Use Acreage and Share of Acreage in Study Area Existing Land Use Vacant Acres 421 % of Study Area 6% -Residential 187 3% -Commercial 175 2% -Industrial 42 1% -Institutional 16 0% Single Family Residential 2,851 Multi -Family Residential 92 Mobile Home 184 Commercial 362 39% 1% 3% 5% Industrial 266 4% Institutional 47 1% Agricultural 149 2% I County 649 State 50 Utility/Other 1,691 Public Schools 142 9% 1% 23% 2% Colleges 80 1% Golf Courses 250 3% Tourist Attraction 78 1% Parking Lot 11 0% Total 7,351 - Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019, note: total acreage may differ slightly from sum of individual use acreages due to rounding. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 379 9.A.3.e The predominance of residential uses over other uses is not unique to the Study Area, but also characterizes the county as a whole. The amount of square footage built by decade (Figure 1) illustrates this point; additionally, the shares of residential and non-residential in East Naples are currently 89%/11% respectively. These shares are currently 85%/15% in the unincorporated county, which was used for comparison since it is made up of areas in the county most similar to the Study Area. These numbers suggest that the predominance of residential may be more severe in East Naples than other similar parts of the county. Figure 1: Residential and Non -Residential Share of Square Footage Built by Decade in East Naples 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Pre 1960 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Residential SF —Non-Residential SF Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 R9% 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 / 11% Unincorporated county share of non-residential: 15% The following sections talk about residential trends and commercial trends in more depth, with the section on commercial exploring in more detail the relative lack of non-residential square footage and ways to address this issue. Residential The land use analysis reviewed several factors of residential uses, including housing types, values, age and redevelopment, and affordability; findings are detailed by each of these topics in the remainder of this section. Housing Types Map 9 shows the location of different housing types in the Study Area; while single-family residential is widespread and takes up the greatest share of acreage as noted in the previous section, there are pockets of mobile homes, multi -family housing, condos, and other housing. When housing types are reviewed by square footage and number of housing units, multi -family residential, including condos, is the dominant type, with a total of 34.6 million square feet built from before the 1960's through the 2010's (compared to 28.5 million square feet of single- family residential) and over 18,000 units built during the same time period (compared to 11,406 East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 380 9.A.3.e units of single-family residential). As a result, this area is not unfamiliar with housing types that are typically denser than the standard single-family home, even if it is generally a low -density area as noted in Section 4.0. Map 9: Location of Housing Types in East Naples Radio RU a1-75 S 175 N Residential Uses dF Vacant >� Single Family 9 dF Mabile Home 0 'VaAles Multi-FamilyfOther --�� — Ao BLVD p � Nertta9e bq Condo >.. Ea M.plesStudyArea m 0 9 City of Naples m Parks/Managed Land ' .1 CRABoundary (�1 o .:rz . � TI nos. bG: oaf 1'�.. $ iesna7ce ammack R - - fir. /0 '❑ �� 7 -:�;. ■ �" rM`Pc,e� I''_ i `,j y Sabal Palm RO f S7' � . O VI m vim^ k - Ip ll o toy s Aa 0 75 1.5 Miles N Dnta SBurces' C01110[ C,wrty Collier MPO. FOOT, FOOL and OS Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 381 9.A.3.e Table 3: Residential Square Footage Built by Decade and Housing Type Pre 1960 116,979 263,324 2,186,013 3,590,598 3,934,337 10,137,697 8,429 52,641 3,047,442 4,872,235 5,963,871 6,460,394 N/A N/A N/A 20,408 2,202,570 2,517,865 N/A 1960s I 93,356 394,029 1970s 1980s 304,406 1990s 148,504 111,412 2000s 2010s RON 8,270,704 28,499,652 5,389,127 25,794,139 4,051,440 8,792,283 67,592 1,119,299 Total Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 Table 4: Residential Units Built by Decade and Housing Type Pre 1960 78 1960s 165 1970s 1,087 1980s 1,567 1990s 1,712 2000s 2010s Total 3,950 2,847 11,406 Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 174 N/A 8 N/A 11 N/A 57 125 2,225 N/A 482 387 I 3,950 9 85 253 3,832 690 34 99 3,934 542 15 74 1,593 654 3 50 15,719 1,895 684 988 a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 382 9.A.3.e Housing Values "Just value" provides an estimated value of residences based on property appraiser data (note that this estimated value is typically lower than what the current sales price would be). Figures 2 and 3 show just value for single-family homes and condos in the Study Area Compared to the county as a whole. The figures show that single-family home values are like those countywide, with the exception that East Naples lacks as much housing at the extremes of the values (very low and very high). Note that parts of the county such as Naples tend to have housing values that are high enough to be uncommon among a lot of communities. In terms of condos, East Naples values are similar to the county's, except that East Naples lacks extremely high value condos and has a much higher share of condos in the $100,000 to $150,000. Figure 2: Just Values of Single -Family Homes 40% 1 Note that these higher 35% valued properties may not be typical of many 30% communities. 25% .20% 15% 10% 5% Ll 0% — ■� Less than $50,000 to $100,000 to S150,000 to $200,000 to $300,000 to $500,000 to $1,000,000 or $50,000 S99,999 $149,999 $199,999 $299,999 $499,999 $999,999 more ■ East Naples ■ County Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 383 9.A.3.e 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% �M .. Less than $50,000 to $50,000 $99,999 Figure 3: Just Values of Condos $100,000 to $150,000 to $200,000 to $149,999 $199,999 $299,999 ■ East Naples ■ County Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 in $300,000 to $499,999 Note that these higher valued properties may not be typical of many communities. 1-1 11 $500,000 to $1,000,000 or $999,999 more The discussion of density is also important in terms of tax base and taxable values in an area. Areas that may have lower just values on a per unit basis (Map 10) may still have a strong just value per acre measure (Map 11), which is likely due to greater relative densities in these areas. The opposite can be true where higher per unit value can relate to lower per acre value, likely due to lower densities in an area. .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 384 uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;ugwt43ejjv 0 0 0 0 0 l� fV N O rl M ICT r -I O O O O OM Ln r-I M c-I r-I O O O O O O p O o g O O O O 1? a 9 O 00 Ln O n 8 o S a o ` Ln i N S c 8$ z_" 2 gS rl O rl rl +J j d d w w w cri a ci O O O N %F VIFFJ *QF O O O O m a)r�-I OM r m t/)- � — C7 1 1 1s - - oa D / tl1�Neuaep D�gGY I;��: ,� my �� °a � � (� �►\mil �S ;. tip �. Pig alip Imla—, a i i�� WaGam -IS e,eq,eg ueg • -• • �. 91 a f1: �►� to MOM f I chi � o �� ao a,oysteg N �r un 00 M a a. r+ d Y V m a. E a SO E N m U L U N f6 a Q 0 E E 0 U N Q Z ,u LU a! uoisuedx3 V30-L R (3f1-l=i) ABIJGAO 1Se3 �v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LtiZ) Ueld leu!3 dOON3 :;ugwLpejjv ri d Z O°c U p p O Q D > `^ o 0 0 m _Z o' 00 O O O N Z N Q C o A VOl 41 .O/1 V/ Vl w U a U v• � o � � o 0 O I'O � r-1 d1 rl r1 m m O o o O O L.n oo r- o O m r d O m r? rl I � C O O O Ln O O 00 O rl 0 O Lr CD rn r� ri O {/} i!} iJ} co Ln i i r1 O rl rl C ° o a r 9.A.3.e Housing Age and Redevelopment Redevelopment can help maintain housing values and improve structural quality where needed. The age of housing in terms of when units were built or significantly renovated may provide an indication of structural quality and whether units are typically in a condition to be ready for redevelopment or not. Figure 4 shows when single-family homes were most recently built or significantly renovated; most units (60%) were built or updated in the 2000s or 2010s, so they are likely in good condition. However, there is still a sizable share from the 1990s or previous decades that are approaching an age where redevelopment may be needed or that have already aged to that point. Figure 4: Share of Single -Family Homes Built or Significantly Renovated by Decade 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Pre1960 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000S 2010s ■ East Naples ■ County Year Built or Significantly Renovated Pre 1960 Units 80 Per Year N/A 1960s 165 17 1970s 1,100 110 1980s 1,600 160 1990S 1,700 170 2000s 4,000 400 2010s 2,900 290 Total 11,545 - Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 60% of single-family homes were built in the 2000's and 2010's. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 387 9.A.3.e Figure 5 shows the decade single-family homes were built or significantly renovated by location. Some of the older homes are along the US 41 corridor or in the western portion of the study area, indicating that there may be a need to renovate or redevelopment to improve structural quality in those areas. Newer units are also located in these areas, but also are significantly located in the eastern portion of the study area. Figure 5: Location of Single -Family Homes Built or Significantly Renovated by Decade R.J. RD 1960s and Prior It:.vn RI VD Hammack RD 9 8,0) A o 25 5 Miles I Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 RM. RD 1970s HLVII Rani ka H rk RD p 41 165 Units RaO 200`O s w HLVI1 4 "& RD r� ?r A04 a� - Un,its 2010s. ; HLVD Raisins aM ilammoc. RD C413 2, 900 Units 0 Single -Family Home Housing Affordability Housing burden is a measure that provides a snapshot of current affordability conditions in an area, for both rental and owner -occupied units. A household is typically considered burdened if it is paying 30% or more of its income on housing and is typically considered extremely burdened if paying 50% or more of income on housing. Additional considerations to keep in mind when thinking about this measure is the absolute numbers of renters or homeowners in an area (which can indicate number of people affected by rental or mortgage burden), as well as absolute income levels. A household that is paying 30% of income on housing but making $1 East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 388 9.A.3.e million of annual income is in a better position to pay for other living expenses than a household paying 30% of income on housing and only making $30,000 in annual income. Map 12 shows the share of existing households in the community experiencing rental and housing burden, both at the 30% measure and 50% measure, by census block of the Study Area Traditional multi -family housing units that are typically rental make up about 6% of the housing units in the Study Area, as noted earlier; Map 12 indicates that rental burden tends to be more extreme (higher shares of households experiencing burden at the 30% and 50% thresholds) than mortgage burden in the Study Area. However, sizable shares of owner -occupied households (10-25%) are still experiencing mortgage burden, an occurrence widespread throughout the Study Area at the 30% burden Map 12: Housing Burden threshold. These findings suggest a need for more affordable options for households in the community, particularly for rental units and households falling below the median income. One factor changing dramatically over the years and that may influence housing affordability is housing size. Figure 6 shows how the median square footage for a single- family home has steadily increased since the time prior to the 1960's, roughly doubling in size. This finding may signal intensified housing affordability issues if housing prices increase due to size increases. Percent Burdened 25.1%-35% Median Income (2018) 100 35.1%- 55% Collier County - $62,407 10.1 io -25% - 55.1% - 100% A Q EastNaplesStudyArea o i 5 3 Mi Managed Land Source: American Community Survey 2018 5-Year Estimates East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 389 9.A.3.e Figure 6: Median Square Footage of a Single -Family Home in East Naples by Decade 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Pre 1960s Approximately Doubled 1960s 1970s 1980s 19905 ■ East Naples ■ County Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 Commercial li- 2000s 2010s As noted in Section 3.0, participants in the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study wanted to encourage more of certain desirable commercial uses along the corridor, including shopping and retail, mixed -use and live/work development, restaurants, grocery stores and wholesale clubs, and hotels and resorts. As noted in the beginning of this section, the Study Area appears to be underserved by non-residential development in general. As a result, the following analysis focuses on the amount of desirable uses already in the Study Area, reasonable benchmarks to gauge and increase the amount of desirable uses, and approaches for how to move towards those benchmarks. Existing Amount and Location of Desirable Commercial Uses As noted earlier in this section, the amount of commercial in general in the study is limited to about 9% of the total Study Area. Figure 7 shows the land use categories that capture desired uses noted in the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study. One-story retail or shopping centers make up most of the desirable commercial categories in the area. Note that some development types may be measured in different categories; for instance, restaurants may be captured in the shopping center category, the mixed -use category, or the restaurant category. Map 13 shows where these categories are in the Study Area, mainly along US 41. There are certain additional developments just outside the Study Area that capture certain desirable uses. These developments are in the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) located to the west of the Study Area and shown on Map 13. Other developments are located further south along Collier Boulevard and to the north near the Interstate 75 interchange at the intersection with Collier Boulevard. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 390 uolsuedx3 V33l18 On-m) ABIJOAO P83 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : GUM Ueld Ieul=l dd3N3 :WOW43BIN U N E (v E 4J O co U a- U (6 N O O 4- Q O 4J O u }' m 3) M 0 O iJ o (Q Q) L F- W WN CO O O V i 0 0 0 M • M 0 IZT M 0 L 0 0 0 r-I Lf) Ql LD M N C4 cI C4 cI ri ri L 4 Q) U 4-P i Ob to p C i a m m ca CL 0 v 0 v) -2 O 2 vi Qj (U C N O > +J Q- U U bM N O _ Q L 4-1 -1 N to ^ Q� U V) Zn ++ N L (6 v O v L O U aO+ a Z N u 0 E 3 a c (0 O E m U U N H 9.A.3.e Map 13: Location of Existing Desired Commercial Categories Radio RD 1.75 S 1-�5IN L�=- e 5 B I o � Y vis BLVD Nape$ Heritage DR m J� B m n C COmmerGdl Parcels East Naples Study Area ¢ - 6 �-�, �_ - City of Naples o — — 0 1' --` e x Parks/Managed Land r. CRA Boundary m T mass Rattlesnake Hammock RD ♦ Vol'Sol,, Sabal Palm RD ,41 .py •._ Ci 1 a � O rV � � ti ♦ 1 OP N �. A0 0.75 1.5 Miles 1 1 1 A o, Dare Sources GoImr County. Co1Wr MPO, FOOT, FGOL and US Census �1 Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 Commercial Benchmarks The beginning of this section noted that the share of total square footage that is non- residential, which would include square footage of desired commercial uses, is currently 11% in the Study Area this compares to a 15% share in the unincorporated county as a whole, which represents areas thought to be most similar to the Study Area in Collier County. In view of this difference, the project team began to analyze how the Study Area might move towards closing this gap, with a focus on increasing desirable commercial uses. In thinking about benchmarks for these increases, it is important to keep in mind some of the constraints noted in the previous sections of this memorandum. The lower population density and high estimated share of seasonal population (60% of residential units estimated to house seasonal residents) may make it difficult to attract additional commercial uses to the area (Section 4.0). Additionally, the current land use and roadway configuration may limit the areas where new commercial may locate and how accessible the businesses are by neighborhoods (Map 8). East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 392 9.A.3.e However, if the population growth estimated by the CIGM (Map 5) for the area in coming years occurs and is accommodated, it could lead to increased density in the area. The possibility of this outcome depends in part on land use regulations and incentives implemented by the County, discussed further at the end of this section. The CIGM also estimates the commercial square footage and demand for square footage for the area, shown in Map 14. The amount of existing and planned commercial square footage is estimated at more than 3.3 million square feet and remaining steady over time, while the demand is estimated to increase to nearly 6.6 million square feet by 2040. As a result, it is estimated that the demand for commercial square footage may outpace what exists and is planned in the coming years. In addition to reviewing these estimates for commercial demand in the long-term, the project team also looked at a more immediate, on -the -ground gauge of market demand for the existing commercial spaces in the Study Area by looking at current vacancies of these spaces. A high- level review of existing commercial leasing opportunities in the area from listings on the internet service LoopNet provides an approximate vacancy rate of 7%, based on listing as of April 15, 2020. This suggests that there are existing commercial opportunities not currently being filled by the market, many of which are spread along US 41 (Map 15). The County is limited in its control over the private market, yet it can work to influence the market through regulations and incentives, discussed later in this section. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 393 uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leu!3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv ri m M m a W Q J OC FO to = W O Z2 0 Q V~1 W W W0 QVQ QJ OWaU yZL TWO ZJU Q J J u QU UO 0� W fA O L) �a� d J d A to a t 4) < �3 F a Z w z a� a o N Oa W-11.1 i 52 / IN I 9.A.3.e Map 15: Location of Commercial Leasing Opportunities in the Study area iM ♦• �► - • It a T Source: Commercial leasing opportunities posted on LoopNet.com as of April 15, 2020 In view of these considerations, reaching a full increase to a 15% share of non-residential square footage may pose a challenge; yet even getting partway to 15%, such as 12-13%, is a potential target, particularly if the increases are mainly from increased desirable commercial uses. Table 5 shows the amount of additional commercial square footage and corresponding acreage needed to reach 12% to 15% shares of non-residential square footage relative to the overall square footage. The acreage is based on typical square footage built per acre for these uses in the unincorporated county. These estimates assume the current amount of residential square footage and that existing vacancies in built commercial structures would be filled. Estimates range up to 3.4 million square feet or 270 acres of commercial uses for the 15% benchmark. .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 395 9.A.3.e Table 5: Commercial Square Footage and Acreage Increases Needed by Benchmark of Residential and Non -Residential Shares of Square Footage 88% 1 12% 1 1.3 million 87% 13% 2.0 million 86% I 14% 1 2.7 million 157 214 85% 15% 3.4 million 270 Source: calculations based on Florida Department of Revenue 2019 data; note: these numbers assume the current level of residential square footage and square footage/acreage added in addition to filling vacancies in existing commercial buildings The remainder of this section will explore approaches for progressing towards these benchmarks. Commercial Development and Redevelopment Opportunities The following analysis focuses on likely locations for new desired commercial uses. To begin with, Activity Centers (Map 16) are areas formally defined in the Collier County Growth Management Plan that are intended for more intense and mixed -use development relative to single-family residential areas. They cover 530 acres, or about 3%, of the Study Area. The project team then looked at on -the -ground development patterns to understand how the current development landscape and potential future opportunities compared to these target areas. c a CE c iU_ a 0 U Z W r C d E t r .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 396 9.A.3.e Map 16: Future Land Uses in East Naples, including Mixed -Use Activity Centers Red. RD F 9 fL O ws RLVD g f Naples Hant ge DR ® 1-75 S 1-75 N Future Land Use m Collier Blvd Community Facady Subdist CI m m Conservabon Designation o m Po dr HlN—s Residental Intill Subd.1 ,\ m -� m dr Resltlennal Density Bands m Henderson Creek MU Subd,st m MU Acwty Center Subtllt \ J 11) J df! vut.ntum MU Subd.st U a � Urban Coastal Fringe Subtlisl mP Urban Residental Fringe Subtlest sson OH O Rattlesnake r Hammock RD Urban Residental Subtlisl East Naples Study Aru:i � City of Naples '\ O Parks/Managed Land \ �P 'sa,.: e`Jp m CRABoundary 2 �dt0N 41 � fi Sabel Palm RD �a OP K U � TIC S � o n rr 'O �q V� C� 8`� *,low N A0 0.75 1.5 Miles 1 - '� l I I P 0 Data spaces CoNrr County. CNW MPO. FDOT FGDL end US Census Source: Collier County Aside from filling vacancies in existing commercial buildings as discussed previously in this section, the most straightforward areas to encourage new business and commercial uses are vacant commercial and mixed -use lots; they are already zoned for desired uses and do not have existing buildings. Map 17 shows that there are several existing vacant commercial and mixed - use properties, primarily along US 41 and around the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard. There is a total of approximately 137 acres of vacant commercial lots and 54 acres among vacant mixed -use lots with potential for commercial development; note that the Hacienda Lakes mixed -use site in the northeast section of the Study Area is vacant based on property appraiser data, yet it is likely to be developed without commercial uses so it is excluded from Map 17 and the acreage count. While there is sizable vacant mixed -use acreage, typically only 10% of mixed -use land is used for commercial, based on an analysis of how these parcels are typically developed in the unincorporated county. Additionally, many of these properties are along major thoroughfares which helps buffer residential neighborhoods from the major roadways and allows those neighborhoods to remain East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 397 9.A.3.e cohesive residential areas; however, as noted earlier, this can also make roadway access between neighborhoods and commercial uses challenging. Any efforts to develop these sites need to promote access to the new developments. Map 17: Vacant Commercial and Mixed -Use Lots with Potential for Commercial Development 1-75 S 1-75 N ► 137 Acres Total Vacant Commercial - ► 54 Acres Total Vacant Mixed -Use* vis my_ D j _`es Heritage DR L y t rn o @ m � East Naples Study Area 8 E City of Naples ParksJManagetl Land Vacant Land dp Commercial mm - ,i v ' ` IL b3 Mixed Use CRA Boundary 7 as y ML a w �- _ *• ,` Sabal Palm RD • ^ U `'t - -► Q r t t` \ �1 — f _ Op N � A0 I 0.75 1.5 Miles N I I P 0 0era Sonic Colpar County, 5 Collier MPO. FDOT. FODLaM US C... Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019; *note: does not include large mixed -use Hacienda Lakes parcel; typically less than 10% of mixed -use land is built out for commercial, based on an analysis of how these types of lots are typically developed in unincorporated county. If the County could employ a strategy to influence the private market and achieve a full build - out of vacant commercial land and a more moderate build -out of vacant mixed -use land for commercial (based on the typical 10% build -out in unincorporated county), the Study Area could achieve the 12% non-residential square footage benchmark (Table 6). Existing vacancies in built structures may make it harder to fully build out vacant lots; incentives and other strategies may help. Achieving the higher benchmarks would require additional intensity on vacant commercial/mixed-use land or on existing commercial land that is redeveloped. Again, the ability to achieve this build -out depends on market demand and the ability to influence it. c d c U_ a 0 U z w c as E a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 398 9.A.3.e Table 6: Build -Out Scenario with No Intensification of Commercial Uses Source: calculations based on Florida Department of Revenue 2019 data; note: vacant mixed -use acreage used in this scenario based on 10% commercial build -out typically seen on mixed -use lots in unincorporated county. Aside from new development on vacant lots, existing development can be redeveloped to update structures and provide additional commercial opportunities. Commercial development, particularly that which is already zoned for desired uses, is the most straightforward (Map 18); note golf courses, tourism uses, and parking/mobile home lots are excluded since there may be special considerations when trying to redevelop these parcels. For the purposes of this section, these uses are referred to as "specialized commercial uses." The project team attempted to identify more likely redevelopment opportunities among these commercial uses based on value and size of the parcel; less costly and larger parcels are easier to redevelop. Map 19 shows non -specialized existing commercial uses valued between $10,000 and $1 million that the project team considered more likely to redevelop since they are relatively less expensive (note that values below $10,000 were excluded to remove any abnormally low values that may not accurately reflect the true parcel value). Most of these parcels are located along the US 41 corridor. The project team also filtered these parcels based on those larger than an acre in size, resulting in 16 parcels with a total of 30 acres among them (Table 7). East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 399 9.A.3.e Map 18: Existing Commercial, Excluding Specialized Uses Radio RD c m a vis BLVD p� Y N C_ m s 01 % O R; - ® M_75S1�I5 N i �Y Naptps Heritage OR _ - df Commercial Parcels East Naples Study Area City of Naples Parks/Managetl Land Hammock � _ CRA Boundary r , J U Saba[ Palm RD =_ � r N 4 � A0 0.75 1.5 Miles N 1 1 1 p O Oats Sources Corh rCounty, Collier MPO, FOOT, FGDL and US Census 11 Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019; note: these commercial parcels do not include golf courses, tourism uses, or parking/mobile home lots since these uses may require special considerations when exploring the option to redevelop them. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 400 9.A.3.e Map 19: More Likely Redevelopment Areas for Desired Commercial Uses Rai7in RD 1-75 S 1-75 N Parcels approximately valued between $10,000 and $1 million These parcels are 15% of total existing commercial vis BLVD g Heritage OR o m m a o - J� � m — _ df Commercial Parcels C, ` East Naples Study Area o - i �` v 3v� ��,, _ ■ d � -. City of Naples �,I V---I F-- �4 _ _ _ � ". Parks/Managed Land CG \! A 11 : •�r CRA Boundary m T mason DR .� � I Rattlesnake Hammock RD IP P � _ ' • I r Saba) Palm RD a ,'yam •' ti ' t - _ s S 11 0 0.75 1.5 Miles Lim. L� I I I 0 gala Sources Collier County, Collier Moo. FDOT. FGOL and US Census S Source: calculations based on Florida Department of Revenue 2019 just value data; note: these commercial parcels do not include golf courses, tourism uses, or parking/mobile home lots since these uses may require special considerations when exploring the option to redevelop them. Table 7: Parcel Size, Count, and Acreage for Parcels Valued between $10,000 and $1 Million Parcel Size Count Combined Acres of Total Acres Large (10 or Larger Acres) 0 0 0% Medium (3 to 9 Acres) 3 13 25% Small (1 to 2 Acres) 13 17 32% Very Small (<1 Acres) 53 22 42% Total 69 53 100% Source: calculations based on Florida Department of Revenue 2019 data; note: includes commercial parcels valued between $10,000 and $1 million in just value with desired commercial use categories and excludes golf courses, tourism uses, or parking/mobile home lots since these uses may require special considerations when exploring the option to redevelop them. c IL c ii IL 0 U Z w c m E Q East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 401 9.A.3.e To get an increase in commercial uses, more intensity would need to be added to these sites. Certain existing commercial could also be redeveloped at the existing intensity with a focus on desired uses through incentives. Table 8 illustrates a scenario in which the County successfully engaged in more robust approaches to encourage additional commercial development, including additional intensity, on vacant land and commercial land identified as more likely to redevelop based on value and size as described in Table 7. If the County allowed and could successfully incentivize an additional 25% increase to existing intensity, the area could achieve additional commercial acreage needed to achieve the 13% benchmark. Note that the table does not account for existing commercial that may redevelop since it is gauging only added uses (and not those that are replaced); however, incentives could be used to encourage redevelopment of existing commercial uses towards more desired commercial uses at the same allowed intensity. Table S: Build -Out Scenario with Intensification of Commercial Land that is Vacant or More Likely to Redevelop Source: calculations based on Florida Department of Revenue 2019 data; note: vacant mixed -use acreage used in this scenario based on 10% commercial build -out typically seen on mixed -use lots in unincorporated county. Approaches for Influencing the Private Market Given the potential development and redevelopment options, what tools are at the County's disposal to influence the market to produce these outcomes? Some tools, such as a marketing campaign and regulatory/incentive adjustments within the existing parameters of lot sizes and allowed amounts of development, provide a more moderate approach. These tools can be used first to see if they have the desired effect without larger changes. If more robust measures and East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 402 9.A.3.e incentives are needed, other approaches could be explored such as adjustments to lot depths on the corridor and an evaluation for increased allowed amounts of commercial intensity and incentives to achieve full allowed build -out. This approach can also be explored for residential uses in the area to allow and encourage more residential units and provide a larger local customer base for local commercial. The following provides an initial list of implementation options to explore further for recommendations, which may include regulatory changes to the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan, incentives, funding tools, and capital/non-capital investments, in Technical Memorandum #2 of the plan: • Marketing campaign for area • Adjust regulations for site requirements • Evaluate and adjust amount of commercial development allowed (this can be paired with incentives to encourage full build -out) • Allow/encourage adjustments to commercial lot depths • Evaluate and adjust amount of residential allowed to increase residential units and customer base for local businesses (this can be paired with incentives to encourage full build -out) • Incentives, including but not limited to: o Design flexibility o Expedited permitting o Fee reductions/waivers Tax increment finance funding was also mentioned in a stakeholder meeting with development representatives as a potential incentive to support development and redevelopment in the area. Note that this is already in place in nearby areas, such as the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area to the west of the Study Area and in the Innovation Zone to the northeast of the Study Area near the Interstate-75 interchange. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 403 9.A.3.e 6.0 Community Assets The project team documented community assets, including public facilities and services, in East Naples along with their performance levels and planned improvements to support community branding and marketing and identify facility/service provision considerations for future planning efforts. Information is based on spatial data files from the County, the Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the Fiscal Year 2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and the most recent plans for specific topics (e.g., transportation, parks, schools, etc.). The following summary includes maps that show the location of major facilities, services, and other assets in the Study Area and its surroundings, as well as more detailed descriptions on assets by types, including information on performance and planned improvements. Map 34 at the end of this section shows the location of planned improvements for all the assets reviewed in the summary. To begin with, Map 20 shows that location of public facilities including libraries, fire stations, hospitals, police stations, schools, parks, and non -motorized transportation infrastructure. The following provides performance information on the public facilities shown (does not include hospitals). East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 404 9.A.3.e Map 20: Public Facilities in East Naples Lorenzo Walker Institute m cal Park r 1-75 S 1-75 N © �ibranes East Naples apleS✓tertapeOR 44 Fire vIsBLV� Shadowlawn m H Hospital/Clinic > "Rich King m m Memoriah Greenway Police mr p m 3 r Elementary ce Fn a - - ., - r Middle - �� r High Avalon Th mas R tl sn ke Hammock ftR - Lely Park Type �. —�ti Nelghhorhood Q Community x© tP�dke'gs e O Regional P S a c O U 5, East Naples Study Area 4t C Shared Use Path Gresnways rLely 3 Paved Shoulder Parkside - —Bike I-anss m ��( — Sldewnik C City of Naples ParkslManaged Land aCRABoundary " 4 N �P A0 0.75 I I 1-5 Mlles I oafs sources. coiner Ceunty, colr,r k1P0, FooT, Fc©L and us census a Source: Collier County and Collier County School District *Rich King Memorial Greenway is an existing greenway,• amenities include multi -use path for walking and bicycling, exercise stations, and benches. Libraries Libraries include the East Naples Library and South Regional Library; no major facility additions or improvements are noted in the AUIR or CIP. Fire There are eight fire stations in and around the Study Area; all of the Study Area is within a ten- minute travel time from a station (Map 21; note that areas shown in white do not have any roads for assessing accessibility). a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 405 9.A.3.e Map 21: Travel Time from East Naples Fire Stations to Locations in Study Area r Radio RD - - - �JJ i �r f J — Ll Lv0 Naoies Heniage DR 1 m o I .A9 I 1 m Ralf a bat Palm RD a's 1 P Travel from Fire Station 5 Minuses dr io Minutes L• ; Fire Station 9 Cy East Naples Study Area City of Naples Parks�Managed Land A0 2 Miles CRABountlary Oa::-...-. ry Ccue�::our PO, FOOT FGOL 1r USCe— Source: calculations based on facility data from Collier County Police The Study Area lies in the revised District 3 for the Sheriff's Office (Map 22). No major new facilities or expansions for this district are noted in the AUIR or CIP. Table 9 shows average response time to calls for service have increased slightly since 2011, similar to many other districts, and that the average response time for 2018, 11.3 minutes, was between those of the more urbanized areas such as North Naples District (District 1 at 9.4-minute average response time)and more rural areas such as the Everglades District (now District 5 at 12.2-minute average response time). a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 406 9.A.3.e Map 22: Sherriff's District Boundaries Source: Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 AUIR Table 9: Average Response Time (Min.) to Calls for Service by District 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 D1- North Naples 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.2 9.1 9.5 9.4 D2 - Golden Gate 8.2 8.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 10.1 9.6 10.5 D3 - East Naples 9.5 9.7 10.0 10.6 11.0 11.1 11.8 11.3 D4 - Estates 11.0 10.5 9.9 10.1 10.9 11.2 11.5 12.0 D5 - Everglades -- -- -- -- -- -- 8.4 12.2 D7 - Everglades 12.8 13.6 13.8 12.8 12.1 12.6 12.4 -- D8 - Immokalee 6.0 5.9 5.8 6.3 6.5 6.5 7.3 7.3 Response times represent average time in minutes from dispatch -to -arrival for citizen -generated calls for senrice. Districts 3 and 7 boundaries changed, created a new District 5 in November 2017; District 7 no longer exists. Source: Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 AUIR c c� IL c E IL U Z w c E t v Q East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 407 9.A.3.e Schools There are six elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools in and around the Study Area. Table 10 shows the school grades for 2018 and 2019. All schools are maintaining at least a C grade, and most maintained or improved their grades between 2018 and 2019 except for two. The Fiscal Year 2019-2038 Capital Improvement Plan for Collier County Public Schools does not note any major facility expansion or additions for the Study Area. Table 10: Public School Grades in East Naples Avalon Elementary Calusa Park Elementary C C B B Lely Elementary Manatee Elementary Parkside Elementary Shadowlawn Elementary C C B B B C C A East Naples Middle Manatee Middle Lely High C B B B B B Lorenzo Walker Tech A A Source: Collier County Public Schools Parks The following parks are in and around the Study Area; amenities and needs from the analysis and public outreach completed as part of the 2018 Parks and Recreation Plan (PRMP) are noted, with updates where available on certain improvements planned or completed more recently. • Eagle Lakes Community Park a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 408 9.A.3.e o The park's new community center and pool are completed. Nearly $60,000 of improvements were programmed for the aquatic facility in Fiscal Year 2019 (AUIR). $3 million total is planned over the plan's 5-year timeframe for the Eagle Lakes Community Center Expansion, adding indoor gym/courts to the existing building; the improvement will be funded with impact fees (CIP). o The PRMP documented over -use of the soccer/multi-purpose fields; installation of artificial turf is anticipated to increase field capacity and accommodate field users from East Naples Community Park after conversion of those fields for pickleball use. o Other needs noted from outreach and/or analysis from the PRMP included: ■ General maintenance, including fields and invasive species management ■ Use of space behind the community center ■ Free STEAM camps for kids and more education programs • Sugden Regional Park o This park currently offers an inland beach and water sports. • East Naples Community Park o The park is currently used for pickleball and pickleball sports tourism, including the US Open Pickleball Championship. A Master Plan was approved in 2019 laying out 2 phases of upgrades for new courts, facility buildings, parking, and other general improvements to the park. The CIP includes nearly $2.1 million for construction of a new East Naples Community Park Welcome Center, which will replace the restroom building and the pro -shop, as well as a new maintenance area. o The PRMP documented high use of soccer/multi-purpose fields; the fields are planned for conversion to pickleball courts, with the artificial turf installation at Eagle Lakes Community Park anticipated to increase capacity of those fields and help accommodate current East Naples Community Park field users that will be displaced. o Other needs noted from outreach and/or analysis from the PRMP included: ■ Upgrades and general maintenance ■ More gymnasiums, parking, and a maintenance barn • Rich King Greenway Regional Park o Currently offers the greenway. • Cindy Mysels Park o Currently offers little league fields. • Naples Manor Neighborhood Park o Current offers a playground. o General need for facilities noted in the outreach and/or analysis of the PRMP Maps 23 and 24 show the driving time needed to reach community and regional parks. Most of the Study Area is within a 15-minute drive of these parks, and other areas are within a 20- East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 409 9.A.3.e minute drive -time or less (note that areas in white do not have any roads for assessing accessibility). As a result, parks are fairly accessible by car. Map 23: Driving Time to Reach Community Parks in East Naples Radio RD I-75 S I-75 N m� Walking Distances 11� m L Half Mile • - m �/a i'r r TWO Miles . Naple$ Hen"ge OR Drive Time to Community Parks /' o .♦ _ / dp 5 Minutes 1 6 - 10 Minutes \ m 11 - 15 Minutes 1� Rich King Memorial � rn dfl 16 - 20 Minutes I �Greenway* m Park Type y • Neighborhood o Community ORegional � ♦ �\ / 11112 East Naples Study Area RD - City of Naples � I Parks/Managed Land 0 _ m 0 CRA Boundary . r /^♦ Sabal Palm RD Al 1 - MR 1 _ � 1 r ♦— r i 1 i — — Op N A --- 0 0.75 1.5 Miles -r I I I r' Dale Sources. Coiner Caunry Colbr MPO. FDOT, FGDL and US Cenws ♦ i � Source: calculations based on facility location data from Collier County *Rich King Memorial Greenway is an existing greenway,• amenities include multi -use path for walking and bicycling, exercise stations, and benches. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 410 9.A.3.e Map 24: Driving Time to Reach Regional Park in East Naples 9 Radio RD m ' Walking Distances • � � Half Mile Two Miles vis R11 D Na""Ientage OR Drive Time to Regional Parks p m 11 5 Minutes � m 6 - 10 Minutes ONO-' 11-15 Minutes 7 Rich King �E df 16 - 20 Minutes Y t Memorial m" park Type Greenway*— _ @ v � Neighborhood d 0 Community ` m@ O Regional 1 m p � East Naples Study Area Rattlesnake Hammock RD City of Naples �. 0, k_ o Parks/Managed Land CRA Boundary SU den Q 0 e9e Regional Park " P o-0 T m C O l �6 d 1 Op N A0 0.75 1.5 Miles I I I A D Dab SI " ources Col- County. Colby MPO, FDOT, PGDL and t11 Census Source: calculations based on facility location data from Collier County *Rich King Memorial Greenway is an existing greenway,• amenities include multi -use path for walking and bicycling, exercise stations, and benches. Non -Motorized Transportation Infrastructure Map 25 shows existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities as of the 2019 Collier MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Several major thoroughfares in the Study Area have a designated bike lane, with one proposed for Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The local neighborhood roads typically have sidewalks and/or paved shoulders. Note that first tier priorities from local walkability studies, one of which was conducted for the Naples Manor area within the Study Area in 2010, were included in the needs assessment for this MPO Plan; Tier 2 and 3 priorities are not yet completed. Map 26 shows the Naples Manor area on which the walkability study focused, as well as the Tier 1 through 3 priorities from the plan and associated recommendations for these roadways. Note that the AUIR and CIP show line items for general sidewalk improvements in the county, with an associated budget of $10 million over the 5-year East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 411 9.A.3.e capital planning timeframe. County staff is currently planning sidewalks on Catts Street, Carlton Street, Warren Avenue, and Carolina Avenue. Map 25: Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in East Naples Area Legend Designated Bike Lane ^/ Connector Sidewalk Low Speed/Low Volume Road Proposed Facilities Sharrow Shared Use Path Greenway Paved Shoulder Source: Excerpted from the 2019 Collier MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan CS/Safety Study Corridors Greenways with SUPs Proposed Enhanced Facility ® Proposed Enhanced Crossing East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 412 m (VdWJ (31) uo!suedx3 V3oi v (3flld) AoIJOA01-3 6v sn - OE60000EZOZId : SMIZ) usld luu!d daON3 :WOMLIOLIN 1 r F 0 4 O o W O zy O F h � 'O J O NNy 1 y 5 'O 2 2 6 Jl C H 02 oY$ � 83 3'0 m' z zBm'2'z d a � �s , ❑ n u � v a r Y O u ^ N O b GO ' o 2 G cti�� U a y i 3 PJ� y4�` rs 65 d'b yw $ CfP �s Q � Ilk>O� T G�� L y I o r � day a � 3AV SVXELL j> s N4 �d i YJ 9.A.3.e Maps 27 through 29 show areas within walking and biking distances (a half -mile and two miles, respectively) for libraries, schools, and community parks in the Study Area and its surroundings. Walking and biking was measured specifically for community parks since they provide a certain level of amenities and are more widespread relative to regional parks that draw from larger areas. Many sections of the Study Area are outside of these walking and biking distances, indicating they may have to rely on other means such as cars to get to these amenities. For areas within these distances, methods for facilitating walking and biking may be explored. Map 27. Areas within Walking and Biking Distance of East Naples Libraries dla RB-75 S 1-75 N - C r Ph I{ a 0 0 aPles ✓'!orltaga vis BLV❑ m DR t..s.-DR R tlesnake Hammock Rp — Libraries East Naples Study Area 41 CP - Shared Use Path op o Greenways Paved Shoulder e � Bike Lanes m Sidewa3k mWalk Distance Halt Mile 2 Miles a s City of Naples m 4 ParkslManaged Land o P CRABoundary � � 0 0,75 1.5 Miles N I I I oats nc rm Cclller County, Collie. WO, FooT, FGDL and U6 Census p 0 Source: calculations based on Collier County facility data C R d fC C E d a U Z W r C d E t �-r East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 414 9.A.3.e Map 28: Areas within Walking and Biking Distance of Public Schools in East Naples dla RD I-75S I-75 N eh d Eplg� ar _ r - - r vis BLV❑ o � � a m 3 Y � J a � U 0 T .—I), ❑ � 0 R tlesnake Hammock RD Elementary Middle 1 High r— East Naples Study Area - 41 �P — Shared Use Path Greenways aPaved Shoulder Bike Lanes Sidewalk Walk Distance o Half Mile 2 Miles City of Naples a m q ParkslManaged Land °o - o ,{� CRABountlary 11 0 0.75 1.5 Miles 3% I 0 Data 3ourcee. Collier County, Collier MPO, FDOT, FGDL antl US Census - )�l Source: calculations based on Collier County Public Schools facility data East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 415 9.A.3.e Map 29: Areas within Walking and Biking Distance of Community Parks in East Naples R.dl. Rn —. BLV ❑ anus HerRaea OR 'i m a m� I in lr-ll m I T U —.._. 61 1 a tl9sn9 Hammock Rp — w:. 12 1 0 0,75 1.5 Miles 0 Dais S.L— mCclli�r County, Coiner MPO, FDOT, FGDL and U6 Census Source: calculations based on Collier County facility data fr,�Si7RN — Walking Distances dF Fiali Mile Two Miles I Park Type Neigriborr000 Q Community ORegional East Naples Study Area City of Naples ParkslManaged Land CRA Boundary Saba[ Palm Ro .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 416 9.A.3.e Roadways Map 30 shows the roadways in the Study Area with federal functional classes. The Level of Service analysis in the AUIR does not indicate that any major roadway segments in the Study Area are deficient based on the minimum adopted standard. Notes on improvements from the AUIR and CIP include the following: • US 41 between Airport Pulling Road and Rattlesnake Hammock Road is expected to become deficient by 2027; the AUIR notes that this is in the South US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception area and plans to monitor the situation. • Segments of Collier Boulevard south of the Study Area are expected to become deficient in 2028; the AUIR notes plans to widen the roadway between Wal-Mart Driveway and Manatee Road and monitor the situation to Mainsail Drive (see Long Range Transportation Plan Cost Feasible discussion below for additional information). • The AUIR also notes an intersection improvement for Airport Pulling Road and Davis Boulevard from Fiscal Year 2018; the CIP also notes nearly half a million dollars' worth of improvements for Fiscal Year 2019. • The AUIR notes the Wilson Benfield Road study and right-of-way considerations; the CIP mentions nearly $3.5 million in funding forecasted for Fiscal Year 2019 and $2 million for Fiscal Year 2020 in roadway impact fee funding (see Long Range Transportation Plan Cost Feasible discussion below for additional information). These plans also mention funds for general improvements, such as road resurfacing. Map 31 shows the Cost Feasible roadway improvements from the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan; note that this plan is currently being updated for 2045. Improvements in and around the Study Area include the following: • Davis Boulevard roadway improvement - partially funded in Cost Feasible Plan • US 41/Collier Boulevard interchange improvement - partially funded in Cost Feasible Plan • Collier Boulevard roadway improvement, south of US 41 between Manatee Road and Tower Road - funding programmed for 2026 to 2030 • 1-75/Collier Boulevard interchange improvement, northeast of the Study Area — funding programmed for 2021-2025 • Benfield Road roadway improvements, east of Collier Boulevard — partially funded in Cost Feasible Plan There is also one Congestion Management Systems/Intelligent Transportation Systems (CMS/ITS) project identified at the edge of the project area near Airport Pulling Drive and US 41; CMS/ITS projects are moved to the Cost Feasible Plan as funding becomes available. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 417 urns x] ¥33l19On-m ABIOA O P83�vSn-0 6 000 Z Z d:G M umd mm]dQON]:Wmm43Bn¥ � $ > § / 2 ® ' � 0ƒ q / 9 2% 2 W 0 2 2 E ° E o u E � y c $ ƒ v m # § q d ƒ a® E z o U/ D§� 2 D 2 C)ƒ g± , , § , , ,0 » « Lei � w ■ , a 2 E � k 2 Inc « LL ¢ i 2 E � $ § w S CC � : & / / 0 ■ 0 o | o | s | ■ | ( / § 9.A.3.e Map 31: Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Cost Feasible Roadway Improvements 2040 CAST FEASIBLE NETWORK MoN-l; RAA*,E 1 ff ? Q..lY&POR TAT;QN FLAN 1 f L _4 d Y 1 1 i 1 0 �ytl ,SF E ON INSET I • M i' II IJ 0 IIrtrdhormpis Flyokw r What Inlarstehen Ir y+a:rtr +! W r Intirsficbw Irr rarirr+rrrri Imr¢'rMtr►�RrrtT n-.r'uly Funded Th+o4o;h Con%b uctxm � Mle4 Fuly FyriOod. The-*uo C4AWuc6cdj Source: Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan; note: map cropped to highlight Study Area. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 419 9.A.3.e Additionally, a 2014 Collier MPO Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Study found that the segment of US 41 between Commercial Drive and Guilford Road, and the segment of Airport Pulling Road between US 41 Avenue and Estey Avenue were high pedestrian/bicycle crash corridors. Part of the US 41 segment identified is in the East Naples Community Development Plan Study Area. Based on the findings from the 2014 Study, the Florida Department of Transportation conducted a follow-up Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety audit in 2015. Cardno prepared this safety audit and summarized the findings and follow-up implementation undertaken in a March 2018 presentation. Key observations along the high crash corridor segments of US 41 and Airport Pulling include the following, excerpted from the Cardno presentation: • Heavy traffic • High Speed traffic • High bicycle and pedestrian activity • Bicyclists mostly on sidewalk • Bicyclists and pedestrians were sharing the sidewalk • Bicyclists riding with and against traffic flow • Pedestrians crossing mid -block • Appeared to be commuter users versus tourists Summarized improvements include different bicycle facilities types, speed reduction measures, improved site distance for side streets, driveway crash countermeasures (reduce driveway conflict points, reduce turning radii, crosswalk markings, etc.), intersection improvements (crosswalks, signal improvements, etc.), mid -block crossing improvements, and general corridor improvements (narrower lanes, wider sidewalks). Non -capital and design measures included enforcement and education measures. Funded improvements noted include those at Commercial Drive/Palm Street, Airport Pulling Road, Courthouse Shadows/Espinal Boulevard, and Calusa Avenue/Great Blue Drive. Fiscal Year 2019 landscaping capital projects noted in the CIP include Collier Boulevard between US 41 and E Marin Circle ($1.8 million), Davis Boulevard between County Barn Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard (nearly $373,000), and Santa Barbara Boulevard between Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Boulevard ($1.6 million). US 41 landscaping is also generally noted (nearly $71,000). East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 420 9.A.3.e Transit Map 32 shows the current transit routes in the Study Area, along with transit stops. Many of the major thoroughfares have transit service, with stops located along these thoroughfares. Due to the land use and roadway configuration in the area discussed in Section 4.0, the stops may be difficult to access easily from central residential neighborhoods in the Study Area since access to the thoroughfares is somewhat limited. Additionally, the frequency with which the transit services run (headways) ranges between 1 and 1.5 hours, which poses an additional challenge in using transit. Map 32: Transit Routes in East Naples 1 IL aples J Heritage DR — O m 11 m o m ` m gY N m I 7I— QIm~ o P O V IL `Podia C Sabel Palm RD �r 41 r A �m • r Y�i-1= m y7 ti • � � U 4 • ✓ - o m ' '• Transit Stop o ` OWE risling Transit ROule \,- EaslNaplesStudyArea iCity of Naples Packs/Managed Land 0 1� pP � CRABoundary n A0 0.75 1.5 Miles N I 1 I p 0 Data Sources. Collier Counly. Coll- MPO. FOOT. FGOL and US Census Source: Collier Area Transit However, improvements to Routes 17/18, Route 19, Route 29, express service between the Government Center and the airport, and express service between the Government Center and Lee County are in the Transit Cost Affordable Plan for the Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (Map 33). Additional information on transit improvement can be found in Appendix B. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 421 9.A.3.e Map 33: Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Transit Cost Affordable Plan 2040 TRANSIT COST AFFORDABLE PLAN 4 'rMLONG RANGE 4;,6 j'IRANSPORTATION PLAN 1XIM-ra SEE'NSET I I '---___--� SET I INSET I M � l-4- 21140 Transit Cost Affordable Plan Fixed -Route Service Needs Merca-VMJ v=_ RaGEsrakakiammo... ■i� F■ trnsu ri 1.1 R1 urns 1 P+1 B Express Service Needs - Ci illri t?rw C: nrrrr lii SSVF rllraorUFS•YC Coiner--e=_ Coun}• Unnedn, L 7' Exlsting TPamsf=_r •-' RCut: 1v "cal]nnlort ■ ■ ■ Gerte• ,IE d,�=_ PA aria E[Iff11ng TTansf'_r r1cirr. itur. f' rk-rJ- loon krill-')F-F+ne 1qb90 riou S. RCac ■ ■ ■ RCut=_ 2E Lia'I EM] � Rlt�n Trn�fer _ F'rinM-'r,1•-N -kid} ClFculal-cm Noo& f ESI7tinQTrm5f-rPort Ecu Ch to SCaaar.C'fla FubirE TrangPr P C-ot�le'.t-�renk airt voaaanal El cm, FuNn�arK-h -Ride fLC E33 Route Eusbi y --AT Ruules ■ Increase Frequency [o 3W 4b nilnutes" ■ Expand lorvicc until 10 PNI 0 ' Nol shown on map Miles " Exclude Routes 19. 12d. 125. 302, and 30 t Source: Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan; note: edited to remove inset maps for clarity. Q East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 422 9.A.3.e A Brief Note on Other Infrastructure Other infrastructure related to drinking water, stormwater management, wastewater, and solid waste are not a primary focus of this plan, yet it is important that these services are adequately provided for current and future development. Highlights of improvements noted in the AUIR and CIP are noted here. County utilities staff indicates that there should be no major stormwater capacity issues in the area assuming current stormwater design criteria is followed for development and redevelopment, and there are no encroachments into the natural areas or storage areas. Capital stormwater improvements noted in the AUIR and CIP include those in the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project area, Old Lely, Naples Manor, and Griffin Road (south of US 41 near Barefoot Williams Road) areas. Regarding water, staff does not note any pressing capacity issues at this time, and the CIP notes funding for pipe replacement in the Old Lely area. Regarding wastewater, improvements include updates to the South County Water Reclamation Facility; County staff notes that there is a phased project underway to transfer wastewater at up to 4 mg/day from the south plant to the north plant to address stressed sewer capacity. For solid waste, the CIP shows funding for improvements for the East Naples Recycling Drop Off Center. Staff notes that they have done an initial review for potential sites for a new recycling drop-off center in or near the community given interest from business owners and residents. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 423 uolsuedx3 V331 19 (an-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6ti sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : S£LbZ) Ueld leul3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv E a c m 0 E m U U N 9.A.3.e 7.0 Policy Review The following provides an overview of key considerations from the existing Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. Growth Management Plan The following are some key takeaways from the density analysis and general review of the Growth Management Plan: • Major Future Land Use categories of the area include Urban Residential, Urban Residential Fringe, and Urban Coastal Fringe, as well as the Mixed -Use and Interchange Activity Centers (Map 35 and Table 11 for related maximum densities). • Key portions of the Study Area, including the US 41 corridor, lie in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), which formally limits density allowances generally to 4 dwelling units per acre (DUPA; see Table 11). • Mixed Use Subdistricts allow for the redevelopment of C-1 through C-3 zoning with a mix of commercial and residential, although note that areas in the CHHA are still limited to 4 DUPA (further details are in Sec. 4.02.38 of the Land Development Code). • Mixed -Use and Interchange Activity Centers are allowed the maximum densities of their respective subdistricts, although several of these areas are also limited by density restrictions in the CHHA and Urban Residential Fringe subdistrict limitations on densities. • As of the current Future Land Use plan, additional residential density in the area would need to be considered for areas generally north of US 41 and west of Collier Boulevard. • There is general support expressed for "Smart Growth" (e.g., walkable, mixed -use development) policies in Objective 7 of Future Land Use Element. • Part of the project area is also in a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA, Map 36), which can allow for more urban -style approaches to managing transportation needs and level of service. Note that an ongoing Transit Impact Analysis for Collier County provides the following preliminary recommendations: o Consolidate the TCEA and the Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) into a transit -oriented infill and redevelopment district, adjusting the transportation review process to incentivize infill and redevelopment in support of transit and non -motorized modes by simplifying the Transportation Impact Study requirements while retaining certain requirements to guard against adverse traffic impacts of large-scale development. o Adjust requirements and strategy options related to Transportation Demand Management strategies applied in the TCEA and TMAs for increased effectiveness. o Allow density increases in the established activity centers and mixed -use corridors. Note that certain activity centers in the project area may face certain limitations due to location in the CHHA, as noted previously. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 425 9.A.3.e Map 35: Future Land Uses in Study Area Interchange Activity Center #9 B m O \" Mixed Use Activity Centers A0 0-75 1.5 Miles I I I .Bla 50urces -1*,Goan I, L~ M Q IV.I. FGDL end U5 Source: Collier County Future Lana Use Collieo Bt/d Community FKi1ty Supdisl CAnSenRliOn Designation dr Him- RemdenSal Intl Subdisl dr Relidmhal Density Bands dr Henderson CBek MU Subdist dr Mu Acti>71y Center Subdist V ncenban MU Bvbdlsl umam Coastal Fringe Sebdim Uman Resitlernlal Fringe SdbdW Urdan Residemial Subdim Coastal H gn Hazard East Naples Sludy Area elty ➢I mpies Af PancsRdanaped Land t 42 CRABvundary ¢ Roadway Classification Undetned i lAreClOf Local ■ 1 — MNwr Aneda! a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 426 uolsuedx3 V33l18 On-m) ABIJOAO P83 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : GUM Ueld Ieul=l dd3N3 :WOW43BIN a N N a 0 oC a+ 4U a C U 4J L `�° t]A ate+ � D p � tB •� v a � � �_ c � 0 L O Cp bM N v� N (n +j C i ap 41 N O f6 t 4- L QJ p E U O Ln � + O L M p O +� f0 LO O } O O U ++ _n U N V) E O C O 2 41 U i f6 a — v�i C) V) *� CO N _ Qj O 0 v (UO C C p U° L v U in C M L U L X N C to Q N O O 7 4- 3 D *' 3 ° o s D_ v ° a1 o 0 ' Q v a D C° m N 0) Q Li c�i� `� 41N V N o C lD +O O4-1 O L N O Q LO a- Q to N U nj a i U 4J X— L QCJto fE L (6 N Mro a-+ CC G 0 ° � CCL D 4- V)U U a- E C 4J W C N N p Q U Q 4� O p O +J a O L v o v U a V �C fN6 U a lDO Nv U C °E O v (6 0 Q ++ a L Ln V) W O t)LO � N N O O 4-10 U Da O' E_ N U L L > p 4J �° + > O n N� XO _C a+ -_ C: l0Q � 4J c X . U 6 V co L Co� N a) } � N ° ° o 41 cc j � EC Q '> 'a 4J ' in N _N -0 cv O i O> f4 C O L O +� U 'V1 v C C 41 � +_ O E E U m — Q -a U N u LL Q� +1 a x C X X� O O 4- U co � v 0 N a E 3 a D U a a D o D o rl 76 fE 4j 4.1 N W � � L L L D E 0 E 7i mo U uolsuedx3 V30118 (3f1-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : SUM Ueld IeUl3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv 2:- v v LJC C U " Cfu (UC6 t VI 3 3 z v O V U O — n v N V) c v � (U -o 4-1 Q c v N 4.1 v O v 0 Ln ,) in +� OU 0 00 0 4J O N E v ago � v � E V v .� O N O N cI -0 i 0 v a LL a2 Q L Q N C6aU U C D -a U a v o M v -- U m -0 > � +J n f0 U a (.0N cV > a1 v O _0 mo E � vi vi N � E a,uo � ca a _0 - a)'N i 4J (6 41 CCx C x Q + _ E G C E o QJ Q v c CL a -0 O (u f0 QJ i s v 4� � 0 0 — U� ra a � ra ru a a M Z) 7- U a 0 E m U L U N co N d r+ d Y V R d 9.A.3.e Map 36: South US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area L a r s 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 Miles 01 DAva sew - ' Public Commercial Residential Total Acres 92.96 540.58 429.49 1063.03 8.74% 50.85% 40.41% 100% ll0 z m — z - RATTIEWA KE HAMMOCK RD Ww MW t� <•••. �. TR - 4 South US 41 Transportation wn•mi•..♦r s.n r.u..•�H.i re ".i Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) Source: Collier County .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 429 9.A.3.e Land Development Code • Much of the Study Area is zoned as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), which carry zoning regulations specific to each development (Map 37). Provisions for Mixed Use PUDs and Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Center PUDs are contained in Sec. 2.03.06, yet these provisions do not include required ranges for the mix of shares of commercial and residential (the latter in fact includes a maximum share for neighborhood commercial). This finding may hamper the creation of truly mixed -use developments if these types of PUDs are used in the redevelopment of the area; typically mixed -use developments in the county include less than a 10% share of commercial development. For further analysis on how these have been built out and vacancy opportunities, particularly for new desired commercial development, see Section 5.0. • As mentioned in the previous sub -section, Mixed Use Subdistricts allow for the redevelopment of C-1 through C-3 zoning with a mix of commercial and residential, although note that areas in the CHHA are still limited to 4 DUPA. Additionally, relevant commercial categories, mainly along US 41, are relatively shallow, which may constrain commercial development, redevelopment, or mixed -use development through Mixed Use Subdistricts (see additional discussion in Section 8.0). Lot depth may be considered to help stimulate development and redevelopment of these commercial areas. • Tractor Trailer -Recreational Vehicle Campground District areas along the corridor may also be evaluated for mixed -use, with consideration of transitioning existing users of those sites. • Design criteria for undesirable uses: o Sec. 5.05.05 includes separation requirements (currently 500 feet) and other special design standards for facilities with fuel pumps; evaluate the current separation standard and also the placement of pumps at the rear of the development, away from the main facade and main roadway frontage. o Public outreach activities from the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study indicated that there was a desire to limit self -storage uses in the area. "Motor freight transportation and warehousing (mini- and self -storage warehousing only)" is a permitted use in C-5 and a conditional use in C-4 (Sec. 2.03.03). A proposed amendment to the Land Development Code is under consideration to address concerns with the self -storage use by allowing it in C-4 commercial districts only in combination with other permitted uses as part of a mixed -use development and if it occupies less than 50% of the total area of the first floor. The East Naples Community Development Plan process will document these efforts and evaluate other appropriate options to adjust the Land Development Code to discourage and/or obtain more preferable design for new uses of this type. • Design criteria for desired development: East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 430 9.A.3.e o There are already design criteria for Mixed use Subdistricts (Sec. 4.02.38) that include screening provisions through landscaping and off-street parking placement at the rear or side -street of the buildings, which can aid with creating a walkable environment. o Sec. 4.02.01 includes setbacks for commercially zoned properties; setbacks for C- 3 through C-5, commercial zones prevalent in the Study Area, are typically 15 feet or above. Evaluate these setbacks to support walkability while also meeting design desires established through public outreach activities. o Evaluate commercial -to -commercial buffer requirements in 4.06.00 to support more accessible and walkable commercial development in the Study Area. o Evaluate placement of off-street parking in the rear for commercial development, which relates to parking standards in Sec. 4.05.00; this may be targeted to certain areas, such as in an Activity Center and along certain segments of major corridors. o Note that access management for Mixed Use Activity Centers is regulated in Sec. 4.04.02 and the associated Access Control Policy; these provisions can be evaluated as needed in relation to access of commercial development in Activity Centers by non -motorized means. o Sec. 4.02.23 includes provisions for development in Activity Center #9; these are mainly focused on architectural style and landscaping. • Table 12 recreates affordable housing density bonus regulations in the code. • Additional zoning regulations will be evaluated as needed based on project analysis and public engagement outcomes in the initial stages of the project. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 431 m (VdWEJ (31) uo!suedx3 V3oi v (3flld) Aelaa^O 1-3 6v sn - OE60000EZOZId : SELK) Mid leu!d d0ON3 41JOWLIOLI V T o v > v O xx - c v � v v o v O- T _O > N = u a N a C N C C N O - - - - - - O Cu d _c L- LL LL LL LL N V V U V H N (1 w U a w C7 G d w w w w R [Y (Y Kaj N bA -O a a m a w a � t- r U n m Q > o o W W '4 fO o (?? 4 7 > i o'�s m q 9a U x a i i i a y ti y y yZ' m a m Z a u o 6 u u o w 0 ` i a a rc0: rc X ix z a M rcQ rc G w u a u 1� ■ IN oR 2110 �eiAsu0lej�, sd�o9G4 y. J i \ i a I� ', � i iT��,�.."�,,�,� •_��1 fits I`7 �'�.. I'l `( n JE �•, 11 RO . g"rekwt W dliams Ues 10 BM N U) C ( N � O H ( -fb �e i b o 7 � 1 i 9.A.3.e Table 12: Table A. Affordable Housing Density Bonus (Additional Available Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre) Maximum Allowable Density Bonus by Percent of Development Designated as Affordable Housing 1,1,1 Product (% of MI) Gap (>120—<_140) 4,5 Moderate (>80—<_120) 4 Low (>50—<_80) Very -Low (550) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% F 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 F n/a n/a 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 6 7 F 9 101 11 12 12 12 78 9 10 11 12 12 12 12 12 ' Total Allowable Density = Base Density +Affordable Housing Density Bonus. In no event shall the maximum gross density exceed that which is allowed pursuant to the GMP. 2 Developments with percentages of affordable housing units which fall in between the percentages shown on Table A shall receive an AHDB equal to the lower of the two percentages it lies between, plus 1/10 of a residential dwelling unit per gross acre for each additional percentage of affordable housing units in the development. s Where more than one type of affordable housing unit (based on level of income shown above) is proposed for a development the AHDB for each type shall be calculated separately. After the AHDB calculations for each type of affordable housing unit have been completed, the AHDB for each type of unit shall be added to those for the other type(s) to determine the maximum AHDB available for the development. In no event shall the AHDB exceed 12 dwelling units per gross acre. 4 Owner -occupied only. 'May only be used in conjunction with at least 20% at or below 120% MI. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 433 9.A.3.e 8.0 Public/Stakeholder Involvement Public and stakeholder involvement included two calls with members of the development community active in the local scene, a preliminary meeting with the East Naples Civic Association Board, and a public survey along with opportunities for comment as part of a public webinar and via the project email address. The following summarizes findings from these activities. East Naples Civic Association The project team met with East Naples Civic Association Board members from 3:40 to 4:30 pm on February 12, 2020. The meeting began by reviewing some preliminary findings from the project team's analysis, which was followed by a question and answer discussion. The following key takeaways from the discussion are listed by topic area. • Study area: o The Civic Association has a larger boundary than the project study area. o There is interest from Civic Association members in expanding the study area further east to Manatee Boulevard. Staff noted that further east on 951, the land use designation changes to rural fringe, which informed the boundary for the study area; the rural fringe area is currently under its own re -study as part of an in-house project. o There was a suggestion to add an area north of the current study area, up to Davis Boulevard and 1-75. • Relevant planning studies for reference include: o Bayshore CRA plan o Activity Center #9 planning o Golden Gate City plan [note: after review, the project team found some differences between the land use and transportation configuration of the Golden Gate City area when compared to the East Naples Study Area which may limit applicability of this plan to the Study Area.] • Concerns/Interests: o The concentration of low-income housing in the area is a concern; the Civic Association is interested in data on this point. o The Civic Association expressed concern about school quality; it is interested in data on schools and performance. o Storage uses on vacant commercial and car washes were noted as concerning land uses. o Interest was expressed in attracting redevelopment and commercial/restaurants through incentives; note that there are some uses outside the current study area that might affect access to commercial (e.g., outlet mall south of US 41 along Collier Boulevard). East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 434 9.A.3.e o Interest was expressed in funding mechanisms for infrastructure and incentives (e.g., MSTU); there was a proposal for Michelle Arnold from the County to speak "M OTA1.11i1M • Transportation: o The project team noted the analysis would be high-level and information taken from other plans. It would include transportation considerations to support connectivity and recreational opportunities. o There was a recommendation to add Santa Barbara to major thoroughfares/collectors Development Stakeholders The project team held two calls with various members of the local development community, on March 25, 2020 and April 9, 2020. The following are key takeaways by theme from these discussions: • What the market will provide is determined by supply/demand and the economics of projects. A good amount of commercial acreage is already approved, and simply allowing more intensity will not result in more commercial acreage built. Look at vacancy rates for existing commercial structures to get an indication of current market demand. • Rezoning is always a barrier and entitling small properties is often not worth the effort; having zoning to support desired direction is helpful, but there is still a need to make projects more cost-effective. • Doubling intensity to meet the target will be challenging; construction costs are high. Additionally, some lots on US 41 have high prices even though they are small parcels. • The planning process needs to focus on incentives to make the developments more cost-effective. Appealing incentives include: o Flexibility on development standards o Expedited reviews o Waiving impact fees (aside from the standard credit process) o Tax increment financing investments (note that tax increment is applied in nearby community redevelopment area and in the Innovation Zone area to the north east of the project study area). • It was noted that there are possibly only two truly mixed -use projects exist in Lee and Collier County; mixed -use is very limited. Mixed -use would require intensity to make the numbers work out and would need residential for immediate returns. • The area needs to redevelop to have more dense areas in terms of residential; this is a major limiting factor. However, the area is seeing more apartments going in. • Seasonal population and the associated market can also pose a challenge; a high seasonal population can limit the number of people frequenting establishments for part of the year. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 435 9.A.3.e • Depth can also pose a challenge, particularly on an angled roadway such as US 41 that may create lot shapes that are more difficult to work with; this issue posed a challenge at Courthouse Shadows. Adding depth can help fix the geometry of a lot. • It was recommended to check the build -out of existing Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to understand opportunities for commercial. Other locations with development potential included: o The south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Rd north of the hospital could be a shopping area. o Shopping center with Goodwill and former Lucky's has multiple owners but is a good opportunity. • No specific uses were identified to target; there is a need to look at incentives for both residential and non-residential uses, especially to support mixed -use developments. Redevelopment and new commercial and mixed -use development are all types to encourage. Summary of Public Input The following are key themes that emerged from input from the general community and public, primarily collected through an online survey that collected responses between May and June 2020 and a public hybrid in -person and virtual workshop that was held June 29, 2020 with over 90 attendees. Community members could also submit additional comments to a project - specific email address. More detailed summaries of input received are in Appendices C and D. • There were some questions about how the Study Area Boundary was determined, and the inclusion of other surrounding areas. The boundary was informed by the District 1 Commission boundary with some adjustments for land use and transportation patterns. The project team added a surrounding area of influence for consideration to accommodate aspects outside the Study Area and intends that this plan can guide development and redevelopment efforts in other similar parts of East Naples and the county. • Much of the survey responses came from a demographic that lived at least part time in the study area, did not go to work or school, and were at least 30 years of age. • The area has great access to amenities and provides great value in terms of what is offered for the affordability of the area, although some community members are concerned about adding more affordable housing to the area. • The area has potential and could be better developed, but there are concerns about over -building and losing or not having adequate green space and natural areas. Maintaining an aesthetically pleasing appearance for businesses and neighborhoods also emerged as a priority. • Many community members expressed a desire to rebrand the area, particularly with regards to naming, such as "South Naples" instead of "East Naples". East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 436 9.A.3.e • Limiting undesired businesses was a need identified in the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study outreach and continues to be cited as an issue for the community in these current outreach efforts. • More quality, well -designed, and diverse commercial businesses are desired; some respondents felt little additional commercial development is needed, potentially aligning with concerns about over -building and desires to maintain quality. Restaurants were noted as a priority among a variety of desired uses. Business types included both big -box, functional retail and small businesses • Survey respondents preferred to focus on major corridors including US 41 and Collier Boulevard to evaluate for additional commercial opportunities; US 41 was a corridor that the project team also found to have more potential opportunities through its analysis. • In terms of implementation approaches to increase desired commercial uses in the area, marketing and incentives tended to have the most widespread support, including considerations to try a mix of different approaches. Marketing and fee incentives were also some of the more highly rated implementation options from the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study outreach. • Managing traffic flow and general congestion was a topic that emerged from the survey, as well as promoting non -motorized options including biking and walking; most survey respondents recognized the importance of thoroughfares for automobile traffic but were willing to consider compromises to accommodate other transportation methods. Survey respondents also indicated a preference for walkable commercial concepts, such as parking once in a cluster of establishments and walking between them. • In survey responses, most public facilities and services for the area were rated as mostly satisfactory or as neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory, falling in the middle; the exception was non -motorized pathways, the public facility/service rated as mostly unsatisfactory by survey respondents. This aligns with findings from the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 437 9.A.3.e 9.0 Appendices Appendix A: US 41 Corridor Study Development Style Preferences Figures 8 through 11 show development type preferences from the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study based on those types that received a preferential vote from a majority of people participating in the public involvement polls. The percentage of preferential votes received by the choice is shown below the images, with percentages in green indicated the share of preferential votes when "all of the above" votes were included; note that "none of the above" was also a response option in these polls. Note that all images are sourced from the Study. Figure 8: Commercial Development Preferences from 2018 US 41 Corridor Study Strip Mall Hotel/Lodging 51% Destination Shopping Destination Shopping 79% 59% East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 438 9.A.3.e Figure 9: Residential Preferences from 2018 US 41 Corridor Study Figure 10: Live/Work and Mixed -Use Preferences from 2018 US 41 Corridor Study Live/Work Building 42% Mixed -Use Note: the 2018 Study grouped the two mixed -use visuals here together in the analysis of the share of support for certain mixed - use types; the summary of findings indicates strong support for mixed -use of four to five stories. These similarities in building height may be why choices were grouped as such. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 439 9.A.3.e Figure 11: General Urban Design Preferences from the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study Building Scale 65% Building Placement 71% Appendix B: Additional Transit Improvement Information Map 38 shows an excerpt from the 2016-2025 Collier Area Transit (CAT) Transit Development Plan (TDP), with potential improvements for the 10-year planning period. Note that this plan is currently in the process of being updated. Potential improvements identified in the project area include the following, with services providing broader countywide or regional connections noted in addition to local service: • Fixed route service: o Route 17/18 extension along Davis Boulevard; costs for this improvement were estimated at $1,298,568 and implementation recommended for 2025. o Route 19 realignment to Ave Maria; costs for this improvement were estimated at $940,432 and implementation recommended for 2025. o New fixed route service proposed for County Barn/Santa Barbara, connecting the CAT Operations Center and the Government Center along Radio Road and Davis Boulevard, with a loop on County Barn Road and Santa Barbara; costs for this improvement were estimated at $505,349 and implementation recommended for 2025. • Express service: o Along US 41 between the Government Center and Everglades City; costs for this improvement were estimated at $446,461 and implementation recommended for 2025. o Along Davis Boulevard between the Government Center, airport, and Florida Gulf Coast University (Lee County); costs for this improvement were estimated at $334,846 and implementation recommended for 2025. • Flex service: o South Naples flex area; costs for this improvement were estimated at $334,846 and implementation was recommended for 2025. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 440 9.A.3.e Other improvements proposed near the Study Area include new service between the CAT operations center and Creekside Transfer Station and the Collier -Lee County express service. As of the 2018 TDP Annual Progress Report, no improvements to the fixed -route services in the area were implemented. Map 38: 10-Year Potential Improvements for East Naples Area New Fixed -Route: CAT Operations Center to Creekside Transfer Station --=& Express Service: Government Center to IORQ� airport and Florida Gulf Coast University zi Collier Lee County Connector 0 Route 19 Realignment Ave Maria New Fixed Route: County Barn/Santa Barbara Route 17/18 Extension South Naples Flex Service Express Service: Government Center to E41 Everglades City 3 Source: excerpted from the Collier Area Transit Transit Development Plan (2016-2025) East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 441 9.A.3.e Appendix C: Online Public Survey Summary The project included a public survey to gather input from the public on the vision, desires, and priorities for East Naples. The survey received responses from the beginning of May through the beginning of July 2020. The following summarizes findings from the survey; the total number of respondents is noted in parentheses for the question on which the information is based. The summary of findings is followed by a copy of the survey questions. Respondent Characteristics • 607 total respondents • At least 300 respondents for each question, except for questions providing an option to provide additional comments as a follow-up to certain questions • 79% are full- or part-time residents of study area (of 603 total respondents) • 70% of do not work or go to school (of 602 total respondents) • Nearly 100% of respondents where older than 30; 60% were older than 65 (of 604 total respondents) Common Terms to Describe the Study Area and Area of Influence Currently When describing the area, the most common theme survey respondents shared was that the area has potential, is underdeveloped and underutilized. They view the area as critical and important with a desirable placement in the county. They also describe the study area as inconsistent, lacking a true identity or cohesion in the type and style of commercial and residential development. Many respondents noted the area is unattractive or felt the area could be beautified or improved to become a more desirable area within Collier County. In this vein, many respondents felt there has been little or poor planning for the study area, poor zoning guidelines and too much of the wrong kind of development. Respondents most noted the study area lacks a variety of retail options, fine -dining or more upscale restaurants, and other service -oriented businesses such as entertainment venues and hotels. Most respondents also noted the study area has too many gas stations, fast food restaurants, storage facilities, car repair and car washes. Many also noted many vacant commercial properties that are in the study area, which they would like to see redeveloped first. Others still noted they would like to develop and/or maintain a local flair to the area in spite of a desire to see more well-known brand stores as well. More than half of respondents describe the area as a mixed area, and responses were evenly favorable and unfavorable. Some felt the area is eclectic and diverse, and attractive for tourism with leisure and recreational activities, affordable real estate and an area that is up and coming and improving and less congested than North Naples. They described the area as their community and home. Others felt the area is overdeveloped describing it as low to middle - income and felt it doesn't reflect the middle to upper middle -income residents who live or work in the study area. And others described the area as convenient and sufficient. Some descriptions of the study area were more contradictory. Respondents both lauded the study area for its affordability and low density, while others felt low density was an issue and East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 442 9.A.3.e that the study area represents a dumping ground for low-income housing and the homeless in greater Naples and Collier County. In the same manner, respondents equally described the area as overdeveloped and underdeveloped. Some described it as convenient, safe, quiet and peaceful, while others equally described it as disconnected, crowded, run down and noisy. Of respondents who mentioned natural resources and wildlife, many felt it is a growing concern that needs to be strongly considered in the planning and development of the study area and would like to see natural lands and habitats preserved and more parks and connected bike trails. Some stakeholders also expressed concerns about traffic and congestion increasing in the area. Of respondents who mentioned housing, some expressed a desire not to see any more residential development in the area while others expressed a desire to see less condominium homes and fewer multi -story units. Common Terms to Describe the Top Three Favorite Aspects of the Study Area and Area of Influence Convenience, and easy access to amenities and services including the beaches, downtown and area businesses were the primary aspect survey respondents like the most about the study area. A majority of respondents also highly appreciated that the study area is less crowded or congested than other areas of Naples, and still has open spaces, low density and lots of natural environment. Many want to keep the natural environment at the forefront of the community planning process, and some mentioned a desire to see more landscaped medians as a beautification effort in the study area. Many respondents also noted the affordability or value of the area and its safe, community feel, and the good condition of the roadway as the top reasons they like the study area. To delve deeper into the nearby amenities residents appreciate most, respondents listed parks, green spaces, sidewalks and recreational paths, golfing and the Bayshore area with its artist feel and the botanical gardens. Some respondents expressed a desire for the development of an arts center and more restaurants in the Bayshore area (which is outside of the study limits). Some respondents expressed a desire to see greater connectivity throughout the study area, particularly for recreational paths. Some expressed an interest in connectivity between Sugden Regional Park to the Botanical Gardens and Bayshore CRA, and others expressed concerns about the rise in gated communities and how those landlocked areas make the study area less bikeable and walkable. Some respondents noted the diverse population and middle-class neighborhoods as one of the aspects they like most about the area, and some respondents appreciated the planned communities such as Treviso Bay and Lely Estates. They noted the study area is friendly and supportive as well. Most respondents also mentioned the potential growth of the area, including its potential to attract a new mix of upscale retail and new restaurant amenities. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 443 9.A.3.e Common Terms to Describe a Desirable and Attainable Vision for the Future of the Study Area and Area of Influence In describing a desirable and attainable vision for the future of the study area and area of influence most respondents mentioned a strong desire for more mid -to -upscale restaurants, more shopping diversity and beautification. An ongoing theme was controlled development, with more of a focus on retail and shopping and less new residential. Respondents mentioned not wanting anymore strip malls and a desire to see existing commercial areas modernized and brought up to date or rezoned. One respondent mentioned permitting guidelines should be critically evaluated for long-term value rather than only short-term tax increases. Respondents also expressed a desire to maintain the existing setbacks and a strong concern for maintaining high standards for stormwater runoff and management. Some also mentioned retaining the old Florida feel to the area and ensuring that there are affordable amenities and entertainment venues for seniors. Another important theme across all responses is the desire for balance in maintaining low density and land preservation with attracting future businesses and having more robust commercial centers. Some respondents would like to see bigger box stores in the area such as a Target or Costco and perhaps a movie theater and post office, while others would like to maintain a small business feel to the community with unique independent restaurants and retailers. Others still expressed a desire to see mixed -use areas like Mercato in North Naples, or concepts that have more square footage per acre with retail and restaurants on the ground floor and housing on the second and third levels. Respondents expressed a desire to have a place where they can live, work and shop that is safe, convenient, and beautiful. Respondents also mentioned ensuring the study area is diverse culturally and socioeconomically, but with an effort to remove or update blighted, low- income areas. Better public transportation, more connected non -motorized pathways and green spaces for walking and biking continue to be a strong theme throughout responses. Traffic management and controlling congestion was also a concern for many respondents, with one respondent suggesting widening the main roadways, and another suggesting parking garages similar to downtown Naples. Respondents also expressed a desire to see a reduction in crime and improved safety throughout the area, particularly at US 41 near Shadowlawn Drive and the Bayshore Community Redevelopment Area (mentioned in Question 8 responses). Some respondents expressed a desire for community input to be an ongoing part of planned development for the area. Business -Related Information • 77% of 600 respondents visit businesses along US 41 several times a week or more, indicating that most survey takers are very familiar with this business area. • Top 5 issues (percentage of 378 total respondents): o Quality (88%) East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 444 9.A.3.e o General site/building design and aesthetics (73%) o Mix of types (60%) o Type (57%) o Amount (50%) o Other comments received related to issues with commercial businesses included the following: Respondents recommended developing regulations to require a consistent look and aesthetic for area businesses. They expressed a desire to elevate and maintain the appearance of properties and to have much needed beautification of the commercial corridors and to have more walkable or strollable business and residential areas. Overall, they expressed having a strategic plan in place to guide the aesthetic vision of the area and also a plan to attract a diverse mix of higher -end retail and services to the area. As part of this, some respondents mentioned a desire to have a no -high rise policy for new development. Respondents expressed a desire to have more of an upscale feel to the area and suggested first redeveloping areas with vacant commercial spaces before allowing any new commercial development. Stakeholders suggested providing incentives for redevelopment, and rezoning areas to attract the kind of businesses desired in the community. Respondents also suggested lowering taxes, requiring fewer fees and limiting regulations to attract better development. However, they are concerned there should be a scaled approach to growth and redevelopment of the area so that as new growth is planned, there is time to evaluate and assess the growth of the area as it progresses. While respondents strongly expressed a desire for more retail and upscale dining options and entertainment venues, they also want to see unique dining concepts, owner -operated concepts and fewer chains, particularly chain restaurants. A small group of respondents expressed a desire to attract healthy -concept restaurants and grocers and sustainable retailers to the area. They suggested establishing microcenters with tropical vegetation and outdoor dining, emulating 3d Street or other areas of downtown Naples. Some also mentioned targeting retail and restaurant concepts that offer a better value than Fifth Avenue sites and coordinating with the hotels and resorts near the study area to develop a shuttle service to US 41 businesses in East Naples rather than downtown. Respondents expressed interest in having a Target or a Costco as a large retailer in the area and having an anchor business who could be a large, year-round high -wage employer. Alternatively, some respondents expressed a desire to have a destination mixed -use center with dining, retail and entertainment similar to Mercato in North Naples, but with more affordable options. They recommended the US 41-Collier Boulevard area as a location for an anchor retailer or a mixed -used retail center. In describing these retail areas, respondents suggested having more strict guidelines for new development to build in a way that is more aesthetically pleasing to the end user and have more site awareness. Some suggestions included parking areas that do not East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 445 9.A.3.e face the US 41 corridor, requiring businesses to better situate or plan their footprint, having outdoor dining face a retention pond rather than parking areas for example. They also mentioned increasing the availability and access to parking and incorporating design and aesthetics into those areas as well. They also would like to see shops and restaurants more set back from US 41. Respondents were also concerned with possible overbuilding and how that may cause increased traffic congestion in the area. They expressed interest in having more mixed - use developments with residential and commercial components and having more transportation options including public transportation and non -motorized pathways. In addition, as the area continues to grow, respondents want to see improved traffic flow, reduced congestion, and more signalized intersections especially at entrances for large gated communities. Many expressed a desire to maintain greenspace, whether that be requiring more stringent setbacks for businesses along the US 41 corridor or having more landscaping to soften the structures and generally make business corridors more attractive from the roadway. Land preservation and very controlled development was also an undertone of these comments with bicycle and pedestrian access and more green pathways and recreational lands. Respondents also expressed a concern regarding low-income neighborhoods and no longer allowing development of low-income housing in the area and establishing a plan to phase out existing trailer park communities. Other comments included establishing a business improvement district and having one website representing all of the businesses in the study area, bringing a charter school to East Naples, and a post office to the area, as well as a fitness center and a lighted dog park. • Ranking of businesses identified as desirable during the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study (based on 368 respondents) o Restaurants o Stores for goods (e.g., clothing store, hardware store) o Cafes/coffee shops o Grocery Stores o Stores/offices for service s (e.g., dentist, salon) o Business/retail on same site as residences (e.g., mixed -use, live/work units) o Hotels/motels o Other common themes from additional comments: More than 170 respondents shared other preferences for the type of retail or business. Some shared that they would like to see more walkable retail areas and would like to see a balance between large chains and small, local companies and community needs. Many suggested mid- to high -end elder housing and healthcare services, and strong employers such as research and development companies. Respondents expressed an interest in seeing unique concepts like a progressive eatery & market or food hall similar to the Timeout market in Miami. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 446 9.A.3.e Respondents expressed a desire to see more parks and preserves or more small retail businesses and cafes that have quiet, green outside eating areas. Respondents also expressed interest in a specialty garden center such as Driftwood Nursery. Respondents expressed a desire for a large or small open mall concept like Mercato or Vanderbilt Shoppes in North Naples as well as a wholesale store such as Target, BJ's Wholesale, Costco, or Sam's Club. Other concepts respondents favored included specialty stores with unique offerings including specialty food shops, butcher shop, bakery, seafood shop, gift shops, artist studios, doggy day care and couture shops. Areas for entertainment were also strongly favored including sports entertainment centers, such as a driving range or bowling alley, sporting goods stores or sports bar. Respondents also voiced interest in family -oriented entertainment centers, a more modern movie theater, or indoor activity center, such as Sky Zone, or art venues. Nightlife was also a theme with respondents expressing interest in nightclubs, music venues, pool halls, a playhouse, a comedy club, brewpubs and wineries. Fitness -oriented businesses were also favored by respondents including gym services and fitness concepts such as a cycling center. Other concepts respondents mentioned included a book store, a community center for afterschool care and organized youth sports such as a YMCA, upscale spa, preschool recreational facilities, private schools, clubs, museums, art galleries, performing arts center, and artistic workshops including glass blowing, jewelry making or pottery shops. Some respondents mentioned liquor stores and casino gambling centers. Respondents called out specific well-known retailers they would like to see in the study area including Home Goods, Bed Bath & Beyond, Ikea, Crate & Barrel, Burlington Coat Factory, Talbots, Barnes & Noble, Whole Foods or Trader Joe's, or local concept Food & Thought and Oakes Farm Market. Many respondents reiterated their interest in higher -end restaurant chains suggesting well-known brands including, Seasons 52, Brio Tuscan Grille, Cheesecake Factory, and Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. • Preferred locations to evaluate for new business opportunities (based on 339 total respondents) 0 58% of respondents indicated a preference for US 41 0 42% of respondents indicated a preference for the Activity center at US 41 and Collier Boulevard o 40% of respondents indicated a preference for Collier Boulevard o 34% indicated a preference for the Activity Center at US 41 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 447 9.A.3.e 0 Site preferences 0 65% of 371 total respondents preferred parking once in a walkable cluster of establishments and walking between them; walkable concepts, such as an open mall, were also highlighted in comments about business issues. o As mentioned previously in this section, additional comments throughout the survey indicated a preference for controlled development that ensures land preservation and green space. • Preferred Strategies to Increase Desired Businesses (based on 349 respondents) o Note that this question allowed only one strategy to be chosen; no strategy had a majority share of support, but top supported strategies included: ■ Marketing campaign to attract new desired businesses (24% of respondents) ■ Incentivize new desired businesses through expedited permitting (20% of respondents) ■ Incentivize new desired businesses through fee reductions/waivers (12%) o Nearly 14% of respondents did not support any options to increase new desired commercial uses in the Study Area. o The additional comments indicated that several respondents would have preferred to choose more than one option. o Other comments are summarized as follows: Quality of life for the residents and the visual appearance of the community and roadways remains a common theme in respondents' comments. Also, of critical importance is fostering controlled growth while limiting any increase in traffic and maintaining a quality to the design and construction of new developments. Some respondents felt very little new commercial development is needed in the study area. Some said they were more in support of mixed -use developments with park space, or streetscapes like in segments of Tamiami Trail North. Some felt mixed -use developments would be helpful in balancing high -end housing for residents in these new communities in East Naples with housing options that are affordable for the service workers who will work in the restaurants and shops the higher -end communities desire. Others echoed that any new planned development should be balanced by efforts to protect green space and the natural aesthetics of the area. Many supported all or most of the suggested incentives, but some said that incentives should only be offered to types of businesses that are most desired by the community. Some felt that marketing and any incentives should go hand - in -hand. Many respondents felt significant marketing efforts, especially marketing the study area as a place where year-round residents live, would go a long way to help attract a better mix of businesses. Part of this would be rebranding the name East Naples to another name, and one stakeholder East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 448 9.A.3.e suggested Naples Bay or South Naples or SoNo or Naples East Township. Some supported expedited permitting while others were not in support of fee reductions, waivers or adjustments to lot depths. Another respondent suggested enforcing and updating zoning laws. Yet another suggested temporary tax breaks of 3 to 5 years for businesses that are opening in existing vacant storefronts. Some respondents felt that design reductions or waivers may result in a substandard look and decrease overall values in relationship to other areas of Naples. With any of the incentive options listed in the survey, respondents felt strong oversight was needed and a streamlined process in place for any new development. One respondent supported commercial growth but only in Zone 2 — the existing activity center outlined in the County Growth Management Plan. Another respondent felt that it depends on which centers/zones are the focus, where if the area of focus is only the US 41 corridor mixed -use development would be desired. One respondent suggested marketing to draw new businesses by using demographic data including residential housing and income values especially near Zones 2 and 3, which are both existing activity centers outlined in the County Growth Management Plan. Some respondents expressed that the plan and survey seem to be set up more as a commercial development plan than a land use plan. Another felt that meeting the commercial benchmark of 12 percent to 15 percent similar to the rest of the county is an assumption about East Naples, which is more unique, and those numbers may not be true of the study area. Transportation • 56% of respondents indicated that US 41 and other major roadways are important thoroughfares for automobile traffic, but some compromises are necessary to improve other ways of traveling (such as biking, walking, and/or transit) and access to places along the corridors (based on 332 responses about US 41 and 329 responses about other major thoroughfares). • Additional comments in the survey indicated a preference for the following: o Transportation options and walkability o Improved traffic flow and lower congestion Areas Outside the US 41 Corridor • Top three issues based on 344 respondents: o Amount of traffic (47% of respondents) o General design and aesthetics (42% of respondents) o Type of development (34% of respondents) • Comments on questions related to this topic echoed many of the themes seen elsewhere in the survey responses: East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 449 9.A.3.e o Limit undesired uses o Beautification o Concerns of overdevelopment o More green space and parks o Manage traffic and promote more non -motorized paths • The comments are summarized in more detail as follows: Respondents shared there are too many undesired businesses in the study area, and more thought needs to be given to the type and mix of businesses for a cohesive plan. Respondents communicated that there is a significant need for regulated and organized beautification efforts of both new and older commercial and residential areas. In particular, they felt beautification of the building aesthetics and landscaping should be a priority. Respondents are concerned about the long-term poor image of East Naples and feel rebranding should be a priority. Many are concerned and wary of overdevelopment and want to make sure low density remains a priority as the study area continues to grow. Some respondents felt there is a significant need for more green space and parks, including a lighted dog park. One respondent felt it would be ideal if a park could be developed abutting a microcenter of shopping with a cafe and retail options. Some respondents expressed desire to have alternative traffic control devices other than signalized intersections with wide intersections and dedicated turn lanes. Some feel that more signalized intersections or other traffic control devices are needed to help maintain the flow of traffic. In particular, one respondent noted heavy traffic congestion at the Triangle Boulevard and US 41 intersection as well as the Triangle Boulevard and Collier Boulevard intersection. Other respondents expressed a desire to have more biking and walking paths. Some other issues of note include using Saint Andrews Boulevard, a residential road through Lely Estates, as a cut -through to get to US 41 from Santa Barbara Boulevard. Respondents feel greater traffic enforcement, or another solution is needed to discourage cut -through traffic. One respondent expressed concerns about pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety when crossing the intersections at US 41 and Rattlesnake - Hammock Road and US 41 and Thomasson Drive. Another echoed that marked crosswalks are of limited value because turning vehicles don't see bicyclists and/or pedestrians in the crosswalks, and would like to see an option for designated "safer" centralized crossing areas and routes/trails that lead to those crosswalks. Some respondents feel there is too much housing development and that it is outpacing roadway planning to meet the demand of new residents using the roadways. Also, some respondents feel non -motorized pathways need to be improved. In addition, some respondents felt strongly that setbacks should not be reduced, to help with stormwater absorption. Another respondent mentioned that Hawaii Boulevard floods frequently during heavy rains and that the neighborhood needs better drainage. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 450 9.A.3.e Public Facilities and Services 'm More Satisfactory Fire Service Roadways Libraries Police Service Emergency Services (Based on 300+ responses) Middle Parks Schools Housing Affordability More Unsatisfactory Non -Automobile Pathways General Survey Comments More than 70 respondents shared additional comments about the preliminary project findings. Many echoed early statements regarding discouraging low-income housing, undesired businesses and limiting rental complexes mentioned early in the report. Others echoed filling up or attracting new businesses for the vacant commercial centers and ensuring a new type of business mix other than storage units and gas stations. Two respondents noted a need to maintain housing that is affordable in the area and commented it should be along the US 41 corridor. Some stated that there are homeowners in the HOA communities within the study area who would support the higher quality retail, services and hospitality businesses that could be developed in the study area. Some respondents continued to voice concerns about the need to enhance green space requirements for new developments so that abundant landscaping is required. A part of this is a serious concern of overcrowding and overdevelopment as they feel areas of North Naples are overdeveloped. Many feel that development should not infringe upon natural lands and wildlife habitats as the open green spaces are a major draw for many to the study area and area of influence. Respondents also felt, especially with the older population in the study area, that activity centers need to be accessible for citizens with mobility issues and should be open enough to be walkable or bikeable. Some respondents continued to lobby for more green space, parks and walking trails in the study area. Others felt that traffic patterns and planning needed to be looked more closely to reduce future traffic congestion as the area grows, as well as plans to increase pathways and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Other respondents requested more shade trees rather than palm trees. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 451 9.A.3.e Timing of the signalized intersections, particularly along US 41 at Collier Boulevard, Rattlesnake -Hammock Road, Lakewood Boulevard, and Airport -Pulling Road need to be re- evaluated. Respondents suggested renaming the area from East Naples to another alternative. Some respondents suggested South Naples. Many respondents feel that with its proximity to downtown and the beaches, they area could develop very well with careful planning. One respondent lobbied for the development of an advisory board to help guide the community development and planning process. Another respondent strongly suggested a fitness facility and another requested improved landscaping for the center island at Thomasson Drive. Outside of the study area, respondents felt that the Arts District and the triangle at Davis Boulevard and US 41 need to be further developed. Some respondents wanted more information regarding how the study can be expedited and wanted to know what the timeline is to begin implementing the plan as well as next steps. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 452 9.A.3.e Cof;er County Collier County is working with the East Naples community and consultants from Tindale Oliver to create a Community Development Plan for the East Naples study area (see map below). A US 41 Corridor Study completed in 2018 included public outreach for communities along the US 41 Corridor in this area and provided a set of recommendations. The East Naples Community Development Plan will build on these recommendations and those of other relevant studies (e.g., local transportation plans) to provide more detailed options to guide future land uses and development. You can check out some preliminary findings and a suggested project approach from the project team here. The following questions gather additional information and feedback related to these findings. All 25 questions are voluntary; you can also share general comments and questions at the end of the survey. If you need immediate assistance or would like to join the project email list to receive notifications on project events and updates, you can email us at ENCDP(@colliercountyfl.gov. You can also visit the project webpage for more information: http:llcolliercountyfl.gov/EastNapiesCDP. Thank you for your input! East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 453 9.A.3.e a IL c� w c 0 .N c a x w Q w U H otS W J LL L Q LLI T O M O� O O O O M N O N J IL LO M p- N C cC a c ii IL 0 U Z W r-� C E t V r� r� Q East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 454 9.A.3.e Co er County 0 Tell Us a Bit About Yourself The following questions help us understand your relationship to the study area and area of influence for the plan. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 455 9.A.3.e 1. Which area below best describes where you live? Within the study area (full-time or part-time) Within the area of influence but outside the study area (full-time or part-time) Outside the study area and the area of influence, but within Collier County (full-time or part-time) I have no full-time or part-time place of residence in Collier County. 2. Which area below best describes where you work or go to school: Within the study area Within the area of influence but outside the study area Outside the study area and the area of influence, but within Collier County Outside of Collier County I do not work or go to school. 3. What is your age? Younger than 18 18-30 31-65 Older than 65 4. If you do not live and/or work in the study area, which of the options below best describes how frequently you visit the study area? Several times a week or more A few times a month A few times a year or less I do not visit the study area. Not applicable - I live and/or work in the area. 5. Which of the options below best describes how often you visit businesses along US 41? Several times a week or more A few times a month A few times a year or less I do not visit businesses along US 41. .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 456 9.A.3.e 6. Which of the options below best describes how often you travel along US 41 to get to/from work/school? 0 Several times a week or more OA few times a month OA few times a year or less O1 do not use US 41 to get to/from work/school. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 457 9.A.3.e Co er County What Does this Area Mean to You? A Vision for the Future. The following questions help us gather fundamental ideas and language used to describe the study area and surroundings currently, as well as what makes the area great now and in the future. These responses will provide a basis for a general vision for the area. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 458 9.A.3.e 7. What top three words/terms would you use to describe the study area and area of influence? 1st: L— 2nd: I 3rd: Other Comments: 8. What are the top three aspects of the study area and area of influence that you like the most? 1st: 2nd: 3rd: Other Comments: 9. What are three terms you would use to describe a desirable and attainable vision for the future of the study area and area of influence? 1st: i 2nd: 3rd: C Other Comments: a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 459 9.A.3.e Co er County Business and Retail Findings from the US 41 Corridor Study indicated that participants wanted expanded commercial offerings and less storage and gas station uses. We'd like to gather some additional information for more detailed land use and development options in the East Naples Development Plan. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 460 9.A.3.e 10. What are the top 5 issues to address in terms of businesses (e.g., restaurants, shops, cafes, etc.) in the study area and its surrounding area of influence? Amount Type Mix of types Access, including transit and non -motorized access Quality Affordability Parking availability/access General site/building design and aesthetics I don't think there are any issues with businesses in the study area or area of influence. ❑ Other (please specify) 11. Please provide any additional comments to explain your choices from question 10. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 461 9.A.3.e 12. Rank the following options below in terms of business and retail types to encourage in the study area and area of influence (1 being MOST preferred and 7 being LEAST preferred option; note that you can drag and drop options into your preferred order). r f Cafes/coffees shops r Grocery stores r R Hotels/motels r R Restaurants r w Stores for goods (e.g., clothing store, hardware store) r Stores/offices for services (e.g., dentist, salon) r V Business/retail on the same site as residences (e.g., mixed -use, live/work units) 13. Regarding question 12 above, are there other business and/or retail preferences you would like to tell us about? a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 462 9.A.3.e 14. Which option below best describes your preferences for accessing retail? Park in front of each retail establishment without having to walk between establishments. This option provides visible, convenient parking at the front of each establishment; larger parking lots may be required fronting the roadways and may make storefronts less visible from the roadway. Park behind each retail establishment without having to walk between establishments. This option allows for store fronts to be more visible along the roadway; larger parking lots may be required and may not be as visible from the roadway. Park once in a walkable cluster of establishments and walk between establishments. This option may allow for shared parking and parking garages that may take up less land and may allow for storefronts to be more visible along the roadways; visitors may rely more on physical activity such as walking to move to and between establishments. Access establishments by methods other than a personal car, such as transit, walking, or biking. This option may provide more access choices and allow for smaller parking lots and more visible storefronts along the roadway; visitors may rely more on physical activity to access transit and/or an establishment. Other (please specify) y� Redo ❑ � , Avg SI &m � Nhlio9MMpROOR Ea, Neon s,�y e, Activity Centers Rwtlwy Glassificalion 3. "tl Major Corridors MFwnnw Residential s > -- 2 A0 G.75 1.5 Miles I a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 463 9.A.3.e 15. Which of the zones (1-8) shown in the map above would you like the project team to review for opportunities for additional desired commercial uses? (Choose all that apply.) Zone 1: Existing Activity Center designated in County Growth Management Plan ❑ Zone 2: Existing Activity Center designated in County Growth Management Plan Zone 3: Existing Activity Center designated in County Growth Management Plan ❑ Zone 4: Major Corridor — US 41 Zone 5: Major Corridor — Collier Blvd Zone 6: Major Corridor- Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Zone 7: Major Corridor -Davis Boulevard and County Barn Rd Zone 8: Existing primarily residential areas 16. Which, if any, of the following options would you support to achieve an increase in desired commercial uses in the Study Area? Create a marketing campaign to attract new desired businesses to the Study Area Incentivize new desired businesses through flexible site design requirements Incentivize new desired businesses through an expedited permitting process Incentivize new desired businesses through development fee reductions or waivers Evaluate and increase the amount of commercial development allowed on sites Allow and encourage adjustments to commercial lot depths along the major roadways Evaluate and increase the amount of residential allowed on sites to increase potential customers in the area for local businesses I do not support any options to increase these commercial uses in the Study Area. Other (please specify) 17. Please provide any additional comments to explain your choices from the previous question. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 464 East Naples Community Development Plan Survey _ •» Na lles4 F Ikk� �- .�` 3 , Study Area _. =� Area of Influence �% tip.`" -.. 1 T.. .! .. .� .. 9.A.3.e 18. For parts of the study area and area of influence that are NOT along the US 41 corridor, what are the top 3, if any, issues? Amount of traffic Traffic speed is too slow Traffic speed is too fast Roadway connectivity and access to destinations Non -motorized connectivity (e.g., connections for walking and biking) and access to destinations Type of development Mix of development Coverage or quality of community facilities (e.g., parks, community centers) Performance of infrastructure (e.g., drainage) General design and aesthetics Landscaping There are no issues in the study area and area of influence NOT along the US 41 corridor. Other (please specify) I 19. Please provide any additional comments to explain your choices from the previous question. Transportation East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 466 9.A.3.e Please refer to the map below for questions 18 and 19. 20. Which statement below best reflects your vision for US 41 in the study area? US 41 should be optimized for all automobile traffic, including minimizing travel time for as many automobiles as possible, even if this makes other methods of travel such as walking and biking more difficult. US 41 is an important thoroughfare for automobile traffic, but some compromises are necessary to improve other ways of traveling (such as biking, walking, and/or transit) and access to places along the corridor. Appropriate development intensity and mix to promote walking, access to properties, and local connectivity should be prioritized along US 41; minimizing automobile traffic and travel time along these roadways is less important. Other (please specify) East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 467 9.A.3.e 21. Which statement below best reflects your vision for major roadways aside from US 41 in the study area? These major roadways should be optimized for all automobile traffic, including minimizing travel time for as many automobiles as possible, even if this makes other methods of travel such as walking and biking more difficult. These major roadways are important thoroughfares for automobile traffic, but some compromises are necessary to improve other ways of traveling (such as biking, walking, and/or transit) and access to places along the corridor. Appropriate development intensity and mix to promote walking, access to properties, and local connectivity should be prioritized along these major roadways; minimizing automobile traffic and travel time along these roadways is less important. Other (please specify) Facilities and Services 22. Which, if any, of the following publicly provided or supported facilities and services do you think are provided at a SATISFACTORY level in the study area and area of influence? (Choose all that apply.) URoadways 1-1 Non -automobile pathways (example: sidewalks, trails) Libraries Parks Schools Fire service Police service Emergency Services (such as those responding to a medical emergency) Housing affordability All of the above None of the above Other (please specify) I East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 468 9.A.3.e 23. Which, if any, of the following public facilities and services do you think are provided at an UNSATISFACTORY level in the study area and area of influence? (Choose all that apply.) Roadways Non -automobile pathways (example: sidewalks, trails) Libraries Parks Schools Fire service ❑ Police service Emergency Services (such as those responding to a medical emergency) Housing affordability All of the above ❑ None of the above Other (please specify) L East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 469 9.A.3.e Co er County NaplesEast • Development Additional Comments and Contact 24. Are there any additional comments you would like to add related to the preliminary project findings and approach that you can view again here? Any additional general comments? 25. If you would like to join the project email list to receive notifications of upcoming project events and postings to the project webpage, please fill out the blanks below. Name: Organization (optional): Email: NINO East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 470 9.A.3.e Appendix D: Workshop 1 Recap A public workshop was held June 29, 2020, providing the ability to participate either in -person at the Collier Board of County Commission Chambers or via an online platform. The workshop had over 90 participants. A brief presentation was made to the participants, then the project team discussed questions and comments submitted by participants for the remainder of the workshop. For questions and comments not addressed directly during the discussion period, a follow-up recap of submitted questions/comments and responses from the project team was created. This recap is provided in the remainder of this appendix. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 471 9.A.3.e EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Public Workshop 1: Response to Comments and Questions Thank you to everyone who joined us for the East Naples Community Development Plan public workshop held June 29, 2020! The following summarizes comments and questions received during event, along with responses from the project team. We will incorporate this input as we move forward with the next stages of the project. Project Study Area Project Study Area & Area of Influence Map East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 472 9.A.3.e Collier County Commissioner Districts Map s District 3 — Commissioner Saunders E �L?r•:• ni1n •.•k.)I-:.. L3•;nit., District 2 — Commissioner gig Cypress Re se—t io n ..... .. :.: is-. Solis Fh rid a Pan the r Nat' I .. ,..,. ilr.11if- Rif f-.. District 4 — r,,;1 , '5 Rltip l District 5 — Alligator Alley Commissioner Commissioner Pic Taylor a str. re��+ unaabD McDaniel District 1— ,;oN-Commissioner 5eminoR Stain Par' Fiala Ten 11--w Is Nad Wildlife R.f Comments/questions on the Study Area boundary: • What guided the study boundary? Was it Zoning/FLU? • Why does the northern boundary of the study area exclude the area between County Barn and 951? • Davis Boulevard is a natural boundary without regard to arbitrary district boundary. Development should be focused on serving people without regard to political boundaries. The Study Area for this project (shown above) is used to run data and spatial analysis and was primarily informed by the District 1 boundaries with some adjustments for land use and roadway patterns; we are also looking at the surrounding area to account for major developments, improvements project, and other factors outside the Study Area that may influence the project. We anticipate that this plan will provide analysis, approaches, and recommendation options that can be referenced and easily adjusted for use by other areas in East Naples and the unincorporated county given many of the similar issues and land use/roadway patterns in these areas. Is this webinar strictly concerning the US 41 corridor? East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 473 9.A.3.e Part of the webinar covered information primarily relating to the US 41 Corridor, including a 2018 study focused on the corridor and possible opportunities for commercial development/redevelopment which are primarily located along this corridor. However, our project focus area and outreach includes surrounding areas and other major thoroughfares, so we are conducting analysis and gathering feedback on those points, as well. See the project study are map shown above. Other areas mentioned for consideration: • Does the study include Marco Island with East Naples? The commercial needs for East Naples will also serve Marco residents. • Also take into consideration to North Naples. Having commercial businesses that are only there presently creates an inordinate amount of traffic, particularly during peak season. There would be significant decrease in overcrowded roads if some of the commercial businesses have a presence in East/South Naples. • Your developer input seemed to have concern about a lack of density. But there is tremendous additional population around the eastern area within a short drive. Would highlighting the areas of Winding Cypress, Collier Preserve, Reflection Lakes, Fiddler's Creek, etc. help make development more desirable? These developments are already online and expanding. We will account for how surrounding areas influence the Study Area, as mentioned above. Part of the consideration of how surrounding areas support existing retail in the Study Area or in other locations and how they may support any new retail that may be built relates to market demand dynamics; this plan will not include an in-depth market analysis, but as noted in the comments above, we have talked with members of the development community to get a general sense of what may be feasible for the area. Vision Et Branding So far, I am not seeing anything that indicates a vision to a design for improving the area; the project is just going to move along with some minor improvements. This first stage of the project really aims to identify or validate the existing understanding of what needs to be done in the area and establishing some foundational ideas to create forward -looking development concepts with renderings and options for an implementation program in the second half of this project. Comments/questions on specific marketing/branding ideas: • There is a negative perception of East Naples, and there is a desire to rebrand the area, particularly in terms of the name; "South Naples" is an example of a possible rebrand [Several comments mention a desire to rebrand the area with a new name, although one comment indicated a desire not to rebrand]. • Rebrand the area and signage based on the existing built and natural environment; an example of a new name for the US 41 corridor is the Naples Everglades Trail as a connection of Fifth Avenue and the Beaches with the Everglades, Fatahatchee Strand, Big Cypress, Rookery Bay with a Collier County History Museum in between; there are also the blossoming Bayshore Arts District with the Botanical Garden, the Wang Center and the Bayshore Gateway East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 474 9.A.3.e Triangle Redevelopment Area 17-acre development yet to come, as well as parks: Sugden, Donna Fiala, East Naples, and Bayview. • What do you have in mind for a marketing agenda? We will document the issue of branding and marketing in our report, provide some foundational vision themes and land use concepts that can serve as a basis for more specific future branding and marketing efforts, and note some high-level guidance for these future efforts; this information will be developed in the second half of the project and presented at the next public meeting. Please don't make East Naples as crowded as Florida's East Coast. Concerns of overbuilding and overcrowding were key themes emerging from the initial survey responses, aligning with this particular comment. We will take this theme into account as we development land use concepts for the area for review and feedback at the next public meeting and related online public engagement. Land Use Ft Development Comments related to attracting additional commercial development: • Please explain if commercial is already at 11% and 7% is not being used, why would we want to increase to 15%? 1 may not be reading this correctly but there is a lot of commercial buildings that are not in use up and down the 41 corridor. This is an eyesore on the community surrounding. • Why would the Board allow more commercial development when we have so many commercial areas that are not viable? Case in point is the Outlet Center on 951, and up and down 41 there are empty store which are just an eyesore on the community that surround them. We have noted an estimated vacancy rate for existing commercial properties (7%), as well as the share of non-residential square footage built of total square footage built during the last decade (11%). Since 11% is lower than the 15% we observe elsewhere in similar parts of the county, we are showing that this area is underserved from what we might expect based on similar areas. The 7% vacancy rate in existing structures indicates the area is further underserved since these vacancies are not accounted for in the building square footage measures. We hope our analysis shows some benchmarks that may be useful to think about the current amount of existing commercial and some potential feasible approaches to attracting more desirable uses, yet this analysis is merely a starting point for discussion. In addition to attracting tenants for vacancies in existing buildings, approaches include encouraging building on vacant lots or redevelopment of existing lots that are already targeted for commercial uses. These approaches do not have to include any increases in intensity from what is already allowed, yet increased allowances could be reviewed as a way to attract development in locations where the current allowances may be a constraining factor to developing or redeveloping existing sites. In this regard, we are relying on community comments and survey input to indicate the degree of additional commercial desired to help inform the ultimate approach to pursue; preliminary comment and survey results did not indicate a strong preference for pursuing approaches that involved increases in allowed commercial development. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 475 9.A.3.e A lot of businesses went out of business in the area. Big box stores have a colder character and are not very homey; boutique and mom-and-pop stores are nicer. Many survey responses indicated a preference for functional and anchor retailers as well as smaller local businesses; the project team can account for these different types of retail and what approaches might help make them sustainable in the area. What to do about updating older housing stock, including older condos? In most instances, we rely on the market to address the redevelopment of housing units, particularly for multi -family. If land supply is constrained and/or the older housing provides a geographic advantage, developers will reinvest in an area. If there is a lot of new housing being built with similar access to jobs/amenities, reinvestment may take much longer. Grant programs are available through the Community and Human Services Department. Questions related to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area Plan: • There was a plan to put in a cultural center off Bayshore Drive. Any update? • What is happening to the land at Davis and 41? • The area along Davis Boulevard and US 41 from the Triangle area heading east has unattractive strip malls. Any plans for those specifically? Plans for the areas along Bayshore Drive and Davis Boulevard/US 41 are addressed in the recently updated Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area Plan; you can get more information about this area and current efforts on the redevelopment area website: https://bayshorecra.com/. For strip malls and strip commercial along US 41 east of the redevelopment area, the East Naples Community Development Plan will provide land use concepts to help guide redevelopment of sites such as those along US 41 in the future. Is there not data that says unkept commercial properties are more apt to fail than those with a reasonable management that constantly improves the property? Activating vacant lots and support for upkeep and beautification of properties are commonly included in approaches to redevelopment and stimulating local economic activity. One example is fagade improvement programs, which are often used in redevelopment areas and business districts. Research on fagade improvements based on outreach to a selection of downtown businesses in Wisconsin suggests that the businesses perceived some economic benefits after making fagade investments (https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/resiIie ntdowntowns/files/2016/06/Final- Report. pdf), although note that many factors can affect the economic performance of an individual business or area. Based on the preliminary findings presented, are there specific businesses being targeted for marketing a presence in East Naples? In terms of desired uses, regulations and incentives will likely focus on general categories that capture these desired uses; future marketing efforts that build on this plan may be an opportunity to target specific businesses and retailers mentioned in comments and survey responses. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 476 9.A.3.e Have there been any large year-round employers that have expressed interest in establishing headquarters or office space in the study area or area of influence? In addition to retailers, such as, HomeGoods, Burlington Coat Factory, etc., an Amazon Distribution Center will be locating to the East Naples area. Comments on green spaces in the community: • Need to have more open space and public golf courses as most come here to enjoy the outdoors. • Consider East Naples Community Park for the activity center at the Rattlesnake Hammock and 41 intersection. Having ample green space was a key theme emerging in general from the initial survey results, aligning with these comments. This point will be considered as we are developing recommendations in the second half of this project. What is meant by Activity Center at [US 41 intersections with] Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevards. Would that be a casino? Activity Centers are areas formally designated in the County's Growth Management Plan that are intended for more commercial intensity and mixed -use allowances relative to areas such as single-family residential neighborhoods. Preliminary survey results indicated that these are areas the project team should further evaluate for opportunities for desired commercial uses identified from the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study and further prioritized through preliminary survey results for this current planning effort. While casinos are not explicitly part of the list of desired uses we identified from the 2018 study findings, entertainment and nightlife uses were mentioned in the comments from our current survey efforts. Any plans to purchase the Riviera Golf Club? There have not been any discussions at this time to purchase the Riviera Golf Club. Add car washes to the list of undesirable uses. The project team will note this use as it looks at strategies for limiting undesirable uses in the second half of this project. The gas station on US 41 broken down from Hurricane Irma still there! I asked about last year and was told it was waiting on permits. What's going on? These comments have been referred to the County's Code Enforcement Division. Why is a storage unit being built on US 41 next to CVS just east of Collier when residents made it very clear we did not want one? Storage units have clearly been identified as an undesirable use, and a proposed amendment to the Land Development Code is under consideration to address concerns with self -storage uses by allowing these uses in C-4 commercial districts only in combination with other permitted uses as part of a mixed - use development and if it occupies less than 50% of the total area of the first floor. The East Naples East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 477 9.A.3.e Community Development Plan process will document these efforts and evaluate other appropriate options to adjust the Land Development Code to discourage and/or obtain more preferable design for new uses of this type. Comments/questions on a post office for the area: • The outlets on Collier would be the perfect place for a post office and a draw store ... it would increase other businesses and help the area. • 1 continue to be concerned about the lack of a United States Post Office in our area. Family pharmacy has a corner set up inside for this service. Can we look to develop postal service center in our area? Thank you for addressing the post office question. I am originally from Stony Brook NY. The original Stony Brook village surrounded the post office. Formed a village green surrounding it. Feels like home. We also need the service in the area! I travel to Marco Island. South Naples would be great! Collier County has limited authority over the placement of post offices, given that these are part of the federal government's jurisdiction as part of the United State Postal Service. Questions/comments on specific anticipated developments: • We heard Home Goods, Burlington, and Planet Fitness are going in Freedom Square ... when is this happening? • When will Publix be going up on 41 east of Collier next to Fiddlers Creek? The County is not involved with leasing agreements and opening timeframes of storefronts, so related information is unknown. The Publix store at Fiddler's Creek is now under construction. ransportation Comments/questions on the US 41 overpass: • There is a tremendous amount of development east of Collier Blvd on 41 so a fly over would be helpful for transportation. • What is the plan for the fly over at 41 and Collier Blvd? This project falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), a regional transportation planning organization. The US 41/Collier Boulevard overpass is shown as a need in the MPO's 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) but was not included in the Cost Feasible Plan (this latter plan indicates those projects with programmed funding). The MPO is currently updating the LRTP and extending the horizon year to 2045, so the plan regarding this project may change. What are the plans for Davis Boulevard and Collier Boulevard? While these roadways are under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the East Naples Community Development Plan will account for programmed improvements and coordinate with FDOT as needed on proposed local transportation options as part of the planning process. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 478 9.A.3.e Based on FDOT's Work Program for 2021-2025, Collier Boulevard south of US 41 approximately between Manatee and Tower Roads is undergoing lane addition/pavement rehabilitation. Collier Boulevard north of the East Naples Community Development Plan Study Area between Golden Gate Canal to Green Boulevard has activities programmed related to widening/resurfacing of existing lanes in 2024. Improvement activities along Davis Boulevard between US 41 Radio Road were programmed in the 2015-2020 Work Program, and included activities related to widening/resurfacing of existing lanes, adding lanes, landscaping, signs/markings, lighting, and resurfacing, depending on the section. Some of these activities are noted as ongoing as of 2020. Comments/questions on the FDOT north/south toll road: • Is there any update on the proposed FDOT toll road from Polk County south to Collier? Will that impact the design for East Naples? • As the planning for East Naples continues, it is important to consider changes that are occurring outside of the proposed planning area and the impact those changes may have on our community. One such change, could be the FDOT North -South Connector Toll Road. If this roadway does in fact terminate in or near to East Naples, it will change the amount of traffic, commercial businesses possibilities and demographics of the community. I am not suggesting this is a positive or a negative just that items of this nature should be part of any long-range plan for our community. Nearly $750 million was included in the State's budget to study and design the three M-CORES toll road projects including the Southwest -Central Florida Connector (previously referred to as the Heartland Parkway). The alignment for the corridor has not been determined at this point (another task force meeting is scheduled for 7/23). It is unlikely, however, that the corridor will extend south of 1-75. We will monitor the M-CORES study and report details relevant to the ENCDP. For more information, visit: httDS://floridamcores.com/. When will the widening of US 41 be finished? The expansion of US 41 between Greenway Road and 6 L Farm Road from 2 to 4 lanes is identified in the 2040 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan for construction. However, it has not been funded in FDOT's 5-Year Work Program (which identifies the most immediate projects for implementation). Specific bicycle and pedestrian concerns: • More dedicated, protected bike lanes that connect East/South Naples with Naples proper, to include pedestrian walkway(s) over US 41. • The local St. Andrews road is experiencing a lot of traffic and has had issues including a pedestrian death. Non -motorized connections, including safety considerations, is a key theme that has emerged from prior and current outreach efforts; we will take into consideration comments on specific bike and pedestrian needs in addition to a review of existing transportation analysis and planning efforts that we will use as a basis for transportation options and recommendations in this plan. Who is responsible for street direction signs, such as those for Naples Reserve Boulevard off US 41? It's very hard to see the entrance to Reflection Lakes and Naples Reserve from US 41. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 479 9.A.3.e The developer or community association is responsible for entrance signs; and, the County Transportation Dept. approves and installs all wayfinding and street signage on public roadways. Other Public Facilities With regards to residential expansion, what provisions have been made for an expansion on the school system in Manatee School district? Based on data, analysis, and public input the goals of the East Naples Community Development Plan focus on improving options for non-residential land uses. As far as capacity for Manatee Elementary, current enrollment is 593 students; permanent capacity for this school as of 2018 is 706 seats, according to the Collier County School District, indicating that the current capacity can accommodate current enrollment. Has a study of stormwater management systems along the US 41 corridor been done to determine expansion of canal capacity supporting the commercial development which is being considered? County staff will coordinate with the FDOT to address stormwater needs/improvements for the area hope that infrastructure needs for roads, stormwater management, parks, and schools, among other things, are thoroughly evaluated before deciding whether we need more restaurants and shopping centers in East Naples. The Community Development Plan process will document existing and planned public facilities and services to support development and/or redevelopment in the area; more detailed impacts to public services and infrastructure are also analyzed as part of the development review process for new developments. Participation Can the August meeting also be a webinar, which will help summer travelers participate? We plan to have a virtual component to our next meeting and related outreach/engagement efforts given the number of seasonal residents and social distancing considerations related to the coronavirus based on guidance from the Center for Disease Control. Is there a committee one could be part of? Based on recommendations in the ENCDP, various opportunities to participate in committees will be available to interested stakeholders/residents. Do online participants need to do anything special to be added to the distribution list for updates? Did registering online automatically add us to that list? Those who registered for the workshop virtually will be contacted to join the project email list; attendees can sign up for the list at any time on the project website (http://colliercountyfl.gov/EastNaplesCDP). Will we receive the PowerPoint? A recording of the webinar and a copy of the PowerPoint will be made available on the project website. We will send an email to the project email list once those materials are posted, and you can join the East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 480 9.A.3.e email list via the project website (http://colliercountvfl.gov/EastNaplesCDP). What if a lot more or different survey responses are received after the June 9th date when the preliminary survey results were analyzed for this workshop? The project team will add any additional survey responses received between June 9th and July 91h to the overall survey summary, document findings, and note any changes to the preliminary findings in the subsequent public outreach and engagement efforts. Other Topics Do we have any projects on rain barrels? The Stormwater and Pollution Control Sections have information on rain barrel programs and projects. Are there any other plans to install art in the area? Love the new statue erected for Donna. Aesthetics and design were key themes that emerged from the preliminary survey results. Comments such as this one on art can be considered as part of future branding discussions for the area. The Community Redevelopment Area just west of the East Naples Study Area is also developing a Public Art Plan, which can be viewed here: https://bayshorecra.com/proiects/public-arts-master-plan/. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 1 Packet Pg. 481 9.A.3.e EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Technical Memorandum 2. Vision Elements, Land Use Concepts, and Recommendations September 28, 2020 Prepared for Co*.-r County Prepared by Tindale Oliver East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 Packet Pg. 482 9.A.3.e able of Contents 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................4 2.0 Vision..................................................................................................................................6 3.0 Land Use Concepts.............................................................................................................9 4.0 Transportation Options....................................................................................................54 5.0 Additional Recommendations..........................................................................................59 6.0 Implementation...............................................................................................................62 7.0 Appendices.......................................................................................................................66 Figures Figure 1: Overview of Planning Process........................................................................................8 Figure 2: Build -Out Scenarios......................................................................................................10 Figure 3: Non -Residential Square Footage Benchmarks..............................................................12 Figure 4: Pathway Connection Grand Lely Subdivision/ Donna Fiala Eagle Lakes Community Park .................................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 5: Short -Term Intersection Improvement Examples........................................................56 Figure 6: Existing US 41 Cross Section Example..........................................................................57 Figure 7: Proposed US 41 Cross Section - Rattlesnake Hammock Road.....................................57 Figure 8: Proposed US 41 Cross Section - Naples Manor Area...................................................58 Maps Map1: East Naples Study Area.....................................................................................................5 Map 2: Land Use Concept Sites.....................................................................................................9 Map 3: US 41 at Naples Manor and Surroundings......................................................................14 Map 4: US 41 at Naples Manor and Surroundings - Zoning.........................................................16 Map 5: US 41 at Naples Manor Connectivity Analysis.................................................................18 Map 6: US 41/Rattlesnake Hammock and Surroundings.............................................................25 Map 7: US 41/Rattlesnake Hammock and Surroundings - Zoning..............................................27 Map 8: US 41/Rattlesnake Hammock Connectivity Analysis.......................................................29 Map 9: Existing Towne Centre and Surroundings.......................................................................36 Map 10: Towne Centre and Surroundings - Zoning....................................................................38 Map 11: Towne Centre Connectivity Analysis.............................................................................40 Map 12: Opportunity Zone in the East Naples Study Area..........................................................53 -ki- Table 1: US 41 at Naples Manor and Surroundings - Existing Land Uses....................................15 Table 2: US 41/Rattlesnake Hammock and Surroundings - Existing Land Uses ...........................26 c �a a CE c ii a 0 U z w c m E �a r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 2 Packet Pg. 483 9.A.3.e Table 3: Towne Centre and Surroundings - Existing Land Uses...................................................37 Table 4: Land Use Build -Out Scenario Polling Results.................................................................46 Table 5: Implementation Summary.............................................................................................64 .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 3 Packet Pg. 484 9.A.3.e 1.0 Introduction This second technical memorandum for the East Naples Community Development Plan builds on analytical and outreach findings from the first stages of the planning process, documented in Technical Memorandum 1. It recaps the desired direction for the community and provides land use concepts, recommendations related to transportation and other topics, and implementation guidance in response to this future vision. Technical Memorandum 1 summarizes findings from the Background and Needs Assessment completed in the first stages of the project. The analysis showed that while the East Naples Study Area (Map 1) is generally well served by public facilities and services, it is underserved in terms of non-residential uses, with only 11% of current square footage built as non-residential relative to the unincorporated county as a whole that has a share of 1S% non-residential square footage; the lack of quality commercial options was also identified as a major issue through outreach conducted in 2018 as part of the US 41 Corridor Study for this area. Initial outreach for this planning effort also indicated that additional development needed to be balanced with green space and aesthetic considerations. Additionally, more local transportation options and connections are needed, including for non -motorized travel. This second technical memorandum provides a way forward for the community that responds to the vision elements identified through public engagement (detailed further in Section 2.0). and addresses the imbalance of residential and non-residential uses. It takes into consideration limitations and opportunities detailed further in Technical Memorandum 1: • limited roadway connections • limited permanent population and overall density • potential constraints of market demand • likely development and redevelopment opportunities The remainder of this technical memorandum includes the following sections: • Section 2.0: Vision — provides elements of the future direction for the community, accounting for public engagement and analytical findings in Technical Memorandum 1 and additional stakeholder and community engagement completed for this technical memorandum; this section summarizes the full planning process, including engagement. • Section 3.0: Land Use Concepts — provides land use concepts ranging from moderate to more robust changes on three selected sites in the East Naples Study Area that can be applied to other development and redevelopment opportunity sites; also includes regulatory, incentive, and longer -term planning considerations to implement concepts. • Section 4.0: Transportation Options — summarizes complimentary options and alternatives to transportation improvements shown in the land use concepts to improve safety, comfort, and connectivity to destinations for various modes of transportation. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 4 Packet Pg. 485 9.A.3.e • Section 5.0: Additional Recommendations — summarizes recommendations for other potential topics of interest for future efforts, such as green space, marketing and branding, a recycling drop-off center for the area, housing affordability, landscaping and architectural styles, and signs. • Section 6.0: Implementation— summarizes steps to take following the approval of this plan to implement recommendations, including marketing efforts, regulatory changes, long-term and capital planning processes, and budget programming. • Section 7.0: Appendices — summarizes in more detail findings from additional community engagement: o Appendix A: summary of additional stakeholder meetings o Appendix B: summary of findings from second workshop and related online engagement Map 1: East Naples Study Area East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 5 Packet Pg. 486 uq sup x] V] 01 9 n-l=i) AeIJOAO 9e3 �v Sn-0[So000CZOZ d:§[L Z umd mm] d Q 0 N] eew Lj3q r � # § E S m » &z e e 9 ? # j e a 6 9 / / a � ° ( ƒ 0 2 E e E.p � e e m � E / / / U Co ƒ J 9.A.3.e The elements above are based on the outreach and analytical findings from Technical Memorandum 1. There are additional considerations for affordability based on stakeholder meetings conducted for this technical memorandum (see Appendix A for details on additional stakeholder meetings). Figure 1 summarizes the complete set of analysis and engagement activities undertaken for this project. Some stakeholders in the most recent meetings expressed strong concern over adding housing for low-income households in the Study Area, a concern also noted in outreach for Technical Memorandum 1. Other comments from outreach indicated that the area's value, or affordability given its proximity to several local attractions (Naples, beaches, etc.), was an asset. Additional stakeholder meetings for this technical memorandum with non -profits that provide housing indicated that there are increasing barriers to serving lower income households in the county in terms of housing. Technical Memorandum 1 also showed that renter households are facing particularly widespread burden issues — renters in the area already burdened; traditional multi -family units that are typically rental make up about 6% of the housing stock. This would be a particular issue for renters with lower incomes. As a result, proposed concepts and recommendations include options for mixed -use that can support quality non-residential uses and potential opportunities for additional housing at market rates and more attainable price points. The stakeholder meeting with transportation agency staff also highlighted how mixed -use options could support the walkability and diversity of transportation options indicated as desirable in the community engagement. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 7 Packet Pg. 488 uolsuedx3 V30118 (3f1-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : SUM Ueld IeUl3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv 9 iz a) E a) on Ca an c LU u V V7 re cd V7 Lon Ln CO o a m V L Le, LM o • CL o Lell z oLA W J O CJ .1 .9 m 4-1 c a� C { J V W M 00 a c m �a a 9.A.3.e 3.0 Land Use Concepts The project team selected three sites in the East Naples Study Area to illustrate potential land use concepts: the US 41 at Naples Manor, US 41/Rattlesnake Hammock, and Towne Centre sites (Map 2). The sites graduate in terms of opportunity for intensity from the Naples Manor site, which is more neighborhood scale and furthest from the urban node of Downtown Naples, to the Towne Centre site, which is closest to Downtown Naples, contains a relatively large potential redevelopment site with greater depths, and has the potential for a larger regional draw. Aside from this variety of characteristics, the team chose these sites due to their current potential development and redevelopment opportunities, their alignment with location preferences identified through public outreach, and the potential for applicability of concepts on these sites to other sites in the Study Area and beyond, such as the outlet shops on Collier Boulevard south of US 41 and developments under consideration near Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Map 2: Land Use Concept Sites Three build -out scenarios were created for each site, ranging from light to moderate to robust (Figure 2). Incentives to promote desired uses and approaches to discourage/prohibit undesired uses, discussed in more detail later in this section, could be used with any of the build -out scenarios. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 9 Packet Pg. 490 9.A.3.e • Focus on transportation, landscaping, and some development design improvements Figure 2: Build -Out Scenarios • Partial site build -out • Multi -floor mixed -use (ground floor commercial, upper floor office/residential, max. 3 floors) and ground floor commercial • Transportation, landscaping, and development design elements These scenarios can help respond to: �.•��M • Full site build -out, longer term • Multi -floor mixed -use (ground floor commercial, upper floor office/residential, max. 3 floors) and ground floor commercial • Transportation, landscaping, and development design elements • market demand, particularly given that developers saw residential density as a limiting factor on additional commercial uses and that there are a number of areas in Collier County where more urban -style and walkable areas are being promoted; this market demand may also shift in the future in terms of amount and type of retailers and offices, with the prevalence of big box retailers, general shifts in discretionary spending income for middle class households, and the rise of services -oriented buying, online retailers, and remote work.' • a possible approach to transition over time from current development styles and transportation design based on current, more suburban conditions to desired more walkable options. • general community design, use, and density/intensity preferences identified through public engagement and documented in Technical Memorandum 1. 1 Some sources indicate that, aside from the stressors of the pandemic on retailers such as those in traditional malls, these retailers have already faced declines due to the diminishing prominence of anchor department stores, the rise of big box retail that competes with mall -style retailers, less discretionary funds for middle class households, and a shift in focus from buying goods to buying services. Others anticipate a sustained increase in remote work due to the pandemic, which may affect office demand. See: Austan Goolsbee (February 13, 2020) Never mind the internet. Here's what's killing malls, The New York Times. Justine Griffin (December 11, 2015) What will fill the mall of the future? Probably not more department stores, Tampa Bay Times. Katherine Guyot and Isabel V. Sawhill (April 6, 2020) Telecommuting will likely continue long after the pandemic, Brookings. Sara DiNatale (May 28, 2020) COVID-19 has likely quickened the end of malls as we knew them, Tampa Bay Times. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 10 Packet Pg. 491 9.A.3.e • approaches that are repeatable at other development and redevelopment opportunity sites in the East Naples area and Collier County more generally. They also illustrate approaches that have already been used elsewhere in more urban parts of the county, such as the City of Naples. Note that aside from market demand, actual build -out would also depend on a more specific development program that accounts in more detail for requirements such as parking. Additionally, build -out, particularly as the scenarios get more robust, would likely occur in the long-term, perhaps requiring a decade or more to be constructed. Technical Memorandum 1 also established non-residential building square footage benchmarks for gauging increases in desired commercial development. The share of square footage built in for unincorporated county is approximately 15%, while it is only 11% in the East Naples area. The project team calculated the additional square footage needed to move from the 11% mark to the 15% mark in the East Source: Tindale Oliver Source: Google Maps Naples area, assuming current levels of residential development and a focus on desired commercial uses or other uses such as office incorporated with commercial as part of mixed - use development. Figure 3 illustrates which square footage benchmarks might be achieved with the use of a light, moderate, or robust approach at all the sites, with a focus on commercial and office; residential could be included in mixed -use, depending on market demand. However, these benchmarks are simply illustrative measures. Even adding small amounts of these uses can still meet the intent of community vision elements if focused on desired commercial types and quality development. Note that these calculations do not include vacancies in existing commercial structures. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 11 Packet Pg. 492 9.A.3.e Figure 3: Non -Residential Square Footage Benchmarks 88% 0 c m S-J n7a r 12% Additionallio' rCom r. scenario for all sites: assumes existing commercial/ office sq ft 1.3 million Moderate scenario (commercial/ office) for all sites:1.5 million sq ft 87% 13% 2.0 million 86% 14% 2.7 million Robust scenario (commercial/ office) for all sites: 3.2 million sq ft 85% 15% 3.4 million Note: the benchmarks shown assume current level of residential square footage and square footage/acreage added in addition to filling vacancies in existing commercial buildings. For each of the build -out scenarios shown in this section, approximate additional commercial square footage is shown based on concept -level estimates, as well as a maximum amount of additional office or residential square footage, assumed to be in upper stories. These maximums are based on assumptions of upper story build out of all office or all residential; again, the actual built uses would depend on market demand, limitations when accounting more specifically for development requirements, and other external trends, likely resulting in some combination of residential and office. Approximations for a maximum number of employees or residential units that could be added based on the square footage maximums are also included. The project team presented these scenarios to attendees of Workshop 2 to understand preferences for these different scenarios, the findings of which are discussed further at the end of this section and in Section 7.0, Appendix B. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 12 Packet Pg. 493 9.A.3.e US 41 Near Naples Manor Existing Conditions This site is furthest from the more urban node of Downtown Naples. Many of the streets connecting to US 41 in this area are neighborhood roads, and these connections to neighborhoods such as Naples Manor are fairly regular. The commercial lots along this corridor are also relatively shallow. As a result, the project team considered the lowest levels of potential intensity for this site, relative to the other sites. Map 3 provides a closer aerial view of the area. Table 1 shows the existing land uses for the area. Single-family and multi -family residential makes up much of the land use square footage in this area, given the surroundings of this segment of the corridor. Map 4 shows the zoning for this area. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 13 Packet Pg. 494 uolsuedx3 V33118 On-m) ABIJOAO P83 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld GUM Ueld Ieul=l dd3N3 :WOW43BIN ri as Q � of d m � Y V R d -ink 9.A.3.e Table 1: US 41 at Naples Manor and Surroundings — Existing Land Uses 40 Existing Land Use Vacant 36 9% Single -Family Residential' 236 62% 1,801,005 Multi -Family Residential 20 5% 1,951,428 Commercial 21 5% 168,478 Golf/Parking/Tourism 1 0% Industrial 2 1% 57,791 Institutional 0 0% 31,547 Government 8 2% Other/Utility 59 15% 20,978 Total 382 100.0%3 4,031,227 'Where applicable 2Does not include residences formally designated mobile homes. 'There is a slight difference between total percentage as shown and summed percentages of land uses due to rounding. Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 45 % 48 % 4% 1% 1% .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 15 Packet Pg. 496 uolsuedx3 V33118 On-m) ABIJOAO P83 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : GUM Ueld Ieul=l dd3N3 :WOW43BIN N 9.A.3.e Land Use Concept Build -Out Scenarios An 88-acre area of this section of US 41 was studied through more detailed aerial photography to develop the following build -out scenarios. Source: PlusUrbia Design A closer look at traffic connectivity in this area (Map 5) shows the near alignment of Myrtle Lane and Broward Street, intersecting with Tamiami Trail with the presence of a traffic signal. The fact that it is near the center of this node makes that intersection a natural place to start building a walkable, mixed use center. Additionally, the west side of Tamiami Trail lacks a parallel lane to link the commercial properties in the way that Floridan Avenue links the parcels on the east side. Such a lane would provide connectivity for the western side of Tamiami Trail and reduce the traffic pressure along Tamiami Trail. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 17 Packet Pg. 498 9.A.3.e Map 5: US 41 at Naples Manor Connectivity Analysis I Traffic signal Texas Ave — route to school r� Q East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 18 Packet Pg. 499 9.A.3.e US 41 @ NAPLES MANOR ucxr CONCEPT Source: PlusUrbia Design Transportation and landscaping highlights: • US 41 redesign as multi -way boulevard as it passes to the west of Naples Manor. This design would allow for higher speed traffic to move in the lanes of the central thoroughfare and lower speed traffic with a high degree of access and parking to be relegated to the side lanes (similar to Floridan Avenue on the east side); the side lanes and central thoroughfare are separated by a median that contains a protected multi -use pathway with trees. • Improved connections to neighborhoods, including additional landscaping • New connections between neighborhoods and US 41 via parking lots, which can help reduce block size • Enhanced street crossings • Protected intersection; may include elements such as: corner curb extensions where cyclists and pedestrians can wait for the crossing signal; clear crosswalks for pedestrians and a bike crossing zone, which are striped and positioned to maximize visibility for turning cars; stop bars for cars located slightly farther back than a conventional intersection's stop bars, allowing for wider crosswalks; and a textured area that assists with traffic calming • Street parking East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 19 Packet Pg. 500 9.A.3.e 0 Native plantings: multi -way boulevard can be planted with multiple rows of Florida Royal Palms; canopy trees on other streets might include: Florida Live Oak, Gumbo Limbo, Bald Cypress, Florida Maple, Paradise Tree, Satinleaf, Florida Slash Pine, Pigeon Plum, Dahoon Holly, and Wild Tamarind, supplemented by palms such as cabbage palm, Florida Silver Palm, Keys Brittle Thatch Palm, Buccaneer Palm, and Saw Palmetto US 41 @ NAPLES MANOR Mooennr¢ concerT DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES Commercial Scl Ft Added 254,000 Max. Office/Res. Sq Ft Added 59 000 Max Employees/Units Added 700 employees/ 40 units LEGEND Existing Buildings - 3 story Infill / Redevelopment 1 story Infill / Redevelopment M Demolished Structures East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 20 Packet Pg. 501 9.A.3.e Land use and design highlights (in addition to highlights from Light concept): • Spaces along street frontage filled in with buildings that hug the edge of parcels to support walkability • Mix of ground -floor commercial and some multi -story mixed -use with commercial and office/residential (more limited build -out in this concept); warehouse space can be encouraged to redevelop as mixed -use • "Gas backwards" gas station design- placement of the fuel pumps at the rear of the site and the store at the front of the site along the roadway, making the store easily approachable by pedestrians and cyclists Source: concept images - PlusUrbia Design, calculations — Tindale Oliver Notes on calculations: • Numbers based on conceptual design and rounded. The calculations shown herein are conceptual and do not guarantee potential build -out. • Maximum square footage of either office or residential indicates that which could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of the two would be possible. • Maximum employees or units indicate those that could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of office and residential would be possible. Assumed 1400 sq ft unit, 300 sq ft of office per employee, 500 sq ft of retail per employee. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 21 Packet Pg. 502 9.A.3.e US 41 @ NAPLES MANOR ROBUST CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT Commercial Sq Ft Added 329,000 Max. Office/Res. Sq Ft Added 170,000 Max Employees/Units Added 1,200 employees/ 120 units LEGEND Existing Buildings 3 story Infill / Redevelopment 1 story Infill / Redevelopment M Demolished Structures East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 22 Packet Pg. 503 9.A.3.e Highlights include those of the Light and Moderate concepts, with a more complete build -out across the site. Source: concept images - PlusUrbia Design, calculations — Tindale Oliver Notes on calculations: • Numbers based on conceptual design and rounded. The calculations shown herein are conceptual and do not guarantee potential build -out. • Maximum square footage of either office or residential indicates that which could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of the two would be possible. • Maximum employees or units indicate those that could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of office and residential would be possible. Assumed 1400 sq ft unit, 300 sq ft of office per employee, 500 sq ft of retail per employee. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 23 Packet Pg. 504 9.A.3.e US 41 and Rattlesnake Hammock Existing conditions This site lies at the intersection of US 41 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, approaching the urban node of Downtown Naples; as a result, the project team considered it to have an opportunity for more intensity relative to the Naples Manor site, if desired. The unique roadway layout includes radial streets. Map 6 shows the area in more detail. Table 2 summarizes the existing land uses in terms of acreage and square footage. The area includes a variety of commercial and residential uses, including both multi -family and single-family housing that make up significant shares of the square footage in the area. Map 7 shows the zoning for the area. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 24 Packet Pg. 505 uolsuedx3 V33118 On-m) ABIJOAO P83 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : GUM Ueld Ieul=l dd3N3 :WOW43BIN co 0 LO d m to Y N U 9.A.3.e Table 2: US 41/Rattlesnake Hammock and Surroundings - Existing Land Uses Vacant 24 8% Single -Family Residential 112 40% 1,226,634 Mobile Home 2 1% 19,476 Multi -Family Residential 18 7% 1,334,173 Commercial 68 24% 501,879 Golf/Parking/Tourism 1 0% Institutional 7 2% 191,282 Government 50 18% Other/Utility 1 0% 11,092 Total 284 100.0% 3,284,536 'Where applicable Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 6% 0% 100% .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 26 Packet Pg. 507 uolsuedx3 V33118 On-m) ABIJOAO P83 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : GUM Ueld Ieul=l dd3N3 :WOW43BIN i H v m � n 0 7 m o LL (D v U x m m 2 2 2 a w 0 m m Q U U CD : a K�� Of It K a w U N�,%%�* �j**IY*�, �� JVX? , 1 o � a cl Ha Y Q� flex q Q O�Jg - aQ7ogleU peed do OQ' O 1'� �~ /yam• i oqo N 9.A.3.e Land Use Concept Build -Out Scenarios A 109-acre area around the intersection was studied through more detailed aerial photography to develop the following land use concept. Source: PlusUrbia Design A transportation connectivity analysis on the site (Map 8) shows potential opportunities to connect parking lots and parcels, reducing pressure on certain intersections and reduce the size of large blocks. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 28 Packet Pg. 509 9.A.3.e Map 8: US 41/Rattlesnake Hammock Connectivity Analysis AA7�--106; C ca d R c LL d U Z W r C d E t r .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 29 Packet Pg. 510 9.A.3.e US 41/RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCKLIGHT CONCEPT Source: PlusUrbia Design Transportation and landscaping highlights: • Protected intersection at US 41/Rattlesnake Hammock Road (see Naples Manor description for details) • Other enhanced street crossings with adjusted signal timing to aid pedestrian crossings • Wider sidewalks • Bike lanes with buffer zone in place of conventional bike lanes • Planting strips, native plants (see Naples Manor description for more details) • Hidden parking screened in mid -block lots • Street parking • Cardinal Way is a local street that can be made for walkable with sidewalks, parallel parking, street trees, lanterns and street furniture • Large surface parking lots can be transformed into parking decks with mixed -use development, freeing up more space for new retail, housing, civic uses and open space East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 30 Packet Pg. 511 9.A.3.e US 41/RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK MODERATE concEVT 4* Commercial Sq Ft Added Max. Office/Res. Sq Ft Added Max Employees/Units Added L11 J* 3727000 372,000 21000 employees/ 270 units LEGEND Existing Buildings 3 story Infill / Redevelopment 1 story Infill / Redevelopment Demolished Structures .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 31 Packet Pg. 512 9.A.3.e Land use and design highlights (in addition to highlights from Light concept): • Spaces along street frontage filled in with buildings, shaping the streets; corner properties are developed to hug the intersection, creating a focal point for those traveling along US 41. • Mix of ground -floor commercial and some multi -story mixed -use with commercial and office/residential; anchor stores can be left in place. Source: concept images - PlusUrbia Design; calculations — Tindale Oliver Notes on calculations: • Numbers based on conceptual design and rounded. The calculations shown herein are conceptual and do not guarantee potential build -out. • Maximum square footage of either office or residential indicates that which could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of the two would be possible. • Maximum employees or units indicate those that could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of office and residential would be possible. Assumed 1400 sq ft unit 300 sq ft of office per employee, 500 sq ft of retail per employee. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 32 Packet Pg. 513 9.A.3.e US 41 /RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROBUST CONCEPT Commercial Sq Ft Added Max. Office/Res. Sq Ft Added Max Employees/Units Added 4545000 4549000 2,400 employees/ 320 units I LEGEND Existing Buildings - 3 story Infill / Redevelopment 1 story Infill / Redevelopment Demolished Structures East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 33 Packet Pg. 514 9.A.3.e Highlights include those of the Light and Moderate concepts, with a more complete build -out across the site. Source: concept images - PlusUrbia Design, calculations — Tindale Oliver Notes on calculations: • Numbers based on conceptual design and rounded. The calculations shown herein are conceptual and do not guarantee potential build -out. • Maximum square footage of either office or residential indicates that which could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of the two would be possible. • Maximum employees or units indicate those that could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of office and residential would be possible. Assumed 1400 sq ft unit, 300 sq ft of office per employee, 500 sq ft of retail per employee. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 34 Packet Pg. 515 9.A.3.e Towne Centre Existing conditions The Towne Centre site (Map 9) is a large open strip commercial mall that has been the topic of redevelopment discussions in recent years. The lot depths are approximately double the size of other commercial lots fronting the US 41 corridor, allowing more flexibility in its redevelopment. This site is also the closest to Downtown Naples. As a result, the project team considers this site an opportunity for the most added intensity, relative to the other sites considered, if desired. Table 3 shows acreages and building square footage of existing land uses for the Towne Centre site and its surroundings, based on the extent shown in Map 9. Much of the acreage is government -related due to the Collier County Government Center in the area, just outside the Study Area boundary. Commercial uses make up about a third of acreage and square footage. Multi -family residential is far less prominent in terms of acreage, yet much more prominent in terms of square footage due to density. Map 10 shows the current zoning for this area. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 35 Packet Pg. 516 uolsuedx3 V30118 (3f1-l3) ABIJGAO JSe3 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : SUM Ueld IeUl3 dOON3 :;uauayoejjv .• i o 9.A.3.e Table 3: Towne Centre and Surroundings - Existing Land Uses Vacant 18 6% Single -Family Residential' 44 15% 321,006 Multi -Family Residential 5 2% 1,296,884 Commercial 94 32% 844,774 Golf/Parking/Tourism 1 0% Industrial 0 0% 2,880 Institutional 9 3% 68,364 Government 121 41% Other/Utility 3 1% 7,764 Total 296 100.0% 2,541,672 'Where applicable Does not include residences formally designated mobile homes. Source: Florida Department of Revenue, 2019 13% 51% 33% 0% 3% 0% 100% .r a East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 37 Packet Pg. 518 uolsuedx3 V33118 On-m) ABIJOAO P83 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld GUM Ueld Ieul=l dd3N3 :WOW43BIN ri LO d L' m ao co a eoog W m a` a N U m � Z V U CU7 a F~-vj a V N a 6-1 N 9.A.3.e Land Use Concept Build -Out Scenarios A 98-acre area around the Town Centre site, including the parcels across US 41 from the commercial mall, was studied through more detailed aerial photography to develop the land use concept. Source: PlusUrbia Design A connectivity analysis at the Towne Centre (Map 11) illustrates how the large surface parking lot at the Towne Centre mall site can be broken up into smaller blocks to promote additional development opportunities and walkable connections. The canal may also be evaluated for a walkable connection and open space/gathering space along its route. Parcels along the west side of US 41 can also be better connected. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 39 Packet Pg. 520 9.A.3.e Map 11: Towne Centre Connectivity Analysis East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 40 Packet Pg. 521 9.A.3.e TOWNE CENTRE Source: PlusUrbia Design Transportation and landscaping highlights: • Existing parking lot broken into blocks with more connections between US 41 and large retail at back of site • More walkable connection along the canal at the northern end of site, creating open/gathering space • Bike lanes with buffer zone in place of conventional bike lanes • Enhanced street crossings with curb extensions and cyclist -friendly signals to create protected intersections (see fuller description in Naples Manor site description) • Street parking and opportunity for parking decks lined with mixed -use development; these improvements support parking once and walking between establishments • Native plants (see Naples Manor site description for more details) East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 41 Packet Pg. 522 9.A.3.e TOWNE CENTRE MODERATE CONCEPT Commercial Sq Ft Added 770QQQ LEGEND Max. Office/Res. Sq Ft Added 770,000 Existing Buildings 41100 3 story Infill / Redevelopment Max Employees/Units Added employees/ 1 story Infill / Redevelopment 550 units Demolished Structures East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 42 Packet Pg. 523 9.A.3.e Land use and design highlights (in addition to highlights from Light concept): • Buildings and green space along new connections • Opportunity for ground -floor commercial or multi -story mixed -use with commercial and office/residential; mixed -use buildings are up to three stories to line potential parking decks; opportunity to evaluate the transition of the trailer park at Neapolitan Circle to mixed -use development with relocation assistance for trailers • Nearly every block has green space Source: concept images - PlusUrbia Design; calculations — Tindale Oliver Notes on calculations: • Numbers based on conceptual design and rounded. The calculations shown herein are conceptual and do not guarantee potential build -out. • Maximum square footage of either office or residential indicates that which could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of the two would be possible. • Maximum employees or units indicate those that could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of office and residential would be possible. Assumed 1400 sq ft unit, 300 sq ft of office per employee, 500 sq ft of retail per employee. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 43 Packet Pg. 524 9.A.3.e TOWNE CENTRE ROBUST CONCEPT Commercial Sq Ft Added Max. Office/Res. Sq Ft Added Max Employees/Units Added 905,000 9055000 4,830 employees/ 650 units LEGEND Existing Buildings - 3 story Infill / Redevelopment 1 story Infill / Redevelopment M Demolished Structures East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 44 Packet Pg. 525 9.A.3.e Highlights include those of the Light and Moderate concepts, with a more complete build -out across the site. Source: concept images - PlusUrbia Design, calculations — Tindale Oliver Notes on calculations: • Numbers based on conceptual design and rounded. The calculations shown herein are conceptual and do not guarantee potential build -out. • Maximum square footage of either office or residential indicates that which could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of the two would be possible. • Maximum employees or units indicate those that could be added given the concept design and based on whether net square footage added was all office or all residential, yet some combination of office and residential would be possible. Assumed 1400 sq ft unit, 300 sq ft of office per employee, 500 sq ft of retail per employee. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 45 Packet Pg. 526 9.A.3.e Concept Preferences During the public workshop held September 10, 2020, attendees had the opportunity to participate in a poll on these land use concept build -out scenarios to indicate their most and least preferred scenarios. Table 4 shows the results based on the results from 66 to 88 respondents (the number varied by question). The moderate scenario for each site was: • the highest or second highest (see the following note on the US 41/Rattlesnake Hammock site) share of "most preferred" responses and • had the lowest share by far of "least preferred" responses. Note that the percentages shown include results from direct responses received via the polling program, as well as responses typed into the virtual workshop platform. For more details on polling results, see Section 7.0, Appendix B. Table 4: Land Use Build -Out Scenario Polling Results Light 24% US 41 at Naples Manor Moderate 37% Robust 37% Light 22% US 41/Rattlesnake Hammock Moderate 30% Robust 47% Light 16% Towne Centre Moderate 53% Robust 30% Light 51% US 41 at Naples Manor Moderate 3% Robust 45% Light 67% US 41/Rattlesnake Hammock Moderate 2% Robust 30% Towne Centre Light 52% Moderate 3% East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 46 Packet Pg. 527 9.A.3.e Robust 44% Regulatory Considerations Technical Memorandum 1 provides an overview of existing Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land Development Code (LDC) regulations that pertain to the East Naples Study Area in general. This section indicates where adjustments should be further evaluated to implement the land use concepts and preferences presented herein, with a focus on facilitating mixed -use development given its inclusion in the preferred moderate scenarios. LDC adjustments could be implemented as an overlay. Development Standards to Promote Land Use Concepts Allowed Density and Intensity As noted in Technical Memorandum 1, there are density restrictions in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), which contains the US 41 corridor in the East Naples Study Area. The Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code both indicate density restrictions to 4 units per acre (UPA), with an exception for use of the affordable housing density bonus. The mixed -use concepts presented in this plan would require increases in density allowances; language would also need to be evaluated to reflect the intent to target more dense/intense mixed use along this major corridor (aside from the currently formally -designated Activity Centers). Existing regulations do not apply significant restrictions on office and commercial development intensity (Floor Area Ratios, FAR), so those are not constraining to proposed concepts. -oostol Considerations Given the timelines of the build -out scenarios, some of which may take 10 years or more, the County should evaluate the need to adjust criteria for long-term build-out/redevelopment in the CHHA, particularly as environmental conditions such as sea -level rise change or if the area experiences increased vulnerability to coastal hazards; this need may be accelerated if significant increases to density were allowed and incentivized to facilitate more robust build - out scenarios. These factors may also have implications for Special Flood Hazard Areas defined by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and present in the Study Area. At a minimum, the County will need to maintain consistency with existing State statutes and account for National Flood Insurance Program requirements from FEMA (the County affirms its participation in this program in Policy 12.2.3 of the Growth Management Plan); this effort could also help further analyze resources needed for proper design/construction in the area over time and how constraining these needs may be to overall development levels. This evaluation might include, among other factors, building design, infrastructure, evacuation, and flood zone designations and the related Community Rating System Classification. It can also account for changes in services/protections provided by natural elements, such as changes to natural Q buffers. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 47 Packet Pg. 528 9.A.3.e Note that there are existing requirements and guidance in place for flood plains and development in the CHHA; examples include those in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element for infrastructure design (Policy 12.2.6), structures that suffer certain types of foundational damage (Policy 12.3.6), and land acquisition by the County during post - disaster recovery (Policy 12.3.8). Additionally, there are construction standards for the Special Flood Hazard Areas and CHHA in Section 3.02 of the Land Development Code. These standards require elevation of new or substantially improved residential and non-residential development to base flood elevation/base flood level (non-residential has the option to waterproof), among other supplemental building design standards. Allowed Uses C-3, C-4, and CPUD zoning categories are prevalent along the US 41 corridor. C-3 and C-4 capture many of the desired uses indicated in outreach; only C-3 allows for mixed -use with residential, with additional design requirements. This allowance can be evaluated for C-4 in this area where commercial and office uses are compatible with residential. Regarding mixed -use requirements that pertain to C-3, the requirement that residential be limited to owners or lessees of retail would create a significant obstacle to creating upper floor residential and a mixed -use environment. Live -work buildings are only one type of mixed -use development, and the scale and phased build -out of development would be better supported by having upper floors that are financially independent of ground floor tenants (no lessor -lessee relationship). Furthermore, requiring residential to be located above principal uses for mixed -use in C-3 (Sec 2.03.03) would eliminate the possibility of urban flats or stoops or other building types that engage the ground floor with residential units. Allowing horizontal mix of uses with ground floor residential would be useful where there are frontages not suitable for retail. The Towne Centre concepts also illustrates the transition of a Tractor Trailer -Recreational Vehicle Campground District (TTRVC) area to a mixed -use area along the corridor. Further outreach and suitable alternative locations for the existing use should be identified if this re- zoning option is pursued. The heavier nature of commercial use types in C-5 zoning may be less suited to the desired uses identified from outreach. Remaining C-5 designations along this segment of the corridor could be evaluated for re -zoning to C-3 or C-4 as part of the implementation steps. Additional standards that can be applied for undesired uses are addressed later in this section Heights The two-story height limit for mixed -use development in C-3 (Sec. 2.03.03) would need to be increased to three stories to accommodate concepts provided. The C-3 district has a general height limit of 50 feet, and C-4 has a height limit of 75 feet. These are likely sufficient to facilitate multi -story mixed -use development at a maximum of 3 stories in moderate scenarios. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 48 Packet Pg. 529 9.A.3.e Setbacks and Buffers The amounts by which buildings must be set back from the lot line (setback) for C-3 are as follows: • Minimum front yard: 50% of building height, but not less than 25 feet • Minimum side yard (non -waterfront): 50% of building height, but not less than 15 feet • Minimum rear yard (non -waterfront): 50% of building height, but not less than 15 feet Setbacks for C-4 are as follows: • Minimum front yard: 50% of building height, but not less than 25 feet. Structures 50 feet or more in height = 25 feet plus an additional 1 foot of setback for each foot of building height over 50 feet • Minimum side yard (non -waterfront): 50% of building height, but not less than 15 feet. • Minimum rear yard (non -waterfront): 50% of building height, but not less than 15 feet Setbacks need to be re-evaluated to balance community preferences for setbacks and landscaping with the ability to create more walkable environments. Current standards make it difficult to front the streets in some of the concepts shown in this section and promote walkability. Front setbacks can range down to eight feet in parts of certain concepts. Adjustment to a build -to line or build -to zone, which is not dependent on building height or a maximum front setback, would be more effective to deliver a more walkable environment. Additional provisions may be evaluated where larger front setbacks are retained to include sidewalk space or other amenities within the setback; this effort should include an evaluation of landscape requirements for foundation plantings to ensure that they do not create a barrier for pedestrian activity. Generally, commercial ground floors or even residential urban ground floors with stoops, dooryards, and entranceway plantings can make pedestrian access to buildings difficult. Additional special considerations include evaluating the setback requirements from the canal in the Towne Centre example to facilitate a walkway and open/gathering space along that corridor. Buffer requirements in the TTRVC district (10-ft minimum front yard, 5-ft minimum side yard for non -waterfront, 8-ft minimum rear -yard for non -waterfront) may also make it difficult to create the multi -way boulevard streetscape shown in the Towne Centre concept, an issue which could be addressed through re -zoning and transitioning this area to mixed -use, as noted previously. Finally, there are buffer requirements in Section 4.06.02 between C-3 and C-4 uses, which only apply to external boundaries of mixed -use projects in C-3. Reduced buffer requirements can be evaluated between similar types of commercial uses and any expansions of mixed -use in C-4, to promote more compact development. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 49 Packet Pg. 530 9.A.3.e Parking Regarding the amount of parking required, requirements are generally high and can be evaluated for decreases. Evaluation for a set standard reduction for mixed -use development might also be considered; the County Land Development illustrates an example of this approach with Planned Unit Development (PUD) standards: required off-street parking Code spaces in neighborhood village centers are reduced to 50-75% of typical standards, a requirement facilitated by their pedestrian -friendly design. Currently, the mixed -use provisions for C-3 allow for a reduction based on a shared parking analysis; if a standard reduction is not pursued, this sort of analysis might also be extended to mixed uses in C-4, particularly if mixed - use containing residential is allowed in certain instances. Regarding parking structure and space design, an exception on the prohibition of parking structures facing the primary facade should be considered for mixed -use development in the C- 3 district (Sec. 4.02.38). This would be useful if an existing strip mall may have a parking structure built facing the primary facade on the other side of newly built internal "street." Furthermore, minimum 9-ft width for on -street parallel parking is excessive and should be re- evaluated. There are many successful examples throughout the US of 7-ft or 8-ft wide parking bays. Open Space The 30% open space requirement for development in C-3 and C-4 districts would make it difficult to implement some of the proposed concepts unless pervious pavement, streets that can be closed for events and used as plaza space, and green roofs and amenity decks for parking structures are counted. Additionally, maintaining and preserving green space emerged as a key priority during outreach. One option to evaluate is an in -lieu fee for open space, which can help keep development compact and concentrated in a walkable node while allowing for open space to be aggregated at a site nearby in the community. This approach may allow for a larger open space site with more options for what it will contain yet may also require more administrative efforts from the County to ensure the aggregated open space is located and properly maintained. These options should be weighed with additional options for public green space (discussed further in Section 5.0). Alternatively, open space design standards can be evaluated to ensure quality green space; heightened open space design standards could also be the focus for incentives or financial support to obtain more naturally oriented open space and infrastructure on the site while offsetting additional costs to developers. Site Connectivity and Access Regarding site connectivity, mixed -use design criteria for C-3 (Sec. 4.02.38) recommend a grid street system and bicycle, pedestrian, and pathway connections to the extent possible to support interconnectivity in the development; Section 6.06 encourages increased East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 50 Packet Pg. 531 9.A.3.e interconnectivity. More explicit provisions can be evaluated to facilitate the addition of connections to break up extremely large blocks. Regarding site access, explicit requirements for shared access can be evaluated for owners of neighboring properties. Commercial Planned Unit Developments Much of the study area is zoned as PUD. PUD design criteria (Sec. 4.07.00) should be evaluated in light of the potential adjustments mentioned herein to guide development in areas under consideration for a re -zone to PUD with commercial uses or mixed -use, as well as redevelopment of existing commercial PUDs. Development Standards for Undesired Uses The 2018 US 41 Corridor Study identified gas stations and storage facilities as undesirable uses for the area based on outreach; many comments collected as part of this planning effort also noted carwashes and fast food as undesirable. A full prohibition of new undesired uses in the area can require a strong legal basis and defense to implement; as a result, a more moderate approach is often used that involves placing limitations on the location, design, and operations for these new uses. This approach, in coordination with allowances and incentives for desired uses, helps bring a more favorable mix of uses into an area. Regarding location and types of development with undesired uses, the following are adjustments already proposed to or under consideration by the County that can be continued through the review and/or implementation process: • The Land Development Code already includes separation standards for facilities with fuel pumps, at 500 feet; the 2018 Study recommended increasing spacing t a quarter mile (1,320 feet) and spacing could range higher (e.g., 5,000 feet). • Regarding warehousing, the County has already considered some options for placing some controls on this use. The latest effort for consideration, as detailed in Technical Memorandum 1, is to address concerns with the self -storage use by allowing it in C-4 commercial districts only in combination with other permitted uses as part of a mixed - use development and if it occupies less than 50% of the total area of the first floor. Regarding design of undesired uses, the 2018 study noted in its summary of findings support for landscaping and screening. The County has additional design and site requirements for several undesired uses. Facilities with fuel pumps have special design standards that include additional buffer and landscaping requirements (Sec. 5.05.05); there are additional general design standards for self -storage buildings (5.05.08) and carwashes abutting residential districts (5.05.11). There may be some additional adjustments to these standards to evaluate, including expansion of these design requirements to remaining undesirable uses and placement of fuel pumps in the back of the site with a convenience store fronting the main road. Given the East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 51 Packet Pg. 532 9.A.3.e existence of design requirements in conjunction with continued feedback from the community to further address these uses, efforts may need to be more focused on spacing, better integration of certain uses with other desirable uses, and generally increasing desirable uses overall to change the use landscape. Example of convenience store fronting the intersection with fuel pumps at the back in Gainesville, FL; image source: Google Maps Development Review Incentives to Promote Land Use Concepts Development review incentives can be considered to help incentivize development based on the land use concepts for the study area and other appropriate areas. Specific incentives discussed during a stakeholder meeting with representatives of the development community include fee waivers and expedited permitting. Developers also noted that funding tools specific to investment and improvements in this area may be helpful. One option specifically noted was Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for transportation, infrastructure, and other improvements. This approach takes a portion of property taxes generated in the area and ensure they are reinvested back into the specific boundaries of the area for a defined set of improvement types. These revenues are relatively flexible in terms of items they can be used to fund. TIF is currently used in several parts of the County, including Innovation Zones at Golden Gate City, Activity Center 9 at the Collier Boulevard/I-75 interchange, and Ave Maria. Adding a TIF District in East Naples should be weighed in conjunction with these existing districts and other under consideration. Another tool for development financing specific to a portion of this area, shown in Map 12, that includes the part of the US 41 at Naples Manor site is the Opportunity Zone. This option was created by 2017 federal tax reforms that allow tax incentives for those who invest eligible gains (capital and other) in a Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF). These funds support investments of in qualifying business properties in areas identified as economically distressed and designated as Opportunity Zones; State governors have some discretion on where these zones are designated, with approval from the federal government. Opportunity Zones funds for collecting East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 52 Packet Pg. 533 9.A.3.e investment dollars are created by private sector taxpayers. Developers can identify and interface with managers of these funds, with assistance from the County to market the vision for the area that includes the Opportunity Zone and specific investment opportunities. Regulations to guide development should be in place prior to attracting investment. Investors can contribute money from eligible gains reported for tax purposes through 2026, so marketing efforts would need to be in place prior to that time. Note that opportunities for this particular zone may be somewhat limited given that much of the area is taken up by established residential neighborhoods. Map 12: Opportunity Zone in the East Naples Study Area Ne Nam mw* Rd Vewnawalk4r S,,, F''alm Rif 12D21Q1 Source: US Department of Treasury East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 53 Packet Pg. 534 9.A.3.e 4.0 Transportation Options Bicycle &t Pedestrian Connections Off Main Roadways Regarding bicycle and pedestrian connections, generally most neighborhood roadways and all major roadways in the study area have complete sidewalks; however, many lack either on - street bicycle lanes or parallel multi -use path facilities. Notable deficiencies include: • Rattlesnake Hammock Drive from US 41 to Santa Barbara Boulevard (bike facilities) • Lakewood Boulevard (bike facilities) • County Barn Road (sidewalks) • Wildflower Way (bike facilities) • Lely Resort Boulevard (bike facilities) • Lely Cultural Parkway (bike facilities) • Grand Lely Drive (bike facilities) Additionally, the shared -use pathway shown along Collier Boulevard is more limited in width than is typically preferred, at about 6-ft wide instead of 12 ft. Although roadways such as US 41, Collier Boulevard, and Davis Boulevard have on -street bike lanes, current guidance from FDOT and FHWA suggests that separated bicycle facilities are preferred along these higher -speed roadways. Along lower -speed roadways (35 MPH or less), on -street bike lanes or separate bicycle/shared-use paths are acceptable. In addition to enhancing/completing the study area's major roadway bicycle network and addressing roadway segments with missing sidewalks, the East Naples community may wish to consider making strategic non -motorized network connections to provide access to amenities without requiring cyclists and pedestrians to rely on perimeter arterials such as US 41 and Collier Boulevard. Figure 4 imagines a new pathway connection between a private road in the Grand Lely subdivision and the Donna Fiala Eagle Lakes Community Park Complex. The path shown in red is the route from a home to the park (2.25 miles) and the Parkside Elementary School Campus (3 miles); the path shown in blue using the new trail connection reduces the trip to the park to only 0.75 miles and the school trip to less than 0.25 miles. Neither trip requires travel along busy arterial or collector streets. These types of improvements can add to improvements noted in the Section 3.0 land use concepts such as landscaped right-of-way along local street connections between commercial sites and neighborhoods and intersections noted for local streets. Other comments and options for implementation of recreational trails are noted in the green space discussion of Section 5.0. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 54 Packet Pg. 535 9.A.3.e Figure 4: Pathway Connection Grand Lely Subdivision/ Donna Fiala Eagle Lakes Community Park Main Roadway Improvements In addition to bicycle and pedestrian connections off the main roadways, there are major thoroughfare improvement options that complement and provide alternatives to those provided in the land use concepts; following are examples of how they can be applied to US 41. General mobility strategies that can be used to enhance thoroughfares in this area include: • Short- to mid-term intersection improvements to implement design best practices for pedestrians and widening existing sidewalks or constructing new shared -use paths to provide for low -stress bicycle facilities • Applying alternative intersection concepts to make major intersections safer, easier to cross, and more efficient consistent with FHWA and FDOT Intersection Control Evaluation policies and procedures • Applying FDOT context classification criteria to establish target speeds and identify short � and longer -term design interventions to maintain roadway capacity but manage speeds and provide better, safer facilities for all travel modes East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 55 Packet Pg. 536 9.A.3.e Figure 5 shows examples of short- and mid-term intersection improvements. These types of improvements do not change the fundamental operations or capacity of an intersection but create a safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians by making the intersection more compact and affecting changes to geometry to reduce turning speeds. Figure 5: Short -Term Intersection Improvement Examples Use channelizing island to make I 1 crossings shorter and allow Reduce curb radii to slow pedestrians to cross in stages. right turn movements and make crossings shorter. �..f rf.. Clearly define pedestrian M path across multiple adjacent driveways. Where feasible, pass crosswalk through median - to reduce conflict with left "r turning vehicles. 4M Widen sidewalks to create v shared -use paths for cyclists and pedestrians. Figure 6 shows the existing cross section of US 41; the roadway has an approximate right-of-way width of 200 feet for much of the segment in this area. Figures 7 and S show two concepts of how to modify the roadway to reduce speeds and enhance livability while maintaining the roadway's capacity. In the first example a wide median is created by moving the bicycle facilities to a separated pathway, eliminating right turn lanes, and slightly narrowing travel lane widths. The wide median allows for implementation of alternative intersection concepts which can simplify intersections, reduce crashes, and increase roadway capacity. The second example shows a more compact roadway with a frontage road system to handle local traffic and bicycle & pedestrian activity. Both examples use landscape features to create a sense of "enclosure" to help reduce traffic speeds. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 56 Packet Pg. 537 urns x] ¥33l19On-m ABIOA O P83�vSn-0 6 000 Z Z d:G M umd mm]dQON]:Wmm43Bn¥ co w 2 � 2 \ � 0 . � \Ef - =a- ` 2 - � - - f § / 2 \ : a � o %ze § o� - § j@\\£)\ 2 ) _ f a > & � - k \\ a }//§{\§ { Q \7 & 2 `a/SE ! }\j \)§fee } � m W. S {g\ Q Lul }e�\ % - - - G - a k \/ / LZ o [ � f .> e cu ] tom{ 2 - ) /k�j \ca CL E \�r § /2\E)\ _ o � $ / T T -- T T T ) uolsuedx3 V33118 On-m) ABIJOAO P83 6v sn - 0£60000£ZOZ-ld : GUM Ueld Ieul=l dd3N3 :WOW43BIN z, T T T' 9.A.3.e 5.0 Additional Recommendations Green Space Preservation and increases of green space were noted often in public engagement activities such as the online public survey and workshop comments. There are important distinctions to be made between private and public green space as well as green space for more recreational purposes versus more preservation or conservation purposes (although both of those aims may be served by a common site). In terms of private open space, many residential neighborhoods in this area incorporate private recreational spaces, such as golf courses. The land use concepts in Section 3.0 also highlight ways that green space and landscaping can be incorporated into new private commercial or mixed -use development and right-of-way design. Regarding public open space, Technical Memorandum 1 measured access to the County's community and regional parks facilities, finding that many of these are accessible within a 20- minute drive or less. These facilities are also guided by Level of Service (LOS) standards laid out in the Growth Management Plan and analyzed in more detailed as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, among other measures. Efforts to increase public recreation and preservation/conservation green spaces would need to be considered in the County's Parks and Recreation Master Plan update processes, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization MPO bicycle and pedestrian planning processes that include trails planning, and associated capital planning processes to incorporated these aims in broader planning and funding (both capital and operations/maintenance) considerations; more implementation details are provided in Section 6.0. For desired improvements above and beyond the typical level of service Rookery Bay and surrounding natural areas are south of East Naples Study Area. Image Source: https://www.paradisecoast.com1 standards, the community could pursue the option of creating an MSTU to finance additional green space/parks improvements and related maintenance. This option has been used for the Golden Gate area to support a community center. Branding and Marketing CamDaiLr Branding and marketing emerged as key topics of interest in the public engagement for the 2018 US 41 Corridor study as well as engagement efforts for this project. Several comments indicated an interest in renaming the area (for example, South Naples) and basing the branding East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 59 Packet Pg. 540 9.A.3.e on natural amenities of this area and other attractions such as parks, the Collier County History Museum, the botanical gardens, arts attractions, and other amenities that include those in the Community Redevelopment Area to the east. See supporting document Technical Memorandum 1 for more information. These efforts can build on the general vision themes of this plan to evaluate, adjust, and/or create community names, associated logos, design and color schemes, architectural styles, marketing campaign materials (e.g., brochure, video), design and placement of branded signs (e.g., at gateway locations into the community), among other items. The marketing effort can also include raising awareness of investment opportunities via the area's Opportunity Zone, discussed in Section 3.0. This effort should include further Example of monument sign and gateway feature with landscaping from Treviso Bay community. Image Source: Google Maps coordination with community groups (e.g., East Naples Civic Association, BEONE merchants association, and other stakeholder from this study listed in the Public Involvement Plan) , County planning and zoning staff, County communication staff, members of the development and financing community, and others. Recvding Dron-Off Center The current recycling drop- off center serving the East Naples area needs to find a new location due to an expiring lease at the current location. This is an operation that would require at least an acre of land, operate during daytime hours, and have trucks visiting twice weekly for hauling materials Example of recycling drop-off center. Image Source: Collier County as well as an additional truck visiting five times monthly during low traffic times. Enhanced design, such as specific architectural style elements, landscaping, screen, and other elements, could be considered for the site. During the second public workshop for this project, the project team presented information on such a facility and polled attendees to see if they would be in favor of having a well -designed recycling drop-off center in the East Naples study area. The results indicated that 47% of 75 respondents indicated that they would be in favor to some degree of such a facility in the area (with 37% extremely in favor), and 33% indicated they East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 60 Packet Pg. 541 9.A.3.e would not be in favor to some degree (with 20% extremely not in favor). There appears to be enough support for this idea to explore the option further. Note that these results include those gathered directly through the polling program during the workshop and those types into the virtual workshop platform (see Technical Memorandum 2 in the supporting documents for more details). Housing Affordabilitv As noted in Section 2.0, there was input related to housing affordability during public engagement. Options to maintain housing at different price points could be explored in the future for residential units coming online as part of mixed -use developments. A few tools recently approved by the County that can be used to further the provision of housing at various price points include impact fee deferrals (limited to 225 units a year), a pilot program to allow payment of impact fees in installments, promotion of the existing affordable housing density bonus, an option to provide financial support by allocating funds to the Local Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Resolution 2019-207), and the option to add properties to the Community Land Trust the County is establishing (referenced in Contract 19-7577). The County may also promote smaller units as part of mixed -use development and programs for housing upgrades. The County is currently studying tiered impact fee rates based on a buy -down option for economic growth and that does not require reimbursement of covered fees by other funding sources, a de-minimis analysis for homes in relevant affordable price ranges, to see if certain home types can be exempt from fees, and identification of homes available at various price points in the county related to different income brackets. Landscaping, Architectural Style, and Signs The land use concepts of Section 3.0 provide guidance on certain landscaping and urban design regulatory needs and represent land use concepts using architectural styles such as those currently found in the area and supported by the Land Development Code. However, specific changes to landscaping, architectural style, and signs should be evaluated in further detail as part of follow-up regulatory amendments to the Land Development Code. This evaluation should account for detailed findings from the 2018 US 41 Corridor Study and specific design and branding styles that emerge from the branding and marketing campaign effort. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 61 Packet Pg. 542 9.A.3.e Example of existing roadway landscaping. Image Source: Google Maps 6.0 Implementation Implementation of concepts and recommendations in this plan will be a significant, multi -year process. This section focuses on the implementation steps that will be required with general tentative timeframes; a summary of implementation steps and how they relate to the main vision elements in Section 2.0 is shown in Table 5. Timeframes provided are tentative estimates that may be subject to change depending on timing of different plan updates, development build -out timing, and other factors. Funding sources are assumed to be those typically associated with the implementation processes described below, unless otherwise listed for implementation in Table 5. Branding and Marketing (estimated 1-2 years) — Based on the vision elements of the East Naples Community Development Plan, the County can immediately begin to coordinate between community and business stakeholders (e.g., East Naples Civic Association, BEONE merchant association, and other stakeholders noted in the Public Involvement Plan in supporting documents) as well as County communications staff and external marketing and branding expertise, to develop more details around a branding and marketing campaign and related materials. Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code Updates (estimated 1-5 years) — Updates to the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code (potentially as a zoning overlay) to reflect the changes highlighted primarily in Section 3.0. This may require additional evaluation for items such as public facilities/infrastructure planning, as mentioned in that section. Code changes can take 6-12 months to implement. There may be a longer timeframe for adjustments to the Growth Management Plan; additional time may also be required for the creation of local funding source tools (e.g., TIF district, MSTU). Long -Term Capital Planning and Improvements (estimated 1-5+ years) — Improvements proposed in the Community Development Plan can be considered during initial stages of the East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 62 Packet Pg. 543 9.A.3.e following long-term and capital planning processes; note that some improvements, such as more straightforward safety adjustments to intersections and improvements previously identified as a need such as relocation of the recycling drop-off center, may occur more quickly than other improvements that need to go through the long-term planning and capital planning process described below. Technical Memorandum 1 in supporting documents provides more information on improvements that are already planned and programmed for the East Naples areas via the processes below. • County — Long-term County planning documents that are periodically updated include the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Master Mobility Plan. Part of the parks planning process is the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, which advises the County Commission on matters related to the acquisition, development, and programs for parks facilities and provides input to the Parks and Recreation Department. Capital projects from the planning efforts and other local efforts typically are implemented through the County's Capital Improvement Program, which includes, among other topics, parks, transportation, and other infrastructure such as the recycling drop-off center. These plans are prepared in five-year increments and are updated annually as part of the budget approval in the fall. In Collier County, this capital planning process is supported by updates to an additional document, the Annual Update and Inventory Report, which documents an inventory and Level of Service Standards for key facilities. MPO and FDOT — A significant amount of transportation planning and improvements occurs through the Collier MPO, the regional transportation agency serving Collier County and municipalities (Naples, Marco Island, Everglades City) that oversees the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for use of federal and State transportation dollars. For the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the MPO staff issues a call for projects to implement projects that are incorporated directly or by reference into the plan. The staff ranks projects based on a set of criteria for final approval by the MPO Board to identify prioritized projects. These projects are submitted to FDOT on or before June 30 to coordinate for implementation. Changes to a roadway's cross section or even substantial changes to a major intersection can be costly and require a formal planning and development process. For State highways such as US 41, this process typically begins with the MPO identifying the project within its priorities and then working with FDOT to program funds to perform a Project Development & Environmental (PD&E) study. PD&E studies include a formal statement of a project's purpose and need, a thorough analysis of the traffic and operational outcomes of various scenarios, public participation, environmental review, and preliminary design and costs estimates. In some cases, prior to beginning a PD&E study, FDOT will conduct a multimodal corridor study or some other type of feasibility study to get a better sense of options East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 63 Packet Pg. 544 9.A.3.e and begin developing conceptual alternatives for further refinement and evaluation as part of a PD&E. These interim studies are especially common when the project purpose and need is focused on supporting changes to a roadway corridor's urban form or addressing subjects other than increasing a roadway's automobile capacity. Long-term improvements are programmed for funding through the LRTP's Cost Feasible Plan, updated every five years (the MPO is currently updating the 2045 plan). More immediate improvements over five years are contained in the Transportation Improvement Program. Other Approvals by the County Commission (estimated 1-5+ years) — Other items requiring County Commission approval, if pursued, include items such as potential approval of additional housing affordability tools currently being studied; allocations and disbursement of funds to the Local Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which may be tied to budget approvals decided in the Fall of each year); and designation of lands to the Community Land Trust, which may be approved as land opportunities are identified. Table S: Implementation Summary Short -Term (1-2 years) Branding and Marketing Effort (Section 5.0) Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code amendment evaluation/implementation of overlay elements for promotion of land use concepts, discouragement of undesired uses, development review process incentives, and housing options (Section 3.0 and housing size/type diversity recommendations in Section 5.0): • Density/intensity increases with evaluation of coastal building considerations • Adjust permitted uses in C-3 and C-4 to facilitate mixed use and any desired uses not already captured • Potential rezoning of certain TTRVC and C-5 designations on the corridor • Height allowance adjustments to accommodate three stories in C-3 mixed -use projects • Allowances for setback and buffer decreases in certain cases, with requirements for pedestrian - friendly improvements where larger setbacks are maintained. • Parking minimum reductions and adjustments to parking structure/space requirements to facilitate mixed -use and multi -modal environment • Explicit provisions on increasing site connectivity and requirements for shared access for neighboring properties • Adjustments to PUD design criteria in support of adjustments noted herein • Increased separation standards for gas stations • Continued current effort of requirement in C-4 to incorporate self -storage into mixed -use development with certain amount restrictions on first floor • Placement of fuel pumps at back of site and expansion of supplement design requirements for undesired uses that currently lack supplemental standards • Expedited review and fee incentives for desired development • Allow more diverse housing sizes/type through corridor mixed -use provisions East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 64 Packet Pg. 545 9.A.3.e Housing affordability tool/program implementation based on outcomes of current study and use of existing housing programs (e.g., for housing upgrades; Section 5.0) Recycling drop-off center relocation (Section 5.0) Mid -Term (3-5 years) Land Development Code amendment evaluation/implementation for additional incentives (Section 3.0): TIF district creation with language on use of funds Housing improvements through longer -term housing affordability tools, such as allocations to/disbursements from affordable housing trust fund and dedication of land to community land trust (Section 5.0) Long -Term (5+ years) Continued development incentives and housing support to reach desired development outcomes (Sections 3.0 and 5.0) SPACEBEAUTIFICATION & GREEN Ad Short -Term (1-2 years) Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code amendment evaluation/implementation of overlay elements for promotion of land use concepts (Section 3.0): Commercial open space in -lieu fee or open space design standards that promote quality open space without overly burdening development Mid -Term (3-5 years) Land Development Code amendment evaluation/implementation for additional site design requirements and green space funding support (Section 5.0): • Additional landscaping, architectural, sign updates that reference, where applicable, outcomes from the branding effort • Green space MSTU, if desired Public green space improvement planning as part of Parks and Recreation planning and capital improvements processes; additional green space planning for special funds created (e.g., MSTU, in - lieu fee; Section 5.0) Long -Term (5+ years) Public green space capital improvements through County processes, MSTU, in -lieu fee funding (Section 5.0) Short -Term (1-2 years) Begin County bicycle and pedestrian connection improvements (Sections 3.0 and 4.0); deficiencies and opportunities noted: East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 65 Packet Pg. 546 9.A.3.e • Rattlesnake Hammock Drive from US 41 to Santa Barbara Boulevard (bike facilities) • Lakewood Boulevard (bike facilities) • County Barn Road (sidewalks) • Wildflower Way (bike facilities) • Lely Resort Boulevard (bike facilities) • Lely Cultural Parkway (bike facilities) • Grand Lely Drive (bike facilities) • Connections between residential subdivisions and local destinations • Landscaped right-of-way along local street connections between commercial development and neighborhoods (see Section 3.0 concepts) • Intersection improvements on local roadways (see Section 3.0 concepts) Begin coordination with MPO and FDOT processes on more immediate and long-term adjustments on major roadways (Section 4.0) Mid -Term (3-5 years) Continue County bicycle and pedestrian connection improvements (Sections 3.0 and 4.0) Immediate improvements, such as intersection safety improvements, along major roadways (Section 3.0 and 4.0) Long -Term (5+ years) Complete remaining County bicycle and pedestrian connection improvements (Sections 3.0 and 4.0) Remaining improvements for more comprehensive change along major roadways such as US 41 (Section 3.0 and 4.0) 7.0 Appendices Appendix A: Summary of Additional Stakeholder Meetings Collier County and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Staff (August 11, 2020) Tindale Oliver and Collier County held this meeting with County and FDOT transportation agency representatives to discuss potential transportation approaches for US 41 (prior to future additional analysis such as Intersection Control Evaluations). The discussion began with a presentation on possible improvement approaches along US 41 that would enhance safety and convenience for multiple modes. Highlights of potential approaches discussed included: • Removing on -street bike lanes and creating separated multi -use pathways in the area where sidewalks are generally located (including width adjustments) • Intersection adjustments to shorten crossing distances for pedestrians • Adjusted intersection geometry to slow speeds around site access points and increased use of U-turns leaving and accessing sites to decrease reliance on left turns. These adjustments would need to account for impacts on access management and turning radii need and intersection maintenance considerations for vehicles such as trucks. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 66 Packet Pg. 547 9.A.3.e Comments received in response to these proposals included the following: • There are a lot of areas trying to create more urban and walkable styles of development; the project needs to be mindful of demand given other sites in the county with similar aims so that infrastructure and design is implemented that people will actually use. In response to this comment, the project would include phasing to show how design, infrastructure, and surrounding land uses and development might evolve over time to accommodate market demand constraints. • US 41 is reaching its current capacity, so will need to redevelop with mixed -use and Transportation Demand Management strategies to meet needs and accommodate travel moving forward. • Interconnections between residential subdivisions and commercial developments need to be made. • Consider an approach taken in Golden Gate City where the County is looking to decrease the roadway median and move that right-of-way to provide green space on the outside of the lanes where it may better benefit multi -use pathway users. • While Intersection Control Evaluations may show that traffic volumes are not near the targets needed to make adjustments discussed, consider requiring development to set aside right-of-way to accommodate necessary improvements in the future for more urban -style design and infrastructure [This point may be particularly helpful for areas not built out yet, primarily in broader East Naples area and beyond.] • Think about the context classification of the roadway, currently and for the future, and how land use and transportation infrastructure/design relate. East Naples Civic Association (August 12, 2020) Tindale Oliver and the County held this meeting with three members of the East Naples Civic Association. The following are key takeaways from the discussion, the key topics of which were identified during the February meeting with the Association: • Civic Association representatives were concerned that housing values in East Naples are lower than other parts of the County and that there is a disproportionate amount of low-income housing in the East Naples area. Findings in Technical Memorandum 1 indicate that single-family homes and condos are comparable in just value between East Naples and the county (including incorporated areas), with the exception that the East Naples area tends to not have the highest values that the County does and that the East Naples areas tends to have more condos in the $100,000 to $150,000 value range. Note that areas such as Naples might have values high enough that they are not characteristic of most communities. Findings also indicated that traditional multi -family housing that is typically rental only makes up about 6% of the total housing units. • Undesired uses were also discussed, including the option to remove these uses from � allowable uses if a zoning overlay for the area is considered. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 67 Packet Pg. 548 9.A.3.e • Incentives as an approach to shift development patterns were discussed, including the consideration of desirability of incentives by the community members and effectiveness of incentives for developers. • Branding was discussed and the possibility of working with local merchants' groups to help with a branding/marketing campaign during future efforts. Local Nonprofits: St. Matthew's House and Habitat for Humanity (August 12, 2020) The following takeaways emerged from the discussion with representations of the local Habitat for Humanity chapter and St. Matthew's House, who help provide services to the community: • Habitat for Humanity is finding it increasingly difficult to serve the lowest income brackets for which it provides services (the organization serves households at 80% Area Median Income — AMI- and below); in practice, households need to make at least $30,000 annually (estimated by the organization at approximately 30% AMI) for the organization to process them. The organization is increasingly competing with private developers to purchase land; the organization also faces barriers in terms of zoning allowance restrictions and the variance process to implement projects. • The affordable housing impact fee waiver was shifted to a deferral. • There is a land trust set up that can accept land for affordable housing. • The East Naples Study Area is primarily built out, so any efforts to include affordable housing would likely need to focus on redevelopment and upgrades to mobile homes with lower structural quality. The organization is also considering what can be done in areas outside rural boundary. • St. Matthew's House is seeking funding for a housing project with set -aside for affordable units that they have planned. Appendix B: Workshop 2 and Online Component Summary Introduction This workshop provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft East Naples Community Development Plan elements, including draft goals/vision elements (developed in the first stages of the project), land use concepts, transportation options, and other recommendations. The workshop included and brief presentation and the following options for attendees to provide feedback: • Polling questions • A questions/comments box to provide written feedback and questions • A question and answer session to provide verbal feedback and questions Workshop details: • Date and time: Thursday, September 10, 2020, 5:30 p.m. — 8 p.m. • Total attendance: 179 o Virtual attendance: 166 East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 68 Packet Pg. 549 9.A.3.e GoToWebinar: https://globaI.gotowebinar.com/loin/1277329455024836368/390707721 Webinar ID 654-146-803 o In -person, following CDC guidelines, attendance: 13 Board of County Commissioner Chambers Third Floor, Collier County Administration Building, 3229 Tamiami Trail E., Naples, FL 34112 • Staff/panelists present: o Tindale Oliver: ■ Ali Ankudowich ■ Demian Miller ■ Steve Tindale ■ IT support: Ben Cates, Andrea Sauvageot o PlusUrbia: ■ Andrew Georgiadis ■ Juan Mullerat o Collier County: ■ Commissioner Fiala ■ Michele Mosca ■ Anita Jenkins ■ Trinity Scott ■ IT support: Richard Dawson, Troy Miller Polling Responses The following summarize responses to polling questions posed during the workshop. Attendees could text in responses using the Poll Everywhere program (noted as "direct polling" below). Virtual attendees could also type in responses to the polls using the GoToWebinar platform if texting was unavailable or if they had difficulties with the polling program. In cases where typed responses were not labelled, responses were assigned based on the time received; generally, the addition of the typed responses did not have a large effect on the generally preferences of the group, but these two types of responses are shown separately. For anyone having difficulties submitting input through any of the means provided during the workshop, they could submit feedback via the project email address. How did you first hear about this workshop? Typed Direct Polling Totals % DP % Both Response Count Count Count A. Email from a mailing list 2 25 27 54% 55% B. Digital Ad (web, social media) 0 3 3 7% 6% C. Word of mouth 0 13 13 28% 26% D. Other 1 5 6 11% 12% East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 69 Packet Pg. 550 9.A.3.e Totals 1 3 1 46 49 Choose your MOST preferred concept for US 41 at Naples Manor Typed Direct Polling Totals % DP % Both Response Count Count Count A. Light 2 14 16 25% 24% B. Moderate 3 22 25 40% 37% C. Robust 6 19 25 35% 37% Totals 11 55 66 Choose your LEAST preferred concept for US 41 at Naples Manor Typed Direct Polling Totals % DP % Both Response Count Count Count A. Light 6 35 41 52% 51% B. Moderate 0 3 3 4% 3% C. Robust 7 29 36 43% 45% Totals 13 67 80 Choose your MOST preferred concept for US 41/ Rattlesnake Hammock Typed Direct Polling Totals % DP % Both Response Count Count Count A. Light 2 16 18 23% 22% B. Moderate 4 20 24 29% 30% C. Robust 4 34 38 49% 47% Totals 10 70 80 Choose your LEAST preferred concept for US 41/ Rattlesnake Hammock Typed Direct Polling Totals % DP % Both Response Count Count Count A. Light 6 47 53 67% 67% B. Moderate 1 1 2 1% 2% C. Robust 2 22 24 31% 30% Totals 9 70 79 Choose your MOST preferred concept for Town Centre Typed Direct Polling Totals % DP % Both Response Count Count Count A. Light 0 14 14 18% 16% B. Moderate 6 41 47 53% 53% East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 70 Packet Pg. 551 9.A.3.e C. Robust 5 22 27 29% 300 Totals 11 77 88 Choose your LEAST preferred concept for Town Centre Typed Direct Polling Totals % DP % Both Response Count Count Count A. Light 9 37 46 49% 52% B. Moderate 0 3 3 4% 3% C. Robust 4 35 39 47% 44% Totals 13 75 88 Rate the Idea of a Well -Designed Recycling Center in the East Naples Study Area Typed Direct Polling Totals % DP % Both Response Count Count Count 1. Completely Support 5 23 28 35% 37% 2. Support Moderate 0 9 9 14% 10% 3. Neutral 2 11 13 17% 17% 4. No Support Moderate 1 9 10 14% 13% 5. No Support at All 1 2 1 13 1 15 1 20% 1 20% Totals 10 65 75 Key Takeaways from Comments The most common themes that emerged from the comments included the following: • Amount, type, and location of development: o Desire for fewer fast food/chain restaurant/less expensive uses and gas stations o Desire for more Trader Joes and/or Whole Foods, "nicer" restaurants and shopping o Suggestions to improve or redevelop existing blighted commercial areas instead of building out new areas • Preserving and increasing green space: support more open green space / preserves and trails / native landscaping and shading; concerns of overbuilding • Transportation safety: o Support safer non -motorized transportation (bike/ped) connections to other greenways and attractions/venues o Safety concerns with crossing US 41; desire for safer intersections Recycling drop-off center: truck traffic and noise concerns regarding recycling center off of US 41 and near residential areas; some general concerns about placement along US 41 or in East Naples, yet note that the polls indicate overall support for recycling drop- off center in the Study Area. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 71 Packet Pg. 552 9.A.3.e Questions Questions are in bold and responses follow. • Questions on the eastern part of the Study Area: Why didn't you propose more development around the Collier Blvd and US 41 general area since it is closer to the newer and extensive residential developments to the east, north and south of that intersection? Are you going to look at the Collier Blvd and US 41 intersection area as part of this process? Why did the presentation not include the more eastern part, such as proposed area at Rattlesnake and Collier? I just recently reviewed the plans for East Naples. The June presentation included potential redevelopment off of Rattlesnake and Collier Blvd. This was not addressed in presentation that I could see. I live in Naples Lakes Country club and am wondering about development in and around NLCC. Is there anything on the horizon for this area? It has many areas of need between Rattlesnake and 75. o We looked at these intersections as possible examples for land use concepts but thought the others would make better examples for various reasons, such as focusing on redeveloping some of the older existing development in the sites selected. The example sites are meant to be illustrative of how more diverse land uses can be accommodated in the study area but are not meant to exclude the potential for this type of development at locations other than those shown during the workshop. There are several vacant parcels with approved development orders on the east side of Collier Boulevard and north and south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road in this area. A recent approval in the northeast quadrant allows 265 multi -family dwelling units with up to 185,000 square feet of commercial development. • How much has the plan morphed post COVID lockdowns for the new realities (ie curbside) in retail development? o The plan provides concepts and related implementation items to put rules, incentives, and other strategies in place to encourage more desired development and land use outcomes; yet it acknowledges that the actual build - out is likely subject to external factors affecting market demand, such as COVID- 19. The plan includes options to adjust to these factors as more information becomes available and to allow for variance in timing and phasing for build -out based on these factors and related uncertainties. • How would you connect the two sides of US 41? Is it just traffic lights? o Strategies include slowing traffic by narrowing lanes and geography improvements to cross the street. Break up and shorten crossing distances to help drivers be more conscious and more refuge to cross. This would include widening sidewalks and improved lighting. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 72 Packet Pg. 553 9.A.3.e • Will plantings be native with limited need for treatment and care? o The concepts show native plantings; follow-up landscaping requirement review and adjustments as recommended in Section 5.0 of this memo can provide an opportunity to address this item. • Would Bike/Pedestrian Blvd. extend all along 41, joining all three centers? o Extension of this concept along the corridor aligns with goals in the plan and would depend on more detailed transportation analysis for feasibility. • Has there been discussion with the plan to emphasize greenways for pedestrians to connect the other areas? o It is not a large transportation component in the project as the major roadways are where the development would occur. However, the general concept is not in conflict with this plan. Other County and regional transportation planning documents that do focus on greenways are noted in the first technical memo for the plan, and we will provide information on how to engage with those processes as part of the final plan. • Will green space left on west side of light concept be maintained or adapted into greenspace? o Vacant properties with entitlements shown in the "Light" concepts (such as those at the US 41 at Naples Manor site) are assumed to be allowed to develop as usual with the option for some design improvements; interventions to turn these areas into additional greenspace would require further evaluation through planning and capital improvement processes for the parks and recreation system, unless a specific local funding option was passed for capital and maintenance (e.g., an MSTU). • What happens to the existing businesses? In the robust plan, the warehouses are gone, where did they go? o Existing businesses are allowed to operate until they decide to sell and redevelop, which would occur through typical market processes; as occurs under typical market circumstances, a use might find another area in which to locate, owners of the operation may turn to other activities, etc. These concepts show what kind of redevelopment might be possible with certain adjustments to regulations, incentives, and capital improvements to facilitate a transition to other types of development and uses, but it avoids requiring a transition of existing uses due to property rights protections. • On the moderate and high -density buildouts, what is the impact based on seasonal versus full-time occupancy? o Existing estimates of seasonal and full-time households for East Naples were presented in Workshop 1 and are similar to the County as a whole: approximately 40% permanent households and 60% seasonal households (note that rentals were not included in this estimate, but traditional multi -family units that are typically rental make up 10% or less of the housing in either area). More East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 73 Packet Pg. 554 9.A.3.e detailed analysis would be required to understand whether these ratios would change significantly with additional residential units. • How many non-official/non-Tindale residents are attending? Are these the only people voting or are the official and Tindale folk voting in the poll too? o There are currently 145 attendees for this event, not counting officials or Tindale Oliver staff. Staff are not participating in the polls. (Note: virtual attendance maxed at 166.) • Canal infrastructure questions: Will this contribute to significant water runoff into that canal? Does that lead to Naples Bay, which is already under pressure with freshwater pollution? What modifications to the canals will be needed to handle the additional impervious areas and resultant increase in stormwater flow in each of the 3 zones? o Specific infrastructure and environmental impacts would be part of a more detailed review of this concept for code implementation. • Are potential developers being provided with data regarding the number of residences in East Naples that fall within in plus $1.5M, $1.25 to $1.5M, $1M to $1.25M, $750K to $1M, etc.? I suspect the number are huge and would go a long way to encourage higher end commercial and retail development. o The project team found the median income in the area to be approximately $53,000. We spoke with development representatives as part of outreach for this project with information on general population and median income estimates in the area; those discussions touched on concerns about limited density in the area. A marketing strategy and materials put together as a follow- up to this project could be used to share information about the area to developers and other target audiences. • What is considered affordable housing? o Affordable housing may take a broader meaning in this context, indicating ways to diversify price points through types/sizes of housing provided (e.g., allowing for smaller units) and/or housing subsidized for different income levels that may particularly benefit from such a subsidy. • Is the shopping center with Greenwise also being updated? o In the concept presented for US 41 at Rattlesnake Hammock Road, the building with Publix remains. • Have there been any thoughts of tearing down the entire old Lucky's plaza and starting over? Maybe then making the entire area new as opposed to just the parking lot area. o This site could be redeveloped under current regulations with low-level design changes or could be included for redevelopment as part of moderate or robust scenarios with more significant adjustments to regulations. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 74 Packet Pg. 555 9.A.3.e • Any conversation about greenways to connect areas like the proposed Naples Bay Greenway from Collier MPO? These can connect multiple communities, businesses and recreational areas. o The first stages of this project reviewed plans for bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the area, including trails, from the MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. That planning process and future updates provide a platform for more detailed trails improvement discussions; that process will be documented in the final Community Development Plan for East Naples. • Did transit plans also look at other destinations for biking or walking, such as to the Botanical Garden, Sugden, or downtown? o Technical Memorandum 1 reviewed existing transit service and planned improvements, as well as existing bike and pedestrian infrastructure and improvements; further proposals for roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements are included in this technical memorandum. Many of the existing transit amenities and roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian proposals are located along US 41, which is a main route to access the Community Redevelopment Area containing the Botanical Gardens and Sugden Regional Park; this main roadway then continues west to approach Downtown Naples. As a result, the connections between the Study Area and the destinations noted will likely be further enhanced. • When are you going to provide a library and post office on 41 after Collier? o New libraries are assessed through level of service analysis and implemented through capital planning processes for the County; these are comments that can be raised during the updates to related documents, such as the budget with capital plan and Annual Update and Inventory Report annual update. The final plan will provide an overview of those processes. Placement of post offices are not under the jurisdiction of the County since they are federal facilities; there is no current plan for a post office. • Are you planning a post office in East Naples? It is very necessary. o Placement of post offices are not under the jurisdiction of the County since they are federal facilities; there is no current plan for a post office. • While you're working on the areas identified on US 41 which need it, the eastern end of the county is under enormous pressure from developers seeking to develop what is currently agricultural or open space - habitat for endangered species, bird rookeries, etc. Is there any plan to reign in the residential developers at all? o Development will be consistent with policies in the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. The County has programs in the eastern portion of the County that aim to protect natural areas and direct development growth. Just east of Collier Boulevard is the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District that has a Transfer of Development Rights program; this program allows for the transfer of the right to develop from certain areas to other areas with an aim to concentrate East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 75 Packet Pg. 556 9.A.3.e development and take pressure off the places left open and undeveloped. The area is undergoing a restudy to understand how to support initial aims of the program, such as natural area protection and development of growth, and make the program more effective. You can learn more about this area and program on the County's website. • Anyway to understand the traffic impacts to these three designs? o Presently any development in unincorporated Collier County would need to comply with the County's Traffic Impact Study procedures. Because the East Naples area has a high number of residences with relatively few non-residential uses, providing these uses closer to where people live could capture trips that otherwise would head further north; however, this would need to be evaluated as part of any future traffic impact study. • Is there a PRIORITY of which location we want developed first? Or are they all being developed at once? o The County will focus on getting regulations and incentives in place, then the private market will likely dictate development priorities. • What type of time frame are we looking at if plan is approved? When does it start and process? o The team will forward recommendations of policies, transportation and land development codes to the County for their approval. Depending on the complexity of the changes, it would take from six months to more than a year. As far as US 41, FDOT will have to do a study. Making physical changes take longer than land development codes. It will need to get into the FDOT work program. Traffic and engineering analysis require about three to five years or at least five years for a complete overhaul of highway. More information on implementation processes and timing will be included in the final plan. • Since there will be moderate to robust development there is a need for a better process for approvals. Will this be discussed in the "next steps" such as the recommendation for a community board for oversight? o Based on discussions with representatives of the development community, we understand that development review process incentives such as expediting permitting would be helpful to encourage the implementation of the plan. A community board for oversight can give a certain group more review of development but may also hamper the process from the developer prospective As a result, having strong community input on the vision, plan, and regulations overall and upfront may be preferable to having an additional review step for individual developments that meet the approved plans and regulations. However, a policy to authorize a review board would go through a Board of County Commission approval if pursued. • How much weight will the poll results have on the approval to the county? Are those the only areas and options (light, moderate and robust) on those sections? Will this East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 76 Packet Pg. 557 9.A.3.e impact traffic in East Naples? Will people from North Naples come into East Naples to increase traffic in our area? o The concepts put together for the workshop and related preference poll results provide general guidance for the direction of the plan; the plan provides approaches and a process with examples for making change and serves as the basis for further implementation efforts, yet these steps are not final. We will document overall responses to the concepts as we complete the plan, and then it must go through approval with the County Commission. Individual implementation steps, such as regulatory adjustments and long-term/capital planning changes must also go through additional approval processes prior to changes being made. This will include further opportunities to analyze and discuss more specifics of these concepts and potential impacts, such as traffic. Ultimately, these concepts are intended to provide more local and walkable options for the Community of East Naples, yet there may be changes to traffic patterns, including around site access points. • Adding more shops, residentials, etc. how do you get over the bridge to go to downtown Naples with the traffic especially during season? o The aim of these concepts is to reduce mileage on the roads from trips outside the area. We are trying to keep trips closer to the East Naples area so you do not have to travel outside of it. • No mention of Courthouse Shadows, what about it? o Courthouse Shadows is being developed separately out of this area. It will be coordinated with the community development plan moving forward. • What is the status of the road work on Thomasson between Bayshore and 41? o The Collier Community Redevelopment Agency provides the following information about this project on the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area website (https://bayshorecra.com/projects/bayshore- beautification-projects/thomasson-drivehamilton-ave/): The $6 million Thomasson Drive/Hamilton Avenue project is funded by the Bayshore Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU). The new project will consist of a roundabout at the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Bayshore Drive and will enhance Thomasson Drive from Orchard Lane to Hamilton Avenue by constructing new 6-foot-wide sidewalks, bike lanes, decorative street lighting, signage and Florida friendly landscaping. Wright Construction Group Inc. based in Fort Myers, Florida was awarded the construction contract. Construction began on May 6, 2020 and will last approximately 12 months. The project started at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Thomasson Drive, moving east along Thomasson Drive to the intersection of Orchard Lane. • Can you give us a status on the new light on 41 at the entrance of Treviso Bay? o On August 3, the developer resubmitted plans to FDOT for their review of design plan. They said they would have a contractor selected in 60-90 days. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 77 Packet Pg. 558 9.A.3.e • Everyone wants to preserve the quiet/calm and safety, quality of life and property values of their residential neighborhoods. How will increased commercial development impact our homes/residential neighborhoods? o Part of the public engagement for this project looked at preferred locations for additional development, which tended to be along US 41 and to a lesser degree along Collier Boulevard. The aim of targeting commercial development to these corridors, aside from focusing on where opportunities are more likely for this type of development, is to remain consistent with community preferences and avoid the residential neighborhoods of the area. In this way, the neighborhoods remain buffered but still have some increased local options, with green space and connectivity/access considerations. • Any budget estimates for these various plans? Or is it premature? o It is too premature. • Are there pedestrian counts to justify the plan for pedestrian plan. Any other areas in Florida use the left lane? I don't see me or others walking across six lanes. I would prefer above street crossing. o The idea is to encourage and provide the pedestrian circulation. You want to reduce the vehicular speeds to encourage the pedestrian plan. Once you get to a place in a vehicle, you do not necessarily want to have to drive to a neighboring shopping center across the street or to the one next door. There are short-term and long-term solutions to ultimately operate US 41 as an urban street. Other areas with left turn configuration as shown are West Palm and Miami. • Explain the overlay. Who creates it and has separation standards worked for undesirable development? o The overlay is a regulatory tool that targets to certain areas, such as those within East Naples, the regulatory adjustments that would promote the plan outcomes, The County Commission makes the final decision on approving an overlay. Separation standards are often used for undesirable uses because it can be legally challenging to prohibit uses outright and address uses already in existence. These standards mandate a distance between uses (i.e., gas stations must be a certain distance apart). These standards are already implemented for gas stations, but they can be evaluated for an increase in distance. Design standards can also be heightened to make these uses more aesthetically pleasing or more buffered from surrounding areas (through architectural standards, heights, setbacks, etc.). • What happened to the plans for a new arts center/theater/opera house park? o A multi -purpose facility was proposed as part of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Plan for the area just west of the East Naples Study Area. More information on this plan can be found in Section 5 of this document: https://bayshorecra.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/05.13.2019-Final- East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 78 Packet Pg. 559 9.A.3.e Redevelopment-Plan-Update.pdf and on the Community Redevelopment Area's website: https://baVshorecra.com/. • How about an entrepreneur incubator, culinary incubator facility? o This effort may be coordinated with the existing Naples Accelerator that assists new and emerging businesses (overseen by the Collier County Economic Development Office; more information available here: https://www.colIieredo.org/naples-accelerator), as well as the incubator idea proposed as part of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Plan (more information available in Section 5 of this document: https://bayshorecra.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/05.13.2019-Final- Redevelopment-Plan-Update.pdf). • What is happening with the gas station on 41 east of Collier Blvd on corner of Auto Ranch Road? It was destroyed in Irma and is in same condition. I asked two years ago what was happening and they said the new owners were waiting on permits. That was two years ago! Why hasn't the county razed this gas station and fixed up that corner? This looks disgusting. o This issue is a current Code Enforcement case; next steps may include a Notice of Violation and possible hearing. • The old K-Mart in Freedom Square was supposed to have several businesses open there. What is happening? I haven't seen any work. o The County is not involved in storefront openings; these are part of a developer - driven process with leases being determined between property owners and lessees. Permits have been pulled for interior renovations. • Would the recycling center be in one of the zones presented? Our neighbors would be in favor of one in our area. Also, any news about possible overpass at 951 and US 41? o The County is looking for a recycling site along US 41 and wanted to get consensus from the community to see if this fits within the East Naples vision. There are other locations that may be available near the airport. One site was identified on US 41; it was not yet purchased. We wanted to receive consensus from the community about a location along US 41 or about suggesting it move to an industrial area in the East Naples area. o There is no funding identified yet for an overpass through 2040 and the MPO plan is updated periodically. The 2045 plan is currently in planning stage. • There are three Collier commissioners that have oversight over parts of East Naples and that brings forth many problems especially with respect to their vision for growth. I live in the Isles of Collier Preserves and part of the development is in District 1 and others in the same development are in District 4. Does that really make any sense? Are there any plans to review this and give East Naples one commissioner? Redistricting only occurs once every 10 years after the census is completed. It is time for change; one commissioner for East Naples. The way it is now only causes East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 79 Packet Pg. 560 9.A.3.e confusion and conflict with those commissioners that have responsibility in east and other parts of Collier County. Who do they really advocate for? o Redistricting will begin in 2021; there are no plans at this time to change Commission district boundaries. • We have been seeing some activity on Markley that have us wondering if development is planned soon. Any information would be appreciated. o Land clearing at 2185 Markley Avenue is related to agricultural farmland and mobile home. East Naples Community Development Plan: Technical Memorandum 2 80 Packet Pg. 561 9.A.4 03/16/2023 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Doc ID: 24736 Item Summary: PL20200002234 — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy GMPA — An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan of the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, relating to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy and specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and map series to require transfer of development rights for comprehensive plan amendments for increased residential density in the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Sub -district and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Sub -district 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, 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 adopted amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Planner Ill) Meeting Date: 03/16/2023 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal — Zoning Name: Michele Mosca 02/16/2023 5:09 PM Submitted by: Title: Zoning Director — Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 02/16/2023 5:09 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Michele Mosca Division Director Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Beth Johnssen Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Zoning Zoning Zoning Growth Management Department Planning Commission Michele Mosca Review Item James Sabo Review Item Mike Bosi Review Item James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Ray Bellows Meeting Pending Skipped 02/16/2023 1:42 PM Completed 02/17/2023 3:06 PM Additional Reviewer Completed 02/22/2023 4:26 PM Review Item Completed 02/23/2023 4:16 PM Skipped 02/16/2023 1:42 PM Completed 02/27/2023 2:45 PM Completed 02/27/2023 3:59 PM Completed 03/01/20234:57 PM 03/16/2023 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 562 9.A.4.a Co*�-rw". C;aw ty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: March 16, 2023 RE: PETITION PL20200002234, STAFF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN [ADOPTION HEARING] PROPOSED AMENDMENT: A staff -proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Element, Future Land Use Map and Map series, specifically requiring utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) Credits for Comprehensive Plan amendments requesting an increase in residential density in the Urban Mixed Use District and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to remove the requirement to use TDRs generated from Sending Lands within one -mile of the Urban boundary; amending the Urban Mixed Use District to remove the requirement to use TDRs for the Residential In -fill density bonus provision; amending the RFMUD to change development standards and requirements, increase density in Receiving Lands for affordable housing, add TDR Bonus Credits, add uses in Receiving areas, and add a conditional use for recreation in Sending Lands; amending development standards for Rural Villages; and creating the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay. Within the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) material provided is the Ordinance with Exhibit "A" text and maps for the petition. This exhibit reflects the text and maps as approved by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) for Transmittal. NOTE: Staff is proposing additional text changes to the amendments to establish regulations in the Land Development Code for housing that is affordable within Receiving Lands; and provide incentives to restore and maintain Sending Lands by increasing the number of possible TDRs available for severance — both to advance the goals of the RFMUD. The proposed text changes are identified further below in the Staff Report under Adoption — Staff Recommendation. Transmittal hearings on the subject amendment were held on May 20, 2021 CCPC, and on April 26, 2022 Board. The Transmittal recommendations are presented further below. Within CCPC material provided you will find the Transmittal Executive Summary from the Board hearing, plus the Transmittal CCPC staff report for the petition, which provided staff's analysis of the petition. The amendment qualifies for the State Coordinated Review Process set forth in Chapter 163.3184(4), F.S., in the following manner. The geographic areas subject to this amendment are not located in an area of critical state concern or in a rural land stewardship area; the amendment is not applicable to an Packet Pg. 563 9.A.4.a adopted sector plan, evaluation and appraisal -based, DRI-related, and does not qualify as a small-scale amendment. In accordance with Chapter 163.3184(4), F.S., pertaining to the State Coordinated Review Process, this Transmittal package was provided to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and other reviewing agencies on May 16, 2022. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS: After review of the Transmitted amendment within each reviewing agency's authorized scope of review, the DEO, as well as the other reviewing agencies, rendered their comment letters indicating "no comment" or "no adverse impacts found" or the agency did not respond. Additionally, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission offered their technical assistance and guidance to County staff and applicants for future projects within the RFMUD. Comment letters received are located within materials provided to the CCPC. TRANSMITTAL: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To Transmit to DEO. CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DEO (vote: 5/0) per staff recommendation, with the following modifications: for Growth Management Plan amendments that propose to increase residential density, remove the proposed requirement to utilize TDRs if a "public benefit" is provided; defer the proposal that requires parcels >300-acres in size to develop as a Rural Village and defer the proposal to create an Agricultural TDR Credit at 1 unit per 5 acres with required perpetual easement in Sending, Receiving and Neutral Lands, both to be considered 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. BOARD ACTION: Transmitted to DEO (vote: 5/0), per CCPC recommendation, and with removal of the proposed allowance to increase density from 1 dwelling unit to 2 dwelling units per acre on Receiving Lands, not within a Rural Village, for the north and northwest Receiving Lands [and as now reflected in County Resolution No. 22-78]. /_11161iIEeP►F STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the CCPC forward to the Board a recommendation to adopt and transmit the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and reviewing agencies that provided comments, with staff's suggested additions noted below in double underline and deletions in The proposed change below to the RFMUD Receiving Lands for housing that is affordable is recommended by staff in response to the development community's concerns that the existing criteria in the affordable housing table within the Land Development Code does not result in a viable affordable housing project. 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 Packet Pg. 564 9.A.4.a 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. 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. Within one year of adoption of these amendments. the County will develop appropriate criteria within Section 2.06.00 of the LDC to specifically address affordable housing projects within Receiving Lands. The proposed change below to RFMUD Sending Lands to increase the number of TDR Credits for the Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus is recommended by staff in response to the high costs associated with restoring and maintaining lands as required in the TDR bonus provision. 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. Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus: Additional TDR Bonus Credits may be issued at a rate of up to 0.6 TDR Credits per acre (3 TDR Credits per 5 acres), subject to criteria in the LDC, but in no case less than 0.2 TDR Credits per acre. 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, uD to three (3) TDR Credits may be severed from said lot or parcel. pamol OF legal 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 3 Packet Pg. 565 9.A.4.a 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 fellew+ng 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. d) Within one year of adoption of these amendments. the County will, if determined appropriate, develop criteria within the LDC to increase the number of eligible TDR Credits from 0.2 up to 0.6 TDR Credits per acre. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on February 17, 2023. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element and map series are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2 and 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes. [HFAC] 4 Packet Pg. 566 9.A.4.b ORDINANCE NO.2023- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT RESTUDY AND SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES TO REQUIRE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT AND THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT; 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, 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 ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20200002234] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Community Planning Act, formerly the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and [21-cMP-01087/1757092/1] 142 1 of 3 RFMUD Restudy PL20200002234 2/1/23 Packet Pg. 567 9.A.4.b WHEREAS, staff has prepared an amendment to the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element, and an amendment to the Future Land Use Map and Map Series, of the Growth Management Plan; and WHEREAS, Collier County transmitted the Growth Management Plan amendment to the Department of Economic Opportunity for preliminary review on May 16, 2022, after public hearings before the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Department of Economic Opportunity reviewed the amendment to the Growth Management Plan and transmitted its comments in writing to Collier County within the time provided by law; and WHEREAS, Collier County received an extension from the Department of Economic Opportunity to adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan by June 11, 2023; and WHEREAS, Collier County has gathered and considered additional information, data and analysis supporting adoption of this amendment, including the following: the Collier County Staff Report, the documents entitled Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendment and other documents, testimony and information presented and made a part of the record at the public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission held on , and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners held on ; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of the law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The amendment to the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element, and the amendment to the Land Use Map and Map Series attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and shall be transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. [21-CMP-01087/1757092/1]142 2 of 3 RFMUD Restudy PL20200002234 2/1/23 Packet Pg. 568 9.A.4.b SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commenced before it has become effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2023. ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK C Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: H FAC Heidi Ashton-Cicko -17-23 Managing Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Rick LoCastro, Chairman Attachment: Exhibit A — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Future Land Use Element and Maps [21-CMP-01087/1757092/1] 142 RFMUD Restudy PL20200002234 2/1/23 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 569 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION [Page 25] *********************************** text break*************** r************************* I. URBAN DESIGNATION [Page 25] 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 reauired for oroiects determined by the Board of Countv Commissioners to have a public benefit. *********************** r**** r* r**** text break ****** t************************* r r*** r* r 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. Words underlined are added; words Strunk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 1 of 30 Packet Pg. 570 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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 lecated- ithiR eRe mile of the Urban BeuRdar„ -,n4 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 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 IeEated Withi e mile of the I Irhan Be„nrdary avid designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; or, WithiR the Rural FFORge Mixed Use DiStFiGt to aGhieve up to the maximum allowable deRsity; the ORe mole limitatiOR set forth above and may utilize TDRs from aRY Iands deSigRated SeRd+'Rg 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 &ha 4 est he si ,hienf to the ene mile limitation set ferfh ahe„e anrd may utilize TDRs derived from a+Ry 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;. �f the maximum 3 additional i,nifs ene (1) rdw !Rg , in,f n shall he transferrerd frem g h-�--,�,�er—ac��,-,�„--per Sending Lands; anrd Words underlined are added; words s+r, Gk through are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 2 of 30 Packet Pg. 571 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 (h) PrejeGts qualifying under this previsien may PGrease the density administratively by a Lands.max4murn ef ene dwelling unit per aGre by traRSferriRg that additieRal density frern Sending 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. (b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development. (c) From Sending Lands leGated ,.,,thin rind mole of the Urban Roy inrlor„ 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 IGGated ,.,,thin ono Milo into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. ii. the GRe mole limitatiOR set forth above and may utilize TDRs frern aRY lands desigRated SeRding w0thiR the Rural IFFiRge Mixed Use DiStFiGt to aGhieve up to the maximum allowable deRSity 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 subjeGt tO the eRe mole limitatiOR set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived frem aRY IaR allewahlo density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 200010, as amended, excepting the ±39 acres located in the South'/2 of the Southwest'/4 of the Northwest'/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest'/4 of the Southwest'/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. Words underlined are added; words ctri ink through are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 3 of 30 Packet Pg. 572 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 II. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION [Page 74] 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 93,68877,200 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 included& 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. 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. 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. Words underlined are added; words StFUGk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 4 of 30 Packet Pg. 573 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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: 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. 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 protect 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. Words underlined are added; words StFUGk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 5 of 30 Packet Pg. 574 9.A.4.b c) PL20200002234 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 o reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation, a maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. G 3- 4. Minimum Project Size: The minimum project size required OR order to receive transferred dwelling units is 40 contiguous acres, except no minimum project size is reauired for the Receivina Lands areas alona Immokalee Road. 4-. . 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. 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, s bjent to the deVelenment of appropriate the Rural FFiR Ie M�c ived Use Dictrinct isrevewed�Tee se—dey pme Rt Rural �.�rn� standards shall ORGl, de, but are not limited te: b iildiRg heights, d� �esig ^ sta Rdards, buffers, and setha Gks , d) Rural Villages, subject to the provisions set forth in II. B.3 of this element. Words underlined are added; words otFUGk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 6 of 30 Packet Pg. 575 e) 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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: (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, nn'�5 September 2012. (4 \�Qt2 Ge water quality frem feFtiiiz r acam ar d e6tiGide usage, nlf o nstFate the fG eiiRg maRag t u�u��vrr—EARS cF1�8rrnrc��rr�, el�e�lz pram Words underlined are added; words Strunk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 7 of 30 Packet Pg. 576 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 / (" he use ef an iRtegrated post management program Using both hiologinal anrd shemiGal agents to nnntrnl varies is pests; aTVd--rM 90 ire_GeRGIRg systems to !determine the epnti'n � im amoi int of i rr�ingtip�at �"'o�`�T� �`J ems"' ded GGn�d�Rg Seil rneisti ire �F eVapetranOplratlon rates CG (b)As available golf fuses shall utilize treated eefflu Rt reuse ater lv�-c�-avurra-pr� vrr-�uroca�rrarr-acn-rcc-cr }} GGRSOGte„t With artary Sewer Sub Elem� rreRt QbjeGtiVe-1 .^ �; si Gh as golf greens fairways anrd b iilyding sites Within these exGepterd o e areas, i llanrdsgaping plans shall require that at least 751 of the trees anld 500% of the shrubs he freeze tolerant native Clorirdian species At least v 75- of the required nra+W a trees and reeS-anashrubs -�shall t rdroi fight tolerant species {&)J�jj 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. 1) Commercial development as permitted as part of an approved Rural Village. Within one year of ai-lentien of these amendments, the County m rdevelep Appropriate standards fer sommerrial rdeyelepment within Rural Villages with PnArtff-I 'Inrr frnoGLIs on design,SGale and anness nrOyisions that will m�+in tThc rural GharaGter er semi_rural nharaGter ftthe Dos Words underlined are added; words s+ri fink +hrei igh are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm MIS Ml Packet Pg. 577 9.A.4.b 02/01/2023 mrm PL20200002234 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 addeption of those amendments will develop appropriate standards for ❑esearoh and Teohpolog!,' vv-crei/e marn-a��vr-rccvcarcr,�rccTTr'o'v�Y Park w0thiR. IQ,,ral Village with partiGYla�QGYs on desion�Gale and aooess -arvmvgc ,�vnrrprnzr �-Sri-ac�.�3r', , r�;,, +�RS that will maint, , ain the rural rhararter or semi _ri rural rhararter of the DiStFiGt. 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 _ n4 pI Zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or other similar uses. e) g) Public educational plants and ancillary plants. p}) 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. 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. 7. Density Blending shall be permitted subject to the provisions set forth in the Density Rating System. 8. Open Space and Native Vegetation Preservation Requirements: a) Usable Open Space: Within Receiving Lands, projects utilizing TDR Credits gFeater 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 Words underlined are added; words stFUGk through are deleted Me M Packet Pg. 578 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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. 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 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. Words underlined are added; words StF ink thre gh are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 10 of 30 Packet Pg. 579 9.A.4.b c) PL20200002234 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 o reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation, a maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. G 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; • 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 Words underlined are added; words Strunk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 11 of 30 Packet Pg. 580 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 for Golf Course Maintenance Departments, prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, May 1 °Q�September 2012. (r) Native plants shall he used eXGl isively evnept for snerial purpese areas si inh as golf greens, eifaipays anrd building sites Within those evnepterd 0 areas, `dlansnaping plans shall require that at least 75% of the trees and 0 750'r- f the required Rai7tttl'e trees and shri ohs shall drought rall also he ro fight telerant sneni`e'"s11 {-5}Q) 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. Words underlined are added; words Strunk threugh are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 12 of 30 Packet Pg. 581 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 {64(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 c minimum dimensions as set forth in the Land Development Code. These a standards shall be established within one year. c k) Zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or other similar uses. 1) 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 4ereutralLands Be Rdaries Fer all prnnertioc�gTniteNeutral Lands where si Gh nrenerty is rentig O is to a Neutral Land/Sending Land heUndaF y0 gi the nrenerty owner may submit data and analysis to the County in an attempt try d eMORst�ehotaGonne in the boundary is warrantedWit e year from the e#eGtiye dote of this nreyi n the Gee inty may initiate o Grewth Management Plan amendment te_eAnsid�sUnh boundary nhanoes iiona sheWino of the fellewin . aLThn e r� y 06 Centig eus to Sending Landsr, b) Site snyirenm tal data submitted by the nrenerty ewner, er ether data u�--vrc�a-� a +Ee�vrrvnnTe�izu v �z�-rc-prv� �Tcr-vrvrr-rc�--c`aTcr ohv tptaiRed by the County, HndiEates thatthesi bjeGt r�rnn�yr�nntai ��i nharanteristies arranting a Sending designation; and �P' Words underlined are added; words stR Gk through are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 13 of 30 Packet Pg. 582 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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. 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 (4 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, GRe 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 & below are also applicable to the North Belle Meade Overlay provisions of the Future Land Use Element. Words underlined are added; words Strunk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 14 of 30 Packet Pg. 583 9.A.4.b f) PL20200002234 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. c 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 a) or b) below the fellew+ng 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. mil Ili Jilot 11m. ■L. Words underlined are added; words Strunk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 15 of 30 Packet Pg. 584 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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 0.4 TDR credits per acre (2 TDR Credits 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 FlowWay TDR Bonus Credit Eligibility Map, adopted by separate resolution (Res. 23-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: Words underlined are added; words StFUGk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 16 of 30 Packet Pg. 585 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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, and access to the conditional use. Words underlined are added; words StFUGk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 17 of 30 Packet Pg. 586 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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. 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 asset forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. Words underlined are added; words Strunk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 18 of 30 Packet Pg. 587 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 G) An adjustment te the Sending land beundary requires an amendment tO the Future Land Use Map 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. Words underlined are added; words StF ink thre gh are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 19 of 30 Packet Pg. 588 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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 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 ` wigged a 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 Words underlined are added; words Strunk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 20 of 30 Packet Pg. 589 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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. the creation of those nro.asions, Rural Village applications shall be submitted in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone and, wherapplTeahl,�.e,i14 0 R Chapter 380 of Florida Statutes, OF OR GE)Rj61RGtiE)R with aRY other Florida PPOVOGOORS of law that Rqa y supersede the DR! nrosess B) Locational Restrictions: 1 4 Rural Village shall not he Ieroted any rleser than 3.0 miles frern another Rural Village. Areas depicted on the PLUM. IM 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., aPA Density, and Design: 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 apd 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 iRGlYde a `pillage 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-,4Pd the land area designated as a green belt s,,rro,,nitipn 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 Words underlined are added; words stFUGk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 21 of 30 Packet Pg. 590 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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. 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 dwelling unit Words underlined are added; words Strunk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 22 of 30 Packet Pg. 591 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 a) Neighberheed GeR er n 50/ of the total Village aGreage, et to eXGeed 4n anres within eanh Neiohberheerd Center. 0 of the Neighborho GeRter aGreage and 9,500 square feet ef gress leasable fleer area per aGre. G)/,ll�Geoter Net to eXGeed 1 n e total Villageacrea d)/,l/,ll�Sentercr Commer fall Not to eXGeed 30v of the-`/ill�oeRter acreage anrd 10,000 square foot of gross leasable floor area per acre e-) d) Research and Technology Parks allowed; must be--Gconsistent with the provisions of the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District, excluding paragraph j; the Park shall net eXGeed 40/ of the tetat Village arreooe. f) GiVir Uses anrd P ibli Parks Onim,,m of 10 of the total Village aGreage 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 GORGeRtrated te a greater degree !'R areas where it is ReGessary te preteGt listed nofi ,rol reser"atiens er nreyirde f9F wellfielid er ae, ,ifer nretentien 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. 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. Words underlined are added; words str, ink three gh are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 23 of 30 Packet Pg. 592 9.A.4.b 02/01/2023 mrm PL20200002234 1. An analysis shall be conducted and submitted in conjunction with the PUD rezone and�er 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 hiGYGIe aR d pe destriaR facilities anal 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: 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. Words underlined are added; words otFUGk threuO are deleted 24 of 30 Packet Pg. 593 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 • 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 eked 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 an%� 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 amPndnnPntS_ 4. Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards — Words underlined are added; words Strunk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 25 of 30 Packet Pg. 594 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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 o has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002; or, projects for which a Rezone a petition has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002 — inclusive of all lands not -°a zoned A, Rural Agricultural; or, land use petitions for which a completed application has g been submitted prior to June 19, 2002. The continuation of existing uses shall include a onsite 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 3 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 r Plan's Goals, Policies and Objectives for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as long as .2 they do not result in an increase in development density or intensity. A 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. B. North Belle Meade Overlay 02/01/2023 mrm [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. Words underlined are added; words Strunk three h are deleted 26 of 30 Packet Pg. 595 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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. OD. 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 P-private property ^% 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: 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 Words underlined are added; words StFUGk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 27 of 30 Packet Pg. 596 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 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; 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. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Map Words underlined are added; words Strunk three h are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 28 of 30 Packet Pg. 597 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 Exhibit A [PL20200002234] R 25E I R243E R27E R20E R29E R30E R31E R32E R73E Rair 2012.2025 FUTURE LAND USE MAP--_'-�- C.1—r County Fiond� -...• „ �e�_� -�� y 9EThIL50FTMEi `,P OV'_RLAY CNTHE Fl1T', R.4 J W^E M4PTRLE�'. �COLLI ER CO JNTY RLiAL 8 AGRICIlLT11HAL M6V ASSE.',`.NE4T `.TEIYAR»MIP =- — RURAL FRINGE MIXED - USE DISTRICT CHANGE5 I 2-5 � m n � i m ko �' I� � ,• m y y m m N ay✓' � h J R25E R2GE R27E R20E R29E R30E R31E R32E R33E RME Words underlined are added; words StF Ink through are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 29 of 30 Packet Pg. 598 9.A.4.b PL20200002234 Exhibit A [PL20200002234] Belle Meade HWrologt Enharraemml O►reday i BMHEO) u rEr _xxxx, xxx Q 2,5M &OW 70,000 Feel UdG6NTO �oAu no. xxx-xxi _Y ® �rep®eiMY�3EQ Words underlined are added; words StF ink through are deleted 02/01/2023 mrm 30 of 30 Packet Pg. 599 9.A.4.c RESOLUTION NO.2023 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE BELLE MEADE HYDROLOGIC ENHANCEMENT OVERLAY AREA FLOWWAY TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS BONUS CREDIT ELIGBILITY MAP TO IDENTIFY PROPERTIES ELIGIBLE FOR SEVERANCE OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE SOUTH BELLE MEADE AREA [PL20200002234] WHEREAS, on September 27, 2016, under Item 1 l B, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approved the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, to reduce freshwater flows to Naples Bay, restore freshwater flows into Rookery Bay, and rehydrate approximately 10,000 acres of the Picayune Strand State Forest/South Belle Meade area; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2018, under Item 11 H, the Board approved the project development and permitting activities for the Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, critical to the success of the project is the rehydration and flow of water within the primary/secondary flowway in the South Belle Meade area, which includes a number of privately owned parcels of land; and WHEREAS, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2019-63 to conceptually approve transfer of development rights incentives for those private property owners who will voluntarily encumber their land with a flowway easement or agreement to allow the flow of this rehydration water across their property, subject to adoption of Growth Management Plan amendments and Land Development Code amendments. WHEREAS, on , the Board approved Ordinance No. 2023- which amended the Growth Management Plan to provide for a Belle Meade Flow -Way TDR Bonus for properties identified on the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Area FlowWay TDR Bonus Credit Eligibility Map, such map to be adopted by resolution. WHEREAS, the Board desires to adopt the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Area FlowWay TDR Bonus Credit Eligibility Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby adopts Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Area FlowWay TDR Bonus Credit Eligibility Map attached hereto as Exhibit A. [22-CMP-01 145/1757674/ 1 ]8 BMHEO 12/6/22 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 600 9.A.4.c THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote favoring same, this day of 2023. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA go , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, County Attorney Attachment: Rick LoCastro, Chairman Exhibit A- Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Area FlowWay TDR Bonus Credit Eligibility Map. [22-CMP-01 145/1757674/1]8 BMHEO 12/6/22 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 601 Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay Area FlowWay TDR Bonus Credit Eligibility Map R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E -7- 0 CL 0 NORTH TM„101- BELLE 2 MEADE 0 NRPA rn CD U 99 -4 .6 53 x 74 so I BELLE 150 02 MEADE 4 47 83 ILL NRPA 9 % 446 91 92 3 32 04 35 33 3 IR C14 Q 26 27 A1 Q Q 23 2, 25 041 CD 10 11 12 to 04 CD ce) O O mn ass U) Le -gend Potential Eligible Property 0 LU Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay 41 RFMUD DESCRITION: RF-Neutral ry RF-Receiving F —A IRF-Sending EMRuralFringeBoundary 0 0.5 1 2 41 Miles Packet Pg. 602 9.A.4.d Ron DeSantis GOVERNOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENTd ECONOMIC OPPORTUNr Y August 22, 2022 Mr. C. James Sabo, AICP Collier Comprehensive Planning Manager 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Dear Mr. Sabo: Dane Eagle SECRETARY This letter is in response to the e-mail dated August 17, 2622, notifying of an extension for the adoption of a proposed amendment DEO 22-01ACSC to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes. The Department acknowledges receipt of the extension notification. The new extended adoption date is June 11, 2023. The Department reminds the County that all affected persons who commented on the amendment need to be notified of the extension. If the proposed amendment is adopted, please submit the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Community Planning, Plan Processing Team within 10 working days of adoption pursuant to Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr, Scott Rogers at (850) 717-8510, or myself, at (850) 717-8483. Sincerely, LV4'�'_ D. Ray Eubanks Plan Processing Administrator DRE/me Florida Department of Economic Opportunity I Caldwell Building 1 107 E. Madison Street I Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850) 245.7105 I www.FloridaJobs.org I www.Twitter.com/FLDEO I www.Facebook.com/FLDEO An equal opportunity employer/program. Auxiliary aids and service are available upon request to individuals with disabilities. All voice telephone numbers on this document may be reached by persons using TTY/TTD equipment via the Florida Relay Service at 711. Packet Pg. 603 9.A.4.d Eubanks, Ray From: MoscaMichele <Micheie.Mosca@ coil iercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 5:28 PM To: Eubanks, Ray Cc: FrenchJames; BosiMichael; SaboJames Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Collier County Amendment No. 22 - 01ACSC (Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy -Based Amendments) Attachments: 20220628085504675.pdf Mr. Eubanks: In accordance with Section 163.3184(3)(c)l., Florida Statutes, Collier County staff is requesting an extension to the 180-day adoption requirement for Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 22-01ACSC. The DEO's Comments letter (attached) was received on June 15, 2022 and the required 180-day adoption period ends on December 11, 2022. County staff respectfully requests an extension to a date certain of June 11, 2023 to adopt the amendment; the extension will allow time for additional data collection and analysis to support components of the amendment. Your consideration of this request is appreciated. Respectfully, Michele R. Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Zoning Division/Community Planning Section 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 Phone: (239) 252-2466 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. Packet Pg. 604 9.A.4.d Ron Mantis GOVERNOR The Honorable William L. McDaniel Chairman, Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Chairman McDaniel: Ili FLORIDA DEPARTMENT•f ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY June 15, 2022 Dane Eagle SECRETARY JM 2 4 2,on OPFIE '3 Or r;tU.l,tli�"I i;s:�liPdT'r vinn!) u,-, k.rmi J,1" f �';�',ilhili;i•�!f)Pl;:r]"1 The Department of Economic Opportunity ("Department") has completed its review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Collier County (Amendment No. 22-01ACSC), which was received and determined complete on May 5, 2022, We have reviewed the proposed amendment in accordance with the state coordinated review process set forth in Sections 163,3184(2) and (4), Florida Statutes (F.S.), for compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. The Department does not Identify any objections or comments to the proposed amendment and this letter serves as the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. Review comments received by the Department from the appropriate reviewing agencies, If any, are enclosed, The County should act by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt the proposed amendment. For your assistance, we have enclosed the procedures for final adoption and transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment. The second public hearing, which shall be a hearing on whether to adopt one or more comprehensive plan amendments, must be held within 180 days of your receipt of the Department's attached report, or the amendment will be deemed withdrawn unless extended by agreement with notice to the Department and any affected party that provided comment on the amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(4)(e)1., F.S. If you have any questions related to this review, please contact Don Arellano, Planning Analyst, by telephone at (850) 717-8452 or by email at Don,Arellano@deo.myflorida.com. Sincerely, Scott Rogers, Regional Planning Administrator Bureau of Community Planning and Growth SR/da Enclosure: Procedures for Adoption Agency Comments cc. James french, Deputy Department Head, Growth Management, Collier County Margaret Wuerstle, Executive Director, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Florida Department of Economic Opportunity � Caldwell Building 1 107 E, Madison Street I Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850) 245.7105 1 www.FloridaJobs.org I www,Twitler.com/FLDEO I www,Facebook,com/FLDEO An equal opportunity employer/program, Auxiliary aids and service are available upon request to individuals with disabilities. All voice telephone numbers on this document may be reached by persons using TTY/TTD equipment via the Florida Relay Service at 711. Packet Pg. 605 9.A.4.d SUBMITTAL OF ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR STATE COORDINATED REVIEW Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: Please submit electronically using the Department's electronic amendment submittal portal "Comprehensive Plan and Amendment Upload" (hi5,,// lloridaLo�Lsecure.force.comcpA or submit three complete copies of all comprehensive plan materials, of which one complete paper copy and two complete electronic copies on CD ROM in Portable Document Format (PDF) to the State Land Planning Agency and one copy to each entity below that provided timely comments to the local government; the appropriate Regional Planning Council; Water Management District; Department of Transportation; Department of Environmental Protection; Department of State; the appropriate county (municipal amendments only); the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (county plan amendments only); and the Department of Education (amendments relating to public schools); and for certain local governments, the appropriate mllitary Installation and any other local government or governmental agency that has filed a written request. SUBMITTAL LETTER: Please include the following information in the cover letter transmitting the adopted amendment: Department of Economic Opportunity Identification number for adopted amendment package; Summary description of the adoption package, including any amendments proposed but not adopted; Ordinance number and adoption date; Certification that the adopted amendment(s) has been submitted to all parties that provided timely comments to the local government; Name, title, address, telephone, FAX number and e-mail address of local government contact; Letter signed by the chief elected official or the person designated by the local government. ADOPTION AMENDMENT PACKAGE: Please include the following information in the amendment package: In the case of text amendments, changes should be shown in strike-through/underline format; In the case of future land use map amendment, an adopted future land use map, in color format, clearly depicting the parcel, its existing future land use designation, and its adopted designation; Packet Pg. 606 9.A.4.d A copy of any data and analyses the local government deems appropriate. ilnr live,: I{tI)r. "l ?f?1'3 (llli&iIcd [0iich ?ll>1} -- -- 11:3{ (: 1. n1 2 Copy of executed ordinance adopting the comprehensive plan amendment(s); Suggested effective date language for the adoption ordinance for state coordinated review: "The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be the date the state land planning agency posts a notice of Intent determining that this amendment Is In compliance. If the amendment is timely challenged, or if the state land planning agency issues a notice of intent determining that this amendment is not in compliance, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance." List of additional changes made in the adopted amendment that the Department of Economic Opportunity did not previously review; List of findings of the local governing body, if any, that were not included in the ordinance and which provided the basis of the adoption or determination not to adopt the proposed amendment; Statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes not previously reviewed by the Department of Economic Opportunity to the ORC report from the Department of Economic Opportunity Fflec live: Janie ), M1'I (Iliumled Arms i, Zn>1.) I';il;e 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 607 9.A.4.d OFAICB ON THB CONIMI FONGR THs CAPITOL (850) 617.7700 L,;+<; , +_> 400 SOUTH MONR011 STRIMT 'YA1,I.AHASSHI1, FLORIDA 3'399.0800 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES COMMISSIONER NICOLE "Nim" PRIED June 1, 2022 VIA US MAVEMAIL(michael.bosi@colliercountyfl.gov) Collier County Mike Bosi 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: DACS Docket # 20220511-67-Collier Collier County May 1111, 2022 Dear, Mike Bosi; The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the "Department") received the above - referenced proposed comprehensive plan amendment on May 11"', 2022 and has reviewed it pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, to address any potential adverse impacts to important state resources or facilities related to agricultural, aquacultural, or forestry resources In Florida If the proposed amendment(s) are adopted. Based on our review of your county's submission, the Department has no comment on the proposal, if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 850-410-2292, Sincerely, Thomas Poucher Budget Director office of Policy and Budget cc: Florida Department of Economic Dpportunity (SLPA #: Collier 22-01ACSC) 1-800-HELPFLA , 01, Fhesh Flc dda. www.FreshFromFlorlda.com Packet Pg. 608 9.A.4.d From: (?la:i Re -Je-w To: Ekb j_ik5, RAy; OCPexlerr�aiayELLry�4�iLLr_iis Cc: Plan Review Subject: (EXTERNAL) - Cotller County 22-01ACSC Proposed Date: Friday, June 3, 2022 3:35:29 PM Attachments: Onage0o4ong To: Ray Eubanks, DEO Plan Review Administrator Re; Collier County 22-01 ACSC — State Coordinated Review of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Alnendtnent The Office of ]ntergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has reviewed the above -referenced amendment package under the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Department conducted a detailed review that focused on potential adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities, specifically: air and water pollution; wetlands and other surface waters of the state; federal and state-owned lands and interest in lands, including state parks, greenways and trails, conservation easements; solid waste; and water and wastewater treatment. Based on our review of the submitted amendment package, the Department has found no provision that, if adopted, would result in adverse impacts to important state resources subject to the Department's jurisdiction. Please submit all future amendments by email to lJlau.revic., ai)ilodclade) if your submittal is too large to send via email or if you need other assistance, contact Lindsay Weaver at (850) 717-9037. 0 Packet Pg. 609 9.A.4.d From: nioir hiQlg30 To; Pex rnalaun"cominents Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Colller County 22-01ACSC Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 2:55:05 PM Dear Mr, Bosi, The Office of Educational Facilities within the Florida Department of Education has reviewed the Collier County 22-OIACSC proposed comprehensive plan amendment in accordance with sections 163.3180 and 153.3184, Florida Statutes. Based an review of the submitted materials, staff have no comments on the proposed amendment. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Morgan Runion, AICP Office of Educational Facilities Florida Department of Education Packet Pg. 610 9.A.4.d From: Qordon, Glennika To. DCr>Lsctaaaa 0nencyconrnents Cc; IM chael.uos:tt,lllerrnun . ov; Rye 5 5CO , 1D flier le 9swfir c.oro Subject; [EXTERNAL) - Collier County, DEO #22-IACSC, Comments on Proposed Comprehenslve Plan Amendment pate: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:43:12 PM Dear Mr. Eubanks: The South Florida Water Management District (District) has completed its review of the proposed amendment package submitted by Collier County (County). The package includes Future Land Use Text Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. There appear to be no regionally significant water resource issues; therefore, the District forwards no comments on the proposed amendment package. The District requests that the County forward a copy of the adopted amendments to the District at the following email mailbox a�drus SELQfALLQY2iAN@sJyniclV,c�v. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Ms. Glennika Gordon, Policy and Planning Analyst, South Florida Water Management District Water Supply Implementation Unit 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Phone: 561-682-2S44 Fax: 561-681-6264 E-Mail; ggordon.@ f� wmd.gov Packet Pg. 611 9.A.4.d From: P it To: nliclill&C9untvlLnnv Cc: ' a e c omn= it ; Heshear , Clistin; [Yh) . Robett; CiGm[Lf lo. Laura; Cuclnella. )ost Subject: [EXTERNAL) - Collier County 22-01 ACSC (Growth Management Plan Amendment) Date: Thursday, June 2, 2022 1:57:05 PM Mr. Bosi: Florida 1~ish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff received your request for review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. We have no comments, recommendations, or objections related to listed species and their habitat or other fish and wildlife resources to offer on this amendment. While there are no objections to the amendment, the following general technical assistance infonttation is provided to assist county staff and future applicants when considering the potential for impacts to state -listed species associated with specific development projects. FWC staff strongly recommend early planning coordination meetings if impacts to state -listed species and their habitat are expected with specific projects and locations. To schedule a coordination meeting, please contact our office by email at M'yFWC.com and staff will be happy to meet with an applicant, county staff, or Department of Economic Opportunity staff. Wildlife crossings were mentioned in the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Restudy White Paper (page 59 of 62) which was included as an attachment to the proposed amendment, For future planning consideration, there are numerous wildlife crossing designs which are suitable for target mammals, amphibians, and reptile species, including some designs that provide for both aquatic and terrestrial species movement as well as habitat and hydrological connectivity. While there are numerous resources to designing wildlife underpasses, examples and guidelines for various wildlife underpasses in Florida can be obtained from The Florida Department of Transportation at: tttt5s://f�lctl�vw«i�1 �i_e �']3td{)H's.11ellti.i docs/del�iult snrlrce/cn riroltrt cull �.d.)�i�[I��:cl'f)s;i,iElg;gLisLe�i� 2(1.1_�re:li�j tS�..{• �cil?sL, •St -= , ) I__( or from the U.S, Department of Transportation at: 11i11>�/~,v�vw.flt��a.dot.�'t�Jtvir.�tltLlc�tl�tii3Ll� r'�cr ct55irthslntrtin.cfm. On -site wildlife surveys are considered the most reliable method for determining the presence of listed species or potential habitat and potential impacts associated with specific development projects. Species -specific surveys are time sensitive and are best conducted by trained wildlife biologists with recent documented experience. Species -specific survey protocols approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the FWC arc provided in the Florida Wildlife Conservation Guide at "i ps:/lrnin the FWC Species Conservation Measures and Permitting Guidelines available at 141l '.1/tuiCelr bi aes Jil bt' L%,l. s-wuideJinesL. There are several public data sources and online tools available that may be useful during preliminary reviews before conducting planning and field surveys for future projects. For example, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Eiodiversity Matrix Map Server {ititp.�alw��'�`' tnai.org/biointrct.ctitt) which provides access to rare species occurrence information statewide, FWC Gopher Tortoise Permit Map (t j�tublic.rrf�,cctttt(t /' t>3a�;lr tlterntitttan.lthyjl), and the USFWS's hlformation for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system (IJLttlLe� )ti `� r ') tc�/}, Natural resource mapping data downloads, including listed species data, are available at IIIps Wgeodola, III ylivc.colnl•t r esh) wid and tite Florida Geographic Data Library at lidos: ' w ` u3dl.o�g/ntclac _Irtirtexrtl� t/ jp ire'; s �. The liability to not impact or cause "take" of listed species, migratory wildlife, and other regulated species of wildlife is the responsibility of the applicant or developer associated with any future Packet Pg. 612 9.A.4.d development project. Any interested party can refer to the Florida Administrative Code, 68A-27 for definitions of"take" and a list of species. if state -listed species are observed on -site, FWC staff are available to provide decision support information or assist in obtaining the appropriate permits. if federally -designated Critical I labitat or federally listed species are present or would be impacted by a proposed project, please contact the appropriate regional USFWS Ecological Service Office (j1 t 1 12S.1 x, fivs.g v/offices/ices/Diredorv/Listi)flices.clit FWC staff appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed amendment. Please send any requests for further information to C,c�nservatio�tPi�s,�ug5.cr ' �' �C.co ny Sincerely, Bryan Phillips Conservation Planning Services Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 3911 Hwy 2321 Panama City, Florida 32409-1658 Office; 850-767-3646 Packet Pg. 613 9.A.4.d j t Roji DeSantis Gi)Vy=�',i,C1f� DEzl�w FLORIDA DEPARTMENT=t ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY June 16, 2022 The Honorable William L. McDaniel Chairman, Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Chairman McDaniel: Dane Cagle SLCRUARY RECEIVED JUN 24 car-FICr; ; r5r� c;r�t.ur;il i:nlli'�Ii'/ n0A11!) OF r,,0Iji%I"sY a;�J9Jl;tilil• `!s �h! .1I` The Department of Economic Opportunity ("Department") has completed its review of the comprehensive plan amendment for Collier County adopted by Ordinance No. 2022-17 on May 10, 2022 (Amendment No. 21-06ER), which was received and determined complete on May 16, 2022. We have reviewed the amendment in accordance with the state coordinated review process set forth in Sections 163.3184(2) and (4), Florida Statutes (F,S.), and have determined that the adapted amendment meets the requirements of Chapter 163, Part 11, F.S., for compliance, as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), F.S. The Department is therefore issuing a Notice of Intent to find the comprehensive plan amendment "In Compliance." A copy of the Notice of Intent is enclosed and will be posted on the Department's Internet website, You may access the Notice of Intent at: htt : /fIoridajobs.force.com/c rc. The Department's Notice of Intent to find a plan amendment "In Compliance" is deemed to be a final order if no timely petition challenging the amendment has been filed. If this plan amendment is challenged by an affected person, the amendment will not become effective until the Department or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining the amendment to be "In Compliance," Florida Department of Economic Opportunity I Caldwell Building 1 107 F. Madison Street j Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850) 245.7106 1 www,FloridaJobs.org I www,Twitter.com/FLDEO I www,Facebook,com/FLDEO An equal opportunity employer/program, Auxiliary aids and service are available upon request to indivlduals with disabilities. All voice telephone numbers on this document may be reached by persons using TTYITTD equipment via the Florida Relay Service at 711. Packet Pg. 614 9.A.4.d The Honorable William L. McDaniel, Chairman June 16, 2022 Page 2 of 2 if you have any questions concerning this review, please contact Don Arellano, Planning Analyst, by telephone at (850) 717-8452 or by email at Don,Arellano@deo.myflorida.com. Sincerely, �C,�� 124!)- - Scott Rogers, Regional Planning Administrator Bureau of Community Planning and Growth SR/da Enclosure: Notice of Intent cc: James Frency, Deputy Department Head, Growth Management, Collier County James Sabo, Planning Manager, Collier County Comprehensive Planning Margaret Wuerstle, Executive Director, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Packet Pg. 615 9.A.4.d STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND THE COLLIER COUNTY COMPRE— IENSNE PLAN AMENDMENT IN COMPLIANCE DOCKET NO. 21-06ER-NOI-1101-(A)-(I) The Department gives notice of its intent to find the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Collier County, adopted by Ordinance No. 2022-17 on May 10, 2022, IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Section 163,3184(4), F.S. If a timely petition challenging the Amendment is not filed within thirty (30) days after the local government adopted the Amendment, the Ainendinent become effective upon the posting of this Notice of Intent on the Department's Internet Website. If a timely petition is filed, die Amendment does not become effective until the Department of the Administration Con i ission enters a final order determining that the Amendment is in compliance. es D. Staiisbuiy, Chief ureau of Community Planning and Growth Division of Community Development Department of Economic Opportunity 107 Last Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Packet Pg. 616 9.A.4.e 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 for economic Packet Pg. 617 9.A.4.e 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) 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. 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 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. Sendinz Lands 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)] Packet Pg. 618 9.A.4.e 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. 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 Desiznation: Packet Pg. 619 9.A.4.e 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. 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 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 Packet Pg. 620 9.A.4.e 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 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: 510) 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. Packet Pg. 621 9.A.4.e This item is approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board approval because this is a Transmittal hearing. [HFAC] 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 Packet Pg. 622 9.A.4.f Co e-r Cou-pity 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. —1— Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments Packet Pg. 623 9.A.4.f 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: wwe was wme • Lands most appropriate for N development and to which U residential density may be transferred from Sending Lands • Lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value U • Lands generally disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations r • Permitted and Conditional Uses allowed per Agricultural zoning district, with allowance for expanded E 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 N 40 contiguous acres a� E U 2 r —2— a Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments Packet Pg. 624 9.A.4.f 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 r center outside of the Rural Villages; 2) remove the maximum acreage and leasable floor area limitations N 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 N 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 E landowners who have not conveyed their properties to participate in applicable program changes; 8) r —3— Q Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments Packet Pg. 625 9.A.4.f 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. Sendin_g 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 N compatible with environmental goals. [For NBMO location, see attached countywide FLUM] L 7. Allow landowners with large Sending Lands parcels to cluster dwelling units, retaining the one unit ~ N per 40-acre standard. as E U r —4— a Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments Packet Pg. 626 9.A.4.f 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 2 U_ 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 a 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 N acre, but to further study the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade Receiving Lands to determine if a adequate infrastructure may be available to accommodate greater density. L) 3. Promote economic vitality outside of Rural Villages by allowing Business and Industrial uses as identified as Florida Qualified Target Industries. r 4. Size of Rural Village: Staff recommends retaining the maximum size of the RV to allow for further E study, including infrastructure needs, maximum density, employment opportunities, and design L parameters. 5. Rural Village Greenbelt — Staff recommends reducing the greenbelt width, not eliminate, to `l' provide for the transition of uses and maintain rural character. E U r —5— a Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments Packet Pg. 627 9.A.4.f 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 j 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 Lands, and Belle Meade Receiving Lands — the North Receiving Lands RV has preliminary approval to develop at a lower density and lower TDR utilization rate. —6— Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments a Packet Pg. 628 9.A.4.f 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 560 (100% utilization in the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay = 560 new TDRs Sending Lands Existing Agriculture TDR Bonus 446 (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) Neutral Lands Existing Agriculture TDR Bonus 126 (100% utilization in all Neutral Lands = 1,266 new TDRs; staff assumed 10% utilization) Receiving Existing Agriculture TDR Bonus 611 (100% utilization in all Receiving Lands = 2,110 TDRs; staff assumed utilization only on the Ks farming operation in the Belle Meade Receiving area and only at 50% due to unique microclimate conducive to existing agricultural uses. Total TDRs 1,743 Note: Early Entry TDR bonus credit will be replaced with a second TDR Base Credit. —7— Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments s a� E t U 2 r Q Packet Pg. 629 9.A.4.f 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 strokethre gh 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. N c. The character of undeveloped land. L) 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 U non -conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. r r f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. E 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. cli 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. U r —8— a Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments Packet Pg. 630 9.A.4.f 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— Staff Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Amendments Packet Pg. 631 9.A.4.g RESOLUTION NO.2022- 78 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, 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] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Collier County staff has prepared amendments relating the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Restudy; and E M [21-CMP-01087/1700156/1]106 RFMUD Restudy Words underlined are additions; words stfuek through are deletions. I of 2 PL20200002234 * * * * * * * * * * * * are a break in text 4/27/22 Packet Pg. 632 9.A.4.g WHEREAS, on May 20, 2021, the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendments and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this 26th day of April, 2022. ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZE CLERK ;�LE 100 3 biputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: d�L dA Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF C OMMISSIONERS COLLIE Y, FLO A By: — Wi am L. McDaniel, Jr., Chairman Attachment: Exhibit A — Text amendments and attachments [21-CMP-01087/1700156/1 1106 RFMUD Restudy Words underlined are additions; words stf ^'s through are deletions. PL20200002234 * * * * * * * * * * * * are a break in text 4/27/22 3 of'2) Packet Pg. 633 9.A.4.g EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION [Page 25] text break**********+***** t************************ I. URBAN DESIGNATION [Page 25] 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. ********** r***** r** r** r r* r****** r** text break ** r**** r******** r************r*** r***** 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. Words underlined are added; words 6tFU6k threY94 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 1 of 30 Packet Pg. 634 9.A.4.g 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 IGGated within P-Re 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 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 lesated withiR One designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; 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 &hal! net hpespbjeG++ the one moleimi+ set ferth above apd 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 * t t t t**t******* t***********+****** r r**** 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 _Addi#ieRal i ini4$ nn�) dW811On Unit per nrro shall be transferrer- frrm Sending I andsi and Words underlined are added; words StrUGk through are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 2 of 30 Packet Pg. 635 9.A.4.g (h) ProjeGts qualifyiRg under this provision may inGrease the density administratively by -a 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. (b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development. (c) From Sending Lands IGGated WithiR 9Re mole of the UrbaR BOURdary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit per gross acre, with the following exceptions: 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 leGated within one mile of the Urban BOURdaFy into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. the ene mile IiMitatiOR set feFth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sen&4q RGro-aso 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 Pmperty shall Rot designated Sending within the Rural PriRge Mixed Use DiStriGt W aGhieve up te the maximum allei.vabl The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 200010, as amended, excepting the ±39 acres located in the South'/2 of the Southwest'/4 of the Northwest'/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest Y4 of the Southwest'/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION Words underlined are added; words StFYGk threugI4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm [Page 74] 3 of 30 Packet Pg. 636 9.A.4.g 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 93 660 )77,200 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. 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. Words underlined are added; words Dough are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 4 of 30 Packet Pg. 637 9.A.4.g 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: 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. 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 protect 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. Words underlined are added; words stFUGk thmyq.14 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 5 of 30 Packet Pg. 638 9.A.4.g 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 On erder 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-. . 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. 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, theRuh al FF; ;ge Mixed Use DiStFiGt 's preserved. These devel,,pmeRt �,� standards, bu#ers, and setbaGks. d) Rural Villages, subject to the provisions set forth in II. B.3 of this element. Words underlined are added; words StFYGk threHgh are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 6 of 30 Packet Pg. 639 9.A.4.g 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: (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. 6+6age, gelf revises shall demr enstrate the fellewing maR Bement Words underlined are added; words StFYGk threugh are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 7 of 30 Packet Pg. 640 9.A.4.g - - -pm-.._ faii;A�ays;, A.n.d huilding sites. Within these eXGepted SUGh as golf greens, .0 (64tjj 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. (74 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. 1) Commercial development as permitted as part of an approved Rural Village. WithiR G i8 yeap of adeptiGR of these ameRdmeRtS the GG Rty mill develop Villages 1 W4 rrcrT PaI4iG61laF feGUS OR design, SGale, the Words underlined are added; words 6trUsk threug4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 8 of 30 Packet Pg. 641 9.A.4.g 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 GRe year of adeption of these ameRdments, the County Parks within PFea+s+en s DiMP*r't 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 protects. 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. 4i} P) Zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or other similar uses. e} q) Public educational plants and ancillary plants. 0) Facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste. 4* ss) Community facilities, such as, places of worship, childcare facilities, cemeteries, social and fraternal organizations. } t)Sports instructional schools and camps. s-) u)Earthmining, oil extraction and related processing. t) v) Asphalt and concrete batch -making plants. �4 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) xq Parks, open space, and recreational uses. w) y) Private schools. 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 nr +haR 40 �,.ro� ,., �,�o 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 Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threygI4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 9 of 30 Packet Pg. 642 9.A.4.g 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. 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 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. Words underlined are added; words stF61sk threuqI4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 10 of 30 Packet Pg. 643 9.A.4.g 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. INTMUM LTSSr.LT�7T.! 101Ws1I GMT--171'MO� 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; • 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 Words underlined are added; words 6tF616k-thmwgI4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 11 of 30 Packet Pg. 644 9.A.4.g 04/27/2022 mrm for Golf Course Maintenance Departments, prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, May1995 September 2012. usage, gelfeerses Shall —derxIGnstrate the fellewing mnnnnomeRt pFaGtiGe& (a) The use of s!Gw release nitrogen soy iroe (G) The use of aR integrated pest maRagei i ieRt pr egram a.S.ing both May 1991 (revised 1995) to se!eGt pe6tiGides that will have a mi.ni.m.-H.m. (G) Native plaRtS shall be used eXGliASiVelY eXGept fer SpeGial puFpe6e areas 66I h as golf greens fain axis anrt h "d'no sites Within those evrepted areas lanrlsoan'no plans shall re` i lire that at least 7504 of the trees anrt 500/ of the shrubs he freeze tolerant native Gloradean sneoies At least 0 E)f the required Rative trees and shrubs shall also be drought tolerant sneries {�Qj 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. {P6}J41 Site preservation and native vegetation retention requirements shall be the same as those set forth in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District criteria. Site Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threug.14 are deleted 12 of 30 Packet Pg. 645 9.A.4.g 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. 1) 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. Larnv6 whoro s nh nrnnnr+v is rnn+in n s +n Neutral Land/sending I and boundary, the PFGPeFty GWReF May submit data and analysis to the QeuRty in an year from the nffnr+'vn date of this nrn\/islnn b) Site speGifiG eRViFenmeRtal data submitted by the PFOPeFty eWReF, ()F other data n\ A adjustment to the Ne6itral Lands hnlIRdan/ will net adversely affon++he T-DR Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threugh are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 13 of 30 Packet Pg. 646 9.A.4.g 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. 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. Base Severance Rate: Development rights may be severed from Sending Lands at a maximum rate of 9-.-7 0_4 TDR credits per acre (4 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, arse 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 & 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 conjunction with any county, state or federal permitting. Words underlined are added; words stFUGk t#Feagt} are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 14 of 30 Packet Pg. 647 9.A.4.g 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 a) or b) below t#e fellew'ng 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. 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 Words underlined are added; words are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 15 of 30 Packet Pg. 648 9.A.4.g maximum rate of 0.4 TDR credits per acre (2 TDR Credits 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 FlowWay 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: (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 Words underlined are added; words GtFUGk threY91 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 16 of 30 Packet Pg. 649 9.A.4.g 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. Words underlined are added; words stFUskthreugI4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 17 of 30 Packet Pg. 650 9.A.4.g 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. Words underlined are added; words stFUsk thFeugh are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 18 of 30 Packet Pg. 651 9.A.4.g 11. Clusterina: For Sendina 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 Words underlined are added; words StFUGk thrGugt4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 19 of 30 Packet Pg. 652 9.A.4.g 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 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. 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 a 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: Words underlined are added; words GtFHGk threyg4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 20 of 30 Packet Pg. 653 9.A.4.g 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. subsequeRt te the Great,or, of these preyisieno Rural Village applications shall be submitted in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) re -zone ar+d, where—appliGab�OR of law that may supersede the [DR! nroness B) Locational Restrictions: 1. 14. Rural Village shall net be leGated aRY GIGSeF thaR 3.9 Miles; frOm -ARG-ther Rural Vit 2. lSje mere than A -Ma RuFal Village may be IGGated iR eaGh ef the diStinGt ReGeiving nrea0 denirted on the FLUM. M 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, aed Density, and Design: 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 aad 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. 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—,agd tl-ie lanrt area rtecigRated a0 a green bolt c rreundinn the Rural Village is granted by aria aic.... ..�.,y........,... ..., ... y.,,.,., ..,,,...,................ .� .._- .._.�. ....�a_ 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 Words underlined are added; words StFUGk thFeugh are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 21 of 30 Packet Pg. 654 9.A.4.g 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. AGreage 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 Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threugh are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 22 of 30 Packet Pg. 655 9.A.4.g 0 GeRteF aGFeage and 8,500 square feet ef gross leasable floor area peF aGFe. age�'eRtor A'lotrzto ovnona 100% of the total Village nrnronno . d) Village Center GeMFAeFG'al Not to eXGeed 0 Gf the Village center aGreage and 10,000 square feet of gross leasable flooF area per aGre. e) d) Research and Technology Parks allowed; must be — Oconsistent with the provisions of the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District, excluding paragraph j; the Dark shall not eXGeed not of the total Village aGFeage-. 0 E) Open Space and Environmental Protection: Greenbelts: In addition to the requirements for parks, village greens, and other open space within the Rural Village, a greenbelt averaging 200 3W 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 nnnnon#ram+#olt to a greater rtonroo 'n ernes ieihoro t is ne Gessoni to nrotont 106to�-7 --es habitat, iRGIuding wetlands and uplands, pFevide fer a buffer frern adjaGeRt , 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. 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 aodior DR! 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 Words underlined are added; words StFHGk thrGyg14 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 23 of 30 Packet Pg. 656 9.A.4.g 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, tFa Rsi# hiGYGIe and pedestrian faroili#io and paths ay-s' 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. • 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 Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threugI4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 24 of 30 Packet Pg. 657 9.A.4.g 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 eessu raged 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 aad/erg 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. 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 Words underlined are added; words stFYslthreug# are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 25 of 30 Packet Pg. 658 9.A.4.g 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 onsite 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. 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. 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. 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 Words underlined are added; words 6tF6lGk thFeugh are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 26 of 30 Packet Pg. 659 9.A.4.g 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. 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 P-private property ewReFS 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; Listed species protection shall be provided for as specified in CCME Policy 7.1.2; Permitted and conditional uses for publicly owned lands within an NRPA Overlay shall be those as set forth under the Conservation Designation. Words underlined are added; words 6461Gk threug4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 27 of 30 Packet Pg. 660 9.A.4.g 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. 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. 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. Words underlined are added; words are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 28 of 30 Packet Pg. 661 9.A.4.g Exhibit A [PL20200002234] R 25E I R%E I R27E R2RE R29E R50E R31E Rl2E R31E Rl1E 2012.2025 — FUTURE LAND USE MAP CN4r County Pwnaa ti OETA0.O a— OVERLAV AREA ARE S" N Ov NE T'JRE-VC U;E"OTRLEO p 'C0.,ER OOJRV"A4 A"K'.TJRAL AREA A.",I-SYEVT:TEW&RDt" OVERLAYNV' --- •—•� „� � 2ELLE VEADE kYOROLOG�C --.--.-.-- w ENHANCEMENT OVERLA• EM N ------- ------- J v7ii-- RR26E R27E ( R26E R25E R70E I R71E I R32E I R33E I RUE Words underlined are added; words StF6lGk thF96iq4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 29 of 30 00 O N N O N C O 7 O to d I .r r E N c tv L M c W E t v ca r Q Packet Pg. 662 9.A.4.g Exhibit A [PL20200002234] _wF� Belle Meade Hydrologic O Enhancement Oveflay (BMHEO) _.. - - 47' I 54rh Av H to ' bria+le RO �.i 40 AVE SE 681h AVF SE I I nd AYE ■lll ^DO"= - 70p(X 7.nn 0 2.5M ^ 5.ODD 10,000 Feel Cl pMa00l 1JIlq Prepoxd dhttlEO Words underlined are added; words 6tF6lGk thFGygl4 are deleted 04/27/2022 mrm 30 of 30 Go 0 N tV O N C O 7 O N d _1 a+ E rn C m L M C W E t v ca Q Packet Pg. 663 9.A.4.h C.-eorllter CO""ty 0 ft%W 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 Packet Pg. 664 9.A.4.h Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District White Paper Table of Contents Page Section1: Introduction..............................................................................................................................................1 Section2: 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 Table2-3 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 Q a Figure 1-1 RFMUD Sending and Receiving Areas................................................................................................. 4 m z Figure 2-1 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Transactions Sending Parcels to Receiving Projects ....... 8 0 Figure 3-1 Sending, Neutral and Receiving Lands Recommendations Survey Results..................................13LL v Figure 3-2 Committed Highway Projects for Construction by 2020.................................................................17 }; c m Figure 3-3 Freight Activity Centers.......................................................................................................................19 E c� Figure 3-4 Transportation Study Areas................................................................................................................ 20 a Figure 3-5 Collier Well -Being Index...................................................................................................................... 24 Packet Pg. 665 9.A.4.h . qo of Cotontyy Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District White Paper Section 1: Introduction This White Paper provides a conceptual framework to address elements of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) restudy. The RFMUD restudy is the first of four restudies focused on eastern Collier County, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on February 10, 2015. Focus areas of all four restudies include complementary land uses, transportation and mobility, environmental stewardship and economic vitality. As the restudies unfold, relationships and synergies between the study areas are identified and maximized. The Community Planning staff in the Zoning Division of the Growth Management Department provides this document as a first point of direct contact with elected officials to describe the history and status of the RFMUD (Section 2), the planning process, including outreach and sources of data and analysis (Section 3), and findings and initial recommendations (Section 4). This paper is supplemented by appendices of importance at this juncture, final quarter of FY 2016. Appendix A contains summaries of public workshops as well as communications from stakeholders with their remarks subsequent to our distribution of a first draft of initial recommendations on July 13, 2016. Appendix B contains a memo from a TDR consultant on the provision of a County sponsored TDR Bank. Appendix C is the Phase 1 Feasibility Report for a Mitigation Bank in North Belle Meade. One reason to bring the RFMUD restudy forward in report form is to lay the groundwork of information relating to the RFMUD, the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program and the ideas and perceptions of its stakeholders. Another important reason is that, given the complexity of the elements within the RFMUD and TDR program, a conceptual approach should be a preferred way to begin. Many elements or ideas for change are related to many other program elements. Often, a change in one aspect of the program echoes in other program elements. By considering the breadth and scope of potential changes together, a better understanding of these interrelationships emerges. Put another way, it is helpful in a program of this complexity to move from more general concepts at first to more specific proposals later. As understood by staff at the beginning of this restudy in 2015, the original goals of the program should be maintained, deriving from the Final Order in 1999, through the assessment a 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 Pa Packet Pg. 666 9.A.4.h • Protect agricultural land from premature conversion to other uses • Direct growth potential to appropriate locations • Utilize creative land use planning techniques, including new towns, satellite communities, clustering, mixed use and open space Along with retention of the original goals and the geographic (Sending/Neutral/Receiving) designations that were made, restudy goals also include: • Improve the TDR credit system o Achieve proper balance of credits (optimize supply and demand) o Incentivize preservation and stewardship o Ensure reasonable demand for and availability of credits in Receiving areas • Identify agencies or entities for long term ownership and maintenance • Review and improve development uses, regulations and standards, based on: o Community values o Sustainability o Economic development o Consistency with area needs, other sub -area needs and County policies Some of the coordination called for in the course of the restudy requires close collaboration with other County Departments or outside agencies, often at the expense of a strict adoption or implementation timetable. For example, planning for affordable housing, mobility, watershed and infrastructure require knowledge and recognition of parallel efforts, each moving along its own trajectory and timetable. Staff is mindful that interdepartmental and intergovernmental coordination help yield the optimal result. The RFMUD contains approximately 77,000 acres; lands designated RFMUD are not contiguous. One of the interesting observations that emerged early on in the restudy is that there are significant differences in the character and status of the four main Sending areas and the four main Receiving areas. For consistency, we have labeled the RFMUD sub -areas as follows (see Figure 1-1): Sending: • North • North Belle Meade- NRPA • North Belle Meade -West • South Belle Meade Receiving: • North RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pa Packet Pg. 667 9.A.4.h • 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 Pa Packet Pg. 668 RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pa Packet Pg. 669 9.A.4.h of fl r Cowymy Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District White Paper Section 2: Background In June 1999, the State of Florida Final Order, Case ACC-99-002, found the County's Growth Management Plan lacking in protection for environmentally sensitive areas, failing to adequately discourage urban sprawl and failing to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land. The Final Order required the following modifications to the GMP to address the issues within three specified areas. 1. Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas. 2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal species and their habitats. 3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. In order to address these concerns, the County created the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. The Growth Management Plan was amended in 2002 to include the majority of today's RFMUD provisions and the basic structure of the TDR program. It was amended soon thereafter, to include bonus TDR provisions and provisions incorporating an intervener agreement known as the North Belle Meade Overlay. The implementing Land Development Code (LDC) provisions, reflecting and implementing all of these GMP amendments were adopted in 2004. Only miscellaneous amendments have been made since that time. The RFMUD contains approximately 77,000 acres. It provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands, between the Urban and Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA), and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is separated into three specific areas, Sending Lands, Neutral Lands, and Receiving Lands. Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity. These sending lands generally include significant a wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. The uses within the Sending Lands are limited RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pa Packet Pg. 670 9.A.4.h 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 Pa Packet Pg. 671 9.A.4.h 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 Pa Packet Pg. 672 9.A.4.h Table 2-2 RFMUD TDR Credits Processed or Pending Process TDRs Base Credits Processed 1,326.10 Early Entry Bonus Credits Processed 1,326.10 R&M Bonus TDR Credits Processed 905.32 Conveyance Bonus Credits Processed 395.82 TDRs Pending Process 658.40 Total 4,611.74 As shown in Table 2-3, under the current system, approximately 10,947 TDRs remain to be processed. These TDR credits are associated with approximately 16,363 acres of Sending Land. The theoretical credits under the present system both processed and outstanding, total approximately 15,558. Of this total, approximately 25% have been issued. Table 2-3 Outstanding TDR Credits Outstanding TDR Credits Base TDR Credits 2,403.67 Early Entry Bonus TDR Credits 2,403.67 R&M Bonus TDR Credits 2,804.67 Conveyance Bonus Credits 3,335.02 Total 10,947.03 To date, approximately 2,129 TDRs have been redeemed to support the increased density found in the Receiving area development projects. These transactions between Sending Lands and Receiving Lands are shown on Figure 2-1. Given the activity that has occurred to date, the greatest development potential in Receiving Lands will be the North, North Belle Meade and South Receiving areas, where the majority of the changes adopted as part of the RFMUD restudy will occur. Based on the difficulty for Sending owners to generate the restoration and maintenance credit, or the conveyance credit, TDR supply under the current system is estimated to be far less than shown in Table 2-3. Staff's assessment estimates a more realistic credit supply of approximately 5,500 TDRs. The demand assessment prepared by staff assumes one village each in the North Receiving area, the North Belle Meade Receiving area, and the South receiving area, along with about 60 percent of the remaining vacant property using the cluster provisions. This scenario Q 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 Pa Packet Pg. 673 ��. Figure 2-1 Co��ierCounty TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) TRANSACTI SENDING PARCELS TO RECEIVING PROJECTS LEE COUNTY PINE RIDGE RD I II GREEN BLVD m fY w U I QEN a0 RADIO RD ,Q 11 II' S� OP II 957 I I T4�79w,. RFMUD IMMOKALEE RD E r S S -� Cg ` `4 C i y — O _ = OIL WELL RD OIL WELL RD N aRF-Sending O RF-Receiving RF-Neutral �jj Govt. Owned Parcels 0. M a SENDING PARCEL RECEIVING PROJECTS dS* �+ ® Mockingbird Crossing (397 ac, 95 credits) - Mockingbird Crossing i ®Lamorada - Lamorada (538 ac, 213 credits) Quarry Quarry C_ G (64 ac, 18 credits) ILL Twin Eagles fLLd Twin Eagles (2,542 ac, 1,271 credits) ®Golf Club of the Everglades 0 Golf Club of the Everglades yj (14 ac, 44 credits) = - Hacienda Lakes ® (252 ac, 113 credits) - Hacienda Lakes E s ®Heritage Bay - Heritage Bay (84 ac, 33 credits) w+ Naples Reserve Naples Reserve w+ Q (204 ac, 40 credits) ®The Lords Way The Lord's Way (1, 100 ac, 193 credits) * Credits shown are only those redeemed as of Jan. 2016, and do not necessarily represent all credits generated or needed for project buildout. 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 .' shop 01/03/2 o^eTMENT Packet Pg. 674 9.A.4.h . qo of Cotontyy Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District White Paper Section 3: The Planning Process In early 2015, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) directed staff to initiate a restudy of the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District (RFMUD), along with three other master plans east of County Road 951: Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP); Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA); and the Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP). To support the RFMUD planning effort, the BCC initiated the public participation process through the adoption Resolution 2015-111 establishing a 7 member Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC). The functions, powers, and duties of the GMOC are to aid and assist the public participation phase of the regulatory review. This includes: 1. Assist in determining the most effective venues and dates to hold the public presentations: 2. Assist in composing the information materials to be presented to the public at community meeting at various locations throughout the study area. 3. Assist in determining the agendas for public meetings; 4. Assist in providing consistency between the planning efforts. In reviewing proposals for program change, the GMOC scope will be "high level and non - granular, emphasizing consistency, sustainability and economic vitality." The GMOC set their schedule to meet quarterly throughout the restudies planning timeframe. They met three times through June, 2016 providing input to staff on community outreach schedule and presentation materials. With the guidance of the GMOC, this restudy process was a focused, stakeholder effort. All interested parties were encouraged to participate in public workshops, on-line surveys and in direct communication with staff. Public Outreach To engage landowner participation in the RFMUD restudy, letters were mailed to over 800 RFMUD property owners informing them of the restudy and the public workshop schedule. A total of six public workshops were held from January, 2016 through May, 2016. A summary of each meeting is attached as Appendix A, Public Outreach Summary. The first three public workshops were held during evening hours at the IFAS Center and focused on the RFMUD Sending Lands. Fifty to sixty people attended each workshop. During the first Q workshop there was strong sentiment among Sending Land owners that the program should RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 675 9.A.4.h not have been devised in the way it was; many thought that the RFMUD governing provisions should be abandoned altogether. Through the public workshop process, some came to understand that the program was created as a result of litigation and the State's Final Order; that the program has been in place for over ten years; that TDR credits have been redeemed and converted to density; and that the County needs to move forward and not back. The public workshops for the Sending Lands focused on the important issues to the landowners including improving the economic viability of the program, promoting smarter development patterns and protecting natural resources. Staff continuously encouraged owner input on how to improve the program. Several techniques were used for this outreach: public presentations; comment cards; breakout group exercises; on-line surveys; telephone calls; and individual meetings. The public was encouraged to explore resources on the website, including a library of materials and video-taped meetings. The first public meeting was introductory in nature. Staff summarized the history and current status of the RFMUD and the TDR program. Participants were encouraged to express opinions on the rules adopted over a decade earlier, and staff outlined the anticipated progression of the study and the public involvement phase going forward. The meeting summary can be found in Appendix A, Public Workshop #1. The second public workshop focused on issues related to the Sending Lands in North Belle Meade. A panel of local experts was seated to discuss possible solutions for the Sending Lands long-term ownership and maintenance. The full discussion, questions and responses are found in Appendix A, Public Workshop #2. The third and final public workshop focusing on Sending Lands topics included two major components. First, staff provided an overview of the economic considerations involved in TDR transfers; and second, a list of changes suggested by the public was vetted using breakout group approach. Each group discussed the potential changes, ranked their agreement and reported back to the entire group. The full discussion, questions and responses are found in Appendix A, Public Workshop #3. In summary, through the public workshop process, Sending Land participants agreed upon the following: • Add TDR credits to all sending lands regardless of location or attributes, such as higher natural resource values or watershed improvement potential. • Eliminate the $25,000 minimum price for a base TDR credit. • Allow TDR Credits to be used outside of the RFMUD, but agreement to where to use the credits was not defined. • Reduce or eliminate TDR application fees. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 676 9.A.4.h • County staff should offer free workshop assistance to complete TDR application process. • Improve the link between buyers and sellers through an improved listing or a TDR bank. • Create a TDR bank. • Allow TDR credits for agriculture preservation. • Allow additional family home if agricultural land owner has over 20 acres. • Collier County should be managing entity of Sending Lands. • Long term maintenance cost should be paid for by a County mitigation program. Following the Sending Lands workshops, staff focused on the Neutral and Receiving Lands. Approximately sixty residents attended the workshops, of which about half had not attended the Sending Lands workshops. Staff presented the future development potential allowed under the current program, including vacant land, allowed land uses, density and intensity. Break out groups were invited to provide feedback on several key questions including: specific issues and concerns about future development; improvements or changes for the Receiving Lands; what is liked best about the Receiving Lands; and opinions about the Neutral Lands. All responses to the questions are included in Appendix A, Public Workshop #4. Members of Collier County's consultant team, AECOM, wrapped up this workshop with a primer on different kinds of development models with a focus on sustainability. This presentation was well received by participants with many asking for copies of the PowerPoint slides. 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 #S. 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 E 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 a RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 677 9.A.4.h Figure 3-1 Sending and Neutral Lands Recommendations Survey Results 26-May, 2016 Reward Neutral Land owners with TDRs for preserving habitat or native vegetation under a conservation easement. Extend the same advantages to Neutral Land owners who want to commit to agricultural uses by offering TDRs. Eliminate the use of TDRs in urban areas if they come from RFMUD Sending Lands. Study recreational uses that could be compatible on donated lands that go beyond "passive recreation." Allow a second dwelling unit to dedicated farming operations of at least 20 acres. If a mitigation bank is not a feasible funding source, require a donation to the County with the land, equivalent to all or a portion of any additional TDRs issued. The County should finance maintenance of donated Sending Land through a mitigation bank, if feasible. The County should accept land that owners wish to donate, if no other agency is willing. Create a County -sponsored TDR bank that can buy credits from Sending Lands owners Reduce cost and complexity of applications. Improve the Buyer/Seller registries. Eliminate minimum pricing on Base TDRs. TDRs should be awarded also for owners who commit to keeping their land in agricultural production Additional credits should be provided to those who entered the program early. Additional credits should not favor one Sending Land location over another. Additional credits should be provided to balance the anticipated demand from Receiving Areas. Sending Land owners, if they participate, should benefit from additional credits. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■ Strongly Disagree ■ Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree L M a m t LL C E t M .r Q RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 678 9.A.4.h Receiving Lands Recommendations Survey Results 26-May, 2016 Additional incentives for innovative green designs, such as solar power, zero net water, aquifer storage and recovery sites, etc. Currently no provisions for stand-alone commercial. Propose design guidelines (no strip) and use of TDR credits (ex, 1 credit per 6,000 SF). Modify the TDR requirements to 0.5 credit for multi -family units and 0 credit for target industry/business park uses Hearing Examiner can approve business park proposals. Hearing Examiner can approve individual deviations. Developments complying with zoning overlays should get approval through simple BCC majority or Hearing Examiner process. Use overlays or optional design standards that promote greater certainty in review process. Incentivize mixed -use developments by studying potential impact fees for mixed -use. Reward projects that advance the greater public interest (examples: greenway connections, flowway connections). Allow TDRs in Receiving Areas for protection of native vegetation/habitat or agriculture. Add requirements for transit stops in large developments, business parks or villages. Consider roadway design standards that promote low speed and safety. Enhance requirements for greater project connectivity. Analyze arterial roadway capacity issues. Increase density allowd in non -village development to 2 units per acre (TDRs required) and remove 40-acre minimum size Increase density allowed in rural villages to 4 units per gross acre (TDRs required) Revise village rules to allow larger commercial and employment areas. Allow business park stand-alone uses to increase employment opportunities in research technology and other targeted businesses. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ■ Strongly Disagree ■ Disagree ■ Neutral ■ Agree ■ Strongly Agree RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 679 9.A.4.h show, through the public outreach process, that consensus was reached on the initial recommendations put forward in the final workshop. In addition to public workshops, public outreach included numerous interviews, meetings and telephone calls with citizens, agency representatives, stakeholders and media. In fact, prior to public workshops, at least 15 one on one interviews were conducted to obtain factual information and initial opinion. Ultimately, staff met 3 times with the Rural Fringe Coalition (development group), and twice with representatives from Conservancy, Florida Wildlife Federation, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and Collier Citizens Council. Necessarily, horizontal communication within the County Managers agency was frequent. Data Analysis Staff was directed to address four major topic areas through this planning effort: 1) Environment; 2) Land Use; 3) Transportation and Mobility; and 4) Economic Vitality. Through the first several months of the planning process, staff gathered and analyzed data relative to the major topics from several sources with the intent to understand and coordinate major planning efforts, recent or on -going, in the County including, but not limited to: • Current RFMUD Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code sections • The Master Mobility Plan (2012) • MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (2015) • TDR Activity Log and Comprehensive Planning data (2016) • East of CR 951 Final Report (2008) • Collier Interactive Growth Model (2008) • Picayune Restoration Plan (2008) • Watershed Management Plan (2011) • North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Study (2013) • Utility Master Plans (2008, 2015) • Towards Better Places: Collier County Community Character Plan (2001) • Wellfield Protection Zones; Aquifer Recharge Areas • Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce "Opportunity Naples" (2014) • Current national planning studies During the past decade, many studies and efforts have addressed Collier County's environment, transportation, land use, and economic vitality. Many of the recommendations found in a previous studies relate to and can be implemented in the RFMUD. National planning studies, RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 680 9.A.4.h like those conducted in Collier County, continue to focus on implementing planning policy toward sustainability, smart growth and multi -modal principles. Fnvirnnmant The seminal documents relating to environmental issues are the very subject of this restudy: the Growth Management Plan RFMUD provisions and related LDC provisions. The RFMUD, as indicated in Section 2, Background, was designed following challenges to the County's existing and proposed plans for eastern Collier County, and was necessitated due to State action. Specifically with respect to Sending Lands downzoning and TDR incentives, environmental goals were intended to fulfill the directives of the Final Order: "Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats." The core RFMUD provisions, now nearly 15 years old, are a major area of focus in this restudy. In 2015 and 2016, Collier's RFMUD regulations were vetted through public meetings with residents and stakeholders, as described above. Feedback from staff and public resulted in the need to bring quantitative and technical analysis to bear on environmental issues. As watershed planning is one of the major components of environmental restoration in Sending Lands, the County's Watershed Management Plan (2011) emerges as a key source of data and analysis for environmental aspects of the RFMUD. In turn, that plan resulted in the appointment of the Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Plan (GGWIP) Technical Ad Hoc Advisory Committee and its successor, the current Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan (CWIP) Technical Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. RFMUD restudy staff has attended and participated in those committee meetings since September, 2015. There are many important issues centric to both RFMUD regulations and watershed improvement programs. For example, the RESTORE grant funding initiative presents a specific opportunity to balance water surplus and water deficits within the watersheds in RFMUD and Golden Gate Estates planning areas; staff has attended and participated in numerous meetings with Project Managers, state and federal agency officials and consultants. The RESTORE initiative informs priorities and coordination of effort within RFMUD Sending areas. In order to further incentivize TDR program participation and at the same time recommend sustainable long-term management and protection of environmentally important Sending Lands, a Phase 1 North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank Feasibility Study was commissioned. If feasible, adoption of a ROMA or similar program could allow a means for County ownership with long term funding that could favor transportation budgeting, and incentivize Sending owner participation. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 681 9.A.4.h Collier County has had success in the past in mitigating its own impacts. The Caracara Prairie Preserve Conservation Bank (and successor Trust Fund) saved the County $346,100 (26%) in Panther Habitat Unit (PHU) costs, as compared to a private mitigation bank, in permitting its Resource Recovery Business Park in 2014. A discussion of the North Belle Meade mitigation bank concept is included in Section 4 and the Phase 1 Report is attached as Appendix B. Staff will look to the BCC for direction in carrying this study forward to its next phase. Related to all aspects of the major topic areas is the ongoing economic modelling that addresses the balance of credits from Sending Lands to Receiving Lands. Scenario modelling is applied to assure appropriate credit supply and demand so that additional credits can incentivize Sending participation and allow adequate credit resourcing for future development. It is understood by our consultant that additional credits will be recommended, but that the number of credits and their distribution rely on a myriad of factors, making scenario modelling an important tool in restudy data and analysis. These scenarios will become a part of the CCPC and BCC presentations and will ultimately help answer the quantitative question regarding additional credits within the system. Finally, additional consultation is underway with respect to TDR banks. TDR bank analysis will provide the pros and cons of entering into a banking system for the purpose of assuring confidence and liquidity in the TDR transfer system. The first deliverable is attached as Appendix C. The concepts are further discussed in this paper in Section 4, (C.3). Transportation Every day more than 116,000 auto work trips are completed within Collier County. Many of these trips are generated in eastern Collier County as residents make the commute to jobs in the coastal area. The Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is Collier County's guiding transportation document. The purpose of the LRTP is to assist Collier County in cultivating its transportation vision through the next 20 years. It identifies needed improvements to the network, and provides a long-term investment framework that addresses current and future transportation challenges. LRTP goals are: • Ensure the Security of Transportation System for Users • Protect Environmental Resources • Improve System Continuity and Connectivity • Reduce Roadway Congestion • Promote Freight Movement RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 682 9.A.4.h • Increase the Safety of the Transportation System for Users • Promote Multi -modal Solutions • Promote the Integrated Planning of Transportation and Land Use The LRTP stresses, the key to enhancing mobility for users of the transportation system is to improve connectivity and continuity through the system, and especially across all modes. The MPO recognized the importance of prioritizing projects that enhance connectivity by including system continuity and connectivity as two of the several project selection criteria. Connectivity and continuity are also important for bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes. Users of the transit system rely on bicycle, pedestrian or park -and -ride facilities in order to "make the connection." Connectivity and system continuity is about advancing an interconnected multi -modal transportation system. The LRTP committed highway projects for construction by 2020 are nearly all located in eastern Collier County, and several are within Receiving Lands (Figure 3-2). Figure 3-2 Committed Highway Projects for Construction by 2020 'ri 1 - ire .,;0 Mmh I di N�ra�4•y m V� neyarrfs Guldeli G q[c Naples 0 �� ,_�1 13 air Naples M un lcJ0ak Airport Lary Roct ery Bayr preaem C�l•t[-V- OF Island° o r;�•,�vuc�e Presy Li" Stmo Stake Fgresf Marco tOand f-FeZuiive Alkport cagier Serrunule kkrl 1 Stare Part, Teri Thousand katarad 2e FJOrida panther tkrafmao WOKO Reruge F6anatchee Sea Stab Praent 0 Intersection/ Interchange Improvement mRoadway improvement RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 683 9.A.4.h 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 lifail4f y�1 �:� �� Orangsr;ee North '� 41 Maples �951 iis:ya�w YAi aplcsunidrport ely %aVrary9ay 1 P�aSorva I .—Marco ■ ' Execu r M pirayrme Sfwd Sfafe Forest 13 28I �8 �9flf�76f 14ahixaai ky�7dQife F�tvge FAahakhee Strad Sfafn Pmwn.w 2g Freight Act{v41y Centers (FAC) Cosrafu P&*a�e POrnary FAC �fat� �affi �. Secondory PAC The LRTP also identifies future study areas to further define and clarify the scope of V improvements needed in the area. Three study areas were identified, and one serves the r RFMUD. The Green Boulevard Extension/North Belle Meade Study Area extends eastward from Q CR-951 to surround the North Belle Meade Area from Golden Gate Estates to 1-75 and eastward RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 684 9.A.4.h to Everglades Boulevard. The purpose of the study is to define future collector road network in this area. A number of corridors that would enhance circulation throughout the area have been identified, as illustrated on Figure 3-4. The study effort would determine the feasibility and preferred alignment for the identified corridors or alternatives that may be developed during the course of the study. Naples I � Figure 3-4 Transportation Study Areas L. PEW Ral Pen Strand _� I 4ranU�tre I i f I99iJ bards I _ � I old eM1�- -- I _=-wples ' M"ni ppal Alrpori l.rly I SEE INSt:T� Y — RaCiery say I. Fmrida Panfhev Nak" WpUQ RAfuge J Picayune SfraO Safe Fmsf Fawarch" SaanG Stile Preserm Am port r�mvrS rrifFure .— sfafe Park Zvi Z. Study Area Interchange Improvement 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). r The MMP considered six planning sub -areas, including the RFMUD. The MMP developed a Q 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 Pag Packet Pg. 685 9.A.4.h at population buildout. The primary goal of the MMP is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and traffic demands specifically by reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled while at the same time protecting habitats, environmentally sensitive lands and agriculture. The Board of County Commissioners on January 24, 2012, reviewed and accepted the MMP strategies developed in cooperation with the Collier County Planning Commission through an enhanced public involvement process. Related to the RFMUD, the MMP recommends a new multi -modal Mobility Analysis, done at the time of development application, to create the needed linkage between land use and transportation policy. A Mobility Analysis would expand the current methodology found in a Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) by addressing not only the automobile, but also including analysis of transit, bicycle and pedestrian mobility. Components of a Mobility Analysis measure the reduction in number or length of external automobile trips. Mobility Analysis Components Mixed Use Trip Generation Model (or similar technique) to calculate external trips (internal capture), external walk trips, external transit trips, etc. For single -use development, a demonstration of what VMT-reduction strategies/techniques are to be used An analysis of current and proposed transit access An analysis of local street connectivity An analysis of non -motorized travel suitability Further addressing the need for a multi -modal network, in 2014, the Florida Department of Transportation adopted a Complete Streets policy. The goal is to implement policy that promotes safety, quality of life, and economic development. FDOT specifically recognized that Complete Streets are context -sensitive and requires design that considers local land development patterns and built form. The overall intent of a Complete Streets policy is to provide safe access for all road users — pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users, and motorists —of all ages and abilities. Although design features vary based on local context, basic elements should include wide sidewalks, well - marked or raised crosswalks, traffic calming measures, protected bike lanes, and pedestrian safety islands. Complete Streets can help reduce costs and improve health by significantly reducing crash rates, injuries, and fatalities. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 686 9.A.4.h Congested transportation networks are generally caused by low density, single -use development with sparse connectivity and the majority of users on the network during the same peak hours. Collier County's transportation planning efforts and FDOT are in agreement - to enhance mobility it is critical to plan for a multi -modal system that serves all users of all ages, is interconnected, and with continuity. Transportation planning efforts have identified several efforts within the RFMUD including new corridors, bridges, FAC designations, and areas for further study. This signifies considerable attention is being given to the transportation network surrounding the RFMUD. I and 1 Ica 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 Pag Packet Pg. 687 9.A.4.h Table 3-1 RFMUD Development Characteristics Typical RFMUD Base RFMUD RFMUD Village Characteristics Rights Clustering Size Minimum 5 acres Minimum 40 acres 300-2,500 acres Residential Gross 1 unit per 5 acres 1 unit per acre Minimum 2 Maximum 3 Density units per acre Land Use* • Ag • Ag • Diversity of SF and • SF and MF • SF and MF MF with a • Staff housing • Staff housing minimum of 2 • Family Care • Family Care neighborhoods Facilities Facilities • Neighborhood • Farm labor • Farm labor Center max 10 housing housing acres, 8,500 SF • Sporting and • Sporting and leasable floor Recreation Recreation area/ac camps camps • Village Center max • Essential • Essential 10% total village Services Services area, 10,000 SF • Golf Courses Golf Courses leasable floor area/ac • Research & Technology park max 4% total village acreage • Civic and public parks min 10% total village acreage Recreation and N/A Min 70% of gross • 40% open space Open Space acres • Green belt 300' average width Transportation N/A N/A • Formal grid design • Pedestrian paths and bikeways for access and connectivity *Bold denotes required RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 688 9.A.4.h 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."' 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 Figure 3-5 Collier Well -Being Index 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.' RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 689 9.A.4.h The Florida Department of Health in Collier County is also advocating healthy communities principles, striving to educate the community on the link between health and the built environment. They are working to promote community design that will increase active living and healthy lifestyles by advocating for a network of connected bike and pedestrian pathways, accessible transit and places where people can age in place. In ULI's Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places, they advocate "All comprehensive plans should incorporate health. It provides the opportunity to make explicit the connection between development and health, to elevate health among planning considerations, and to lay the groundwork for a healthy community for generations to come. A tool to use as a guide to measuring health impacts is the health impact assessment (HIA). An HIA helps evaluate the potential health effects of a plan, project, or policy before it is built or implemented. HIAs bring potential public health impacts and considerations to the decision -making process for plans, projects, and policies that fall outside the traditional public health arenas, such as transportation and land use. It is a "health lens" that can help increase positive health outcomes and minimize adverse health outcomes. San Francisco has been an early adopter of HIAs, using the tool on diverse projects, such as neighborhood plans, affordable housing, and highway projects. The development community, local government, or both in cooperation can develop HIAs. This guidance helps communities make informed choices about improving public health through community design." Collier County may consider the HIA as an option in measuring the effectiveness of developments increasing positive health outcomes. Mixed -use development has dimensions beyond land use. Healthy places are also found to provide for mix incomes, generations, and housing type. This relates directly to affordable housing. The RFMUD currently requires approximately 10 percent of residential units in villages to be affordable. The issue of the need for affordable housing within the RFMUD was clearly stated in Mr. William Poteet's letter to staff dated June 6, 2016, "The future Rural Fringe plans must include specific opportunities for affordable housing for our entire workforce, not just first time responders or those classified as "work force housing." Affordable housing must include a mix of apartments, multi -family and possibly single family opportunities." While, Collier County's current comprehensive affordable housing study may provide greater guidance on principles to include in the RFMUD, the program can be improved through this process through greater density and removing the TDR credits currently required for affordable housing. To meet the public's ideals of more mixed -use villages, the RFMUD should incentivize mixed - use development and villages using a variety of tools to entice desired mixes and densities. Incentives that are currently used include higher density, more intense uses, and bonus TDRs, however these incentives have not yet produced a village within the RFMUD. Current density RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 690 9.A.4.h 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 a RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 691 9.A.4.h RLSA is allowed development patterns. The RLSA policies provide only for the village or town option, with the exception of a small 40 acre hamlet. The RFMUD has no such requirement so single -use, residential development can consume 40 acres or 4,000 acres. The RFMUD guidelines for measuring mixed -use and village size could be improved by bringing consistency between the standards found in these two TDR plans. Table 3-2: Measuring the Mix in the RFMUD Village and RLSA Village Typical RFMUD Village RLSA Village Characteristics Size 300-2,500 acres 100-1,000 acres Density 2-3 UPA 1-4 UPA Land Use* • Diversity of SF and MF with a • Diversity of SF and MF minimum of 2 neighborhoods • Goods and Services Minimum 25 • Neighborhood Center max 10 acres, SF/DU. Max FAR .5 8,500 SF leasable floor area/ac • Civic/Institutional Min 10 SF/DU • Village Center max 10% total village Max FAR .6 area, 10,000 SF leasable floor • Group Housing FAR .45 area/ac • Lodging 26 UPA net • Research & Technology park max 4% total village acreage • Civic and public parks min 10% total village acreage *bold is required The village option, over the sprawl option, will be far more beneficial to Collier County, including Golden Gate Estates. Villages will increase tax revenue, support jobs, goods and services needed in eastern Collier County, and reduce commute times for some now traveling to the coastal area. Research shows, "mixed -use, walkable downtown developments generate ten times as much tax revenue per acre, save almost 40 percent on up front infrastructure costs, and result in about 10 percent lower costs for service delivery than sprawl development.3 Economic Vitality Achieving prosperity in eastern Collier County challenges consideration for land use and transportation strategies to balance environmental, social and economic interests. Guidance for the RFMUD is found in Opportunity Naples (2014), an economic development strategy that will advance economic opportunity for all residents of Greater Naples. The process for Opportunity Naples leveraged the thoughts and opinions of Greater Naples residents and leaders. Public input and stakeholder perspectives, along with a thorough analysis of the Collier a RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 692 9.A.4.h 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 2S 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, a which represents the commercial real estate industry in the US. The report's bottom line: "... RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 693 9.A.4.h any company wanting to attract and retain young educated workers who prefer live, work, play locations needs to locate in a compact, mixed -use, walkable place, either downtown or in the suburbs." Countless other studies have explored how physical design and walkability impact the economic prosperity and growth of a community. For example, in Asheville, NC, it was found that property taxes for downtown mixed -use development projects yield an 800 percent greater return on a per -acre basis than large, single use projects near city limits.6 And, In the 30 largest metro regions in the U.S., office space located within the more walkable urban parts of the metro commands and average of 74 percent more rent -per square -foot than elsewhere in the metro.' Collier County has a limited supply of land available for new development and there is high competition for residential land uses. The development trend in the RFMUD has been gated residential communities. In fact, nearly all of the "West" Receiving area has built out in this pattern, leaving little room for future business uses. This is one of the largest challenges Opportunity Naples found to Collier County's economic diversity - "suitable, large-scale, pad - ready development sites." Under the current RFMU policies, businesses would only be allowed within the Village option. Therefore, at this time, any business willing to locate within the RFMUD would need to find residential partners to go through a rezoning process to create a Village in order for the business to locate within the RFMUD. For Collier County's competitive edge, land use policies within the RFMUD need to provide greater flexibility for business development. Allowing stand- alone business parks and light industrial uses that are designated in zoning overlays would provide more sites readily available for development. This would directly address the business community's identified barrier, a lack of certain in the rezone process. At the same time, by allowing businesses as permitted uses, shorten approval times may be realized. This can be accomplished through business park zoning overlays or by establishing criteria similar to the conditional use process where compatibility can be determined by the Hearing Examiner. The last item, impact fees, is always up for debate in Collier County. There are processes in place that can provide businesses impact fee credits or waivers and other incentives to address this issue. At the same time, as discussed under the land use incentives, a new mixed -use impact fee has the potential to reduce development impact fees within a mixed -use project by 10 to 30 percent. This type of impact fee may provide the reduced fees sought by the business community. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 694 9.A.4.h 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."$ 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 Pag Packet Pg. 695 9.A.4.h 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 0 z Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy. 2006. "Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence." o Opolis: An International Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies. Vol. 2, Issue 1, Article 3. Q Q a Mariel Alfonzo. 2015. "Making the Economic Case for More Walkability." Urban Land. Urban Land Institute. http://urbanland.uli.org/sustainability/houston-economic-case-walkability/ a Global Strategy Group. 2014. Rockefeller Millennials Survey. Transportation for America. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/about-us/news-media/access-public-transportation-top/ r U S AARP. 2012. 2011 Boomer Housing Survey. y_ http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys statistics/il/2012/2011-Boomer-Housing-Survey- AARP.pdf d 6 Badger, Emily. 2010. "The Simple Math that can Save Cities from Bankruptcy." The Atlantic: City Lab. x http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/03/simple-math-can-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/ a� a� ' Gary Pivo and Jeffrey D. Fisher. 2001. "The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Investments". Real Estate Economics 39.2. 185-219. L http://www.u.arizona.edu/—gpivo/Walkability%20Paper%208 4%20draft.pdf � s Public Sector Consultants. 2016. Creating 21" Century Communities: Making the economic case for M 0' N place. http://smartgrowth.org/creating-2lst-century-communities-making-economic-case-place/ O o O N O N J d tG M ti N L Q a m z 0 u_ W v c m E c� Q RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 696 9.A.4.h Go ...*�er C�O t 4 �Pl Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District White Paper Section 4: Findings and Initial Recommendations Lost revised: 12117116 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 Staffs 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". 1 RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 697 9.A.4.h 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 Sendina 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 Pag Packet Pg. 698 9.A.4.h 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 benefit of Sending Land owners, a number of recommendations have been made by stakeholders, including prioritization (more bonus credits) for: NRPA lands; parcels that are 10 or 20 acres or greater; lands that require higher level of restoration; lands that remain in private ownership with agreements with Forestry Service for controlled burns; lands that remain in private ownership with agreements for flow ways across property; lands that retain agriculture activity; lands that are donated to accommodate flow ways; lands that are donated where habitat value is highest; or, all sending lands regardless of attributes. Many of these recommendations were made in the Rural Fringe Coalition's "White Paper" (January, 2015); many were echoed in correspondence, surveys and public meetings. Meeting participants were more favorable to the "all Sending Lands equally" approach than to all others listed above. Staff is highly supportive of this approach due to simplicity and equity in application. Staff also anticipates that this general preference may yield to some limited exceptions, such as a scenario in which no governmental or other entity can be established to own and maintain environmentally sensitive properties (see D.2, below). Additional TDR credits to add liquidity to the supply/demand balance is a central and fundamental change to the existing TDR program. By providing more potential credits to a Sending owners, they will derive more compensation through the program than presently RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 699 9.A.4.h 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 Sending owners. This was a fundamental tenant suggested by the Rural Fringe Coalition and well received by Sending owners in meetings and by survey. To the extent that a greater financial return incentivizes Sending owners to enter the program, conservation groups have been enthusiastic. All groups benefit from this proposed change. Sending owners had many different points of view on distribution of additional credits; the notion that all sending area owners would be subject to the same TDR availabilities was favored by five out of six groups in the Public Workshop break-out table exercise. Because of the nature of the various options, it is clear that "equity" is favored over parochial interests of owners. Thus, all Sending owners would benefit equally. 3. Agricultural Uses Under current rules, parcels located in Sending Lands are eligible for TDR severance credits. a 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 Pag Packet Pg. 700 9.A.4.h The Final Order, dated June 22, 1999, directed the County to conduct assessments that included, at a minimum, provisions to "protect prime agricultural areas" and to "prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses" (p.11). In addition, uses remaining in NRPA areas were limited to single family dwellings per parcel and agricultural uses (p. 14). 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 a 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 Pag Packet Pg. 701 9.A.4.h 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 regardless of the size of the LNC lot. Conversely, illegal non -conforming lots enjoy no development rights and no TDR availability. In response to an individual petition in 2008, the Comprehensive Planning Department researched the extent of illegal lots and brought various options to the BCC for consideration. It found 189 non -conforming lots in Sending areas, of which 126 were deemed LNC; 51 were found to be illegal non -conforming and 12 inconclusive, due to lack of available data from Property Appraiser's Office. An integral part of the analysis concerning non -conforming parcels relates strictly to parcel size. Parcels slightly less than 5 acres can be determined to be legal lots, regardless of date of creation, if the owner can prove that a portion is attributed to ROW taking at some point in time. Of the 51 illegal non -conforming lots and the 12 inconclusive determinations, 24 exceed 4.5 acres in size. Illegal non -conforming parcels enjoy no development rights and this principle should continue. However, a cornerstone RFMUD program goal is the accumulation of parcels and ultimate ownership in a governmental (or other qualified) agency for long term environmental, unified stewardship. Proportional TDR availability would foster that result and provide a reasonable exit strategy for owners of such parcels. Documents associated with this transaction would clearly reflect the lack of current development rights and the public purpose for creating the TDR availability. For example, an owner of a 2 acre illegal non -conforming parcel would be eligible for 40% of the TDR credits otherwise available to a 5 acre parcel. When drafting the GMP amendment, a requirement of conveyance would be applied in order to achieve any TDR value from legal non -conforming lots. Further, any property in excess of 4.5 acres should be deemed to be a 5 acre parcel for purposes of this program. Again, actual development rights to be exercised outside of the TDR program would require an LNC determination, as is presently the case. However, as an RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 702 9.A.4.h 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 governmental agency or third party in the past; they no longer have a nexus to the land. No other stakeholder group would be adversely affected. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 703 9.A.4.h 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 severance of dwelling unit rights, subject to any additional credits assigned as discussed in A.2, above. No stakeholders will be adversely impacted; this change provides more clarity to the program. The BCC would abandon one potential program "tool"- the potential of non -extension of the Early Entry Bonus credit that exists today. 7. TDR Credits from Receiving Land Within the Receiving Land there are opportunities to further the goals of environmental protection and agriculture preservation. In fact, some of the most valuable agriculture land in Collier County is located in the RFMUD Receiving Land. Collier County has had success in preserving agriculture lands through a system of TDR-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 Pag Packet Pg. 704 9.A.4.h 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 granted slightly higher allocations through private plan amendment petitions. Also as a result of private plan amendment petitions, the requirement of obtaining TDRs from Sending Lands within one mile, in order to increase density, was modified for the Naples Reserve PUD and the San Marino PUD. Private GMP Amendments have established the precedent to derive TDRs from the Sending Lands beyond 1 mile, reflecting Board direction. The vast majority of URF acreage is now entitled for Planned Unit Developments. Of the total 5,500 acres, only 371 acres 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 provide consistency for the remaining areas that have not been entitled and may wish to increase density through the TDR mechanism. Staff initial recommendation: Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe. a RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 705 9.A.4.h This change favors the majority of Sending owners whose holdings are outside the one mile band, although the additional demand is very small. It negatively impacts Sending owners whose holdings are within the one mile band, and may have purchased such property in expectation of higher return for sale of those TDRs. Again, looking forward, this potential demand is very small. 2. The Urban Residential lnfill Bonus Provision The Residential lnfill Bonus (Density Rating System, Future Land Use Element) encourages infill within urban areas, outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area. Parcels less than 20 acres are 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 fNIAt1i a Staff initial recommendation: Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential lnfill bonus provision. The community at large would benefit from urban infill development at appropriate locations; no other stakeholders are significantly affected. 3. Golden Gate Estates TDRs for Environmental Protection Unlike allowable uses of TDRs outside of the RFMUD, no locations outside of the RFMUD currently provide additional sources of TDRs for use within RFMUD. The Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan (CWIP) Ad Hoc Advisory Committee (CWIP Committee) is currently studying the technical implications of various goals and strategies associated with wetland areas in Northern Golden Gate Estates. The Watershed Management Plan (2011) identifies an area within Golden Gate Estates as North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Area. This area, as well other low-lying areas in Golden Gate Estates could be considered as additional Sending locations related to the RFMUD TDR program. In -holdings within Red Maple Swamp and Winchester Head (managed by Conservation Collier) or other important areas could also be considered. The Ordinance creating the Growth Management Oversight Committee included within the a Committee's scope an evaluation of consistency among restudies. Watershed issues are one of the topic areas where consistency and coordination have been frequently mentioned. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 706 9.A.4.h 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 program 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 Pag Packet Pg. 707 9.A.4.h 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 during 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 Pag Packet Pg. 708 9.A.4.h • 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 developed by the Environmental Planning Section to reduce professional fees. Collier County devised a sophisticated and important program to protect environmentally sensitive lands in the RFMUD Sending areas, allowing Sending owners to "choose" to participate, but providing TDRs as an incentive and as just compensation for the change in FLUE designation and zoning. Costs and complexity to Sending owners cannot be eliminated; however, where possible, these should be reduced. The recommendation regarding a TDR Bank, below, would take this concept further. Staff initial recommendation: RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 709 9.A.4.h Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product required for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances, provided by County staff. The reduction or elimination of application fees would result in an impact to taxpayers, since the administration would not have an enterprise fund component. Likewise, additional work assignments for County staff would be borne by County taxpayers. Sending owners would benefit from these changes by reducing cost and complexity in the process of obtaining TDR credits. All stakeholders would benefit from increased participation by Sending owners. 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 Pag Packet Pg. 710 9.A.4.h 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 holding period before the County could sell its inventory, costing taxpayer dollars. Pricing of Banked TDRs would support a separate market -driven (direct Sending/Receiving) exchange and price point. The bank would not purchase TDRs for more than the market rate, and should consider a higher resale rate so as not to frustrate non -bank sales. For reasons stated in 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 other 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" issues. These options include the use of County owned land to derive initial TDRs for the bank or the issuance of TDRs to the County as a component of the severance process (see related, D.2). Community support for a bank is vital. A fund created for its purpose may serve related purposes, such as funding restoration and management of lands that are not within a state E acquisition or potential ROMA mitigation area, Conservation Collier restoration and maintenance funding or capital and 0&M related to important hydrological projects. The a community would need to recognize and appreciate the value of the conservation involved, its RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 711 9.A.4.h 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 4t" 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 Pag Packet Pg. 712 9.A.4.h 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 Pag Packet Pg. 713 9.A.4.h During Public Workshop #2, a panel of subject matter experts was convened to discuss North Belle Meade land management in particular, given the lack of interest from State agencies and given the fragmented ownership pattern. The panelists indicated a preference for coordinated ownership and management by a single entity, and agreed that Collier County should take direct responsibility, if no other state or federal agency would accept ownership or management responsibility. Public -private partnerships were also discussed. It was noted that County ownership would provide some County benefits, such as potential recreational opportunities. More specifically, panelists discussed the advantage of creating a mitigation bank option in order to finance the restoration and long term maintenance. The same concept had been suggested previously by an informal scoping meeting with agency peers. In April, 2016, staff launched an initial feasibility study to determine the viability of creating a mitigation bank of any kind. The idea of using mitigation funds from the County's own transportation or other capital projects was part of the conceptual framework. If the County could act as project manager for a mitigation bank while saving money over an extended time period, this option would be feasible and program design could be recommended. The advantage of such a program would be threefold: (1) aid Sending owners in their efforts to obtain all available TDRs, including Conveyance, 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 attached 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 r fostering the preservation and maintenance of parcels within the North Belle Meade Area. a RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 714 9.A.4.h 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 provide 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 agreement 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 than mandatory implementation. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 715 9.A.4.h 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 conventional mitigation banking approaches. Taxpayers would also be gaining an asset: ownership of large land areas, ecologically stable, that could be used for passive recreational purposes. Residents and visitors would gain from improved hydrological functionality, providing watershed gains and balances between sheds and in associated groundwater and aquifers. Sending owners in that area would be on equal footing with counterparts in South Belle Meade so as to enjoy the better availability of the Restoration/Maintenance and Conveyance TDR credits. The environmental community would gain assurance that this valuable resource is managed and protected, both for watershed and for important plant and animal species. Receiving owners would know that the number of TDRs necessary for future projects can be made more readily available, both through the additional credits and through increased Sending owner participation. To the extent that grant funding becomes available for structural rehydration projects in North Belle Meade, additional 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 portion of the funds necessary to create an endowment for County owned and managed areas without a ROMA. Additional contributions should be required, similar to the program in South Belle Meade. For example, if the program changes include two additional TDRs for each 5 acres of Sending Lands, 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 additional 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 Pag Packet Pg. 716 9.A.4.h 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 long term endowment. This concept would be an exception to issuing additional TDRs to 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 within 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 a (Appendix C), the bank will ultimately realize a return of initial capital, which could then be RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 717 9.A.4.h 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 S 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 Pag Packet Pg. 718 9.A.4.h 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 a "passive" recreation will require further vetting. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 719 9.A.4.h 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 development 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 recommendati Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual easements. a RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 720 9.A.4.h 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 Proiect 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 use of TDRs within Receiving lands. Density can be increased using two forms of development, 1) cluster residential, and 2) villages. To date, the only development pattern occurring in the Fringe is cluster residential development in the form of gated communities such as Naples Reserve, Hacienda Lakes, Lords Way, San Marino, Lido Isles, Rockledge (in Urban Fringe at 2.5 units per acre), Twin Eagles South, Lamorada, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Golf Club of the Everglades (in RFMUD at 1 unit per acre). These developments have an approved total of 6,786 units, the majority single family. While these communities are attractive, this single -dimensional RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 721 9.A.4.h 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 Pag Packet Pg. 722 9.A.4.h 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 recommendations addressing affordable housing may be incorporated into the RFMUD amendments as influenced by the comprehensive affordable housing plan. Staff initial recommendations 1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of Villages as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district (with exceptions) in locations with access to major collector or arterial roads. 2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park. 3. Explore designating Receiving areas as Innovation Zones. 4. Eliminate the maximum size of a Village. RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 723 9.A.4.h 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 diversify the economy, particularly in eastern Collier County. The report found that Collier County needs more suitable, large-scale, pad -ready development sites. Collier County as a whole will benefit from recommended changes allowing business uses in the RFMUD. Increasing density, improving mixed -use requirements and adjusting the TDR credits will promote a diverse and more affordable community, expand mobility choices and engage a healthy and active lifestyle — the development trends sought after by employers, employees and baby boomers. 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 Pag Packet Pg. 724 9.A.4.h There is considerable attention given to transportation planning in eastern Collier County. The transportation study surrounding North Belle Meade will further inform the transportation network needed to support the RFMUD. Further consideration and implementation of the techniques identified in the Master Mobility Study will advance Collier County's goals to achieve a multi -modal community. Staff initial recommendations 1. Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands. 2. Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support Complete Streets and low speed. 3. Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business pa rks. 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�A�7��I��IJ1�i�i,��i�e�i•I7e�:1 ��e�i,I7]:Z�Z�I�� 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 a examiner approval process for LDC deviations, and modify the process to follow the SRA RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Pag Packet Pg. 725 9.A.4.h designation process where an application for a Receiving Area Village is approved by simple majority vote by BCC. Other participants support the idea to ensure that the current public hearing process for approval of new development within the RFMUD is retained. Specific design standards should be kept to a minimum and should be placed in the LDC, only as guidelines or in some cases as baseline standards. Wherever possible, provide for incentives rather than regulations to achieve design objectives. Create opportunities for additional flexibility in designing mixed -use projects within receiving lands. Recognizing the distinct differences and potential for each of the Receiving Areas, participants support the idea to establish separate overlays for each of the four distinct Rural Fringe development areas, similar to the North Belle Meade Overlay which has its own set of development standards. This could be accomplished through Land Development Code amendments. At a minimum, specific design standards found in the Growth Management Plan should be moved to the implementing LDC, and the LDC standards should be carefully reviewed and amended to support the design concepts identified herein. Developers and industry leaders report that a hurdle to more intense, mixed -use development design is the added cost of impact fees. As stated in Section 3 of this white paper, other communities' successful implementation of a mixed -use impact fee has shown a ten to thirty percent reduction in impact fees. This reduction could be another strategy to incentivize the type of development desired in eastern Collier County. 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 Pag Packet Pg. 726 9.A.4.h 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 Pag Packet Pg. 727 9.A.4.i CiO�Y Count y Appendix A Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Restudy Public Outreach January - May, 2016 Appendix A Page 1 of 91 Packet Pg. 728 I 9.A.4.i I C.0#7er Count y 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 Packet Pg. 729 I 9.A.4.i I CQ ICY Count y 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 Restudy. Some initial concerns expressed by smaller land owners were the lack of a viable marketplace to sell TDR credits and the uncertainty of sale or sale price. Appendix A Page 3 of 91 Packet Pg. 730 1 I 9.A.4.i I C.O#7er Count y Meeting Summary: 1. Welcome and Meeting Objectives Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant for the County addressed the attendees noting the Board of County Commissioners has directed Staff to develop changes to the Growth Management Plan including the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). The purpose of the meeting is to obtain public input on the areas designated as Sending Lands under the Program. 2. Overview and History of the Rural Fringe (RFMUD) TDR Program Mr. Van Lengen presented a Power Point "Rural Fringe Mixed Use District — Introduction for Sending Land Owners" and provided an overview and history of the Program noting: • The RFMUD was developed as a result of a 1999 Final Order stemming from litigation (by the Collier County Audubon Society, Inc. and the Florida Wildlife Federation) that addressed County land use planning issues including establishing the RFMUD. • The goals of the Order were for the County to adequately preserve wetlands, protect critical species and wildlife habitat from unrestrained growth by directing it to appropriate locations within the County. • One avenue implemented within the RFMUD District was a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which identifies sending and receiving lands administered through a program of density credits. • The restudy of the area will focus on the Program's goal of establishing smarter development patterns, economic viability for those affected and optimal protection of sensitive areas and species. 3. Introduction to Sending Land Issues Mr. Van Lengen noted the sending program encompasses the "North and South Belle Meade" areas of the County, in addition to other smaller sending areas farther north. The density credits available for transfer include base credits (1 credit for a 5 acre parcel or 8 for a 40 acre parcel), an early entry bonus, credit for restoration/maintenance and conveyance to a governmental entity (each on the basis of 1 per 5 acres). The differences in program specifics between North Belle Meade and South Belle Meade were covered in some detail. It was also noted that watershed planning and transportation planning both need to be considered in arriving at program changes. 4. Current Status of the Program Mr. Van Lengen reported: • The Board of County Commissioners established an Oversight Committee to review specific areas of the Growth Management Plan including the RFMUD. Appendix A Page 4 of 91 Packet Pg. 731 1 I 9.A.4.i I CQI[-ier Count y • The Committee will be meeting on a quarterly basis. • Staff will be holding a series of public meetings to garner input on the issues so deficiencies in the Program may be addressed to ensure it functions as originally intended. • The endeavor is anticipated to last approximately 2 years, with a status report delivered to the BCC by the end of 2016, prior to the formal public hearing process. • A website has been developed by the County to facilitate the endeavor which will provide information on the Committee, ongoing activities, questionnaires for the public and contact information for Staff. • Owners are encouraged to provide input in any format they desire including writing letters and/or emails, calling Staff directly, participating in questionnaires and public meetings, etc. 5. Importance of TDR Program to Owners The restudy of the area will focus on important issues to the landowners including improving the economic viability of the program, ensuring smarter development patterns and protecting sensitive areas and species. Compensation to owners who elect to participate must be addressed. It is important to keep in mind that the TDR program is optional; staff if available to help explain the program so that individual owners can best satisfy their own interests. Aas a restudy, staff is interested in owner input on how to improve the program. During presentation and Question/Answer period, the following items were raised: • There may be increases to the density allowed in the Receiving Lands, however that concept requires additional stakeholder input. • Along with base and early entry density credits, the Program allows credits for restoration of sending lands with the owner developing and implementing a restoration plan, participating in mitigation through a State or Federal Government program, or linking to an existing approved restoration plan. • The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and other agencies participated in the original development of the Program and will be providing input on any proposed revisions to the Program. They also currently participate in the permit process. • Once an owner's density credits in the Sending Areas are transferred to a party, the sending land owner is free and clear of their use, with the receiving party bearing all responsibilities for use (or non-use) of the credits. Credits can be held for an indefinite period of time. • One option under consideration is developing a land bank for the credits to facilitate the owner's ability to transfer sending land credits to an outside party. Appendix A Page 5 of 91 Packet Pg. 732 1 I 9.A.4.i I C.0#7er Count y • 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 Packet Pg. 733 1 I 9.A.4.i I C.0#7er Count y 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 Packet Pg. 734 1 I 9.A.4.i I C.0#7er Count 1� _A y 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. { ir.vs mE�uv 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 vears? Appendix A Page 8 of 91 Packet Pg. 735 I 9.A.4.i I Coi[-ier Count y Panelist 1. Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) will be under Collier ownership through conveyance/willing sellers and managed by Conservation Collier. NRPA will be rehydrated via Golden Gate Canal diversion, no reservoir. Wildlife crossings or land bridge to connect NRPA and Picayune Strand Forest. Currently listed species such as the red -cockaded woodpecker will be thriving. Collier County will be implementing a North Belle Meade Habitat Conservation Plan for public infrastructure (roads). NRPA becomes destination for passive nature -based recreation Panelist 2. There is a single management entity for Sending Lands, maybe best option Conservation Collier. There is hydrologic sheet flow. Public access for passive recreation. There is significant land connectivity. Panelist 3. Lands are available to public for active recreation such as horseback riding, camping, fishing, and biking. Landowners in Sending area received fair deal and were made whole. If the current pattern of fragmented ownership and maintenance continues, what issues would persist? Panelist 1. With lack of connectivity the same issues today will continue with hydrology and listed species. Exotics will continue to be a problem. If lands are fragments the Plan hasn't been successfully completed with fair compensation to land owners. Panelist 2. The issues continue with hydrology, economics of land management, and exotics. Panelist 3. Plan goals will not be met — Final Order settlement in question. Inability to manage — remove exotics, restore habitat, enforcement. Natural resource values and wildlife use will diminish What alternatives can you suggest to achieve the vision you first described? (e.g., ownership alternatives; management alternatives?) Panelist 1. Make sure adequate compensation is provided. Simplify the Plan; err on making the landowners whole. Panelist 2. Collier County must step forward to accept the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) conveyance lands. Accept land and bank TDR restoration/endowment money until management can be "conservation of scale;" in the interim, possibly a land trust. Swap program between NRPA and isolated western sending lands. North Belle Meade Habitat Conservation Plan - county mitigates infrastructure impacts in North Belle Meade to help secure large blocks of conservation land. Panelist 3. Increase the TDRs that Sending can generate. There are issues with the cost of restoration and what a landowner gets in return. The process for TDRs must be simple. Appendix A Page 9 of 91 Packet Pg. 736 I 9.A.4.i I Coi[-ier Count y Consider allowing the use of TDRs to mitigate for urban area infill native vegetation requirements. Make it easier for landowners to sell credits. What funding mechanisms can you envision that might be feasible to allow consolidation of responsibility for restoration and maintenance? (e.g., more TDR credits, grants, mitigation banking, etc.) Panelist 1. Mitigation bank, or ROMA, may be relevant, but can have challenges. Need to put together the numbers for maintenance cost so it can be better understood what is feasible. Panelist 2. Revive Conservation Collier. Maybe a "green utility fee." Use mitigation for wetland and wildlife. Partner with downstream communities and agencies that benefit from North Belle Meade rehydration. Panther Refuge is interested in expansion. There are other plans and programs that could coordinate to get results. Panelist 3. Use TDRs in urban area for native vegetation mitigation. Do you have a preferred alternative for ownership and long term maintenance, among the ideas that have been suggested? Panelist 1. Ownership Collier County, and long term maintenance Conservation Collier. Panelist 2. Collier County is best alternative. Panelist 3. Preference is Collier County, would like to see State park with active recreation. Following the panel discussion, the audience provided their comments. Public Discussion Consider increasing TDR demand by decreasing the Receiving area minimum of 40 acres. Make Receiving areas more attractive to worldwide developers, like Celebration, FL. Concerns that the program is the big guy vs. little guy, and animals vs. people. Concerns that eminent domain is coming. Assessed value of land is more than the value of a TDR. No incentive to create TDR. To increase land connectivity and management efficiency, consider working with landowners that have established mitigation lands to convey them to Collier County, with their funds for maintenance. Big developers have their own Sending lands and credits so don't need to buy others. A non -regulatory R&M should be considered as part of the feasibility for mitigation- i.e. non - mitigation might be simpler and less costly overall. STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Tim Nance Appendix A Pagel 0 of 91 Packet Pg. 737 1 I 9.A.4.i I C.O#7er Count 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 Packet Pg. 738 1 I 9.A.4.i I C.0#7er Count 1� _A y 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 I Packet Pg. 739 I 9.A.4.i I Coi[-ier Count y banks created in various TDR programs nationally, and the pros and cons of doing so. Suggestions, questions and answers followed. Mr. Van Lengen presented a Power Point "Sending Economics and Ideas for Change" noting: • The RFMUD was developed as a result of a 1999 Final Order stemming from litigation (by the Collier County Audubon Society, Inc. and the Florida Wildlife Federation) that addressed County land use planning issues including establishing the RFMUD. • The goals of the Order were for the County to adequately preserve wetlands, protect critical species and wildlife habitat from unrestrained growth by directing it to appropriate locations within the County. • One avenue implemented within the RFMUD District was a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which identifies sending and receiving lands administered through a program of density credits. • The credits for a parcel 5 acres in size are 1 base credit, 1 early entry credit, 1 Restoration and Maintenance credit, 1 conveyance credit, total potential = 4 credits. • The credits for a parcel 40 acres in size are 8 base credits, 8 early entry credits, 8 Restoration and Maintenance credits, 8 conveyance credits, total potential = 32 credits. • The restudy of the area will focus on the Program's goal of establishing smarter development patterns, economic viability for those affected and protection of sensitive areas and species. • If you own a parcel platted prior to 1999 in the sending areas you may either hold the parcel, enter the TDR program, build a home, sell the parcel to someone else to build a home or use it agricultural purposes. • An owner is not required to participate in the TDR Program. There are many legitimate reasons not to participate. • Those in the program may sell their credits to willing buyers for a pre -established rate of $25,000 per base credit; a typical arm's length sale bundles a bonus credit at $3,000 for a total of $28,000. • Additional credits are available for restoration, maintenance and conveyance. • Arm's length transaction analysis (staff) shows that the true value of TDRs between willing sellers and willing buyers is approximately $13,500 per credit; the Coalition estimated an approximate value at $14,000. 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 Packet Pg. 740 1 I 9.A.4.i I C.0#7er Count y South - $6,000 per acre North East - $3,500 per acre North West - $1Z500 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 Packet Pg. 741 1 I 9.A.4.i I Civi[Wr Count y 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 (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 Packet Pg. 742 I 9.A.4.i I C;Q -ier Count y 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 Packet Pg. 743 I 9.A.4.i I C;O -ier Count y 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 Packet Pg. 744 I 9.A.4.i I C.0#7er Count 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 Packet Pg. 745 1 I 9.A.4.i I Coi[-ier Count y 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 Packet Pg. 746 I 9.A.4.i I Co1LYer Gomm y 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 development potential within these lands. Approximately 60 residents attended the workshop; about half had not attended any of the previous RFMUD workshops. To open the meeting, staff presented an overview of the RFMUD plan and process including how development rights are transferred from Sending land to Receiving land. Information was then provided about the development potential of the Neutral and Receiving Areas including how much vacant land was in the different areas, and the allowed land uses, density and intensity. The participants were asked to discuss the information and provide feedback on several questions about the development potential. Appendix A Page 20 of 91 Packet Pg. 747 I 9.A.4.i I Coi[Wr Count y Meeting Summary: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Planning Manager, addressed the attendees, noting the Board of County Commissioners has directed Staff to develop changes to the Growth Management Plan including the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). The purpose of the meeting, the first of at least two Receiving focused meetings, is to look at the current rules and regulations of areas where TDR credits can be sent. Particular emphasis is on design and functionality of these areas in the context of the greater geographic area, including neutral and sending areas, as well as Golden Gate Estates and the Rural Lands Stewardship Areas. Mr. Van Lengen reviewed the scope of all four upcoming restudies, the process diagram indicating steps necessary to complete Comprehensive Plan changes, the role of the Growth Management Oversight Committee, historic goals of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, the outcomes of the first three meetings in 2016 involving Sending Land Issues and a timeline indicating a goal for September submission of conceptual changes to the Board of County Commissioners in advance of the formal Hearing process during 2017. Anita Jenkins, Collier County Principle Planner, presented a Power Point on Future Development Potential in Neutral and Receiving areas under current rules: • A review of the TDR exchange program • Density allowed before and after the program was first adopted over 10 years ago, when only agricultural zoning was in place. • 40 acres in Receiving areas are required prior to any increase in density via TDRs. • Uses allowed within the new designation of neutral, receiving and Village were illustrated - some uses are voluntary; some encouraged, some required. • Open space and transportation components of development were discussed. • An illustration of nine developments that have redeemed TDRs for increased density was presented. • Acreage and number of parcels for un-entitled land was presented to provide a sense of scale and potential for future development scenarios in Receiving areas. • Similar background was provided to show the quantities of Neutral Land in the program Following Ms. Jenkins presentation, general remarks were made by attendees and scribed as follows: • Open space integration • How to regulate policy • Is there enough land to make a village? 100-200 Acres more ideal? • Village Regulation: Economic vitality • Opportunity to do something different • Private development dedication • Demographic and economic inclusion • Job creation Appendix A Page 21 of 91 Packet Pg. 748 I 9.A.4.i I C.O 7eY C;O14"ty • 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 Packet Pg. 749 1 I 9.A.4.i I Coi[-ier Count y • TDR required purchase makes process non -voluntary • Pricing mechanism: more expensive as time goes on • Not enough credits or sending areas to purchase • Retain agricultural uses/rights • Property appraiser impacts • Do developers want to buy in the RFMUD 2. What are the improvements/changes you would like to see happen in the Receiving Lands study area? • Limit gated communities • TDR bank • Village regulation re-examined for economic viability • More density in concentrated area • Incentives with receiving area development for enviro protection • New definition of open space for public benefit • Develop some commercial uses in the east • Villages would be good but are there 300 acre parcels • Need more density per parcel • Villages should be 100 acres or 200 acres • 20 acre parcels for clustering • Mixed -use, balance development • Live, work, play approach • Private development dedications: parks, streets, etc • Lack of starter homes, would like workforce housing • Smart growth- bike/pedestrian community, interconnectivity • Research/tech development, i.e. ag • Standalone commercial development • A defined place or urban core • Amenities: placement/ integrated • Walking;/biking safety • Demographic mix • Senses/experiences • Sense of arrival connectivity • Re-evaluate size of villages using economic modeling/evaluation to determine appropriate village size • Smaller landowners need to be able to participate in the process, it is currently not happening as well as it should • More flexibility within the same public hearing process • Look at "visioning" for larger receiving areas and plan at the larger scale • Are cost credits appropriate/viable to utilization in receiving lands? If the credits don't work, we want to be able to get the development we want and need in receiving Appendix A Page 23 of 91 Packet Pg. 750 1 I 9.A.4.i I Coi[-ier Count y • Reducing minimum acreage size to increase density. i.e. 1 unit per 2.5 acres for 5 acre tracts • Transportation alternatives such as bus/transit • More thoughtful community design • TDR bank • Allow some sending/receiving flexibility to allow worthwhile regional goals • Bridge access- North Belle Meade (NBM) 3. What do you like best about the Receiving Lands area? • Existing natural conditions • Low density • Close community • Concept of TDRs and trade off of open space versus development • Chance to do something different than current urban style of development • Do we increase size limits of village or multiple villages • Define types of development allowed in each village • Has the ability to be developed reasonably • Nothing • Lower lands have a subtropical climate which provides a better quality of life • Accessibility on the south end to Miami/Naples (mixed opinion) • Flexibility: land acreage • Concentration of development • Reducing sprawl • Buffer area • Keep development (new) to receiving • Most appropriate area for development • Opportunity because of proximity to coastal urban area • Transportation corridor in place 4. Do your same opinions about the Receiving Lands apply to the Neutral Lands? • Allow for incentives to develop • Re-evaluate neutral lands on a periodic basis • No- neutral and receiving lands must stay separate • Yes, in reference to "nothing" comment received for question three • No response for question four, no knowledge of neutral lands • No, concentrate development to receiving • Concerned how much sprawl may impact development • Neutral lands were designed to be a rural area/lifestyle • Leave neutral as is and allow for discussion later Andrew Sheppard, Collier County consultant with AECOM, wrapped up the workshop with a primer on different kinds of development models that are possible in the sub -urban environment. He discussed the Appendix A Page 24 of 91 Packet Pg. 751 1 I 9.A.4.i I Coi[-ier Count y economic, environmental and social elements that must be balanced to create sustainable communities. Development must provide a return on investment, but also can allow some job creation through a mix of uses. Environmental factors must balance the natural would and basic resources with human needs of the inhabitants. Social factors start first with health and safety, but include associations through families, churches, businesses and organizations. He defined neighborhoods as a % mile or five minute walk from a center point, noting that Villages can accommodate a number of neighborhoods within. Typically a central space with a unique feature(s) provide identity, structure and meaning. He also highlighted the advantages of a road network, rather than a single main corridor, for preserving walkable and enjoyable places that are more efficient for transportation. Compared to conventional models of development, these newer models provide more open space, social interaction, and health benefits. The attendees were asked to consider how they would like to live in a community, rather than simply asking what it would look like. At the end of the workshop Mr. Van Lengen noted the next public meeting is scheduled for April 26, 2016 at 6:30pm at the same location. A follow up for participation will be provided, so that viewpoints on the most important elements for community design can be provided by participants. Wrap-up and Next Steps Ms. Jenkins noted the next public meeting is scheduled for April 26, 2016 at 6:30pm. The agenda will center on Receiving lands potential development and form STAFF PRESENT: Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager (Staff Liaison) Mike Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Greg Ault, AECOM, consultant Appendix A Page 25 of 91 Packet Pg. 752 1 I 9.A.4.i I Co 7e-r County 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 Packet Pg. 753 I 9.A.4.i I Co 7e-r County Specifically, she covered citizen and stakeholder feedback on several high level questions that had been presented. At the last meeting, attendees provided their perceptions related to: • Concerns about future growth in the area • Improvements to the Receiving Land area rules • What they like best about Receiving Lands areas • Neutral Land issues and improvements Andrew Sheppard, AECOM, reviewed economic, environmental and social components of sustainable communities, comparing those values with the allowed uses under today's Receiving and Neutral regulations. He continued his observations with a focus on "smart" village attributes- 5 minute walk from clustered development area center to neighborhood center, diversity of housing styles and types, cluster of neighborhoods to create a village, and attributes of a village center. Aesthetics, function and mobility were key factors. Mr. Sheppard introduced the featured "table exercise" for attendees, called framework mapping. The purpose was to experience how a development might plan a large area by identifying destinations, development areas, street networks and green/environmental areas. The task involved group cooperation in identifying edges, landmarks, nodes, centers and connections, both green and roadway. Two of the RFMUD Receiving areas were used as examples- the Northern receiving area and the North Belle Meade receiving area. It was explained that this was hypothetical in the sense that presenters do not have information supporting actual Village boundaries due to multiple ownerships and assemblage considerations. Results of the group exercise are attached. Appendix A Page 27 of 91 Packet Pg. 754 I 9.A.4.i I Co1fie,v Count y 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 I Packet Pg. 755 I I 9.A.4.i I C oq er Cou"t y Individual surveys were distributed to and completed by the public, covering each of 15 program topics related to the Sending and neutral lands. A numerical representation of the results, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, is shown below. Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Section, reviewed the concepts previously discussed in the Receiving Land meetings, and provided explanations for the series of initial recommendations made by staff. These were included under the following categories: • Land use, density/intensity and economic vitality • Transportation and infrastructure • Environment • Development standards and process Discussion ensued regarding the process of allowing deviations to a zoning overlay, allowable locations for schools, Property Appraiser's Office valuations, the appropriate number of TDRs granted for excess native vegetation or habitat preserve on Receiving land, water and sewer availability, the relationship of Affordable Housing to affordable living concepts, and the need for the County to own the economic analytical tool under development. Again, individual surveys were distributed to and completed by the public, covering each of 18 program topics related to Receiving lands. A numerical representation of the results, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, is shown below. Workshop Survey Results: Survey questions asked respondents to rank each initial recommendation as strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. The percentages indicated below provide a percentage of agreement (agree or strongly disagree) to those who responded, without regard to "neutral" responses. Sending and Neutral Issues Additional credits should be provided to balance the anticipated demand from Receiving Areas. Sending Land owners, if they participate, should benefit from additional credits. Agree: 69% Additional credits should not favor one Sending Land location over another. Agree 70% Additional credits should be provided to those who entered the program early. Agree: 72% Appendix A Page 29 of 91 Packet Pg. 756 1 I 9.A.4.i I C oq er Cou"t y TDRs should be awarded also for owners who commit to keeping their land in agricultural production Agree: 76% Eliminate minimum pricing on Base TDRs. Agree: 75% Improve the Buyer/Seller registries. Agree: 81% Reduce cost and complexity of applications. Agree: 87% Create a County -sponsored TDR bank that can buy credits from Sending Lands owners Agree: 82% The County should accept land that owners wish to donate, if no other agency is willing. Agree: 63% The County should finance maintenance of donated Sending Land through a mitigation bank, if feasible Agree: 75% If a mitigation bank is not a feasible funding source, require a donation to the County with the land, equivalent to all or a portion of any additional TDRs issued. Agree: 65% Allow a second dwelling unit to dedicated farming operations of at least 20 acres Agree: 79% Study recreational uses that could be compatible on donated lands that go beyond "passive recreation." Agree: 63% Eliminate the use of TDRs in urban areas if they come from RFMUD Sending Lands. Agree: 60% Extend the same advantages to Neutral Land owners who want to commit to agricultural uses by offering TDRs. Agree: 76% Appendix A Page 30 of 91 Packet Pg. 757 I 9.A.4.i I Colfler Count y 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 Packet Pg. 758 1 I 9.A.4.i I Colfler Count y 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 Packet Pg. 759 9.A.4.i CiU�Y Count y Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Restudy Public Comments on First Draft of Initial Recommendations Distributed July 13, 2016 Appendix A Page 33 of 91 Packet Pg. 760 9.A.4.i JenkinsAnita From: JenkinsAnita Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:06 AM To: VanLengenKris; Rural FringeRestudy Subject: FW: Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations From: Barry Wood [mailto:blwood@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 Packet Pg. 761 9.A.4.i Sincerely, Barry Wood From: AnitaJenkins@colliergov.net To: RuralFringeRestudv@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. Z Appendix A Page 35 of 91 Packet Pg. 762 9.A.4.i JenkinsAnita From: JenkinsAnita Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 7:48 AM To: VanLengenKris; Rural FringeRestudy Subject: FW: Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations From: Ron Inge [ma iIto: 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: Rural FringeRestudy Subject: Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Draft Findings and Recommendations Appendix A Page 36 of 91 Packet Pg. 763 9.A.4.i 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/stewardshipcalcutator. 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 Packet Pg. 764 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida MIS" OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. July 25, 2016 Sent via Email Mr. Kris VanLengen Planning Manager, Growth Management Plan Restudy Growth Management Department Comprehensive Planning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Comments on Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations Dear Mr. Van ia_ n�:"'�"U The Conservancy of Southwest Florida appreciates the outstanding job you and your staff continue to do in stakeholder engagement, public meeting coordination and data collection and analysis. Attached, please find the Conservancy's initial comments on County staff's Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District (RFMUD) draft recommendations dated July 12, 2016. We hope you will find our feedback helpful as you finalize your recommendations to present at the CCPC, and we look forward to refining our comments as more discussion and information becomes available. In order to (hopefully) simplify your review of our comments, we are maintaining the same order in which the topic areas were presented in your memo. I look forward to meeting with you later this week to discuss the Conservancy's input. As always, please feel free to contact me at 239-403-4220 if you have any questions. W ely, Nicole Johnson Director of Growth Management and Planning Conservancy of Southwest Florida has been awarded Charity Navigator's prestigious 4-Star top rating for good governance, sound fiscal management and commitment to aocountability and transparency. Charity Navigator is America's Waliffiffir largest and most respected independent evaluator of dimities. 1495 Smith Preserve Way I Naples, Florida 34102 1 239.262.0304 1 Fax 239.262.0672 1 www.conservancy.org Appendix A Page 38 of 91 Packet Pg. 765 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Collier County re Staf's RFMUD Draft Recommendations SENDING LANDS A: TDR CREDIT SYSTEM 1. Minimum Sales Price, Buyer and Seller Staff Draft Recommendation: Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports the elimination of the $25,000 price for the base TDR. Allowing the market to determine TDR value will likely result in additional TDR sales 2. Additional Credits to Sendin_a Owners County Staff Recommendation: Provide additional TDR credits to Sending Owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property attributes. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy is not opposed to the creation of additional credits for the Sending Lands, if it can be documented that such an increase will further the goals of the RFMUD, incentivize additional lands to participate in the program, and redirect development to Receiving Lands. The key is to ensure this availability of additional credits will have the intended result. During the RFMUD Transmittal Hearing before the CCPC, Robert Mulhere, acting as consultant to the County, stated, If we just go to the basics, supply and demand, you want to have more demand than you have supply'. Fourteen years later, the Conservancy is still in agreement with this statement. The County needs to ensure that an increase in credits will still maintain the appropriate balance between supply and demand. Because the feasibility of additional credits, and how many credits should be added to the system must be supported by your scenario analysis tool, we believe it is premature to assume that at least 2 additional credits will be recommended for implementation. The County cannot know the appropriateness of this recommendation until the "what if' scenarios are run and the results shared and vetted through the public process. 1 Minutes. Collier County Planning Commission. February 7, 2002. Page 40. Appendix A Page 39 of 91 Packet Pg. 766 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations Within the Receiving Lands, the benefit of additional credits is perhaps less complicated — more credits equates to more development opportunity. However, on the Sending Lands side, the Conservancy believes additional credits are designed to serve a two- fold purpose. The first is to incentivize more landowners to participate and sever credits. The second is to encourage owners who have partially severed their credits to sever the remainder of credits attached to their land. In order to entitle a number of existing or already approved projects in Receiving Lands and the Urban Residential Fringe, development interests have purchased significant acreage within the Sending Lands, and severed between 2 and 4 TDR credits. What the Conservancy needs to better understand is what the result will be from increasing available credits to all Sending Lands, including those parcels with existing or pending credit severance. In addition, it is unclear what landowners would be required to do in order to gain these additional TDRs. Would these TDRs simply be added to the base TDRs? Would they only be available after the Restoration or Conveyance TDRs were generated? The County should be thinking strategically about what value added benefits could be tied to these additional credits. This concept requires additional clarification. Finally, the Conservancy sees merit in the idea of applying any new TDR policies across the board, versus targeting additional TDRs to specific areas. As we have witnessed in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program, the more complicated the system, the more chance for the unintended consequence of significantly more credits in the system than anticipated. In the case of the RLSA, this has resulted in more potential development that originally identified. In the case of the RFMUD, we are concerned it could result in an imbalance of credits supply and demand. 3. Agricultural Use County Recommendation: Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to begin, expand or increase intensity of a bona fide agricultural operation. Only passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy adamantly objects to this recommendation, as it is inconsistent and incompatible with the intent of the RFMUD. Appendix A Page 40 of 91 Packet Pg. 767 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 4 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations In many instances, agricultural activities can be compatible with environmental protection goals, especially with regard to the use of agricultural fields by listed species, such as the endangered Florida panther. However, it is imperative that staff understand the context in which the County determined, at adoption in 2002, that agricultural clearing was not consistent with the intent of the RFMUD and the program's environmental goals. The Final Order first and foremost required Collier County to direct incompatible uses away from wetland and upland habitats, and to protect listed species. While preservation of prime agricultural lands was also addressed, the County was very careful to ensure that the RFMUD policies were designed with ecological protection as the primary objective. As such, agricultural activities in Sending Lands were a central topic of discussion during the creation of the RFMUD, and were clearly documented in the transcripts of the CCPC and Board of County Commissioners during both the Transmittal and Adoption Hearings in 2002. Under staff discussion in your memo, it states, The RFMUD rules adopted in 2003 and 2004 discourage agriculture on Sending Lands by eliminating the possibility of creating TDR credits for any land put in agricultural use after 2002. Staff is unaware of any clear rationale for the provision, other than the possibility that agriculture was considered incompatible with environmental goals.2 A summary of the clear and unambiguous rationale for the 25 year prohibition of TDR severance for lands cleared for agricultural purposes can be better understood by reviewing the RFMUD 2002 Transmittal and Adoption Hearings transcripts. During the February 7, 2002 CCPC Transmittal Hearing, County consultant Bob Mulhere summarized the matter by stating, One of the major issues raised by some of the environmental groups, as well as the EAC in their deliberations, was this issue of whether or not the county could regulate agriculture in the sending lands.3 z Van Lengen, Kris. Memo. Draft Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Restudy White Paper Section 4: Findings and Recommendations. July 12, 2006. P. 6. 3 Transcript of Collier County Planning Commission RFMUD Transmittal Hearing. February 7, 2002. P. 43. Appendix A Page 41 of 91 Packet Pg. 768 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations At the time, the environmental groups wanted agricultural activities regulated within the RFMUD Sending Lands, regardless of whether a property owner voluntarily participated in the program. However, based on County outside counsel's legal opinion that such regulation would violate the federal Right -to -Farm Act, the County chose to focus on policies in the RFMUD designed to disincentivize land clearing by prohibiting TDR severance on those lands for a period of time (ultimately 25 years was the timeframe adopted). Later in the Transmittal Hearing, Mr. Mulhere, in response to a point made during public comment regarding the fact that the Final Order included direction to the County to discourage premature conversion of agriculture responded by stating, I think Dr. Woodruff raises a very legitimate issue relative to the final order also talking about preventing the premature conversion of agriculture and, also, in a sense, trying to develop some concepts that would enhance or protect the economic viability of agriculture, a very important business in Collier County. As I've said to you earlier, there is a relatively small percentage of agricultural activities, when you look at the overall scale. And, in fact we have chosen to defer much of that to the eastern lands portion where there is extremely large agricultural operations going on. Having said that, when we identify the ecological value of the sending lands, we think that out, and given the constraints in the final order and trying to find balance, we think that outweighs in those areas the need to continue to allow those agricultural operations. So I understand his point; it's a very good point. We just would say that, looking at everything, in our opinion, it's more important to protect those ecological areas intact.4 The CCPC made their position know when they voted to convey to the BCC that they did not believe, The sending lands ought to be used for agricultural purposes once the TDR process is complete.5 4Ibid. P. 59. 5 Transcript of Collier County Planning Commission Transmittal Hearing. P. 95. Appendix A Page 42 of 91 Packet Pg. 769 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Collier County re Staffs RFMUD Draft Recommendations The CCPC also voted in favor of the 25 year prohibition on utilizing TDRs if agricultural clearing occurred after the implementation of the program.6 This is a partial history on the origin of the 25 year prohibition policy. The Conservancy believed at the time such a policy was the proper thing to do in order to secure the ecological protection of the RFMUD Sending Lands, and we support maintaining this policy as it is currently written. While we understand that the County wants to explore additional options designed to maximize participation in the TDR program, we can't lose site of the overarching goal to protect and restore the ecological integrity of the Sending Lands. The Conservancy believes that rewarding land clearing for agricultural purposes within those same Sending Lands would be counterproductive. Agriculture is an important segment of our economy, and there are significant agricultural areas in both the RFMUD Receiving Lands and the RLSA that should be the focus of agricultural retention policies. 4. Parcels smaller than 5 acres County Draft Recommendation: Allow TDR participation for illegal non -conforming properties based on public policy goals, and waive requirements related to proof of LNC status if greater than 4,5 acres in size. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy does not object to the further consideration of such a modification. However, as the goal is to ultimately get these parcels into public ownership, the County may want to consider requiring severance of all credits at once, including the transfer credit, in order to ensure these parcels will be available for landscape level restoration projects in the future. 5. Retroactivity of Su_g_gested Program Changes County Draft Recommendation: Allow landowner's who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. Conservancy Comments: County staff has not provided sufficient information on the ecological value added by this provision to make a determination about this concept. The only quantifiable benefit 6 Ibid. p. 96. Appendix A Page 43 of 91 Packet Pg. 770 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations discussed in your memo is the fact that this will increase the supply of credits available to Receiving Land owners by 1,376 X the number of bonus credits allowed. The Conservancy needs to better understand how these bonuses will provide ecological benefits and ensure their creation will not result in a majority of the Receiving Lands being developed utilizing just these credits. The Conservancy is not averse to considering such a policy. However, we need to understand what additional benefits are anticipated from retroactive credits applied to these Sending Lands. In addition, see our comments under A-2 regarding additional credits. 6. Early Entry TDR Credits County Draft Recommendation: Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base severance of dwelling unit rights. Conservancy Comments: Implementation of the RFMUD was over a decade ago. The Conservancy concurs that the terminology of "Early Entry Bonus" credits is no longer appropriate. However, as the County intends to evaluate the credit system as a whole, the concept of the bonus second base credit should be included in the discussion. For example, if additional credits can be granted which correspond to additional value added elements, is the second base, or Early Entry, credit still necessary? 7. TDR Credits from Receiving Land Staff Draft Recommendation: Allow TDRs to be generated at 2 TDR credits per 5 acres from Receiving Lands for agricultural preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports agricultural activities in the Receiving Lands, as many of these properties have lower ecological value and are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes. Agriculture was allowed in these areas prior to the RFMUD and the RFMUD in no way limits agricultural uses on these lands. Due to the fact that agriculture is allowed in the Receiving Land, it is unclear why the County would be awarding credits for an existing, allowed activity. We need to better understand staffs rationale prior to taking a position on this concept. Appendix A Page 44 of 91 Packet Pg. 771 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 8 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations We also support protection of native habitat within the Receiving Lands. However, it is unclear how this proposed policy would impact existing Receiving Land requirements, which already mandate retention of 40% of onsite native vegetation, not to exceed 25% of the entire site as part of a development project. As protection of native vegetation is already required, additional TDR credits should not be awarded for simply following existing regulations. Additional clarification as to the intent and applicability of this concept is necessary. B: TDR CREDITS AND AREAS OUTSIDE THE RFMUD 1. Urban Residential Fringe and the One Mile Rule Staff Draft Recommendation: Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy does not object to this proposed change. 2. The Urban Residential Infill Bonus Provision Staff Draft Recommendation: Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential Infill bonus provision. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy does not object to this proposed change. 3. Golden Gate Estates TDRs for Environmental Protection Staff Draft Recommendation: Hold for recommendation from CWIP Committee Conservancy Comments: Consideration of how the different planning areas overlap and impact each other is an important component of the County's Eastern Planning Area study process. The connection between the Estates and the RFMUD as it relates to hydrology and restoration potential is a key area meriting further review. Appendix A Page 45 of 91 Packet Pg. 772 Conservancy of Southwest Florida Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations The Conservancy appreciates that staff is deferring any recommendation until there is further coordination with CWIP. We recommend that this section be modified to acknowledge the opportunity for mutually beneficial collaboration between these two planning areas, but we do not encourage highlighting any specific potential policy change. At this point, it seems premature to single out the concept of TDRs to incentivize hydrologic projects within the Estates. C: TDR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 1. General Administration Staff Draft Recommendation: At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from potential buyers and sellers. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports design of an improved County system for connecting TDR buyers and sellers. 2. Cost Components for Sending Owners Staff Draft Recommendation: Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product required for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances, provided by County staff. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports making the TDR program more user-friendly and cost- effective for Sending Land owners. These proposed recommendations are a good starting point. 3. TDR Bank County Staff Recommendation: Follow consultant deliverable Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports the concept of a TDR bank and believes the County should be the governmental entity to create and administer this bank. Regarding the actual establishment of the TDR bank, we appreciate staff's recommendation to follow the Appendix A Page 46 of 91 Packet Pg. 773 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 10 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations consultant's deliverables. However, as budgeting for 2016-17 is currently underway, now is the time to secure seed money for a bank. Therefore, we encourage the County to include funding in the upcoming budget year, understanding the particulars will be forthcoming after the consultant finishes deliverables. In addition, it is unclear what is meant by funding a TDR bank through an `in lieu' fee program. However, if this would result in the sale of TDR futures (where payment is received and TDRs are conveyed before they are actually in the bank), the Conservancy would object. D. SENDING LAND MANAGEMENT: 1. Option One — North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank County Staff Draft Recommendation: Develop a Regional Offsite Mitigation Agreement (ROMA) with FDEP and ACOE in North Belle Meade where financially feasible. Explore adjoining private mitigation banks conveying to Collier County with maintenance funds for greater maintenance efficiency. Conservancy Comments: The concept of a North Belle Meade ROMA merits consideration. Once additional details are available, the Conservancy will review and comment further on this concept As an aside, it is ironic that the ROMA would likely be located in the very area the County proposes incompatible environmental impacts associated with the extension of Wilson Boulevard. Any mitigation value available through the creation of a ROMA would certainly be diminished by a major road bisecting the very ecological areas targeted for restoration and maintenance. 2. Option 2 — Additional TDR for funding in North Belle Meade and Section 11 Staff Draft Recommendation: Establish a special TDR for the benefit of the County where no other entity has been established to take ownership Conservancy Comments: This seems to be a novel idea that the Conservancy needs more information on in order to provide substantive feedback. Additionally, it would need to be included in the County's scenario model to determine the effect of these additional TDRs on the delicate supply vs. demand balance. Appendix A Page 47 of 91 Packet Pg. 774 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 11 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations 3. Option 3 — Green Utility Fee Staff Draft Recommendation: Study the idea of a Green Utility Fee and consider whether it should be the subject of a County -wide referendum. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports further study of the idea of a Green Utility Fee. 4. Option 4 — Model Land Management Plan and Private Ownership Staff Draft Recommendation: Provide a standard or model Land Management Plan for adoption by owners who wish to provide Restoration and Maintenance activities in return for TDR credits. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports the concept of creating a standardized format for Land Management Plans. E. OTHER PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS 1. Adjust property appraisal for tax benefit on TDR severed lands Staff Draft Recommendation: Staff should provide any data needed to the Property Appraiser's Office in support of its efforts to review tax assessments based on appraised land values and resulting tax assessments in Sending Lands. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports this recommendation. 2. Allow additional family home(s) on parcels over 20 acres with agriculture operation and easement Staff Draft Recommendation: Allow an additional family home on a parcel at least 20 acres in size, where bone fide agricultural activities results in TDR severance for the agricultural portions of the property (see recommendation A-3). Appendix A Page 48 of 91 Packet Pg. 775 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 12 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations Conservancy Comments: As stated in our comments for Recommendation A-3, the Conservancy believes clearing for agricultural purposes is not appropriate for incentivization in the Sending Lands. Therefore, allowing a second dwelling to further incentivize agricultural activities in Sending Lands would also be problematic. Additionally, it is unclear how staff is defining the terminology "agricultural parcels with restrictive perpetual easement". 3. Allow County -owned (post conveyance) Sending land to be used for recreational uses Staff Draft Recommendation: County -owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for conditional use approval for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Definitions of "active" and "passive" recreation will require further vetting. Conservancy Comments: While the Conservancy supports the concept of providing additional passive recreational opportunities where appropriate, we do not find the County's recommendation that such uses expand to include active recreation to be compelling. If deemed consistent with restoration and management plans, uses included under the definition of passive recreation could offer a plethora of natural resources based opportunities, including hiking, mountain biking and potentially horseback riding. The Conservancy opposes the concept of allowing active recreation on County -owned Sending Lands where TDRs have been removed. NEUTRAL LANDS: 1. Allow for some participation in the TDR program as allowed in Sending area. Staff Draft Recommendation: Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual easements. Conservancy Comments: The RFMUD Neutral Lands classification was created in acknowledgement that certain areas did not exhibit sufficient ecological value for classification as Sending, but neither were they appropriate for designation as Receiving. Thus, Neutral Lands were essentially allowed to retain their pre-RFMUD uses, with some modifications. Appendix A Page 49 of 91 Packet Pg. 776 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 13 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations The concept of incentivizing agricultural retention in Neutral Lands through the ability to generate TDRs may be a concept worth exploring. However, the Conservancy cautions against including such a provision in any initial RFMUD amendments. There are already a number of considerations associated with increasing the available TDRs within existing Sending Lands, such as ensuring the increase in credits will maximize the amount of additional land participating in the program. The reliability of such analysis and modeling is increased when the credit system is essentially a closed system (i.e. it only includes RFMUD Sending Lands). The analysis may lose reliability if it now has to anticipate use by Neutral Land owners. With regard to opening up Neutral Lands to TDR generation for ecological purposes, such a concept creates a number of questions that the County needs to more thoroughly examine before taking this recommendation to the CCPC and BCC. It appears that implementation of this concept could result in a checkerboard pattern of participants and non -participants. ' It is unclear how such an outcome would provide meaningful ecological benefits. The diminished ecological benefits associated with sporadic landowner participation on the part of Sending Land owners has been a topic of considerable discussion. Until this issue is resolved, it seems unwise to be expanding TDR incentives into Neutral Lands. 2. Minimum project size Staff Draft Recommendation: Remove the 40 acre minimum project size for clustered development Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy is not opposed to the concept of removing the 40 acre minimum. RECEIVING LANDS A. LAND USE Staff Draft Recommendation: 1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of Villages as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district (with exceptions) in locations with access to major collector roads. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy has no objection to this concept. Appendix A Page 50 of 91 Packet Pg. 777 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 14 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations Staff Draft Recommendation: 2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitations of the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy has no objection to this concept. Staff Draft Recommendation: 3. Designate Receiving areas as Innovation Zones. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy will need to research Innovation Zones before commenting on this recommendation. Staff Draft Recommendation: 4. Eliminate the maximum size of a Village. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy has no objection to the concept. Staff Draft Recommendation: 5. Modify residential density standards: a. Clustering — remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre b. Village — increase density to 7 units per acre Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy is supportive of increasing the allowed density if such density is gained through use of TDR credits. B: TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE Staff Draft Recommendations: 1. Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands. 2. Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support low speed. 3. Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business parks. Appendix A Page 51 of 91 Packet Pg. 778 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 15 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations 4. Develop a methodology for a Mobility Analysis including a standard of measuring a development's level of interconnectivity such as a "link -node" ratio, and the transit, bicycle and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project and surrounding destinations. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports the incorporation of transit and other alternative transportation concepts to decrease the demand on our roadway network. We are supportive of a multi -modal Mobility Analysis to expand the County's understanding of the future mobility needs within the RFMUD's Receiving Lands. However, transit and other non -automobile mobility options can only work if the Receiving Lands build out with a mix of development products. All of the existing and approved developments in the Receiving Lands have opted for intensification without creating a Village. If the remainder of the Receiving Lands builds out in a similar way, the transportation needs of this area will be vastly different than those of well -designed mixed -use projects and will be much more dependent on automobiles. Density Standards and Process Staff Draft Recommendations: Incentivize mixed -use development and economic diversity: 1. Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide greater certainty for developers. 2. Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlay. Conservancy Comments: There are two distinct ideas contained in Recommendation 1. One idea is to create design standards specific to the each of the Receiving Lands geographic areas. The Conservancy believes this concept has merit, since the various Receiving Lands have differing needs and opportunities. The second idea contained in Recommendation 1 ties to Recommendation 2 and seems to imply that the actual rezone should occur during the overlay adoption, instead of at the individual project approval. This is what was done, albeit the County did not understand it at the time, within the RLSA. The Conservancy is opposed to such a consideration. Within the RFMUD, the rezone occurs at the time a project within the Receiving Lands is brought before the Commission. As such, the approval as a rezone requires a supermajority vote, just as would be required for every other rezone project in the County. There is no reason to change the rules and lessen the current approval standard for the RFMUD. Appendix A Page 52 of 91 Packet Pg. 779 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 16 Collier County re Staff's RFMUD Draft Recommendations Staff Draft Recommendation: 3. Allow industrial/business park uses (with exceptions) by right, and Hearing Examiner approval for proposals complying with industrial/business park zoning standards. Conservancy Comments: Based on Recommendation 4, it appears the County is recommending that no TDRs be required for the construction of an industrial/business park. However, no data and analysis has been provided to demonstrate how allowing these uses in the absence of TDR conveyance will further the goal of the RFMUD restudy to increase Sending Lands participating. It is too much to assume that if an industrial/business park is approved, then a TDR-using project will necessarily follow. Therefore, Conservancy objects to this portion of staff's recommendation. Further, we have concerns about the approval of such potentially large, intensive and traffic -generating uses bypassing a full public hearing process. It is the public hearing process that allows the community the opportunity to provide input and for the applicant to work with the community on project improvements that may alleviate concerns and result in a better outcome for all stakeholders. Staff Draft Recommendation: 4. Modify the TDR requirements: a. From 1 TDR to .5 TDR for multifamily unit or workforce housing b. From .5 to 0 TDR for affordable housing c. New — 1 credit for each 3,000 SF of retail goods and services outside of a Village, and d. New — 0 TDR for industrial/business park uses. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy does not have the necessary data and analysis to be able to fully understand how staff determined these new TDR ratios. We are not opposed to adjustments in the TDR requirements, but we need staff to share the background information upon which their recommendations are based. (Regarding Recommendation 4.d., see comments above under Recommendation 3.) Staff Draft Recommendation: 5. Initiate study to create an impact fee index for mixed -use Appendix A Page 53 of 91 Packet Pg. 780 Conservancy of Southwest Florida 17 Collier County re Staffs RFMUD Draft Recommendations Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy does not object to such a study. Staff Draft Recommendation: 6. Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land Development Code (LDC) for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employments zones and mixed -use development. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports revisiting the design and development standards as contained in both the GMP and LDC. Review of the GMP demonstrates some unnecessarily specific policies that are better suited for the LDC. In addition, there are good opportunities to remove some of the specific regulatory language and replace it with greater flexibility, in order to incentivize a mix of development opportunities. Staff Draft Recommendation: 7. Develop further incentives for innovative features such as solar power, zero net water use, aquifer recovery and storage systems. Conservancy Comments: The Conservancy supports further exploration of these concepts. Appendix A Page 54 of 91 Packet Pg. 781 9.A.4.i August 4, 2016 Kris Van Lengen, JD, AICP Community Planning Manager Zoning Division, Collier County 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Re: Staff Recommendations Regarding the Reassessment of the RFMUD Dear Mr. Van Lengen: We are very appreciative of your efforts to engage all stakeholders in this restudy process and to develop a list of improvements to the RFMUD that will result in furthering the original policy intent by creating a balanced market driven approach. We fully understand that the issues of this reassessment are complicated and applaud the broad approach you have used in addressing the Reassessment and the prudent but necessary utilization of experts on various components. With respect to the preliminary draft of the staff recommendations set forth in the July 12, 2016 staff Memorandum, we offer the following comments for your consideration: SENDING LANDS: A: TDR CREDIT SYSTEM: 1. Eliminate the $25,000 minimum sale price per base TDR credit. RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property attributes. RFC supports this recommendation. 3. Make TDR credits available to Sending owners for new or expanded bone fide agricultural uses. Only passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan. RFC supports this recommendation. 4. Allow TDR participation for illegal non -conforming properties based on public policy goals, and waive requirements related to proof of LNC status if greater than 4.5 acres in size. RFC supports this recommendation. 5. Allow landowner's who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. RFC supports this recommendation. 6. Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base severance of dwelling unit rights. RFC supports this recommendation. 7. Allow TDRs to be generated at 2 TDR credits per 5 acres from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection. RFC supports this recommendation and its application on Neutrals lands as well. B: TDR CREDITS OUTSIDE THE RFMUD: 1. Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe RFC supports this recommendation. Appendix A Page 55 of 91 Packet Pg. 782 9.A.4.i 2. Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential Infill Bonus provision. RFC supports this recommendation. 3. Golden Gate Estates TDRs for Environmental Protection. The RFC supports, in concept, allowing for TDR generation (and transfer to Receiving lands) in limited locations within Golden Gate Estates. Locations would presumably be identified as part of the GGAMP Restudy or may be identified by the CWIP Ad Hoe Advisory Committee. Staff analysis indicate the impacts to the RFMUD TDR program de minimis, the additional TDRs will also enhance availability and market cost per TDR, and Collier County will benefit through perpetual protection of such areas through watershed protection, flood control enhancement, and wetland and habitat protection. The number of credits and/or ratio to be generated per acre may differ from that in the RFMUD Sending Lands. C: TDR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: 1. At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from potential buyers and sellers. RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product required for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances, provided by County staff. RFC supports this recommendation. 3. County -run or County -sponsored TDR bank. RFC supports this concept. This was a recommendation of Dr. James Nicholas (the County's original TDR expert) and it would be a significant benefit to RFMUD Sending and Receiving Landowners to be able to purchase and sell TDRS using such a bank. If structured properly the bureaucracy can be minimized. D: SENDING LAND MANAGEMENT: 1. Develop a Regional Offsite Mitigation Agreement (ROMA) with FDEP and ACOE in North Belle Meade where financially feasible. Explore adjoining private mitigation banks conveying to Collier County with maintenance funds for greater maintenance efficiency. RFC supports this recommendation. This could be a significant benefit to the County in terms of mitigating for environmental impacts associated with County Roadway projects. 2. Establish one additional TDR for the benefit of the County, where no other public agency is willing to accept donation of land or land management. RFC supports this recommendation but suggests there should be some consideration as to whether 1 TDR is sufficient to offset perpetual land management costs. 3. Study the idea of a Green Utility Fee and consider whether it should be the subject of a County- wide referendum. The RFC cannot support this recommendation at this time without additional information as to the estimated costs of such a fee. 4. Provide a standard or model Land Management Plan for adoption by owners who wish to provide Restoration and Maintenance activities in return for TDR credits. RFC supports this recommendation. E: OTHER PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS: Staff should provide any data needed to the Property Appraiser's Office in support of its efforts to review tax assessments based on appraised land values and resulting tax assessments in Sending Page 2 of 5 Appendix A Page 56 of 91 Packet Pg. 783 9.A.4.i Lands. RFC supports this recommendation. It is critical that taxable values be adjusted to reflect the reduced or limited uses that may be applied to Sending lands in general and more specifically where such lands have severed all or a portion of the development rights. There may also be application on Receiving or Neutral designated lands, where the use of such property is significantly restricted as a result of agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection. 2. Allow an additional family home on a parcel at least 20 acres in size, where bone fide agricultural activity results in TDR severance for the agricultural portions of the property (see recommendation A-3). RFC supports this recommendation. 3. County -owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for conditional use approval for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Definitions of "active" and "passive" recreation will require further vetting. RFC generally supports this recommendation, subject to understand what those additional uses might be. NEUTRAL LANDS: 1. Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual easements. RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Remove the 40 acre minimum parcel or assemblage size for clustering development. RFC supports this recommendation. RECEIVING LANDS: A: LAND USE I. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of Villages as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district (with exceptions) in locations with access to major collector or arterial roads. RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor arca limitation of the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park. RFC supports this recommendation. 3. Designate Receiving areas as innovation Zones. RFC supports this recommendation. 4. Eliminate the maximum size of a Village. RFC supports this recommendation. 5. Modify residential density standards: a. Clustering -- remove 40 acre minimun, increase density to 2 units per acre; RFC suggests additional density in Non -Village (or non mixed -use) Receiving areas, especially related to: (I) clustering which results in increased preservation of native vegetation and habitat (perhaps in the form of bonus units); and (2) higher density for multi -family development (perhaps allowing a higher maximum density (i.e. 3.0 DUs per acres) and a higher base density (i.e. 1 DU per acre) for multifamily. This would still require the same number of TDRS for multi -family to achieve 3.0 DUs per acre as would be required for single-family to achieve the 2.0 unit per acre maximum. b. Village— increase density to 7 units per acre. RFC supports this recommendation. Page 3 of 5 Appendix A Page 57 of 91 Packet Pg. 784 9.A.4.i B: TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES 1. Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues Surrounding IZecciving bands. RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support low speed. RFC supports this recommendation assuming this refers to slow speeds within the development or on adjacent local roadways. 3. Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business parks. RFC supports this recommendation. 4. Develop a methodology for a Mobility Analysis including a standard of measuring a development's level of interconnectivity such as a "link -node" ratio, and the transit, bicycle and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project and surrounding destinations. Perhaps some form of incentive could be developed for employing a design that results in a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Examples include a one or two DU bonus on top of the base density (effectively reducing the number of TDRs that would need to be purchased), or adopting a discounted impact fee for projects that, through a mobility analysis, demonstrate a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. C: ENVIRONMF-NT 1. Allow TDRs to be generated at 2 TDR (or more) per 5 acres from Receiving and Neutral Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection. RFC supports this recommendation, but would suggest including flow ways or other hydrologic restoration or enhancements that have regional benefits or provide for greater capacity or connectivity. D: DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCESS I , Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide greater certainty for developers. RFC supports this recommendation. 2. Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlays. RFC supports this recommendation. 3. Allow industrial/business park uses (with exceptions) by right, and Hearing Examiner approval for proposals complying with industrial/business park zoning standards. RFC supports this recommendation. 4. Modify the TDR requirements: a. From 1 TDR to .5 TDR for multifamily unit or workforce housing b. From .5 to 0 TDR for affordable housing C. New - 1 credit for each 3,000 SF of retail goods and services outside of a Village, and d. New - 0 TDR for industrial/business park uses. RFC supports recommendations a., b. and d, but is concerned that c., which would require TDRs for retail goods and services, will work against the goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled from outside the urban to the urban area for necessary goods and services and will discourage mixed -use development. 5. Initiate study to create an impact fee index for mixed -use RFC supports this recommendation. Page 4 of 5 Appendix A Page 58 of 91 Packet Pg. 785 9.A.4.i 6. Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employment zones and mixed -use development. RFC supports this recommendation. 7. Develop further incentives for innovate features such as solar power, zero net water use, aquifer recovery and storage systems. RFC supports this recommendation. Additional RFC recommendations: I. RFC recommendation Eliminate or significantly revise the greenbelt that is required around a Rural Village or provide TDR generation or bonus density for retaining the greenbelt in preserve or for bone fide agricultural uses. 2. Golden Gate Estates: The RFC supports, in concept, allowing for TDR generation (and transfer to Receiving lands) in limited locations within Golden Gate Estates. Locations would presumably be identified as part of the GGAMP Restudy or may be identified by the CWiP Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. Staff analysis indicate the impacts to the RFMUD TDR program de minimis, the additional TDRs will also enhance availability and market cost per TDR, and Collier County will benefit through perpetual protection of such areas through watershed protection, flood control enhancement, and wetland and habitat protection. The number of credits and/or ratio to be generated per acre may differ from that in the RFMUD Sending Lands. Please note that we may have additional comments pending receipt of the economic analysis and recommendations. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work with staff and to comment on these recommendations and we look forward to continued collaborative efforts as this process moves towards completion. Sincere David TVor, RFC Steering Committee Chair cc: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Collier County Community Planning Section David Wilkison, P.E. Administrator, Collier County Growth Management Division Nick Casalanguida, Collier County Assistant County Manager RFC Steering Committee Bruce Anderson, Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. Tim Hancock, AICP Stantec Bob Mulhere, FAICP, Hole Montes Mike Timmerman, CRE, FRICS, SRA MFF Realty Economic Advisors Page 5 of 5 Appendix A Page 59 of 91 Packet Pg. 786 9.A.4.i 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 Staff s RFMUD Draft Recommendations Dear Mr. Van Lengen: Thank you for your outreach to the public on this important endeavor to study and recommend changes to the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. Please consider the comments below on some of the Collier County Planning Division (CCPD) draft recommendations, as you finalize the white paper. SENDING LANDS A. TDR Credit System 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 return. If they can't sell or trade credits —who is on the hook? There needs to be more analysis and justification for awarding all the additional credits discussed here and throughout the paper. Appendix A Page 60 of 91 Packet Pg. 787 9.A.4.i 3. Agriculture Use The CCPD staff recommends that TDR credits be made available to Sending owners who wish to begin, expand or increase intensity of a bona fide agricultural operation. The County should not adopt this recommendation. The RFMUD rules currently eliminate TDR credits for any land put in agricultural use after 2002. The purpose was to disincentivize clearing of these environmentally sensitive lands. These rules and policy should remain in place. The Sending lands are so designated because their ecological value for such things as water quality, protecting water flow -way, and preserving wildlife and wildlife habitat. A goal of the TDR program as established was to protect and restore the ecological integrity of the Sending lands. Expanding agriculture uses to begin or expand row crops, or to intensify agriculture use are incompatible uses for the environmental goals for these lands. Intensifying agricultural uses could adversely affect Picayune Strand State Forest downstream of the RFMUD area. In Agricultural use areas, wetlands are often destroyed. Agricultural lands are not conservation lands. In the RLSA, developers are claiming that areas where there are Ag uses such as row crops are disturbed land, of less value to wildlife. Therefore developers claim that there should be no problem developing such land because of their lower ecological value. To grant credits for beginning, expanding or intensifying agriculture uses is to start a downward path beginning by reducing the ecological value of the Sending lands. 5. Retroactivi of Suggested Pro am Changes CCPD staff recommends allowing landowners who have generated TDRs but not yet conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. The CCPD has not articulated what additional benefits are anticipated from retroactive credits. As discussed above, there needs to be an analysis or explanation on the effect of granting so many additional credits. 7. TDR Credits from Receiving Lands 2 Appendix A Page 61 of 91 Packet Pg. 788 CCPD staff recommends allowing the generation of 2 TDR credits per 5 acres from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection. It is not clear why this change is needed. There should be an articulation of what "agriculture preservation" and "habitat protection" entails. What would the criteria be for each of these concepts? D. Sending Lands Management There isn't sufficient information for me to understand fully how the different options put forth will work. The idea of a green utility fee appears to be worth considering. F . Other Program Recommendations 3. Allow County -owned Sending land to be use for recreational uses. CCPD staff recommends that County -owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Please reject this idea, other than perhaps to consider expanding passive recreational opportunities where appropriate. Sending lands are environmentally sensitive lands, important for water quality, water flow -way, preservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Passive recreational uses are currently allowed where appropriate; these uses can be compatible with the environmental goals. I urge you to reject expansion of the range of allowed recreational uses, especially reject any motorized activities. Once you open the door to motorized use, the county may want to allow a golf course, or may be pressured into allowing ORV use —a use clearly incompatible with wildlife and water resources. Allowing expansion of recreational uses could have a negative impact to the ecological integrity of these lands and especially make the land unsuitable for the wildlife it is meant to sustain. RECEIVING LANDS B. Transportation and Public Infrastructure Densfty Standards and Process 3 Appendix A Page 62 of 91 Packet Pg. 789 9.A.4.i CCPD staff recommends considering adoption of zoning overlays so as to give developers more certainty and to allow a simple BCC majority to approve a project when complying with the overlay. The only benefit appears to be to allow development to proceed faster. The County should not adopt this approach. Given the rapid development of Collier County at this time, there is a lot of public concern now by many residents about growth occurring too rapidly and degradation of the quality of life. For this reason, the County should continue the practice of requiring a supermajority vote for a rezone, just as is required for every other rezone project in the County. N N O O O N O N J r a M N E Appendix A Page 63 of 91 Packet Pg. 790 9.A.4.i building better communities • saving special places 30 r i� ANNIVERSARY 1986-2016 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. 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.1000friendsoftlorida.org • friends@1000fof.org Appendix A Page 64 of 91 Packet Pg. 791 9.A.4.i 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 Packet Pg. 792 9.A.4.i 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 3.1)) Lf. 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 Appendix A Page 66 of 91 Packet Pg. 793 9.A.4.i 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 Packet Pg. 794 9.A.4.i 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 1/4 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 Packet Pg. 795 9.A.4.i 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. A 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 Packet Pg. 796 9.A.4.i 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. 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, A �6! � Michael R. Ramsey President Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Appendix A Page 70 of 91 Packet Pg. 797 9.A.4.i r N d r V �L r N d N N x a� c �L LL L N� LPL M N N O O O O N O N J d O Cl) ti Iq N r C d E 7 V O t v d L 0 V IL Q x c m Q. a a CL m IL a� r 0 a_ w Sri c a� E ca Q Appendix A Page 71 of 91 Packet Pg. 798 9.A.4.i 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 Packet Pg. 799 9.A.4.i 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 Packet Pg. 800 POTEE T PROPERTIES, INC. sw� C11].Y 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: PoteetyroyertiesAgmaiLcom n,K :Poteetproperties.com June 6, 2016 Anita Jenkins, ACIP Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL 34104 RE: Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District (RFMUD) restudy Dear Ms. Jenkins: After attending the final community meeting on the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District restudy meeting it became very clear the issue of affordable 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 incorporate the overall Affordable Housing policy, which our Commission is currently addressing. However, my gut feeling is that this will not result in any significant resolution of the housing crisis occurring today and the affordable housing crisis will continue until our local government decides to seriously addresses the issue. So far I have only seen lip service from the county. not action. am very concerned that the issue of affordable housing was not put as a high priority use for the filture 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. just they demonstrate they do not want projects within the urban core. So whereto can we look for a solution. The Rural Fringe is our only option. In two of the recent community meetings I attended, less than 5 minutes of the five hours of meeting time was given to the subject of affordable housing. 1 find this troublesome. It needs to be a much higher priority in the discussion. The Rural Fringe Mixed -Use Districts will be the only other opportunity for our community to get it right Currently the proposed plan that the County is advocating is simply moving our current housing formula done in western Collier to the East. While this has been a very positive plan for creating the great Appendix A Page 74 of 91 Packet Pg. 801 community we live in, it totally ignores those who cannot afford the affluent housing mix offered today. We need our labor force and therefore need to provide housing options for them. The idea that Lehigh Acres can be our bedroom community to supply labor is a short lived concept. As Lec County further develops. plenty of job opportunities will be created Nvithin short distance of Lehigh eliminating their need to drive 0 plus miles to Collier for work. The Rural Fringe Mixed -Use [district plan must ha\ e a dynamic affordable housing component built into the plan to avoid both the affordable housing and future workforce crisis. Without it our conununity will suffer. As a Realtor® and advocate for all types of housing and real estate opportunities I ask you to include a section in the plan that will provide affordable housing projects a higher priority on what is to be developed in the future. We cannot use today's formula for growth management to cure this crisis, Therr are too many reasons why it won't happen. The future Rural Fringe plans must include specific opportunities t(-)r 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. We need to create an environment where these projects can be profitable. This will never happen unless you plan for it. The Rural Fringe is Collier's last opportunity to get it right. It starts with the plan so the rest may occur in the future. Sincer , William H. Poteet, Jr., C S. GR1, AH", CAM REALTORS CC: Nick Casalanguida Appendix A Page 75 of 91 Packet Pg. 802 9.A.4.i WALDROP ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS 28100 RONrFA GRANDE DR. #305 RONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 P: 239-405-7777 F. 239-405-78991 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. Page 1 of 9 Appendix A Page 76 of 91 Packet Pg. 803 9.A.4.i 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, Page 2 of 9 Appendix A Page 77 of 91 Packet Pg. 804 9.A.4.i 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. Page 3 of 9 Appendix A Page 78 of 91 Packet Pg. 805 9.A.4.i 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.' Table 1: West Receiving Area Alternate Bonus Density Scenario Gross Residential Density by Receiving Area and Development Scenario 3.5 3.0 15 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 West ■ Baseline Scenario ■ Mid -Range ■ High -Range ■ Alternate 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. Page 4 of 9 Appendix A Page 79 of 91 Packet Pg. 806 9.A.4.i 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 Residual Land Value ($/acre) by Receiving Area and Development Scenario 300.0% 250.0% 200.0% 150.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% North West Belle Meade South Scenario Total ■ Baseline Scenario ■ Mid ;;r:nc: ■ High•Range ■ Alternate (based on Mid -Range Values) 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 st&ethre gh/underline format, while Neal Communities' proposed changes are shown in strikethre gh/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 Page 5 of 9 Appendix A Page 80 of 91 Packet Pg. 807 9.A.4.i 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 eno (1) dwelling U Rit per Ge 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. Proiects 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: Page 6 of 9 Appendix A Page 81 of 91 Packet Pg. 808 9.A.4.i 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 Page 7 of 9 Appendix A Page 82 of 91 Packet Pg. 809 9.A.4.i 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 Assemblaae Densitv Bonus Impact on Homeownership Affordabilit 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 AM I (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 -I ncome 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 Page 8 of 9 Appendix A Page 83 of 91 Packet Pg. 810 9.A.4.i 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 housinca 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. XPq?D 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 Page 9 of 9 Appendix A Page 84 of 91 Packet Pg. 811 Packet Pg. 812 9.A.4.i AQaty EXHIBIT B - RECEIVING AREA (SEPTEMBER, 2015) s s a - s z t s z Q v o 0 0 10 � O p V V aaaaaa � as 0 N 4 h _ - g m m a m � 8 � t ° x 0 ° o ��aaaadaa�aa°a W ry H D ry U) ry LL z 06 U) w w U) z ry co co C1n19 SKV1O213A3 z S (M NOISONIAII N CR1 NOISONIAII a d w w O :GOOD�LETTE RE) N S Q?J 311310000 N INI IWVIWVI p ® w Q - jjjj (� Oo O � 0 a o O « Y O d V CV m Q X Q Q Q Z mO le nN zZ o0 ZOZ d:9 L Z } emnoo p t4oeoilno m mnd ¥ xipua d¥ ua ed mmM Q n W]u' eeew t43gPV co/ � \ \ / CCU E § « t § 7 ) 0 L 2 # $ o § \ ® ) \ $ § \ _ c \ / k ! (\ \ / 2 § E 2 ] )) / q g 0000 k } < r - E\ 3 - ; � ) k 0 k � 3 ) 2 - a a- _ \ 2 .2 - ■ \ ; ) �c Q � \ \ § o ) $ J k 0 \ 0 \ ( \ } } § / \ k z } 210UI/1141 AMM 2 e 0. �2 �� S� 22 t 0§ ae ea. - E �� § m LO oo a \ a .1 " -- W-m-, 1� ---"NwZ- Q J a In W U Z O U J_ LL W Z T LL CO x x W 077 `dQRI0I3,LSdMH,Lf10S d0 SaLIMftWW00'Id9N Gov i 5z) walrioDow Nv'Ia aiis ivfujgDNOD MASSEY STREET DOUGLAS STREET Erg D~ 7j LL Lu W Z W 7 OO Ir J 0 u Z 077 `VQRIOI3lSdMHlfIOS d0 SaLIMftWW00'IV9N Gov i 5z) wlllloDow NV'Id H,LIS'IVfuj9Dm00 DOUGLAS STREET > I , W Y II 1I I 1 ►II ►/ I - - I 4/ I 1 1 > Lu a ► � x 1 1 > 1 II II II II > < 1 1 1 11 < 1 1 Y' % 1 1 1 � if i II 11 1 > I41 ' II 4* 1 > 1 j 1 �I , 40P 1 Z 4 ..��• W a =� a eJ r ITI T QW� J Z co W a Ita JI 1_ I / MASSEY STREET IrO D~ LL Lu W Z W 0 OO Ir J 0 u 9.A.4.j Co#e-r Count y Appendix B Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District Restudy North Belle Meade Mitigation Feasibility Study Appendix B Pa Packet Pg. 819 9.A.4.j NORTH BELLE MEADE MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY July 2016 Prepared For: Collier County Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 (239) 252-7268 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 Project No. 16CCG2467 Appendix B Pa Packet Pg. 820 9.A.4.j 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 i Appendix B Pa Packet Pg. 821 9.A.4.j for a higher degree of certainty regarding the potential for a specific area or areas to serve as feasible mitigation value generators. ii Appendix B Pa Packet Pg. 822 9.A.4.j TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... I 2.0 Analysis Purpose/Goal...................................................................................................... l 3.0 Analysis Constraints.........................................................................................................I 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 Pa Packet Pg. 823 9.A.4.j m Table of Contents (Continued) as Page x d 10.0 Mitigation Values............................................................................................................13 c L LL 11.0 Credit Generation Costs..................................................................................................14 W M 11.1 Cost Assumptions 14 N 0 0 11.1.1 Land Costs 14 0 `" 0 11.1.2 Implementation Time Period..................................................................15 a 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 ., c� 11.1.7 Program Administrative Cost 16 0 ................................................................. 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 LandManagement..............................................................................................20 13.2 Areas with Exotic Eradication and Land Management......................................20 13.3 ROMA/ILF.........................................................................................................21 14.0 ROMA/ILF Program Considerations..............................................................................22 15.0 Permit Process.................................................................................................................25 16.0 Conclusion and Recommendations.................................................................................26 17.0 Recommended Next Steps — Assuming ROMA/ILF Option..........................................26 iv Appendix B Pa Packet Pg. 824 9.A.4.j LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Exotic Infestation Scenarios.........................................................................10 v Appendix B Pa Packet Pg. 825 9.A.4.j m LIST OF FIGURES Page d Figure 1. Wetland Credits without Hydrologic Enhancement 12 LL L Figure 2. Wetland Credits with Hydrologic Enhancement............................................12 M N N O O Figure 3. Mitigation Value without Hydrological Enhancement...................................13 0 0 N O N J IL Figure 4. Mitigation Value with Hydrological Enhancement........................................14 M N Figure Series 5. Mitigation Value versus Cost..........................................................................17 Figure Series 6. Wetland Value Only versus Cost....................................................................19 Figure Series 7. (Combined) Mitigation Value versus Cost....................................................23 vi Appendix B Pa Packet Pg. 826 9.A.4.j LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. UMAM Worksheets.................................................................................... El-1 Exhibit 2. Mitigation Value Tables............................................................................. E2-1 Exhibit 3. Implementation Costs................................................................................. E3-1 Exhibit 4. Credit Generation Cost Tables.................................................................... E4-1 Vll Appendix B Pa Packet Pg. 827 9.A.4.j 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 corgi), 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 Pag Packet Pg. 828 9.A.4.j infestation by exotic and invasive vegetation species unless the infestation is clearly visible at vegetation canopy height. Without more specific data regarding the extent, type, and locations of exotic vegetation infestation levels, this analysis must rely on hypothetical exotic infestation scenarios as explained in the Mitigation Analysis Framework section. Another constraint of NWI and FLUCFCS mapping is their limited ability to ascertain the hydrologic conditions on sites where the presence or absence of hydrology is not easily discernable from aerial photography. Many areas within North Belle Meade have been subject to hydrologic impacts, primarily from interruption of surface flows or drainage resulting from the Golden Gate canal system. The mapping of over -drained areas that register as wetland based on a mapping of canopy cover types may not accurately capture the fact the area no longer has sufficient hydrology to qualify as wetland. Because the available land use/land cover mapping may not accurately identify wetland versus upland areas, a range of possible upland versus wetland habitat percentages is used in this analysis as more fully explained in the Mitigation Analysis Framework section. 4.0 OVERVIEW OF WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAMS The concept of wetland mitigation is derived from existing state and federal regulatory programs that protect wetlands and replace lost wetland functions through the restoration, enhancement, and protection of existing wetlands or through the creation of new wetlands. Both the state and federal programs contain regulatory language regarding each type of mitigation programs. Wetland mitigation is primarily used to offset the loss of wetland functions resulting from the direct or indirect impacts of projects on state and/or federal jurisdictional wetlands. Elements common to current state and federal wetland mitigation programs include: 1) Goal of no net loss of wetland functions 2) Clearly defined ecological goals and mitigation plan 3) Use of an acceptable wetland functional assessment methodology to assess wetland functions lost by impacts and the replacement wetland functions gained through mitigation 4) The landscape context of any mitigation should be relevant to the wetlands impacted 5) Mitigation must have clearly defined and verifiable success criteria tied to wetland functionality 6) A conservation easement that limits land uses and activities inconsistent with wetland and habitat preservation goals 7) Financial assurances are required to assure mitigation plan implementation 8) Financial assurances are required to assure sufficient funding for perpetual mitigation site management and protection 9) Monitoring and reporting to regulatory agencies This analysis does not provide a detailed breakdown of each program but rather focuses on the key components of each program relative to the North Belle Meade (credit generation and constraining elements of each program). 2 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 829 9.A.4.j 4.1 Permittee Responsible Mitigation The approach of Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) was once the main form of mitigation, where the applicant proposing a wetland impact would also propose project - specific mitigation to offset any wetland functional loss. The success of PRM was highly variable and PRM is now much less common than the use of mitigation banks or other large scale mitigation programs under both the state and federal wetland regulatory programs. Some parcels within the North Belle Meade have been used for PRM, but the PRM concept involves a case -by -case permitting decision and is not applicable to this analysis. 4.2 Wetland Mitigation Banking Wetland mitigation banking has gained widespread support throughout the country and is now the preferred form of mitigation for both the state and federal regulatory programs. To permit and operate a wetland mitigation bank, the bank site must be clearly defined under the ownership or control of the project sponsor. Wetland mitigation banks are typically large enough to benefit the environment on a landscape scale and are run as businesses with the wetland mitigation credits being the commodity to be sold on the open market. Following a detailed and thorough permitting process, wetland mitigation banks implement a mitigation plan and earn credits for various levels of implementation completion and for verifiable levels of ecological success. Wetland credits can be sold to offset wetland impacts from projects within a prescribed "service area," typically a defined watershed of combination of watershed. Ideally, the wetland functional assessment methodology used to evaluate project impacts must be the same as the methodology used to assess the wetland functional gains at the wetland mitigation bank site. The State of Florida and the federal government each have their own mitigation banking requirements and regulations, which are similar in many ways. One primary difference is the application of the wetland functional assessment methodology, whereby Florida's application tends to yield more credits than the federal application. For the purposes of this analysis, the more conservative number of credits likely to be generated under the federal mitigation banking program is used for credit generation calculations. Projects proposing impacts to wetlands in Southwest Florida typically require permit approval under both the state and federal regulatory programs and, therefore, require wetland credits acceptable under both the both state and federal regulatory programs. Local governments or state agencies can establish and operate a wetland mitigation bank. However, to maintain a level playing field with private commercial mitigation banking for credit pricing, government mitigation banking is required to use a "full cost accounting" methodology when calculating the cost of generating credits. Among other things, full cost accounting requires that the fair market value of land be included as a credit generation cost. The end concept and relevance of full cost accounting is explained in more detail later in this document. 3 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 830 9.A.4.j 4.3 Regional Off -Site Mitigation Area Regional Off -Site Mitigation Area (ROMA) is a defined program under the state of Florida regulatory program for wetlands. The ROMA program is currently available to local governments and some qualified non-profit organizations. ROMA projects (typically referred to as "ROMAs") have been initiated in several locations around Florida, with varying levels of ecological success. The concept of ROMAs was born out of the desire to consolidate the efforts and funds expended on minor, smaller, and/or disjointed mitigation projects into more cohesive and meaningful mitigation efforts with benefits on a landscape sale. ROMAs have been used to collect funds in a type of early credit sale basis with the defined goal of using the funds to purchase/acquire land and implement a mitigation plan. The sale of these early or "prospective" wetland credits has become an area of regulatory concern because some ROMA projects can take many years to actually implement any mitigation plan elements that produce actual "lift" to existing wetland functions. Credits generated by ROMAs may be sold on the open market, subject to full cost accounting of credit generation costs. 4.4 In -Lieu Fee The federal In -Lieu Fee (ILF) program is similar to Florida's ROMA program with many of the same benefits and constraints. The ILF program allows for early credits, the collection of fees for land purchases and planned work, and does not always require that the entire proposed ILF area be under the ownership of the applicant. As in wetland mitigation banking, a permit separate and distinct from the state's permit is required under the federal program. Both ROMA and ILF project areas can include land not yet under a single ownership or control. In addition, ROMAs and ILF projects may be composed of multiple, distinct, and even widely separated parcels, provided the various parcels share an ecological commonality in a landscape context. While both ROMA and ILF programs are primarily for wetland mitigation credit generation, upland areas may be included and their value to listed species can be accounted for within a ROMA/ILF using the same principles discussed under the Habitat Conservation Bank section below. 5.0 HABITAT CONSERVATION BANKS Habitat Conservation Banking involves the long-term management and preservation of existing wildlife habitats for the benefit of specific protected species. Unlike wetland mitigation, which is intended to replace wetland losses (no net loss of wetland function as its goal), habitat conservation is used to protect existing habitat values, where no such protection currently exists as compensation for direct or indirect habitat impacts elsewhere. The terms "compensation" and "habitat compensation" are used throughout this analysis to differentiate units and values derived 4 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 831 9.A.4.j from benefits to listed species habitat versus "mitigation" which is used for increases in wetland function. Habitat conservation banks typically provide species -specific compensation units that can be used to offset impacts to other habitat used by a given protected species. Habitat Conservation Banks can be used for more than one species when the bank site has appropriate habitat types and when the required land management and habitat goals of the different species are not in conflict. As with wetland mitigation banking, a habitat conservation bank has a defined service area, specific ecological goals, and requirements for financial assurances for implementation and long-term management. 6.0 REGULATORY AGENCIES For permitting of wetland impacts and associated mitigation requirements in Southwest Florida, the State's wetlands protection program is administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the SFWMD, and the federal program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The program for permitting of habitat conservation banks is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 6.1 FDEP/SFWMD The FDEP typically permits wetland mitigation banks where a given state water management district has an operational role, financial interest, or other potential conflict. The FDEP solicits and considers input from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) regarding wildlife issues. The SFWMD typically permits all other wetland mitigation banks and also utilizes comments and input from the FWCC. ROMAs are typically reviewed by the FDEP with FWCC input. 6.2 COE Federal review of wetland mitigation or ILF applications involves multiple federal agencies with COE typically taking the role of lead agency. The assigned COE project manager leads a multi -agency team known as an Interagency Review Team (IRT). For a proposed wetland mitigation bank or ILF in the North Belle Meade, the primary IRT participants are most likely to be the COE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the USFWS. 6.3 USFWS Federal review of habitat compensation banks involves the USFWS with input from the FWCC. 5 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 832 9.A.4.j 7.0 MITIGATION PROGRAMS - APPLICABILITY TO NORTH BELLE MEADE 7.1 PRM PRM is project and parcel -specific and not currently encourage by regulatory agencies. As such, a PRM project is not considered in this analysis. 7.2 Wetland Mitigation Bank The establishment of a wetland mitigation bank within the North Belle Meade is compared as an alternative within this analysis. Challenges inherent with wetland mitigation banking include the need for property ownership or control from the onset of permitting, and a well-defined time schedule for implementation and full success. 7.3 ROMA/ILF For the purposes of this analysis, ROMA and ILF project requirements are considered jointly with the most restrictive element of each program dictating for specific requirements or criteria. A ROMA/ILF project could only be proposed by Collier County or by a qualified non-profit entity for the North Belle Meade. A ROMA/ILF project appears to be a closer fit to the current conditions, opportunities, and constraints of using the North Belle Meade for possible wetland credit and habitat compensation units based on the following elements common to both programs. The proposed project area does not need to be in single ownership or control at the time of project permitting or at the time of initial implementation on areas or phases under permittee's ownership or control. Early credit sales can be used to acquire land and/or fund implementation of mitigation plan/activities. Required time frames for mitigation implementation and project phases tend to be more flexible with ROMA/ILF projects than with wetland mitigation banking. Open Market ROMA/ILF wetland credits generated by a ROMA/ILF project could be permitted as available to be sold on the open market if the full cost accounting method for credit generation cost is used as the basis for the pricing of credits (explained in more detail in Numerical Analysis Section of this report). Single User ROMA/ILF- An alternative to an open market ROMA/ILF is the single -user ROMA/ILF project. This approach would identify Collier County as the user of the wetland mitigation credits and habitat compensation units from a ROMA/ILF sponsored and supported by Collier County. Under this approach, the hypothetical costs of generating the credits (the full cost accounting methodology) are not required as a basis for credit pricing. This analysis provides the costs to generate credits with and without land costs to differentiate between an open market ROMA/ILF (or wetland mitigation bank) and the single -user ROMA/ILF alternative. 6 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 833 9.A.4.j 7.4 Habitat Conservation Bank The use of appropriate lands within the North Belle Meade for habitat compensation, as either a separate distinct habitat conservation bank or as a component of a ROMA/ILF project would add a valuable component to a ROMA/ILF project. The North Belle Meade is home to, or used by, a number of state and federally -listed wildlife species including the Florida panther, wood stork (Mycteria americana), and red - cockaded woodpeckers. For the purposes of this analysis, habitat compensation needs and habitat compensation units for the Florida panther are used to represent the potential value of uplands. A more detailed breakdown of other species compensation opportunities is possible but beyond the scope of this analysis. The use of panther as the driver of habitat compensation needs/values is reasonable given the prevalence of panther in the North Belle Meade and the prevalence of panther compensation needs throughout significant portions of Collier County. The permitting of habitat compensation banks for panthers falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the USFWS with concurrence from the FWCC. For lands to be acceptable as compensation they must typically be either reasonably contiguous with a large area of existing conservation lands or large enough to provide a significant percentage of an adult panther home range habitat needs; not located where proximate or regional impacts may occur that would diminish the lands functionality for, or availability, to panther; and able to be actively managed to enhance and protect habitat values important to panther in perpetuity. In the past, the USFWS has expressed reservations regarding the use of smaller and/or disjointed parcels in the North Belle Meade as for panther compensation. Also, concern exists over County road alternatives under consideration and the potential long-term land use patterns. The establishment of wetland mitigation bank or ROMA/ILF project area could potentially allay USFWS concerns. 8.0 MITIGATION ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK The following analysis is based on evaluating the potential value of wetland mitigation and upland habitat compensation versus the potential costs to generate those values for a given area. In this analysis, Wetland Mitigation Value is used as the number of wetland credits generated times the current market per -credit price. Similarly, Upland Mitigation Value is used in this analysis as the number of habitat compensation units generated times the current market price per unit. The concept of Combined Mitigation Value is used to represent the combined values of wetland credits generated (based on market value) plus the value of panther compensation units (based on market value). This can be equated as: Mitigation Value ($) = (# of credits x credit market price) + (# of panther compensation units x compensation unit market price) 7 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 834 9.A.4.j 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 SFWM FLUCFCS mapping) do not including mapping of exotics or their levels of infestation. Without mapping of the location, extent, and relative levels of exotic infestations, an overall analysis of potential credit generation must rely on generalized characteristics of the area. 8 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 835 9.A.4.j Should a specific portion(s) or area(s) of the North Belle Meade be defined for mitigation use, site reconnaissance could be performed to estimate exotic levels, and a more detailed site - specific analysis of credit generation potential and credit generation costs could be performed. Absent a clearly defined discrete area(s) for evaluation, the following analysis utilizes four potential scenarios for levels of exotic vegetation typical for the North Belle Meade. Numerical and graphed results in this analysis are normalized to a hypothetical 100-acre parcel size to facilitate visualization and understanding. Fundamentally, the mitigation analysis framework can be given as: • Determination of potential wetland credits generated by wetlands (without hydrologic enhancement) on a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of potential wetland credits generated by wetlands (with hydrologic enhancement) on a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of potential wetland credit generation costs for a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of potential upland habitat (compensation) value for a hypothetical 100- acre parcel for varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of Combined Mitigation Value as the value of wetland credits plus the value of upland compensation for a hypothetical 100-acre parcel for various levels of exotic vegetation infestation levels and varying percentages of wetland versus upland. • Determination of the costs to generate the above, both with and without land costs. • Comparison of Cost of Mitigation Generation versus value of: Wetland Mitigation (without hydrologic enhancement) Wetland Mitigation (with hydrologic enhancement) Wetland Mitigation (without hydrologic enhancement) plus Upland Mitigation Wetland Mitigation (with hydrologic enhancement) plus Upland Mitigation 9.0 MITIGATION NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 9.1 Wetland Credit Generation As indicated in the Mitigation Analysis Framework section, four representative scenarios for exotic vegetation infestation levels are used to approximate a range of habitat conditions typical of the North Belle Meade. These same infestation level scenarios are 9 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 836 9.A.4.j used consistently throughout this analysis, including the analysis of costs. The four scenarios used are presented below in tabular form. Table 1. Exotic Infestation Scenarios* Scenario 1 - Generally low levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 80 Minor 0-25 % (El) 20 Moderate 25-50% (E2) 0 High 50-75% (E3) 0 Severe 75-100% (E4) 0 Total 100 Scenario 2 - Generally moderate levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 30 Minor 0-25% (El) 30 Moderate 25-50% (E2) 20 High 50-75% (E3) 20 Severe 75-100% 0 Total 100 Scenario 3 - Generally moderate to high levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 20 Minor 0-25% (El) 15 Moderate 25-50% (E2) 20 High 50-75% (E3) 35 Severe 75-100% (E4) 10 Total 100 Scenario 4 - Generally very high levels of exotic vegetation infestation Exotic Infestation Level Percentage of a Given Area Minimal 0 Minor 0-25% (El) 10 Moderate 25-50% (E2) 15 High 50-75% (E3) 35 10 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 837 9.A.4.j 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 11 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 838 9.A.4.j The total number of credits a given area can generate is a function of the UMAM scoring tables for the four infestation level scenarios based on a hypothetical 100± acre parcel size is given in Exhibit 1. The results from the UMAM calculations (Exhibit 1) for the representative upland/wetland land percentages are presented below (Figures 1 and 2). Figure 1 - Wetlands Credits without Hydrologic Enhancement Wetland Credits w/out Hydro 14 12 v 10 8 Scenario 1 v 6 Scenario 2 a, 4 Scenario 3 2 Scenario 4 0 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland % of 100 Acres Figure 2 - Wetlands Credits with Hydrologic Enhancement 14 3 4 2 Wetland Credits w/ Hydro Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland % of 100 Acres 12 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 839 9.A.4.j 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 $600,000 $500,000 v $400,000 ,o $300,000 c� +A $200,000 2 $100, 000 $0 Mitigation Value w/out Hydro Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland % of 100 Acres 13 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 840 9.A.4.j Figure 4 - Mitigation Value with Hydrologic Enhancement $1,600,000 $1,400, 000 3 $1,200,000 > $1,000,000 c $800,000 ao $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 Mitigation Value w/ Hydro 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland % of 100 Acres 11.0 CREDIT GENERATION COSTS Hydro Scenario 1 Hydro Scenario 2 Hydro Scenario 3 Hydro Scenario 4 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. 14 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 841 9.A.4.j 11.1.2 Implementation Time Period The implementation time for mitigation activities is assumed to be five years (typical of most mitigation plans). This analysis uses this five year implementation period to calculate implementation costs for any given phase or discrete area, after which long-term maintenance and management will be funded from the perpetual management account. 11.1.3 Initial Exotic Treatment Eradication For initial exotic treatment, it is assumed that there will be reasonable access to areas requiring treatment, primary treatment methodology will be treat -in -place with minimal off -site removal of material, and treatment areas will be 50 acres or greater. 11.1.4 Treatment Costs For areas with less than 25 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $500 per acre. For areas of 25 to 50 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $1,000 per acre. For areas of 51 to 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $1,500 per acre. For areas of greater than 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $2,000 per acre. Ongoing nuisance/exotic treatments (5 Years) Minimum of 2 treatment events per year will occur for first 5 years. For areas with less than 25 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $25 per acre/year. For areas of 25 to 50 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $50 per acre/year. For areas of 51 to 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $75 per acre/year. For areas of greater than 75 percent exotic/nuisance infestation - $125 per acre/year. Replanting - assume replanting of areas with initial exotic infestation levels at or greater than 75 percent at $3,500/acre. 11.1.5 Funding of Perpetual Maintenance Funding of perpetual maintenance will be $1,025 per acre. 11.1.6 Prescribed Burning $1,500 per 100 acres for initial burn. $600 per 100 acres for second/follow-up burn. Program Administration - assume 8 percent of implementation costs per year as is typically required through permitting process. 15 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 842 9.A.4.j 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 ROMAALF grogram area must also be managed and maintained. The wetland implementation cost plus upland implementation cost are combined to give the combined implementation cost for each situation. The wetland implementation costs, upland implementation costs, and combined implementation costs for the four infestation scenarios under a range of potential upland/wetland ratio situations is found as Exhibit 3. 11.3 Total Credit Generation Costs The Total Credit Generation Costs can be generally described as: Land cost + Combined Implementation Costs + Administration Costs Using the combined implementation costs from the tables in Exhibit 3, and adding the 16 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 843 9.A.4.j 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 $1,400,000 3 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 c $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 Infestation Scenario 1 Mitigation Value vs Cost Scenario 1 Hydro Scenario 1 Cost (w/land cost) 10 25 50 75 90 Costs (w/o land cost) Wetland Infestation Scenario 2 - Moderate Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 2 $1,400,000 Mitigation Value vs Cost $1,200,000 $1,000,000 c $800,000 Scenario 2 $600,000 $400,000 Hydro Scenario 2 $200,000 _ _ _ Cost (w/land cost) $0 10 25 50 75 90 — — Costs (w/o land cost) Wetland 17 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 844 9.A.4.j Infestation Scenario 3 - Moderate to High Levels of Exotic Infestation $1,600, 000 $1,400, 000 $1,200,000 > $1,000,000 o $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 Infestation Scenario 3 Mitigation Value vs Cost 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland Scenario 3 Hydro Scenario 2 Cost (w/land cost) — — Costs (w/o land cost) Infestation Scenario 4 - High Levels of Exotic Infestation $1,600,000 - $1,400,000 $1,200,000 > $1,000,000 c $800,000 41 o $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 Infestation Scenario 4 Mitigation Value vs Cost 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland Scenario 4 Hydro Scenario 2 Cost (w/land cost) — — Costs (w/o land cost) The concept of combined Mitigation Value combines the value of wetland credits with the upland values for panther (or other species) habitat compensation. Should a proposed mitigation banking or ROMA/ILF project area not be approved for species compensation or if a sufficient market does not exist for habitat compensation, then the adjusted actual Mitigation Value would be the value of the wetland credits alone. Graphing of data for wetland credit values only and their associated cost yields the following: 18 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 845 9.A.4.j Figure Series 6 - Wetland Value Only versus Cost Infestation Scenario 1 - Low Levels of Exotic Infestation $1,500,000 GJ $1,000,000 > a $500,000 U $0 Infestation Scenario 1 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost � ,Scenario 1- Wetland value only Hydro Scenario 1 ��"�~4W1.—, Cost (w/land cost) 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland % — — Costs (w/o land cost) Infestation Scenario 2 - Moderate Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 2 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost $1,500,000 d $1,000,000 Scenario 2-Wetland value only $500,000 L Hydro Scenario 2 $0 • 10 25 50 75 90 Cost (w/land cost) Wetland Infestation Scenario 3 - Moderate to High Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 3 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost $1, 500,000 a, Scenario 3- Wetland m $1,000,000 value only Hydro Scenario 2 4) $500,000 _ U �� $0 � W do` Cost (w/land cost) 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland Costs (w/o land cost) 19 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 846 9.A.4.j Infestation Scenario 4 - High Levels of Exotic Infestation Infestation Scenario 4 Wetland Credit Value vs Cost $2,000,000 $1,500,000 Scenario 4- Wetland M 10001- value only $1,000,000 Hydro Scenario 2 v $500,000 ^r — $0 00 ! — Cost (w/land cost) 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland % — Costs (w/o land cost) J 13.0 DISCUSSION OF NUMERICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS With a goal of establishing a mitigation program within the North Belle Meade that is cost - neutral or cost -positive to the Collier County, the following information is reflected in the above results of the numerical analysis: 13.1 Areas of Hydrologic Enhancement, Exotic Eradication, and Land Management For areas where hydrologic enhancement will occur, the potential Mitigation Value is significantly higher than costs under all infestation scenarios and all upland versus wetland land composition combinations where at least ten percent of the site is wetland (Figure Series 5, all infestation scenarios). This is due to the more significant increase in wetland function than can be achieved by rehydration than by exotic eradication and land management alone. The projected costs for any hydrologic enhancement are assumed to be part of other drainage basin restoration initiatives and are, therefore, not reflected in the cost numbers. For the purposes of this analysis, and in particular to remain conservative regarding potential values, the balance of this discussion will focus on analysis data that does not include results from hydrologic enhancements. The benefits and value of any hydrologic enhancements, should they occur, would be additive to the Mitigation Values discusses below. 13.2 Areas with Exotic Eradication and Land Management For areas that would generate wetland functional increase through exotic vegetation eradication, replanting in certain high infestation areas, and land management only (no 20 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 847 9.A.4.j hydrologic restoration), the amount of wetland credit generation and, therefore, the overall Mitigation Value is significantly less. For areas of low and moderate infestation levels (Infestation Scenarios 1 and 2 — Figure Series 5 and 6) the overall mitigation value actually declines with increased percentage of wetlands on a given area, indicating the area has more value as wildlife compensation than wetland mitigation. For areas of moderate to high infestation levels (Scenario 3 — Figure Series 5), the overall Mitigation Value is relatively unchanged as a function of wetland percentage indicating such areas have about equal wetland Mitigation Value and upland compensation value. Only in Scenario 4 of Figure Series 5, where high levels of exotic infestation is represented, is the value of the land for wetland mitigation higher than it is upland habitat compensation. Under the open market concept (Wetland Mitigation Bank) where the full cost accounting approach is required to set credit prices on an open market, the cost sum that includes land cost ("Cost (with land cost)" line on Figure Series 5 and 6) would need to be applied. For minor, moderate, and even moderate to high levels of exotic infestation (Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 — Figure Series 5 and 6) mitigation lands that contained approximately 30 percent or more wetlands would have a negative net value (Mitigation Value minus Cost) when land cost is accounted for. 13.3 ROMA/ILF Unless hydrologic enhancements can be assured for a sufficiently large given area, the above results indicate a commercial wetland mitigation bank is not likely to yield a financially neutral or positive outcome. Under a single user approach (ROMA/ILF type program) where the land cost does not always need to be a consideration for credit pricing, the numerical analysis shows that a net positive number (for Mitigation Value minus cost) is theoretically possible across a broad range of infestation levels and upland/wetland composition levels. For projects proposed by Collier County (i.e., Collier County Transportation Department, Collier County Utilities Department, or Collier County Parks and Recreation Department) that include wetland impact and/or listed species habitat impacts requiring wetland mitigation and/or habitat compensation, the use of ROMA/ILF credits generated from a portion or portions of the North Belle Meade could represent a net cost savings to Collier County. The County's current 2040 Long Range Transportation Program needs assessment for cost -feasible future roadway projects indicates an anticipated need for 180 wetland mitigation credits and 6,900 units of panther habitat compensation at projected costs of $11,058,000 and $6,932,000, respectively. Per -unit costs used in the Needs Assessment were $70,000 for wetland credits and $1,000 for panther compensation (PHUs). The actual cost to Collier County of the projected mitigation/compensation could be significantly lower on a per unit basis by using a ROMA/ILF project to generate the 21 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 848 9.A.4.j needed credits and habitat compensation. Additionally, the funds spent purchasing the mitigation/compensation could be used to expand and operate the ROMA/ILF program. The concept of establishing and operating a single -user ROMA/ILF project within a portion or portions of the North Belle Meade does appear to be financially feasible based on this analysis. 14.0 ROMA/ILF PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS Historically, ROMA and ILF projects have been permitted and operated with highly varying degrees of success. In a number of cases, monies have been collected under such a program with long delays, and even failure, in actual implementation of the mitigation plan measures. As a result, regulatory agencies have legitimate concerns about the mitigation plan implementation and timely success of proposed ecological benefits. A thorough and accurate tracking and accounting of dollars coming into and out of any ROMA/ILF will be important for a proposed ROMA/ILF project. The concept of a critical mass in terms of land area that can be reasonably - expected to become part of any proposed ROMA/ILF project will be an important consideration. The necessary minimum land area is typically decided with the regulatory agencies on a case -by -case basis. For an area such as North Belle Meade, the FDEP and the COE could conceivable ask for 500± or even 1,000± acres as a minimum project size. A significant advantage of the ROMA/ILF program is the total of the proposed project area does not need to be in the applicant/permittee's ownership up -front. Ideally, an applicant would own some of the necessary land area and be able to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the balance of the necessary land areas to attain the critical mass can/will be attained in some manner, including the use of collected monies for land purchase. Within the North Belle Meade are a number of land parcels that have already been used for wetland mitigation and are, therefore, not available for further credit or upland compensation; however, the parcels could be counted towards the critical mass consideration. Also, land management of these parcels could possibly be accomplished by a ROMA/ILF project, under a separate agreement, with the projected funds typically spent by the entities responsible for each of the existing mitigation parcels going to the ROMA/ILF (or related entity) in exchange. Within the NRPA portion of North Belle Meade, lands that have not already been used for some form of mitigation and are available for full credit potential total over 2,000 acres. For mitigation banking projects, funding assurance is required for the implementation work (minus the funding of the perpetual management account) during the first five years of the project, or a phase/geographic area of the project. Such assurances take the form of performance bounding or a specialized insurance policy. Alternative assurance options may be available for county governments implementing a ROMA/ILF. 22 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 849 9.A.4.j 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 $5,000,000 v $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 ao $1,000,000 $0 Scenario 1- Low Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost Scenario 1- Wetland and Upland Value m � Costs (w/o land cost) Scenario 1 -Wetland Value 10 25 50 75 90 only Wetland 23 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 850 9.A.4.j Scenario 2 — Moderate Exotic Infestation Levels Scenario 2- Moderate Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost $5,000,000 $4,500,000 3 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 C $2,500,000 $2,000,000 Z; $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland For 1,000-Acre ROMA/ILF Area Scenario 3 — High Exotic Infestation Levels $5,000,000 $4,500,000 3 $4,000,000 io $3,500,000 c $3,000,000 C $2,500,000 'm $2,000,000 bO $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 enario 2- Wetland and )land Values )sts (w/o land cost) enario 2- Wetland Value only Scenario 3- High Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost 10 25 50 75 90 Wetland rio 3- Wetland and d Values (w/o land cost) rio 3- Wetland Value only a� N D as x LL 3 M N N 0 0 0 0 N 0 N J d m M 04 24 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 851 9.A.4.j Scenario 4 — High Exotic Infestation Levels $6,000,000 v $5,000,000 $4,000,000 c c $3,000,000 0 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Scenario 4- High Exotic Infestation Levels Mitigation Value vs Cost Scenario 4- Wetland and Upland Value � a& Costs (w/o land cost) � a& Scenario 4 Wetlands only 10 25 50 75 90 — — Wetland For 1,000-Acre ROMA/ILF Are If the use of project uplands for panther habitat compensation is not acceptable to the regulatory agencies, then this analysis suggests ROMA/ILF will only work for: • Areas of low exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 70± percent wetlands • Areas of moderate exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 55 percent wetlands • Areas of moderate to high exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 45 percent wetlands • Areas of high exotic infestation levels as long as site is at least 60 percent wetlands 15.0 PERMIT PROCESS The typical process for the permitting of a wetland mitigation bank or ROMA/ILF project basically involves the following steps: 1. Site identification and ecological studies 2. Surveying and preliminary mitigation plan design 3. Pre -application meetings with the FDEP and the COE 4. Prospectus development and submittal 5. Site inspections by regulatory agencies 6. State and federal agencies do, or do not, deem the site and proposed project "appropriate" 7. State and federal application submittals 8. State and federal application reviews 9. Legal reviews 10. Permit issuance 25 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 852 9.A.4.j From the time of site identification to permit issuance, the overall process can take two to four years. 16.0 CONCLUSION AND RECO NDATIONS 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 RECO NDED NEXT STEPS - ASSUMING RO /ILF OPTION As indicated previously, this analysis relies on certain assumptions and anticipated regulatory agency positions regarding certain issues, including the use of North Belle Meade lands for panther compensation, the impacts of the County's TDR program on potential credit generation, scoring of wetland functions, and possible alternatives for financial assurances. Discussions and/or meetings with the FDEP, the COE, and the USFWS with the overall North Belle Meade as the initial focus should occur to discuss and resolve issues related to the TDR program's potential impact on wetland credit generation and the appropriateness of certain portions of North Belle Meade for panther compensation in a ROMA/ILF project. A clear 26 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 853 9.A.4.j understanding and agreement on these issues would significantly aid in the selection of appropriate lands for consideration for placement in a conceptual ROMA/ILF. Sites identified for potential inclusion in a ROMA/ILF conceptual plan could then be assessed on a more site -specific basis and the analysis tools developed by this analysis could be used to evaluate the potential value and costs for each site. 27 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 854 9.A.4.j EXHIBIT 1 UMAM WORKSHEETS Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 855 9M,Z) (%OZ AInr nab) Apn}g A;!I!gisea=l uoi}eBi}iw 8 xipueddV `jaded OW]m dnw=Ib•g :;u9wLl3euV 0 N h O O O O O O O O O O O O M M O O O r- O O O M h h 0 0 0 M O O O O O Ir! O O Cl V1 M M O O C,�O �D �--� O Cl C,OO N C! Cl Cl ClM, L N O O O O M N O O O O N U �r M M h l� O M M 10 10 O M M O M M 10� O M M O M M 1p \O O M M 10 10 O M M 1p Cl 1p 0� O M M 10 10 O M M 1p 1p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U w ¢¢¢Z ¢ ¢¢¢¢Q ¢¢¢¢¢ ¢¢¢¢¢ ¢Z5 ¢R Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a C! C! 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O R O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F A O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O Vi b Cy M M M M M V� M M M M M Vi M M M M M h M M M M M Vi M M M M M O E O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 e o 0 0 0 O O 10 10 M O O O 10 ID M O O 10 \O M O O O O h IO h ID M M Cl O Cl O l- 10 l- 10 M M x 3 e3 0 0 0 0 0 o�y o 0 0 0 ° x O1 O1 01 01 01 C, Cl C, C, C, O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 C, C, C, C, C, O1 101 O1 Ol 1:11 R 3 00 00 00 00 00 0o m m m o0 00 00 00 00 oc oo m oo m ao 00 00 00 00 00 a° zzzzz z'z'z'zz zzzzz z'z'z'zz zzzzz a p O o O 0 0 0 c= - O o O 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 o e e O o o e c O O O O O o o �..I L O O C" CCC O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 V •p�G U U fJ () U k N M V k N M V k N V V Ok N M V O W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W a d �bbbb O��b �bbbb ��b �bbbb b bZ 6 b Ua ��33� ��333 �3�33 �3333 �3333 w � 3 3 3 3 3 w 0 z R 21 C C C C C c a w 9M,Z) (%OZ AInr nab) Apn}g A;!I!gisea=l uoi}eBi}iw 8 xipueddV `jaded OW]m dnw=Ib•g :;u9wLl3euV 9 it O O r. O V O O — — O M O O O O O N O O O O O rl O O O O O O U M M �0 l0 O 'D M M 10 10 C)M M l� 10 � 10 O O M M M M l0 10 M M O O O O--i O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0^ O O O O C,O C, O O O O O O O O U l zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz a o 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o0000 00000 00000 00000 999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O H R M M l0 10 l0 10 O M M l0 10 �"D ID l0 1 l0 10 O M M lAD 'AD h 10 0 M M l0 10 l0 10 M y M M O M M m m 0 0 O M M O O C,M — O M O O O M O Vi 'ti % M M M M M Vl M M M M M Vi M M M M M, M Vl M M M M M Vi M M M M m O O O O o 00 C N 0 O 0 O 10 10 M O O O CD l0 �D 10 �D O O 0 O 0 O 10 '0 10 K1 m O O O O h 'ADD h � M M 0 O 0 CD 10 10 \0 O O Z Z o G C G O G W o e3 0 o e o r N 0 o N N N N N O � W W U U U U U 01 01 01 01 01 a, C, C, C, C, T of Q1 Q1 a1 D1 D1 Q1 Q1 Q1 a1 R O 3 00 0 17171 0000 00 m m m m m o0 00 00 00 0o m m m m o0 00 00 00 00 00 a � � zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz W L O O O O O O O O O O �n O �n O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O C .. O 'S l- t h h O N M M N N O lO Q N N N V .O pq U U fJ U U k N M V 0 N M V k N V V k N M V 0 W W W W W W W W W W W W W [I] W W W W W W W W W W W W b u ;, ;, Ua �3333 �3333 �3333 �3333 �3333 w a w 0 z R R R 0 a 9M,Z) (%OZ AInr nab) Apn}g A;!I!gisea=l uoi}eBi}iw 8 xipueddV `jaded OW]m dnw=Ib•g :;u9wLl3euV 9 M O OD ,0 7 N r. C, N �/'� M O l� v'i .. M N ,o r. O, N 7 O O r. N r. V? L O O N O M O O 0 0 Cl O O O O O U IV_ M M to to O M M �D �o �o M M to to O M M �D �o O M M to to O ^- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O u W � Q Q Q Q Q Q � Q Q Q Q Q Q� � Q Q Q y Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O a 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 F CC m m l0 l0 O M M h h h m m l0 l0 O M M h lh 0 m m l0 l0 O M M 10 10 O M M ,O ,O ,O m M 10 10 O M M ,O ,O O M M 10 10 O -- A4 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o O O O o O bA C N O O O O r �O rO � M M O O O O h ,O h ,D h ,o 0 O 0 O l0 10 l0 10 M M CDO O O N ,O lh ,O M M 0 O 0 O l0 l0 m Z Z o CC 3 CQ R CC CE Qo w e o 3 0 0 0 0 U 3 ee ce ce ce ce M M M M M e>n y ° 3 ° x a o, o, o, a s rn a a o a a o, o, o, o a a a a o 0 0 0 0 ° 3 R O O .a 3 00 00 00 00 00 m m m m ao 00 00 00 00 00 m m m m m 00 00 00 00 00 d�� Q d d d d d d d d d d Q «< z z z z Z z z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z z z z o 0 0 0 0 o n o n o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O C O l- O l� v� C O V1 O V1 OIn ,o vi kn � M h a0 N N N --� N M •-- M O ioG N M k N M V k N k N M V o W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W �^ > Z C C Z Q C C� Z G C G f. Q Q Cr Q y f-i Li Li Li Gi �3333 �3333 �3333 �3333 w E43333 u 3 3 3 3 3 w 0 C A O a 00 LO w 6 a d i U R a m N d m X N Q Q 9M,Z) (%OZ AInr nab) Apn}g A;!I!gisea=l uoi}eBi}iw 8 xipueddV `jaded OW]m dnw=Ib•g :;u9wLl3euV 9 'b O O O O O O �o O O\ O O O O V1 [- O O h o M O O oo O v'i N o0 O O N O O M O O M N O V [- ll L O O O N M IO O O C> Mkr, O O O N M O O O O — O O O O O O U rh M M h h O M M l� O M M O M M O M M r- r- Cl IV_ IL+LJ M O M O 1p O 1p O O M O M O 10 O 10 C O - M O M O 1p Cl 1p Cl O M O M O 10 O 1O O O M O M O to Cl to O Cl ^- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O u W d d d d d Q Q Q Q Q d d d d Q Q Q Q Q d d d d d d y z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z W .: O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Cl CD0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O a 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CDO O O O 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 F CC M M l0 l0 O M M h h 0 M M l0 l0 O M M h lh 0 M M l� l0 O M M ,O ,O O M M ,O 0 ,O 0— O M 0 M 0 ,O 0 ,C 0 O --! M O M O ,O O-- ,O O M M ,O ,O O A4 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o O bA C N O O O O r ,O r ,O M C O O O lh ,O h M M 0 O 0 O l0 ,O l0 ,O M M O O O O h ,O lh ,O M M 0 O 0 O l0 ,O l0 ,O M o Z o CC 3 CQ R CC CE e o 3 0 0 0 0 N en y ° 3 ° x a o, o 0 0 0 C, o, o, o, a, o, o, o, o, o o, o, o 0 0 0 0, o, o ° 3 R O O .a 3 00 00 00 00 00 m m m m ao 00 00 00 00 00 m m m m m 00 00 00 00 00 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d � zzzzz zzd zzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz y 0 0 CD O o e O O n--- 0 0 0 O O o O O �n �n O e O O O O O C i. O O 0 0 O �n N N O O O O vl 0 0 O �n l� h O e O O, , O O M Vi l� O V1 l� l� .r O N O VI O O M N O--�--� M 7 �-- r� W K N M k N M V k N � k N M V k N M V W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W rW W W W W W W W W W a d �bbbb o��b �bbbb o��b zbbbb 46b b �a bZ mg3333 �3333 w 0 C O� cC p � 'C � ? ro A c� ^d a� A cC P � � � ? a� A cC P � � u O Tc� TO a m LO w 6 a d i U fC a m N d m X N Q Q 9M,Z) (%OZ AInr nab) Apn}g A;!I!gisea=l uoi}eBi}iw 8 xipueddV `jaded OW]m dnw=Ib•g :;u9wLl3euV h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O Cl O 0 e l� ,o r �o O O O O O O M M M M M 00 O Cl O Cl O 0 l-- M M O O O l- —0 O O 00 M 0 0 0 0 O O O O H U �r l� r O O M h h O O M l� r O O M l— l— O O M l� r O O M ,O �O O O M �o �o O O M ,o 10 O N O M �o �o O O M N N N O O O O O O O C, C, C,O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O u w d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz a 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 a 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 Cl F e6 h h 0 C M l� l� O O M l-- � o O M l� r- O O M l-- B O O M 10 10 O O M ,D ,D 0 0 cam; 10 10 O O M ,D ,D O O m ID 10 O O M A 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O C 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 C C C 0 C.`0 Ic 10 10 1 � C.� Ic 10 10 10 1� � ID ° 5 Oo � Oo � ,o � ,o � oD � � co 0000 co 0O 00 0 0 � ,o CO � ,o 00 ,O OIR ,O OIR ,O OIR ,o 00 ✓ Io� CO ,o CO ,o CO ,o CO ,o m � ,O OIR ,O OIR ,o OIR ,o OIR ,o ol� O O E O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O Li % 0 0 h l0 M D O O M :. 0 0 l'D l- M O O ID 10 M O O ID 10 0 e 3 0 0 0 0 •` r- I!) N e' m a e e e .. �y x O 3 O O O O x x x x x c y •3 O, O, O, O, o, O, O, O, O, o, O, O, O, O, O, o, a, a, O, O, a a a rn a 3 m oo m m 00 00 00 00 00 0o m m m m ao 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o ao ao a° � d d�� z z z z z z%. z z z z z z z z z%. z z z z W MI, d C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o e o d o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 �� c�i o0 0 o vi vi o o e o vi o F k N M V k N M V k N 7 V k N M V W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W F> Z a a a Z c Z a Z c c c c Z a a ��33 �3333 ��333 �3333 c3333 w 3 3 3 3 w 0 Z R R R A A A A A bA i 7 7 7 7 7 W v� w 9M,Z) (%OZ AInr nab) Apn}g A;!I!gisea=l uoi}eBi}iw 8 xipueddV `jaded OW]m dnw=Ib•g :;u9wLl3euV 9 y 0 0 0 0 0= v v 0 0 o c O O O O o o v v o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O N N 0 0 0 . 7 0 OD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O u W � Q Q Q Q Q Q � Q Q Q Q Q Q� � Q Q Q y Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W 0 0 0 C 0 CD CD CD CD CD0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O a 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 a � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 F O M l� B O O M l— r- O O M r-- r--O O M l— r- O O M O M �D �D O O M 10 "o O O M ID 10 O O M 10 10 O O M A o o o o o C C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 p��" oho oho oho oho oho ono. ono. ono ono o`Do �o �D �D �D �D �D �D0 0, ww ww�D e e D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C q O O M C O O h h M C O O M ii 0 0 h h M C O O M C O O \o \D M ID M 10 M 3 ° W' 3 3 3 3 e 3 0 0 0 0 z z w w w w w ox 3 0 C 0 0 x x x x x y �C,C,C,C,C, � 10,O10101 �� O1010101 a° 3 00 00 00 00�o mmm�� 00 00 00 00 0o mmmm x �o�0000000 d�� Q d d d d d d d d d d Q «< z z z z Z z z z z z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z z z z z z z z d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 o c a, o 0 0 0 o o n n o C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �n�n000 c 00000c N N O °1 N N r In O K N M I k N M V k k N M V 0 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W �^ > Z Z Q C C o Z G� C G f. Q Q Cr Q f-i Li Li Li Gi W 46156 bZ �3333 Z �3333 �3333 �3333 �3333 w � 3 3 3 3 3 w 0 C ^d a� 1`5� O 12 12 � 12 � a 9M,Z) (%OZ AInr nab) Apn}g A;!I!gisea=l uoi}eBi}iw 8 xipueddV `jaded OW]m (3nw=Ib•g :;u9wLl3euV 9 y O h 0 0 0 O o0 O "I N M �6 N O eq N � r-- �o N C) kn 00�O O lrl- � M r M N 7 l� N O, VM ur l— l— Cl Cl M r O O M r O O M `D 10 O O M 10 10 O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O O O O O O O O u y Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O a 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 a � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 F O m l-- B O O M l� ll O O m l-- � O O m l— r- O O M y �D "o O O m ID ID .-! O N O N m N 10 "o -- O N O N m N ID _ 10 --+ O N O N m N 10 10 O O m N A o o o o o C C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p oho oho oho oho oho ono, 000, 000 000 O` O O0 W 00 W 00 W 00 �D OD o0 OD 00 OD 00 OD 00 OD 00 `W w o0 w 00 w 00 w 00 �D 00 e e D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y ^C ^C V ^C ^� = O O h h m h h m O O \D \D M 4 O O 'D 'D m "'D 12 0000 W ; 3 ° 30000 30000 30000 �0000 e 3 0 0 0 0 o, •�• l D� o� o� o� in o, � � N a, D, o, o, a, a, o, o, Zc .3 00 00 00 00 0o Z o0 00 00 w w Z o0 00 00 00 oc Z o0 00 00 0o x Z co co co co 00 W i W W W W 3 ox 0 0 0 0 a a a a a y C,ol1:1 1:1 01 �� CNolC,C,1:11 �� C,C,C,C,1:11 a° 3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o ao ao 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o x o0 00 00 00 00 T d d d d dz d1,51,5 < z z z z Z zz Zd zd zd zd zd z z z� o 0 0 0 O 0 o n o n O o 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 i.d O V1 O v� O O O N O N ,n O O V1 O V� O 0 O l- O l- v� O V1 O V1 OIn .--i _ m O\ IA O K N M xx N m t k N k N M V 0 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W �^ > Z Z Q C C� Z G� C G f. Q Q Cr Q f-i Li Li Li Gi W 46156 bZ �3333 Z �3333 �3333 �3333 �3333 w � 3 3 3 3 3 w 0 C Otm O 12 12 112 12 112 a 9M,Z) (%OZ AInr nab) Apn}g A;!I!gisea=l uoi}eBi}iw 8 xipueddV `jaded OW]m dnw=Ib•g :;u9wLl3euV 9 m O O O O O e O O r O M O O r- a V: O N M m C)h C) C)M 0 6 O N o DD O C> -I -I -I O ti O O m O h h M �o 7 O� 0 O 7 O l� O n — Cl N N Vi O O O m O l-- O of O . N O O M r O O M n h O O M r O O M O O M �o �o O N O M `o 10 O O M 10 O O M 10 10 O O M �o �o O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CDO O O O O O O O O O u W d d d d d d d d d d d d d d¢ d d d d d d d d d¢ y Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W 0 0 0 0 0 O CD CD CD CD0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O a 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 a � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 F O M l� B O O M l� ll O O M l� B O O M l� l� O O M �D "o O O M ID ID .-! O N O N M N 10 O "o O O M ID 10 O O M 10 10 O O M N A o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 o o o o o C4 rrrrt ��1010� C.rrrr1 arrrrr py'- �� ob" 0�0. 0�0. O�0 O�0 000 �o �o 00 00 � � - m e e D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � O O \D \D M lD M 0000 W ; 3 ° 30000 30000 30000 �0000 e 3 0 0 0 0 o, •�• r �� o,�� Na,D,o,o, a, a,o,o, 00 00 �D o0 00 o0 00 .. 0 o0 00 �D o0 00 �D i--i ICI Zc .3 00 00 00 00 0o Z o0 00 00 00 0o Z o0 0o co 00 oc Z o0 w 00 � x Z o0 00 00 00 00 W i W W W W 3 �, C) 0 0 0 0 a a a a a y 10,C,C,O �C,C,C,C, �ololC,C,C, 3 00 00 00 00 0o m m m ao ao 00 00 00 00 0o m m m m x 00 00 00 00 00 a° w d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d dddd d ff-zz m:, z Z Z Z z z Z z y o 0 o e n n o 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 O O �n �n o O e e O O O O O O r- l� O V1 l� .r N VI r� i0G N M I 0 N M V 0 N i zt 0 N M V k N M V W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W rW W W W W W W W W W F> Z 'Z. a b ��33� ��333 �3�33 �3333 �3333 w w 0 C W 9.A.4.j EXHIBIT 2 MITIGATION VALUE TABLES Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 864 9.A.4.j NORTH BELLE MEADE MITIGATION VALUE TABLES Mitigation Value Tables without Hydrology Lift Scenario 1 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Credit Upland ($/per Upland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Value Acres Upland Value ($) Value (per 100 Generated Value Acre) (per 100 acres) acres ($/Credit 10 0.33 75,000 $23,750 90 1 4,500 $405,000 1 $428,750 25 0.83 75,000 $62,250 75 4,500 $337,500 $399,750 50 1.67 75,000 $125,250 50 4,500 $225,000 $350,250 75 2.50 75,000 $187,500 25 4,500 $112,500 $300,000 90 3.00 75,000 $225,000 10 4,500 $45,000 $270,000 Scenario 2 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Wetland Upland ($/per Upland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Acres Upland Value ($) Value (per 100 Generated Value Value Acre) (per 100 acres) acres $/Credit 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 1 3.50 1 75,000 1 $262,500 1 25 4,500 $112,500 $375,000 90 1 4.20 1 75,000 1 $315,000 1 10 4,500 $45,000 $360,000 Scenario 3 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Wetland Upland ($/per Upland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Acres Upland Value ($) Value (per 100 Generated Value Value Acre) (per 100 acres) acres) ($/Credit) 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 1 4.38 1 75,000 1 $328,500 1 25 1 4,500 1 $112,500 1 $441,000 90 1 5.25 1 75,000 1 $393,750 1 10 1 4,500 1 $45,000 1 $438,750 m x d Um L M N N O O O O N O N J IL co M ti E2-1 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 865 9.A.4.j Scenario 4 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Wetland Upland ($/per Upland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Acres Upland Value ($) Value (per 100 Generated Value Value Acre) (per 100 acres) acres) ($/Credit) 10 0.77 75,000 $57,750 90 4,500 $405,000 $462,750 25 1.92 75,000 $144,000 75 4,500 $337,500 $481,500 50 3.83 75,000 $287,250 50 4,500 $225,000 $512,250 75 5.75 75,000 $431,250 25 4,500 $112,500 $543,750 90 6.90 75,000 $517,500 10 4,500 $5,000 $562,250 Mitigation Value Tables with Hydrology Lift Hydro Scenario 1 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Wetland Upland ($/per Upland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Acres Upland Value ($) Value (per 100 Generated Value Value Acre) (per 100 acres ($/Credit) 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 $1,170,000 Hydro Scenario 2 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Wetland Upland ($/per Upland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Acres Upland Value ($) Value (per 100 Generated Value Value Acre) (per 100 acres ($/Credit) 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 1 13.50 1 75,000 1 $1,012,500 1 25 1 4,500 1 $112,500 1 $1,125,500 90 1 16.20 1 75,000 1 $1,215,000 1 10 1 4,500 1 $45,000 1 $1,260,000 a) N D as x m U- 3 M N N O O 0 0 N O N J d t0 M ti N E2-2 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 866 9.A.4.j Hydro Scenario 3 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Wetland Upland ($/per Upland Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Acres Upland Value ($) Value (per 100 Generated Value Value Acre) (per 100 acres) ($/Credit) acres) 10 1.92 75,000 $144,000 90 4,500 $405,000 $549,000 25 4.79 75,000 $359,250 75 4,500 $337,500 $696,750 50 9.58 75,000 $718,500 50 4,500 $225,000 $943,500 75 14.38 75,000 51,078,500 25 4,500 5112,500 $1,191,000 90 17.25 75,000 51,293,750 10 4,500 545,000 $1,338,750 Hydro Scenario 4 A B C D E F G H Percentage Wetland PHU Value Total of Wetland Credit Wetland Upland Up ($/p Upland U p Mitigation Wetlands Credits Unit Credit Acres Upland Value ($) Value (per 100 Generated Value Value Acre) (per 100 acres) ($/Credit) acres) 10 2.10 75,000 $157,500 90 4,500 $405,000 $562,500 25 5.25 75,000 5393,750 75 4,500 5337,500 $731,250 50 10.50 75,000 5787,500 50 4,500 5225,000 $1,012,500 75 15.75 75,000 51,181,250 25 4,500 5112,500 $1,293,750 90 18.90 75,000 $1,417,500 10 4,500 $45,000 $1,462,500 E2-3 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 867 9.A.4.j EXHIBIT 3 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 868 9.A.4.j 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 E3-1 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 869 9.A.4.j 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 Unit Cost per 100 Percentage of Land Infestation Level Acres of Wetland with Infestation Implementation Cost Level None $108,500 30 $32,550 Minor (E1) $165,000 30 $49,500 E3-2 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 870 9.A.4.j Scenario 2 — Mostly Low to Moderate Levels of Infestation (Continued) Unit Cost per 100 Percentage of Land Infestation Level Acres of Wetland with Infestation Implementation Cost Level Moderate (E2) $227,500 20 $45,500 High (E3) $290,000 20 $58,000 Extreme (E4) $715,000 0 0 Total $185,550 Scenario 3 - Mostly Moderate to High Levels of Infestation 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 E3-3 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 871 9.A.4.j 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, 50150, 75/25, and 90/10 to represent a range of upland/wetland land composition types. Table E34. Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 10 Percent Uplands/90 Percent Wetlands Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 10 Percent Uplands/90 Percent Wetlands Wetland Combined Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $107,820 $10,460 $118,280 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $166,995 $10,460 $177,455 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $238,455 $10,460 $248,915 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $394,312 $10,460 $404,772 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands Wetland Combined Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $89,959 $26,150 $116,109 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $139,163 $26,150 $165,313 E3-4 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 872 9.A.4.j Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands (Continued) Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 25 Percent Uplands/75 Percent Wetlands Wetland Combined Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $198,713 $26,150 $244,863 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $328,594 $26,150 $357,744 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 50 Percent Uplands/50 Percent Wetlands Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 50 Percent Uplands/50 Percent Wetlands Wetland Combined Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $59,900 $52,300 $1129200 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $92,775 $52,300 $145,075 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $132,475 $52,300 $184,775 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $219,063 $52,300 $271,363 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 75 Percent Uplands/25 Percent Wetlands Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 75 Percent Uplands/25 Percent Wetlands Wetland Combined Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $29,950 $78,450 $108,400 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $46,388 $78,450 $124,838 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $66,238 $78,450 $144,688 Scenario 4 $438,125 $104,600 $109,532 $78,450 $187,982 Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands Wetland Combined Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 1 $119,800 $104,600 $11,980 $94,140 $106,120 Scenario 2 $185,550 $104,600 $18,555 $94,140 $112,695 Scenario 3 $264,950 $104,600 $26,495 $94,140 $120,635 E3-5 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 873 9.A.4.j Combined Implementation Costs for Lands With 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands (Continued) Wetland Upland Upland/Wetland Composition Infestation Implementation Implementation 90 Percent Uplands/10 Percent Wetlands Wetland Combined Levels Cost per 100 Cost per 100 Acres Acres Cost Upland Cost Implementation Cost Scenario 4 1 $438,125 1 $104,600 1 $43,812 $94,140 $137,952 E3-6 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 874 9.A.4.j EXHIBIT 4 CREDIT GENERATION COST TABLES Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 875 9.A.4.j 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, 50150, 75/25, and 90/10 to represent a range of upland/wetland land composition types. Table E4-1. Total Credit Generation Cost Upland/Wetland Composition 10 Percent U land/90 Percent Wetland Infestation Levels Combined Administrative Total Credit Implementation Land Cost Cost Generation Cost Cost Scenario 1 $118,280 $225,000 $37,600 $380,880 Scenario 2 $177,455 $225,000 $37,600 $440,055 Scenario 3 $248,915 $225,000 $37,600 $511,515 Scenario 4 $404,772 $225,000 $37,600 $667,372 Upland/Wetland Composition 25 Percent U land/75 Percent Wetland Infestation Levels Combined Administrative Total Credit Implementation Land Cost Cost Generation Cost Cost Scenario 1 $116,109 $225,000 $37,600 $378,709 Scenario 2 $165,313 $225,000 $37,600 $427,913 Scenario 3 $244,863 $225,000 $37,600 $507,463 Scenario 4 $357,744 $225,000 $37,600 $620,344 Upland/Wetland Composition 50 Percent U land/50 Percent Wetland Infestation Levels Combined Administrative Total Credit Implementation Land Cost Cost Generation Cost Cost Scenario 1 $112,200 $225,000 $37,600 $374,800 Scenario 2 $145,075 $225,000 $37,600 $407,675 Scenario 3 $184,775 $225,000 $37,600 $447,375 Scenario 4 $271,363 $225,000 $37,600 $533,963 E4-1 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 876 9.A.4.j Table E4-1. (Continued) Upland/Wetland Composition 75 Percent U land/25 Percent Wetland Infestation Levels Combined Implementation Land Cost Administrative Total Credit Cost Cost 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 Upland/Wetland Composition 90 Percent U land/10 Percent Wetland Infestation Levels Combined Implementation Land Cost Administrative Total Credit Cost Cost 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 E4-2 Appendix B Pag Packet Pg. 877 Mixed -Use P rog"ra m December 20, 2016 Packet Pg. 878 9.A.4.k Prepared for: COLLIeY County Prepared by.• Collier County Zoning Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 239-252-2400 PlaceWorks 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana CA 92707 714-966-9220 placeworks.com Packet Pg. 879 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 1 RFMUDRestudy....................................................................................... 1 TDR Program Background........................................................................ 2 SendingAreas.............................................................................................................2 ReceivingAreas...........................................................................................................2 TDRProgram Activity..................................................................................................4 Public Sentiment About the TDR Program .............................................. 4 TDRBanks................................................................................................ 4 Report Organization................................................................................ 6 2. TDR BANK BENEFITS........................................................ 7 TDRBank 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 HoldingTime...............................................................................................................8 Preservation Support..................................................................................................9 AdequateFunding.......................................................................................................9 Specific RFMUD Benefits......................................................................... 9 Near -Term Support.....................................................................................................9 Easeof Acquisition....................................................................................................10 Perpetual Land Maintenance....................................................................................10 3. FUNDING OPTIONS.......................................................... 11 Traditional Public Funding..................................................................... 11 Typesof Public Funding............................................................................................11 December 20, 2016 Page i Packet Pg. 880 9.A.4.k Advantages of an Ad Valorem Tax............................................................................12 Disadvantages of an Ad Valorem Tax.......................................................................12 TDRSurcharge....................................................................................... 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 CashInflow...............................................................................................................18 CashOutflow............................................................................................................18 Balance to Purchase Additional TDRs.......................................................................20 FinalRepayment.......................................................................................................20 MillageRate........................................................................................... 20 5. RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 21 APPENDIX................................................................................ 23 Appendix C-1: Traditional Public Funding Examples ............................. 23 Partnerships with Preservation Organizations.........................................................23 Conservation Bonds..................................................................................................23 GeneralFund............................................................................................................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 Listof Preparers..................................................................................... 29 Page ii Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 881 9.A.4.k 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 December 20, 2016 Page iii Packet Pg. 882 9.A.4.k This page intentionally left blank. Page iv Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 883 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' 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)J 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- td r-rest December 20, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 884 9.A.4.k 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 parcelz, 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. z 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. Page 2 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 885 9.A.4.k Figure 1: Sending and Receiving Areas, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, 201, V R A~ F IRS Rp G E IMMQKALEE RE USE DISTRNo 1h ICT'' s North Se din � RAHDALL SLVD� .;tic,; North _ Belle Meade North Belle North Belle Meade NRPA Meade - West South Belle Meade F T RECEIVING SENQtNG South ® NEUTRAL 00,5 a 3 4 Miles Source: Collier County. December 20, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 886 9.A.4.k 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. Page 4 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 887 9.A.4.k Figure 2: Completed TDR Credit Transfers, RFMUD, 2016 LEE COUNTY PINE ffl KE RD GREEN VIVO 4� til��l■. 1 RFS.Winp [=) RFaiecsl N ®RF4buhal 0". Owned Psro is - SENBffiG PARCELS• Mockingbvd CmmWq RECEIVING PROJECTS rg rd Crpsseg 95 erom1sl (53Bec,213 cr"h) - LamWY6i O4ua^Y ((04-,,18—c!W _� ® Txnn Faylea j2,542 ac, 1,271 .dlta ® Twin Eagles _ C-olf b o}1ha Everglades ,..; - - x^.Y�..r : �`^.p .-1� H..—da i.akea ® I252 113 aed'As} - "We -"lakes �y ® Hcre 9 8aY HerAa eBa 9 Y .... 16+ . ss erceisl = s Ma w Naples R-- 004 0. a0 nma.s Heplos Rescrry ® The IArds My 193csedae) T1.0 LWRa My(1,100ac, "emus shown are ono Rios rodaaesd as of Jan, is 1e, and do not necessarily reprove[ MI credos gxnraled w needed for prgecl AWldowl- �rF 0 Ob 1 2 3 4 Kies 41 ..s..e rem,..a..n. wvs,encuu Source: Collier County. December 20, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 888 9.A.4.k 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. Page 6 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 889 TDR BAN BEN ITS 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 December 20, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 890 9.A.4.k 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 Page 8 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 891 9.A.4.k 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 satisfythe current send- ing area desire to sell TDRs. December 20, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 892 9.A.4.k 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. Page 10 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 893 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. December 20, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 894 9.A.4.k 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. Page 12 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 895 9.A.4.k 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. December 20, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 896 9.A.4.k 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. Page 14 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 897 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 OBJE IVE 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. RE VING ARE 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. December 20, 2016 Page 15 Packet Pg. 898 9.A.4.k Figure 3: Actual and Projected Household Growth, West Re- ceiving Area, 2005 to 2040 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 -Actual • • •Projected Source: PlaceWorks, 2016, using data from Collier County. 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. Page 16 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 899 9.A.4.k 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 December 20, 2016 Page 17 Packet Pg. 900 9.A.4.k 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 Page 18 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 901 9.A.4.k Table 2: Illustrative TDR Bank Cash Flow, RFMUD, 2017 to 2050 Year (1) Initial Capitalization (2) Cash Inflow from TDR Sales (3) Gross Cash Inflow (4) Cash Outflow to Help Offset Administration Cost (5) Cash Outflow to Repay Initial Capitalization (6) 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 December 20, 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 902 9.A.4.k 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. Page 20 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 903 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. December 20, 2016 Page 21 Packet Pg. 904 9.A.4.k This page intentionally left blank. Page 22 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalization Packet Pg. 905 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. December 20, 2016 Page 23 Packet Pg. 906 9.A.4.k 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. Page 24 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalizatio Packet Pg. 907 9.A.4.k 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 December 20, 2016 Page 25 Packet Pg. 908 9.A.4.k 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). Page 26 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalizatio Packet Pg. 909 9.A.4.k 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 December 20, 2016 Page 27 Packet Pg. 910 9.A.4.k 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. Page 28 Collier County I TDR Bank Capitalizatio Packet Pg. 911 9.A.4.k 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. December 20, 2016 Page 29 Packet Pg. 912 PLACEWoRKs: Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles • Inland Empire • San Diego Im 3 MacArthur Place I Santa Ana CA 92707 1 714.966.9220 1 www.placeworks.com Packet Pg. 913 ofuiad leinN ti£ZZOOOOZOZ-ld : 9£LtZ) podeN uoo3 cal a xipueddV `.coded OW]m anw=lm-s :;uewLj3ejjv E i b�A O S 4 w 96uiad leinN V£ZZOOOOZOZ-ld : 9£LtZ) podaN uoo3 2{al (3 xipueddV `waded 01l4M anw=jm•g :;uauayoejjv C O N i N 0 = O N CO O O = J Cv O L.L- N U z vi Lo U CN A)O Q Ol O 00 (a cy') U (N Z CV O w q) r�� L J CL Cy') O r" CV O Q U ca c Q cv cu U) O cV N O Q6 Qo d) inM ti£ZZOOOOZOZld : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal a x!pueddd `laded ewim anw=iu'9 :;uauayoe;;V 'I- 'I- LSD LO LO U Cfl (.0 r-� r� 00 00 CV Lr) LC) Ln l0 — rn tLo a a1 a m a U O_ D_ N � 0 O a O CD c C O UO vi cv (ll O O ca�L/�, O Q Q : co > J o Q O o= Q N N O U U u) Q 0- N Q cz J Q Co C O —J O N ¢ = OE C C E CN U N coQ 21, .a O a� Q 'O O a� O a� C 0 O c6 Of O z +� N N N Li—C o N a� > +, N O > > ; Q W U > > > :� :� X X r, CV GV M (Y) m M E Q 0 ' �I w No 0 N C> Q 0 c N C N � cu a0 _ ca O N Q ui L) U E (6 O � E C E 0 -p > � z O Q c6 m 2 o � 2- a> � E `a N O 7�J �j Q Z U CU O �_ N <a L.L. CZ O 3: Q �o � l0 �--� aEi z � '� W W o eeuia]|� nN Z o00oZ Z d:9 L Z podaN uo ] IIQ1 Q x pua dV §a ed mmM Qn W]m' : aw L4� nv � Q � � 7 u / IL � 7 � � 0- � _ m � � ¥ � G 0 m / % 00 % / / % % m m : \ / 0 :\ c / : /co : : I � ' : » a D \ / 2 U 2/ ry. / a_ c LL- - / / a_ a6uia=l IeinM ti£ZZ0000ZOZld : 9£LK) :podeN uoo3 Mal a xipueddd `jaded 81!4M anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d Ln QO rn O N m <o r- r- rn c 0.0 a�A c (.0V) : a) m m � J Q c O N O o M 00 Q — U cz = c M o Q> [If U) L) o Q Q C Q > Q O (/� (n T C/) 0 -0 a) •� C O CD- C ca >+ CT O N f— U) J a> '� E o c Q l0 w >_ o 0 co <_j c 0f a p c o O C a) N O 4) V U) O Q _ � N 0 O N O O } a O OCD- a) U ca + N Q l W U cv p a) Q — -_O Q a)CL O0 cz >N E Q_ > o •� > •� > .� o a o o O OE U Q O O O Z o 0 O O U U O J w CL O U) --� N M U Ln O > M 0 °� c, O —1 VA O O a) c cn a) cn a) mo a) Q) N N O Q) Mai E E E : :E :E E > > O N UA > rr, O 7 > � C ca i i _� Co Q 0y _0 rr- 0 Q Q C 0 c On > O O �O D > U a) > c6 bJ� � Q + M — ) or -0 C/) a-- 0 CO O c6 N 0 J -0 O i O -0 O O > m -0 (a > C _ C/) N 0 m N ca J 0 O V �_ QM C/) O _ O C c6 o C (p m r O C O (/) N Q U) �..� p a) cn c U � � w N o Q +� o O Q bOA c E ) O — ca bA E� > vOi Q O O o o0) o L�� w�zo Q)Q 2 ca > O C/) O N a) M > > a) O > 1 F� U_A L.L d_A L.L d_A L.L d_A L.L d_A L.L bA L.L O N m a� E a� U Q) 0 96uiad leinN V£ZZOOOOZOZ-ld : 9£LtZ) podaN uoo3 2{al Q xipueddV `waded 01l4M anw=jm•g :;uauayoejjv N O O O O N CIO > OD a_ a6u!a=l leant ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) podeM uoo3 bal a x!pueddd `jaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d 0 N N C bA C cn N-0 C UC0 '! N N N 0-0 C O a m O > m ca N Oca C N CZ ca -p M O q�p a1 <n C ui o O — ca 4-1Q CZ m m 2 Nc cz o a c c c> O c E O N O U O N N " U C a) > N C -) ca - 0 + O O O aL N N Q 0 0- Q Q a) ClU N O O O >, O N C bA O bS) bA > -0 -o a) CZU '~ 0 N N te N 70 Ca O N O O > acz fa LO Oa ca LS-O �- O :V)VC O -sZ i O 00>ca OQmO ca m _0 La1 U O 0 -0 N fa tw U C N E C >, C '" C O •C C N U S N O 0 U} " o >, L N +� m ca .> O N E 7 O } ' O �O � _ N C U 'Q� O0 +� 7 bA i N _ N U N CO N V N _O N+ O 'N) .> � ca w bbz cU6 � CZcz _ cu ,O C <n ca > U bA C bA L ca C tZ S2 O— N E N N N CZ co O> N 5, bA U C N N m— O +-' N O bS) C U N N N 70 C ca C C ca C O E sz a S- o (D �- bA C ca C 'N � Ca C _ a> a m ca = C ii i O o o >+ '� O = ao (n " LL a, 0 .— 0 0 >, -0 m 0 c_a 0 _ o 0- E > t�0 C 0 E� c 't� o 'N1 > a� o o `� _0 U N E N 6 O- c o a�i Q p +� o0 a> cn a' C C O o 0 ca E 2 i� m E li (D > iz n E a' E o -0 - o E O a)O LL-" bA L cU6 O U i 0 i? N C > CZo 3 o Q tw p a>i c c 2 _o ca _� E _0} O Q C Q .—'' U C bA cn } +� L 0 0 O E4-1 E m -Om + ca C U U C O bA > _N Q _ O C N N C E Q :EI U O O N m+-� 3: U N i <n — C O O Ca t+ C6 _ 'O U E C6 E U s? E U _N U Ca N Q) = C6 O O Q aN i (T O bA = Q) N U C > O O i QO,j N N O O ca V U U O} Q U N N ch �i Ca I i LEA � O +w m 0- S >, N E O O .bU�AO c C O C O N O ` 0 > L � C N t� ca iz (D � ca a> •C U ,O m a> a) N >, C ca > a) cn N o ca o ca a> m N 0 0 C U V l0 bA + O N ca O i >, H� —_ N OU N C O O U cn N CL N N p Q <a U '> I O +) N CLO 0 OD N a) 0 (n _O C6 -0 C N N H cz N fa N N '� C M U Ca L S2 x bA C 7 O MO tf 2 fa L to C S1 >, � O Ca C C O m Ca U ,1 Q) U O Q ca +� w aj up i a> N o by a) ai . O N X a)> p O N N ca- U .O O O i +� Ca N C a) z�� C 0� Ca U �� OC U� E= � 7F-� > o BBu|j]|ei nN Z 0 0 Z Z d:9 L Z :podeN uo ] MQI (3 x pua d¥ ua ed mmM QnW]N' : eet4oB n¥ / \ V / ) _ ± o / n �2/ / ƒ / t o = .2 a o z .� a) ± ° .E k 0 -0 � � n \ 0 § e _ _- � > c n m ® o o m F / > .= n -o w / § / \ / \ k / E k 2 § / 7 0 � ■ § � � ■ \ \ \ / $ / 7 Co 0 u 2 = _ 2 » / ® -� 6 3 _ { / ± / 2 a § ? y n 2 § § cn > § ? k / § / \ \ I.F * \ > § _ / !E « A 2 ® � cu k_ CD'_ k \ _ _0 3 g ■ ■ a _ = - .Wco & > e > \ CD 2 / 2 u « 2 co « C, § o __e d = = % m _ Ln § ® e w / \ / OD > k � 2 / / 7 ./ 2 � \CL \ \ 2 k _ o F \ ®2 3 CD° F ± _ 2 - � 2 k 2 % 2 0 kt5.0F�obw> m § \ = = 2 \ CL a6u!a=l IeinM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal a x!pueddd `jaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d i U Q =5 > N a Q U N L o L c Q v N N N L ca °�' > �'cn QLO o - O c (D bA a) 5 Q Q m 0 �� E� CT =N N N c c c6 U- i W U N 4O -- N E cN oaOa) iT N cNaO czO C U b ca cz N H cz O a) D' cz •� ca C6 N N o Ncu U } N0-0 L +� +� >~ O + ca Q� +� t10 1O U U O N N o cn :tf z U� N O O }N— N o o> o E 2= N o ' j -0 N o U O> +� s? > cv N U p + bA C U Of m U Q C O -0 O ca •N CZ Q m InQ—M w N 0 N o .0 I— > O C N U o U p bA � N p Q N O U g� C. bD N (D o� >� � c O cu U O� C a) •5 0 00 _w cn W U N o N o NO 0 i _N N + c6 i Q) 0 O � o ++ C N V m +� O ch a ca +� N N i U N Q ca C N ca m ca c V F + ca U U H U - '0 N C U f0 C6 m bxi bA j ~ N V O U O N O d' N 0 } N U c N pp co N N U N Cll m 'C 07 O C) o O m o m o � -0 o a� c E U O O -a � N � m E O � ZF) Q) U ca C N o i a) U U) O� ++ O a)ca C N _o CQ coc r n U m � a) u ri CD 0 > N i o 0 0 0 a)dA U C6 m cu 1'aA Qi o 0 0 0 � o ca LL � M N 1-6 N N m tw d a 96uiad leinN V£ZZOOOOZOZ-ld : 9£LtZ) podaN uoo3 2{al Q xipueddV `waded a;ILim anw=jm'g :;uauaL4oejjv M U N L O t H Lo E N P cv LU ..a D — Q� S � � O = O LL f/i O O O O O O O O O O O O O M N O O O O O O O O O M N O ■ a6uia=l IeinM ti£ZZ0000ZOZld : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal a xipueddd `jaded 81!4M anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d N i i i i i i i a) N Q � C � V O O a) U a) 0 bn 0-- (D � 0 0-= _0 a) 4-1 a) 0 0 .0 a) � a) C N c� ca 3 N 0 c° c> a 0 N C O C-0 C i O (6 0 C N N O U_ 0 O C U a) 3 O O C N ca } bA O } a) � 0->+ N dq C N U N 0 +� N O U Q yy+ C > 3 a) O C L N N a) a) EOf :a 0 cv t� U ao N o o Q) c a� �N0 0 UD Cc� C L a)U >Oo aEi cp-0 , o > 0 3 voC E C C- cCCa i C N aO+ 6 bA O ca O N o N N +- C N _ O i N o E N a� ao O c> o 4 o E °�' 0 '0N �'0 O O O C 0a) Q 3 O i M N L]iA C C O ca o Q a� o o O o 0 .0 0 0-H a) Q a) o Q o— E E Z c) c) Q — C o ca N 0 E a) C C o a) N +C N N N fC C Q C U O E Q O +H b�0 o 0 70 ca U U m 3 'nA J= Q O 0� W 'N cv N O 0 O 0O O N W N N U ca w U cn U> } O Q� E U �") U 0 0 0— 4} C C 0 +� on .�? `� n a) .� 0 0 C U — > > o O ca ca W a) >, M Q C 70 a) a) -0 > O } c Q C C ca �_ 0 0 0 E-E 5 o N - E C� O N _ E CL C a) Q' N }' C N O m O N C a) bA O E D 6 N ca N O co o" E ca N f cu 6-r .0 a) C 4-1 0 ,N 0 O O E O C N p dA > U C + Q U C E a) a) + O 0O 0'C Q> 0 0 ) Q Q' M m 0> O U U 0 Q Q 0 �, -CO N E> a) Q Q Q C U i a) >, N� i i C a E a) (N U a) > + }a N N N N N> O O N+ } O C :Q a = c6 Q i C U a) > --� > C a) Ci 7 U H Q C O a) Q a) � N C i O •c E ;� c6 Q N N+ N C N E� 0} U U co V Q +� Q o oN 0 a�i aA ca 0 a) o a) ca C a) N a) > >, E •N o o o Q v U a c_ '� Q 0 i> N � 0 0 0 �Ln o c a) .� ca o o �_ C N a) > O i O U O U ate'' N N N N ,iN_-' U N U� 'U a) co O +� O O E Q' a) N U O a) N Q U a) O U 0-U -Z- 0 U �, +� -C_ w C O m.� E 3 _0 ,� � 0 Q 0 a) Q � � m � � � o � � V vOi E a) o C F— ca O .0 N -0 a) N N U N N > tlq a) +� cv a) C o a) U 0 4 BBu|j]|ei nN Z 0 0 Z Z d:9 L Z :podeN uo ] MQI Q x pua d¥ ua ed mmM QnW]N' : eet4oB n¥ ui 00 z R m Ofo _ ƒ LL./.g Of 2 3 bq w 7 3 a » 0 e > = @ u § =.g _ ? / $ 7 £ u ƒ E 2 _ 2 \ k § 3 0 / / 4 / 0 / > o \ = E \ / / / t E > 2 \ -0 / / \ « 0 3 k > .§ § m 2 > 2 w / E 6 $ R \ > \ ® E G J M ® 6 \ @ � » § « e k o ® — / -0 \ i r 0 E O 2 § \ q \ � _m— - q 0 ± k o / � g L- a. £ G 0 � 0 x \ CL a6u!a=l IeinM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal a x!pueddd `jaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d N C N > O m O `— C + N o co d o + O N fC U + a) caC) c O O o Q N > O a-- O •(n o •N O ~ V) (6 Q O O i ca E E N — } i + ca ca +� U N ca O ' U O Q p U U N .� a) O cn V) -I-- ca 0pp 1 m C = cn -0 V Q ca O U a) cn } (D } C N ca E O O C ' +, N mC: >1 =3 a) m -0 — > by N m by N ` E > N E Q} > N ca N } t.) Q cv N cn H � N � + C O O •--a-- C N � � ca N _N L]p C c I\ ^ O 0 0 Q U O ++ O Q O N Q CZ> .N o > a) C o N ca ca U U U 30 > CD ca ca o C U N cv _ N -� O C� O N N U U> cz N O a M B O N cu U N O U N N N O Q cn u O O O +� C O bA (n cn O O Q = Q U Q cz ca > 0 Q> (D U� o� U Nam. O a o � 000 0 O E W � � V) N; > m-0 U > > + c O N O ClN _ ca CZ > U C cd Q N 4-3 ca U N O Q O N� Q U N Q O O O O > .N NC bA `NO N NV) N c6 — NN U-� O 0-0 cn O O ^ N U O a= > V) EU U� L—JO CD ccV)LL. U o O O cz O O O-i0 OO iOa) N m O U O O O OD 0- a> �NE cUa NoO O � ca = N c6 > — 'E N ._c Nj U _0 _ -0 0 O >p U .O w O a Q O Q •� O C r L O -0a CCU N U c� N a Q . 0 V)Q a)0 00 Q_0 In Q U m N ca O U (n b0 } ca > N Q) U N = cn N 00 U U� N U C O O O 4-Y V N Ca L, O f6 O p CZO f6 ca N N Uj U •— > O c]p m cv N Q = c6 o � l0 N Q cn > N O O > co C C O N LL 'i •N �' UA O +-� N �' N Q N O L O >, O c6 -� (n +� i Q h0 U M ,--� cz >> U H i a i ca C i U CaL N N Q Q N N + cn O tlp > i O > N •` C O U N U Q C�6 Q 0 0 Q 1c6 0 +� OU � C�J 0 BBu|j]|ei nN Z 0 0 Z Z d:9 L Z :podeN uo ] MQI Q x pua d¥ ua ed mmM QnW]N' : eet4oB n¥ / 0 / .2 Cƒƒk .5 t E 2 \ k o t @ e © \ k jE g m E § 7 7 = 2 m 0 \ 2 � E /E t e C: o S > \ > 2 � _ \ / = � E ./ _ \ 2!, ƒ { 2 e = y / ) % k 0 E 0 E.- 0 e E / e 3 = E LL o o•- / E / ' § * 2 a ° m � 0 7 / _ o — 2 o 3 q / { \ & m m a \ � 2 a k •�. > > i m / % \ / 0 2 m kC� :7 \ 2 \ m / 3 0 u £ 2= E 2 2 3 « 0 _ 2 E k w \ n 0- � � £ G 0 � 0 : \ CL a6u!a=l IeanM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal (3 x!pueddd `jaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d 00 N Q) U0 a) N X bA a) M U)O) C Q) + C a) i O i U cn cp H O Of) a1 Q)4-1 IL UA x E E O U a) Of Q O ca _ E C N cn ca ca U) 70 N iC a d U cz ca O N (6 }' C U m C N U U U U— V V) C)�O N C + N a) O Q U U N C ('5 E Q C CT r-I N CO C LO O 4= C) E } 'N C Q) Q i- (6 U N E 2i a) N ca c6 Q O C)U cn -0 C > O cn U N+ m C ca 0O N 'Q O O 0- ca } N� L �U NC E N aU ^N} 6 a) � } c�a6 E U>_ N O O ) iO c N O OOca O iE C Q Nj OQ -0— CD-N a) cv ca N N O a) cp a) U ca > > E C O N i C ma) E }, C a U N N O+ U .N •� a) C O Q C6 N �O N N N C O >, i O O C C O ca U U N N C O O N � .� C� .� r Q O ca cn O ai E O'Oao N U � `+} 0 aC= M o ccaa +�� ) C v a) o N' O�N 0 >E C a) -'� Z Q} J > N i> C a)O O Q O a) � C ca + + + + Li LL � m C) m O O 'C U Q N C O a O >' OO (6 U N C QO) M' E Q cn _ N O O E n H C O cB ca > U _> N�O p O a E C ca i N} U > cn + C Q ca U (6 C > — N N U IU O O Q) p O O N O i N a) (� N C•C U +QU 0 CO -0 N 0 O N — n O Qc VT O >} +� cn N i C _ f6 is N N >+o E a2 a) C> O N cz -0 Q i w (n ca U E O a) C `0 6 C M `~ E C a) O O N � N O to .> a) w ca o (D cr � U U a) E _ E C U 0 W + C Q) CT m M� Q) U O LL- f6 Q) I� C 0- O E � U > C C U U UA � �J"1 0 E O C C > 3 C} O N H 1 3 O - U} E '� 0 l� O L O E +� O 9 N6 } CN v > U o oN bUH E aE mc CU Q o L. in vi E ai . Fa — > a) a) +s oc° EU n = — Z � >> O +� E U _Zw - E _ 'O>O 0 n i-I >5 E 5 ca a) -c > cj a) -0ca s O w V Q M Cl- E .E E a6u!a� IeinM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal a x!pueddd `jaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d _ o, N Q � a m 0 O C 0 N ca 0 -0 v Q) � U O _ cn CZ m O o > m tiA O O o _U +� N O o (6 +N Q U LO C i Ca U -6 c6 cn N a) .� (n C .0 a) Ca Q) C + � O cn cu U C N U C U } to C Q) N C > > o _ m UC L, UC }NN, F-Q O N o OO — �N C Ccl U C-0 O OCZ O O Q) CaO+cQ X L 7 cz i C O _ 3} > 0 p - Q) a C to m U C C LSD �, Cd Ca C C = ++ C Q1 c6 OU } N O O O C Q) N U O ca (6 i C +Q C a) C N a) a U U L (V U mC—)c0) U N a) > ca ca N ca ~ In CD cn cz o N O cn a) Q) O L=5 cv Q p o 0 0 o a) a Q 0 o o J o 0 _. E o N OQaX) 0UC oO coo � J a) )�� XO N cz Q 0 o> W — E =ra) o o m 0 2 C)o o m— MOQcz $o cNQ- aa) E o .cn > a) -0 - _0 .0 C 70 a) c c a) 3 a) -> o o U Q 0 0v ox 0 O }? o o � o- CL 0 C) a) _0 W ca a) cn 5-- 0 a) a) Q c� a) a, > > a) 5-- > c° m _o cn O ca a) N + a) cn 0 N U U N + to C N C > Ln = C � a) a) C i (n (6 0 0 0 0 a) N a)O Q) +� ca -0 C a�j �_ C 1 O N Q N �_ c6 a) `~ m a) cz _ CO XQ Q) U o O N Q } > >� O U C C Q)N C)O O Q)U N U bA > C M> Q C6 cn 0 Q)c, > Q) > O } cn Q p > w E a _ a ' _0 a) Q) -0 ) W N C U C C C6 C6 cn U C f6 > C cz N }00 'COC Q > O n N X aO a) cn Q 0- — C cz N o ca L- O E N C � L N O C z a) > > —_ o o a) o 0 N c c 0� ca 'ca 7 C .0 O N cn OU p ON N N N O Q mO O Q C C� > i > (33 N} N O C N mV C C C ca Q a N _O > O O` a) cn cn ca c� O ca U p } Q) •E- LL N Q) CO > -0 >, ca a) > O } U Q) Q N Q>j > > C C � ca cn C Q) N O U a) > +� f N N C a) C O Q +' C +� ca Q a) � O C C C E m 4- U to C6 N O > C N a) 07 0 +� ON O J } N +� N U > a) a) cn C N N> 0 +ca ca +} N O N O U E a) +� > 0 a) Q} 7 Q) N a)Q> C Q) O O a) C U O L C cC o. E 2 o Q o OL' F- c6 ca > a6u!a=l IeinM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal (3 x!pueddd `jaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d bA a) `� O a) W C =3 N N } } -0 O O U O O O (L) O �O CD- NO = = N N Ln U O o 0 >, o a) E .— � Z:3 = o U CZ C6 N 0 (a a-- O O N N } y — Ov M v> o — �v o p C N C to � cN6 O a) O O sNs �t N m cu 0 N ncli 0) N }N— ca 00 -0 M ON U 0 (6 O cOi� E Q N p } N E ca cEo M c a E U N cn cu N = O O c6 O h O } -0 O O U i aci c o O N CL 0) CZ cui N cu E c co i o U N Q U Q N > cB V) O a) U Y @ — a c co Co N �� C a) U N O : � - N a> M m e — ca Co.) tom -_' co 13 i3 i3 i3 t3 t3 o C-o 0 o n o rn o - o m o vry ss ss s4 zs 0 0 C) O N_ O a)c_6 N <n N a) O C Q O > N N 7 Q i"' O O C } U O c6 N cn O U O Q) + N i ca CaA c6 p 2 O cv O L C t (B O C U O i O a--� C O C C6 (6 M 7 i O C O Q) m to O a) +J � 0 a) � N ff} -0 E O O O> CT O a) N} O N Q) C6 a) ca cn a) O c6 > N cU6 Q 0 LO E Q N N + O + c — +' cp N c6 E } Q� C6 N O O cn N N E N U N — O T to •_ _ O N c6 O N � N c6 O Q N O O � Q 0 U C C== Y i?p O •� O N > U a) C a) O > � a) C ca o O O >, O ca o O N O O o N i a) N Q U Q '— N C O Q �_ ca > = > Z:3 Q) O N C6 O N �_ ca N M N ct-- cB O i.>_ C N N O C6 (6 C6 c6 >, Q LO E C6 N a) a) cr= C p C N a)N� a) -0 E O C N 7 <6 0 O N O f6 C_ i Q O Ca N (6 O O N N E C m} E N _0 CZ O NO " cO6 O 0 E Om cOa E E CO CO O .N E �N N> O O Q 2 m •� E O U U 0 Q• iJ cn cz a) 0 CO +� c E Q Q� O cn H E> Eo o o a N > � C O 0 Q Uo ca �A Q i Q N (6 N O oo O Ot-- O = C O O CD- N O N O v— � � Q 0 U -0 C-0 m O- F .--I O 0 m Q co 0 N N O Ca GJ i cn _ a6u!a=l IeinM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal (3 x!pueddd `jaded OWIm Onw=I 1.8 :}uauayoe;}d � M Q � a N N -0m O OO oN OO-1 c-0o 00 O O w > > m m O _> � = r— o 0--,r� ca -E)2 N-0 E d O co r` > = > — -0 C a)i U > o > CQ Q : N _ N N -6 _0 C O Q V) a) Co m CO U m T O N m(ll _ O Cll N Z E C V) ~ a� ct CDO Ca N U U) U V O Q ca +' O N m m m C CU� CD - CZ i ~ m cn0j c0 u _nN O M n N cUC6 tf a) m N � U C)N V) O > �a3 N N Q Cll N N Q O Cll U U N N 3 Cn >+ E O> N o ch O U O ca V) O U M `� +� + N+ cv c9 co N V) O O C6 C O C = V) N C H rn N p Q O >, O c6 Q �_ f0 CD _0C c6 O Q N O U O f0 N a)4- aN V) UA O> N O > Ca) 0 C 7 cn O +—U E -0 � O N O CD U) r— C4 O = ca O cv c O} O c O N O O } N z (Q > O = D+ J N r O O O D V)N A N a--C = C .= -0 0)m L c6 co c.i -0 U .i O a)> N a) V) o (/i O O (Q -0 -0 C J cu ob E U N O U U c6 0 fQ a)O� R Q O V bA O U L.L U Q a i ca O O ca C � ca O N N C U c"i� coa H Co 2 O cu cu (n V) O U X N bA C U U } ca --0 C O O O ca �X N O O CD Y U U O U U ca '� CDO U)U E ca s? ca +-' �� i C N CD Q E C6 > (n Q f1 U C6LIT N Cn a N C 00 N U i a) Oa -0 X Q U O (a V) O E U V) O O O L E 0 (ll N 0 OU O +J N O~ U E O (6 0w CD-O V) Q V) CZ CO n >j C O N O N +O Cll C N i .N U O C bA p N > U U O ca i O U O N O > N a O 0)N O N> c6 L O Q. U- Q N N O > N a) O C = O V) Cn O Y a)_0 Co co O C N U Q O — C= ` -> O qp > C ca Q o }' E � E Q N o a) C) o N F- f6 c m 3 bA o ai n •v� E cu o c c (D A-0 OD ca E a� o C ca O 7 � -O L O O cv li N CaA Cll a> O v) a> �' o o a> ++ E a> d) ca co Q o _ O cn —a) a CZ (n N > }' o U xE c4 C= co o � E cEo n O o can) Q O a� 6 = N = W > o '� cn O +, cv w > to � Q = = M P E U> o > V)_0 a _ a6u!a=l IeinM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal a x!pueddd `jaded OWIm Onw=I 1'8 :;uauayoe;;vy N _ M Q ob ca t>A cn N bA bn N N 0 n C> bn i -0 c N O > U a) E CZ Q O 5—n � 0 a)a)a>> �i a }' 0 c6 �C - i tan - O > 0O U-0 ca >0) O +� C �p E cz N d c 4) O t)A > > _ O `— N O j tan ca a)O a> ca c6 Q > a) c a) 0 0-O a> I--c N O Q) N a a>> 0 O N x a> c c9 0-0 m m O c -0 0 CV - 0 0 � a 0 O>> O a) ca } CO 0 0- N O ca r v '� 3 6 c O c ca is a> an 00 a> - = a> 0 } Q o a> p o ca .� .c cV > 0 '- a> 0 0 a>i ca O > > (f? �_ a> o c �_ tw a> -0 �_ o o o a> Q c > a> ca 0 0 c a> 0 z o o = o —> N o a> a> 0 0= o O N a> O o c 0> c 0 0 U N o o _ _ o N c c a) > 0 O O ma) O= � a> N Q �, Q o an a .c m o moo N c > _ N ca N ca a ca .� O c o-O ma) LIT -0O c6 i 0 a> c 0 0 tin 0 o a> 0 c �' c V) Q N o cn 0 cn c� O Eb z '� ca a> Q m c O o > r' c° 0 a> °�° .N ca .N '— O a) O bn 0 ca I- > } +� O a, (1) a> N N qp O N N 64 ca N cQ mL{j c N � c N cn a) N a) U cn c6 o m m 'in m Q 0 Q) ca cv a> (D a> EL i i O a) i a) i iw i Un (n c a) � -0 ca 0 p _0 _O O .� ca O tt > 0 a) 'i (a N a--� +- 0 > � m = .- 0 a> — c co c tin aci N > c 0 ca a> ca 0 Q ca c 0a> •C 0 -0 a> 0 a> a> >, cn dA 0 0 W o •c o 0 0 c N cn 0 ca on an o c 0 N U Q) c ca O N a) 0 a> 0 �_ �_ ca <a 0 0 0 c a> - N o n W 0 .0 a' 0 c o a`n> 0 a> <° c N 0 Q x o c °� Q N 0 a' 0 0 o 0> Q0 ca a> >, = a>> Q N o 0 O c c �-I > 0 Zcz N O 0 o `n �~ > c [� 0 a> 0 is 0 • 0 O O ca is o n o o _0 a> a> o a> c 0 o 0 0 0 a> c O c 0 o ca O 0 c 0 0 [—+ °) vi o O a> xQ 0 0- > a> > 0 c a> c o a> 0 3 > a> +� +, x a> a> Oo > Q 0 O O o N U O Q N a> + a> a> a> >; Q 0 ao p > ca a> o o >o N ca a> 0 n 0 a> 0 +� 0 -0 0 co p> 0 oc I- c 0 c (a N 07 +� O c a) c6 o 0 a> Q O c N 0 ' W •U c 0- a> c� c a> N c o 0 o O aN O 0 (If (10 c Q (na> _}0o o •c N (Z> o 0- N -0 (.0No +� N c Q a> z o a�> c6 o n( o 0 a> 0 � c i 0-0 a> cz -0 w cn .� •o c o o cN WCo E o a> O o c Q a> 0 cc> C6 c> o ri c c ca a> o 0 c 0 a> c a> a> Q W O O a> s? a> c a> 0 o a> o 0 0 o a> > N ca '_ 0 c o o a> m a> c0a o 0> c _ '> > 0 u Q) a 0 o ca aa)i Q)> a' -0 o 0- 0 o Q ca H 0 0 .� Q 0 IT ca cn > 0 0 0 a6u!a=l IeanM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal (3 x!pueddd `jaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d M � M Q � a m n>M O N c c- } mm '� c D Ln O = ns ' l o a) o Q3O Q) N E N-b N L a O o U O N i -q .- (D C6 C a) O O mQ c c O > aci p ) o� �- 70 N c N -a O— >0 O OE L} c O N- N�Q O+' M 0- � 0- 0 Ln N Qo >w E c-I " w o U - ' Lo m> N O Q-6 00 a) N ca .N Q NO E U E N — 0 0 mCDL> m o N ca 0 N N N O o ~ _ O O_ O N o - N N =3 U O O M •N + Q) 0 � N E O `Eo N o •O O bA '> o N U U N N U c 'a) ' w Cd N 'L- 5= -- N o w 00 •N N cca C Q co N c a5 } = -0 -0 co I 3 C - c Ln a a> N c o U � a> O F- - O 00 -a ca bA cNa = O t> Q aA c o N� boCU c m cz o O o_= o mo a� t a) N N U (L) N M Q i O Ch N N to E 00 i a N U i m a) E5 Lo L � dA M a� a� tw +� -O O N a> c a) c a.) � ca a� •� U U c� o N 0 0 N °� N c tin o Ln N a�i m a.) .0 a� � E o m w_0 w o i ono = o }cz > � � >_ a)E � N m Q a) O ca > � O _O a> N N cB E} c +� ca O � c O O > CD- O Q) O N Q U 0 O i a) O 0 O N O m � +-; c , > Q U E cD o a> o in c °' ° N O O (3) > } a) > N N O E cz 0 o > N L cN6 0 4- � O N +C c c m c O � c c o ca 00 0 'O - -0 N bA N c bA ca N a) a) N � lC O c C U N o bA C U E 0 a) N m N __, a) c L - = U (a Q O f6 N -=a a--� c ca O , N O N O } m ca O •— 00 i N_0 2 1 c ou E� § o .� io = c-0- a ca V N .A N m m lfl i Q C CU N �C C m tw 0 CL 0 E Q. O 0 G M 0 R O H Id 9£LK) :podeN uoo CD o c..0 c17 O O 0 00 O LH •--� .--i M O CV N �--1 OO O O O M � r` c.0 r` M O M N U O O O� O � O O CD 00 m O OM CZ) CZ) CZ) N O 00 00 10 00 1� M U- O M 00 n O O O O O O 00 O Co O O �00 c.0 00 _ N n N N M M rt�+ 7 �• o m _ = CU R U C O co h t O S E E cv cv E a E v> v> U Z H c C.7 3 M(31 0 00 00 O O m O r- (3i O o O ax C0 Ipuedc LO -- o C3� u , y N O O LO CO N IO LO CIO N Id `iedi 0 O 0 0 0 o O N O '~ rn O CD O O O O C� O O CD O CD CD O CD N O 0 O G O O n O 00 O N a O N O O O O CD O O O LO O O CO t77 co 00 M N C7 O O 00 0 O r- o O O O O nj O� N M n M N = C U10 C � by N C C o c L CU OJ i O s E c O D o CD CU � � y E L O co Z cn 'd eimm (3nw=i 1'8 :}uewt4oe;}d CD 1 a6u!a� IeinM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal a x!pueddd Ljaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d _ Ln � M Q � a1 IL m R � � E a o � 0 0 0 O rn o 0 o a iVCJI n 00 O C M 00 O C .�-i N N N M CV C57 .� .--i N co L T � � Q y_ LM r• Q O Cn N 0 bA C Z T O O � O d' R O O O CDC O .--i p G O O CD CD co 00 N C� c'! .--� L O � co 00 LC-3 � ly O U 00 N CN L Clli U f0 C N U fN a) to c m R i tkO C Z V 0 �C C tw 0 CL 0 Q. O 0 i0 V _0 f0 LQ O H O CD,LC� 00 O O O 00 .--i 00 00 O O O O O N LLi O N O O 00 O O O C 1-0 1-0 N M M O N M Lf! ('n 00 Ln Ln Cr 00 rt�+ 7 H +� � as m _ U R U C R Cn t E O S E E R R O H O O F4 O O '.'R� �0 } 7 CU -CJ O E 'v� O 'v� CS U M H cn 7 Z H c C.7 C� O O o O O O O 0 O A N C O C OiO � C � N C C c o c L QJ C1J c O c. E i O c O R r) �C) N O 7 L Z C/) O'7 N LIB 00 C.O N L(�, � O I N ti O O M O N O p Lo (Q M N N OJ CJ cu N m CD- Cl N C c CU O R by E R R c R o E r_ rn C,3 L O C%) N O CD O C O 00 O O OR N CD O s cu Cl- CD i 0 Cn O R CL Id : 9£LK) :podeN uoo O Ozf 00 ISO O o '3 0 C`9 n CZ) 0O Lf� � O ID O O O 6� O M O M O CS) r ^ �0-1 LP O 00 O O O C �) 00 00 co .--i O O O O O .--i CD CV co C O o0 -I O 00 — M � co �2 CD D O O O Oo CO cn Cm 00 00 L n O N L.C� M — N co rt�+ 7 �• o m _ U R U C O co Cn t O S E E cv cv E a o O O R7 E O O � c, M Cn Z H c C-D 3 M(31 (3x C0 O M C7� Ipuedc M 0,0 M W oc N rLO W N Ln � LO N Id `iedi 0 0 0 o c C o 00 O O DO O N '4 CD O O O O C� O O O O O CF lC� CD C= O C=:t O O O o -gr O U') �p n M O O C 0 O O N O M O OCO C.O N Oo N rl M I -I cr 0 O O _ C O O 0CD 00 0 to 0 M N u'l N —4 co O� V) E N =3 O L Ul CD w_O R y � y O C = _ C R N O 'O O, �y O CD CD Q W -= R L R Q H 'd eimm (3nw=i 1'8 :}uewt4oe;}d CD O s D_ Cl i i 0 Cn 1 _ a6u!a=l IeanM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LK) :podeN uoo3 Mal a x!pueddd `jaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d Q o .N > a, E o O a' a > c c a) Q c a) z mo O 7 a) -0 O o U c O — - 'o c o CL)N a a a) Co oo o a) c o o � a) cz mN o~ N U o E o a) Y .a) O NCDL O cr o .� N E a) N i 0 U L a) U U mca a o a) a) .o 0 7 ca Q a) O ca •— ca O p -0a) bA a) ca i L O UO Ca L >> Q N O N C6 U ~ N a) N 0 0 o OO 0- m Oa> E O 0 Q6 N m O O L} > �6U0O. i ca C C U U a � i N E ca a) H a) O O a) dA > O •0 O > U O O a ca O ca a) > N N O +� +� O N> N C O a) a) a) U 'N U c a>j } C E N t U U Q) O •� U0 N UA c U N N }a �_ X U o O U a UA ca a) !E 2) -0— — a U O(3.) U Q .— N N ate--' O N .� N 5= a--� N (6 O N Q) O N a)> ca ~ �O co ` O O N .� N � Q + — i += > v O N Q O N > > N N Q) U C ca CO o mU m O N U > ffl Efl U -0 Efl > -0 -0 +� = o ca Ln oo o c V ca O "C bA o rn � c : mo o o O a) O o •L Ln L.o Ln co a N O O iN a) co ca � .N Z ca O N N C6 Q C a) a) > U O > U 0 N O O O O O -0'N O 5- � C C ,� N C •� 0000 n r-_ Qo oo m m M 1— ca O O N O cv ca M �b 'o C O_ 0 > coy y a) a) N E N ~ 3 o CD oC�l CO. N O 0 > y '—'_ m ,� CV CV U N m Cn O O- N 70 0 U U > a) Q a) O_0 o a) a) 0 a) -0 U =3 ( 0 > o p •i LO N ca Z:3 ca O a�rl ca o� co ca E ca O> 0 u Q ~ L cA O N L ca _ N 4+ 'C �a >� •� ,> � Z Qi a� Q aJ CQ ;,� > � i a) U a) N 0 E N ccu y a) UA � bA a) 0L - O ca CL O Z a� m N U � .� L 1� + 0 O a) 0 O } C U c6 > bA m d � o Z a� m o v) O H o OA ca + U L N > + H 0 cn CL eeuia]|ei nN Z o00oZ Z d:9 L Z podaN uo ] IIQ1 Q x pua dV §a ed mmM Qn W]m' : aw L43e nv m -0 * z 2 c c S? c c c == e E±_ m &e Oci S 2 3 > a % 9 / _S / ? / 0 � \ 2 :2 x > 7 } 2 CDc CD� CDc CD CD\\ 7rl_ & ' .e 2 CD 00 2 CD 2 � M ) co � C--) � � (= 00 « G *04. S 9 J±± 3 R v c c v c R e 6± e « C ? = ? n ± c m a e 3 @ y @ = * / ± m .g L 2 k — k � } \� ir E a > E 3 G © © 2 e E 5 g / 4 d \ E E / J § J § \ \ % > k \ 2 2 k o ± = o 3 R — % k 2 k 2& t k k � t ± ® % ± 2 m = e �� mG k k / > m Co / Im « IL 2 2 k IL 96uiad leinN V£ZZOOOOZOZ-ld : 9£LtZ) podaN uoo3 2{al Q xipueddV `waded 01l4M anw=jm•g :;uauayoejjv N O O O O N C4 OD a_ a6u!a=l IeinM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal a x!pueddd `jaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d i i N N 1� OQ C -6 Ei +o C Na� 0 0 O ca N > NN O O L>, 5 0 _O > N O Q C � O U U > a N O +_ O O � ca ca O N i O N in i cu ~06 U a)E �_ a)- Q0 aN-•. N i O _� Q '_ Q � ca + U N } -0 Q C N N C C c U 4- ca Uj 0 ocz E N O > +cn> N Q N O E U > ca - 'V W cu m y U i E N N Ucz i tv N U + O O N O O >, N i 0CU �"' N N tx bA N U i Q C Q Q O •C Of Q O E O ca by U Z� 0 ~ N N N V N N _0 co ca N O i ca O} } O 0 C U +� O O U ca > CD- a)U E N C O a)O N+ O 0•� N • N N ca O i O U } N N Co = a) O = C i fa O O x O L a ca 'Z C O a--� N ca a Ca C N C O 40, ca N a _Q C a U 00 a) a)O > U ` N O N _ U O U O N U O Q ca > m_ U ca O C 0 +-- O U+ i U C ca ca � C ca cn 0 N Ca ca CZ ca ca a > H O N U v) Q N i 0 U 0 0 O 'C E EO D N + cn }N, QO N_--� Q O N O O +� E i--� O •+cz Q O O C N U N 0 N O> N Q N E O U Q C b0,o ca -t-- w a- U ca N E >, -0 c _ U N t�A N C Q N > 0 U ca N O > a- ca O-0 N ?� i O O C ca U 0= O N >, a + +� O -I---I--0 O N� +� �_ ca +� C C U N N N O Q H Q Q O N C 70 � N~ U O o ca U E ca f6 N N 0 (a N � i N a=-� Q 1 C E o> ,N O C ca + U FM N o C t]A 0 O Q� C v U a ) _ Q N ^ �I a (D 0 E u c(n O U c�6 > O O >, -0O U > Q N '> ,E + E N V N ca N=- ca O L ca E O O +JN O C NCN O >, 0N j Q O U O m N N N -SR 4-1 -0w a-- > /� / 1 m T N _0 •NQ o > N (6 0- •aE N > O 'cn O > CZ O ca C.,cn Q OaQ c U Q � . Qao =ov E a > C.Q cz >E ca ` ca O QL Q N ` ca W N i U ca Q U N = C O N N = z N N ca N C Co O N ca •� N N C O _ L i N N +-� N cn ca =� N N Q, + i O N U E C N — —_ O ca Q C C } + x L% N L o a� iU- 0 a� _ ca a� N 0 O � V O �_ N N � N U U N L N N 0 0 N 0 � �' �' 0 H H m Q 0 N 0 U 0 3: 0 N Q H H U O N m N E U N 0 96uiad leinN V£ZZOOOOZOZ-ld 9£LtZ) podaN uoo3 2{al Q xipueddV `waded 01l4M anw=jm•g :;uauayoejjv v Q as ca N c ca p c � aD I N 0) w O E CZ U)0 O O O O U C E3 > U 0 {{} M 00 � N UOA Q U _ > C U U .� N O O O O > U)70 a 22 0-0 W W 0— j� o> O C U (6 >1 U) 0-U M M m m T) N > U ca a Q N N (Yi bACZ c U N Qj O C+ O z N N bq O N U U U)cN6 N 70 c�6 c0 p N - O CL)U O N m> � a > O' ,— 0� — z � I � u N O M >0 m � 0 C .bJJ N a U f a N O Q (1) O ca N O 0- U O " Q i C >, o >1 a> o �_ o m> O Q ca O CL N C N 0 O O _ N-0 E Q Q O o> o o p — z a> tw CDN i > cB �= O N O c6 4J Q Q N o N N V)OD m Q o N o ca o o O iA O t9 N cn O N ca N U)m > O 0 0 N U O cnO Up O -0co U N N O O O} 75 C c� o c� > O 0 > U U N E U% }' — i 0- U U N + aC a> o O 00 N (D H N O O O O O O O O co M O O O O O O m 00 N O d7 M Qn rl � LL'9 N CIA � O un, O 1� �--� N .--� CO LP') Lr --� --� CO CV N M M CV N a c O U 0 U 0 'a cv N 2 -O U -O U -O U Ei U N Q N y J N U i U i y U i U i N CD U U CD-Q — C..) — -6 U Q cm cD i ;y c0 tW m w c0 w m ta0 o -O U y U y -O U y U y N 06 L Gi 00 Q G� 2 Q s CD c D • c� c.) c.� �L CD c..D c. CD c..) • c� o MCQ Ca (d d -ac c c U m =- R m =- R t C p rt+ O L C o r-+ O L C o r O L o O D_ O 0_ O 0_ Z p 0_ p 0_ Z p d p 0_ Z p 0_ p d Z .. U N to Z N Z H Z N M � d 96uiad leinN V£ZZOOOOZOZ-ld : 9£LtZ) podaM uoo3 bal a xipueddV `waded 01l4M anw=ja•g :;uawL43ejjv O } bA oU a) M 5 D O O L O o •� L� O O O O U O N bA N V) O vi O Co N : C E O M O i O U cOn Cj E 0 -0 O N O N O 0 N .� N Q V (a Q 0 (6 Q) E Q 0 0 0) > Q- tw '� Q N ,� O O i 00 N O C/) N 0 U C Y N O N N N U} C J ca E 70 U + O O U a)O} O Q ++ L L L- E U O (a m O U N N L i i ~ o L.L N m N U �O 0-O � U Q NCl N +- N Q N (6 O N (U/) -0 N U m i C i O 1FDQ U 0 N W (n bA c N � U N �_ O o' Q oU N O t0 N p N O Q Q x 'LIO (1) > U cn V)F- >, N Y � J G c Q as c ti U o O O o 0 -- O M 00 N N G.o O7 C.0 mt M CD o O o O p 'n O co o cc 'r O M O cc O O CD CD CDO Ln 00 M I� CD LC� C9 LS'i N M N ?J 1 i (n i : U N O O O mc6 o V) O — N o 0 0 0 (B N O O �--� i (6 Q LO O O Ca M O O N i U N U � bA U �_ N c R cn 2C N O i U N Q � O i y i N O d O R a H m V) O O U O O NE O ca O U 4J O U i C6 a)N 75 O to H y O CD O CD cn i U Efl C O �i � o rn O Q Q = C _ �/ R Q L n r\ r\ r\ ('� (6 0O i C6 N U Q (� LV 0 = CD Q N +� O +� O O ~ I.- CD O ca p U C 4J N i N C CD —M O O 0 O U O O 0- cu c O Z= U U >, C O ca N N O O ++ CD L O O O CD O co O Q ca > =3 -t- Q V n M i N NCZ OO O (n N O O 'U H¢ 00 M N N M U -0Q N O — O !E N Q (v u) U CZ N Q � R a� N cv +� C _ E_ _ O c (a O ca o Ob a 7 mcn O� �--� o ° O Q > N— N bA U + N C) O O O m Q �O L in N N O O O V) N Um > N >, O CDO = aa> a� s ON c6 � CUN wN O = OU p O O @ � � > � C Q O OU Q > — J +O+ N Q CD a� a� m L.� CD a� a� 0-) a O Ol C = m m m + + + O Q � = Ca C : d N o C/') 0 z 0 z 0 z F- H U c U .o U E 0 cv -@o cz tw Q0 0 s a ai i Cl) 0 U .o U E 0 cv -moo cz tw Co cli 0 0 a� a ai i cn O N M N E U N 0 _ a6u!a=l IeinM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal a x!pueddd `jaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d M Iq m � c � +� O 2,' a) a) � c � E C7 v O +o o a o `" a) o = a) " N c 0 " a) o a) � '� c m •c 0 O a) 0 'O U U O N ca bA O Q o C7 E E ca C6 a) Q o-0=5 c `� O O U c=3 a) c6 .� cn U~ N O n a 0 O N n o Q O� o > .Q � o o cn o } U =5 > c6 L, 0 c •0� a>) OQ N}tio Co) �aE N n o N cH w=p itia;)0 > O-0 c ~ Q c � o _ o CU a) > U Q N m O Q> N N to _O •� •� O O N to cB a) � O UO Q V CL iU Om Ca _ - 0 Q E `� >, � >, 0 0 p C O� V Q o w O �_ N C ca ca N U O a) O O~ U a) U = cn a..r O O N U N O +� N o C O N o E ca N C Q > 6 o C) a) 0 N a) W o p a) r� o 2 " N N 0'� � o a+ C�O Z m m c 05 O N > N U O 'cu O 0 -0 N .N AR Eca . V •� ca � ca C O 6 C Q N F m C a) V� N cp m 'c6 +� U N di > N N m O +L C6 a) m Q C'3 Q m w o L) O va'i E O o a) o Q c� _0o N>= �_ Q Q p Q �p) Eco z� Qo� � Q a) O � a) o o c� cam) a) Q> c O c o ca +� 0 a) 0 U U a) + a' U a) > > �i LO L)Q += Q Q + a) 0 O ca 0 N N Q Q U C 2 Q a) f6 a) c6 _0 O U U •+� +- a) L)L 0 O — O O cn N a) Q a) a) bA a O • +� — X c� +� 0 >, 0 O a) a) a) CDo O c a � E 0 c� N ca a) M O a) a) a) _0 O 0 O N Q) O cz a) O c6 N + C (6 L V a) Q L + U N O N ca ca Q N co E O O a V O Ln G Q� O+ O a) >1 a) -0 CU-0 m /1 Q C O i a w O Q Q-0 L O a)O 0 0 0 a) m o ran " o m acn Eo Q °) � 0 .N E 00 `°0 o C a) c c) ;� 0 cn > a) m _ a6u!a=l IeinM ti£ZZOOOOZOZId : 9£LVZ) :podeN uoo3 Mal (3 x!pueddd `jaded OWIm anw=jN'8 :}uauayoe;}d o � a) O 0 n rn Q o 0 0 0 0 0 00 N U Ln Ln cn � N O C � ci N c I00 M M a) ( 00 � a1 ca + H ca C O --i o a) (� 0_ i , C V D V O N V J a) (3.) d p Q cn Q Q ( > O O = O O O O O O /1 N � � w o� o o � 3 l��I) o Q �n bA •_ 1— CD O 00 cc (6 > > O ca OCY) � a) ca c06 E co; CD CD v ca O � —1 - o a) O U Lo c -a Co _ — No � oM oM o � U a) >0 N X O E � O 00 O N ca E i O 5 O � /�^� (V —+ O Z a `> E o FBI I N O U c ca C 3 ca c cn > a) L N U aO 0 CD- O Q U i m LL Ca U N N Q O N Q 0_' a) t + 0 urn O O tf� o I N d0 l0 ¢ � O 0 �CL). -I � U --� Q 0-O D 3: ca ca _ Q) i cn O z 3 o a) O 2 E Q EC: O a) >, bA Q N w a� a� °? c� O N N U O Q a�_ N} Q 0 ca ai a4i a�i N Y } N Q +� a) N a)CD� � W � Cfl 0O T � N r�J a) --i ca Q a) a a) >, 40 O bA CD � w C7 cc ( a N a) U a) C c m m m N > C Q) O Q> O C _N �a �_ s O Q O CD `o 0 0 o p N V 1� N> i a) a) C C a) �zzz�� w�� Q N .N a) M o Q> O c ca Q ca O cn o cu Q o a) > o E o Q N p +� cn E Q .� o Q O _0 c a: p -o a) N a) —U a oca o a) +C6 � 1�= O4 Q) �-0� N> O E a) C CZ O O CDL W -0 p L(hO O C O 0- — � O o O>=ca o n-0 a) oO a) a) ) > Q)EcUca o CD- <n Q a)U o-0 4 Q i a) O OO == 'n N o O ca b4 N N a) C O L} > N > �' p a) Q � +� > — -a 00 +�- Q) 4) a O � O > cN6 N O O O O C a i Q C 4) N O ^N a)> O U O N �O O V) } > O !� > Q U ca O a) +p N O cn i O Q) s N >+ O U C C N O N U O N .� 2 N C +� O � a) n U Q U O Q N a) ca O +� bA O h� Q •� Q UOA U O a) O O + �O m � Q) y O N N a) —1 0l �N �U OOiU ca }rrB4O N �UOf C cn ca ca !E cNO, bn lfl a) O O N a)Q c6 U O N O U O Q N a N O i i U Q Q L�0 cn U N C U c6 �_ N C N U O a) E ca _O E O O E O O a) M ca LL t CLO?O a °O 0 is 0 E +)O a) 0� Gi ��mO o o o O o a) a) E� 0 .i O m o O a� a) > E~ > o i U U U 5 Q cn N r1 E Q a. F m b4 U ca b4 ca E O} b4 N F�1 :L- 96uiad leinN V£ZZOOOOZOZ-ld : 9£LtZ) podaN uoo3 2{al (3 xipueddV `waded 01l4M anw=jm•g :;uauayoejjv as C' a R N R a 0 a) ■ O O O O O O O O O O O O O OD CD CD O Eq O O N a) OA m CL 96uiad leinN V£ZZOOOOZOZ-ld 9£LtZ) podaN uoo3 2{al Q xipueddV `waded 01l4M anw=jm•g :;uauayoejjv Q N C m �a a c a� (13 c � o C N C M q0 � E U U 96uiad leinN V£ZZOOOOZOZ-ld : 9£LtZ) podaN uoo3 2{al Q xipueddV `waded 01l4M anw=jm•g :;uauayoe;;y v Q as 1% E O N N Q0 Q0 O N Q U ca c Q ca c ca N a� U (a d 7 a-+ i Q U f� M June 20, 2017 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORKSHOP MEETING N Naples, Florida, June 20, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 PM in a WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the Following members present: Chairman: Penny Taylor Vice Chairman: Andy Solis Donna Fiala (via telephone) Burt L. Saunders William L. McDaniel, Jr. ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Troy Miller, TV Operations Manager Tian Durham, Executive Manager, Corporate Business Operations Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner Page 1 Packet Pg. 948 co COLLIER COUNTY M ti Board of County Commissioners N WORKSHOP AGENDA MASTER PLAN UPDATE RURAL FRINGE MIXED -USE DISTRICT WORKSHOP Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 June 20, 2017 9:00 AM Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 - BCC Chair Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2 - BCC Vice -Chair Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co -Chair Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5; CRAB Co -Chair Notice: All persons wishing to speak must turn in a speaker slip. Each speaker will receive no more than three (3) minutes. Collier County Ordinance No. 2003-53 as amended by Ordinance 2004-05 and 2007-24, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. Packet Pg. 949 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE N WORKSHOP TOPICS 2.A. List of Initial RFMUD Recommendations - with emphasis on: (a) Agriculture Incentivization; (b) TDR Bank; (c) County ownership of Sending land; (d) Development pattern options PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. ADJOURN Inquiries concerning changes to the Board's Agenda should be made to the County Manager's Office at 252-8383. Packet Pg. 950 June 20, 2017 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording M from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. N 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Workshop was called to order at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Saunders moved to allow Commissioner Fiala to participate via telephone due to an extraordinary circumstance. Second by Commissioner McDaniel. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Workshop Topics A. List of Initial RFMUD Recommendations — with emphasis on: (a) Agriculture Incentivizations; (b) TDR Bank; (c) County Ownership of Sending Lands (d) Development Pattern Options Mr. Van Lengen reported the purpose of the workshop was for the BCC to provide staff direction on a series of proposed recommendations in relation to the re -study of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). He noted: • A PowerPoint has been prepared (Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Restudy Direction — Board of County Commissioners Workshop, June 20, 2017) and will be presented during the workshop to assist in guiding the discussions. • The definition for agriculture is based on requirements for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. • The East Naples Civic Association will be added to the list of interested parties, and staff can schedule a presentation to the group if so requested. • Staff has developed preliminary spreadsheets on the supply and demand of the Transfer of Development Right (TDR) Credits and will provide data to the BCC. Mr. Van Lengen presented the "Summarized List oflnitial Recommendations - June 20, 2017" for review. SENDING LANDS A. TDR Credit System Speakers Reg Buxton, City of Naples expressed concern on the impacts on the City of Naples by increasing the number of TDR's available in the program, especially those on City of Naples wellfields located in the region. Doug Finlay, City of Naples expressed concern on proposed density increases and the impacts on beach demand and parking facilities, already at a critical level of supply for users. Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida does not support additional TDR's for sending land owners, as larger landholders that have already used credits may be the first to utilize additional credits jeopardizing the small landholders position in the system. She recommended, if necessary, more credits be added at a later date. Paul Consentino expressed concern on the value of a credit, which has not increased of that similar to land prices. For a successful program, the value of a TDR credit must increase and be marketable. Page 2 Packet Pg. 951 June 20, 2017 Brad Cornell, Audubon of the Western Everglades noted the system needs balance and a goal should be to ensure the properties conveyed are consolidated, not end up as a checkerboard pattern M of ownership. Mike Ramsey, Golden Gate Civic Association supports incentivizing agricultural uses. v Mike Timmerman noted the overall goal needs to be to create a marketable TDR and to view the r process in a long-term framework, not a short-term endeavor. N Judith Hushon recommended the development concept for the villages include a high -density N center with the density and intensity of uses decreasing as you move further from the center. A conventional planning concept that would encourage walking and biking in the denser areas, a characteristic the millennial generation will be seeking. Robert Mulhere, Rural Fringe Coalition wants to ensure a market determination of the density for the receiving area is developed in order to assign the proper number of TDR credits to balance a the system. 0� Major Discussion Points • Imperative to ensure demand exceeds supply to enhance the value of credits. One issue is the demand for credits occurs over the long term, while the suppliers have a short term need to convert the credits in the marketplace. There is a current surplus of credits with 4,600 generated and only 2,400 utilized. • A TDR bank would help the smaller landholders, as a mechanism for holding credits until they are required to be used, however it would potentially require financial participation by the County. Recommendations The BCC discussed each recommendation and provided the following direction to staff. 1. LDC - Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR. The Board agreed with this recommendation. 2. GMP - Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property attributes. The Board agreed with this recommendation. LDC - Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to begin or expand a bone fide agricultural operation. In NRPA locations, only passive agricultural operations, excluding aquaculture, would qualify. Passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan. The Board agreed with this recommendation subject to the language citing "existing agricultural operations." 4. GMP - Allow TDR participation for illegal non -conforming properties based on public policy goals, and waive requirements related to proof of legal non -conforming status if greater than 4.5 acres in size. The Board agreed with this recommendation subject to the language citing "legal non- conforming existing status." Page 3 Packet Pg. 952 June 20, 2017 5. GMP - Allow landowner's who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. M The Board agreed with this recommendation. N 6. GMP -Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base severance of dwelling unit rights, subject to any additional credits assigned. The Board agreed with this recommendation. LDC - Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements. A permanent easement in favor of Collier County would be required. The Board agreed with this recommendation. Discussion did occur on whether it should be restricted to "existing" agriculture or habitat protection uses. 8. GMP - Expand concept of donation to a governmental entity to include a not -for profit or land trust if specifically approved by the BCC. The Board agreed with this recommendation subject to the language citing "existing agricultural operations." Break: 10:37 a.m. Reconvened: 10: 47 a.m. B. TDR Credits and Areas Outside of the RFMUD Speakers Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida has no objection to the concept however could make the process much more complex to administer given it is currently a "closed system." Robert Mulhere, Rural Fringe Coalition reported they are opposed to recommendation #3 unless it can be shown it will not create a further imbalance of TDR credits currently in the system. Paul Consentino noted the key is to increase the value of a TDR credit. Recommendations: The BCC discussed each recoin nendation and provided the following direction to Staff. 1. GMP - Eliminate the one -mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe. The Board agreed with this recommendation. 2. GMP - Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential Infill bonus provision. The Board agreed with this recommendation, however it should be moved to transmittal stage category. 3. GMP NE - Extend TDR demand to the urban area where additional density is requested through GMP amendment process; above density otherwise provided through the density rating system. Page 4 Packet Pg. 953 June 20, 2017 The Board requested more information on this recommendation. co M 4. GMP - Accommodate implementation measures recommended by the CWIP committee N and the Watershed Management Plan in Golden Gate Estates that are consistent with the TDR program's success. Where TDRs are used as an incentive, limit the number of credits o for critical wetland parcels to avoid significant impacts to the TDR credit system. N The Board agreed with this recommendation. N C. TDR Program Management Speakers Neville Williams, Collier Citizens Council recommends measures be implemented to limit sprawl and to cease allowing development of gated golf course communities. He supports creation of a TDR Bank. Brad Cornell, Audubon of the Western Everglades supports creation of a TDR bank which would be beneficial to smaller landowners. Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida supports creation of a TDR bank. Recommendations The BCC discussed each recommendation and provided the following direction to Staff. 1. Adrnin - At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from potential buyers and sellers. The Board agreed with this recommendation. 2. Fee Ord. - Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for sending owners; work product required for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances, provided by County staff. The Board agreed with this recommendation. GMP - The County should consider the appeal of a publicly funded TDR bank and a dedicated assessment and bonding for the program, based on an evaluation of costs and benefits. The Board, as consensus requested more information on this recommendation. Commissioner McDaniel is a "no" at this point. The provision for "bonding" should be removed. Break: 11: 50 a.m. Reconvened: 12: 05 p.m. D. Sending Land Management Speakers Gary Chensoff expressed concern the program is not functioning in its current format and that there is a need to create demand for the credits for the small parcel landowner. Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida supports an entity being made available for the donation of lands. Brad Cornell, Audubon of the Western Everglades spoke on the need to ensure a mechanism is available to consolidate the lands conveyed. Page 5 Packet Pg. 954 June 20, 2017 Recommendations: The BCC discussed each recommendation and provided the following direction to staff. M ti 1. GMP - Adopt a standard whereby Collier County agrees to take clear title to land donated by sending owners in locations where no other public agency is available and willing to c take title. N The Board requested more information on this recommendation. N 2. GMP - Prepare applications to state and federal permitting agencies for a County -to - County mitigation bank program (ROMA/ILF), to establish a successful mitigation program that can benefit the TDR program, the County environment and capital spending. Explore options involving Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) parcels to achieve coordinated or umbrella management options for greater overall land management efficiency. The Board requested more information on this recommendation. 3. GMP - Establish a special TDR for the benefit of the County where no other entity has been established to take ownership. Also require donors of Sending Lands to convey a sum of money along with title to partially fund long-term endowment. The Board requested more information on this recommendation. 4. Ord. - Study the idea of a County Environmental Fund (Green Utility Fee) and consider whether it should be the subject of a countywide referendum. Allow various complementary uses of the Fund to support County environmental initiatives. The Board did not support this recommendation. 5. LDC - Provide a standard or model Land Management Plan for adoption by owners who wish to provide Restoration and Maintenance activities in return for TDR credits. p. 53 The Board agreed with this recommendation. The BCC noted additional information should include defining which entities would own the lands, specific details on the function of the programs, financial commitment required by the County (or others) and an analysis of the overall supply and demand of proposed credits for the revised RFMUD program. E. Other Program Suggestions Recommendations: The BCC discussed each recommendation and provided the following direction to staff. 1. Admin - Staff should provide any data needed to the Property Appraiser's Office in support of its efforts to review tax assessments based on appraised land values and resulting tax assessments in Sending Lands. The Board agreed with this recommendation. 2. LDC - County -owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for conditional use approval for expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Definitions of "active" and "passive" recreation will require further vetting. Page 6 Packet Pg. 955 June 20, 2017 The Board agreed with this recommendation subject to changing the language from "County owned land" to "Non State owned land" M ti I GMP - Allow large landowners to cluster dwelling units, retaining the one unit per 40-acre standard, but also allowing one unit to be clustered for each additional 40-acres of c contiguous land retained. N The Board agreed with this recommendation. N NEUTRAL LANDS Recommendations: The BCC discussed each recommendation and provided the following direction to Staff. 1. LDC - Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses, where uses are secured by perpetual easements. The Board agreed with this recommendation subject to the provision being for "existing agriculture and conservation" uses. 2. GMP - Remove the 40-acre minimum project size for clustered development. The Board agreed with this recommendation. RECEIVING LANDS Speakers Mike Ramsey, Golden Gate Civic Association supports increasing the density in receiving areas and suggested incentivizing other uses besides housing (industrial, commercial, etc.). Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida recommended determining the reason villages have not been developed in the receiving areas to date and focusing on providing avenues to rectify the issue. Robert Mulhere, Rural Fringe Coalition noted increasing densities is necessary to provide a successful program and supports an increase of one unit per acre to two units per acre. Bruce Anderson, Rural Fringe Coalition recommended limiting the number of villages to 1 per receiving area and eliminates the maximum village size requirement, removing the 40 acre minimum for non villages, supports 2 units per acre and increasing the number of TDR's available from 4 to 6. Judith Hushon recommended the density in these village areas need to be clustered high enough to promote a functioning walkable/bike able community to ensure a successful program. Recommendations: The Board reviewed the recommendations provided in Section A, with no new consensus reached on any individual recommendation, as more study is required. Discussions revolved around what level of density is appropriate for the County in these areas to incentivize village development, an activity that should ultimately preserve sensitive lands in other areas. A concern was expressed that under the existing program, no villages have been developed in the receiving areas to date. Speakers noted one deterrent is the compliance required with complex Growth Management Plan/Land Development Code regulations. The Board noted it would be beneficial for staff to develop examples of development for 1, 000-acres under the existing requirements compared to developing the 3 — 7 units an acre, allowed under any proposed regulations. Page 7 Packet Pg. 956 June 20, 2017 A. Land Use and Economic Vitality M 1. GMP - Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of N Villages as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district (with exceptions) in locations with access to major collector or arterial roads. c 2. LDC - Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of N the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park. N 3. Ord. - Explore Receiving areas as Innovation Zones. c 4. GMP - Eliminate the maximum size of a Village. 5. LDC - Consider new measures for mixed -use standards, such as those found in the RLSA. 6. Modify residential density standards: • GMP Non -village — remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre c (higher density for affordable/workforce only projects) y • GMP Village — increase maximum allowable density to 7 units per acre. c • LDC Change minimum Village density to 4 units per acre. 7. LDC - Development over 300 acres shall use the Village option. 8. GMP - Modify the TDR requirements: c a. Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily unit. y b. Change from .5 to 0 TDR for defined affordable housing. E c. Density over 4 units per acre requires 0 TDRs. c d. No TDRs for industrial/business park uses. v The following recommendations were not discussed. B. Transportation and Mobility 1. GMP - Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands. 2. LDC - Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support complete streets and low speed. 3. LDC - Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business parks. 4. LDC - Develop a methodology for a Mobility Analysis including a standard of measuring a development's level of interconnectivity such as a "link -node" ratio, and the transit, bicycle and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project and surrounding destinations. C. Development Standards and Processes 1. LDC - Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide greater certainty for developers. 2. LDC - Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlays. 3. LDC - Require housing analysis within Village application to determine employment related demand within the Village and housing accommodation of such employees within the Village. 4. Ord. - Consider an impact fee index for mixed -use. 5. LDC - Explore with Collier County Health Department the creation of Health Assessment Index. 6. LDC - Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employment zones and mixed -use development, suggest modifications to standards e.g., remove greenbelt. Page 8 Packet Pg. 957 June 20, 2017 7. LDC - Develop further incentives for innovative features such as solar power, zero net water use, and aquifer storage and recovery systems. N D. Development Standards and Processes 1. LDC - Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide N greater certainty for developers. N 2. LDC - Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlays. 3. LDC - Require housing analysis within Village application to determine employment related demand within the Village and housing accommodation of such employees within the Village. 4. Ord. - Consider an impact fee index for mixed -use. 5. LDC - Explore with Collier County Health Department the creation of Health Assessment Index. 6. LDC - Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employment zones and mixed -use development, suggest modifications to standards e.g., remove greenbelt. 8. LDC - Develop further incentives for innovative features such as solar power, zero net water use, and aquifer storage and recovery systems. 3. Public Comment None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 2:12 P.M. �T7ES i DWIGHT E. BROCK ICLERK oraRY Aftest 8 to"Chairman's signature only. COLLIER UNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COM SI ERS Chairman, P y aylor These minutroved by the Board/Committee on ? pgesented or as amended es a Page 9 Packet Pg. 958 9£LVZ) 940Z 19Z aagwe1d9S pelep `AjewwnS aA11noax3 anwiu i lu9wyoelld•04 :;u8wy3L'JJV rn a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY a Recommendation to direct Staff to prepare amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP), Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) based upon the completed public planning process and direction provided -to Staff at three individual workshops conducted with the Board during 2017. T . OBJECTIV& — TTo direct staff!o=prepare the ame�ts to= the Rural Frmge Mixed-Use-Districfl5ased-= upon the public planning process completed in 2015-16, as well as workshops with the Board conducted T January 3, May 11, and June 20, 2017. CONSIDERATIONS: On January 3, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) convened a Workshop to discuss the four area restudies, with emphasis on the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). Staff presented the RFMUD White Paper (attached), which describes the public process and rationale for the Initial Recommendations for changes to the Growth Management Plan. The concepts and recommendations within the White Paper derived from objectives set by the Board in 2015 and reflect ideas and broad consensus among citizens and stakeholders who donated time, energy and creativity. to the process. The January 3rd Workshop discussion centered on three pivotal decision points put forward as part of the initial recommendations: • Whether to increase village and non -village density in support of public goals in Receiving Lands; • Whether to pursue a "TDR Bank" as a catalyst for the TDR program; • Whether to accept donations of Sending Lands parcels if no other governmental agency is willing to accept them. At that time, the Board directed staff to discontinue any further consideration of a TDR Bank. It also directed staff to provide further data and analysis related to Receiving Lands development patterns and Sending Lands donations so that additional direction could be provided. The May 11, 2017 Workshop included additional data and scenario testing and analysis related to land development patterns for the Board's consideration. Comparisons of build -out scenarios at different densities were provided, noting strong public support for mixed -use compact development. Baseline, mid- range and high -range scenarios provided a basis for comparison of housing diversity, retail, business and institutional uses, mobility impacts and taxable values. Receiving area "decision points" such as number of villages and density ranges were supported by a narrow majority. The Board requested further input and discussion related to infrastructure impacts and a better understanding of the allowable dwelling units both before and after the 2002 RFMUD Growth Management Plan Amendments. Additionally, the May workshop provided an update on the viability of a mitigation bank to support County Ownership of Sending Lands, which cannot be conveyed to another governmental entity. There was narrow support for County ownership and for a mitigation bank. Staff was tasked to provide additional information on agricultural uses, TDR bank alternatives and costs for conservation land management. The June 20, 2017 workshop provided the Board the opportunity to review specific amendments to the RFMUD and provide Staff direction on issues relating to the three -land use designations within the program: Sending, Neutral and Receiving lands. The following were the major recommendations provided: - ---- 9£LtZ) 940Z `SZ aagwa;d98 pelep `Ajewwng aAIInoex3 anwiu i }uawyoeuV-o :;uawyoe};br CDto CD 1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing business park/employment centers outside of a Villages. 2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the Village Center and the Research and Technology Park. ----- -- -------------o i t-e------requirements:_ ---- - ----- ------ - _ a. Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily_unit. ._--_--__.-.-._---b--Change-ft-em .5-to-0 TDR-for-defined-affor-dablehousing_.___-._.__-_ .—_—T__ 4. Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR. 5. Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location orproperty attributes. 6. Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to maintain or expand a bone fide agricultural operation. In NRPA locations, only passive agricultural operations, excluding aquaculture, would qualify. 7. Allow landowner's who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in any applicable program changes. 8. Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements. A permanent easement in favor of Collier Countywould be required. 9. Expand concept of donation to a governmental entity to include a not -for profit or land trust if specifically approved by the BCC. 10. Adopt a standard whereby Collier County agrees to take clear title to land donated by sending owners in locations where no other public agency is available and willing to take title. 11. Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual easements. Additionally, based upon the feedback provided at the workshops specific concepts are no longer being pursued. These include the no longer requesting the establishment of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) bank or the establishment of a mitigation bank in the North Belle Meade sending area. Additionally, the concept of a simple majority approval for village development is no longer being pursued. FISCAL IMPACT: There is adequate revenue within the FY18-19 Zoning budget to satisfy the GMP amendment required process. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality. A majority vote is needed for approval of this Executive Summary. However, an affirmative vote of four is needed for the potential Growth Management Plan amendments. -HFAC GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The direction provided by Board will initiate the amendment process for Growth Management Plan related to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. 9.A.4.o MoscaMichele From: David Torres <david@torrescompanies.com> Sent: _ Saturday, February 13� 202-1 10:35 AM To: MoscaMichele Cc: JenkinsAnita; NKOULOHERAS@HABITATCOLLIER.ORG; Mara Foley; Bob Mulhere; jaime.weisinger@lipmanproduce.com Subject: RE: Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Restudy Based GMP Amendments Attachments: LandOwnership_updated.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Michele, I am writing in regards to the proposed changes to the Future Land Use Element with regards to the Rural Fringe District to provide personal commentary. I thank you for putting this together. We have been waiting a long time to see proposed code changes and are happy to see we are finally discussing text changes. Some initial comments below: It was the original recommendation of staff and that of the Board at the workshop to grant additional TDRs to the overall sending lands. In prior discussions with staff, we hoped that the county would provide further balance in the marketplace for TDRs. I believe the proposed changes will create an even larger deficit of TDRs. As I understand the changes, I see only three new opportunities to create TDRs: a. The flow -way easement TDR on sending land b. Agricultural TDR on sending lands. c. Agricultural/conservation on Receiving/Neutral lands. The problem with the flow -way TDR is that most of those lands are public. See attached map that came from Gary McAlpin's office showing private lands are small compared to overall easement area. The Agricultural TDR for sending lands does not create additional TDRs in my opinion. A property owner would use such TDR to replace the conveyance TDR as he would intend to keep the land for agricultural purposes. The agricultural/conservation TDR for receiving and Neutral lands may yield some new TDRs but I deem it of limited use. Other than a large owner trying to create TDRs for his own project, I doubt a small owner of receiving or neutral lands will restrict his property for just one TDR per five acres. Maybe if we allow that neutral or receiving owner the ability to get the TDR but still develop only one unit per five acres on his property on an area no larger than an acre with the other four restricted, more people would be interested. You propose increasing capacity from 1 to 2 units per acre in the receiving lands along Immokalee Rd. New demand will be considerably above TDRs created. I urge you to create additional TDRs. Possible ideas include: a. Increase flow -way TDR to two per five acres. b. Rather than create anew flow -way overlay, extend the Flow -Way TDR to anyone in the Belle Meade NRPA. c. Increase to two units per five acres on the Restoration Bonus. With labor increases, this is getting pricier every day and the incentive to do it is less and less. 2. We believe it will be of great impact to allow higher densities for Affordable Housing and are thankful for the proposal in the receiving lands. However, we believe there is an opportunity to expand this further and to provide the opportunity to do Affordable Housing in Neutral Land areas near Immokalee Rd and Tamiami Trail East. The code already allows some higher uses in those lands such as farm workers housing at 22units per acre or group care facilities at 0.45 FAR. Clustered affordable housing would not be out of character and may provide us the opportunity to provide further supply in affordable housing now that home price increases appears to be accelerating. Packet Pg. 961 9.A.4.o 3. While we appreciate increased receiving capacity to 2 from 1 in the Immokalee Rd areas, we fail to understand why other areas are limited. I understand that infrastructure costs money and that there are concerns on being able to provide supporting infrastructure but we continue to allow development in the Rural Stewardship District at densities over and above those in the Rural Frinee on areas that have even less infrastructure. The Receiving lands along Tamiami Trail east have access to an expanded Tamiami Trail (mostly paid by the State), while the County has invested in the past several years on bringing water and sewer infrastructure there to support Fiddler's Creek eastern lands. I believe County DOT and Utilities will agree that serving the Receiving lands can be done at much more reasonable amounts than the Stewardship Lands. To receive the flow -way TDR an owner would have to do initial exotic removal and sign flow -way easement. Language says the County will maintain in perpetuity. If County's willing to maintain in perpetuity, does that mean the County is also willing to accept ownership of those lands in order for the landowner to obtain the conveyance TDR. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We are hopeful that the County will agree to reconsider some changes. I am happy to discuss these comments further if you desire. Thanks, David T Cel. 904-762-4454 From: MoscaMichele <Michele.Mosca@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 5:43 PM To: RuralFringe Restudy <RuralFringeRestudy@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Proposed Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Restudy Based GMP Amendments RFMUD Stakeholders: Regarding the RFMUD Restudy, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) Transmittal hearing date is scheduled on Thursday, April 1, 2021. The summary of proposed amendments and supporting documentation have been posted to the County's website at: RFMUD GMP Amendments for your review and comment. Please provide any written comments by email to: ruralfringerestudv@colliercountyfl.gov, no later than Friday, February26, 2021. Staff will compile substantive comments and provide to the CCPC as part of the Growth Management Plan amendment packet. Respectfully, Michele R. Mosca, AICP Principal Planner coler County Zoning Division/Community Planning Section 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 Phone: (239) 252-2466 Packet Pg. 962 9.A.4.o *'98 61 104 59 60 97 58 56 101 55 100 Y57 102 103 15 16 Lam; i� 6 3 79 7 21 40371.1 28 H- 14 AV iXV CUM 2 U. Area Potentially Impacted ' .,, �•� �� t TDR Status �� ;6 • ^ E:] Base/EE only Base/ E E/Restor/C n vy Base/EE/Restoration E1:1 Conservation Easement ♦ \_�'°'' '� Not in Program ' Feet Core_Rehyd 5,000 0 5,000 10,000 Forested_FW TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC. C2018-052 ; 10199 SOUTHSIDE BLVD. Collier County Watershed Improvement Project ""tea" LH SUITE 310 Private Land Ownership s E� JACKSONVILLE, 171-32256 Collier CountyFL CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #4815 , TE Packet Pg. 963 1 9.A.4.o MoscaMichele From: Keith Basik <keith.basik@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:23 AM To: RuralFringeRestudy Subject: Rural Fringe - Industrial EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. We currently have industrial land that runs north along the east side of Recycle Way which is 4 miles East of Collier Blvd and just north of US 41. Recycle Way has both Cemex and SRM concrete plants located along the west side to that road. We feel that since there is limited industrial in the receiving area, and to avoid long travel and spot zoning, there should be wording inserted into the Rural Fringe amendment that will be transmitted to the State of Florida that allows for the expansion of Industrial & Commercial zoning for properties which are located immediately adjacent to existing Industrial Properties. This provision would be similar in nature to the TTRV provision outlined on page #10 of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. There is tremendous need for additional industrial in this growing area of Collier County and there is no better place to put it then adjacent to existing industrial zoned property. We had discussed this idea to other county planning personnel for several years and based upon their comments that this idea seemed very logical and prudent. Recycle Way (private road) and Basik Drive both have access points into the industrial, but we think that Trinity should have an access point into the industrial area as well, to improve overall traffic flow into and out of the industrial area. Keith Basik 0: (239) 272-4643 keith.basik@gmail.com '87 West Point Packet Pg. 964 9.A.4.o IRM HOLE MONTES ENGINEERS - PLANNERS • SURVEYORS —score ay apes, onda-39TV- Phone 23 .2�J 54-2000 • Fax: 239.2 -2 99 - February 26, 2021 Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Division/Community Planning Section Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: February 12, 2021 Summary of Proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Dear Ms. Mosca: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed RFMUD GMP Amendments. I am writing this letter on behalf of my client, Lipman Family Farms. As owners of thousands of acres of RFMUD lands, primarily located east of Collier Boulevard on the north side of US 41 (Tamiami Trail East), Lipman Family Farms has a significant interest in these proposed amendments. As you no doubt recall, Bruce Anderson and I submitted a Report to the Board of County Commissioners in January of 2015. The Report, entitled "Report on the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Recommendation for Programmatic Changes" was prepared on behalf of a group of RFMUD landowners, collectively known as the Rural Fringe Coalition, Inc., which included Lipman Family Farms. I. Page two of the proposed amendments provides the following new limitation on Future GMPA Amendments. Anv comprehonsive plan amendment to increase residential density Nvithin am of the 5uhdkul k in this District shall mlUmovide for that density increase via utilization of the transfer of &e dolllnent I iLdIts riooram. I believe that this is an overreach, as it eliminates a property owner's right to request a comprehensive plan amendment that seeks an increased density, through some other formula than that provided for in the proposed GMP Amendments. This is particularly problematic when considering such a large land holding. For example, a proposed GMPA may have any number of public benefits that may, in the opinion of the BCC, warrant an increase in density utilizing a different formula, or without requiring all or a portion of the TDRs that would otherwise be required. This should be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Perhaps the following language or something similar would be more appropriate: Any comprehensive plan that seeks to increase residential density ivith arty of the RFMUD Subdistriets shall provide for that density increase via utilization of the transfer Packet Pg. 965 9.A.4.o Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner Re: February 12, 2021 Summary of Proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) February 26,_2021 Page 2 of development rights proerant.-Jimvever, variations in the number of TDRs required or such increase, or the introduction of additional TDR Bonus Credits, may be considered, ivith demonstration of a valid public benefit including, but not limited to, natural resource enhancements, stornttvater and flood management enhancements, transportation system enhancements. II. On Pages five and six, the following proposed amendment addresses Non - Village Receiving density and minimum project size to receive transferred TDRS. I. klaximunr Density. except Im Ilousiiig that is Affordable.: The base residential densityallowahle for designated Receiving Ltuids is one (1) unit per live (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum density acltievable in Receiving Lands tlirough the TDR process is one. (1) dwelling unit per acre Cur_the Belle Nllcadc and Nottll Belle Llcade RcacivillL, Lauds: ;uu1, LWO (2) cl\\ell.i ttg, tint_ts per acre Iar Iho 1%w Receiving Lauds areas Aon t Inutlnkalce Rmi(l. 'ibis ntaxitnnui deiisity is exclusive of the Density Bletuling provisions, Dwelling Units niay only be tratrsferred itlto Receiving lauds iti whole unit imi-ements (fractioal:tl transfers mii,im im Project Size: The nlinitnutu project size required ill-'rtIC ' to receive transferred d\velliag tllltts is 40 co11t1gtlous iicres, ,'V'Cllt 110 illllllllulto proiccl Si/C k 1*k'WJlrt'd IM, lh.' 1�',-c '1't'llw i Ihl'.t:'• ;Il��i> :d�U,1V Illl'.11okalce Road. Why limit the recommended increase (for Non -Village receiving) to 2 units per acre to only the Immokalee Road Area? The basis for increasing maxim -um density from 1 unit to 2 units per acre on the Ventana RPUD was in part to related to: (1) the availability of public services and facilities (such as County sewer and water); (2) access to an arterial roadway (Immokalee Road); and (3) proximity to the County's urban area. However, an overriding factor related to that request for increased maximum density was the fact that it is not economically feasible to develop at 1 unit per acre (especially given the added cost to acquire TDRS). This condition exists regardless of where the Receiving Lands are (not just in the Immokalee Road area). It appears that no effort has been made to address the economic infeasibility of developing at 1 unit per acre in Non -Village Receiving. If the concern is the availability of public facilities and infrastructure to serve Non -Village Receiving Lands in areas other than the Imrnokalee Road area, why not simply state that? The same attributes related to public facilities, service and infrastructure that warrant the increased in density for parcels in the Immokalee Road area exist elsewhere in Receiving, including along US 41 East. These include availability of central sewer and water, access to an arterial roadway, and proximity to other urban services. It has been demonstrated that development at 1 unit per acre is not feasible in the marketplace, nor does it make sense in Packet Pg. 966 9.A.4.o Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner Re: February 12, 2021 Summary of Proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) -- February 26; 202-1— - — -- ------ Page 3 an area that is able to utilize urban services. Capacity to serve new projects is already address through concurrency. Moreover, a landowner may be willing to make improvements or share the cost of necessary improvements to meet concurrency. An example being the extension of Wilson Boulevard and south and west in the North Belle Meade Receiving Area. With the recent County purchase of the Hussey property, and other privately owned parcels in this area, if makes no sense to limit density to just 1 unit per acre in this area. Also, the large southernmost Receiving area, is located relatively close to the County urban area, and significant portions of this area can be served by County Sewer and Water, with access to US 41 (Tamiami Trail East). US 41 is 4-laned through the Greenway Road intersection, and a new shopping scenter with a public is being developed at this intersection. Certainly, there will need to be consideration of transportation concurrency matters but limiting density in these areas in Non -Village Receiving areas does nothing to incentivize solutions. 17 lit i ��- Packet Pg. 967 9.A.4.o Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner Re: February 12, 2021 Summary of Proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) February 26, 2021 Page 4 Perhaps the following language or something similar would be more appropriate: 1. Maximum Density, except for Housing that is affordable: The base residential density allowable for designated Receiving Lands is one (1) unit per five (S) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum density achievable in Receiving Lands through. the TDR process is one (1) iwo 2 dwelling units per acre. A maxintunt density of one 1 unit per acre may be developed by right, subiect to applicable design and development standards set forth in the LDC. A maximum density of one 1 unit per acre may be developed by right, subiect to applicable design and development standards set forth in the LDC. A maximunt density oftwo (2) units per acre may be developed by right for Receiving Lands located in the Immokalee Road and US 41 (East Tandand Trail) areas. A density of two (2) units per acre in the North Belle Meade area ntay only be achieved througlt a PUD rezone, with demonstration of adequate public facilities to serve the proiect. III. On pages 6 and 22 the following proposed amendments limit Non -Village developments to less than 300 acres and require development 300 acres or greater to be in the form of a Rural Village Packet Pg. 968 9.A.4.o Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner Re: February 12, 2021 Summary of Proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) -February 26T202-1 — -- — --- ----- -- - - -- - -- Page 5 5. Pro iect Size: Where. TDR Credits are utilized. the proiect sire must he less than three hundred i 3l10l acres. Q Rural Village Sizes, and Density. and Qcsien: Developments with Rut -HI Villgtes shall he a minimum of 300 acres shall ulilize. Rural_Villagc standards herein anei within the LDC. A !Loral 1'illa�r. shall hove mid a maximum of 1,500 acres, except within Receiving Lands south of the Belle Mcade NRPA where the inaximutn size may not exceed 2,500 acres. The Rural Village size is exclusive of the required green belt area. "A.....' Villaget. t liEdj ,iflelude it Villa e Center and it minitnlal}tli �WR EI}=tfi}ka-1i24!�h;!C�F�rEaNt1S The requirement that any development in Receiving of 300 acres or greater be a Rural Village does not make sense. Following that to the extreme, you would have many smaller residential developments in the RFMUD and, that would now be required to provide neighborhood commercial uses. While it is necessary to have more neighborhood commercial centers (and other nonresidential uses, such as business parks and/or research and technology parks) to serve the RFMUD and surrounding Estates, requiring neighborhood commercial for every project of 300 acres or greater is simply not feasible. It would result in many (too many) smaller commercial centers, thereby saturating the market and rendering many of these economically infeasible. It is counterproductive to require it. Ideally, you would want the neighborhood commercial to be successful and to thrive. It would be far better to consider the feasibility of a Rural Village, with commercial uses and 2 to 3 DUs per acre on a case -by -case basis. One size will not fit all cases. If you want to require a rural village, for a certain size project, that size needs to be increased significantly. My recommendation is 1,000 acres. For projects between 300 and 999 acres, leave it up to the applicant as to whether he or she wishes to seek Rural Village designation, or whether or not neighborhood commercial is warranted in development of less than 1,000 acres. Practically speaking, Rural Villages will only occur in the three potential locations, identified below. Packet Pg. 969 9.A.4.o Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner Re: February 12, 2021 Summary of Proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) ---- Page 6 FAK. r Looking at Receiving area number 1 (above), which is 1,998 acres in size, requiring that any project 300 acre or greater be in the form of a Village, could result in 6 Villages in this area. Looking at Receiving area number 2, the number could be 10, and in number 3, it could be as many as 25. The 300-acre number is far too low. What happened to incentives to entice a landowner to develop a village? Having worked on the only two Village proposals, I can attest to the fact that the process is very slow and extremely expensive. I highly recommend that you consider looking into additional incentives. The 300-acre "must be a village" rule is totally infeasible. Has anyone calculated the demand for TDRs under this scenario and the number of available TDRs? Just doing the basic math indicates that requiring any project 300 acres or greater to be a Village, across some 13,500 acres, would require between 12,000 (at 2.0 units per acre) and 19,000 TDRs (at 3.0 units per acre). Packet Pg. 970 9.A.4.o Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner Re: February 12, 2021 Summary of Proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) - _ February 26, 2021 Page 7 Perhaps the following language or something similar would be more appropriate: 5. Project Size: Where TDR Credits are utilized for Noll -Village development, the project size shall not be greater than 1,000 acres. Projects greater than 300 acres and less than 1,000 acres may request the folloiving uses through a PUD rezone: • Neighborhood commercial rises, and • Civic, governmental, and institutional rises. • In additional to all other criteria established for approval of the PUD rezone, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is sufficient market demand from the development and nearby surrounding lands, for- the neighborhood commercial rises, and a beneficial trip capture and reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) achieved from providing neighborhood commercial and civic, governmental, and institutional uses. IV. On page 21 the following proposed amendment addresses TDRs in exchange for a perpetual ag conservation easement (presumably on any RFMUD Designation) 6. A TDR Bonus Credit shill he issued to the_ imit_er of private property ibr each live t ) acre parcel or lcmul noneuul triune lot of record designated Receivinv Lands or Neutral Lands. at the u'ansfar rate nfone t I t additional TDR 13011us Credit 1'or each five acres or IeLal nonconl'ortnin, Io[ of record. ►ttiliied for a conservation tisc or an cxistint! bona fide auriaultw"al use_ A perpetual casement shill be ,laced on l.uids used for a,_,.riCultUre or conserymion uticti to protect thew lands in perkleWitV. A restrictive covenant in I'avor of Colli:: c offlity .will be placed on lands used tier agriculture resuiutitiv. the. tisc in_perpcwity to protect ai ainst non•agriCtilturut development. It is a good idea to offer an incentive for agricultural preservation. Having said that the ratio of 1 TDR in exchange for a perpetual easement is not sufficient. Using the current high end $15,000 estimated market value of a TDR, a property owner would receive $15,000 for granting a perpetual restriction over 5 acres of land (limiting the use of the property to agriculture and giving up any future development rights). How much analysis went into whether a perpetual easement is really achievable in exchange for 1 TDR per 5 acres? If the goal is to incentivize protection of agricultural lands, this is not likely to be an effective incentive. Presently, protection of Sending Lands, up to 4 TDRs per 5 acres can be achieved. For perpetual preservation of Agricultural, the compensation to a landowner, in the form of TDRs needs to be much more significant. Was any research done relative to other communities that offer incentives such as TDRs for agricultural preservation? For example, what about consideration of an incentive for a period that is less than perpetual? Packet Pg. 971 9.A.4.o Michele R. Mosea, AICP, Principal Planner Re: February 12, 2021 Summary of Proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) February 26, 2021 - - - Page 8 If an agricultural preservation TDR is granted in Sending, that would presumably preclude the ability to achieve the Enviromnental Restoration TDR Credit as well as the Conveyance Credit. Wiry not consider still granting the Base and early entry TDRs? V. Additional Questions and Recommendations: In general, it has been accepted as part of this Restudy, it is necessary to create additional TDRs, such that the number of TDRs that can be generated from Sending lands is increased, and the market also reacts to the cost per TDR as a result of this increased number. Why not include TDR incentives for significant public benefits, again, regardless of the RFMUD Designation. Examples include providing easements over, or fee simple title to land that may be used for public benefit such as a flow -way, or wildlife corridor, or restoring disturbed lands to viable functioning habitat, or providing for public trials or pathways. There are innumerable possibilities for public benefit that can be achieved through incentives, including cost sharing. It is highly recommended, that the early entry TDR Bonus Credit be eliminated, but the Base TDR be increased to 2 per 5-acre parcel (or nonconforming parcel) and that the environmental restoration TDR Bonus Credit be increased to 2 or even 3 TDRs per acre. The Conveyance TDR Bonus Credit is, for the most part, not achievable and should be reconsidered. Finally, although the concept has been previously rejected, it is suggested that staff reconsider a TDR Bank. The concerns in the past seem to center on the initial cost, but the befits of utilizing a central bank are significant. In that it streamlines the TRD acquisition process. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed RFMUD Restudy generated amendments. We are available to meet to discuss these comments at your convenience. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES, INC. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP President/CEO RJM/sek cc. Jaime Weisinger Packet Pg. 972 9.A.4.o IRM HOLE MONTES ENGINEERS - PLAMIERS - SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way • Naples, Florida 33919 Phone 239.254-2000 • Fax: 239.254-2099 February 26, 2021 Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning DivisiordCommunity Planning Section Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Draft Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments - Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Dear Ms. Mosca: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed RFMUD GMP Amendments. I represent clients who own land in the only Industrial designated and zoned property in the RFMUD. It is located on US 41 (Tamiami Trail East). +I- --- a -. - .%---- �r ` 1¢ 7 ; a m � JET w, + C-5 K 0 IN I have suggested, on numerous occasions over the past 5 years, that staff consider adding a Policy that would allow for expansion (through a rezone) of the existing Industrial zoned area on the US 41 East (See below). Moreover, the Board of County Commissioners discussed and supported amending the RFMUD to facilitate economic development and job creation in the RFMD, to greater and more diversified degree. I see that under Non -Village Receiving lands, allowable uses, you have added the following language: 11 13u ittr.>:. ; 11d 111LI'MAl'i'll 11s:s ati idCl)ti1161-r: l-loritla Qiil lilicc l ar; ct 111dus11-ies. Within one (1) Nvar Isom the date of adohtii m of this .anritdnlent, the LUC shall [k, amended to provide design standards. development standards. and locational criteria. Packet Pg. 973 9.A.4.o Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner Re: Draft Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments — RFMUD February 26, 2021 - Page 2 - There is very little Industrial Zoned land available in the Urban Area and as a result, Industrial land is extremely expensive. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of small business owners in Collier County who have trouble finding appropriately zoned property from which to operate their business. Most of these businesses would not fall be considered a Florida Qualified Targeted Industry. Examples include auto repair -oriented business, landscaping and lawn care, pest control; contractors and subcontractors (who need a location to store equipment), and many others. Allowing for the possibility of expansion of this existing Industrial area to adjacent parcels make sense. It makes no sense to force an owner of adjacent property to go through an expensive and time consuming GMP Amendment process, when the rezone process provides for comprehensive review, with all necessary safeguards, and public notice. I have recommended that an aggregate limit be established on the amount of acreage that may be added to this Industrial zoning (without the need to mend the GMP). For example: II. AGRICUTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 4. Expansion of Existing Industrial Designation Located In Section 18, Township 51 South, Range 27 East. The boundaries of the existing Industrial Designation located on the north side of U.S. 41 (East Tamiami Trail) in Section 18, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, may be expanded to include adjacent parcels and parcels within 300 feet of the existing Industrial Designation boundarv. Anv such expansion will reauire a rezone to I - Industrial or PUD zoning. S. Exemption rom the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Development Standards We are happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this recommendation. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES, INC. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP President/CEO RJM/sek cc: Keith Basik Packet Pg. 974 a }oia}si(3ash pexiw 96uia=l leant ti£ZZOOOOZOZ-ld 9MZ) wn-1=i ep!mA;unO3 H WOW43814 U :4u8wL138}}d LO rn Q T46S T47S T46S T49S T50S T51S T52S T53S � a m E - i t e e e j t a=.1- 5� 11000 = 0ii0 eNo oo®00®0 h n Y 'B r m 3 >3 a y _„ e c` giH o FE z E` SE ^e F ZE EQ F m Y 0��£II0��I00s1®�� 9 yy di 6' G ;3t sj � - n n E a5 m Ea a$ g i s -fle �i `PI Y $ Y M. e'a a I s££ F M. n Sg •E �§ ;% $ w 2 e'3 ig 3 % % - d�p3lp 5$ •a 9 m: a as £& "s M i10 ey eE . Rgill " I<s 8 s`s $s gooioio��1i� o®®®e1 n Y W 0 W w d (L Q a J W � ♦ v� L(� `° a~gi 6aBo O N LL }Wa N � =) N Z c roo jz�3 03�� C - U °' y L.0 a N W w'==W U : r Eow A w oFWy N H N J 0 0 Q U LL p < { T46S T47S m m wy r a W�r = o -^oR rcRW�o oRw �omw - 5 0 %"oi LLz oz° zw2° z z°oz' wow o0o waw=�oweoow�oawo=o=awao5Z6 _ .6.6 =o� =ozo° W 0 M �n P " m Re��/_ JIM�/, j j. - 1 I CWIP FLOW WAY R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E I fl- NORTH BELLE MEADE NRPA BELLE MEADE NRPA I Packet Pg. 976 1 EXHIBIT A PL2020XXXXX/CPSS-29.A.4.q O CWIP FLOW WAY COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ADOPTED - XXXX, XXX 0 2,500 5,000 10,000 Feet (ORD. NO. XXX-XX) LEGEND ® Proposed CWIP Flow Way Packet Pg. 977 9.A.4.r TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 20, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: le % Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (attended remotely) Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Christopher ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Packet Pg. 978 9.A.4.r PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN FRYER: Greetings everyone. Welcome to the May 20, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik has requested that we vote to permit him to participate remotely. And, Mr. County Attorney, I think we're still within the bounds of -- MR. KLATZKOW: As long as we're under the local and state emergency orders, it will be permissible. Once the orders expire, that will be the end of it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. May I have a motion to allow Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make that motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Good morning, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER FRY: This is where you say hello, Robb. MR. SUMMERS: We've got some audio issues. Hold on one second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we've got a quorum. Will the secretary please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Still working on Robb. Okay. We have four in person and I believe one virtual, to be confirmed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And Mr. Vernon and Mr. Schmitt both have excused absences. Packet Pg. 979 9.A.4.r MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any changes to the current agenda as it's been provided to you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: I do. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, we do have -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Good morning. Anita Jenkins, Zoning director. We do have one item that we would like to add under new business, and that is to discuss the evening meetings for the LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I was going to talk about them at the next item, if that's all right with you. MS. JENKINS: Okay. Anywhere you would like to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. In line with what we talked about on Tuesday. Well, thank you. MS. JENKINS: That's my entry music COMMISSIONER FRY: It's late. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Now, our next meeting is Wednesday, May 26th. It's a special meeting. As I will say more about in a moment, we will not be here for the evening portion, but we will be here -- we are requested to be here for the daytime portion of that special meeting on the 26th. Does anyone know if he or she cannot be in attendance? COMMISSIONER FRY: I cannot -10 - COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that at 9:00 a.m.? 40* CHAIRMAN FRYER: 9:00 a.m., yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: I cannot tell you at this point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Business commitments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we will hope that we have a quorum. I don't believe Commissioner Schmitt is going to be here on the 26th. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, he is. He said the 26th meeting was a day he was going to be here. 116 CHAIRMAN FRYER: He did? All right. Okay, good. Okay. Our minutes to be approved. First we have those of our attempted April 15, 2021. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ah, good morning, Mr. Klucik. We were worried about you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, I've been connected. I'm sorry. I didn't hear any -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you've been approved for participation, so we're delighted to have you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, great. I'm sorry. I caught you right when you just said we're having a problem with Robb, and that was the first I heard, you know, even though I've been logged in. So there you go. So I guess I really haven't missed anything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, you haven't. COMMISSIONER FRY: That was a rhetorical statement, Robb. Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Quorum of five. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. So our attempted minutes of April 15, and that meeting, as you know, failed for a lack of Packet Pg. 980 9.A.4.r quorum, but we need to take action on those minutes to create a record of why there was no substantive meeting and that it was at that time continued to a later date. So may I have a -- any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Then we have the minutes of the meeting to which the 15 April meeting was continued, and that's April 19. Any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. BCC report, recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: On the May 1 lth Board of County Commissioners there were no land -use items presented at that meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Now let's -- before we get into our substantive agenda, let's talk about the need for an evening meeting to deal with certain LDC amendments, and the Chair recognizes Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. Again, Anita Jenkins, Zoning director. We are requesting an evening meeting to hear those LDC amendments either June 3rd, is the preference for that date, or the second meeting in June, which I think is June 17th. So we needed to continue those items from your special meeting on the 26th, and hopefully we can get those scheduled for you on the 3rd. Currently, our projections are only to have one other item on the meeting of the 3rd, so we could start that later, but on the 26th we can see how we're going and how many items maybe continue, what kind of time you may need, but we'd like to request for an evening meeting on June 3rd. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Commissioners, anyone have a conflict, inability to Packet Pg. 981 9.A.4.r be there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Everybody seems to be willing and able to be there on June 3rd. So by consensus our evening meeting will be on June 3rd beginning at five minutes after 5:00. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask for a clarification? Are you saying that if there are only one or two items on the normal meeting for the 3rd, we might start later in the day rather than 9:00 a.m.? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. I think that you would want to consider, you know, starting in the afternoon if you only have a couple items, because we do have to start the meeting at 5:05 for the LDC amendment. So we wouldn't want to have to bring you in and then have a break. And so we'll just help you work through that as we get closer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would be welcome. Thank you very much. MS. JENKINS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. ***We're going to public hearings. And the first matter is PL20200002234. It's the RFMUD Growth Management Plan amendments here to us for recommendation on transmittal. And the Chair recognizes Ms. Mosca. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with Zoning Division staff. And I'm not sure how to get the screen turned over. Thank you. Okay. So, Commissioners, this is the fourth restudy. There were four directed by the Board of County Commissioners, and this is the fourth. The other three have all been approved. The last you heard was the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, and that's been approved as well moving forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: By the way, during this pause I'll just indicate that the reason we didn't ask for witnesses to be sworn in or for disclosures is because this is legislative in nature. Sorry. Go ahead. MS. MOSCA: No, that's correct. And this is the transmittal hearing so, Commissioners, you'll have another shot at this after it goes to the state agencies for review and their comment. So what I'd like to say, this review and preparation of the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use Districts, this has been a team approach. You'll see on the screen multiple disciplines were involved including Planning, Transportation, Stormwater, Housing, and Planning. I think I said that. V So today -- I know that Commissioner Homiak was here when we had the approval, I believe, of the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District, you know, at the beginning with the plan amendments, but I think for the rest of you, you may or may not be familiar with them. So what I'd like to do in today's presentation is to include an overview and a history of the existing Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District of the Future Land Use Element, take you to the proposed Growth Management Plan amendments, a transfer of development rights, or what we call TDRs. So you'll hear that acronym, so Transfer of Development Rights means TDRs. So we'll take you through a credit analysis based on the proposed amendments. Future development, we'll talk about the future development and infrastructure needs in the North Belle Meade, and that's NBM on the screen in the Belle Meade area. We'll also talk about some general discussion items, and those will include public comment. We had a period of time, approximately two weeks, when these amendments were drafted and sent out for comment. Then, finally, we'll talk about staff recommendations. So just to give everyone an idea of where these -- where the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District is located, it's generally located -- and I'm trying to get this mouse to work. Yep, here we Packet Pg. 982 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 983 9.A.4.r 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. Packet Pg. 984 9.A.4.r 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. Packet Pg. 985 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 986 9.A.4.r lower. So let's talk a little bit about the North Belle Meade area in here. This is the receiving area in the North Belle Meade area, and this is north of I-75. And then this is the Belle Meade area south that abuts Tamiami Trail East. The North Belle Meade area in here, the assumption is that one rural village will be developed at the maximum size of 1,500 acres, so that would be up to 4,500 dwelling units, and 2,700 TDRs would be needed for that. For the Belle Meade area the assumption is that the rural village will be developed at the maximum size of 2,500 acres, right in through here, and up to 7,500 dwelling units and 4,500 TDRs would be needed to entitle development. So for nonrural village development -- that's the development outside of the rural villages -- the assumption, once again, for this scenario was based on 60 percent of the landowners participating, and we retained the 40-acre threshold. And so the north would be roughly 1,103 dwelling units, and the south would be approximately 2,514 units. So the total -- based on this particular scenario, there would be a total of 20,530 dwelling units in all of these areas and possibly 11,139 TDRs to entitle that development. Shifting to the supply side. The existing sending lands database that's maintained by staff at the county was used to determine the supply. The participation rate of plus or minus 50 percent was applied to the total possible TDRs. That was for the base, the early entry, environmental restoration, and maintenance and conveyance TDR bonus credits, and these are, again, consistent with the assumptions in the white paper. The total yields approximately 6,278 TDRs based on that applied assumption. And, again, this could be higher or lower depending on the participation rate. Now we want to look at supply of new credits through these abatements. So the new supply is based on the proposed amendments, and they include the Belle Meade flowway TDR bonus credit, and this is for the Belle Meade area. This is south of I-75 for that Belle Meade hydraulic enhancement overlay, and we'll discuss that further as well. And we assumed 100 percent participation or 560 new TDRs coming online. So the next one is sending lands existing agricultural TDR bonus. We assumed 80 percent in the north sending lands where there -- excuse me -- where there are existing groves, 30 percent in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas where there's a limited amount of lands in agricultural use. So this is the calculation here, so that would be roughly 446 new TDRs coming online from an estimated 1,407. The neutral lands existing agricultural TDR bonus, staff assumed 10 percent utilization, and that would come online at approximately 126 TDRs. So you see that staff was very conservative going through these additional TDR credits. And then the final one is the receiving lands existing agricultural TDR credit. Staff assumed 50 percent of the 6L Farms, and that's on the Belle Meade side and that -- again, that area is located at Tamiami Trail East. So we're looking at the total supply, then, of 8,021 TDRs, and the TDR potential demand of l l,139 TDRs. So the estimated deficit, again, based on this scenario would be roughly 3,000 TDRs. I know that's a lot of information; we can discuss that further if you'd like. So the next area we'd like to talk about is the North Belle Meade or NBM and the Belle Meade areas. Again, north of I-75 is the North Belle Meade. South of 75 is the Belle Meade area. So staff mentioned early in the presentation that we're not recommending amendments to be applicable to the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas due primarily to infrastructure concerns. Existing development is and has been on Immokalee Road where infrastructure is available or planned. The greatest future development demand will be in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade receiving areas. Packet Pg. 987 9.A.4.r 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. Packet Pg. 988 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 989 9.A.4.r up with our cost feasible plans which, again, is what you've got in front of you, and that is what is adopted by the MPO board and incorporated into the county's planning process. We can go over the specifics as far as potential roadway improvements that would be feeding into the North Belle Meade as well as the Belle Meade areas that we've been talking about. It is our -- it is Transportation Planning's position that any further addition of density should be thoroughly studied to determine the impacts to the transportation network and what additional facilities might be necessary as well as a proper mix use -- proper mix of uses that will support a maximum internal capture and shorter trip lengths. What that's basically trying to say is that we -- any additional density that we would be looking at in, again, the North Belle Meade as well as the Belle Meade area really needs to be looked at from a transportation standpoint, the infrastructure. If we properly plan it so that we have requirements that have implications where we have fewer trips out onto our road networks, in other words, we try and capture as much of those internal trips as we possibly can, the better we're going to be. COMMISSIONER FRY: By that you mean having sufficient commercial services in those areas so the people don't have to leave the area? MR. SAWYER: Absolutely, yes. I do have information as far as specific links that we could possibly talk to. I don't know how far you want to get into that. Mostly what we're talking about as far as servicing these two areas is going to be the extension of Wilson. And I can give you time frames if you really want those. They are within the 2045. We also have Benfield/Wilson, which would be serving further south into the Belle Meade area. And, again, I've got time frames on those. The other issue is certainly 41. And there are plans within the 2045 from FDOT to make improvements in a stretch that would be right in front of the Belle Meade area. But, certainly, we would want, if we're looking at additional densities, to certainly bring in -- FDOT into those discussions. Because right now their plans are just like ours. They're looking at the current densities that have been proposed previously. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is FDOT -- what do they have in mind in that section of 4 1 ? Expanding it? MR. SAWYER: It would be expanding from two lanes to four. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. SAWYER: Similar to what they've already done further north and west. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That was it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: That's all I've got. I believe Michele is next. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Sawyer. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask a quick question? Maybe it's for ourselves. I assume we have a fiscal -neutrality requirement on the receiving areas as well? CHAIRMAN FRYER: In the RFMUD materials, they're there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's the same, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would also tag onto that, if I may. There are provisions elsewhere in the Growth Management Plan calling for self-sufficiency, which points to the need to look at and to try to regulate the nature of the commercial uses being deployed within developments like these. What is your take on the importance of us considering self-sufficiency and the particular commercial uses in developments -- villages and other developments? MR. SAWYER: From a transportation standpoint, as many trips as we can contain within individual developments is a direction that we would want to go, because that means we don't have Packet Pg. 990 9.A.4.r to make as many or as large of improvements into our existing facilities. We may be able to do additional lanes on existing segments on existing corridors instead of looking at new corridors, for instance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: I apologize. Michele also wanted me to point out that Benfield is not fully funded at this point, even in the 2045. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But this gets back to the same issue we have every time something comes up. So you're planning for growth, and you're building it into our capital budget. So the only way you can prove fiscal neutrality -- we've already paid for it and built it into our budget. So if our impact fees cover the costs, I guess that's the only way that it's fiscally neutral. It just gets very complicated, because we're doing all the planning right now for this growth, and now they're going to come in as individual developments, and we have to look at them as to whether they're fiscally neutral or not, but yet we've already put in the budget the highway system to support them. It's confusing to me as a commissioner as to how you get to fiscal neutrality when we're planning for that growth and the residents are paying that money now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Impact fees are certainly an important part of that, but so is property taxes, gas taxes, and other user fees. They never really quite add up, though. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, can you show us on that, I'll call it small and, on my monitor, blurry map, Benfield. Is it Benfield/Wilson? Is it a hyphenated name that's anticipated? MR. SAWYER: I believe that's current nomenclature that we're using, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Where that would actually -- MR. SAWYER: We're kind of just calling it Benfield currently. That would be this link through here. That is the portion that is projected as far as being funded, 2045. It would also extend further south basically along that line right there. COMMISSIONER FRY: To serve Belle Meade? MR. SAWYER: It is serving future growth, yes, at the estimates that we currently have, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for Mr. Sawyer? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Mosca, could I begin by asking you the same question I asked of Mr. Fey. Florida Power & Light, are they in the process of getting electricity out there, or is it already there? MS. MOSCA: Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that, but we could get you the answer, and we could send an e-mail. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: I don't know the status. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. That's a private undertaking. It's not part of the Public Utilities, but it's certainly very important in the totality of infrastructure that we would be providing to new occupants. MS. MOSCA: Sure. I'll find that out for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Sure. So the next area I'd like to talk about, and I'll have Liz Goslin from stormwater staff just come up and tell you about this exciting project that's just south of 1-75. Again, I've mentioned it earlier. It's the Belle Meade hydrologic enhancement overlay and that, Packet Pg. 991 9.A.4.r 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 1-75 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 1-75 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 1-75 and then picking it up again south of I-75, making it flow south. We'll have another pump station just south of 1-75. 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. Packet Pg. 992 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 993 9.A.4.r Board did not direct staff to pursue that as an option. So we believe that we need further study and discussion on that topic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Within that time frame -- and it's undoubtedly going to take some time -- there will be applications filed for development, and once they're filed, presumably, the developer would have a vested right in being able to proceed under the current rules rather than what might be more restrictive. Would you indicate what, if anything, you know about the future timeline and whether these studies could come forward before rights get vested in the more relaxed rules. MS. MOSCA: Well, what we've done by, you know, retaining the existing conditions for the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade, again, those are the areas we're going to see the greatest development possible. What we've done as part of these amendments is to suggest that we initiate a study within two years. So we're really looking at a comprehensive approach to planning these areas so we can address infrastructure, we can address the mix of uses, and that includes the capture rate that Michael talked about. So we want it to be sustainable. We want it to be, like -- I know you all don't maybe perhaps like the term "smart growth," but you want to offer multiple modes of transportation. We want to look at the possibility of increasing residential density, for example, what was proposed as part of these amendments, four to seven dwelling units per acre. And it may be, in fact, doable, but we would really rather include all the stakeholders in that process and plan it correctly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm one who likes the term "smart growth." Of course, I have my own definition of it, as we're all entitled to. And it seems to me that the restudy recommendation of four to seven would have been optimal. And I understand staffs response that we don't have the infrastructure yet to serve that kind of density. I just --I'm thinking out loud here. Maybe it's a legal question. Is there some way to lay down a zoning in progress so that -- so that if the rules are changed after someone files an application they would be subject to those new rules? MR. KLATZKOW: No. Unless you're expanding their development rights. It's like the conversation we had at the last meeting where Mr. Yovanovich is asking to be excluded from this but allowed to do that. If you want vested rights, you can have vested rights, and they're determined at the time of the application. But afterwards it's -- unless you're expanding developmental rights, no, it's -- you can't limit people. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it's a conundrum. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's an economic investment. I mean, I make an investment in a parcel of land based on the developmental rights. The government can't come in and then just, like, strip me of my benefit of that investment. That's what Bert Harris is all about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood completely. It's just a point of frustration for me, and I think the solution is for our already overburdened staff to work even harder to get this study completed so that we can put the new rules in place with respect to smart growth, and in this case density, in time to catch all the new developments that are going to come in. Just an expression of hope. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Michele, it's, I think, a good time to take this to a point of being less esoteric to being a real -life example. So let's say that I'm a -- first of all, I guess in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area there are eight main property owners that own a lot of that land. What is the makeup of the ownership of the sending lands in the RFMUD? Is it a small group of people, or is it a very large diverse group of people? MS. MOSCA: It's actually a very large group of people. A lot of the property owners have five acres, less than five acres, 10 acres, and then you have your trusts that have multiple five -acre parcels. So there's many, many, many more property owners in the sending lands. And Packet Pg. 994 9.A.4.r I thought I had that number for you as an estimate, but I don't have it in front of me; whereas, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area has few. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're talking about a lot of individual decisions by property owners to participate in this program. So we started with an example of a 40-acre parcel that generated 32 TDR credits. So maybe a -- maybe a more realistic example is a five -acre parcel -- you said there are a lot of those -- that's owned by one person. So they have the opportunity to earn four TDR credits. So I want to just go through what this actually looks likes in real life. So I have a piece of land. I haven't built on it, but it's got preservation value, so we want to preserve it, and I'm willing not to build on it. So I do the -- I can earn a base credit. I can earn a credit for early entry currently. MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Or it will be two in the future -- MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- for base credits. Then I have to create a plan to restore it if I have nonnative vegetation on it and to maintain it, and then I get another credit for that. And then if I convey, which means -- I guess I want to know exactly what that means. I'm going to say, okay, Collier County or somebody else is going to take care of it into perpetuity. So I really have no more use of the land. Do I even own the land anymore? i% MS. MOSCA: If you convey it, no, you don't own it. COMMISSIONER FRY: You're actually giving up ownership of the land? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I've got these four credits. I have invested some money for a maintenance and restoration plan, I would assume, and I'm going to sell these for 15- to $18,000 each? Is that the -- is that the current -- MS. MOSCA: Whatever the market rate is, the first -- again, the base credit right now is 25,000, but part of these amendments, the proposal has been to eliminate that, and that's in the Land Development Code only. It does not appear in the Growth Management Plan. So there is that proposal currently to eliminate that base credit cost. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it becomes market rate? MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Market rate on that? MS. MOSCA: Yes. I do want to make one point of clarification. So, for example, if you have the restoration and maintenance credit that you want to achieve, let's say you're in the Belle Meade area south of I-75. The state is, in fact, purchasing or seeking properties. So the state already has a restoration and maintenance plan. So what I've been told is that the individual would not have to create that restoration and maintenance plan. That would go under the state plan, and they would convey that property to the state. So it really depends on the area. The biggest challenge, what I've been told, is the North Belle Meade area, those areas north of I-75, and the limitation on the number of entities accepting conveyance. So that was what I said in the last slide, some of those challenges with the program. So looking at the Belle Meade area, in the North Belle Meade area as a whole, how do we address those? And that's something we really need to target and process and get through and understand how we can help that five -acre -parcel owner get those benefits. That's what the program's about. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we had -- I've been here two -and -a -half years, I think, and we've had one RFMUD development come through where a developer had to go out and buy TDRs for -- and I can't remember the name of the development, but it was Immokalee. MS. MOSCA: Ventana? Packet Pg. 995 9.A.4.r COMMISSIONER FRY: Ventana Pointe. And I remember in speaking with him that it was an arduous process to find and buy those credits. And that was, as I understood, the only time we actually had a different entity that was buying the credits and supplying the credits; that the other developments in the RFMUD had all been the same property owner, had the sending land and had the receiving land, and they just --so it was an easy transfer. Do we have evidence that this program has actually worked to date or is workable in its current form or even the modified form? MS. MOSCA: We do. I mean, I don't have the map in front of me -- and I can provide that to you all -- but there have been transfer of smaller properties to other areas along Immokalee Road. I'm trying to think of some of the names. Ray, maybe you can help me out. They're just escaping me. Do you recall? Bent Creek, right. So some of those properties in that area have utilized TDRs. So it -- I mean, to say -- I mean, it is working. A TDR program takes a long period of time. This is not something that happens overnight. COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe with Ventana Pointe we had to actually make some concessions in terms of density to make it work for the developer in that case. So as a property owner that had five acres, I'm really looking at more or less selling that property for whatever I can get for four TDR credits. Is that -- MS. MOSCA: You can do that, or you can retain the property and have the existing -- let's say you have an agricultural use on the property, so you can do that as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MOSCA: But the objective really is to compensate those sending lands owners. So the receiving lands owners are receiving that benefit of increased density. So I mean, really, we need to target those sending lands owners and connecting those buyers -- I mean, those sellers with the buyers in the receiving land, and that's another issue that I mentioned identified that we really need to kind of target as one of our objectives during that additional study. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're here today saying -- you're recommending that we approve these current amendments while saying that there are areas that need to be addressed with further study, correct? MS. MOSCA: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: And there is a base level of development, right? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Sothis is just like RLSA. If the program works, and we're trying to make it work, mazel tov. If the program doesn't work, you still have the base density for people to develop. In the RLSA you've got large property owners, so it's much more easier to accumulate the different rights than it is here where you have five -acre, five -acre, five -acre, five -acre. The worst that happens is the program fails, which is okay because you've still get the base density that hasn't been changed. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. But it's got to make economical sense for the property owner that has a five -acre parcel. MR. KLATZKOW: And it may not. It may not. I mean, we're going through condemnation proceedings along the VBR corridor and, you know, acreage is going in excess of $100,000 an acre. So if that starts getting there, you know, and these acreages start getting towards, like, a half a million dollars for five acres down the line, I don't know how you separate. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah, 100,000 in TDR credits is not going to -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's not going to happen. It's just a question of economics. But that's okay. I mean, we do have the base density. We're just trying to create a smart growth alternative for the area that may not work because of just the ownership pattern. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. Packet Pg. 996 9.A.4.r MS. MOSCA: So Anita placed the spaghetti map strap -- map -- that's a tough one to say. So here are all of the TDR severances that have entitled. So here are your severances here and here that have been entitled development, right. They're along Immokalee Road. So you can see that the program is working. People are severing their TDRs. So I just want to provide that additional information. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's a bit of a miscellaneous assortment of properties that are dispersed all over the place that are being -- their credits are being aggregated into these receiving lands. MS. MOSCA: True. Yeah. What I've noticed just from the short time that I've been working on this program is that there are a lot of land trusts out there that seem to be doing a lot of the transactions. Again, that's why I wanted to bring to the forefront that there is that need to address those property owners that have just the five acres. So they don't hold, you know, hundreds and hundreds of acres. So I just wanted to mention that as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, what is the general nature of these land trusts that you're referring to? Tell me how they come about and who owns them. MS. MOSCA: We have a database of all of the sending lands properties. We have a couple of land trusts that own, you know, five -acre parcels, 10-acre parcels, and so forth. And what they do is they either sever the TDRs themselves, or they sell the property, such in the case of Ventana. That was through a trust, and that trust owns many parcels throughout the sending lands in the North Belle Meade area, and that's how Ventana Pointe was able to acquire the TDRs to entitle their development. COMMISSIONER FRY: So these are business ventures where they are acquiring properties with the intention of severing rights and selling the TDRs? MS. MOSCA: Well, I think some of the trusts have owned the properties for a long period of time, so I can't say that is necessarily true. I just don't know. COMMISSIONER FRY: A combination of the value of the land plus severing TDRs when strategically profitable for them. MS. MOSCA: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: So what I'd like to address now are the stakeholder comments. And I know we have a couple members of the public that will likely want to discuss these as well. We had a two -week period after staff prepared these amendments, sent them out for review by the stakeholders, and they provided us some comments. Some of these comments include increasing -- and I mentioned this earlier, increasing TDRs for restoration and maintenance. And, again, the concern from staff would be, sure, we could increase those TDRs, two TDRs, three TDRs, four TDRs per five acres. The property owner's required to move -- let's say, remove the exotics, okay. So they achieve that level, and then what happens a year from now? Two years from now? Sometimes those exotics -- I mean, they have a restoration maintenance plan. They have to come in and, you know, address the removal and so forth. But from a staff perspective, we're really looking at the long-term maintenance, and if we just throw out three TDRs for restoration, we really need to make sure we have the correct balance in the TDR system. Another one is to increase density outside of rural villages from one unit to two units per acre. So where we have the infrastructure is in the north part of the county. So in the north receiving area and the northwest receiving area, we have the infrastructure. So we have suggested going ahead and allowing the two dwelling units per acre outside of those rural villages. And there's not a lot of development that can occur in here. So from a staff perspective, transportation, utilities, and so forth, it's something that is, in fact, doable. But then we look down here in the Belle Meade area, in the North Belle Meade, we don't have the infrastructure; we just don't. Soto increase to two dwelling units per acre, that Packet Pg. 997 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 998 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 999 9.A.4.r the staff report where the language currently says, any Comprehensive Plan amendment to increase residential density within any of the subdistricts in this district shall only provide for that density increase via utilization of the Transfer of Development Rights program. And I think it's your intent to also include the opportunity to increase density through affordable housing. And I just wanted to be sure that we made that clarifying point. And it could be made in a variety of language changes, very simple things, which I'd be happy to suggest one. That's the intent of staff, correct? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That affordability also be among the roster of things that would lead to increased density. And away of --perhaps the easiest way of accomplishing this is just putting the phrase, except as otherwise provided elsewhere, comma, or elsewhere herein. MS. MOSCA: I just have a clarification. So when you say "except as otherwise provided herein," so there's already the exception for up to 12. Were you proposing -- maybe I misunderstood yesterday -- or Tuesday. Were you proposing to increase affordable housing beyond 12 without the utilization of TDRs? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. I'm trying to cure what I see as a conflict in the language. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it could also be addressed -- excuse me. I'm losing my voice. It could also be addressed by adding the expression at the end, "via utilization of the Transfer of Development Rights program or through affordable housing." Maybe that's an easier way; fewer words. MS. MOSCA: I understand your objective. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anybody have an objection to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Hearing none. All right. Then -- and it should be pointed out -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would like to see exactly where that's inserted -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- and what the insertion is going to be. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: Is it -- Commissioner Fryer, is it easier to go to the resolution, maybe, where we had the strikethrough and underline? Would that be easier to follow? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, yeah. Let's do it that way. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Where is that in our agenda packet? MS. MOSCA: It should be under the resolution in Exhibit A. Does anyone have the full agenda packet that could provide a number? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Conceptually, Commissioner, it says that -- right now in this discrete section it says, the only way that you can get additional density is through transfer of TDRs, and I want to add "and affordable housing," because the plan provides for that in other provisions, but it is contradictory when it says "the only way." MS. MOSCA: Well, I actually liked your verbiage where you said, except as otherwise provided herein. I think that's clear and succinct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine, too. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. That makes sense "except as provided," because then it -- whatever it is that we put in there, we're not limiting that, so that makes sense. MS. MOSCA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Packet Pg. 1000 9.A.4.r MS. MOSCA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's fine. I mean, I don't need to see more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. It's 10:28. Let's take a 10-minute -- let's take a 12-minute break to 20 minutes of 11:00, and maybe we can find that citation at that point. Thank you. We're in recess. (A brief recess was had from 10:28 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's reconvene, please. And where we were is I was asking questions and so, by your leave, I'll continue doing that. There is a reference -- and this is on Page 22 of the staff material. And it has to do with the deletion of the greenbelt. I, for one, would prefer to see that language remain in there, but I don't know how others feel. MS. MOSCA: Well, what staff has done -- and we've worked with environmental staff, and we think it's reasonable that the greenbelt not be less than 200 feet, averaging 100 feet in width, and then the struck -through language on Page 22 to add that back in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does anyone object to that? COMMISSIONER FRY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Which one are we at; the open space environmental protection? I V CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is E1 on Page 22. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then I go back. I'm backtracking a little bit. Also at the top of Page 22 in little Arabic B it says, goods and services required, minimum of 53-square-feet gross building area per dwelling unit. I mean, I think quantitatively, that's good. I mentioned self-sufficiency a little while ago. And I'm not sure whether this commission or staff or the BCC would have any appetite for expanding this substantively, but I wanted to raise the point anyway and see what people thought. When we require commercial uses, right now we don't require specific commercial uses or we don't say commercial uses in order to enable the village or town or whatever to be reasonably self-sufficient. And knowing the problems we have on our roads, the concept of self-sufficiency, I think, is important and I, for one, would like to see a reference to some language in Sub B or elsewhere that would require a developer to give some thought -- and I know I've got to be careful because it could be a slippery slope. And I'm not saying that every development should have its own Publix or whatever, but I just think the concept of self-sufficiency is already embedded in other places in this -- in the Growth Management Plan. And I'd like to see some words dedicated to it in this. What do other commissioners think? COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess my question is, the term "self-sufficiency" means different things to different people. So can we give it -- how do we give it some teeth? You're looking for what exactly? CHAIRMAN FRYER: My objective is to get more cars off the street so that people can satisfy their basic commercial needs to a greater degree, not completely, but to a greater degree, within their community. And I don't have exact language to offer, and I recognize the slippery slopes and the ambiguity, but I just thought I would speak out for the concept, maybe not here, maybe not now. But in so many cases, our roads, we are constrained. We can't -- you know, it's impossible -- it would be impossible to widen roads. Eminent domain would be ridiculously expensive. We couldn't do it. So we have to find other ways to get people off the road. And that's where I'm coming from. Yes, ma'am. Packet Pg. 1001 9.A.4.r MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, what I was going to say, if it's a recommendation of this commission, what we could do, as part of the Land Development Code amendments, define that term, and you'll see that again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that would be -- that would be quite satisfactory to me. What do others think? Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: I think your idea is excellent about having more commercial and more business options available so that people don't -- we reduce vehicle miles traveled. I think the use of the term "self-sufficiency" is potentially dangerous. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's already in the Growth Management Plan elsewhere, but I'm not embracing it. MR. EASTMAN: It seems like a tab to pull on for this, like economically viable for people objecting to the development or whatever. And it maybe --it maybe better to just allow greater options for commercial and business uses and go that path because, ultimately, your goal is an excellent goal, to reduce the vehicle miles traveled, and when these new developments happen people can get goods and services closer to them is really what you're saying, in essence. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a consensus that we ask staff to consider putting this in the LDC? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, when Mike Sawyer was up there, he expressed for Belle Meade and North Belle Meade especially that internal capture be maximized for exactly that purpose, because we didn't necessarily have the road infrastructure available. He didn't seem as concerned for the north receiving area and the northwest receiving area. But would the term internal -- "maxing internal capture" or something like that be kind of a little more succinct? He's talking about -- and I guess self-sufficiency, to me, seems to be a rather general term. But I'd like it also to be something that we can really work with in the future and have some teeth. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Two communities. You have a community. It's the same thing. One -- in the first situation, it's all populated by retired folk. It's easier to keep them there if you provide essential goods and service near by. If that same community is with working people, they've got to commute to work. So here you are planning the same community not knowing who's actually going to buy a house in there, and you will have two completely opposite results depending upon who moves in there. So I really don't know how a plan for 2045 we can figure out how we're going to put in any factor that will affect the commutability of this thing, impact on roads, or anything else. Those are going to have to be measured at the time we get development orders. And, again, it's going to depend upon who's living there, modes of transportation, 2045. I mean, I get 90 percent of my stuff off of Amazon now. I can't remember the last time I went out to a department store. That's changed. It's -- I would caution to put -- be very careful about defining these things at this point in time from a planning perspective. We just don't know what the world's going to be like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I take your point. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: More deliveries. More warehousing. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're talking about essential services. You can't plan for whether people will be commuting to work or not, because that depends on who buys. But all people do share certain basic needs for groceries and basic services, which would be a little bit more of a finite list that you might work with. I don't know the answer, but I'm just thinking out loud. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would it be acceptable to the Planning Commission if we asked staff to think about this and see if there might be language that would accomplish the objective sought without creating unintended consequences? And it may well be that there is no such Packet Pg. 1002 9.A.4.r language. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You can't force commercial, though. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's market driven. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's market driven. That's it. If nobody's going to support it, it's not going to be there. MR. EASTMAN: But if it were just an option. Greater choices available. MS. MOSCA: Well, staff can look at that. We'll work with Transportation staff, and we can come back to you with something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I went into this knowing that there were potential pitfalls, so I -- but I wanted to mention it and see what others thought and see whether we couldn't -- MR. KLATZKOW: The key focus is to figure out how many people we want here, right? We're at that early enough stage of development. So how many people do we want populated here, all right, understanding that you've got a base density? And once you figure out how many people are going to be here, we start planning for the infrastructure: The water, the roads, everything else. That's where we are right now. And the focus should be is how many people do we want here, all right, and then we can plan everything else around that. Tom can plan the schools, you know. Eric can plan his water and sewer facilities. So how many people do we want out here? And where we run into problems is that -- and I've seen it in the RLSA -- we keep increasing and increasing the density there, and you can't plan when you do that. It just falls apart because you can only put in so many roads, you can only put in so much infrastructure to begin with, and you come up with plan. How many people do you want? And then stick with it. The commercial will come. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Point taken. Thank you. Anything further, ma'am? MS. MOSCA: No, sir. 'WiL -**h16, CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything -- any further questions from staff? I really do believe that this is an excellent piece of work that you've brought forward, and thank you for that. If staff has presented all it wants to in its initial presentation, it would be time for us to hear from the public, I believe. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have any members of the public who wish to be heard? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers from the public. The first one is Bob Mulhere followed by David Torres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. And Mr. Mulhere has requested additional time, and I have granted it because he's representing several owners. Go ahead, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Don't start the clock yet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a brief presentation. Michele has answered some of the questions, so I won't spend a lot of time on those where I've gotten some answers. I just wanted to say at the outset that, I don't know, I think it was in 2012 or 20131 and Bruce Anderson -- some of you know Bruce -- we worked together on behalf of a Rural Fringe Coalition, that was a group of landowners, to prepare a white paper. Not the white paper Michele referred to, but a white paper on behalf of those landowners. We made a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. They accepted the white paper. Didn't really address any of the 24 recommendations we made. They supported some verbally but said, look, we accept this, and we think we should do a restudy. That restudy on the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District morphed into four restudies, and here we are at the end of the Packet Pg. 1003 9.A.4.r 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, Packet Pg. 1004 9.A.4.r because what was two years before has turned in -- to be seven or eight or nine years now. COMMISSIONER FRY: And you're addressing that to North Belle Meade? MR. MULHERE: I'm addressing that to the Belle Meade and the North Belle Meade. They've already started a study in the North Belle Meade. As I said, Tindale Oliver's been engaged to do that study. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The language that you quoted is the same language that I had -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- raised with respect to affordable housing and -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and we added a proviso for that. What if -- and this may not work legally, and so, obviously, I want to know what the County Attorney says as well as other commissioners, but what about adding language that would say, except as otherwise provided herein or in furtherance of public benefit or something like that? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what I suggested. And I have a slide that talks to that. There are -- I'll show it to you in just a minute. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, staffs recommendation not to increase the non -village density from one to two except along Immokalee Road, I see no reason why you couldn't increase it to two. You must demonstrate that there's adequate infrastructure. We have a process for that. That's what we go through. That's either a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a rezone. If there isn't adequate infrastructure, you can't go forward. You can entitle your land. You simply can't go forward. It's called concurrency. So, I mean, I do understand the recommendation that we don't have enough information and we should do a restudy but, again, that goes back to my suggestion that that be in a time -certain and it be done pretty quickly, not extend it out over a long period of time. It will take a couple years to do that analysis, which I understand, but let's start it sooner than two years. This is, I think -- this recommendation, I think, has a lot of potential unintended consequences. So the idea that anything that's 300 acres or greater must be a rural village means that anything that's 300 acres or greater will have to have commercial uses, and I understand the basis for that. But you could have -- you could have a commercial -- a neighborhood commercial development that was always intended to serve the surrounding lands as well. If you look at the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District and you see the locations of those receiving lands, they are surrounded by -- on the east by Golden Gate Estates, and those were always intended to serve those communities as well. So there's not going to be a market for the requirement of neighborhood commercial in every single development in the RFMUD that's 300 -- that's 300 acres or greater. It makes no sense. You could certainly require it for a higher number, maybe 1,000 acres. Right now there's no requirement. It's a voluntary program. But if you want to require a project of a certain size be required to provide commercial, 300 acres is too small. So you're not going to get what you want. And if you did get it, it likely would not succeed in the marketplace, which was already mentioned by some of you. You know, there has to be demand for that use; otherwise, you're asking somebody to build something that's not going to succeed, and then you're forcing them to come in and develop a whole bunch of 299-acre non -village developments as opposed to maybe a larger development that could be served by some commercial that's in that area. So 300 acres is way too small in my opinion. I could support looking at providing commercial services for projects that exceed 300 acres, but requiring it doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe that becomes an item that you can consider on a project that's 300 acres or greater. So just looking at this map here, I think as Michele said, you know, the northernmost Packet Pg. 1005 9.A.4.r receiving lands, assuming that the Immokalee Road Rural Village goes through and that's, you know, still in the works, it's still being reviewed, it will have to come back for adoption and rezone, that whole receiving area will be spoken for. And the next one, which is -- let's see. I can't find the -- well, right here, that one has been developed through the use of TDRs, and it's been developed in other than a village. There's really no room left to develop that, so you won't get one there. You will get one here potentially in the North Belle Meade. But, again, I agree, there has to be further assessment because right -- and that's going on right now, again. The initial part is going on with the county's engaging Tindale Oliver to look at corridors and land use in that area. So down here, again, if we're going to look at that, it's a very large area, thousands of acres. And if you require a minimum of 300 acres to have commercial uses, you're probably going to have a whole bunch of projects in here that will be -- that will not be sustainable in the marketplace at that 300-acre level. Better to plan it more holistically. You're still going to reduce the vehicle miles traveled and external trips, but you can't be completely self-sufficient. As Jeff said, people have to work. Maybe not everybody, but a lot of people have to work. And they're going to leave the development for various reasons, unless you can import the beach and all the employment into one location. Let's talk about this ag preservation TDR bonus. I think that requires a lot more assessment. One TDR per five acres. Would you give up perpetually all of your future development rights for $20,000 on five acres? No one's going to use this. It's not sufficient. If you want someone to agree to do an ag easement and limit the use of land, you either need to consider, which is done in some places, a time frame -- it's not perpetual; 20 years -- or there has to be more than one TDR per five acres. You might as well not -- it's not going to happen. There's not enough value in 20- or- 22- or 25,000 on a five -acre ag parcel. In sending, because of the environmental value, you're giving up to four TDRs. So, you know, ag has a lot more economic generation of value to the landowner. So there's not enough incentive there. It's not going to happen. It needs more study. Come up with something that works. MR. KLATZKOW: What you're saying is it needs more density. MR. MULHERE: Or some other value, yes, yes. I mean, it's -- if we want to preserve ag, it's a worthwhile policy objective, but if it's not going to work, then we're going to be back here in five years saying, how come this didn't work? Let's do a little more time to analyze that. Sothis slide here --unfortunately, I haven't done a good job. I did this last night at 4:00. But the ag -- the rural industrial area that Michele references right here and, technically, that's not part of the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District, because it's designated industrial. And as Michele said, she's got language to encourage locating targeted industries in the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. But I'm here to tell you there are a ton of small businesses that can't find place to locate their business that aren't qualified uses under the state statute definition: Subcontractors, contractors landscape companies. All of these people, they call my office all the time. This is anecdotal, I realize, but for the last 20 or 30 years, we've been talking about expanding industrial -zoned land in this county, and it hasn't happened. So the proposal here was to allow in the Comp Plan a policy that would allow for expansion of this rural industrial area to adjacent lands. Michele's concern is a valid one. It has to be compatible with the other adjacent lands if you're going to expand it. My point is, why not put a policy in that allows for that? You're still going to have to -- and require a PUD zone or a rezone to industrial. Packet Pg. 1006 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1007 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1008 9.A.4.r we're going to deal with this. You raised a half a dozen points or so. My first question is, have you discussed these with staff? Has this been fully -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. I actually sent a letter. Everything I raised here, I believe -- Michele will correct me if I'm wrong -- but I think everything that I raised here, other than suggesting to you -- because we just discussed it. I just discussed it with Jamie Weisinger from Lipman Farm -- the willingness to participate in this process now and to have a certain time frame within which that study should commence, and participation -- and we can figure that out. Whether it's helping to offset the cost of that assessment -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- that was new. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to ask a member of staff to come up as we attempt to decide how we're going to proceed with this. One thing we could do is -- Mr. Mulhere's raised about six points. We could hear from staff on each of those or if -- COMMISSIONER FRY: What about the other public speaker? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I know. I know. But just dealing with these points for now. Also, another way that we could approach this is if we don't believe that it's been fully thought out and talked through, if there could be progress made by having staff sit down with Mr. Mulhere and his clients and bring something back to us that would reduce the number of these objections or concerns, that's a possibility, too. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ned, I just have a question. There's only one other public speaker registered, I believe. And I'm wondering if we let him speak and then we kind of have all the public comment. Maybe he had something that we want to bring staff in, and we could do it all at once after this one other person speaks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm fine with that, yeah. Okay. We'll do that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I have a question. I mean, just before you move on, but that's fine. I don't want to interrupt what you're discussing now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do we just have one more public speaker? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our final speaker on this item is David Torres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. So I just have areal basic question, and I don't think, you know, our last speaker mentioned this. But I'm trying to figure out, so I thought this was kind of a long process, and we're near the end of it, and I'm just trying to figure out why -- why is this coming up now as, like, an addenda that we're patching onto something? And, fine, maybe it has been something that was raised all along and, you know, the staff has just, you know, chosen to not include it in their recommendation. But I would like to know -- you know, to have staff answer that question as well as the last speaker. You know, I don't understand why we're patching something onto something that seems like it was already in a form that had been vetted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's exactly why I wanted to get staff up here and find out to what extent, if any, these issues have been fully argued and it's coming to us now in a point of clarity where we can see the differences and make decisions or whether we need to send it back for some more discussion, but we haven't heard from staff yet. MR. MULHERE: So, Mr. Klucik, it's Bob Mulhere. I was the previous speaker. I'll give you my perspective, and then staff can give you theirs. You know, we received the draft -- the proposed draft amendments, I don't know, several months ago, two months ago. There Packet Pg. 1009 9.A.4.r was about a two -week period to reply, and I think Michele mentioned that. There were a bunch of public meetings -- when you say it was a long time, yeah, there was four or five years of -- you may recall Kris Van Lengen who was with the county doing public meetings and having studies. But we did not receive these draft amendments until about two months ago. I replied on behalf of several clients in writing to Michele, which was requested within that two -week period. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Just let me, like, ask a real basic question. So are you saying that what you're presenting today is really -- you wouldn't have had a reason to present it previously; it really is -- it's responsive to the draft? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's correct. And I did have a couple a -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Full disclosure, I did have a couple of conversations with staff, telephone conversations, maybe a couple of chitchats in the hallway. I mean, there wasn't any real discussion or change or opportunity to further discuss. There was basically "thanks for your input." So, obviously, I have an obligation on behalf of my clients to raise these issues at this public forum. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Did your client participate in the process and, you know, did they go to all those meetings? MR. MULHERE: Oh, yes. We were the ones that started the process seven years ago with the white paper that we presented to the Board of County Commissioners with 24 recommendations. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But are you saying that what we have in front of us today as the recommendation, you know, was novel, and so you wouldn't have known that this was going to be in there and these weren't issues that had been discussed? Because what's not fair to us, in my view, to me, as a commissioner, is to have a process come forward -- and we did it last -- at our last meeting, and I don't like the idea that that's a regular thing, because then it -- then we're passing something on, and it just doesn't seem like the process is supposed to work that way, and that's all. And it doesn't allow us to make, you know, a prudent and measured analysis. You know, we're voting on the fly on something that you're bringing before us. I mean, I realize, you know, you put stuff in, and, you know, you submitted it -- MR. MULHERE: Well -- I'm sorry, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. And that's --it's just frustrating tome as someone who is then asked to vote on this. I just -- I don't appreciate -- and I'm not saying that it's your fault. I'm just saying I don't appreciate that this is the process, because I don't think it's fair to us. You know, we're supposed to be making wise decisions, and I don't know as this is a process that leads to wise decisions. MR. MULHERE: And I don't disagree with your comments, but the -- there were some -- I wouldn't say everything is novel, and I don't have problems with everything. In fact, I'm not necessarily disagreeing. I'm offering what I believe, on behalf of my clients, would be better solutions to some of the recommendations. So, I mean, before I saw those draft recommendations, I never saw a proposal to require a rural village for any project over 300 acres. Before I saw those recommendations, there was always, leading up to this since Ventana was approved, an agreement on the part of staff and a suggestion by the Board that two units per acre would be appropriate. Now, I fully understand staffs suggestion that they would withhold that in a couple of areas until there is an assessment of the necessary infrastructure to support that. What I'm suggesting is that should be more defined and more expeditious. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to go back to my original idea, if I may, Planning Commission, and ask for Mrs. Mosca to come up and give us the -- we're at a process point here. Packet Pg. 1010 9.A.4.r We're not ready to decide what to do with the substantive issues. But I just want to know, you know, to what degree staff had a full conversation with Mr. Mulhere and his clients on all of these points. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, Mr. Chairman, if I could, just to Mr. Mulhere, I certainly am not impugning Mr. Mulhere or his client as the reason, you know, for the frustration. I'm just expressing that, you know -- and I don't know if fellow commissioners share the concern. I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think we do. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This seems to be the point to bring -- at which -- you know, it would be appropriate to bring up the frustration, and I certainly -- it does not at all mean that I think it's Mr. Mulhere's fault or his client's fault. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. And so we'll hear from Ms. Mosca, and we'll certainly get to the other speaker before we get into doing anything substantive. Go ahead, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: Again, Michele Mosca, for the record. So I just want to address a few of Bob's points, and he does have some valid points. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, first of all, I want to step up a few thousand feet and look down. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the question is, is have you had full discussions with him and his clients on these very issues? IV, MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have? MS. MOSCA: Yes, except for Bob mentioning the shared expense of an assessment. We haven't discussed that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All the other -- MS. MOSCA: But we've had discussions in the past, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And in the course of those discussions, did you make any changes that were favorable to his client that are baked into what you brought forward? MS. MOSCA: We did not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But it was based upon the thoughtful consideration that after hearing him you were satisfied with what you had? MS. MOSCA: Well, I believe so. But to take it a step further, I think with that recommendation to study the area further, both the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade areas, I think we can address a lot of those concerns. Again, most of the development is, in fact, going to occur in the future in those two areas. So I think we can address that. If the Board provides for that year time frame, staff is okay with that time frame. We'd be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, again, I'm groping for the way -- the best way to proceed here. And if -- I see two possibilities. One is is that we continue this for further discussions at the staff level, but that may be duplicative of discussions that have already been had. And if that's the case, if things are fully baked, we could get the staff representative and Mr. Mulhere up here and do a point and counterpoint and hear his objection and hear the response and try to make a decision on these issues and try to get it resolved today. Obviously, after hearing the other speaker. So what do you all want to do? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I like what you said, point/counterpoint while we're here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So we'll ask you, then, ma'am, to stand down for the moment -- Packet Pg. 1011 9.A.4.r MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and we'll bring you back up. And now we'll hear from the other speaker. MR. TORRES: Hi. I'm David Torres with Hacienda Lakes of Naples. We are a large landowner in the program areas. I would guess that we are probably the largest company that has severed TDRs and that has used them. So we've been participants of the program. You know, I'd like to start saying, I mean, I thank Michele and Anita for driving this forward. I mean, it's been a long time. I mean, I served as president of the Rural Fringe Coalition that Bob referred to before. I mean, that it's been seven, eight years. So I'm glad that we're here; however, I'm not glad with what we're coming out. You know, the program has -- it has no liquidity. I mean, there's not enough TDRs. There's not enough demand. I mean, there's got to be more demand and more supply. It's just difficult to get things done. I mean, like you said, the guys at Ventana Pointe, it's true. I mean, anybody who's kind of used the program, it's been like our situation. We have both sides of it. So, I mean, I am not a fan of another study. I mean, I don't think we need it. I don't think we need an outside consultant. I think Eric is fully capable. There's a lot of staff that's capable on the infrastructure side. If staff would only kind of listen to the owners, I mean, we could get something better done now without having to hope that another study gets done and we wait another five, six years. No And it's not that -- we've sent comments as well. It's not that they haven't been talked to with staff. It's more that I think staff decided this is the way they're going forward, and they're going forward without any changes. And I truly believe that some of these things can be talked to. The Belle Meade cannot wait. I mean, it's ready to get developed now. I mean, it would be a big miss to wait; another study, wait for years. And even though on the sending side it's difficult that you have a lot of small owners, you know, those owners want more TDRs. They want more value. You know, they feel -- that's when they're going to go into the program. On the other side, the receiving side is easy. The Belle Meade has two big guys, the Lipmans and another company called Agri Serves (phonetic), and then there is some scattered acreage. But for the most part, it's not that hard to get a couple people in a room and see if something can be vetted out with staff without having to do another study. So I guess that's my comment. My comment would be, it would be nice if we could -- if we could talk for the next 45 days and try to come up with something without really having to wait for another study that is going to turn into another set of changes five years from now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: Question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm curious about your response -- your level of agreement or disagreement with the points made by Mr. Mulhere as representing another ownership group. MR. TORRES: Yeah. I'm in agreement with many of the comments that Bob's brought to the table, but I don't want to say that I'm not in agreement with some of the programs that the county wants to put in place. I mean, I think some of them are good. I think we just have to go the whole way is what I mean. I think it's just -- we've waited too long to do these too small of changes in my opinion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Your main point is you'd like to see the -- Belle Meade or North Belle Meade? MR. TORRES: I'd like to see a resolution on the Belle Meade, personally. I think the study's a mistake. I see us creating this two classes of receiving lands now. The guys on Packet Pg. 1012 9.A.4.r Immokalee Road got preferential treatment. They get to go to two, and the guys on 41 get to stay at one per acre. I don't see it. And traffic's worse up there. I don't see -- yeah, maybe utilities and stuff for the south side, but I would say the road infrastructure's better on the south part of the county. I may be mistaken, but -- And then on the other side, I think we just need --we need a lot more TDRs. I don't buy this whole basis that we create the program with less supply in the TDRs than there is demand. It's just too hard to get them. And there are some good programs that they need. I mean, if they truly need this Belle Meade flowway and everybody's excited about it, then give more TDRs for it. And then give more for the exotic removal. It costs money. It doesn't make sense currently right now, so... AL CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, sir. I'm going to ask now for staff in the person, I guess, of Ms. Mosca or Ms. Jenkins, and Mr. Mulhere take the other mic. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chair, may I interrupt, because we've got people outside waiting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. MR. KLATZKOW: Richard has a request to make. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. The Comp Plan amendment and the zone requests for the corner of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, there's a lot of people here who are interested in that petition. We have met with them outside. We would like the opportunity -- we have some proposed changes to the petition, but I think it would be more effective if we can meet with them. And so we're asking for a continuation -- or a continuance to the second meeting in June. We may -- they want to have some time to analyze what we're proposing. We may come back to you and say we still need a couple more weeks, but we're asking for a continuance till the second meeting in June so we don't have to sit around, and I don't think it's fair to them or us to drop this on you -all for the first time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That makes sense. Any objections to a continuance for the Santa Barbara -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it's a great idea. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why would we ever reject a request like that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection, continuance granted. COMMISSIONER FRY: I want to say thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do we need a motion? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I am on the board. MR. KLATZKOW: Could we make a motion, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. Is there a motion for continuance? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to continue those two items till -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Second meeting in June. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Second meeting in June. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second meeting in June. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. Packet Pg. 1013 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1014 9.A.4.r sense in every circumstance. So my suggestion is you increase that acreage to 1,000 but you allow for consideration of whether or not that makes sense on projects between 300 and 999 acres. So you are going to look at it. If it makes sense, it can be requested or even required but not absolutely required on projects that are 300 acres or above. It just doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Bob, you're saying there are -- what percentage of cases do you think a 300-acre development would come in without commercial by preference? MR. MULHERE: By preference? Most. COMMISSIONER FRY: Most? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. But I think a 500- or 600-acre or 700-acre project or 1,000 or 2,500 or 3,000, those will have the benefit. They can serve those smaller -- you're going to have a bunch of 299-acre non -village developments, two or three right next to each other with no commercial. It does not make sense. COMMISSIONER FRY: We've experienced that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we have. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- in the RLSA with villages versus towns. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I ask Ms. Jenkins to reply, any other lanning commissioners want to weigh in? (No response.) low" CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: So when we first started looking at this, the requirement right now provides for a village from 300 acres to 1,500 acres or 2,500 acres in some cases, but that's the standard now. So a minimum to 300 and a maximum to 1,500 -- or 2,500. So that's what we were looking at. So the establishment was already there. So when we looked at the restudy, we said, well, does 300 really work? We were asking the same question. So the research that we did led us to what you see on your screen right now as one example, and that's Habersham, South Carolina, and it's exactly 300 acres, and it's been nominated as, you know, one of the best neighborhoods in America by the National Builders Association, and it is a 300-acre development that does provide commercial and a multitude of different types of residences. I will also say that that thought of requiring 300 acres was tied back to the white paper where we were suggesting an increase of density, right. So I think when we're saying that if we're not increasing the density until we look at this more specifically to look at the internal captures, then maybe that requirement doesn't happen until we get to the more specific of the receiving areas, because those two things were tied together; that if you are going to do a receiving area and if you are going to do four to seven units, then you could support more neighborhood commercial in 300 acres. But if we're not changing the density right now and we're leaving it at one unit per acre, then that's, you know, 300 or 600 units in a 300-unit -- or 300-acre project. So I think that we need to consider if we're going to increase density, 300 acres may work. If we're not going to increase density right now, that amendment might be more acceptable during the re -- or during the study of the specific areas for receiving and how that would all shape out at that time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: May I just respond very quickly? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. MR. MULHERE: I have no doubt that you can design and develop an award -winning mixed -use project on 300 acres. That's not my point. My point is that requiring every project that's 300 acres does not make sense. You can Packet Pg. 1015 9.A.4.r look at it on a case -by -case basis. I think over a larger minimum size probably does make sense. I agree with Anita. What she said makes sense. Since we're not going to -- we're not going to increase the density as part of this and we're going to look at that, if this policy is removed and we look at it as part of this next assessment, that works, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: This next assessment being the one that starts -- MR. MULHERE: Ina year. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- within a year -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We hope. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- partly funded by the Lipman Family Farms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that, actually, was your next point, was it not? MR. MULHERE: Well -- yeah. I mean, I heard what David said, and I think -- and I think Anita agreed, too, that we don't necessarily -- that we can hash these things out now. But I agree this is the process. You know, the staff gives us a draft. We review the draft. We make comments. They don't have to agree to them. I mean, we know that, and that's what we come here for, to discuss why we think one idea's better than maybe what they've suggested, and it's not -- it's not that -- I think they've done a great job, as David said, moving these things forward. The majority of it is fine. There are just a few points that we disagree with. So, I think -- you know, again, if the Board, Planning Commission and the BCC, is inclined to go with this process of looking at those two areas differently, which they've already commenced in the one area, North Belle Meade, again, Tindale Oliver, it should be an expedited; very time -certain to get started. I mean, you can't predict when you'll be done, but you can certainly predict when you'll get started. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Can we establish a sooner start date? MS. MOSCA: Yes. We'll bring that forward to the Board. The Board will have to agree to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Really? MS. MOSCA: As a recommendation? Sure. We'll bring the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff is in support of the 12-month period, but the Board will have to fund it, provide funding for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Okay, all right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that a 12-month period to bring this to a conclusion -- MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Start. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- or just to start it? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: It's my understanding. MR. MULHERE: It's going to take longer. It will take longer. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wow. MR. MULHERE: Look, the wheels of government move slowly, but a couple of years -- it may take -- to start it. It could take year to complete it, maybe a little bit longer. I mean, to get it right, it's worth the time. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why can't we start it next week? MR. MULHERE: Well, I've got to defer to -- it says within a year. It doesn't say you couldn't start it sooner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It needs funding, and that's why it's got to go to the BCC. MS. MOSCA: Staff will support the 12-month initiation, so that's not at issue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Next point, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Well, I do have a concern. I think it was very good to have the Packet Pg. 1016 9.A.4.r ag -- because part of the state's final order was to look at ag preservation. They used the word "prime agriculture," which actually is tied to soils. We don't have prime agriculture. You find that in deltas. But we do have unique agriculture, and we all eat, so I understand, you know. But I don't know if it just was, sort of, let's throw out one TDR and see what we get. My opinion is that requires a little more consideration, because I don't think you're going to get anybody giving up their perpetual development rights for $20,000 for five areas. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that part of the 12-month -- is that part of this restudy we're talking about that starts within 12 months? MS. MOSCA: I think it should be. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess I'm trying to be clear on which of Bob's points are covered under this -- MS. MOSCA: I think all of them. I think Bob agreed to the 12-month for all of them. I mean, it seems appropriate that we would. As you can recall, as I went through some of the tables, even staffs evaluation of the Board -directed amendment for the additional credit. We were concerned who really would use it, we were very conservative, and it was a very low number, if you can recall going through that table. MR. MULHERE: So, you know, one thought. Really, the largest agricultural production area of all of this, assuming you recommend and the Board agrees they're going to do an assessment, is the Belle Meade by far. I mean, it's not even close. And as David said, there's just a few landowners in there that have the largest amount of those holdings. So if we're going to look at an ag preservation TDR bonus and whether it should be perpetual or for some period of time and what the numbers should be, why adopt something like this right now? Why not let that be part of this assessment as well, you know? And I think that's what Michele said, in fewer words. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's something that is going to take place in the next restudy. Okay. All right. Next point. MR. MULHERE: I'm just looking right now. MS. MOSCA: I think it was rural industrial. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well -- and, again, that also is surrounded. So that rural industrial designated area, there's a -- three's a road aggregate. My client doesn't own that portion, but there's a portion that has some road aggregate construction type stuff out there, and then there's a lot of these smaller business owners that are leasing space in the current area that have these kinds of uses that aren't targeted industries by definition. And so perhaps, because it is surrounded by the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District, we could, you know, consider that. I mean, I still think it makes sense to allow an expansion to the adjacent parcel within -- and within 300 feet of the existing boundary. You're going to get the more thorough review as part of the rezone. You're going to get the traffic analysis. You're going to get the compatibility. You're going to get the use analysis, and you're going to require a supermajority vote. So what are you doing by putting this policy in there? The only thing you're doing is you are making that process a little faster and a little more supportable as part of that rezone process. So, I mean, I know staff is not supportive of it, and I just think that it would make sense to put it in as a policy. MS. MOSCA: And Bob's correct; staffs not supportive of that. In the past there were two previous Comprehensive Plan amendments requesting for some additional uses in that area. And I think as part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, this is really site specific. And the Packet Pg. 1017 9.A.4.r residents around that area who opposed the expansion in the past really should be able to provide input as part of that process. So to me this is not really part of the amendments to the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District. It's more in line with a site -specific Comp Plan amendment. MR. MULHERE: And I understand. So, you know -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: -- the one piece of good news is there is a proposed bill in the legislature to increase the size -- minimum size for small-scale amendments. So that might make it a little less painful. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Those are all the points that I recorded. MR. MULHERE: That was it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I got it? Okay. Planning Commission, any comments? Questions? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just clarifying one of his points was the limitation of expanding to two dwelling units per acre only along Immokalee Road. The decision on that is part of this restudy, or -- MS. MOSCA: For the expansion to the -- to allow that within the one to two dwelling units per acre. To allow that within the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade areas would be part of that assessment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But the current amendments would allow that, but that was only -- that's along Immokalee Road outside of rural villages only. N* MS. MOSCA: Right. And it's minimal. Unless the Immokalee Road Rural Village comes in, they don't do a village, then you're talking about, what, 4,000 units. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Commissioner Shea, do you have -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just have --there was a discussion --I think Bob mentioned something about public benefits, TDRs for that. Is that something we already agreed would go -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to try to categorize where I think we are. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because I didn't hear him talk about that or increased credits on the maintenance side. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to try to deal with that when I summarize. Anything else? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Here's where I think we are. And please correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe, first of all, we agreed to add the affordability and the public benefit language for the increase in TDRs. Second, I think we want to recommend that the next study or restudy commence within 12 months and that it include reexamination of the 300-acre minimum, and the ag preservation of one TDR per five acres, and other issues that are to be discussed. And so I think that's really where we've come down. MS. MOSCA: I just have a point of clarification, if you wouldn't mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: On that first one, that was related to increased density for using a -- utilizing TDRs through a Comprehensive Plan amendment, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So unless I've misstated it, are we ready for a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Would anyone care to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So let me ask a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the motion is to approve staffs recommendation subject to Packet Pg. 1018 9.A.4.r 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. Packet Pg. 1019 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1020 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1021 9.A.4.r Road but you want to go back to the light and head north or south, you have to go and make a U-turn, make a right out and then -- MR. HATTON: Well, basically what I would do -- and it's certainly driver -- you know, either -- you know, expectancy would be knowing that if you're shopping in the shopping center, that the full -- basically, you would see the median, so you would probably do it -- I would do it in the shopping center. I would go to the main driveway and take a left just so you don't have to do a U-turn from that perspective. COMMISSIONER FRY: Main driveway being the one that says service -- no, main driveway on the other -- on the U.S. 41 side? MR. HATTON: This right here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, okay. . MR. HATTON: This one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That one wasn't marked, so I missed it entirely in that exhibit. MR. HATTON: Yeah. I apologize. I noticed that. I tried to use the laser pointer, but it's not showing up on that, so -- and I could have done that better, so sorry about that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That clears it up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. HATTON: Thank you. MS. CLARK: Our next item is regarding the landscape deviation, and this is seeking relief from the requirement of a 20-foot-wide Type D buffer down to the minimum 10-foot-wide Type D buffer, and because there is the reduction, we are proposing enhanced landscaping at this location. This is due to compensating right-of-way that occurred at this location, so an existing condition that exists in this location. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Jen to speak a little bit more about what that enhancement looks like and what that Type D buffer would look like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. CLARK: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Daoulas. I'm a professional landscape architect. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your last name again? MS. DAOULAS: Daoulas. _ CHAIRMAN FRYER: Spell, please. MS. DAOULAS: D-a-o-u-l-a-s. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: You're welcome. As Kellie mentioned, we're seeking deviation from a typical Type D buffer. The Type D buffer is specified to be 20 feet per the width of the existing right-of-way. A Type D does allow fora 10-foot. It would just --we're minimizing, and that's what we're asking in the deviation. It doesn't minimize the amount of planting that we're proposing. We'll still be meeting the Type D buffer requirements, and the deviation actually exceeds those requirements by adding taller trees five feet taller than the required 10, and then from a 30-foot on -center spacing to a 25-foot on -center spacing. The existing material out there, there are some existing oak trees and royals that count towards those shade requirements that meet that height, and then we would come in and supplement as required per the deviation along that buffer. Do you -all have any questions? Packet Pg. 1022 9.A.4.r COMMISSIONER FRY: There's one thing I didn't pick up on in the packet is why -- so you have an existing 20-foot buffer now? MS. DAOULAS: Yes, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you want to reduce it to 10 feet but make it more dense? MS. DAOULAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why do you -- why are you doing that? MS. DAOULAS: Because we're adding the turn lane in, and so adding the turn lane would move that sidewalk over. It would move it right on the edge of the -- I guess I can't move the mouse, huh? COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's to accommodate the turn lanes? MS. DAOULAS: Yeah, and it would move the sidewalk on the edge of that existing hedge row. So the goal is to maintain the existing hedge. We'll supplement as needed with any impacts from construction or any, you know, vegetation decline to bring the buffer back up to the required plus the deviation requirements. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments for Ms. Daoulas? (No response.) MS. DAOULAS: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. 0 MS. CLARK: And then the last part of our amendment is regarding the master concept plan, and these -- this master concept plan is being updated to reflect the items that we've gone through, so it's to show that third access point as well as to show those deviations on the master concept plan. So it's related directly to everything that we've already covered. And that is it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for Ms. Clark? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you so much. MS. CLARK: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff presentation, please. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner. And staff is recommending approval of the Lawmetka PUD amendment, as it is consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. So if you have any questions, it would certainly be our pleasure to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions for Ms. Gundlach? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Nicely done. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Do we have any members of the public who wish to be heard on this? COMMISSIONER FRY: A bit wordy. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I love Nancy's reports. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have the actual applicant that is present that filled out a speaker form. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does the applicant wish to be heard? MS. CLARK: I think they asked us to fill out those forms because we were upstairs. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Any other speakers? Packet Pg. 1023 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1024 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1025 9.A.4.r plaza. It wants to turnright going out towards 41, and a lot of times the older folks -- and I mean that with respect -- they'll drive right into that second lane, and you have to stop, okay. So this is a section of road -- and in activity centers, many times you have medians. I can point to Immokalee/111, where there's a McDonald's and the Walmart. In fact, at that corner is a median that I cannot come out of the plaza. I have to go down to the Walgreens -- or the Walmart entrance way down, and be able to turn. It stops that traffic pattern, and it makes it safer, okay. I just want you -all to understand that the residents of Wiggins Pass might support a third entrance, but we're not going to be supportive of the safety issues if you do not do something on this straightaway, and I say that with all sincerity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you very much. I'm going to want to hear from Mr. Hatton and Ms. Gundlach or staff but first, before that, does any commissioner wish to ask a question of the gentleman who just spoke? COMMISSIONER FRY: I did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. Would you return, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: The podium right here. Just making sure I understand. I see looking at it, with the information I have, pluses -- maybe a positive and a negative to you. A positive being that you have two lanes, and the right one is a turn lane, and now you'll have three lanes and the right one will be a turn lane. So you'll actually have two lanes going straight. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Of course, you will have to merge, I'm sure. It still will go down to one, but you won't be competing in that second lane with the turn traffic. MR. FEE: I totally agree. COMMISSIONER FRY: So to me that would be a plus. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I'm also sensitive to the fact that you think a median would be important to ensure and cement the safety benefit from a right -in, right -out. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct? MR. FEE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: The buffer -- I guess they're giving up some land for the turn lane, so they want to put the same amount of vegetation in a narrow buffer which, I guess that aesthetically affects you a little bit but not functionally the way the traffic moves, correct? MR. FEE: Not a deal killer. COMMISSIONER FRY: Not a deal killer, okay. MR. FEE: Not a deal killer. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just wanted to make sure I have an accurate understanding of your perceptions of how this whole thing works. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that accurate? MR. FEE: And if you don't mind, can I just give to the court reporter these pictures so they can be submitted? CHAIRMAN FRYER: You may. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. MR. FEE: Okay. I just have one more picture to give. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And stand down, sir, but don't go too far, because we might want you to speak again. Mr. Hatton, go ahead. MR. HATTON: Yes. And I appreciate all the information and, certainly, we had a really good conversation with Doug as part of the neighborhood information meeting. So some of Packet Pg. 1026 9.A.4.r these -- just like, Commissioner, you had mentioned in terms of where -- and I think this hopefully is a very good diagram of, again, the two lanes that are now headed westbound enable -- which I think was a big, you know, part of the improvements -- those dual northbound lefts to now travel in a through lane, and if you are going into the actual development, you now can just easily move into the right -turn lane. So that was a big improvement. But this also addresses, you know, the issue of the median, and that is being proposed. Now, Kellie can address why it's not officially in this language, but it is being proposed. We've got plans that we're already doing, so it's going to be done just as the turn lanes are going to be done. So that safety issue in terms of right -in, right -out where it's being positioned because of the traffic, when you have a right -in, right -out, if you put one in and you do a deceleration lane, you basically -- again, we're enhancing the safety or moving the turn lanes out of the -- or the turning vehicles out of the through lane. So that's what we're doing here. So hopefully this graphic can show it a little. And I can answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's going to take some time for a median to be put in and, in the meantime, what do we do for safety? MR. HATTON: I mean, from a perspective, I'm not sure exactly of the timing of all of this with the PDI and stuff like that. MS. CLARK: Yeah. The median would be put in at the same time as that eastern entrance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. MS. CLARK: So these improvement plans that are shown here, they're the proposed plans that would occur if we get approval of this third entrance, and it shows the right -turn lanes in as well as that median, and that would all occur at once. So the third entrance will not be constructed without these additional improvements, because we agree those are safety concerns and that they need to be addressed to be able to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Good. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Gundlach, you, our staff. Is Mr. Sawyer here? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, he is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: My main concern, sir, is safety issues, but speak to whatever you would like to speak to. MR. SAWYER: Yeah. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. We have worked with the applicant on both the turn lanes as well as the other, as you're requesting, the safety concerns. AD The reason that you have the turn lane specifically spelled out in the PUD language is because those are what we were actually looking for. When you add an access point to an existing PUD, what makes part of the requirement for a PUD amendment is if you're increasing access points, which is what's being proposed. So in a nutshell, one of the reasons that this is coming in as an amendment as opposed to an insubstantial change is because they're adding the access. That's why we've got -- again, that's why we've got the language that outlines the turn lanes. As far as a median separator in this particular area, that requires an operational analysis, and that comes in with the SDP itself to make sure that we're looking at the entire operation of the improvements being proposed. We certainly don't have any problem. In fact, we would certainly endorse having the median separator in there. You're so close to 41 in this location, and we do know that we do have challenges in this particular intersection. We would want to have that median separator to prevent any left -outs at the first access point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So you're satisfied that what we have before us will be Packet Pg. 1027 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1028 9.A.4.r 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.) Packet Pg. 1029 9.A.4.r CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear Commissioner Klucik. MR. BELLOWS: Is Mr. Klucik participating this afternoon? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. Commissioner Klucik, did you vote on that, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. Okay. It's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ***All right. The next two applications are companions under the heading of Blue Coral. And I'm not sure if it's Blue Coral or Coral Blue, so my first question is going to be, which do you want to be? Because I saw it both ways in the material. These are companion items. PL20190001620, the small-scale Growth Management Plan, and that's here for transmittal and adoption, and its companion PL20190001600, which is an RPUDZ. Awl So, Mr. Wright, let me first ask, if there are any persons who are wishing to be heard in this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, meetings with staff, and communications with the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr. -- I spoke to Patrick, Greg, and Jeff. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Staff materials, staff meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Wright, you have the floor. MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson Franklin law firm here on behalf of the applicant. We have our team with us. With the applicant representative, Gregg Fusaro is here; Patrick Vanasse with RWA is our planner; we have Ciprian with Trebilcock; and Bethany Brosius with Passarella here today. We are here seeking your recommendation of approval of an application to rezone property from ag to residential PUD to allow the construction of an apartment complex with 280 units on 9.35 acres. The property is on the south side of Immokalee Road east of the Livingston Road intersection about 2,500 feet from 1-75, and it's between commercial uses to the east, along with 1-75, and residential uses to the west. There's a look at the situation of the adjacent properties. You see that Bermuda Palms, that's a residential development to the west, and Germain, the auto dealership, to the east. We have reviewed the staff reports, and we agree with their recommendations of approval. There's two staff reports, obviously, because we have companion items. Staff is recommending approval on both. We agree with them. We agree with all the conditions of approval that they've Packet Pg. 1030 9.A.4.r proposed, and we're not proposing any deviations from the LDC. But as to the Growth Management Plan amendment, we do agree with staffs recommendation of approval, but there's one very important point of disagreement I want to highlight, and that's the density. Growth management staffs recommendation related to the density is 20 units an acre, and our project as proposed is 30 units an acre. So there's a delta there. Even though they're recommending approval, we are off on that number. So we have recently talked to staff today, and we're trying to reach a point that we can get an agreement with them on that density number. And one thing that came up today is, as proposed and as it's presented in the staff report right now, there would be 10 out of the 280 units devoted to low-income housing. We've since bumped that number up by 350 percent to 35 would be dedicated to low, 80 percent or below AMI. So we have 35 units that we're willing to commit to low, 80 percent or less, and 35 additional affordable units between 80 and 100 percent of AMI. So that is something that we just presented to staff today, and I wanted to make clear on the front end that the numbers that you see, we're willing to make a greater commitment than is maybe written in front of you today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask you to repeat the second 35? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir. The second 35 would be that AMI between 80 percent and 100 percent of AMI. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: So together, 35 plus 35 is 70. That's a quarter of the project with a firm commitment to affordable, less than 100 percent of the AMI. Now, staff -- right now there's an LDC amendment going through relating to density in interchange activity centers, and this is very close to an activity center, and Patrick will get into some of that. But it's literally one parcel away from the activity center. So the new LDC amendments that are coming through would allow for 25 units per acre. Like I said, we're looking for 30; staffs saying 20. We feel like being so close to this activity center is a real plus for us because there's an LDC amendment in the works to change the number to 25 there. And, obviously, it's --there's some hoops you have to jump through to get that maximum number. But that's kind of what's guiding us. Really important, we feel that the unique location of the project -- it's close to I-75. There's a smooth -- what we're proposing is a smooth graduation of intensity as you go from the residential to the intersection of I-75. So we have, as you can see from this picture, apartments, residential to west and commercial to the east. And as you got closer to the highway it gets more intense, and as you get farther away from the highway, as we're proposing it, it would get less intense. And we would be, essentially, the buffer between Germain, the commercial, and the existing residential. The property right now is vacant. And it's always possible that somebody could come in there and put commercial. We feel like our project is more compatible with the neighbors, particularly to the west where there's residential. And we always hear about the demand for housing, and the market's been crazy over the last year or so, as we all know. We feel like this project meets a critical demand for housing. We've heard Naples and Collier County say that a lot of their employees get on the highway and move up to Lee County or live in Lee County because they can't afford to live here. So this does meet a critical demand for housing, a commitment to affordable housing, and we'll put housing within reach for essential services personnel. We also have a commitment for all of those 70 affordable units to be offered to essential services personnel, put the housing within reach for lower income residents, and will allow Collier workers to stay in Collier. As I mentioned, I have Patrick and our team with me today. Patrick's going to focus on the planning considerations. And I'll turn it over to him next. We also have Bethany Brosius for our environmental issues; Ciprian with traffic; and Gregg, our project manager, is here to address Packet Pg. 1031 9.A.4.r the project itself and economics, if that does come up and if there are any questions in relation to that. We appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I'll -- at this point I'll turn it over to Patrick. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Wright. Commissioner Shea first. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just -- I'm looking at, what is the density of the Bermuda Palms? MR. WRIGHT: Between 10 and 11 units per acre. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And what's the density of Windsong Apartments? MR. WRIGHT: We have this all on a chart. 16.8 for Bermuda Palms. MR. VANASSE: Windsong. MR. WRIGHT: Windsong, excuse me, 16.8, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you're not really transitioning to a higher density back towards the activity center. You're actually reversing it. You're going to a higher density as you move away from the activity center. MR. WRIGHT: Well, there's no residential up to where we're proposing. So the idea there was it's commercial -- the highway, you have a bunch of commercial, and then you have us, and then you have those two residential to the west of us. If that answers your question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it's more of an observation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. N6 COMMISSIONER FRY: So did staff concur with 25 as a compromise, or where are you at with that discussion? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'm encouraged by how it went, but I don't want to speak for them. I think there's probably a pretty good chance, if we're willing to put that commitment in writing, that they would be willing to change their number, but I don't want speak for them -- Michele to make that call. COMMISSIONER FRY: The justification for 30 units or 25 is what? MR. WRIGHT: Well, originally -- COMMISSIONER FRY: The affordable housing, is that -- MR. WRIGHT: Pretty much. You know, we could say it's good planning and the graduation of uses, but the bottom line here -- and we've heard this before -- that in order to get an increased density, you've got to give up something. You've got to provide a public benefit. And so what we did, between yesterday and today, is we focused specifically on that public benefit we were looking to provide, and we fattened it up, and hopefully that will be enough to make staff and the commission pleased with our project. COMMISSIONER FRY: What if you only got approval for 20 or 25 units, what would that do to your affordable housing commitment? Would it still be 25 percent of the total units? Is that the idea? MR. WRIGHT: Well, we're willing to, you know, work within this process as it goes along. For example, if you just recommended approval at 20, we would probably --we would probably move forward with that and continue to seek a higher number, but really, in order to make the project economics work, we've really tweaked all the numbers in the different categories of AMI to make it work. It's pretty close and we don't -- 20 -- 20 won't work. Thirty is the number that everything that we've done for the last two years has been based on, and 30 is the number that our affordable commitment is based on. So unless we have some sort of a major change, that's really what we're looking to do, 30. If you were to recommend approval of 25, we would move straight ahead, and we would be very happy to get your recommendation of approval in any event. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Wright, there's a 30-day provision that would be offered to Packet Pg. 1032 9.A.4.r the certain categories of tenants. Would you be willing to consider 60? MR. WRIGHT: Is that the one where the essential services personnel are given the offer first? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, yeah. MR. WRIGHT: I am -- I'd be willing to consider that. This is -- I want to pull up the specific language that they had in the staff recommendation. And this is just for your reference. I'm reading from Packet Page 1261 where it says there's an essential services personnel commitment, and it says in the event that no ESP rents available within 30 days of advertisement of its availability, then it's offered to non-ESPs. Is that the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the provision I'm talking about, yeah. MR. WRIGHT: And I'm not -- I'm going to ask Gregg real quick, if I may. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. WRIGHT: It's not a showstopper, but we'd like to, you know, be able to advertise before we open to make sure that we get a jump on that if we are going to give a 60-day window. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What do the other members of the Planning Commission think about an increased period of time? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think 60 days is kind of too long, when you're a rental, to wait. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other thoughts? MR. EASTMAN: It's certainly appreciated by the school district, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could we -- could we close it out at 45 days? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any objections from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. MR. VANASSE: Good afternoon. For the record, Patrick Vanasse with RWA. It's a pleasure to be hereto talk about this project with you. We're excited about this project for several reasons. One of the things is, it's providing a unique new offering to this market. They're providing rental apartments that are a very high quality, and the level of amenities that they're providing within this complex is above and beyond anything I've seen locally. And we have pictures of projects, one that they just finished building in Orlando, and you'll see the great pictures of the amenities that they do provide. So they're providing a high -quality property, but you've got a private market -rate developer coming forward and making a commitment, a solid commitment to provide true affordable housing. And what I mean by true affordable housing is a lot of the projects we see in Collier County when they're asking for additional density tend to be what we call gap or workforce housing, and those tend to be 100 percent of AMI or above. And what is being offered here is affordable housing that falls within the moderate and low categories. So, again, a private developer coming forward with no government subsidies and making that commitment. And, again, it's a very site specific Comp Plan amendment, very site specific rezone with a lot of detail. So this is not going to be speculative. We're not asking for multiple use. It's not going to change. We're only asking for multifamily rental units. So from that standpoint, we think it's a great project. We also think the location is an ideal location. And what I mean by that is if you look at that quadrant of this activity center, this is the last remaining 10 acres that are undeveloped or unentitled. And we know exactly what's in that area and what to expect. We know that next door to us on the east is going to be a Germain car dealership approved for up to 60 feet. We also know that you've got intense commercial activity where the Walmart center is. There's a hotel there. There's a self -storage there. And we are creating that transition between higher intensity Packet Pg. 1033 9.A.4.r commercial and lower intensity residential. And, again, I don't think it's all that important that we look at the exact number of density. It's more of we've got an apartment use that fits really well between commercial and residential and creates that transition. And we've worked very hard to develop a site plan and to develop a building that creates the biggest setbacks that we can, that minimizes the massing and is at a scale and at an architectural look and feel that is in keeping with the area and fits well with the area. We're asking for a maximum of four stories. Staff has asked us to reduce the overall height, the actual height to 50 feet. When we started this project, we had no architects, we had no engineers that had actually looked at ground elevation, how much fill would be needed, how much of a box we would need to fit those four stories. We have done that in the last few months. We know that we can fit within the 50 feet, so we are pleased to say, yes, we can accept that condition. And also with regards to density, some of the comments that were made, the reason why we went from what we were initially offering to what we have offered now is we talked to staff and we talked to some of the Planning Commission members. We were asked to revisit that. The pro formas that the applicant put together were six months to a year old, and they were really looking more so at the construction costs escalating and what they could possibly do. But what they've done just in the last week is go back and look at other rental communities close by and what those rents were, and they've been amazed at how quickly the rents have gone up elsewhere at, you know, 10 to 15 percent increases. So what that does for them is the portion that is not affordable, that they're not setting aside for affordable, that's where they can make a nicer margin and then provide more affordable. But the only way the amount of affordable works is predicated on that 30 units per acre. Anything less than 30 units per acre makes it that they can provide less of that affordable. So that's why, even though staff is recommending 25 -- and we're very happy -- well, I'm not going to speak for them. I think -- I think we have support from them at 25, I will say -- we'd still like to pursue 30 because, again, the more we get on the density, the more affordable we can provide, and there's a direct relation there. So that is -- that is why we're going to keep asking for the 30, and we think there's some enormous benefits from quality of project and also the affordable housing component. And as you'll see from the pictures, when we're talking about the quality of project, I would like to talk about the project a little bit. So it's luxury apartments. They're going to very well-appointed units, highly amenitized, parking garage on site. They are targeting young professionals and empty nesters. The units tend to be smaller units but of a much higher quality so they can still get the rents that they would like, but it's a smaller envelope, and it allows them also to keep their buildings at a scale that is appropriate for the area where they can keep the buildings a little smaller. We think it's a great location. And when we started this, the intent was to try to look at what the ULI housing study had put forward and to develop a project that was consistent with some of those recommendations. And the ULI study talks about finding appropriate places along major thoroughfares, activity centers. So these -- we're just outside an existing interchange activity center. So if we look at landscape -wide for Collier County, those nodes are the nodes that we've identified as the areas where we see the highest intensities and densities in the county. The infrastructure's there, the roadway system is there, and we've identified those areas as mixed use. So people that buy there or live there know that these are mixed -use activity centers. Higher intensity, higher density is expected. So we think that's a great location. It's right by 1-75, provides easy access for Southwest Florida, and we believe that location, again, with this idea that we're an infill project in an area Packet Pg. 1034 9.A.4.r where we know exactly what the uses are around, it makes it where it's a great location. So some of the GMP amendments and LDC amendments related to housing affordability that are going to be coming forward, staff has taken some of the ULI recommendations. And ULI was recommending possibly up to 30 units per acre, and the ULI folks have seen this in resort communities throughout the U.S. that, yes, you need higher densities for market -rate developers to be willing to build and offer affordable housing. So those experts provided 30. The recommendation right now that staff is putting forward is 25. But the 25 would apply to all activity centers throughout the county, and some activity centers may have more residential, a little less diversity when it comes to commercial, maybe a little less intensity. This one is a major interchange. We know exactly what's there. So while 25 units per acre in some places might be more appropriate, we think that this one, knowing exactly what those uses are and what the compatibility issues are, I think it's an appropriate place for 30 units per acre. And the other thing is, as you went through your hearing this morning about the rural fringe, these amendments sometimes take a very long time to be heard and get approved. You have someone today willing to make that commitment. So moving on, I'll talk about compatibility issues. I'll try to keep it brief. I know that our biggest issue here is density. But I do want to touch upon the design and the compatibility concerns. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. No MR. VANASSE: So as I said, when it comes to the quality and the luxury, these were renderings that were in the application when we started the project. You'll see we have pictures of the actual built project in Lake Mary outside of Orlando, and the final product is even better than the renderings are. But this is a level of amenity, as you can see, dog park, high -quality finishes in the units, internal/external recreation, gyms, that type of activity. This just touches upon the ULI study. And one of the things that I want to point out is when it comes to housing affordability, ULI makes a very important point that transportation combined with price of housing is crucial. And you've all heard about driving to qualify, that type of thing. So being in a good area close to transit is very important. Walmart has a transit stop. The regional park, very close by, has another big transit spot right there. So we have shopping, we have services, we have recreation, we have all the amenities close by, which will promote walkability and transit use. This was the initial commitment. As Jeff mentioned, we are upping this, and the full 70 units would be in the affordable category. That talks about the unique location that we have. Again, infill project, very site specific. This does not set a precedent for other properties throughout the county. Another important issue that we are proposing is when it comes to transportation, we've done our TIS, we have no significant impact on the adjacent roadway system. But what we've done is we've teamed up with Germain next door, and we're providing one access point for both projects, limiting the curb cuts and access points along Immokalee, creating a safer configuration having one turn lane for both projects, that type of thing. One thing that I'd like to point out also is the folks at Bermuda Palms, we're showing a potential interconnection. That's completely up to them if they want that connection or not. We think it could be a benefit to the residents because we're going to have a frontage road leading to Juliet Street [sic] and leading to the commercial activity center there so they wouldn't have to go back onto Immokalee to just go for errands, or when it comes to going west, they could go straight to Juliet Street where it's a signalized intersection to get to Immokalee and go west. So we think it's a great benefit. One thing that we hadn't committed to in our writeup or our application initially, and it's a Packet Pg. 1035 9.A.4.r 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. Packet Pg. 1036 9.A.4.r CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What was your name again, sir? MR. MALAESCU: Ciprian Malaescu. MR. VANASSE: So he works with Norm Trebilcock. Norm, unfortunately, this week is out of the area. So Ciprian has decided to chip in and help us out, and if you've got some more transportation questions, he can address those. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. MALAESCU: Thank you. MR. VANASSE: So when it comes to density, again, I think, you know, I made it clear that it's crucial for the provision of affordable housing and also to provide the quality project that they want to provide. But when it comes to density -- and as planners we talk about this all the time -- that people react to form, and what I mean by that is how buildings look, the scale, the aesthetics, and they don't necessarily react to numbers. So if you tell someone 16 units per acre or 20 or 30 units per acre, it's such a nebulous term that people have trouble understanding what that means. And every project is a little different. So sometimes you're going to get a little more open space or you're going to get a little more landscaping, and people are really swayed by the aesthetics and the feel and how it looks. So there's a lot of things that we can do to make a project compatible and to basically mitigate for our density and our intensity of use. IM& So, obviously, the aesthetics are important, the massing is important, and what we've done with this building -- and I've got an exhibit showing that -- is we've broken up the building where it faces Bermuda Palms creating courtyards so they don't see one big, massive building. They see just kind of the ends of some of the wings, and they see a lot more landscaping, a lot more courtyard, greenery, and the recreational areas. We've also enhanced the buffer. So where we abut residential, we enhanced the buffer along Bermuda Palms. And where we abut Livingston Lakes on our backside, that's where we've located our preserve, and that's 100 feet -- 150 feet wide plus or minus, which creates a significant buffer. So the setbacks, the buffering, the aesthetics are all things that we really considered, and I'll go into that with some exhibits. And then the other thing was, I've got this slide kind of showing that, you know, we've got higher -density projects in Collier County. We don't have a ton of them, but we have them. And typically those higher -density projects are from existing larger planned -- PUDs where there was some density left over and they clustered it, and they typically clustered it along a major thoroughfare, and that came on the tail end of the project. But what I've got here is pictures of Orchid Run. It's been an extremely successful project. This is the --it's a residential rental multifamily project that I believe, from the applicant's research, has probability the highest rents right now in Collier County, and it's higher density, it's clustered density that was part of the PUD, and it's very attractive and very popular. But we've got other examples. Bayfront, Naples Square, Magnolia Square, Addie's Corner, and Mooring Parks at Grey Oaks. And I know that Mooring Parks at Grey Oaks is assisted living mostly, so that's a bit of a different animal. But I'm sure you've all driven by it. With the right landscaping and the right architecture, it's a great looking project, and it's a benefit to this community. So this is what I meant by the massing and where we've located the building. So as you can see, we put the majority of the building as close as we could to our eastern boundary, really, where that's where the commercial use is and the more intense use, to provide separation, as much separation as we could to the residential. And then we've broken up the building where we provide courtyards, and there in the Packet Pg. 1037 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1038 9.A.4.r 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. Packet Pg. 1039 9.A.4.r 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. Packet Pg. 1040 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1041 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1042 9.A.4.r 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? Packet Pg. 1043 9.A.4.r MS. MOSCA: Twenty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Twenty. MS. MOSCA: I'll touch on that in a moment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And then also reduce the building height in the PUD rezoning petition and require taller plantings in the Type B buffer along the western property line. Given all the information that we received at lunchtime, they are -- the applicant is getting closer to the initiatives that are being proposed by the Housing Department, and so staff would be able to support 25 even though it's not comparable to all of the requirements of those initiatives. So with that, I conclude, and I will have Josie talk about the zoning portion. MR. KLATZKOW: So we're basing our recommendation based on an LDC amendment that the Board hasn't approved yet? MS. MOSCA: Yes. But it's -- you know, it's consistent with the direction that we're moving forward with. So we can get to that level. Right now it's 16 dwelling units per acre, and staff could, in fact, justify the 20 because they were providing affordable housing, and they were making a commitment for 30 years. So that's why we were able to support 20. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. MS. MEDINA: Josephine Medina, principal planner with Zoning Division, for the record. So when staff is evaluating RPUD, residential -- or any PUD rezone, to echo what Michele was saying, we do evaluate FLUE Policy 5.6, development compatibility and complementary surrounding land uses. We also review LDC Section 10.02.08.17 for rezoning -- for our rezoning findings as well as for the PUD findings, LDC Section 10.02.15.B.5, which I'm sure you guys are aware of. So we evaluate this based on the maximum and minimum development standards that the -- and development commitments. This evaluation, I guess I should have mentioned as well, was also based on the reduced -- the recommendation of reduced density to 20, when I was looking at the compatibility extent. So the main portion that -- the main property that would be affected is definitely, as mentioned, Bermuda Palms Condominiums. This is the one that we've also received 27 signed petitions in opposition as well as one letter requesting a reduction in density. So if we look at the property itself, what the developer is proposing is 80 feet setback from their property line as well as a 15-foot-wide Type B buffer which, as they mentioned, is enhanced because the LDC would require only a 10-foot Type A buffer. And we are also looking at the 35-foot two-story building right here to the right. If you look to the left, then you would see what you -- from the second story, what Bermuda Palms actually is looking towards. Right now, obviously the undeveloped property, I believe the agent said that the trees about -- are about 65 feet tall. And this is an estimate, so it obviously might not be the exact height. But I just wanted to get you an idea of what they would be looking at. COMMISSIONER FRY: If the building is 50 feet tall, as we discussed, and these trees are 65, are you saying that the Bermuda Palms people would not see? MS. MEDINA: Well, these trees are what are existing on the undeveloped. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh. So those are coming down, replaced with a Type B buffer? MS. MEDINA: I guess it would depend on what's exotic, what's not, and if they're willing or able to save. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MEDINA: So it's really not --I wouldn't be able to say. But just kind of a feel, because since it hasn't been built, I can't really say. Packet Pg. 1044 9.A.4.r And to the north, Carlton Lakes -- Carlton Lakes. Minimum 150-foot setback from Immokalee Road is what's being proposed, LDC required Type B buffer. The amount of impact, especially with the reduced height, I don't think it would be as much. Like I said, mostly what we're seeing and how the site is located with it being long, it would definitely be more towards the west where you're seeing the majority of the impact. To the south, as you can see, this is what's, again, existing. There is a commitment to 1.18 acres designated along the southern side of this. And so if you can see, these are two-story -- I believe they're condominiums on the south. Depending on what happens with the amount of exotics that are there in the preserve, we don't see much of an impact also with the degree of -- I believe they said about 150-foot setback. I don't see much of an impact as well. They are required -- they can use the preserve as their landscape buffer, but it if there are a degree of exotics that are found, they do also have to meet the LDC requirements to beef that up a little bit. And, Commissioner Fryer, to answer your question about where Germain Immokalee is right now, right now the last -- I think Tuesday they had a pre-app for SDP. We didn't learn much from that, so that's where we are. So this is why I'm showing you what was approved in the ordinance as their master plan so you can kind of get an idea. Proposed setback from Immokalee -- from Germain Immokalee is that 25-foot setback and the required Type B 15-foot-wide buffer and, again, that ingress and ability to access Juliet through the site. No And to address the why we went to -- requested a reduction in height, so staff reviewed the surrounding heights just to get an idea of what the impacts would be. So I think Michele went over this, two-story, 35 to the north; 30 feet, two-story Windsong; and then Eboli (phonetic) -- or Bermuda Palms is 34 feet. There was an approval to the south, it could either be multifamily or an ALF. It was approved for a zoned -- for, I'm sorry, an actual height of -- and that's wrong right there, but an actual height of 47 feet and a zoned height of 40 feet. And then we have to the south two stories, 35 feet. And then Germain Immokalee 60 feet and 55 and we -- as the applicant had said. The point was for this to be a transition, and usually transitions you don't go neck and neck. It's something where we want there to actually be a visual transition as you're going down the road, even for Carlton Lakes, something like that. So the other point I wanted to make is these are two-story structures but they're also divided into various buildings. So all of the multi -families we have around here are not just --and, yes, there has been some work to allow for the courtyards and the smaller parking garages, but there's still something to do with being able to divide a building and letting that light truly come in. So the areas of concern that staff had when reviewing the evaluation criteria were the proposed change that would seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. That being said, the applicant did mention that it's a visual thing for density, but when you're living next to something, it's also more noise and more light. More people creates that. So I just wanted you to keep that in mind as well. So -- but they did really work on creating orientation where their setback was beyond what is permitted -- what is required for MF -- RMF-16, and their conceptual building envelope identified in the master plan definitely showed their concern with being able to break up the massing. They also identified the preserve location for that south -- southern portion to mitigate. They also had the buffer increase from a Type A to a Type B, which did mitigate to some extent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. So are you saying that you have a concern about the massing of the building? It's really one -- you have the -- it's really one long, continuous building not with the parking garage in the middle. So from Bermuda Palms, you're seeing a long, massive building with no gaps in between, or am I -- am I missing something? Packet Pg. 1045 9.A.4.r MS. MEDINA: I mean, yes, there is some concern with that, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MEDINA: So -- and there was a request for a reduction to the actual -- maximum actual height to help with that. But, again, as density increases, you get more light; you get more activity happening. We were also -- I was also concerned with the request being out of scale for what the neighborhood needs. Again, it's surrounded by two-story multi -families to the north, south, and west. So a reduction to the maximum actual height would create more of an appropriate transition from the commercial to the east. So staff went ahead and did a whole bunch of field surveys. I wanted to get an idea of what the actual impact might be. There's not really something in the county where I could compare as much just because of how tight this site is. The best width l could find of comparability was Orchid Run. It's 351 feet wide, four stories, density of about 2.87 [sic] dwelling units per acre. Obviously not the same density. Also, they have different stories. So if you go towards Golden Gate Parkway, they actually have two-story buildings/apartments instead of the four-story over here. So also different context along major thoroughfares. They have a canal. They have industrial zoning over here. Livingston Road divides them from Estates zoning. They also have a golf course where the major impact really is. Another field study survey that was done was Addison Place Apartments. As you can see, again, a little bit more isolated, have more preserves and dry retention areas as well as to the south will be commercial. And it's a big -- bit wider site. It has less of -- it's divided into multiple buildings as well. And they do also have enhanced buffers along the eastern portion of it; Type B buffers that have been enhanced with more mature trees. They've also made them different widths, depending where it is. If it's the amenity center, they have increased the width to 20-foot or 20-foot-wide. So they have varying degrees of Type B buffers depending on what type of use is at the location. And they are at about 15 dwelling units per acre, 51 feet actual, and four stories. With that, staff recommends approval subject to the following: Reduction to the maximum actual building height to 50 feet, and a revision to the master plan -- and this is just a correction for cleanup -- to identify a 25-foot setback along the eastern property line as has been identified in the residential PUD development standards. Other than that, I guess, like Michele, since there were changes that might increase the density, staff does have some concern with the amount of light and noise that might come from the development with a higher density, so it's in agreement with Michele regarding her request for an enhanced buffer facing Bermuda Palms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Those three examples you showed, do they do anything with affordable housing? MS. MEDINA: I do not believe so. I don't -- I didn't research that, to be honest. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What is staffs official recommendation with respect to dwelling units per acre? MS. MOSCA: I would defer to Michele. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Again, Michele Mosca, for the record. It's really challenging for staff to go from 20 to 25 and then up to 30, again, with the proposal for the additional affordable housing at those lower levels. It's ultimately a Board policy decision, but staff could be supportive of the 25 dwelling units per acre if, in fact, they provide for the mature trees and the Type B buffer, just so you provide those safeguards and protections for the adjacent property to the west. Packet Pg. 1046 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1047 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1048 9.A.4.r we have to reduce. So the question is maybe -- I think one of you might have mentioned or somebody mentioned earlier a building that's maybe three stories with a four-story section, we're doing that on a development right now, or do you just try to take -- open up that center area so that you have a direct line of sight, and you're only looking at a story -and -a -half, really, that you have to look over to see, you know, further to the east. Now, you might be looking at Germain's building when you look through there. But that's a valid question, and I think we would go back and play around with a couple of different options. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think we have, what, three speakers virtually for this or am I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Three or four. COMMISSIONER FRY: Three or four virtual speakers, and I don't know what the neighborhood sentiment is yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we may hear. COMMISSIONER FRY: But I would think before the County Commission the more you can walk in with agreement with your neighbors in terms of the aesthetics of it and -- MR. FUSARO: And I did speak with the woman who's president of the HOA association the other day. We had a good conversation. I just wanted to clarify the issue with respect to us having access into Bermuda Palms, which we had -- we do not want or need, but I said if they wanted it, great, or some kind of, you know, situation there. And then somebody had indicated that they thought we were tapping into their private water system, which was misinformation that came from somewhere, and I assured her that we were not doing that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Registered speakers. Who's first? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, for Item 9A5 we have Mr. David Jordan. Mr. Jordan, are you with us, sir? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Jordan, if you could unmute yourself. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe we come back to him. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yeah. For Item 9A6, we have two speakers. First one is Diane Daugherty followed by Charles Berry. Ms. Daugherty, are you with us. (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right Mr. Berry, are you with us, sir? MR. BERRY: I'm on. Can you unmute your microphone for us, please. We'll come back to Ms. Daugherty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Berry? MR. BERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed, sir. You have five minutes. MR. BERRY: Thank you very much. I am a resident of Bermuda Palms, and I have several questions. I was curious as to the proposed breakdown between one-, two-, and three -bedroom units. And the reason for that question was that if we don't have an accurate headcount, how can you do an effective traffic study? May I go on to my second point? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. BERRY: Is the developer -- and I think the question was answered. But is the developer using totally private funds, or does he have some subsidiary money coming from government that might support the low-income housing? And third question: The stated area is 9.35 acres. If they took away 15 percent of the Packet Pg. 1049 9.A.4.r available land as proposed for use as buffering, this leaves them 7.9 acres. Does that really work into the dwelling -units -per -acre calculation? Fourth question is, there was no report from the school district, and I'm wondering if this ultimately has an effect on what we're doing here. And my fifth question, which is more a concern, is if this goes through with the acceptance of the ratios of low-income and essential service personnel housing, how does that get policed in the future? If this is a 30-year commitment, who's watching all of this? And my final comment is: I hear them suggesting that this development will provide a nice buffer between us and the commercial areas, and we think the green trees and the nine acres that are there now present a pretty nice buffer for us as it is. And that concludes my comments and my questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. We can get answers to those questions right now, and I think it's kind of a blend of staff and the petitioner. Question about the TIS calculation, let's start with that one. MR. MALAESCU: Good afternoon, again. My name is Ciprian. I'm with Trebilcock Consulting Solutions on behalf of Norm Trebilcock in support of the project. I think the question was if the TIS was based on the number of persons living on the project. We follow a national standard in ITE, Institute of Transportation Engineers. It's an accepted standard in Collier County. And we have data that show number of units. So the ITE does not have a headcount for a development. They do traffic surveys all over the country. In this particular case, multifamily, they have many studies, over 501 would say, for each time period they studied. So basic analysis -- basic traffic analysis is really based on the number of units for the development. That's all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And that has always been a point of frustration for me, but you don't use persons per household when you're calculating; you use the ITE number. MR. MALAESCU: That is correct, but the data should be the same, because it refers to the number of units. It is covered in the ITE. So the number of units are the same. ITE covers the number. In our case, 280. So it's within the range of data that ITE has. So it really doesn't matter how many people are living there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I anticipated your answer. I was just pointing out that it's a point of frustration for me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, as an engineer, I don't understand that. I mean, if you had 280 three -bedroom units, you're going to have a lot more traffic than 280 one -bedroom units. MR. MALAESCU: And there will be more traffic for -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But your study won't reflect that. MR. MALAESCU: It will, absolutely. If it's one unit more, we'll have more traffic. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No -- yeah, but if they're both 280 and one is all one -bedroom and one's all three -bedroom, you're saying they're the same, and I don't agree with that whether it's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think so. The IT associates a number of automobiles to the size of the unit. COMMISSIONER SHEA: When you say the "size," you mean the square footage or you mean the number of -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Bedrooms. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Bedrooms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Isn't that right? MR. MALAESCU: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So bedrooms are taken into account? MR. MALAESCU: Not in the ITE perspective, no. Packet Pg. 1050 9.A.4.r COMMISSIONER FRY: But you just said -- MR. MALAESCU: It's based on the number of units -- it's based on the number of units. There's no difference between a one -bedroom or two -bedroom. They have their own. Maybe -- MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. I think from a non -transportation engineer's perspective, my understanding of ITE manuals is they do studies and they look at comparable projects, and they take averages. So the one thing that we have going for us in Collier County is their persons per household tends to be lower than a lot of places in the country, but it doesn't -- like I said, it's an average of multiple projects and multiple locations throughout the country. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Regardless of number of bedrooms? MR. VANASSE: Correct. MR. FUSARO: For the record, Gregg Fusaro. Let me clarify just to answer your question a little bit. Our unit breakdown is about 9 percent studios, 51 percent one -bedrooms, about 31 percent two -bedrooms, and just under 9 percent three -bedrooms. So we're 60 percent one -bedroom or less. So from a traffic perspective, actually, the traffic studies generally, based on this type of unit, proportion mix, don't do us any favors, because it shows more traffic generation than we actually generate. The other comment, just as a point of fact from the developments that we've done in the last three or four years, they're mostly like this. They're kind of an urban landscape development within the suburb -- you know, very kind of urbanized suburban environment. And I won't say that we don't have any, but we have very, very few school -aged children in our developments. And based on that, the traffic that we actually generate is significantly lower than their studies will show, because with fewer school age, you just have fewer trips; not going to the soccer field three times a day, you know, that kind of thing. There was a question with respect to the buffer that's there now, and we get that, but if not us, probably commercial development on that site, and that's, you know, why, from our perspective, this is a great transition from that more intense development to the residential. What was the other question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: The caller asked about a government subsidy. MR. FUSARO: Oh. No, I haven't -- nobody from Collier County has volunteered any dollars. No, we don't have any government subsidy. It's all conventionally financed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thanks. MR. FUSARO: Yes, sir. '1� CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then the question about the reduction in acreage. You calculated it at seven acres and some change. MR. FUSARO: But I believe, and the staff may correct me, density's always calculated on total acreage. But I will point out that the 1.18-acre is a -- is required in the development, and that is a pretty substantial buffer between us and Livingston Lakes to the south, and that's a required untouched area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And his final question, I believe, had to do with who polices. MR. FUSARO: So I don't know the answer to that 100 percent, but I believe there are reporting requirements for Collier County with the neighborhood housing folks. MR. KLATZKOW: Staff does. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney, thank you. MR. FUSARO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ned, may I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. Packet Pg. 1051 9.A.4.r 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? Packet Pg. 1052 9.A.4.r 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 Packet Pg. 1053 9.A.4.r 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.) Packet Pg. 1054 9.A.4.r CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Wait. We have to do the Growth Management Plan first. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, we'll do GMP first. On the Growth Management Plan -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's changes to it. MS. MOSCA: Yes, and I'm clear on the changes to the subdistrict text with the limitations that were already provided by the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do you have clarity, Vice Chair? Do we have clarity? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm looking. So you're just changing the 30 to 25. Well, 25 percent won't be -- MS. MOSCA: So it's going to be 70 rent -restricted, and then we'll list the categories in the subdistrict text. So it will be 35 units less than 80 percent and then 35 units above 80 to 100 percent for the ESP. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right? Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is on the GMP. All in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. Ise ` CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? 4h, (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear Commissioner Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You didn't hear who? THE COURT REPORTER: Commissioner Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Commissioner Klucik, we didn't hear you vote. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I said "aye." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. All right. Is there a motion on the -- MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, I apologize. We -- actually, the number of days that the public notice ESP. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. MS. MOSCA: That's also -- and I apologize. That's also within the subdistrict text of the Growth Management Plan amendment. So we need to address that going from 30 days to 45 days, which was recommended by the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Without objection, can that be part of the motion that we just passed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's unanimously approved. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Now -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I wouldn't think we would need a roll call on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, will you please call the roll? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Not a roll call, but a vote, you know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All those in favor of the original motion and the conditions and then the additional condition with respect to 45 days, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. Packet Pg. 1055 9.A.4.r COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Now, on the Land Development Code -- rather the PUD, may I have a motion on that? COMMISSIONER FRY: Move for approval subject to the conditions that have been discussed. COMMISSIONER SHEA: All the conditions that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? e,' (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? \ (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. MR. VANASSE: Thank you. ! CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just add, I think, I appreciate just the flexibility, kind of on -the -run, very fair, I think, responses from the applicant and flexibility and concessions while we were in the meeting. So I do wish it worked like this more often. MR. VANASSE: Well, thank you very much. I told you we had a good project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Thank you. Well done. Well done by all. Okay. That takes us to old business. I don't believe we have any. New business, one small matter. Let's discuss the need for a July 1st meeting. I've consulted with Ms. Jenkins, and she tells me there is nothing scheduled for that day. I think for our planning purposes, it would be nice if we could give ourselves a day off on July 1st. What's the wish of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second that motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would that have been a formal normally scheduled meeting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, anybody object to that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Without objection, then -- unless a vote is demanded, without objection, we will cancel our July 1st meeting. Obviously, if emergencies come up, then we have to reconsider, but the record will show going forward that our July 1 meeting has been canceled. Any further business? Any public comment to come before the meeting before we Packet Pg. 1056 9.A.4.r adjourn? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, without objection, we're adjourned. Thank you. 'A& There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:43 p.m. These minutes by the Board on COLLI R COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-,Nr 61 , EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Packet Pg. 1057 9.A.4.r c 0 a 0 a a IL 2 0 r N d r t) �L N N N K tm C LL L 7 M N N O O O O N O N J a Q Packet Pg. 1058 9.A.4.s RESOLUTION NO.21- 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 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; 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, 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] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. se ., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Collier County staff has prepared amendments relating the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Restudy; and WHEREAS, on , the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and [21-CMP-01087/1 b08339/1 ] 19 RFMUD Restudy PL20200002234 2/25/21 Words underlined are additions; Words are deletions. *** *** *** *** are a break in text a Packet Pg. 1059 9.A.4.s WHEREAS, on . the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendments and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this day of , 2021. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Penny Taylor, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit "A" — Text amendments and attachments [21-CMP-01087/ 1608339/1 ] l9 RFMUD Restudy Words underlined are additions; Words stnisk tkFeugh are deletions. PL20200002234 *** *** *** *** are a break in text 2/25/21 Packet Pg. 1060 9.A.4.s 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. ******************** r***** r r******* text break r* r************************** r**** r r r*** 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 leeatedWithiR GRGmile—ef the I Irhan BeuRdapy and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, with the following exceptions: L6 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 W subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density "yea text is added; StF GI( thFGUg4 text is deleted Q Packet Pg. 1061 9.A.4.s 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 IGGated within of the Urban Boundary apd designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; or, H. The Urban Residential FFiRge PeFt'OR of the Naples Reserve ResideRtial PlaRned I �.qitlqmp. the Rural F=FiRge Mixed USe DiStFiGt te aGhieve up te the maximum allowable deRE;ity; OF, ii+. 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 &ha4 ne�eS61 eGt to the eve mile limi+etieR set forth abe„e ten,+ may utilize TDRs derived from a+Ry 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;. ***********************************text break************************************************ a U Transfer of Development Rights Bonus [Page 54] ) To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted as follows: E c (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 E otherwise allowed by the Density Rating System. wed text is added; stFuek thFeugI4 text is deleted Q Packet Pg. 1062 9.A.4.s (b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development. (c) From Sending Lands le^"+ed within erne mile of the 1 1FbaR Q,,, Rdar„ 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 leno+ed Within ene mile of the 1 pbaR BOURdar., into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. the GRe mile lirnitatiOR set forth above and may utilize TDRs frem aRy lands desigRated SeRdiRg I.A.githnp the Rural F=FiRge Mixed Use DiStFiGt to aGhieve up to the maximum allowable deRsity i nrrease 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 no be subjeGt te the ORe mole limitatien set forth above and may Utilize TDRs derived from aRY lan allewable der,oi►„ 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'/2 of the Southwest'/4 of the Northwest % of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest % of the Southwest % of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. **********************************text break**************************************** II. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION [Page 74] 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 93,60977,200 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. I Indprioned text is added; StF Ck thF9Ug4 text is deleted a Packet Pg. 1063 9.A.4.s 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. 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 a density allowable for designated Receiving Lands is one (1) unit per five (5) gross U 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 r Meade and North Belle Meade Receiving Lands; and, two (2) dwelling units per N 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) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall " text is added; StFUG'- thFGUg4 text is deleted Q Packet Pg. 1064 9.A.4.s 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 protect 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. 4. Minimum Project Size: The minimum project size required OR 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. Protect Size: Where TDR Credits are utilized, the protect size must be less than three hundred (300) acres. "yea text is added; StF GI( thFGUg4 text is deleted LO r c as E a 5 Packet Pg. 1065 9.A.4.s 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, s bjeGt t„ the rd8Ve I9PFneRt of appmpriate the Rural Cringe Mixed Use D�stFiGt 6 pp sepved. These development standards shall ORG' de, but are R9t limited te: b iildiRg height` rJe&4R standardse 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. c as Words underlined are added; words Stri ink threuo are deleted t 6 Q Packet Pg. 1066 9.A.4.s 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 asfollows: (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 September 2012. ( T�eteGt gFO R d and s rfaGe ter quality from fertilizer and peStiGide usage, g9lf GO �rses shall rdomGnetFate the �I � RagemeRt u�vg� vrr—cvaracv v�r-ac-mvrr-cic�—crt�. prn Gti (a) Irrigatir`n systems shall he designed }e use weather statiGn inform o}inn a+ `d me' ire_s sine syst to rdet ine the eptimu rn nmei int of .N a�a—�,�stur�-�e►��zeeas�a irr ga}water Reeded GeRsideFiRg cued mensturre and L6 (hams available gGIf U rses shall utilize ze treated effli lent reuse minter � v,Tee��,,�at+l�eaz ee�� 4 and its r�ensis+e n+ �eii+h Cnni+nni Sewer Sib €I-erx�en#�bien+�tl ter. 'a wrTa.�ca.Tr-w� m�anrr�rr� cvv Jccr � Words underlined are added; words stri inl( thre„eh are deleted t 7 Q Packet Pg. 1067 9.A.4.s areas, IaRGISGaPiRg PlaRG shall require that at least 75% ef th__ .O_af f%r� cIsp iImc IaLn fr�=n_fia ____�A__ WleFaRt SIP (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. 1) Commercial development as permitted as part of an approved Rural Village. W i+hiGRe year er-vff adeptieR Gf thGGe aaenrddMerRtG, thiGE)URty will rdeyelen apnrnnrio+n standards fnr rnmmnrriol development Within Rural Villages nii+h partiGUlar fGGUS on rdesionSGal�eand aaG pFevisiens that ,will maintain the �r ��--rur-rcaTrrm�.. r, iral nharanter nr semi r,,ral nharanter of the DOE; n+ 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. Wthin one year of adoption of these amendments the Geu Rtly will dev elop eyelop appropriate standards for Research and Tenhnnlnlva Darks ,within , Rural Villages with parti lar fn s on design s le anrd aGGess pro�iisinns ,�aizr�Tui--rv��--,�Ea , that will maintain the rural rhararter or semi _rural rhararter of the flistrirt 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 protects. 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. f�) p) Zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or other similar uses. e) g) Public educational plants and ancillary plants. 0 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 r-) t)Sports instructional schools and camps. Words underlined are added; words str„nk through are deleted t �a 8 Q Packet Pg. 1068 9.A.4.s 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. 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. 8. Open Space and Native Vegetation Preservation Requirements: a) Usable Open Space: Within Receiving Lands projects utilizing TDR Credits greatep +haR nn aGFeS OR 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. 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 c d Words underlined are added; words StrU Gk through are deleted t �a 9 Q Packet Pg. 1069 9.A.4.s 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)~Th ectsize shall be at leas}�ac�c. 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: L6 • Single family/duplex/mobile home: 11 dwelling units per acre; as Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threuEjh are deleted E 10 a Packet Pg. 1070 9.A.4.s • 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 September 2012. (n) Native plants shall he used evnlL isiyely evoept for spenial purpose are E si inh as golf greens faipeiays and b iilyding sites Within those evnepterd fA , , C areas landsgaping plans shall require that at least 750/ of the trees and � 500/ of the shrubs be freeze -tolerant native Floridian species. At least Li 750/ of the r native trees and shrubs shall also he dreg fight � �T'o-'vTm�Ke�{.iired�ittVC--tFccTvrra�nrau��rrcrn--ar�v�ar'vu��-c .. r..r tolerant spenies C Words underlined are added; words strU Gk through are deleted t �a 11 a Packet Pg. 1071 9.A.4.s {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)f4j 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. 1) 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 W Rating System. a v I ap,ds prapart., ;s a.,p+ir......s +.. a AI— 4-1 I aprl/Cap,-Iipr. I ap.d L) hnn.dan, the prnperfi, n�e,ner may submit rl al data ananalysis to the i�n� infi, in an M � i ++ a+ attempt to rdemenstrate that a nhanne in the hni in.dar" is warranterd within nee E r frnm the eff }i"e ,-late of inn i'n nfi, mrn, initiate a %'rn�nhh (n year fte n the ei eeme date e, this , the Ge ce a GFeVA-r Manag ernent Plan amendment tO GGRE;mdeFh helR ar" shan.es pnn a >- � LO T_ r d Words underlined are added; words "tri Gk thre„gh are deleted E 12 Q Packet Pg. 1072 9.A.4.s 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. 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 9-.2 0.4 TDR credits per acre (4 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, GRe 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 & 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 L6 utilized for mitigation programs and associated mitigation activities and uses in r c as Words underlined are added; words ctri Gk threuE h are deleted E 13 Q Packet Pg. 1073 9.A.4.s 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. Aariculture TDR Bonus: a) A TDR Bonus Credit may be issued to the owner of private orooerty for each E five (5) acre parcel or legal nonconforming lot of record designated Sending Lands r- (non-NRPA), at the transfer rate of one (1) additional TDR Bonus Credit for each I five acres or legal nonconforming lot of record, utilized for an existing bona fide L6 agricultural activity. A restrictive covenant in favor of Collier County will be placed r c as Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threuEjh are deleted E 14 Q Packet Pg. 1074 9.A.4.s 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). 7-8. 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. r c as Words underlined are added; words StrUGk threuE h are deleted E 15 Q Packet Pg. 1075 9.A.4.s 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. ~ Li (2) Conditions may be imposed, as deemed appropriate, to limit the size, location, r c as Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threuo are deleted E 16 Q Packet Pg. 1076 9.A.4.s and access to the conditional use. 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. 11. Native Vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. Lo Lana use map. r as Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threugh are deleted E 17 Q Packet Pg. 1077 9.A.4.s 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 LO 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 c as Words underlined are added; words Stri Gk threu h are deleted E 18 Q Packet Pg. 1078 9.A.4.s 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 he designed +e serve the retail, office, civic, government uses and service needs of the residents of thevillage. 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 L6 development regulations, standards, and land use mix requirements. Subsequent +e the nreatien of those r,reYisiens Rural Village applications shall be submitted in the Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threuo are deleted E 19 Q Packet Pg. 1079 9.A.4.s form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone and, where applieahl, le, iR with any ether Flerida previsiens. of law that may supersede the DR! PrOGess B) Locational Restrictions: Village.1 . A Rural Village shall RE)t be IGGated aRY GlGGeF thaR 3.0 MileS fFE)M aRether Rural i No more than one Rural Village magi he Ioraterd in ea^h of the rdictin^t Re^eiViRg Areas rdepi^terd OR the FLUM. M 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: Developments with _Rural Villages shall he a minimum of 300 acres shall utilize Rural Village standards herein and within the LDC. A Rural Village shall have aid 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 exclusiveof the required green belt area. Rural Villages shall it^', irde a Village ('enter aR d a minima rn of twe ldictiRGt neighherheerdc 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. L6 r c a� Words underlined are added; words StrU Gk through are deleted t �a 20 Q Packet Pg. 1080 9.A.4.s 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 the land area designated as a.green belt S FFO Riling 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. 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 Li 4. Transient Lodging allowed; maximum of 26 units per acre net as Words underlined are added; words StFUGk threugh are deleted E 21 Q Packet Pg. 1081 9.A.4.s 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. p1 dwelling unit Neighborhood G for n 51% of al Village a ge ne evreed 9n e+g,,oent�� t�}��tui-vrr�gc-a�e�9 ,c-rrvt�0-cnccca�v areas Within eanh nleighborheed GeRter b) Neighborhood GeRter GemmeMial--"lotto eXGeed 40% of,the Ne+ghberhe GeRter aGreage and 9,500 square feE?t ef gross leasable fleer area PeFaGre-. Village GeRteF Nof� to eXGeed 10 of the fetal Village aGreage. 0 Of the Village GeRter aGreage and 10,000 square foot of gross leasable floor area per acre e3 d) Research and Technology Parks allowed; must be--Gconsistent with the provisions of the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District, excluding paragraph j; the Park shall net evreed not of the fetal Village anreag-e ff\GiViG WGeG and P ublin Darks Minimum of 1n0/ of the total \a� -v rouge aGreaage 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 ayeragirig inn 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 GORGeRtrated te a greater degree 1'R areas where it is ReGessary to preteGt listed note irol reseryatiens er nreyide fer wellfield or aquifer nretertien 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. L6 r c a� Words underlined are added; words strU Gk through are deleted t �a 22 Q Packet Pg. 1082 9.A.4.s 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'% 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, b!GYG!e 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. LO • The siting of both schools and housing units within the village shall consider T.- the minimization of busing needs within the community. c as Words underlined are added; words are deleted E 23 Q Packet Pg. 1083 9.A.4.s • 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 enGOUraged 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 andier DRl 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— N 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 L6 has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002; or, projects for which a Rezone c as Words underlined are added; words ctr, GI( threuo are deleted t 24 Q Packet Pg. 1084 9.A.4.s 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. 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. r c as Words underlined are added; words StrUGk threuo are deleted E 25 Q Packet Pg. 1085 9.A.4.s 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. GD. 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 P-private property ^�%s 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: 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; r c as Words underlined are added; words StrUGk threuo are deleted E 26 Q Packet Pg. 1086 9.A.4.s 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. r c as Words underlined are added; words StrUGk threuo are deleted E 27 a Packet Pg. 1087 9.A.4.t 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). Packet Pg. 1088 9.A.4.t February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 2 of 7 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 Source: Collier County Staff 2017 Whiter Paper 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 Source: Collier County Staff 2017 Whiter Paper Table 2-3 Outstanding TOR 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 Source: Collier County Staff 2017 Whiter Paper H:A2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx Packet Pg. 1089 9.A.4.t February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 3 of 7 In April of 2021, leading up to the CCPC hearing on proposed RFMUD amendments, the staff updated the TDR information, as follows: 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,DOODUs and3 DU/A=4,000 DUs _ Required TDRs 1,137 TDRs Non -Rural Village - no eligible acreage Required TDRs 0 TDRs Northwest Receiving Lands Rural Vil€age- no eligible acreage Required TDRs 0 TDR. Non -Rural Village +788 acres @ 2 DU/A without 40-acre req uirement for Ti 609 Partic_ipoh6on - 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%partici atian=+1,103 DUs Required rDRs 880 TDRs Belie Meade Receiving Lands Rurat 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 1,19a TDRs Sum of all Receiving Lands TOTALTDRs 11,139T➢Rs Sum of all Receiving Lands TOTAL DVS 20,530 DUs Nete, The calculations in the table are estimates only. Tha TDRealculaters are hased on a 09% pai'Vel allon rate for clustering ❑Us outside of Rural Villages (RV) as noted in the White Paper and assumed the development of three (3) RVa, one each in the North Receiving Lands, North Belle Meade (NBM) Receiving Lands, and Belle Meade Receiving Lands -the North Recelving Lends RV has preliml—V approval to develop at a lower density and Iower7DR utilumlion rate. Source: Collier County Staff Report, April 1, 2021 Table 2.0 - Existing TDR Supply Potential Type of TDR Number of TDRs Base TOR 2,433 Early Entry TDR Bonus 2433 Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus (rota) includes l354 TDRs not yet redeemed) 3,387 Conveyance Bonus Total includes 458 TDRs not yet redeemed 2,$91 Total 11,144- "Note_ This figure reflects 100%TDR severanca ale for all remaining eligible Sending Lands_ The VM its Paper shads a sevemnca ate of±50% (based on Staff as;, minions). The TDR supply paten I of $ 275 in Table 2.2 reflects this +50%severance rate, Source: Collier County Staff Report, April 1, 2021 Table 2.2 - Total TOR Suppiv and Demand Potential TDR Potential Supply: 279 Exinm Tiia. 1,743. PirDiacawa YORe 9,021 TDR PcIentlal Cernand: 11 139 3 lfti Estimated SurplusiOeSctt Source: Collier County Staff Report, April 1, 2021 H: 2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx Packet Pg. 1090 9.A.4.t February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 4 of 7 Table 2.1 —Additional Proposed TUR Supply Potential Type of TDR Number of TDRs Belle Meade Flow Way TDR Bonus 560 (100% utilization in the Bolin Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay = 560 new TDRs Sending Lands Existing Agriculture TDR Bonus 446 (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 Neutral lands Existing Agriculture TOR Bonus 126 (100% utilization in all Neutral Lands = 1,266 new TDRs; staff assumed 10% utilization Receiving Existing Agriculture TDR Bonus 611 (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. Total TDRs 1,743 Note: Early Entry TDR bonus credit will be replaced with a second TDR Base CrediL 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 TDRs' 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.Z 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. t 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. z 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. H: 2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx Packet Pg. 1091 9.A.4.t February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 5 of 7 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.' 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). . ... u: ® .. d .4 . . . • . . ••� 3 .l t � � R��A.PANIXEi � �- BELM MnoRu MlnLFe • MEA�E N&PA \ .��uay.. •• HrepA• . � . 90uu �N _ 4'AfCC elP-E-a i 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 native vegetation retention was increased to 80% (and 90% with a NRPA). H: 2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx Packet Pg. 1092 9.A.4.t February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 6 of 7 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 staffs Table I 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. Estimator rolls andlor roll Bmus [rorhs Needed to Entitle Vasa rd Receivng lams Receiving Area TDRS Needed village(1.5 DLN/acre) TDRs Needed viillage(2.0 DDs/acre] TDRs Needed Non- Village LODu/acre TDRs Needed Nan- Vinage2.ODu/acre Estimator Rang-FTDRS Neoror ow igh = RAft1(IRRV 853.0 1137.0 0.0 D.D O.D 0.0 ReoeivingArea TDRs Needm Village(2 DUs/acre) TDRs Neoror Village(3 DUs/acre) TDRs Needed Non Village(1 DD per acre) Yon NeededNm- Village Estimator Rang-FTDRS Neoror RA62(IRRV MPDD) 0.0 on 530.4 1418.4 530.4 1418A Ra# 3(North Belle Meade) 127SA 2025.0 1933.6 4350.E 3208.E RA 94(South Belle Meade( 2100A 3350.0 3280.8 7391.9 Sams 10]31.8 Total 422%A fi U.0 6844.8 13no.8 100722 19(62.8 Assumptions 1. All Receiving Lands have base density of 0.20 unds per acre. 2.Villagesreceivea 1 to 1 bonus for each TDR aquirm, plow bonus of 0.5 TDRs for each affordable housing andrequired in a Alage). In the se ,i.of4,000 aces of.ddiditional Village, that is 400 Affords ble Housing Bonus un Rs [ 0.2 x 4,000 acres o{village = 800 af(oradable umtr requiror, which yeilds 500 bonus TDRs). 3. Assumes IRRV w8 be approved as a 19%acre Village. 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. H: 2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx Packet Pg. 1093 9.A.4.t February 16, 2022 RFMUD Restudy FLUE Amendment Recommendations Page 7 of 7 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 stT-uel eugk/underlined changes to the TDR generation rates for Sending 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 H: 2021\2021028\WP\2022\TDR Generation Recommendations (2-16-2022).docx Packet Pg. 1094 9.A.4.t 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:' Development rights may be severed from Sending Lands at a maximum rate of 9.-2 0_6 TDR credits per acre (43 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, ene 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, end # 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. Packet Pg. 1095 9.A.4.t 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. Packet Pg. 1096 9.A.4.t 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. z To date the Conveyance Bonus Credit has, for the most part, not been achievable. Packet Pg. 1097 aILI)9 9.A.4.0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on March 22, 2022, in the- Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Tail East, Naples, FL, to consider the enactment of a County Resolution. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Resolution is as follows: 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] Immokalee RD Oil WellRO G � Project o m " Location m o ;o 0 m 1-75 S m V IC O G1 W A copy of the proposed Resolution is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be consdered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. As part of an ongoing initiative to encourage public involvement; the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely should register through the link provided within the specific event/meeting entry on the Calendar of Events on the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov/our-county/visitors/calendar--of-events after,the agenda is posted on the County website. Registration should be done in advance of the public meeting, or any deadline specified within the public meeting notice. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user's risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. For additional information about the meeting, please call Geoffrey Willig at 252-8369 or email to Geoffrey.Willig@ cofliercountyfl.gov Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WILLIAM L. MCDANIEL, JR., CHAIRMAN CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK By: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk No-cciassasae-oi P. M 0 Z m u7 D tJ C O sZ O Q Q a 5 0 7 N d t� 0 d w d K LL t4 7 M N N O O O O N O N J D_ Q Packet Pg. 1098