CCPC Agenda 11/19/2009 R CP-2008-3 Revised Staff Report
CCPC
November 19, 2009
GMPA
Petition
CP-2008-3
revised staff report and
petitioners re-submitted packet
in response to the
October 19, 2009 CCPC Meeting
Co~! County
"'--- -
Memorandum
_._--_._------_.._-----_.__.__.__._------_._-~-_...__..---..----.------.---..
TO; Leo E. Ochs, Jr. County Manager
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Section Chief, Land Use/Transportation, CAO
Joe Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
Patricia Morgan, Clerk of Courts, Minutes & Records
CC; Randy Cohen, AICP, Director, Comprehensive Planning Department
David Weeks, AICP, Pianning Manager, Comprehensive Pianning Department
FROM; Leslie Persia, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department
DATE; 16 November 2009
RE: GMPA CP-200B-3, Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict, Revised Staff Report &
Resubmittal Packet
---------_.~-_._---_.-_._---~-_._--- .---.'--.------.-...-..--
Enclosed are the REVISED Staff Report and Petitioners' resubmittal packet for GMPA CP-2008-3, which is
Agenda Item 9A for 19 November 2009 CCPC hearing.
The Petitioners' responses (in the resubmittal packet) reference the first Staff Report (for the 19
October hearing).
The REVISED Staff Report is in response to the petitioners' revised subdistrict language and the revised
Commerciai Needs Anaiyses; Office Study and Retaii Study.
Regards,
0- (L----
Leslie Persia
Senior Planner
Comprehensive Planning
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
c
c :ou.:nty
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
(REVISED 12 NOVEMBER 2009)
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2009 (CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 19, 2009)
FROM:
RE:
PETITION CP-2008-3, GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY MIXED USE
SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
[TRANSMITTAL HEARING] Coordinator: Leslie Persia, Senior Planner
AGENT/APPLICANT:
Agent: Robert Mulhere, AICP
RWA, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Drive
Naples, FL 34109
Applicants: Rick Evanchyk
Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida
4940 Bayline Road
North Fort Myers, FL 33917
Scott Jones
Naples Christian Academy Association, Inc.
3161 Santa Barbara Boulevard
Naples, FL 34116
Owners:
Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida
4940 Bayline Road
North Fort Myers, FL 33917
Naples Christian Academy Association, Inc.
3161 Santa Barbara Boulevard
Naples, FL 34116
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara
Boulevard, within the Golden Gate Planning Community in Section 29, Township 49 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. The site is 20.71:1: acres, with 17.16", acres of
-1-
--"--~
_.._-_._""---~~
-..-.....-.....-. ....,
..,._.~-_._,
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
developable land remaining, and inciudes the Naples Christian Academy and a church. (See
aerial and zoning maps below.)
.-
.--
'.'^,.,'",
..".,..
U[
il' RMF.{j
'I
, "I
<II ,-(-
Pro sed (;.4 ~Il~"r-'pu~-\
Pro" !$ite ,_~j _ _ _'-
,------ --
CPUD
EN GATE Pj{Y
,
to'-
PVD
I. -'TT --~. ,-
. ; ;:l i ~ ,
-0; J L 29THPLSW
1- -__ -'~
, 11
,
P'!I?-
,
'"
H', ,
0
q >
>
"
.' <
.' ~
, E '" .
, "
<
" ," .
.
. --_,
.
, '
",i '
, '
" I"!!
..., ...:
~ I :;:;: '.
O::iG::,',-
,
~ ,RSF-3 !
,
.
,
"
~
.
.
.
>
< ,
, ,
->
o
o
,,.
I
I *'
Hi'
i :I:!
i' h,
I' "'i.
- .
" ,
.
31,..rPL
N
"--------... .-..;
'" ,_" lu I
-.... ----------..-.-j
NOTE: Over the years, the site and developabie acreages of the subject site have diminished
due to conveyances, as well as right-of-way easement takings.
REQUESTED ACTION:
The applicant seeks to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate
Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series by:
1. Amending Policy 1.1.2 to create the Golden Gate Parkway Mixed-Use Subdistrict within the
Estates-Mixed Use District;
2. Amending Policy 5.2.3 to allow the subject request - the creation of the Golden Gate
Parkway Mixed-Use Subdistrict - along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and
Santa Barbara Boulevard;
3. Amending the Estates - Mixed Use District to add the proposed Subdistrict; and
4. Amending the Future Land Use Map to add this new Subdistrict, and creating a new Future
Land Use Map series map depicting this new Subdistrict.
The petitioner's proposed text changes, shown in strike-through/underline format, are as
follows:
(Words underlined are added, words
denotes break in text.)
are deleted; row of asterisks [''']
Policy 1.1.2:
The Estates Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for:
A. ESTATES - MIXED USE DISTRICT
1. Residential Estates Subdistrict
2. Neighborhood Center Subdistrict
3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict
4. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict
-2-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gale Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (I90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
5) Golden Gate Parkwav Mixed Use Subdistrict
[new lext, page 4]
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Policy 5.2.3: [new text, page 12J
Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the planned 1-75 interchange at
Golden Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict
of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zoning for properties abutting
Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new commercial uses
shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above-
defined segment. This policy shall not apply to that existing portion of the Golden Gate Estates
Commercial Infill District, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate
Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, and also shall not a(lply to the Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use
Subdistrict. which is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and
Santa Barbara Boulevard.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
2. ESTATES DESIGNATION [new text, page 26]
This designation is characterized by low density semi-rural residential lots with limited
opportunities for other land uses. Typical lots are 2.25 acres in size. However, there are some
legal non-conforming lots as small as 1.14 acres. Residential density is limited to a maximum of
one unit per 2.25 gross acres, or one unit per legal non-conforming lot of record, exclusive of
9uesthouses, except as provided for in the Golden Gate Parkwav Mixed Use Subdistrict. Multipie
family dwelling units, duplexes, and other structures containing two or more principal dwellings,
are prohibited in all Districts and Subdistricts except the Golden Gate Parkwav Mixed Use
Subdistrict.
Generally, the Estates Designation also accommodates future non-residential uses, inciuding;
. Conditional uses and essential services as defined in the Land Development Code, except as
prohibited in the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. Also, refer to the Conditional Uses
Subdistrict.
. Parks, open space and recreational uses.
. Group Housing shall be permitted subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the
Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004,
effective October 18, 2004) and consistent with locational requirements in Florida Statutes
(Chapter 419.001 F.S.).
. Schools and school facilities in the Estates Designation north of 1-75, and where feasible and
mutually acceptable, co-locate schools with other public facilities, such as parks, libraries and
community centers to the extent possible.
[new text, page 26]
. Commercial uses as allowed in speCific subdistricts.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
A. Estates - Mixed Use District
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
_.
5. Golden Gate Parkwav Mixed Use Subdistrict [new text, page 33]
The Golden Gate Parkwav Mixed Use Subdistrict com'prises atlProximately 20.71 acres
and is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and
Santa Barbara Boulevard. The 0d!]Jose of this Subdistrict is to allow for a mix of
commercial, residential and institutional uses.
This Subdistrict is intended to allow for a mix of both retail and office uses so as to
provide ogportunities for shop.pinq and personal services for on-site residential
-3-
___.'__." __.'_.c._,.' "_"'_ _ "."_.."..m_'_",_"_',^_.,~__",,_,,,_,_,_ "0
-,---"--,,-,._,,-~,,,,"_."--"'"--
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Lise Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
developmenl as well as for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travei
distance. The development standards contained in this Subdistrict are designed to
ensure that all deveioQment allowed within this Subdistrict will be compatible with
ill!jacent and nearby residentiai development.
Residential multi-family land uses are allowed within this Subdistrict at a density set forth
!!!...paraggph a, below. Senior housinQ, including, but not iimited to assisted living
facilities, nursing homes and Qroup care units, are also specificallv allowed in this
Subdistrict.
No new conditional uses may be pursued agjacent to the Subdistrict boundaries, and the
existence of this Subdistrict mav not be used as justification for future changes to the
GGAMP to provide for new commercial or mixed use development oQPortunities, given
the historic non-residential use of the Subdistrict lands.
The fOllowinq criteria and standards shall regulate development within the Golden Gate
Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict:
a. Residential Density
1. Residential density shall be calculated on the total site acreage of 20.71;0 acres.
2. The residential density shall not exceed 3.55 dwelling units per acre (74 unitsL
3. Base density shall be reduced if senior housinq is constructed, as set forth in
paragrnph b.3., below.
4. The minimum allowed density is 2.0 units per gross acre (41 totai dwelling unitsl
5. Onlv multi-family dwelling units are allowed in this Subdistrict.
b. Limitation of Permitted Commercial Uses
1. Commerciai uses shall be limited to a maximum of 60,000 square feet of gross
ieasable floor area, of which no more than 40,000 square feet of gross leasable
floor area may be develgped as retail commercial land uses.
2. Commercial land uses shall be limited to those permitted and conditional uses
set forth in the C-1, C-2, or C-3 Zoning Districts of the Collier Countv Land
Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, except as prohibited in
parag@Qh d.. below.
3. The floor area ratio for senior housing, including, but not limited to. assisted
living, nursing care, and qroup care units shall not exceed 0.60. The floor area of
senior housing development shall be excluded from the commercial floor area
limitations in paragrnph b.1., above. For each senior housing unit (room, not
beds) constructed, 14 of a dwelling unit shall be deducted from the density
ailowed in a.2., above. A maximum of 240 senior housing units is allowed.
c. Rezone
1. To promote a cohesive plan of development, the entire site shall be rezoned to a
single Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). Requlations for water
management, uniform landscapinq, signage, screening and buffering shall be
included in the MPUD ordinance to ensure compatibility with adjacent and nearby
residential areas.
d. Development Standards
1. Commercial development directly abuttinQ residential R!:QPertv (R!:QPerty zoned E
- Estates and without an aQProved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum,
a seventy-five (75) foot buffer, or a fifty (50) feet wide buffer in which no parkinq
-4-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
uses are permitted. Twenty (20) feet of the width 01 the buffer along the
developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of thirtv (;ill) feet of the
buffer width shall consist of retained native vegetation and must be consistent
with subsection 3.05.07H. of the LDC. If the fifty (50) foot buffer alternative is
QlQposed for all, or a portion of the western and southern boundaries of the
Subdistrict, then a six (2:) foot, architecturally finished solid fence/wall shall be
installed within the required buffer in a location that provides the qreatest
screening of land uses developed in this Subdistrict, and of the existing Estates
residences to the west and south. The native vegetation retention area may
consist of a perimeter berm and be used for water management detention. Any
newly constructed berm shall be re-vegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07H. of
the LDC (i:1ative vegetation replanting requirements). Additionallv, in order to be
considered for am>roval, use of the native vegetation retention area for water
management ~oses shall meet the following criteria.:
(a) There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained.
The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro-
period unless it proven that such would have no adverse impact to the
existing vegetation.
1Q) If the QrQiect requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management
District, the Q[Qject shall provide a letter or official document from the District
indicating that the native vegetation with the retention area will not have to be
removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District
cannot or will not sUQPly such a letter, then the native vegetation retention
area shall not be used for water management.
if) If the QrQiect is reviewed bv Collier County. the County engineer shall provide
evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate the
necessary storage of water in the water management area.
2. Projects shall provide a 25-loot wide landscape buffer abutting the external rigt!!::
of-way. The buffer shall contain two staqgered rows of trees that shall be spaced
no more than 30 feet on center, and a double row hedge at least 24 inches in
height at time of plantinq and attaining a minimum of three feet height within one
year. A minimum of 50% of the 25-foot wide buffer area shall be comprised of a
meanderinq bed of shrubs and qround cover other than grass. Existing native
trees must be retained with this 25-foot wide buffer area to aid in achieving this
buffer requirement; other existing native vegetation shall be retained, where
possible, to aid in achieving this buffer requirement. Water retention/detention
areas shall be allowed in this buffer area if left in natural state, and drainaw
convevance throuqh the buffer area shall be allowed if necessary to reach an
external outfall. For that portion of this Subdistrict Iving within the Corridor
Management [zoning] Overlay (CMO), the more stringent requirements of this
para9@ph and the CMO shall aQllly,
3. Shared parking shall be required with adjoininq developments wherever
practicable. To the greatest extent possible, internal parkinq and driveways shall
be located between the Subdistrict's residential and commercial structures in
order to minimize noise and liqhts on adjacent Estates Zoned lliQPerties.
4. Driveways and curb cuts shall be consolidated with aQjoining developments,
wherever practicable.
5. Building heights shall be limited to two (2) stories, with a maximum zoned heigb1
of thirty-five QID feet.
6. Commercial uses shall encouraggJledestrian traffic through the placement of
sidewalks, pedestrian walkwavs, and marked crosswalks within parking areas.
AQjacent QrQiects shall coordinate placement of sidewalks so that a continuous
pathway through the Subdistrict is created.
7. All commercial buildings within this Subdistrict shall utilize a common
architectural theme.
-5-
-,.. ._...~_.,--,~--_._,~.,"."._"_.,_.__.._~"--,,.,-,~-.,-- , ---
CP-2008~3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
8. All lighting shall be architecturally designed and limited to a height of twentv-five
(25) feet. Such lighting shall be shielded from neighboring residential land uses.
This theme shall be aQPlicable to both building design and signa~
9. All commercial buildings shall have tile roofs, "Did Style Florida" metal roofs, or
decorative parapet walls above the roofline. The buildings shall be finished in
Jjght subdued colors, except for decorative trim.
10. If the Q[Qject is submitted as a PUD, it shall..provide a functional public open-
!2pace component. Such public open-space shall be developed as a qreen space
within a pedestrian-accessible courtyard, as per Section 4.06.038.3 of the LDC,
as in effect at the time of the PUD allProval.
11. The followingprincill.9!.Permitted uses are prohibited;
fa) Drinking Places (5813) and Liquor Stores (5921)
(b) Mail Order Houses (5961\
(c) Merchandizing Machine Operators (5962)
iQ) Power Laundries (7211)
(e) Crematories (7261) (Does not include non-crematory Funeral Parlors)
ill Radio, TV Representatives (7313) and Direct Mail Advertising Services
(7331\
19) NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc. (7999\
(h) General Hospitals (8062). Psychiatric Hospitals (8063), and Specialty
Hospitals (8069\
Ii) Libraries (8231)
.Ul Correctional Institutions (9223)
ill Waste Management (9511)
jl) Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES
Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas
Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict
Golden Gate Parkwav Mixed Use Subdistrict
-6-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden
Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Estates-Mixed Use
District, Golden Gate Parkway Mixed-Use Subdistrict.
Initially, the proposed subdistrict allowed for 100,000 square feet of commercial uses similar to
C-1 through C-3 zoning districts and 74 residential multi-family dwelling units at the rate of 3.55
DU/A with provisions for affordable housing for a maximum dwelling unit density of 12 DU/A.
The proposed amendment also included a conversion ratio for unbuilt commercial to multi-family
dwelling units at the rate of 450 square feet of commercial to 1 multi-family dwelling unit, with a
minimum of 22,000 square feet of commercial.
Initially, the proposed amendment included the following site development standards as well, in
general:
. Rezoning as a MPUD;
. Minimum setback of 25 feet plus one foot of setback for each foot of building height;
. Existing native vegetation shall be retained within the setback area, where feasible;
. Water retention/detention areas shall be allowed in the setback area with stipulations;
. Shared parking;
. Driveways and curb cuts consolidated with adjoining developments;
. Building height limited to two story buildings (maximum zoned height of 45 feet;
. Encouragement of pedestrian traffic; and,
. Common architectural theme for commercial buildings.
On 23 October 2009, staff received a revised proposal from the petitioner. The revised
proposed subdistrict allows for 60,000 square feet of commercial uses similar to C-1 through
C-3 zoning districts, of which no more than 40,000 square feet may be developed as retail uses,
and a maximum of 74 residential multi-family dwelling units at the rate of 3.55 DU/A.
The site development standards for the revised proposed amendment, in general, are the
following:
. Rezoning as a MPUD;
. Commercial development directly abutting residential property shall provide, at a
minimum, a 75 foot buffer, or a 50 foot buffer in which no parking uses are permitted;
. If the 50 foot buffer alternative is proposed, a six foot fence/wall shall be installed;
. Minimum of thirty (30) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained native vegetation
and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.07H. of the LDC;
. Water retention/detention areas shall be allowed in the setback area with stipulations;
. Twenty-five foot landscape buffer along external right-of-way;
. Shared parking, where practicable;
. Driveways and curb cuts consolidated with adjoining developments;
. Building heights limited to two stories, with a maximum zoned height of 35 feet;
. Encouragement of pedestrian traffic;
. Common architectural theme for commercial buildings, consisting of tile roofs, "Old Style
Florida" metal roofs, or decorative parapet walls above the roofline, and subdued paint
colors; and,
. Lighting height limited to 25 feet, architecturally designed, and shielded from neighboring
residential.
-7-
-- ,"-"' ..---...---- ._.."--,--,,-,.._~.~~---"--,-. ,',,- .._,---_.._~.,..~-_..~...."--"....._-"
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (I90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (l9Nov09)
As proposed in the initial submittal, the revised proposed amendment also includes in a
provision for senior housing at the rate of a maximum FAR of 0.60 with each senior housing unit
equating to 14 of a residential dwelling unit. This equates to a maximum of 60 residential
dwelling units.
The subject site, located on the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara
Boulevard, includes the Naples Christian Academy and a church, and consists of 20.7h acres
with 17.16", acres of developable land remaining.
SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION:
Subject Site:
The subject site consists of three parcels in Unit 30, Golden Gates Estates, comprising
approximately 20.71 + acres, with 17.16", acres of development land remaining. The subject site
is currently zoned E, Estates, with two Provisional Uses allowing a church (PU-82-23-C, Res.
82-190) and a school (PU-78-3-C, Res. 78-62), and designated as Estates - Mixed Use District,
Residential Estates Subdistrict on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map.
. The church site occupies the generally northern two parcels; Tract 113 and the North 150' of
Tract 114, less and except portions conveyed. In addition, a Corridor Management Overlay
(CMO) exists at a 330' offset from the northern right-of-way line, along Golden Gate
Parkway. The church site is approximately 8.2+ acres and currently occupied by Naples
Church of Christ.
. The school site occupies the generally southern one parcel; the south 180' of Tract 114,
Tract 115, and the north 150' of Tract 116. The school site is approximately 12.5", acres and
currently occupied by Naples Christian Academy.
Surrounding Lands:
North: Golden Gate Parkway, a 6-lane divided arterial road then,
Vacant land, zoned Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) - Colonades at
Santa Barbara, designated Estates - Commercial District, Golden Gate Estates
Commercial Infill Subdistrict. Both the designation and zoning allow 35,000 ff of office
development.
Further north and to the northwest, single family residential, zoned E, Estates,
designated Estates - Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict.
South: Single family residential, zoned E, Estates, designated Estates - Mixed Use District,
Residential Estates Subdistrict.
East: Santa Barbara Blvd, a 6-lane divided arterial road, then (Urban designation),
To the northeast, Santa Barbara Square shopping center, zoned C-4, General
Commercial District, designated Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential
Subdistrict.
Vacant, zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Parkway Center (sunsetted),
designated Urban - Commercial District, Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office
Commercial Subdistrict.
-8-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
Developed residential, duplex, zoned RMF-12, Residential Multi-Family-12 District,
designated Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, then; Developed
residential, duplex, zoned RMF-6, Residential Multi-Family-6 District, designated Urban
- Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict.
David Lawrence Center Child's Path Preschool, zoned RMF-12, Residential
Multi-Family-12 District, with a provisional use (PU-87-29-C), designated Urban - Mixed
Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict.
West: Single family residential, zoned E, Estates, designated Estates - Mixed Use District,
Residential Estates Subdistrict.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Please refer to the document titled "Standard Language for GMPA Staff Reports" located behind
the "GMPA Standard Language" tab. This document addresses some items common to all
petitions in this cycle - statutory data and analysis, the GMP vision, and HB 697 - and one item
common to the six petitions seeking amendments to the GGAMP.
Background and Considerations:
Please be advised that this amendment will be subject to the requirements of Policy 5.1.1 of
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Policy 5.1.1 provides lighting standards for the
prevention or reduction of light pollution.
GGAMP - Present
Commercial development is limited to Neighborhood Centers, site-specific commercial
subdistricts, and existing commercially zoned properties.
Conditional use development, except essential services and model homes, is limited to
Estates Neighborhood Centers, infill development on the west side of C.R. 951, and
transitional areas - adjacent to certain non-residential uses or adjacent to Neighborhood
Centers, and two site-specific locations - one on the west side of C.R. 951 and one on the
south side of Golden Gate Parkway.
1-75 Interchange and surrounding land uses:
Resulting from the State's approval to fund and construct the 1-75 Interchange at Golden
Gate Parkway, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Resolution 2001-56
establishing an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to provide recommendations on the
appearance and landscaping of the interchange. The Committee was specifically tasked
with creating an "overlay" district for the interchange to, minimize impacts to property
owners, preserve the residential character of the area, and establish landscaping provisions
consistent with creating a "gateway" into Naples and Golden Gate.
GGAMP Re-Study Committee - GGAMP Policy 5.2.3 and revisions to the Estates,
Conditional Uses Subdistrict:
The GGAMP Re-Study Committee was formed, in part, to study the land use needs of the
Golden Gate Community, such as commercial, community facility and institutional uses.
County staff worked with the Committee to identify appropriate areas to locate new
commercial development and conditional uses within the Estates and Golden Gate City.
-9-
_." ._.u_..___~..._,_...."
_ ._..._.__......_..,.,_....._._...,._.....,.h._
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (I90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (l9Nov09)
Committee recommendations to the BCC included added provisions for conditional use
development, expansion and creation of Neighborhood Centers within the Estates, and the
expansion and creation of commercial/mixed-use subdistricts within Golden Gate City.
The Re-Study Committee also identified areas that were inappropriate for new commercial
and conditional use development. One such area identified by the Committee was the
Golden Gate Parkway corridor, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. In
2003, the Re-study Committee met with "1-75/Golden Gate Parkway" Ad hoc Committee
members to discuss desired land uses for the area surrounding the interchange. As a result,
the Re-Study Committee recommended to the BCC provisions that would prohibit new
commercial and conditional use development along Golden Gate Parkway in the Estates.
Committee recommendations for expanded commercial and conditional use opportunities
and the restriction of these uses in certain areas governed by the Master Plan were adopted
by the BCC in 2003 and 2004, as part of the Phased Re-Study Amendments to the GGAMP.
Therefore:
The project is not consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan that prohibit new
commercial and conditional use development along Golden Gate Parkway between
Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Additionally, a commitment was made by the County to the Florida Department of
Transportation in consideration of the approval and construction of the 1-75 Interchange to
keep the Golden Gate Parkway corridor "green" and not allow the proliferation of
commercial and conditional uses.
Justification for proposed amendment, as provided by the applicant:
Essentially the petitioner is stating the proposed amendment should be granted because: 1)
the character of the area has changed due to future roadway expansion of Golden Gate
Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard to 6-lanes; 2) the four quadrants surrounding the
intersection are presently designated or developed with non-residential uses - low
residential development is not compatible in and around the intersection; 3) directly east of
the subject is high density residential; and 4) there is a demand for commercial at this
location.
1) The roadways surrounding the subject project have recently been expanded (much
completion during 2009); however, the impacts to Estates - Residential properties may
be minimal given the size and depth of the residential tracts, existing buffering, and
placement of structures.
2) The four quadrants at the intersection of the Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara
Boulevard are zoned or designated for non-residential development. The northeast
quadrant is designated Urban; zoned C-4, general commercial; and is developed with a
shopping center consisting of neighborhood commercial uses. The southeast quadrant is
designated Urban - Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Subdistrict, limited to
office development, and is undeveloped. The southwest quadrant (the 20.71 acre
subject site) is designated Estates; zoned E, Estates; and is developed with a church
and private school with related facilities. The northeast quadrant is designated Estates
Mixed Use District, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict; zoned CPUD,
Commercial Planned Unit Development, allowing ollice uses only; and is undeveloped.
-10-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
Staff Comment: The designations and zoning at and around the intersection of Golden
Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard simply identifies existing approvals and
future development patterns, which are predominantly low intensity uses/development.
This acknowledgement of non-residential uses at the intersection does not demonstrate
the need to create the subject subdistrict or allow higher intensity development as
proposed at the subject location. In addition, directly east of the subject site, across
Santa Barbara Boulevard, are properties zoned RMF-12, designated urban residential,
and developed with duplex structures, then properties zoned RMF-6, designated urban
residential, and developed with single family dwellings. In addition, the David Lawrence
Center Child's Path Preschool exists on Santa Barbara Boulevard.
3) Directly east of the subject site is Santa Barbara Boulevard then the high density
residential, therefore the proposed subdistrict is compatible.
Staff Comment: The area east of the subject site is part of the Urban Designation of
Golden Gate City. This area provides for a dense urban development with a wide range
of uses in order to serve both this urban area and the surrounding Estates zoned
semi-rural area. The urban core is compact and has a clearly defined boundary with low
density development surrounding it. In addition, a residential density band includes the
majority of the urban core, with part of this density band directly east of the subject site.
4) Commercial Demand Analysis:
The Commercial Needs Analyses and Raw Data sets submitted by the petitioner in
support of petition CP-2008-3 were prepared by Fishkind & Associates, Inc. on 24 April
2008, revised and updated on 27 April 2009 and due to staff's inability to validate the
raw data sets, revised again on 21 October 2009. Two separate and distinct Commercial
Needs Analyses were provided: Office Study and Retail Study. Each study is formatted
in a similar manner, complete with the majority of the tables and section numbering,
which proved helpful during the analysis process. However, it should be noted that each
study utilizes a different primary trade area: 20-minute drive time for the Office Study
and 10-minute drive time for the Retail Study.
Staff's analysis determined that the net supply of commercial was underreported by
600,000 ff in the Office Study and 325,000 ff in the Retail Study due to the petitioners'
incorrect evaluation of many future land use designations. Some evaluation errors
resulted from the use of a GIS interpretation of the future land use subdistricts, which the
petitioners received from the County in early 2008. The land use GIS files are for
interpretation only and cannot be used without the GMP, especially the subdistrict maps.
Other evaluation errors occurred when defined allocations of GMP land use subdistricts
were incorrectly interpreted. For example, the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill
Subdistrict has two infill areas, both allowing commercial. However, the infill area at the
northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard allows only
office uses. Staff's analysis of the Office and Retail studies adjusts for incorrect
evaluations.
The starting point of Comprehensive Planning Department staff's analysis of the Office
Study and Retail Study was verification of the Raw Data sets. If the Raw Data is flawed,
then any conclusions drawn from a flawed data set may be invalid. The data verification
includes correlation of the Raw Data with the values reported in both Studies, ensuring
the Raw Data records are within the corresponding Trade Areas, and Raw Data records
correlate with Collier Property Appraiser records.
-11-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gale Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (l90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (l9Nov09)
The steps outlined below indicate the process used by Comprehensive Planning
Department staff for analyzing the petitioners' Office Study and Retail Study:
. Verify Raw Data - within trade area, correlates with Collier Property Appraiser
records, totals provided in reports match data provided:
. Verify Study Information - information used to support methodology and/or study
information; and,
· Interpret Methodology and Results.
The petitioners' use of a "drive time" trade area, which is characterized by a jagged
border, is a good choice. A drive time trade area takes into account the road network,
including roadway speed limits, and any geographic limitations surrounding the subject
site, such as canals segregating the road network. Both trade area boundaries were
computer generated by Fishkind & Associates. The 10-minute drive time Retail trade
area appears to be missing major commercial areas on the western boundary (see
Figure 1 on page 17).
Where population estimates and/or projections were required, the petitioners used the
2008 AUIR population 1 figures, as these were the most recent at the time of submittal.
The Raw Data sets provided by the petitioner for both the Office Study and Retail Study
fell within the respective trade areas, correlated with the Collier Property Appraiser
records, and as presented matched the study totals. A few data records were not
assigned to the correct land use designation; therefore, staff's analysis will not
completely match that provided by the petitioner. In addition, as noted earlier, the supply
was underreported due to the petitioners' incorrect evaluation of many future land use
designations. These differences will be noted.
Analysis of the Office Study and Retail Study are addressed individually, however both
studies utilized similar methodologies. Generally, the petitioners' used the following
steps for the analysis in each Study:
. Determine each Study trade area;
. Compile inventory of existing office or retail space for the Office Study and Retaii
Study trade areas, respectively, using commercial DOR (Florida Department of
Revenue) land use codes as noted in Table 1 below;
. Compile inventory of vacant commercial parcels (DOR Code 10) in each Study
trade area;
. Determine future potential office or retail space for the Office Study and Retail
Study trade areas, respectively, based on the Collier County future land use
designations, including the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; and,
. Project future demand of off office or retail space for the Office Study and Retail
Study trade areas, respectively.
The petitioners compiled the inventory of existing office or retail space for the Office
Study and Retail Study trade areas, respectively, (see "Existing Allocation..." in Table 2
and Table 6 below) using commercial DOR land use codes as noted in Table 1 below.
To determine future potential office or retail space within the Office Study or Retail trade
areas, respectively, the petitioners first identified the land use designations with specific
1 Population projections based upon BEBR (Bureau of Economic and Business Research) Medium Range growth
rates.
-12-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
and/or maximum commercial allocations (see "Defined Allocation..." in Table 2 and
Table 6). Next, the petitioners estimated future allocation of office or retail space for the
land use designations without specific commercial allocations within the Office Study or
Retail trade areas (see "Estimated Allocation..." in Table 2 and Table 6). For the
estimated allocations, the petitioners chose to classify the land use designations as
either Redevelopment of Traditional. Redevelopment areas are more likely to change
land uses, therefore the petitioners accounted for the entire subdistrict acreage (less
obvious right-of-way, water management, or development that appears stable such as
the Naples Botanical Gardens in Bayshore/Gateway Triangle). In contrast, the
Traditional classification only analyzed Collier Property Appraiser records identified with
DOR land use code of 10 (vacant commercial) that were not within any Redevelopment
classifications.
In order to project how much of the Redevelopment and Traditional commercial land
classifications or any additional vacant commercial land (see "DOR Code 10 Reconciled'
in Table 2 and Table 6) would develop into commercial, the consultant assumed 33% of
the land would become office acreage and 50% would become retail acreage. The office
or retail square footage was then calculated by multiplying the office or retail average
square foot per acre density, respectively.
Determining if sufficient office or retail space exists within the Office Study or Retail
Study trade areas, respectively, the petitioners determined the total holding capacity of
the respective Study trade area by summing the existing allocation of space, defined
allocation of space, estimated allocation of space, and the current vacant space (DOR
land use code 10). For the Office Study, the petitioners also included Lee County office
space as well, since the 20-minute trade area extends into Lee County.
For both studies, a comparison of supply to demand (net supply of square footage in
trade area divided by consultant's market demand) produced an allocation ratio. The
Supply-to-Demand allocation ratio is the basis for each studies determination of need
(see "(3) Allocation Ratio (Supply/Demand)" in the tables below).
The studies differed in the basis used to project future space demand within the Study
trade area. The Office Study utilized the number of office employees instead of
population within the Office trade area as the basis for projecting future office space
demand. The Retail Study utilized population count to determine dwelling units within the
Retail trade area as the basis for projecting future retail space demand.
Overall, staff finds the petitioners' methodology used in the Office Study and the Retail
Study to be professionally acceptable. However, staff does not concur with the
petitioners that an allocation ratio of at least 2.0 is required to determine need (that the
supply should be twice the demand).
Allocation Ratio (Market Factor)
The petitioners' Retail Study states that an allocation ratio of 2.0 is the minimum
acceptable level and that a ratio of 2.09 is "sufficiently high enough to accommodate the
expected demand in a meaningful fashion' and that "no numerical need exists for
additional... retail space at the Project' site. Yet to influence this statement since the
allocation ratio is greater than 2.0, the petitioners state that additional commercial space
may be demonstrated by other factors, such as community desires, locational criteria,
and suitability of the property for change. In contrast, the petitioners' Office Study
-13-
_.. ..^ ... ._._...._ _ ..__ _,~"_~,_"'_'_'"q.'.'_'_'~A~'" __. .."._ ,'.' ,._ "'..- J "...' _ .~" .~_. .-.-. -
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (I9Nov09)
concludes that with an allocation ratio below 2.0 the project site "warrants the addition of
new office land to the market."
An allocation ratio of 2.0 indicates that the supply would support 200% of the projected
population. The petitioners' use of a 2.0 allocation ratio as the criteria to determine need
appears to be on the high side given not all commercial DOR land use codes were
accounted for in either study and additional commercial acreage (17%) is provided for
given the consultant's assumptions made as to acreage that would develop into office
(33%) and retail (50%) space. With the acreage and/or space attributed to the unused
DOR land use codes, a reserve of 17% to address flexibility in the market seems on the
high side as well.
In addition, the allocation ratio (or market factor) that the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) seems to recommend is 1.252. In other words, with an
allocation ratio of 1.25 for retail land use, the GMP would support 125% of the projected
population. Staff recommends the use of DCA allocation ratio of 1.25 as the minimum.
Numerical need, hence allocation ratio (or market factor), is a tool only and should not
be the only means for determining an increase of a particular land use. Other factors
should be reviewed while assessing need, including current GMP policies, community
desires, locational criteria, and suitability of the property for change"-
2 The Florida Senate, Interim Report 2010-107. Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's
Future Land Use Map, October 2009. page 3.
-14-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (l9Nov09)
Table 1 - Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) land Use Codes
"'
CODE DESCRIPTION STUDY
10 Vacant commercial BOTH
- ~.
11 Stores, one story RETAIL
12 Mixed use - store and office or store and residential or residential combination RETAil
13 Department stores NOT USED
14 Supermarkets NOT USED
1S Regional Shopping centers NOT USED
16 Community Shopping Centers RETAil
17 Office buildings, non-professional services buildings, 1-story OFFICE
18 Office buildings, non-professional services buildings, 2-story OFFICE
19 Professional services buildings OFFICE
21 Restaurants, cafeterias RETAil
22 Drive-in restaurants RETAil
23 Financial institutions (banks, savings and loan, mortgage companies, credit services) OFFICE
24 Insurance company office NOT USED
2S Repair service shops (excluding automotive), radio and TV repair, electric repair, etc. NOT USED
~- ----. -~..-
26 Service stations RETAil
27 Auto sales, auto repair and storage, auto service, body and fender shops, etc. RETAil
--------
29 Wholesale outlets, produce houses, manufacturing outlets NOT USED
30 Florists, greenhouses RETAil
31 Drive-in theaters, open stadiurns RETAil
32 Enclosed theaters, enclosed auditoriums RETAil
33 Nightclubs, cocktail lounges, bars RETAil
34 Bowling alleys, skating rinks, pool halls, enclosed arenas RETAil
.. ~ ----
3S Tourist attractions (privately owned) RETAil
36 Camps RETAil
37 Race tracks - horse, auto, or dog RETAil
39 Hotels, motels NOT USED
RETAIL Stud'{
The 10-minute drive time Retail trade area is completely within the Office trade area
and extends slightly into the City of Naples, and used commercial data with the DOR
land use codes as indicated in Table 1, above.
The Retail Study indicates the 10-rninute drive time trade area contains
approximately 1.8-million ff of constructed retail space on slightly more than 250
acres, which is an average density of 6,993 tf/acre of constructed retail space. The
Retail Study also indicates existing commercial vacant land that can accommodate
almost 900,000 ff of retail space.
As shown in Table 2, staff's analysis of the Retail Study indicates an additional
325,000 ff of retail space allocation, above the petitioners' study, for a total retail
space holding capacity or net supply of 4,068,532 ff. As previously discussed, these
-15-
'---'--.-'-"-"-'.' .-.,-'---'
-_....__._+.._._..."---,.--"~_..,-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (I9Nov09)
differences are due to incorrect interpretation
use designations.
by the petitioners' of the future land
Table 2- STAFF vs. PETITIONERS' STUDY Total RETAIL Space Holding Capacity
RETAil Space Source
Existing Allocation of Retail Space
Defined Allocation of Retail Space
Estimated Allocation of Retail Space
DOR Code 10 Reconciled
Total Allocation of Retail Space (or Net Supply GLA*)
STUDY (SF)
STAFF Analysis (SF)
1,784,506
419,226
668,915
870,8S6
3,743,503
1,784,506
396,748
1,016.3~9
870,909
4,068.532
*GLA = Gross Leasable Area
RED text indicates decreased values as compared to petitioners' submitted study.
BLUftext indicates increased values as compared to petitioners' submitted study.
For the basis of determining retail space need, the petitioners utilized the 2008 AUIR
population projections to determine number of households within the 10-minute drive
time trade area. The petitioners indicate a Retail Trade Area population and dwelling
unit increase by 2030 of approximately 12.5% and 19%, respectively, as determined
by the petitioners' methodology. Given that the retail trade area encompasses a fairly
developed area of the County, it is unclear as to the accuracy of the 19% increase of
dwelling units.
Staff has chosen to rely on the 2009 AUIR (draft) population figures, which projects a
much slower growth rate over the next 20 years than the 2008 AUIR population
figures. Staff substituted the 2009 AUIR (draft) population projections for the
petitioners' population projections and determined that the 2030 projected population
for the trade area would be approximately 62,000 or 10% less than the petitioners' of
nearly 69,000 with the 2008 AUIR population projections.
The demand for retail space within the 10-minute trade area is indicated as
(1) Market Retail Demand (Cumulative) in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5.
-16-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
Staff Analysis - RETAIL Study
NOTE: The 1o-minute drive time Retail trade area appears to be missing major
commercial areas on the western boundary as far west as Goodlette-Frank and
Golden Gate Parkway, as far north as Airport and Pine Ridge and as far south
as Airport and Tamiami Trail East. The dark red hatch area in Figure 1 below
indicates the areas in question.
Figure 1 - 10-Minute Drive Time RETAIL Area in Question
z
Ii "
..
... "
... z
-
~ ..
..
.. :>
w ..
... 1<
/;
i.
..l
Z " ..
.. C>
.. C>
1- '"
-
2;
!l
2;'
..,
1-
so LANA RD
VA
T "EACH liD
"
!l
"'
z
..
OOI.PEiN GATE SLVD
:!
...
..
1-'
1-
~. ..
I""
, Q:
o
g'
,;
::
"'
GREE;N B
WHITE KLVD
..
w
w
..
J;;
"
lo
~
PIME RIDGE
"I61"tI AVe, SW
..
SUB.JECT SITE
.
;'j,-
"
"
::
""
:rl .
RADIO Kg. - rl-75
..
..
8
..
"
w
..
i
'"
~
\,
~. RATTLESNAKE HAMMOGK
'\
*' LEGEND
"
..
i
-
'"
..
~
..
"
w
I...
. 0.5 1
........
, 1
IMI""
"
_ RETAIL COMMERCIAL
_ VACANT C OMMEUIAL
OPETITIONERS' 100MIN D 'liVE TIME TRADE AREA
[ZJADDITIONAL 10-MIN DRIVE TIME AREA
crrv OF NAPLES
GIS Mapping: L Per~a, 5 NOV20C9
Collier County Comprehemnve Plflrrlmg
Data Source: Collier COI.rny PropertyAppraisEf, 31M,BR09
NOT5: Map j~"a depiction and used as a pl&nr\lng tool
,
-17-
_ .._ .__,_~._"___., _.,_.",., _"~ _".,..". __' .,.M__,""","-'~~_'~'_'~_ ~,","'__"_=_C.'_'._ _'.'''_'_''_'_''_ _
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
For consistency, staff's analysis began with verification of the petitioners' Retail
Study and utilized the same trade area and data set supplied by the petitioners.
Staff's analysis, Table 3, of the petitioners' 10-minute drive time Retail Space trade
area includes the unaccounted for 325,000 ff of retail space as is shown in
(2) Supply Net GLA (SF) in Table 3, which equates to the Total Allocation of Retail
Space from Table 2 above. In order to provide the most recent data available given
justification of retail space is based on population, staff adjusted the demand utilizing
the slower projected growth rate of the 2009 AUIR (draft) population projections. The
demand is indicated as (1) Market Retail Demand (Cumulative) in Table 3.
Staff's analysis of the Retail Space trade area indicates a net retail supply of
4,068,532 ff of gross leasable area over the 20 year study horizon, with increasing
retail space demand to 2030, yielding decreasing allocation ratios indicating retail
space supply in 2010 is 3.4-times the demand and 2030 is 2.6-times the demand.
In addition, the allocation ratios indicate the 2010 and 2030 retail space supplies are
even greater than the supply projected by the petitioners in Table 5, which is
attributed to staff's use of the 2009 AUIR (draft) population figures and the additional
325,000 ft2 of unaccounted net supply of retail space.
In summary, the 2010 and 2030 retail supply supports almost 340% and over 260%
of the projected population, respectively. Both scenarios indicate a very high retail
supply in the trade area.
Table 3 - STAFF'S Analysis - Retail Market Study Needs Allocation
RETAIL
(1) Market Retail Demand SF (Cumulative)
(2) Supply Net GLA' (SF)
(3) Allocation Ratio (Supply/Demand)"
2008
2010
2020
2030
1,226,630
4,068,532
3.32
1,202,362
4,068,532
3.38
1,356,498
4,068,532
3.00
1,543,814
4,068,532
2.64
*GLA = Gross Leasable Area
** (3) Allocation Ratio is calculated by dividing the Supply (2) by the Demand (1).
RED text indicates decreased values as compared to petitioners' submitted study.
BLUE text indicates increased values as compared to petitioners' submitted study.
The petitioners' Retail Study states that an allocation ratio over 2.0 indicates "no
numerical need exists for additional... retail space at the Project' site. The petitioners
also provide that additional commercial space may be demonstrated by other factors,
such as community desires, locational criteria, and suitability of the property for
change.
Staff concurs that no numerical need exists for additional retail space at the subject
site given that staff's analysis yields an allocation ratio of 2.64 in 2030 indicating the
retail supply will be over 2.6-tirnes the demand supporting over 260% of the
projected population. Staff would add that a minimum allocation ratio of 2.0 appears
to be on the high side as illustrated earlier.
Staff concurs that it would be prudent to investigate additional factors including
review of the nearby area for existing competition of retail space. Staff reviewed the
-18-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
Urban designation of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan within 2.5 miles of the
subject site where a net supply of retail space 01 more than 600,000 fe exists.
Community desires for the Estates Mixed Use District of the GGAMP and in
particular, the Golden Gate Parkway corridor are reflected in Policy 5.2.3 of the
GGAMP, which prohibits commercial development along Golden Gate Parkway
between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The proposed subdistrict is
inconsistent with Policy 5.2.3 of the GGAMP and the application and support
documentation for the proposed amendment did not address changing conditions
that would justify or support an exception or change to adopted Policy 5.2.3 in the
GGAMP.
The subject site has predominantly been used for institutional uses, such as a church
and school. The current uses positively support the community and provide for an
excellent transition between the Urban designation of the land to east of the subject
site and the Estates designated semi-rural residential to the west of the subject site.
Therefore addressing all factors that may demonstrate additional retail space need:
. No numerical need exists;
. No community desire for change of this site exists;
. No special locational criteria exist with over 600,000 Ie net supply 01 retail
space near the proposed site; and,
. No suitability factors that would justify or support change of the subject site
exist.
The petitioners' have not demonstrated a need for additional retail space at the
subject site.
Petitioners' Summary - RETAIL Analysis
The following two tables indicate the retail space demand for the 10-rninute trade
area; Table 4 reflects the petitioners Retail Study with the underreported retail space
and Table 5 contains staff's correction to the petitioners' Retail Study needs
allocation to include the unaccounted for 325,000 Ie of retail space.
Review of Table 4, the petitioners' Retail Study needs analysis, indicates a net retail
supply of 3,743,503 fe of gross leasable area over the 20 year study horizon, with
increasing demand to 2030, yielding decreasing allocation ratios from 3.05 in 2008 to
2.09 in 2030.
In other words, the ratios indicate the current retail space supply is over three times
the demand and in 2030 the retail space supply would be more than twice the
demand, both scenarios indicate sufficiently high supply to accommodate future
demand of retail supply in the trade area.
However, since 325,000 fe of retail space is unaccounted for in the petitioners' Retail
Study, the results are invalid. Therefore, Table 5 contains more accurate results.
-19-
_..__ _...__._,__._.~_._._. _._...~ ,,_,,_,~,"_~_"_'._.'V __._.
'.' ,,_.... ---~-,,-"-,--.,-'''~-'--'-''
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (J 90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (J9Nov09)
Table 4 - PETITIONERS' Retail Market Study Needs Allocation (INVALID RESULTS)
RETAIL
(1) Market Retail Demand SF (Cumulative)
(2) Supply Net GLA (SF)'
(3) Allocation Ratio (Supply/Demand)"
2008
2010
2020
2030
1,226,630
3,743,503
3.05
1,278,725
3,743,503
2.93
1,536,912
3,743,503
2.44
1,789,610
3,743,503
2.09
*GLA = Gross Leasable Area
** (3) Allocation Ratio is calculated by dividing the Supply (2) by the Demand (1).
Review of Table 5, the petitioners' Retail Space needs analysis, corrected by staff
with the unaccounted for 325,000 ff of retail space, indicates a net retail supply of
4,068,532 ff. As expected, all allocation ratios increased indicating a supply of
3.3-times the demand in 2008 and 2.3-times the demand in 2030.
In other words, the adjusted ratios indicate the 2008 and 2030 retail supply supports
approximately 330% and 230% of the projected population, respectively, with both
scenarios indicating sufficiently high enough retail supply in the trade area.
However, staff does not concur with the petitioners' projection of increased demand
of retail space in 2010, nor the rate of demand through 2030. Staff believes at a
minimum, the demand in 2010 will be the same as that of 2008, probably less than
that of 2008.
The petitioners' conclusions for retail space in the 10-minute Retail Study trade area
indicates that an allocation ratio of 2.09 is "sufficiently high enough to accommodate
the expected demand in a meaningful fashion' and that" no numerical need exists for
additional... retail space at the Project' site. Since the allocation ratio is greater than
2.0, the petitioners also state that additional commercial space may be demonstrated
by other factors, such as community desires, locational criteria, and suitability of the
property for change.
Once again, staff does not concur with the petitioners' use of determining additional
retail need for this site based on an allocation ratio of 2.0.
Table 5- STAFF Corrected with Uncounted 325,000 SF - Petitioners' Retail Market Study Needs Allocation
RETAIL
(1) Market Retail Demand SF (Cumulative)
(2) Supply Net GLA (SF)'
(3) Allocation Ratio (Supply/Demand)"
2008
2010
2020
2030
1,226,630
4,068,532
3.32
1,278,725
4,068,532
3.18
1,536,912
4,068,532
2.65
1,789,610
4,068,532
2.27
*GLA = Gross Leasable Area
"* (3) Allocation Ratio is calculated by dividing the Supply (2) by the Demand (1).
BLUE text indicates increased values as compared to petitioners' submitted study.
Office Stud\!
The 20-minute drive time trade area extends into Lee County, which is included in
the analysis, as well as into the City of Naples, and used commercial data with the
DOR land use codes as indicated in Table 1, above.
-20-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
The Office Study indicates the 20-minute drive time trade area contains
approximately 4.5-million ft2 of constructed office space on slightly more than 350
acres, which is an average density of 12,725 ft>/acre of constructed office space. The
Office Study also indicates existing commercial vacant land that can accommodate
almost 1-million ft2 of office space, as well as additional existing and potential office
space of more than 600,000 ft> within the Lee County portion of the trade area.
As shown in Table 6, staff's analysis of the Office Study indicates an additional
500,000 ft2 of office space allocation for a total office space holding capacity or net
supply of 13,437,002 ft>. As previously discussed, these differences are due to
incorrect interpretation by the petitioners' of the future land use designations.
Table 6 - STAFF vs. PETITIONERS' STUDY Total Office Space Holding Capacity
OFFICE Space Source
Existing Office Space
Defined Allocation of Office Space
Estimated Allocation of Office Space
Lee County Existing Allocation of Office Space
Lee County Vacant/Potential Office Space
OaR Code 10 Reconciled
Total Allocation of Office Space (or Net Supply GLA*)
STUDY (SF)
STAFF Analysis (SF)
4,506,898
939,676
5,894,662
89,770
S23,588
979,441
12,934,035
4,506,898
1,027,359
6,309,975
89,770
523,578
979,422
13,437,002
"'GlA = Gross Leasable Area
BLUE text indicates increased values as compared to petitioners' submitted study.
The petitioners utilized Total Employed in Office Space as the basis to determine
demand of office space in the trade area, with an average annual employment
growth rate of 1.93% to forecast growth through 2030. The petitioners' projected
growth utilizing the 2008 AUIR population figures.
Staff believes the petitioners' growth rate is fairly conservative, however disagrees
with the petitioners that an increase will occur in 2010 from 2008. Staff has chosen to
rely on the 2009 AUIR (draft) population figures, which projects a decline in
population for 2010 and hence a decline in employment.
The demand for office space within the 20-rninute trade area is indicated as
(1) Market Office Demand (Cumulative) in Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9.
Staff Analysis - OFFICE Study
For consistency, staff's analysis began with verification of the petitioners' Office
Study and utilized the same trade area and data set supplied by the petitioners.
Staff's analysis, Table 7, of the 20-rninute drive time Office Space trade area,
includes the unaccounted for 500,000 ft> of office space as is shown in (2) Supply
Net GLA (SF) in Table 7, which equates to the Total Allocation of Office Space from
Table 6 above.
-21-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
In order to provide the most recent data available, staff's analysis adjusted the
demand utilizing the slower projected growth rate of the 2009 AUIR (draft) population
projections. Staff believes at a minimum, the office space demand in 2010 will be the
same as that of 2008, probably less than that of 2008. However, staff chose to
remain conservative and not project a decline in office employment from 2008 to
2010 but remain flat, in other words no growth or decline. After 2010, staff used the
petitioners' annual growth rate of 1.93%. The demand is indicated as (1) Market
Office Demand (Cumulative) in Table 7.
Staff's analysis of the Office Study trade area indicates a net supply of 13,437,002 ff
of gross leasable area over the 20 year study horizon, with increasing office space
demand to 2030, yielding decreasing allocation ratios indicating an office space
supply of nearly 1.9-tirnes the demand in 2008 and 2010 and 1.4-tirnes the demand
in 2030.
Staff's analysis of office space supply indicates a higher supply of office space than
the petitioners' study (see Table 9 below), which is due to usage of the 2009 AUIR
(draft) population projections and additional 500,000 tt" of unaccounted net supply of
oflice space.
The 2008 and 2010 office space supply is nearly twice the demand supporting 190%
of the projected population and in 2030 nearly 1.4-times the demand supporting
140% of the projected population. Both scenarios indicate an adequate supply of
office space with 2030 indicating a less flexible relationship of office supply in the
trade area.
Table 7 - STAFF'S Analysis - Office Market Study Needs Allocation
OFFICE
(1) Market Office Demand (Cumulative)
(2) Supply Net GLA (Sq Ft)
(3) Allocation Ratio (Supply/Demand)-
2008
2010
2020
2030
7,233,688
13,437,002
1.86
7.233,876
13,437,002
1.86
8.S78,268
13,437,002
1.57
9,922.660
13,437,002
1.35
. (3) Allocation Ratio is calculatad by dividing the Supply (2) by the Demand (1).
RED text indicates decreased values as compared to petitioners' submitled study.
BLUE text indicates increased values as compared to petitioners' submitted study.
The petitioners' analysis indicates that an allocation ratio less than 2.0 "warrants the
addition of new office land to the market." Staff disagrees with the petitioners'
conclusions and provides the following reasons why additional oflice space is not
warranted at the subject site.
As previously stated, staff recommends a minimum allocation ratio of 1.25. In
addition, staff provides that the Office Study results must be reviewed jointly with the
Retail Study results, since the Oflice Study trade area includes the Retail Study trade
area and given the abundant net supply of retail space, as indicated in the Retail
Study analysis. Even if an allocation ratio approaching 2.0 is used, the excessive net
supply of retail space is more than adequate to accommodate current and future
office space demand through 2030. For example, the 2030 RETAIL supply is over
-22-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
2.6-times the demand and the 2030 OFFICE supply is nearly 1.4-times the demand.
A portion of excess retail allocation will be absorbed by the office market.
In addition, it would be prudent to review the nearby area for existing competition for
office space. Directly north of the subject site, across Golden Gate Parkway, is the
Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict where 35,000 ft2 of unbuilt office
space is approved. Directly east of the site, across Santa Barbara Boulevard, is the
Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Subdistrict with a net supply of
approximately 275,000 ff of office space. An additional 700,000 ft2 of net supply of
office space exists within the Urban designation of the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan, less than 2.5 miles of the subject site. In summary, a net supply of over
1-million ff of office space exists within 2.5 miles of the subject site, with a net
supply of over 970,000 ft2 of the office space within the Golden Gate City Urban
designation.
As with the Retail Study, no additional factors, such as community desires, location
criteria or suitability of the property for change, exist that would warrant additional
office space at the subject site.
The petitioners' have not demonstrated a need for additional office space at the
subject site.
Petitioners' Summary - Office Analysis
The following two tables summarize the petitioners' Office Study and indicate the
office space demand for the 20-minute trade area; Table 8 reflects the petitioners in
the Office Study with the underreported office space and Table 9 contains staff's
correction to the petitioners' Office Study needs allocation to include the 500,000 ft2
of unaccounted for office space.
Review of Table 8, the petitioners' Office Space trade area indicates a net supply of
12,934,035 ff of gross leasable area over the 20 year study horizon, with increasing
office space demand to 2030, yielding decreasing allocation ratios from 1.79 in 2008
to 1.26 in 2030.
In other words, the ratios indicate the current office space supply is nearly twice the
demand and in 2030 it would drop to 1 .25-tirnes the demand, which indicates a tight
relationship of office supply in the trade area.
However, since 500,000 ft' of office space were unaccounted for in this table, the
results are invalid, therefore Table 9 contains more accurate results.
-23-
__. ,," ._. _~__',_.____ ~.,,', ",__..._'___....~_" ,_... ,~~.' .c.__
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
Table 8 - PETITIONERS' Office Market Study Needs Allocation (INVALID RESULTS)
OFFICE
(1) Market Office Demand SF (Cumulative)
(2) Supply Net GLA (SF)'
(3) Allocation Ratio (Supply/Demand)"
2008
2010
2020
2030
7,233,688
12,934,03S
1.79
7,512,939
12,934,035
1.72
8,909,194
12,934,035
1.45
10,30S,449
12,934,03S
1.26
*GLA = Gross Leasable Area
** (3) Allocation Ratio is calculated by dividing the Supply (2) by the Demand (1).
Review of Table 9, the petitioners' Office Space needs analysis, corrected by staff
with the unaccounted for 500,000 ff of office space, indicates a net office supply of
13,437,002 ft2. All allocation ratios increased, as well, to 1.86 (1.9-times the demand)
in 2008 and to 1.30 (1.3-tirnes the demand) in 2030.
In other words, the adjusted ratios indicate the 2010 and 2030 office supply supports
approximately 185% and 130% of the projected population, respectively, with the
2030 projection indicating a tight relationship of office supply in the trade area.
However, staff does not concur with the petitioners' projection of increased demand
in 2010 from increased office employment. Staff believes, at a minimum, demand in
2010 will be the same as that of 2008, probably less than that of 2008.
The petitioners' analysis indicates that an allocation ratio of 2.0 is the minimum
desired level and an allocation ratio below 2.0 would indicate "an insufficient degree
of flexibility in this market's ability to accommodate office demand'. The petitioners
conclude that with an allocation ratio well below 2.0 the project site "warrants the
addition of new office land to the market."
Staff disagrees with the petitioners' conclusions and provides additional office space
is not warranted at the subject site, as previously discussed in staff's analysis, in part
due to the excess of net retail supply, as well as more than 1-million ff of net supply
of office space within 2.5 miles of the subject site, with over 970,000 ft2 of the office
space within the Golden Gate City Urban Designation.
Table 9 - STAFF Corrected with Uncounted 500,000 SF - Petitioners' Office Market Study Needs Allocation
OFFICE
(I) Market Office Demand SF (Cumulative)
(2) Supply Net GLA (SF)'
(3) Allocation Ratio (Supply/Demand)"
2008
2010
2020
2030
7,233,688
13,437,002
1.86
7,512,939
13,437,002
1.79
8,909,194
13,437,002
1.S1
10,305,449
13,437,002
1.30
*GLA = Gross Leasable Area
** (3) Allocation Ratio is calculated by dividing the Supply (2) by the Demand (1).
BLUE text indicates increased values as compared to petitioners' submitted study.
Staff Commercial Needs Analysis Summary
Staff's analysis of both the Office Study and Retail Study determined that the net
supply of commercial was underreported due to the petitioners' incorrect evaluation
of many future land use designations. In addition, the 10-minute drive time Retail
-24-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (I90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (I9Nov09)
trade area appears to be missing major commercial areas on the western side of the
boundary as far west as Goodlette-Frank and Golden Gate Parkway, as far north as
Airport and Pine Ridge and as far south as Airport and Tamiami Trail East, which
could result in an even higher net supply of retail space.
Relating to methodology, in both studies the petitioners' basis for need is an
allocation ratio of at least 2.0. Staff disagrees with the petitioners' conclusions and
provides that the minimum allocation ratio should be well below 2.0, in part since not
all commercial DOR land use codes were accounted for in either study and
additional potential commercial acreage (17%) is provided for given the consultant's
assumptions. With the acreage and/or space attributed to the unused DOR land use
codes, a reserve of 17% seems to provide a more than adequate buffer to address
market flexibility and other retail uses in the trade area, thereby indicating that the
maximum allocation ratio should be less than 2.0 and recommends 1.252 as a
minimum, the allocation ratio (i.e. market factor) DCA seems to recommend.
Numerical need, hence the allocation ratio (i.e. market factor), should not be the only
means for determining additional commercial space. Case law supports that new
commercial space may be demonstrated by additional factors, such as community
desires, locational criteria, and suitability of the property for change2. In addition to
these factors, the nearby area should be reviewed in order to determine the existing
competition for new commercial space. Whereas the trade area generates a need
based on a larger geographic area, it simply cannot provide for excess nearby the
subject site.
In summary, staff's analysis of the Retail Study determined that the 2010 and 2030
retail supplies are almost 3.4-times and 2.7-times the retail demand and provides
retail for almost 340% and 270% of the projected population, respectively. These
figures clearly indicate no additional retail space is warranted at the subject site.
In contrast, staff's analysis of the Office Study determined that the 2010 and 2030
office supplies are almost 1.9-times and 1.4-times the office demand and provides
office for almost 190% and 140% of the projected population, respectively. If the
Office Study was reviewed alone, it could appear that some justification for additional
office space exists. However, if the DCA minimum allocation ratio of 1.25 was
applied it appears that additional office space within the trade area is unwarranted.
Strengthening that claim is an excessive supply of retail space, which a portion will
be utilized by the office market.
As for the demonstration of additional factors, such as community desires, locational
criteria, and suitability of the property for change, as previously stated no information
has been provided that support any of these factors.
Lastly, by reviewing office and retail markets within the Golden Gate City Urban
Designation and less than 2.5 miles of the subject site, the net supply of office and
retail space nearby the subject site is over 1-million ff and over 600,000 ff,
respectively. Therefore, no additional office or retail is warranted at the subject site.
-25-
___._ ._,......~~..__.~,.="_<___.,'__..,;,.,."_,_...~,.."...,.,, _ "~, ~>"u._
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Prior GMP Amendments in Vicinit'(
Agenda Item 4C (I90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
Table 10 - Prior GMP Amendments within Golden Gate Estates in Vicinity of CP-2008-3
NW corner of Goiden Gate
Parkway & Santa Barbara Blvd
NW corner of Golden Gate
Parkway & Santa Barbara Blvd
NW corner of Golden Gate
Parkway & Santa Barbara Blvd
NE corner of Livingston Road
& Golden Gate Parkway
North side of Golden Gate
Parkway between 1-7S and
Santa Barbara Blvd. (site of
existing David Lawrence
Center and Parkway Church of
God, and another S-ac tract)
Retail and office uses on most of
the site; CUs on the western
portion; ::t 7 acres
Retail and office uses on most of
the site; CUs on the western
portion; +7 acres
Increase size to 18 acres; add retail
uses, increase from 3S,000 It' to
115,000 ft'; add residential at 15
DUlAC; lessen setbacks and
buffers, increase height
40,000 It' of commercial uses on
5.15 acres (originally submitted for
C-2 uses)
Denied
Approved for office use only
and with stringent
development standards.
Denied
Withdrawn (due to public
opposition)
Institutional uses on 16.3 acres
Approved
Environmental Impacts:
Environmental Specialists with the Collier County Environmental Services reviewed
the environmental assessment and provided the following comments:
The environmental report prepared by Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc and submitted
with this petition, dated January 2008 and Revised March 2009, indicates the following:
o The project site includes religious facilities; native habitats of pine flatwoods, cabbage
palm, live oak, and other hardwoods with varying degrees of exotic infestation; and a
concentration of Brazilian pepper. The soils mapped for the site are Pineda fine sand,
limestone substratum, a hydric soil and Boca fine sand and urban land-Holopaw-
Basinger complex, non-hydric soils.
o The listed species survey conducted on site concluded that there were no listed species
found utilizing the site, and there were signs of listed species. No observations or
evidence of non-listed species were reported.
Environmental Specialists with the Collier County Engineering and Environmental Services
Department reviewed the application and provided the following comments:
o No special environmental concerns are associated with the establishment of the
Subdistrict on the subject site.
o Staff has not verified the provided Florida Land Use, Cover, & Forms Classification
System (FLUCFCS) mapping and does not approve it with this petition.
Native vegetation preservation requirements will be specifically addressed during
-26-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (I90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (I9Nov09)
subsequent development order review (rezone and/or site development plan.) The preserve
location will be subject to the ranking requirements of Conservation & Coastal Management
Plan (CCME) Section 6.1.1 (4). Twenty-five (25) percent of the native vegetation on site will
be required to be preserved. At the current designation of Estates zoning with Provisional
Use, native vegetation retention on site could be minimized to fifteen (15) percent.
Historical and Archeological Impacts:
The Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded cultural resources in Section 29,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Additionally, the project location
may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if
previously surveyed for cultural resources. Federal, state and local laws require formal
environmental review for most projects. This search does not constitute such a review.
However, the applicant provided the County's Historical and Archeological Probability Map,
which indicated the closest site is south of the site, in Section 33, north of Interstate 75.
Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Analysis Impacts:
Transportation Planning specialists with the Collier County Transportation Planning
Department reviewed the impact statement and provided the following comments:
Transportation Element:
Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS)
and has determined that this project can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the
Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan.
Santa Barbara Boulevard Impacts:
The first concurrency link that would be impacted by this project is Link 77, Santa Barbara
Boulevard between Golden Gate Parkway and Radio Road. The project would generate up
to 32 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represents a 1.03% impact. This
concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 1,373 trips in the adopted 2008 AUIR and
is at Level of Service "Boo.
No subsequent links of Santa Barbara Boulevard require analysis beyond the first impact.
Golden Gate Parkway Impacts:
The first concurrency link on Golden Gate Parkway that would be impacted by this project is
Link 21, Golden Gate Parkway between 1-75 and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The project
would generate up to 53 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represents a
1.42% impact. This concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 1,507 trips in the
adopted 2008 AUIR and is at Level of Service "Coo.
Access Management Provisions/Restrictions:
The first development order (i.e. SDP, Plat, SIP, etc) shall meet the site access conditions
stated on page 12 of the Traffic Study.
Public Facilities Impacts:
The petitioner prepared Public Facilities calculations, which were submitted with this petition,
are summarized/analyzed below.
The project is within the boundaries of the Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA)
Water and Sewer Service Area. FGUA has a potable water and sanitary sewer conveyance
system that is proximate to the proposed Subdistrict. FGUA utilities connect to the Golden
-27-
" ''''_'_'__''Wh.__.._'_,__._..
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parhvay Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (J90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
Gate Water Reclamation Facility located at 4931 32nd Avenue SW and a FGUA utility
service availability letter has been provided as part of the GMP amendment package.
Application materials provided indicate an average daily water demand of 0.10 gallons per
day/square feet (GPD/ ff) for commercial and 185 GPD/Capita for residential, with 2
persons per unit. The average daily sewer demand provided is 0.10 gallons per day/square
feet (G PDt W) for commercial and 120 G PD/Capita for residential.
Application materials also provided impact data for solid waste facilities, community and
regional parks, and emergency medical services. According to the 2008 AUIR, adopted
level-of-service (LOS) standards are as follows: Solid Waste Deposal Rate is calculated at
0.003 Tons Per ff for commercial and 0.64 Tons Per Capita for residential, Community
Parks is calculated at 1.2 acres/1,000 in the unincorporated area, Regional Parks is
calculated at 2.9 acres/countywide, and Emergency Services is calculated at 1 unit/16,400
population or 0.000061/capita.
Application materials provided public facilities impact analysis for two scenarios:
. Scenario 1 - Commercial 100,000 ft2 and 74 Base Residential dwelling units, or 148
residents.
. Scenario 2 - Commercial 22,000 ff and 247 Base Multi-Family Residential dwelling
units (with commercial conversion), or 494 residents.
Scenario 1: Application materials provided indicate impacts on commercial and residential
potable water level-of-service (LOS) of 10,000 GPD and 27,380 GPD, respectively, as well
as impacts on commercial and residential sewer LOS of 10,000 GPD for commercial and
17,760 GPD, respectively. In other words, Scenario 1 will have a net capacity increase of
0.037 million gallons per day (MGD) on water and 0.028 GPD on sewer.
Application materials provided indicate additional impacts on public facilities are as follows:
Solid Waste Facilities at 300.0 tons for commercial and 94.7 tons for residential, Community
Parks at 0.18, Regional Parks at 0.43, and Emergency Medical Services at 0.01. In other
words, Scenario 1 will have a net increase on these additional public facilities at the
following rates: Solid Waste Facilities at 395 tons, Community Parks at 0.18, Regional Parks
at 0.43, and Emergency Medical Services at 0.0090.
Scenario 2: Application materials provided indicate impacts on commercial and residential
potable water LOS of 2,200 GPD and 91,390 GPD, respectively, as well as impacts on
commercial and residential sewer LOS of 2,200 GPD for commercial and 59,280 GPD,
respectively. In other words, Scenario 2 will have a net capacity increase of 0.094 MGD on
water and 0.061 GPD on sewer.
Application materials provided indicate additional impacts on public facilities are as follows:
Solid Waste Facilities at 66.0 tons for commercial and 316.2 for residential, Community
Parks at 0.18, Regional Parks at 0.43, and Emergency Medical Services at 0.03. In other
words, Scenario 2 will have a net increase on these additional public facilities at the
following rates: Solid Waste Facilities at 382 tons, Community Parks at 0.18, Regional Parks
at 0.43, and Emergency Medical Services at 0.0301.
In comparison, under the current zoning of E, Estates, the subject property could qualify for
1 DU/2.25 acres or 9.2 dwelling units, which is approximately 12% of Scenario 1 and
approximately 3.7% of Scenario 2 of the proposed amendment. In other words, the
-28-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (J 9Nov09)
proposed amendment is a considerable increase of dwelling units: Scenario 1 is
approximately 8 times and Scenario 2 is approximately 27 times the current allowed
dwelling units.
The proposed amendment includes potential for additional dwelling units over and above the
two scenarios reviewed with the affordable housing density bonus. In addition, senior
housing could be provided at a rate of 1 senior unit to % residential dwelling unit. However,
senior housing does not replace any commercial square footage.
Comparing the application's Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 for residential dwelling units (74 DU
and 247 DU, respectively) to the base residential density of 9.2 dwelling units, would result
in a significantly greater increase in potential potable water and sanitary sewer impacts, as
well as to other public facilities. Therefore, the proposed land uses constitute increases in
potential potable water and sanitary sewer impacts.
NOTE: The above analysis and application data provided does not include potential
increase of dwelling units from the affordable housing density bonus. Affordable housing
does not replace residential criteria, but would be in addition to any scenario. Senior housing
does not replace the commercial square footage.
Facilities review specialists with the Collier County Public Utilities Services reviewed
the calculations and provided the following comment:
No objection. Based on the current 2008 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates, this
project is not located within the Collier County Water - Sewer District (CCWSD) Service
Area. This development is within the FGUA Water and Sewer Service Area. Therefore, this
project does not impact the CCWSD.
8J:!propriateness of Chang~
For the last two decades, or longer, the Golden Gate Estates community has experienced rapid
growth much like the Coastal Urban designated areas in Collier County. With increased
population comes the need/demand to construct and expand roadways to move traffic, provide
infrastructure to accommodate new residential units, and provide commercial, community
facilities and institutional opportunities, etc. to serve the expanding population.
Increasingly, Estates-designated properties located west of Collier Boulevard along collector
and arterial roadways are being targeted for urban type development - higher densities,
commercial services, community and institutional facilities, etc. In recent years, the County has
experienced an influx in the number of Growth Management Plan Amendment requests to
change the designation of properties from Estates Residential Subdistrict to site-specific
commercial subdistricts. This 2007-2008 combined cycle includes six petitions for properties in
the Estates; four request commercial uses, one requests institutional uses with a small amount
of commercial, and this petition requests mixed commercial and residential.
As the County continues to grow, local government must be responsive to the community's
needs while balancing the undesired impacts caused by growth. As an example, the 1-75
Interchange at Golden Gate Parkway was, in part, approved and is being constructed to
alleviate traffic congestion at other interchanges in the County. The resulting impacts from the
approval - noise, increased traffic volumes, right-of-way acquisition, and potential
commercialization of Golden Gate Parkway - was realized immediately by surrounding
residents. Elected officials responded by establishing a committee to provide recommendations
on the appearance and landscaping of the interchange with the intent of preserving the
-29-
., .---< -_.-.~'~ .. -
_.. "......_.._...._--~-,~.,,< ,""" ..
_.~.<~,_._..- --""",.".~'--_.~.'"
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
residential character of the area and minimizing impacts to property owners. Additionally, county
staff worked with the community via the GGAMP Re-study Committee to recommend provisions
be added to the Plan to prohibit the approval of any new commercial zoning and conditional
uses along the Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. In 2004, the
Board of County Commissioners approved these prohibitions.
Although these prohibitive provisions exist in the GGAMP, staff acknowledges it would be
appropriate to consider any changes in conditions that have occurred since 2004 that would
warrant a modification of, or exception to, Policy 5.2.3. However, staff is unaware of any such
changed conditions. At the time of adoption of these provisions, plans for the future 6-laning of
Golden Gate Parkway, the future 6-laning of Santa Barbara Boulevard, and construction of the
1-75 interchange were all known.
Minimally, data and analysis is used to determine appropriateness of change to the new use(s)
requested and/or increased intensity or density. The data and analysis provided by the applicant
did not include a residential analysis.
2008 Legislation - HB 697
This legislation, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency, went into effect on July 1,
2008. DCA (Florida Department of Community Affairs) will be reviewing GMP amendments for
compliance with this legislation.
Staff has reviewed this petition
discourages urban sprawl and
submitted the following:
for adequacy of data and analysis to
reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
demonstrate how it
The petitioner has
Applicant HB697 response:
HB 697 sets forth seven means of addressing energy efficiency and the proposed
Subdistrict implements these measures as follows:
1. Compact Mix of Land Uses;
2. Direct Development Towards Existing Communities;
3. Preserve Open Space, Farmland, and Sensitive Environmental Areas;
The proposed Subdistrict will implement the provisions of HB 697 in that it is using
existing land within the Urban core, albeit an Estates Designation, to propose a
mixed-use development opportunity that will provide for a compact mix of land uses.
4. Create Walkable Neighborhoods;
The proposed Subdistrict's location at the intersection of two major roadways and the
diversity of the surrounding commercial land uses and zoning allows future residents
the opportunity to satisfy their daily convenience commercial needs within y" mile
and also provides for employment opportunities in the immediate area. With these
convenience commercial land uses being located close-by, it allows for reduced
dependence on automotive travel.
-30-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
5. Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices;
There are two Collier Area Transit bus routes (Route 3 and 6) that have stops at the
intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, and this further
reduces dependence on automotive travel.
6. Provide a Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices;
The proposed Subdistrict, in addition to providing for market rate housing, will also
provide on-site housing for the Goodwill Industries continued operations that creates
a desirable live-work opportunity.
7. Establish a Compact Building Design
The land development regulations that will be contained in the rezoning petition
documentation will provide for compact building design while protecting the Estates
residences to the south and west of the proposed Subdistrict.
Staff HB697 comments/analysis:
Providing a mix of uses within walking distance for the site residents, a walkable
neighborhood, variety of transportation choices, and compact building design in theory
should embrace the spirit of the HB697. Other than noting the two bus route stops near
the subject site, the applicant has not provided any data or amendment language to
support the HB697 requirements or even the above responses.
The applicant states that the Subdistrict is using existing land within the "Urban core".
However, the "Urban core"for this portion of the County is Golden Gate City, designated
Urban on the GGAMP FLUM, and is due east of the subject site across a 6-lane
roadway. If this subdistrict is approved it will actually contribute to urban sprawl, instead
of using existing Urban core lands as the applicant states.
Urban sprawl has many definitions, including: a) Legal definitions (i.e. Chapter 9J-5.003,
FAC.); b) Definitions used by professional planners; and, c) Terms used by lay people.
Urban sprawl is not characterized by one condition, but a combination of many
conditions. The generally accepted conditions that may characterize urban sprawl imply
low density, inefficient land use. Therefore, using the common thread of the generally
accepted definitions, urban sprawl is the spreading outwards of developed land at the
edge of an urban area. This premature conversion of open lands/rurallands creates less
dense communities and is an inefficient use of land. Available development land,
redevelopment areas, and infill opportunities within the urban area should be considered
first, in order to minimize urban sprawl.
As a professional planner, staff relied on the common thread for urban sprawl for review
of the proposed amendment in support of HB697. The GGAMP provides for efficient
land use within the Urban Designation of Golden Gate City, including opportunities for
higher density residential and redevelopment infill opportunities. In addition, the
commercial needs analyses indicates that several subdistricts in the GGAMP Urban
Designation already have allocations for over 1-million ft> of office space and over
600,000 ft> of retail space. With the available land and infill opportunities in the Urban
Designation, premature expansion of urban style development into a semi-rural
residential district is clearly sprawl.
-31-
___, _". ' _ .,"_ . ,'''__'__._'___ .__~. ..."~___..,'m'_______'__"
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190c,09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
In addition, the location of the subject site in the Estates semi-rural residential district is
at the edge of the Urban Designation. The Estates district on the western edge of the
Golden Gate City Urban Designation is approximately 1,900 acres and characterized by
large semi-rural style lots. Community desire for the Estates designated lands along
Golden Gate Parkway is to prohibit new commercial and conditional use development
expansion while providing provisions for commercial/mixed-use subdistricts within
Golden Gate City (Urban Designation). These community desires were adopted by the
BCC in 2003 and 2004, as part of the Phased Re-study Amendments to the GGAMP.
With existing open space over 75% for the subject site, the current church and school
uses are in scale and keeping with the adjacent residential. These institutional uses
provide an excellent transition between the GGAMP Urban Designation lands to the east
and the Estates designated semi-rural residential lands to the west.
Proximity to a major roadway intersection does not necessarily "create a walkable
neighborhood." The intersection the applicant refers to is that of two arterials, Golden
Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, each six lanes wide with left and right turn
lanes. Principles for a walkable community are "desirable places to live, work, learn,
worship and play." Walkable communities locate within an easy and safe walk to goods
and services that a community resident or employee needs on a regular basis. As
equally important, if not more, "walkable communities make pedestrian activity possible,
thus expanding transportation options, and creating a streetscape that better serves a
range of users -- pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles." Therefore to
foster walkability, "communities must mix land uses and build compactly, AND ensure
safe and inviting pedestrian corridors." In addition, Land Development Code (LDC)
requires a wall to separate the development of the proposed amendment with the
abutting Estates residential properties. This development requirement may "protect" the
abutting properties from a non-compatible use, but can actually hinder walkability.3
Per the proposed amendment language, the range of housing choices is only
multi-family and senior housing. Staff recognizes the benefit of onsite housing for
Goodwill Industries continued operations, however this housing option is not assured in
the proposed amendment language.
Establishment of a Compact Building Design should help promote walkability. The
applicant states that compact building design for the site will be handled during the
rezoning. However, the proposed amendment package does not provide any
documentation for support of a compact building design or guarantee of it during the
.
rezoning process.
In summary, the applicant has not provided much data or support information in the
proposed amendment package or language that even embraces the spirit of HB697. A
major concern of this petition is the promotion of urban sprawl in an area zoned and
developed for 1 DU/2.25 AC that would provide for new commercial and residential
outside the GGAMP Urban Designation where data and analyses show an abundance of
available infill as well as redevelopment opportunities. Many other issues for the site still
exist in order to support HB697, in particular walkability to nearby commercial uses and
the transit stops. Minimally, a streetscape should be created that better serves a range
of users; for this staff would recommend pedestrian friendly improvements be made at
the Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection. Overall, to
3 Walkable Community excerpts and information based on Smart Growth Online - Principles of Smart Growth, Create
WalkabJe Neighborhoods, 20 Sept 2009, htlp:/lwww.smartqrowttl.org/abouti'Drinciples/pn nciples, asp?prin_=4&res= 1280
-32-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agendn Item 9A (19Nov09)
embrace HB697 requirements, staff recommends that the applicant provide the
recommended requirements within the amendment language and/or a developer's
agreement with the amendment package.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS
The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held on Thursday, 17 September 2009 from
5:32 pm to 6:05 pm, after the applicant/agent duly noticed and advertised the meeting as
required by the Collier County Land Development Code.
Approximately 35 people attended the NIM at Golden Gate Community Center located at 4701
Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL
The applicants' agent, Dwight Nadeau, presented an overview of the proposed amendment
assuring the attendees that they would have several opportunities to voice their concerns and/or
opinions, that this was just the first hearing to transmit the proposed change to DCA. The
agent's outline of the proposed amendment comprised noting the maximum commercial of
100,000 ft2, residential at 3.55 DU/A, and that affordable housing will be allowed at a maximum
of 8 DU/A.
The agent also stated that the first public hearing would be held on 19 October 2009 and/or 20
October 2009 in front of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), beginning at 8:00 am
(staff correction: correct time is 8:30 am).
Citizens' concerns/questions centered on the proposed amendment impacts to the adjacent
sites as well as the community. In addition, the BCC had promised no significant changes along
Golden Gate Parkway. These concerns were in direct response to the agent's continued
stressing of the opportunities the proposed amendment would provide, while not addressing any
impacts, such as more housing in an area that already had an abundance of multi-family
housing. The agent stated that even though the proposed amendment included opportunity for
affordable housing, they are not seeking the bonus density.
Site specific questions and concerns focused on location of development of site and
ingress/egress to the site. The agent stated that no site plan has been developed at this pOint
but tentatively the commercial would be located on the northern portion of the site, along Golden
Gate Parkway, and the residential would be located on the southern portion. The agent's traffic
consultant assured the citizens that Santa Barbara Blvd ingress/egress pOints would not change
much from the current points. In addition, Golden Gate Parkway would have a right-in/right-out
point.
Project particulars questions focused on type of residential (i.e. more high density multi-family,
low-income housing), a single 100,000 ff building, and who would own the
structures/development. The agent stated that it was not the intent to utilize the density bonus
for residential, however conversion of commercial square footage to residential is an option.
Many options for design of the site exist and as for final ownership, Goodwill Industries and
NCA may retain ownership and lease space, or sell portions of the site to a developer.
A question was raised as to the type of Goodwill Industries facility to be constructed and why
the need for housing. Bill McDaniel, a Goodwill Industries board member, stated the facility
would be a retail facility approximately 22,000 ft2 in size, similar to the facility on Daniels
Parkway in Fort Myers, FL. Goodwill Industries number one client is the handicapped, therefore
by providing onsite housing, the transportation barrier for the handicap has been eliminated.
-33-
_ __'_'W'_'~'._<
_.~-,---
--'~""~'~,- ....~--- .,..-..-
--",._-_._,-._'----,
CP.2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Jtem 4C (I90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
One attendee asked, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan has existed for a long time, it can just
be overturned? The agent stated affirmative, the current process allows for proposing changes.
[Synopsis prepared by Leslie Persia, Senior Pianner]
The 2nd Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held on Thursday, 29 October 2009
from 5:34 pm to 6:23 pm, after the applicant/agent duly noticed and advertised the meeting as
required by the Collier County Land Development Code.
Approximately 20 people attended the NIM at Golden Gate Community Center located at 4701
Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL
The applicants' agent, Dwight Nadeau, presented an overview of the proposed amendment
assuring the attendees that they would have several opportunities to voice their concerns and/or
opinions, that this was just the first hearing to transmit the proposed change to DCA. The
agent's outline of the proposed amendment was a revision to the original with a reduction of
commercial from 100,000 fe to 60,000 ft2, residential would remain at 3.55 DU/A or 74 dwelling
units, and that applicant wouid no longer be seeking the affordable housing density bonus or the
commercial to residential conversion. The agent also noted that retail space would be limited to
40,000 ft2, which meant the commercial component could be all office and no retail. The agent
discussed the increased setback range of 50' to 75'.
The agent also stated that the first public hearing would be held on 19 November 2009 in front
of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), beginning at 8:30 am.
As at the first NIM, citizens' concerns/questions centered on the proposed amendment impacts
to the adjacent sites as well as the community character.
Site/Project specific questions and concerns focused on location of development of site, number
of dwelling units per building, building height, what percentage of the project would be Goodwill
Industries, and type of commercial in the project. The agent stated the commercial should
generally be located on the church portion and the residential on the school portion of the site. It
was too early to tell about specifics, such as number of dwelling units per building, but the
building would be limited to 2 stories and 35 feet. Goodwill Industries could be approximately
22,000 fe in size, similar to the facility on Daniels Parkway in Fort Myers, FL.
Overall, the citizens that were present did not seem to support the proposed amendment.
Longtime resident stated "enjoys Estates ambience",
Another resident stated that he did not want this type of development.
Another resident stated that past planning efforts had designated other areas for this type of
development.
Another resident stated that they want to keep their plan.
One attendee asked, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan has existed for a long time, it can just
be overturned? The agent stated affirmative, the current process allows for proposing changes.
[Synopsis prepared by Leslie Persia, Senior Planner]
-34-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
. The proposed subdistrict is inconsistent with Policy 5.2.3 of the GGAMP, which prohibits
commercial development along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa
Barbara Boulevard.
. The application and support documentation for the proposed amendment does not address
changed conditions, including community desire, that would justify or support an exception
or change to the adopted Policy 5.2.3 in the GGAMP.
. The current institutional land uses serve an excellent transition between the Golden Gate
City Urban Designation to the east of the subject site and the semi-rural residential to the
west of the subject site. The recent improvements to Golden Gate Parkway and Santa
Barbara Boulevard do not appear to have adversely affected these current institutional uses.
. A commitment was made by the County to the Florida Department of Transportation in
consideration of the approval and construction of the 1-75 Interchange at Golden Gate
Parkway to keep the Golden Gate Parkway corridor, between Livingston Road and Santa
Barbara Boulevard, "green" and not allow the proliferation of commercial and conditional
uses. The subject site is located in that corridor.
. Despite the existence of Policy 5.2.3 in the GGAMP, it is important to note that the approval
of this petition may provide the impetus for additional requests for commercial, either on
abutting sites to the west, across Golden Gate Parkway adjacent to the northwest quadrant
of the Golden Gate Parkway/Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection, or both.
. The requisite data and analysis necessary to support the proposed change from Estates -
Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict to the requested mixed-use subdistrict, as
required by Rule 9J-5, FAC., was not provided. The data provided indicated that no need
exists for commercial - retail, but possibly a need for commercial - office.
. The petitioners' Office Study and Retail Study underreported supply due to the petitioners'
incorrect evaluation of the future land use designations.
. Overall, staff finds the methodology used by the petitioners in the Office Study and the
Retail Study to be professionally acceptable. However, staff does not concur with the
petitioners that an allocation ratio of 2.0 indicates need, in other words, that the supply
should support 200% of the projected population; instead, staff would recommend a
minimum allocation ratio of 1.25.
. Staff's analysis of the Retail Study determined that the 2010 and 2030 retail supplies are
almost 3.4-times and 2.7-times the retail demand, which provides retail for almost 340% and
270% of the projected population, respectively, and clearly indicates no additional retail is
warranted at the subject site.
. No additional factors demonstrate or support the need for more retail on the subject site: 1)
Within 2.5 miles, a net supply of over 600,000 ff of retail space exists in the Golden Gate
City Urban designation; 2) Community desires for the GGAMP Estates district and in
particular, the Golden Gate Parkway corridor are reflected in Policy 5.2.3 of the GGAMP,
which prohibits commercial development along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston
Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard; and, 3) Current institutional uses on the subject site
positively support the community and provide for an excellent transition between the Urban
-35-
, __""_'~""T"."_"___
..","", .---. .~~,-",,".-..,.. ,-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
designated land to east of the subject site and the semi-rural residential Estates to the west
of the subject site.
· Staff's analysis of the Office Study determined that the 2010 and 2030 office supplies are
almost 1.9-times and 1.4-times the office demand and provides office for almost 190% and
140% of the projected population, respectively, which indicates a reasonable amount of
office space. With the extremely high supply of retail space, a portion of the retail space wili
be used to fulfill any potential office deficiencies.
. No additional factors demonstrate or support the need for more office space on the subject
site. There is a net supply of over 1-million ff of office space in the Golden Gate City Urban
designation, within 2.5 miles of the subject site.
. No supporting data and analysis has been provided, as required by Rule 9J-5, FAC., to
demonstrate a need for increased residential density or its appropriateness at this location,
such as a compatibility study, which would identify the impacts of the proposed project on
the surrounding area. According to Applicants' Attachment E - Zoning and Land Use Map,
Estates designated lands comprise over 60% of the land use within 500' surrounding the
subject site.
. It is asserted in the amendment application that the expansion of Golden Gate Parkway and
Santa Barbara Boulevard to 6-lanes has changed the character of the existing residentially
zoned site, making it unsuitable for single-family housing. The current uses on the subject
site, a church and school, have existed for over 25 years. The current institutional uses on
the subject site have limited ingress/egress points and provide for an excellent transition
between the Urban designated lands to the east of the subject site and the semi-rural
residential Estates designated iands to the west of the subject site. These types of
institutional uses warrant consideration as the highest and best use of the site.
. The proposed subdistrict mixed-use intensity/density of development (60,000 ff of
cornmerciai and 74 dwelling units) is consistent with an urban style development and is an
extreme departure from the low densities presently allowed in the Estates designation - one
residential unit per 2 y,; acres or legal lot of record. (If approved, this would be the first
increase in density authorized in the Estates designation since adoption of GGAMP in
1991.)
. Staff acknowledges that the inclusion of on-site housing for the Goodwill Industries
continued operations can help eliminate the transportation barrier for these employees.
However, the proposed amendment does not guarantee these housing units.
. For HB697 requirements, the applicants have not provided data supporting their generic
statements. This petition promotes urban sprawl with the urban style development outside
the GGAMP Urban Designation in an area designated for 1 DU/2.25 AC.
· Using "proximity to urban development" as justification for increasing land use for urban
development contradicts smart growth and perpetuates urban sprawl when not supported by
data and analysis. The compact Urban Designation to the east has a clearly defined
boundary. The location of the subject site in the Estates semi-rural residential district is at
the edge of the Urban Designation. The Estates district on the western edge of the Golden
Gate City Urban Designation is approximately 1,900 acres and characterized by large semi-
rural style lots. Community desire for the Estates designated lands along Golden Gate
Parkway is to prohibit new commercial and conditional use development expansion while
-36-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
providing provIsions for commercial/mixed-use subdistricts within the Urban designated
Golden Gate City.
. This petition is inconsistent with the GGAMP vision for commercial development in Golden
Gate Estates, as well as for low (semi-rural) density residential development within the
Estates designation. In 2003 and 2004, the community desires (prohibiting new commercial
and conditional use development along Golden Gate Parkway in the Estates while providing
provisions for commercial/mixed-use subdistricts within Golden Gate City) were adopted into
the GGAMP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the Office of the County Attorney.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP-2008-3 to
the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs. However, IF the CCPC should choose to recommend
transmittal, staff recommends the following revisions to the proposed subdistrict, mostly for
proper format, use of code language, succinctness, and clarity OR consideration of a second
alternative. Inasmuch as this project proposes neighborhood commercial development, staff
originally proposed numerous standards from the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict in the
GGAMP, which the applicant incorporated. However, the applicant modified some of those,
which staff does not support. Also, staff noted a conflict between the minimum number of
residential units required to be built and the maximum number of allowed Senior housing units,
based upon the residential density reduction ratio, thus recommends a lower number of senior
housing units so as to correlate all allowed unit totals. And, staff recommends deletion of the
conditional use prohibition for adjacent lands as such prohibition already exists in the
Conditional Uses Subdistrict in the GGAMP. The County Attorney's Office recommends deletion
of the entire paragraph that begins with that conditional use prohibition. (Note: single underline
text is added, as proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, and double ~
~ text is deleted, as proposed by staff.)
FIRST ALTERNATIVE - Edits To Petitioners' Subdistrict Text
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
A. Estates - Mixed Use District
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
5. Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict [new text, page 33]
The Golden Gate Parkwav Mixed Use Subdistrict comprises aQProximatelv 20.71 acres
and is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and
Santa Barbara Boulevard. The 0!l:pose of this Subdistrict is to allow for a mix of
commercial, residential and institutional uses.
This Subdistrict is intended to allow for a mix of both retail and office uses so as to
provide o[1portunities for shogping and personal services for on-site residential
development as well as for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel
distance. The development standards contained in this Subdistrict are desiqned to
ensure that all development allowed within this Subdistrict will be compatible with
illJjacent and nearbv residential development.
Residential muiti-familv land uses are allowed within this Subdistrict at a density set forth
!o....para9@ph a, below. Senior housinq, including, but not limited to assisted living
-37-
n__.__._.
-"---_._.~~---^~.,
, --.---".-.---" ,-~_..._..
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (I90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (I9Nov09)
facilities, nursing homes and g[Q!!JJ care units, are also specificallv allowed in this
Subdistrict.
The following criteria and standards shall regulate development within the Golden Gate
Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict:
a. Residential Density
1. Residential density shall be calculated on the total site acreage of 20.710< acres.
2. The residential density shall not exceed 3.55 dwelling units Q.er acre (74 units)"
3. liliil~S ~I density shall be reduced if senior housing is constructed, as set
forth in paragmph b.3., below.
4. The minimum allowed density is 2.0 units per gross acre (41 total dwelling units).
5. Only multi-family dwelling units are allowed in this Subdistrict.
b. Limitation of Permitted Commercial Uses
~.1. Commercial iand uses shall be limited to those permitted and conditional uses
set forth in the C-1, C-2, or C-3 Zoninq Districts of the Collier County Land
Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, except as prohibited in
parag@ph d., below.
'*2.. Commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of 60,000 square feet of qross
leasable floor area ~ 22.000 !1~ moss !@asa.b1e..1lQQr
area.~ R No more than 40,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area
R'liil'l.shall be developed as retail commercial land uses.
3. The fioor area ratio for senior housing, including, but not limited to, assisted
livinq, nursing care, and qrOUp care units, shall not exceed 0.60. The fioor area of
senior housinq development shall be excluded from the commercial floor area
limitations in parag@ph b.-+Z., above.
4. For each.lQ.ur senior housing unit.s (rooms, not beds) constructed, .QLllQl1iQ[]
.!tllllilQj J4.\ll-Q .Qllil. dwelling unit shall be deducted from the density allowed in
a.2., above.
5. A maximum of ~ 132 senior housing units je sh~ allowed.
c. Rezone
1 . To promote a cohesive pian of development, the entire site shall be rezoned to a
single Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). Regulations for water
manaqement, uniform landscaping, signage, screening and buffering shall be
included in the MPUD ordinance to ensure compatibility with adjacent and nearby
residential areas.
d. Development Standards
1. Commercial develo[1ment directly abutting residential Q!QlJerty (Q!QlJerty zoned E
- Estates and without an a[1Qroved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum,
a seventy-five (75) ~ 1ee1...wide. buffer, sr it f~t wi~ in which
DQ.parkinq uses are permitted. Twenty~feet of the width of the buffer
along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of ~
fillv (50l feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained native vegetation and
must be consistent with subsection 3.05.07H. of the LDC. ~
-38-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
(a) There shall be no adverse impacls to the native vegetation being retained.
The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro-
period unless it proven that such would have no adverse impact to the
existing vegetation.
(b) If the (llQject requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management
District. the (llQject shall provide a letter or official document from the District
indicating that the native veqetation with the retention area will not have to be
removed to compiy with water management requirements. if the District
cannot or will not sUQllly such a letter, then the native veqetation retention
area shali not be used for water management.
!c) If the (llQject is reviewed by Collier County, the County engineer shall provide
evidence that no removal of native veqetation is necessary to facilitate the
necessary storage of water in the water management area.
2. There shall be a 25~ .!ell1..wide landscape buffer abutting the external riqtl!:
of-way. The buffer shall contain two staggered rows of trees that shall be spaced
no more than 30 feet on center, and a double row hedge at least 24 inches in
height at time of planting and attaining a minimum of three feet height within one
year. A minimum of 50% of the 25--199l fl'e1 wide buffer area shall be comprised
of a meandering bed of shrubs and qround cover other than grass. Existing
native trees must be retained with this 25-Ml9i fe~l wide buffer area to aid in
achieving this buffer requirement; other existing native vegetation shall be
retained, where possible, to aid in aChievinq this buffer requirement. Water
retention/detention areas shall be allowed in this buffer area if left in natural state,
and drainaqe conveyance throuqh the buffer area shall be allowed if it is the only
path to reach an external outfail. For that portion of this Subdistrict Ivinq within
the Corridor Management [zoning] Overlay (CMO), the more stringmJj
llilluirements of this para9@Ph and the CMO shall al!J2!y,
3. Shared parking shall be required with adjoining develogments wherever
Rracticable. +e-#le ~re9l88t 8)~e8ei9le, i jnternal parking and driveways
shall be located between the Subdistrict's residential and commercial structures
in order to minimize noise and lights on adjacent Estates * zoned Q.[Qperties.
4. Driveways and curb cuts shall be made available to adjoininq develoRments,
wherever practicable.
5. Building heights shall be limited to two (2) stories, with a maximum zoned heiCJb1
of thirty-five (35) feet.
6. Commercial uses shall encouraguedestrian traffic through the placement of
sidewalks, pedestrian walkways. and marked crosswalks within Qarkinq areas.
Macent (llQjects shall coordinate placement of sidewalks so that a continuous
Rathway through the Subdistrict is created.
7. All commercial buildinqs within this Subdistrict shall utilize a common
architectural theme.
8. All lighting shall be architecturally desiqned and limited to a heiqht of twenty-five
(25) feet. Such liqhting shall be shielded from neighborinq residential land uses.
This theme shall be agplicabie to both buildinq design and siqnag!h
-39-
-,-,_.~_._--_.._.._.~,~,--,,-....,._<._,.',,,""'"
CP-2008-3 Golden Gale Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (I90ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
9. Ee{Jees or w~be eo~e eo~e o~
~ ~twe~ eQ~ses. U
~. suclJJences Qr w~t exeeed..fute~. W.alls
.shaILbe eQ~e. mees sbalLb(J of wood...Qr eonereta.post
ou.ailJWes. an.d....sb.aIUJe o~ eOllamd..by sl~
9.1 O. Ail commercial buildings shail have tile roofs, "Old Style Florida" metal roofs, or
decorative parapet wails above the roofline. The buildings shall be finished in
jjght subdued colors. exceRt for decorative trim.
1G.:!,. U4 Ihe (,?lQject i& 8W~ 1i18 Ii ~shail provide a functional public open-
glace component. Such public open-space shail be develQped as a green space
within a 'pedestrian-accessible courtyard, as per Section 4.06.038.3 of the LDC,
as in effect at the time of the PUD a01roval.
1+2. The following.Ql'incillilLPermitted uses are prohibited;
.ta) DrinkinQ Places (5813) and Liquor Stores (5921)
ib) Mail Order Houses (5961)
1.g) Merchandizing Machine Operators (5962)
li!J Power Laundries (7211)
.te) Crematories (7261) (Does not include non-crematory Funeral Parlors)
ill Radio, TV Representatives (7313) and Direct Mail Advertising Services
(7331)
ill) NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc. (7999)
ih) General Hospitals (8062), Psychiatric Hospitals (8063), and Specialty
Hospitals (8069)
(i) Libraries (8231)
.m Correctional Institutions (9223)
,lli) SoliQ Waste Management SeMees (9511)
(I) Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens.
SECOND ALTERNATIVE - In response to petitioners' assertion that the intensity/density of
surrounding development combined with the frontage on the 6-lane arterial roadways leaves the
site unsuitable for low density residential development under the present designation,
*** *** **'" *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
A. Estates - Mixed Use District
*** *** *** *** *** *"'* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **'" *** *** *** *** *** *"'* ***
3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
b) Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions:
[new text, page 32]
. Conditional uses shail not be permitted on those parcels immediately adjacent to
the west side of Coilier Boulevard within the Estates Designated Area except
where the parcel is directly bounded by conditional uses on two (2) or more side
yards with no intervening rights-of-ways or waterways; and, except as provided in
subparagraph 2., beiow; and, except for essential services, as described in
paragraph a), above.
. Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the 1-75
interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, there shall be no further conditional uses
for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway, between Livin9ston Road and
Santa Barbara Boulevard, except as permitted within the Golden Gate Parkway
Institutional Subdistrict; and, except as provided in subparagraph 1. and
-40-
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
~, below;
paragraph a), above.
and, except for essential services, as described in
:3. T~v20.7L~resile.co~1~,1~
.and....lh.e...{;il) ~6. 10cateQ..aUbe SQ\I1bwest~
.in1ersectiQn..Qf OQkllll Ga~ Sa~
~efQ~se~
-41-
'~',. ._ .<,_"...~._,~~__..~,._._.__ _"_ ,'_., _,..._._~_~.,~,.,_..,"_.__,M_"" ...
. - --"-~,-,"",,.,~"',.,....",
CP-2008-3 Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
"
.' !
,
~-------...
PREPARED BY:! -
LESLIE PERSIA,~ OR PLANNER
COMPREHENSIVE PlANNING DEPARTMENT
~ ' .
REVIEWED BY: n=-"n~~ ~'fr' L -L'c__A
DAVID WEEKS, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTME~T !
REVIEWED BY: ~
RANDY COHEN, AICP, DIRECTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE:
----
DATE:
DATE:
APPROVED BY: ~ .::.:.~--,C ,,;:,t;;,. ~~z7"
JOSEPH K. SCHMI1T,.ADMINISTRATOR
COMMUNITY DEVt;LOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
V'
Agenda Item 4C (190ct09)
Agenda Item 9A (19Nov09)
/ z...NoJ c:J
/1. /2/'1
11-/2-0;
.
DATE: II),.? /<';
I ,
PETITION NO.: CP-2008-3
Staff Report for the October 19, 2009, CCPC Meeting.
NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the January 19, 2010, BCC Meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
-42-
D'XTK'
l 1""\ I II]\.{,
..a......, l...t. .....
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict GMPA
CP-2008-3
Transmittal Staff Report - Revised Response
This document is intended to address Stairs responsive review comments provided on
September 30th in the above-referenced Transmittal Stan Report, as well as comments
received thereafter regarding the needs analyses provided, all intended tor the ('('PC's
November 19th hearing on this item in the Growth Management Plan Amendment Cycle for
2008/2009. Each stall comment will be addressed individually. please note the related
reports included herein by reference below.
-~-".
1. Related to Staff's comments and analysis of the Petitioner's response to IIB697. staff
contends that if the proposed subdistrict were approved. it would contribute to urban sprawl.
The term "urban sprawl" as applied for planning purposes in Florida is defined in F.A.C. 9.1-
5.003, as tallows (see also, the Department of Community Affair's ("DCA") Technical
Memo. Vol. 4. Number 4. circa 1990)("Urban sprawl refers to scattered. untimely. poorly
planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and. . . invades lands
important tor environmental and natural resource protection."):
"Urban sprawl" means lIrban deve/opmel1/ or uses which are localed in predominantly rural
areas, or rural areas interspersed with generally low-intensity or flHv-den...";ty urhan uses,
and which are chaf'{fclerized by one or more oflhefiJllowing condilions: (a) The premature
or poorly planned conversion olruralland 10 olher uses, (b) The crealion olareas of lIrban
developmenl or lIses which are notfllnclionally related to lond uses which predominale Ihe
ad/acenl area; or Ic) The creation 01 areas of" urban developmenl or uses which fail 10
maximize the use of" exisling pllblicfllcililies or the use of areas Within which public services
are currently provided Urban sprl1\vl is Iypicofly nwn{lested in one OJ' more (~lthe fhl/rll'ving
land use or developmenl palterns: Leapfj'og or sealtered de\'elopmenl; ribbon or strip
commercial or olher del'e1opmenl: or large expanses (~l predominantl}' hnv-infensil}', Imv-
densilY, or single-use developmenl.
Response: The slIb/eclproperty is localed well within Ihe "lIrban core" oflhe ('ounly, lieing
nearly two miles weoi'l 01CR-951 (the COllnty's eSlablished urban boundary). The roughly 17
acre Iract is localed al the intersection ql/wo 6-lane major arterial roadways. The
predominant developmenl pal/em surrounding the subject property is urban in bolh density
and intensily. The sub/eel property abuts Sanla Barbara and Golden Gale Parkway to Ihe
easl and 10 the norlh. re,lpeclively. whieh were mO.l'1 recenlly upgraded 10 serre the more
"urhan)' numher (~f trips in/his area (~lthe ('ount)' 's ruad network
1
-- ...... - ." - ~-_."~. -'-'---
-
,--_.._---_._---
_...-."...-,--
D'XTA'''
( 11'''\ L I J"-t.
..&.. '- l' ,.... ....
Furlher. ill Ihe norlh11'esl quadranl of Ihe inlerseclloi1. Ihe properly 1.1' deslR,wled Esla/es,
('ommercwl f)islriel, Goldel1 Ciale Eslales ('ommerelal /ntill Subdlslrlcl. permlllll1g
(,olJ1mer;c'o/ (~tlic(' lIses. !n the northeast (llIuc/rolll (~f the ;nlcscclion, Ihl! proper/ie.\' arc
de,llgl1aled Urhal1. Mlxed- [',Ie VIslnel, aod hme ('-~ ZOl1lng. 011I1 are developed wilh Ihe
San/a Barhara S(/lfure ,(.,'hoJ}ping ('enter exisling on Ihol ('orner. Fur/her northeast, fronting
on San/a Barhara BO/lh.!wlrd those lands arc des;gnu/cd l/rhlll1. ('ommercial /)islrict, SOl1la
Iiarlwra ('ommercwl Suhdlslncl Ihal permlls IJlillled rerail com mere wi land uses. The
soulheasl quadral1l of Ihe Inlerseelion 1.1' designaled Urhal1. ('ommercial Vlslrlel. Cialdel1
Gille Park11'lIl' Prof(,sslOl1al Office ('ommercwl Suhdl.llnel, I1l1d al/ows 11m lied C '-/, C-2, I1l1d
('-3 land uses Finlll/\'. soulh of Ihal Suhdl.llnel, Ihe IlIl1ds are deslgl1aled Urhlln, ,lllxed Use
DIslrlel, Urhal1 Res/(Ienlwl Suhdlslnel, \1'Ilh pori IOns of Ihlll Subdlslrlel being 11'/lhm II
ResldenllalVenslly Baod IInd lire zoned RMF-12 (i,,'eo Ihese exlsllng condllom, II 1.1' clear
Ihat the sll~iec' !J1'ojH.!l'ly is located l1'i,l1in an urea predominonl(V designated. zoned, und
developed "t'ilh urhan land lfses. ('()rre.\j)()}](l;ng~l', lindeI' exisilng regula/ions and long held
.",ow1d plaf7ning jJrin6ples, the most op/Jropriotf! use (~( Ihe suhject properly is eilher 11011-
res;clcnlio/ (commerico/ (/nd office), or mixed residential (mll/l;~family and com111ercial relail
alld office) The proposed mlxed-lIsc lirolcel S IlIhdlslnel proVIdes fi))' a rm)!'e of
dfl'e!opment oplions ((P/)ropriale~\' localed near Ihe major rO(J(hl'ays thaI a!lml's lhe
proposed /t)H'Cr intensily residential 10 act as a hujkr (from lhe commerical and fi'om lhe
intcrsec1ionJ.fhrlhe adjoining /mr density residential estates properties.
[n COllll'Osllo Ihe /il'Oposed sobdlslrlel, Ihe Goldell Ciale fslales SIII)(hvlslon, once pllrporled
10 he lhe world's largest suhdh'isio17. is o/ten IIsed (IS (/11 example o( undesirable sprawl,
heing chracterized hy lOll' density sing/e~f{lInily ,.e,';idenlia/ development that is nol serviced
In cenll'lllll' provided pllhlic lllillll\ facllllles. does 1101 offer lIeeded sllpporl,,'e urhall
services, not pro "ide (/ mixtifre o( land uses that l1'ould minimize otherwise lInneccesary
Il'lIveI. Ie, l'ehlclllar Irips, Ihal 11'111 have a lIegalil'e IIlIlWel onlhe road11'avs and 0lher11'/ze
nollake adnmtage o(f!COn0111les of scale ('pica/~,' f01lnd in an uthan seffing 711e proposed
suhdislric1 provides a transition of moderale densily residenlial land use opporlunities \vilh
moderale intensily commercial land uses that \\'ill serve lhe surrounding /lrhan area.
Practically speaking, low densit)' single f{!fl1i~\" IS /lol (f )'iahle jf/lure use on lhis parcel. In
fael, Ihese properliel' hll\'c heen develol)ed \1'1lh, alld IIsedfor nOllresidelllwlllsesfar l1Ia".1',
mom' veurs.
A more halanced long ranxe planning anLl(l'sis. ral/u!r lhal1 eiling "urban sprawl ,. resulling
fi'om lhe proposed suhdislrict 's traJ1smiffal. \1'olfld he to consider lhe approprialeness (~llhe
requesled change, nol so milch from Ihe persel'ccllvc of \1hol Ihe properlY IS presenlh'
deslgnaledfor and \1'hv II Ollghl nol be changed hlllli'om Ihc perpedlve of \1"hol lise IJnd
designLllion is most appropriate for thl! property 10(1t~" and inlo lhe planning horizon. Any
olher approach IS pre-delermlned allhe 1'101'1, and H'il/nol acknowledge c1J{JnglnR condlllons
Ihal may legilimalcly warranl (/ change in land 1/se, ,.1ssl/l11;ng lhe proposed change is
2
D1XTA'"
^--
t f '.....,l L II !'.\.
~"-, l.l.......
timely it makes good planning sense^ and will be beneficial for the community. then it is
understood that Ihere are ceria in "reqlliremen/s ^' thai mllst be mel or complied wilh in order
to meet the slatlltory and I'llle reqlliremenls for a Plan change. /n other words. iflhe change
makes good planning sense^ Ihen any defIciencies inlhe submittal reqlliremenl.\' canlypcia/!y
he corrected or addressed between Irlll1smif1a/ and adoption )1';111 additional data and
appropriale conditions or limifalions.
Findin2s and Conclusions;
2^ The proposed subdistrict is inconsistent with Policy 52.3 of the GGAMP. which prohihits
commercial development along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa
Barbara Boulevard.
Response.^ The eited PoliC\^ slates:
. ~",
Policv 5.2.3:
~
Recognizing the eXISting residential nature of the land uses surrounding the planned 1-75
interchange at Golden Gate Parkway. as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the
Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. there shall be no further
commercial zoning for propel1ies abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road
and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new commercial uses shall be permitted on properties
abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above-defined segment This
policy shall not apply to that existing portion of the Golden Gate Estates Commerciallntill
Subdistrict. which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate
Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard
And alfhollKh neither zonin~ nor lIses ql a commercial nature are Ju:'rmilled 10 be presenll)-.'
approved at zoning (see the bold texl)^ there is no reglllatOJY preclllsion under this Po/icv
axainsf redesignating the underlying land lise, regardless, this is \.1'hy an exception similar to
tharfor the lands due north and immedialel\ across Golden Gate Parkway to this Polic)' IS
proposed and appropriate 111 this GMP amendment based IIpon the changed conditions that
now warrant a corresponding change in land use on this property
3. Additionally. a commitment was made by the County to the Florida Department of
Transportation in consideration of the approval and construction of the 1-75 Interchange to
keep the Golden Gate Parkway corridor "green" and not allow the proliferation of
commercial and conditional uses^
^-
Re^<pOllSe.^ Becallse this propertv is located in Ihe IIrban core oj'lhe Countv and would nol he
appropriate fin' low densily residential development, the enlire Golden Gate communi1y will he
beller served with a mixed land use designation onlhis property in /ikefashlOn to the other three
(flllldranls 01 Ihis inler,I,'eclion allowing for variolls urban commercial and higher densify
residential uses. The sllhiecll'roperly is approximately ol1e mile easl of the /-75 /nlerehange.
3
""'-"'~''''---'--'
" -
,,- , '.- ~-"--'
-'-'-'..~.'_.....
...
ow .
D'XTA"
( "'''1 I 11'-'
.A. '\..., ,..... .A.
ThllS. Ihe proposed slIhdislricl slle ;s al Ihe Il1rlhesl easlerh cxlenl af Ihe corm/or. The l11ajor;ll'
of the properlylronls on Sanla Barhara BO/l/emrd und Ihul is where Ihe pril11ulT. i.e.. funC/ional
acc(!sse,\' are located llnd 011(" sec()l1d{JI~" access ll'Ollld he fJrO\'iJed/()r as a righI-in. right-oul
on Go/den (fale Porloi'm'_ It has hce}1 slIxxesled (h01 reference 10 Go/den Gale "Parhray" in
1he ,<.;uhdislricl name should he removed to elimlJutfe rIIll' perception thaI commercial lIses on the
sUe will hare ony s;gnUiconl im/JOeI assocjated l\"ith that rOOdl1'(/.L Perhaps Ihe name "Go/den
(iofe (julelfoy i\h'(cd l/se ,)'uhdisfric!' fS Ilwre ap/u"OjJr;(/fe (IS !his projecl is 01 the Ihresho/d fo
the Go/den (jute "cily" area. In (lny case. (/ coot/iUan fhal lfOllld subjecI the J1ort!u!r(vfj'onlaxe
of Ihe pn~jecl 10 the some 10n(/.\'('0/)il1g ami slreelscope slondards applied 10 the 1- -5 iJ1lerchal1ge
H'ollld he appropriate to keep the corridor "green. ,-1ml given that "proliferatiol1" means
"growlh hy the rapid multiplicatio/1 oj pllrts, " i,e., plural and therefore musl involve /IIore than
one "part" or "rapid multiplicatIOn. " hecallse there has not In'Cl1 fl'el1 one other "exceptio)}"
like that due 110rth of the slIhjecll1rolJcrty, ,.h SI/Ch. l1!J!Jro\'il1g the requested amendment cannot,
will not, and do(!s not conslltlfte '"jJrolilerotlOlI. '" oj commercial and ('(mditionollfses. e.\j)(!ciall,l'
where (he land at this location is IJresenlly uTilized/cJ!' !1O/1-r(!sidel'ltw! uses.
4. The application and support documentation for the proposed amendment does not address
changed conditions that would justify or support an exception or change to the adopted
Policy 5.7.3 in the GMP.
~
Re.~p()Il.l'e. /n add;l;on 10 Ihe fo/'egoll1g I'olnl. Ihe .\'o/,/'UIll'e Slalemenl. Allachmel1l A in Ihe
(i,lfP an1f!l1dment uJ}J}/ication /nateria!s did in./acl. contain an explu}Jaliol1 ql the changed
conditio}}s Ihat Hoult! l1'wTonlthe requesled exce!Jtion to that !wrticlIlar Folicy. and stated'
'"TIlII rl.'cen! im/n'U\'t!!Jlfllls lu (jl)/df!l (jule Pork\1"ur unci Somo Burhal'o BO/l/I.!vord han.' renderl!d Ihe
,Id/hillel pr()paly genert/lh' lIf1.wiluhle fur singfl.!-jumi!\' J/lJflli!S dl/I.! /() uccess Iimilatiol1s and I/"atlic
/loise and cOI1[!.eslio/l. The suhiect proJJcrlies ho\'(' II(Ter fwd residenliallalld uses ()}}-silr:: and hal'l.!
uilrays' heen developed lrilh il/slilurio}}ul fund IIses as deelllcd uppropriatc (/nd compalihle with the
neighhoring properries thrIJugh prio/" ::()lIii1,l.!. acfi()ns if
There appears 10 be a phi/ol'Oi,h;w/ difference of opin;an helween Ihe a/'pliwnl and slalt
.Yon-residential land uses hOl'e long hecn located on the suhjec( proper!.\-' and. (hrough prior
zonil1R actions: Ihese lIses have heen./o/{}1(lto he COrlsistent 1\"ith the G(jAA1P. 11ie can oxree
to disagrt!e. hut to lfS il is clear (hat this jwoperly is !JO( appropriale .Iiw low dcnsi!.v
rcsidenlial IIse e,\j)(:,cially giv('n rhe recem alld significant expenditures or puhlic fimds to
create improvements to hoth the wljace})t transportation 11('/\fOrk and intersection.
5. If this project is approved. adjacent sites "ould become eligible for conditional uses.
Respon,\'e: 711ere is no loXical conncction he/ween the adoption oj this request and
"eligihi/ity" to apply lor .future conditional /lse applications on adjacent properties.
"E/igihility" does not provide certainty (~t conditional use approval. if' ever requested. nor
appropriateness tu H'{lfTant ap!JrO\'(t/, which would .\'Iill hm'c to he demon.l;trated hused UJ]
4
DYXTA'"
e'_.
( n:......1 J llr,~
..a......., '''''' ......
Ihe maler/als included 10 suppaI'I a pOlential cundillOnal use requesl. Lill1?,llG?,e could be
included in Ihe proposed subdislricl provisions Ihal would conlinue 10 preclude eli?,ibilily to
pursue cundilionaluses should Ihe subdislricl be approved
"No new condilionaluses may be pursued adjacenllo Ihe Subdislricl '.I' boundaries. ..
6. Despite the existence of Policy 5.2.3 in the GGAMP. it is important to note that the approval
of this petition may provide the impetus for additional requests for commercial, either on
abutting sites to the west. across Golden Gate Parkway adjacent to the northwest quadrant of
the Golden Gate Parkwav/Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection. or both.
,
Response: The ralianale primarily supporlll1?, Ihe "exceplion" similar 10 Ihal in exislence
fin' Ihe commercial use due norlh aj'lhe sub/ecl is primarilv based on ils shared primarv
Fonla?,e wilh SonIa Barbam Boulevard. which is a fi,,:lual circumslance no olher propcrly
along the Go/den Gate ('orrhlor helyveen these 111'0 siles and the /-75 interchange can ever
meet And aKain. the opjJorll/l1ily exists 10 impose a preclusion against nell' requests fill'
commercial desi?,/wlions Ihal are proximale. or abullin?,llie proposed subdislricllhrou?,h Ihe
inclusion q(reslrictil'f language in/he provisions qllhe suhdislricl.
-'_..~
"No new condilionaluses may be pursued adjacent /0 Ihe Subdis/riel boundaries, and Ihe
existence oj' Ihis Subdisl,.;cl mav nol be used as jus/ificalion for fil/ure dUlI1?,es 10 the
GGAMF 10 providl! lhr l1ell' commercial development op}Jorlu11l"ies, given the historic 11011-
residel1lialuse aj'the Subdislric/lal1ds. ..
7. As required by Rule 9-J-5. F.A.C., the requisite data and analysis necessary to support the
proposed change ti-om Estates -Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict to the
requested mixed use subdistrict, was not provided. The data provided indicated that no need
exists for commercial - retail. but possibly a need flJr commercial - ottice. In addition. the
data and analysis provided by the applicant did not include a residential needs analysis,
population projections. dwelling unit inventory and projections, or other data and analysis
were provided to support the increase of residential density.
Response: The analysis provided by Fishkind and Associa/esfinds Ihallhere is a compellin?,
argumentfi,r providln?,fin' addilional commercial office designaled land inlhis market area.
There is an under-alloca/ion oj'lands available for otfice developmenl wi/lun the markel.
The markel's (i.e.: Ihe sub/eel service area) otfice allocolion supplv-demand ralio IS
curren/Iv below Ihe minimum deSired lel'eI oj' 2.0 and will decrease el'enfill'/her hy 2030.
-~
However, in this case where Ihe relail allocalion sllpply-demand ralio falls jus I sli?,hlly
above ,he minimum desired level, administrative case law and Rule 9J-5. F.A. C. indicate lhal
Ihe needfi)r Ihe change may be demonslraled by olher f()("/Ors, such as sllilability of"lhe
properlyf"r change. localio/Jal crileria. and commlll1lly desire (Interim Reporl 2010-J07 by
5
"
--~.. ~, "'..
... , .---..-....-..- '....-.--.
,~, "
--,---~--,--- --
DlXTA'"
('1)'<,1 I j 1"-',
...&... '-, ,..L J..
Ihe Flo/'ida Sel]((le from ()c/ober ]OO~, Imge 3. fooll1OIe 13) The l'resel1ce of 011 O1'er
allomliol1 shollld /'eSllI1 rn a 1'1'1'/('\1 of IlIe il1diwlors of /ll"hal1 sl'/'lIlI'l al1d oilier fac/ors !llill
ou/weigh /he 17/1I11'-'1';CO/ over-allocutio}/. r/nlerim Rcporl 20J()-JO' In' ,he Florida Senatc
from ()c/ober ]OIN. I'oge 5. fool))ole 2 -j See Or\(), IlIne ]iO))11., uwed ))1 IlIe Flsllkil1ll &
Associl//cs' mlller;a!s.
As 10 Ihe Fishkrnd & Associales' dlllo IInd 1111011Sis nol 111e1l1drng a /'esidfJ1lia! needs
anll!ysis. ele, l'elillOner 110rnls 0111 1I]((I/I11el'lm Re]iorr 2010-107 by IlIe Flom/II Senale from
()c/o!Jer ]()()C) rRejJorl) makes clear Ihu! (Fell ll'hcn such UJ] analysis leads In the cone/usioJ}
lhallhe !J!'oposed change resulTs ill (}\'cr-ul/()('llfio!1. (/ plan change con sli/I he ajJproved so
long us 11 docs no/ meet/he indic%J's oj "/11'/1011 sprml'l. .. 5;ee the I'c.ferenccd RepOl'I, pOKe 3
alfool11OIe 12, cHil1g 10 II /)()A If Cl/se os alllhori{1' fo/' IlIis 11I'(1)osiliol1
Afore prac1iculfl". 1l'hi/e a rcsidcl71;all1ccds al1(/~l'sis Has no! prepared/or this application. ;1
should he understood Ihat the proposed incr('(/.\'(!. liS now mo(t;jied herein. \fould result in no
more than 05 !1('lY dwelling IInits (7-1 tlll's requested mi/llls f.) SFR du 's o!!m1'ed under current
ZOJ1lJ/g). C;iFell the C/lrrenl economic d(}\\,}}tJ/rn, construction oj n(')1' homes has "irtlfa/~"
come 10" 11,,11, \1/11cll \\'111 keel' IlIe 1111'1''-'' of resldenlw!llIIils rel"li,'e!" col1slal11 il1ll1" shorl
term. Ho\1 'f'l'cr, \1";th ('apilu/a/ion in the market ('om!Jined 11'ith decreased property ro/ues,
the demandjol" homes /U1.\ heen steadfly incrcusil1g il1 Ihe /wsl six months (lml ot some }Joint,
('ert(l;n~\' \rel/ H';thin the timef;-ume oj the plol1ning /wn::on cOl1sideredfo/'lmu/lIse chany,es,
the SIIJ}}}/Y wi// hun' hc('}} dllllillished 10 Ihe })()inl 11'IJC,.C demand \\'ill l1U1ndate 11('11' residential
construction proceed in carnes', Prm'iding now/or ,his statistically insignijicant increase in
residential units to !J1t.:'etfullIrc demand. }Wrticlllar~l' at this intersection. is appropriate giren
the pred()mjn(lI1t~v l/rha}/ character oj ,he slIru)/{/uling urea (fml the ahilit.l' of these uses to
capture or shortentnl}s,
8. Major discrepancies exist \\ithin the two market analysis provided including I) duplication of
parcels; 2) duplication of parcels when determining certain acreage totals: and. 3) failure to
include all vacant commercial parcels. The applicant's inf,mllation does not provide an
accurate picture of existing commercial space. not 01" I"uture needs. In addition to the
discrepancies in the provided data. it should also be noted that reviewing both the Onice and
Retail analysis together yields that assumptions made I"l' the percentage 01" acreage that
\\ould develop as oflice (approximately 33%) and retail (approximately 50%) space provide
It)!" <.'Idditional unaccounted for acreage (17tyo). in other words additional acreage in the 20-
minute onice trade arca and I (I-minute retail trade area of 160 acres and 60 acres.
respectively.
6
,-.-
DlXTA'"
l"()"l 1 TI~.,
..&.. "'- l' 1''''' .L
Response:
allached).
This commenl has been responded 10 by Fishkind and Associales (Documenl
9. The commercial analysis submitted docs not demonstrate the need for additional retail uses at
this location. In fact. the study demonstrates that no additional retail is required even in
2010. when this supply of retail space will be double the demand. Even though the
commercial analysis for office space demonstrates that approaching 2030 the supply of office
space may almost equal the demand, given that the subject site is just outside the Urban Core
a more appropriate location lc)r office space is within the core and not within the low-density
Estates designation.
Response: This commenl has been re.lponded 10 by Fishkind and Associates. (Documenl
a/lached).
"__k
1 O. It is asserted in the amendment application that the expansion of Golden Gate Parkway and
Santa Barbara Boulevard to 6-lanes has changed the character of the existing residentially
zoned site: making is unsuitable ic)r single-tamily housing. However, the petition does not
address the specific changes or impacts the subject site. except to mention that traffic
volumes are expected to increase on the adjacent roadways. Further. the current uses on the
subject site. a church and school. have existed lor over 25 vears and after review of aerial
. ,
photography submitted with the petition. suggested trallic impacts to the subject site arc not
obvious given the institutional uses of the site and the placement of structures on the site.
Response: 771e applicalion malerials clearly idenlitied Ihe land area removed fi'om Ihe
subJect parcels 10 provide for right-orway neededfor Ihe adJaeenl roadway improvemenls in
past and more recent years, The support materials also rejerence the negative impacls on
the properl)' wilh respect to lratfle noise and congeslion, and limiled access, required dlle 10
aggregaling Ihe subJect parcels into one sllbdislriel and eorre.ljJonding plan of develop men 1.
While the exi~ling land uses may nol have been greally allered b1' these access, noise. and
Iratfie congeslionnegalive impacls. an)' change ofusefi'om Ihe exisling land uses would only
(illow fi1l' fi//111ly care filCililies, essenlial services, or single~f{1I1Jil)' land lIses. Because Ihe
markel would not supporlpurchase of the enlire landsfin'famil1' care and essenlial services
dlle to Ihe jilet Ihey wOllld nol 1I1ilize or require Ihe enlire property 10 develop. the sole
remaining highesl and besl "permilled lise" lInder Ihe current Eslates designalion H'ould he
ill' no more Ihannine single~fwnil)' homes,
-
As a filrther conslminl It nol aggregaled inlo one unified plan ot developmenl, Ihe access
managernen/ policies of/he County would no/ allol'v nine individual drivel<foys hosed on
dril'ewa)) opening spacing restrictions due to these mos/recent ;mprol'(!men/s to those ml{jor
roadwaysfi'onting Ihe parcel Addilional/)'. Ihe subdivision reqlliremenls of1he LDC wOllld
7
.- ..,
, _--.-- , .-
-.- -.--- " .,-~
"-.--,,-.,-.... ---
D'\XTA'"
( 'i'-'..l I .I"d,
..&.. '-..' ,.L .....
\'i/'tlfOlly make lhe re-suhdir;s;o!l of Ihe suhjeel !Jroperly imj){)S.\-;hle without jJ'ol1!age roads
ulld cross-emel71ellls 1!1111 ,t'(w!d like!, Iwl cOIIII,/l' \111h Ihe f:'sluln lOllill1' Dislricl
dcre/opmcl1l slum/ards.
II. The proposed subdistrict mixed-use intensitvldensity of the development is consistent \\ith
an urhan style development and is an extreme departure Ii'om the low densities presently
allowed in the Estates designation ~- one residential unit per 2 Y; acres or legal lot of record.
(If approved. this" ould be the lirst increase in densitv authorized in the Estates designation
since the adoption of the (;(;AMI' in 1991.) Either extreme. a maximum commercial of
100.000 n' "ith a base densit\ ol-,,'iS Ill/AC (74 units). to utilizing the commercial to
" .
residential conversion resulting in a maximum cnmmcrci<.ll of 2/.00011- and a maX1I11U111
residential densitv 01 almost 12 DUlAC (247 units). is consistent with urban stvle
des-elopmenl In addition. the proposed subdistrict \\ould also provide 1()J' a maximum 01240
senior housing units. 1\0 supporting data and anal\ sis bas been provided to demonstrate a
need le)r the increased residential densitv or to demonstrate its appropriateness at Ihis
location. such as a compatibility study. which would identily the impacts of the proposed
project on the surrounding area.
Re.\ponse,' r-f/hile !lUI included in lhe apphCalio}1 malerials. a sfle mW~l'sis was prepared
10 consider COl11jWUhllily \1"1(/1 the I1fixhhol'lng !)/'()perlfes thaI are del'eloped with .~"in;:le-
fa/11ily hO/11es. There is on(v one sin;:le~f(l}l1ily residence thaI is relalire(v c/o,.;,'e to the
suhled IwoI,erlL Thai home ex Isis on Ihe eilll I I!j lecl 01 Trod I)", ['nil 31!, (jolden Gale
I:s/ales, alld IS aplwoxlma/e/, -II! leel lI'nl 01 Ihe sl/h/ed prol'erll'. AI! ",her ad/acenl
Eslules designaled Iwrce!s 10 Ihe ",('SI hm'e homes 01 lfilsl 131! feel Irom Ihe sU!'leel
proper!.\' The proposed suhdistrict development standards provide adequate separalions
to ensure cO/11jwlihilily (i.e..' 25/t'('( plus exisUng st!lhacks ollhe residences equoles 10 110
less 111(1/1 tSj fool huilding separalions;, and/lIrther mellsures, s1Ich as, hut not limited to,
l'egetotire Indfers (lnd structures 10 screcn /lI/lIrc mul/i)(1}ni~\' residen/ial and non-
residen/iallond /I.\es would he included in the suhsequcllt rezoning application materials
10 furl her ensure COl1llWlihilill' ,.lddillOna!", rhe home 10 Ihe soulh 01 Ihe suhied
property has heen considered In regard 10 cOmjh/lihili(l" with the potential f11l1lti~t(J/l1ily
residential lInd non-residential land /lses, (lml similar meaSlll'e,'j' to Ihose stated {lhOl'e
would also he included in suhsequent re:::ol7ing applicatIOn materials that would
demonstrate {It lellst -j-too/ hili/ding scpOI'll/ions.
8
,,_.
DlXTA'"
l n"d I Ii"',
....."-., 'A .a..
12. Staff acknowledges that the inclusion of on-site housing for the Goodwill Industries
continued operations can help eliminate thc transportation barrier for these employees.
However. the proposed amcndment does not guarantee these housing units.
Response: Goodwill/ndllslries may IIxree /() commillo Iheir workfi,,'ce housinx plans inlhe
proposed suhdislricl. hul II wOllld he more IIpproprialelv commil/ed 10 liS a parI ofthefii/lIre
zoning aef/on.
13. For HB697 requirements. the applicant has not provided data supporting the generic
statements. This petition promotes urban sprawl. with the urban style development outside
the urban core. in an area zoned lor I DU/2.25 AC. Other issues exist lor the proposed site.
in particular walkability to nearhy commercial uses and the transit stops. Minimally a
pedestrian t1-iendly streetscape should be crcated to hetter serve a range of users; for this stair
would recommend pedestrian Iricndly improvements he made at the Golden Gate Parkway
and Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection. In summary. this is a clear representation of urban
sprawl. increasing a delined Urban Core boundary to increase densitylintensity of
development without supporting data and analysis.
Re.lponse: Again. slaff and Ihe pelitioner's agent disaxree fill1damentallv on what
constitules "urhan spmwl. .. and retilioner relies onlhefacts and Ihe applicahle regulalions.
The proposed mixed use suhdistrict could conslftUff .'prowl ~f il lverf localed Ihree or more
miles 10 Ihe easl in the Rural. and/or Estales designalions where. as per the cited definition
Ihere was a lack ofeentmlly prm'ided 1I111ilie.' and .'poradic pohlicfi/cililies. Where proposed
atlhis specific intersectionlhe elemenls of the definilion are nolme/. Staffmay he correc/ in
thaI pedestrian Fiendlv improvements mav he necessarv wllhinlhe proposed sllhdistrict and
beyond Ihe houndaries (~llhe slIbdislric/, 01 Ihe major intersection, and language to that
effecl collld he inclllded 111 the suhdistric/ provisions. hul Ihe specificilv of Ihose
impro\'emenls arc best identified }{I'ophical/y as 1I part (?! a sub"lcqucnt rezoning proces.\'
14. Using "proximity to urban development" as justification I'll" increasing land use to a urban
development contradicts smal1 growth and perpetuates urban sprawl when not supported by
data and analysis. The area east of the subject site is the urban core, which provides lor
dense urban development with a wide range of uses in order to serve that urban area and the
surrounding Estates zoned and designated semi-rural area. This compact urban core has a
clearly delined boundary and includes a residential density band.
-
Re.lponse: The predominant developmenl pal/ern around the relalively isolated sections of
Eslates designalion is urhan hoth to Ihe norlh. so 11th. and wes/. This pal/ern of lIrhan
developmenl around .'prawling Estates designallon will most likely will he perpetuated hy the
GGAMP. hul on Ihis particular propertv. wllh urhan land uses and densilles in everv olher
9
_.-_~-,~" .'-
-----~~_.--- -,
""~-
---" , "
-
DYXTA"
( ",.... I 11"..1
~ '-, '-I.. .A..
quadran! of this major intersection. and lIrha}] d('l'e/opment surrounding Ihe Esfafes
desigl1aled lal1ds. j1/SlijiUlllOl1 d1/e 10 1"'OXlIl1ill' 10 1/1'111111 dncloJlmel11 is lIJ1J1I'OJll'illlejol' Ihis
jJro/N!rty Oil the easternmost arm outermost fringc of I/W E:...lule.\' designation. that is wilhin
Ihe hOllm/m:r oj Ihe l/rhol1 designatioJl IS ho/f1 17mI' ojJprojJrtflle (//1(/ \\"('11 Jimmied in sound
planning principals. Furthermore, there is n() h()IIJ1(lm~r lor (111 "urhan COfe" dejinedfhr the
Golden (jafe area ami {/ dens/!l" hand i.'. nof l1l'cessf/afed where the maximum dens/h"
re(jlfesled is less IlulJI the ("OIII/f.\' hase den,ity/()r reslllcll!ia/ land
15. This petition is inconsistent with the (J(iAMP vision I,)r commercial development in Golden
Gate Estates. as well as for 100v (semi-rural) dcnsity residential development.
Re,\ponse: lhis is (f hold conclus/on IIJlSlIppOrled hy any (1J1{Jlysis' or cill! to pertinent
uuthority. ,')'ee ahove /"('SjJOJ1se and re.\'jJOl1ses ol1/Jrl!cediJ1g S(!\'C1] pOJ.!.es.
Proposed Revisions To Subdistrict Text Amendments:
In an en,)!'t to respond to the comments of stalf and discussions "ith the ncighboring residents.
the Petitioner is p]"()posing to modily the text cdits p]"()posed I,lt" inclusion in the Goldcn C,ate
Area Mastcr Plan. as follovvs:
I. GGAMP - Pagc I. I.ist of Maps -- no change:
GGAMP - Pagc 4- Policv 1.1.2. t\. Estates-Mixcd Usc District - no change:
3. GCiAi\1P - Page 12 - Cioal 5. Objective :'.2.. J>olic) 5.2.3 - no change. except for change
recommended h, stall:
4. (,(JAMP - Page 18 - t\. \ irban-\1ixcd \ 'se Dislrict. Dcnsity Rating System. b. Density
Bonuses. iii. t\fj,)rdablc-vvorkt<lI"Ce 1I0using Bonus - inclusion in the proposcd suhdistrict
has been removcd so therc will bc 110 change proposed to apprcwed Page 18.
5. CiGAi\.1P - Page 26 2. Estates Designation - no change. except f(Jr change
recommendcd by stall:
6. GGAMP - Pa~e .1.1 - Estales-Mixed lise' District. 5 (,oldcn Gate Park"av Mixed Lse
~
Subdistricl - re-writtcn as 1()llo"s:
o
The Golden Gate Gate"a) Mixed Use Subdistrict compriscs al2Proximatelv 20.71 acres and
is located at thc southwest corner of the intcrsection of Golden Gatc Parkwav and Santa
Barbara Boulevard. The pJdIpose of this Subdistrict is to allow lor a mix of commercial.
residential and institutional uses.
This Subdistrict is intcndcd to allo" lilt" a mix of both retail and onicc uscs so as to prO\ide
QQPortunities Il)r shol2ping and personal services for on-site residential development as well
as lor the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. The developmcnt
standards contained in this Subdistrict are designcd to ensure that all development allowed
within this Subdistrict will be compatible with adjacent and nearby residcntial developmcnt.
10
_..
D\XTA'"
( P,<,l I I i "..I ,
...... '- l 1..L .....
Residential multi-familv land uses are allowed within this Subdistrict at a density set forth in
paragraph a. below. Senior housing, including. but not limited to assisted living facilities.
nursing homes and group care units, are also specifically allowed in this Subdistrict.
No new conditional uses may be pursued adjacent to the Subdistrict boundaries. and the
existence of this Subdistrict may not be used as justification for future changes to the
GGAM? to provide for new commercial. or mixed use development oRPortunities. given the
historic non-residential use of the Subdistrict lands.
The following criteria and standards shall regulate development within the Golden Gate
Gateway Mixed Use Subdistrict:
a. Residential Density
I. Residential density shall be calculated on the total site acreage of20.71", acres.
2. The residential density shall not exceed 3.55 dwelling units per acre (74 units).
3. Base density shall be reduced if senior housing is constructed. as set forth in
paragraph b.3.. below.
,'--
4. The minimum allowed density is 2.0 units per gross acre (41 total dwelling units).
5. Only multi-family dwelling units are allowed in this Subdistrict.
b. Limitation of Commercial Uses
1. Commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of 60.000 square feet of gross
leasable floor area. of which no more than 40,000 square feet of gross leasable floor
area may be developed as retail commercial land uses.
2. Commercial land uses shall be limited to those permitted and conditional uses set
forth in the C-I, C-2. or C-3 Zoning Districts of the Collier Count v Land
Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41. as amended, except as prohibited in
paragraph d.. below.
3. The floor area ratio for senior housing. including. but not limited to. assisted living.
nursing care. and group care units shall not exceed 0.60. The floor area of senior
housing development shall be excluded from the commercial floor area limitations in
paragraph b.l., above. For each senior housing unit (room. not beds) constructed. Y,
of a dwelling unit shall be deducted hom the density allowed in a.2.. above. A
maximum of 240 senior housing units is allowed.
.-'
11
YO ...
-
DYX'A'"
('Il''>, 1 11:'-.1,
~ '-, ,..... ...
c. Rezone
I. To promote a cohesive plan oj" development, the entire site shall be rezoned to a
single Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). Regulations far water
management. unitarm landscaping. signage. screening and bulTering shall be included
in the MPUD ordinance to ensure compatibilitv with adjacent and nearby residential
areas.
d. Development Standards
I. Commercial development directl\ abutting residential pJ:Qperty ([lli1.pertv zoned E-
Estates and without an aQjlro'ed conditional use) shall provide. at a minimum, a
se,entv-live (75) Ic)ot buffer. or a lith (50) J"eet wide butler in which no parking uses
are permitted. Twent' (20) ICet oj" the width oj" the butTer alon~ the developed area
shall be a landscape huffer. A minimum of thirtv (30) feet of the butTer width shall
consist o!"retained native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.0711.
oj" the LDC. If the lilh (50) fcwt bulTer alternative is Q!:Q.posed Ic)r all, or a portion oj"
the western and southern boundaries oj" the Subdistrict, then a six (6') Icwt.
architeeturall\ Ilnished solid fence/wall shall he installed within the requircd butTer in
a location that provides the greatest screening oj" land uses developed in this
Subdistrict. and oj" the existin~ Estates residences to the west and south. The native
vegetation retention area mav consist or a perimeter berm and be used t{Jr water
manauement detention. Am newl\ constructed berm shall he re-vegetated to meet
subsection ,1.05.07l\. of the \.DC (nati,e vegetation replanting requirements).
Additionallv. in order to bc considered Ell" al2proval. use of the native vegetation
retention area for water management Q!!.!Poses shall meet the following criteria:
(a) There shall hc no adverse impacts to the native ve~etation heing retained. The
additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro-period
unless it proven that such 1\ ould have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation.
(b) tfthe pJ:Qject requires permitting by the South Florida Water Managcmcnt District.
the pJ:Qject shall provide a letter or ol'licial documcnt from the District indicating
that the native vegctation with the retention area wil] not have to be removed to
comply with water management requirements. If the District cannot or will not
gmply such a letter. then the native vegetation retention area shall not he used fell'
water man3g,cment.
(el If the J2IQject is reviewed hv Collier County. the Count v engineer shall provide
evidence that no removal oj" native vegetation is necessarv to taciJitate the
necessary storage or \\'uter ill the water manUl.lcment area.
12
e_
DlXTA'"
co,''\ J rl....'
..&.. '-, '.L .....
2. Proiects shall provide a 25-foot wide landscape butTer abutting the external right-ol~
way. The bulTer shall contain two staggered rows of trees that shall be spaced no
more than 30 feet on center. and a double row hedge at least 24 inches in height at
time of planting and attaining a minimum of three feet height within one vear. A
minimum of 50% of the 25-foot wide butler area shall be comprised of a meandering
bed of shrubs and ground cover other than grass. Existing native trees must be
retained with this 25-hlOt wide butTer area to aid in achieving this butler requirement;
other existing native vegetation shall be retained, where possible, to aid in achieving
this buffer requirement. Water retention/detention areas shall be allowed in this
bulTer area if lett in natural state. and drainage convevance through the buffer area
shall be allowed if necessarv to reach an external outlall. For that portion of this
Subdistriet lying within the Corridor Management Izoning) Overlay (CMO). the more
stringent requirements of this paragraph and the CMO shall aQply.
3. Shared parking shall be required with adjoining deyelopments wherever practicable.
To the greatest extent possible, internal parking and driveways shall be located
between the Subdistrict's residential and commercial structures in order to minimize
noise and lights on adiacent Estates Zoned llli2Perties.
0----
4. Driveways and curb cuts shall be consolidated with adioining developments.
wherever practicable.
5 Building heights shall be limited to two (2) stories, with a maximum zoned height of
thirtv-tiye (35) feet.
6. Commercial uses shall encourage pedestrian traffic through the placement of
sidewalks. pedestrian walkways, and marked crosswalks within parking areas.
AQjacent !2[Qjects shall coordinate placement or sidewalks so that a continuous
pathway through the Subdistrict is created.
7. All commercial buildings within this Subdistrict shall utilize a common architectural
theme.
8. All lighting shall be architecturally designed and limited to a height of twenty-five
(25) feet. Such lighting shall be shielded trom neighboring residential land uses.
This theme shall be allPlicable to both building design and signage.
9. All commercial buildings shall have tile roofs, "Old Stvle Florida" metal roofs. or
decorative parapet walls above the rootline. The buildings shall be finished in light
subdued colors. except for decorative trime
-
10. If the !2[Qject is submitted as a PUD. it shall provide a lunctional public open-space
component. Such public open-space shall be developed as a green space within a
13
--..-...."-
..
-
"-"'-"-
D'XTA"
(', )'-...1 1 11"-',
...&.. '"' ,...... .1-
pedestrian-accessible courtyard. as per Section 4.06.038.3 of the LDC. as in effect at
the time of the PUD apJlroval.
II. The following principal pcrmitted uses are prohibited;
(a) Drinking Places (5813) and Liquor Stores (5921)
(b) Mail Order lIouses (5961)
(cl Merchandizing Machine Operators (5962)
(d) Power Laundries (7211)
(e) Crematories (7261 ) (Does not include non-crematorY Funeral Parlors)
(f) Radio. TV Representatives (73 I 3) and Direct Mail Advertising Services (7331)
(g) NEe Recreational Shooting Ranges. Waterslides. etc. (7999)
(h) General Hospitals (8062). Psychiatric Hospitals (8063). and Specialty Hospitals
(8069)
(i) Libraries (8231)
(j) Correctional Institutions (9223)
(k) Waste Management (9511)
(I) Ilomeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens.
14
,.-.,
r
,
,
, ;
1
,
, ,~ , ,
, _..;Ill
, f
, oil
,
,
,
,
,
, 'I
, ; ,
, " I U
, ' '
t ,
, ~
, ,j ~.
, , ; , ,
1 , , " :1
-~-~ I 'j'
, \ ,
',} I , ;
, , ,
I , 'ii ,
,
, I "
, , :1
j , , .
, , "
, ,
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, , f'
,
I , ,
"
I
I trio
,
t,
,
,
,
-,-"
D'11 A INc'~:,:t~rien
CONSULTING GvilEn' .
.&. ...., ,~ ... S~&~
I.IPIJO\0002 G~nerol Consultorien And Coordinolion\I:.-:Mt\ll6008JOI00X01.d"'9
DillE
OCT, 2009
Odob~( 14, 2009 4:01 PI.I Q:\2006\060083.01 00 Napl~5 Cltrislion CPA And
1"
)00'
Wi:NTNAPLES CHRISTIAN
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES
ACADEMY &
OF SW FLORIDA
SCAlE-
DRilWN ilY
MS,J
Tlh[
6610 WIllow Park DrIYe,SuIte 200
Naples, FlorIda 34109
Phone: (239) 597-0575
"'6V'{'>'>Q'I:0"7_r\lt.'711
CHECKED BY
D.H.N.
SEe: l\IlP: RGE PROJlCr
29 495 26E NUMBER:
ESTATES BUFFER
060083.01.00 ~8':~ER 1 01 1
EXHIBIT
~'C~"fR0600830100X07
'---.._..__.~
. -~'''.,-_._'~-
.._..,<-<_._-~
"-_...~....,-~.."._....-
".~"
Fishkind Response to Staff Report - Needs Analyses - CP-2008-3
(10-21-09)
Below are Fishkind's responses to issues raised in the final Staff Report. Where
applicable, the responses below refer to revisions to the analyses and additional
information provided in the attached updated reports.
Office Needs Analysis
1) Page 11 - paragraph 1. Staff indicates, "the 20-minute trade area extends
into Lee County, which is not included in either analysis, and into the City
of Naples,"
Response: Please refer to the updated analyses for a revised
dataset that includes any omitted data that falls within Lee
County. The City of Naples is accounted for in the original
analysis.
."-
2) Page 11 - paragraph 1. Staff conducted an analysis of supply within the
20-minute trade area. To remain consistent with the CIGM, Office and
Service DOR codes were used. (DOR: 17-19,23-25,31,32,34,36,37).
Staff indicates these DOR Codes are consistent with the applicant's
request for C 1-C3 commercial districts.
Response: The Office Needs analysis prepared by Fishkind
analyzed only the demand for, and supply of, office space.
Service related uses are analyzed separately in the Retail Needs
Analysis where applicable.
The descriptions below show that DOR Codes 31, 32, 34, 36, 37
utilized in Staff's Office Analysis are not office related land uses:
. 30- Florists, greenhouses;
. 31- Drive-in theatres, open stadiums;
. 32- Enclosed theatres, enclosed auditoriums;
. 33-Nightclubs, cocktail lounges, bars;
. 34- Bowling Alleys, skating rinks, pool halls, enclosed
arenas;
. 36. Camps;
. 37- Race tracks, horse, auto, dog.
3) Page 11 - paragraph 2. Staff concludes, "Utilizing the CIGM Office and
Services DOR Codes.......the trade area contains approximately 365
parcels (almost 525 acres) with almost 6.5-million sqft of constructed
office space."
I
---- .~.._-----,--
.
~-_...~ ,,-- --.....,.-.....<....-,-.. -.- . ,.. --
Response: As the descriptions above show, DOR Codes 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 36, and 37 are not office land uses. Inclusion of these
DOR Codes in the Staff Office Analysis alters the supply
calculation.
4) Page 11 - paragraph 3. Staff indicates that, assuming the applicant's
demand calculation is correct, "staff's analysis allocation ratios are 1.43 for
2008 and 1.01 for 2030."
Response: Staff's analysis compares the applicant's demand for
office space, to the supply of office space (vacant and existing) in
addition to the supply of non-office DOR Codes: 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
36 and 37. Including these DOR Codes alters the results. Even
so, Staff's 2030 allocation ratio is extremely low.
5) Page 12 - paragraph 1. Staff's concern with the Office Study has to do
with the total trade area supply of 10.8-rnillion square feet of existing and
allocated office space. Specifically:
a. Staff states, "Some developed parcels have been included in both
constructed office space and allocated office space..........."
Response: Erroneous parcel duplications have been corrected
in the updated analyses.
b. Staff states, "for Office Study table 2.2.5, the total acreage for the
"Redeveloprnent" and "Traditional" parcels exceeds the provided
data by approximately 560 acres and 22 acres respectively..." This
is reiterated below Table 3 - Office Trade Area Summary - Staff
indicates, "the applicant provided calculated Vacant Acreage and
Sq Feet. The Acreage appears to have included an additional 580
acres, which implies the Sq Feet is incorrect by the same
percentage."
Response: Some duplication of parcel IDs is necessary to fully
account for single parcels that have acreage split across
multiple sections. Additionally, parcel duplication is
necessary to fully account for constructed space on single
parcels that contain multiple structures, as there is a separate
property record for each structure.
Any parcel duplications that were found to be erroneous have
been corrected in the updated analyses. Duplications remain
where appropriate to get full accounting of parcel building
square footage.
2
~-
c. Staff states, "based on the provided data approximately 200 parcels
were included in the total more than once, some as many as 14
times."
Response: Some duplication of parcel IDs is necessary to fully
account for single parcels that have acreage split across
multiple sections. Additionally, parcel duplication is
necessary to fully account for constructed space on single
parcels that contain multiple structures, as there is a separate
property record for each structure.
Any parcel duplications that were found to be erroneous have
been corrected in the updated analyses. Duplications remain
where appropriate to get full accounting of parcel building
square footage.
d. Staff states, "It appears that the market analysis does not take into
account a large portion of parcels defined as DOR Code 10, Vacant
Commercial.
"..,
Response:
Commercial
analyses.
Any omissions of DOR Code 10, Vacant
parcels have been included in the updated
.~.
3
-
_"n"" " ___.__ - ., "."
,. ..-.-,
..
.~.___~O..__._
Retail Needs Analysis
6) Page 13 - paragraph 1. Staff states that the 2009 AUIR population
projections indicate that the 2030 projected population for the trade area
would be 10% less than using the 2008 AUIR population projections
Response: The draft 2009 AUIR was not available as of the date
the updated analyses were prepared.
7) Page 13 - paragraph 3. Staff conducted an analysis of supply within the
10-minute trade area. To remain consistent with the CIGM, Retail Trade
DOR codes were used. (DOR: 11-16,21,22,26,27,29,30, and 33).
Response: The Retail Needs analysis prepared
analyzed only the demand for, and
neighborhood/community serving retail space.
by Fishkind
supply of,
DOR Codes 15 and 29 utilized by Staff are Regional
Center and Wholesale land uses respectively
neighborhood/community retail land uses.
Shopping
and not
8) Page 13 - paragraph 3. Staff concludes, "Utilizing the CIGM Retail Trade
DOR Codes.......the trade area contains approximately 166 parcels
(almost 373 acres) with almost 2.9-million sqft of constructed office
space."
Response: DOR Codes 15 and 29 are not
neighborhood/community land uses. Inclusion of these DOR
Codes in the Staff Retail Analysis alters the supply calculation.
9) Page 14 - paragraph 1. Staff's concern with the Retail Study has to do
with the total trade area supply of 3.6-million square feet of existing and
allocated office space. Specifically:
a. Staff states, "Some developed parcels have been included in both
constructed retail space and allocated retail space..........."
Response: Erroneous parcel duplications have been corrected
(approximately 8) where applicable in the updated analyses.
b. Staff states, "for Retail Study Table 2.1.1, the existing acreage
exceeds the provided data by approximately 400 acres ..." This is
reiterated below Table 4 - Retail Trade Area Summary - Staff
indicates, "the applicant provided calculated Vacant Acreage and
Sq Feet. The Acreage appears to have included an additional 400
4
-
acres, which implies the Sq Feet IS incorrect by the same
percentage."
Response: Some duplication of parcel IDs is necessary to fully
account for single parcels that have acreage split across
multiple sections. Additionally, . parcel duplication is
necessary to fully account for constructed space on single
parcels that contain multiple structures, as there is a separate
property record for each structure.
Any parcel duplications that were found to be erroneous have
been revised in the updated analyses. Duplications remain
where appropriate to get full accounting of parcel building
square footage.
c. Staff states, "based on the provided data approximately 30 parcels
were included in the total more than once, some as many as 53
times."
Response: Some duplication of parcel IDs is necessary to fully
account for single parcels that have acreage split across
multiple sections. Additionally, parcel duplication is
necessary to fully account for constructed space on single
parcels that contain multiple structures, as there is a separate
property record for each structure.
Any parcel duplications that were found to be erroneous have
been revised in the updated analyses. Duplications remain
where appropriate to get full accounting of parcel building
square footage.
d. Staff states, "It appears that the market analysis does not take into
account a large portion of parcels defined as DOR Code 10, Vacant
Commercial.
Response:
Commercial
analyses.
Any omissions of DOR Code 10, Vacant
parcels have been included in the updated
5
___.-",., .""_.,,.- '__r
~.,_..,w...,..__
..-,-.- "'- ---,= ~- ,...,
Staff Additional Analysis Comments
10)Page 15 - paragraph 1. Staff states, "in addition to the discrepancies in
the provided data, it should be noted that reviewing both the Office and
Retail analysis together yields that assumptions made for the percentage
of acreage that would develop into office (approximately 33%) and retail
(approximately 50%) space provide for additional unaccounted for
acreage (17%).
Response: The unaccounted for 17% of developable acreage
would be allocated to uses other than retail or office (I.e.
hotel/lodging, ALF, industrial, institutional, etc.) In estimating
the build out of a Mixed Use Activity Center or Redevelopment
Overlay for example, it is reasonable to assume uses other
than office and retail would also be developed. The source for
the distributions is provided in the report.
(,
--
Cover Letter - Needs Analyses
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
Revised and Updated 10-21-09
The following updated reports incorporate responses to issues raised in the Staff
Report for Petition CP-2008-3, Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Growth Management Plan Amendment. The scope of revisions focuses on the
reconciliation of parcel data, which is utilized as the basis for the supply
determination.
The two attached reports are as follows:
1) Office Needs Analysis -10-21-09, and;
2) Retail Needs Analysis - 10-21-09
The sections below provide summary results of the updated analyses.
Office Needs Analysis
-'~,
The following provides revised results concerning office need based on the
incorporation of reconciled parcel information (please refer to the full analysis for
complete calculations).
Because of uncertainties inherent in long term analysis horizons and the fact that
the supply calculation takes into account lands that mayor may not be developed
as office space - or at all, the comparison of supply-to-demand is articulated by
an 'allocation ratio' (ratio of supply-to-demand).
To support an appropriate level for the allocation ratio, Fishkind has reviewed
findings of fact from administrative hearings, comprehensive plan amendments
found in compliance by the Department of Community Affairs, and land
allocations embedded in other comprehensive plans 1. These sources find
supply-to-dernand ratios from 2.0 to 2.5 to be acceptable - depending on how
rapid an area is developing and how close it is to build out.
For this analysis, the minimum acceptable level for the allocation ratio is 2.0.
1 Please refer to full analyses for complete source inIormation.
1
--......-."...-...----.. ,.
, --_.~--,.,. '-, '.. ._--... .".. -,.-.---'.
-~--~~_.~.
-.,----..-...--'.....-
Commercial Office
Office Need in Pro'ect's Market Revised
2008 2010
2020
2030
Market Office Demand Cumulative 7,233,688 7,512,939 8,909.194 10.305,449
12,934.035 12,934,035 12,934,035 12.934.035
--.,..-.... '_..~.~-~--.~" _._~--_._._- .. -_.~_..-
Allocation Ratio 1.79 1.72 1.45 1.26
The table above shows the ratio of the total supply to the total demand equals
1.79, 1.72, 1.45, and 1.26 forthe years 2008, 2010, 2020, and 2030 respectively.
This comparison converts all vacant and potential acres and assumes full
development within the market
It is important to note that the supply-to-demand ratio represents a sufficient
allocation of land to ensure proper market functioning. The additional lands are
needed to maintain market level pricing, account for the likelihood that certain
lands will not be introduced to the market over the forecast horizon or may be
subject to other future ownership or environmental constraints,
Based on this updated analysis, there remains a clear and compelling case for
adding additional commercial-office designated land to this market. As noted
here, this market's office allocation ratio will decrease to 1.26 by 2030. It is just
these types of situations that make it good planning policy to have a sufficiently
high ratio to accommodate the expected demand in a meaningful fashion over
the planning horizon,
Retail Needs Analysis
The following provides revised results concerning retail need based on the
incorporation of reconciled parcel information (please refer to the full analysis for
complete calculations).
Because of uncertainty associated with the length of the analysis horizon and the
fact that the supply calculation takes into account lands that mayor may not be
developed as office space - or at all, the supply-to-demand comparison is
articulated by an 'allocation ratio' (ratio of supply-to-dernand).
To support an appropriate level for the allocation ratio, Fishkind has reviewed
findings of fact from administrative hearings, comprehensive plan amendments
found in compliance by the Department of Community Affairs, and land
allocations embedded in other comprehensive plans2 These sources find ratios
from 2.0 to 2.5 to be acceptable - depending on how rapid an area is developing
and how close it is to build out
2 Please refer to full analyses for complete source information.
2
~..>,-
For this analysis, the minimum acceptable level for the allocation ratio is 2.0
Commercial Retail
Retail Need in Pro'ect's Market
2008 2010
2020
2030
1,226,630
3,743,503
1,278,725
3.743,503
1.536,912
3,743,503
1.789,610
3,743,503
Market Office Demand Cumulative
Su I Net GLA S Ft
Allocation Ratio
I IDemand
3.05
2.93
2.44
2.09
The table above shows the ratio of the total supply to the total demand equals
3.05,2.93,2.44, and 2.09 for the years 2008,2010,2020, and 2030 respectively.
This comparison converts all vacant and potential acres and assumes full
development within the market.
Based on this analysis, there is currently a sufficient amount of retail space
designated by the Plan for this market. As noted here, this market's commercial
ratio will decrease to 2.09 in 2030. This ratio is sufficiently high enough to
accommodate the expected demand in a meaningful fashion, Therefore, no
numerical need for additional retail space exists in the Project's market.
-,
It is important to note however that case law has indicated the need for additional
commercial land may be demonstrated by other factors than numerical
allocation. These factors include: suitability of the property for change, locational
criteria, and community desires3 (Interim Report 2010-107 hy the Florida Senate
/i'om October 2009, page 3. foo/note 13). Furthermore, the presence of an over
allocation should result in a more thorough review of the indicators of urban
sprawl and other factors may outweigh the numerical over allocation4 (Interim
Report 2010-107 by the Florida Senate/rom October 2009. page 5.fiJOtno/e 27).
,_.,
3 O'Connell v, Martin County, DOAH 01-4826GM (Oct. 16,2002),
4 Sierra Club v. St. John's County & DCA, DOAH 01-1851GM (May 20,2002)
3
..
_...._~ --".---
.... ..
-
--
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Needs Analysis
Retail Study
April 24, 2008
Revised and Updated: 10-21-09
Prepared for
Naples Christian Academy
Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida
Prepared by
Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
1415 Panther Lane, Suites 346/347
Naples, Florida 34109
(239) 254-8585
-~'..
Attachment P
Fishkind & Associates
Needs Analysis - Retail Study
, ~--_",'..---"",__, --,'-'- ._.~ -. . ......--.. .---." ~ ~-_.._..' .._..~.._~,--~.
. ~.__..".._---
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
14
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
24
3.0
3.1
3.2
4.0
4.1
5.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................... .................................................................................. 3
~~....................................................................3
OVERVIEW OF NEEDS ANALYSIS ............................... ........... ................ ... ..... ........... ....................... 3
DEFINITION OF THE TRADE AREA.............. ..... ........ .......... ...................... .... ......... ...... ..... ... ........ ......4
ANALYSIS PROCESS................................................. .......... ............ ...... ........................ ........5
THE SUPPLY OF RETAIL SPACE............................................................................... 6
EXISTING RETAIL SUPPLY IN PROJECT'S MARKET .....
................................................6
...............................7
POTENTIAL RETAIL SUPPLY IN PROJECT'S MARKET
RECONCILED VACANT COMMERCIAL LANDS.............. ..... ..............................................................13
TOTAL RETAIL SPACE HOLDING CAPACITY IN PROJECT'S MARKET...............................................13
THE DEMAND FOR RETAIL SPACE ........................................................................15
DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL-RETAIL SPACE IN THE PROJECT'S MARKET .......................................15
HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME IN THE PROJECT'S MARKET ................................................................15
COMPARISON OF SUPPL Y-TO-DEMAND ..............................................................17
SUPPL Y/DEMAND COMPARISON AND THE ALLOCATION RATIO.......................................................17
CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ........................ 18
APPENDIX #1 - RETAIL DEMAND METHODOLOGy......................................................... 19
APPENDIX #2 - 10-MINUTE DRIVE TIME TRADE AREA MAP .......................................... 23
APPENDIX #3 - I-SITE CENSUS-BASED HOUSEHOLD TREND REPORT ...................... 24
APPENDIX #4 - POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGy...................................... 25
APPENDIX #5 - USE OF THE ALLOCATION RATIO .......................................................... 27
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
2
--""..
1.0 Introduction
1 .1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to present a commercial needs analysis for the proposed
change to Golden Gate Area Master Plan ("Plan"). The Naples Christian Academy and
Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida ("Client") are proposing approximately 17.16 +/-
acres of mixed use development ("Project") including a commercial office and retail
component and a small amount of residential development at the southwest corner of
Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in the Golden Gate area of Collier
County ("County"), Florida. Fishkind & Associates, Inc., ("Consultant") has been
engaged to prepare this report. This report analyzes the need for retail space at the
Project.
1.2 Overview of Needs Analysis
In the context of amending the adopted Plan the applicant must demonstrate the need to
amend the plan. Typically, this takes the form of a comparison of:
o The supply of existing land/square footage currently planned for various commercial
uses; and
o The demand for land/square footage based on projected households in the market
Historically, these comparisons have focused their studies County-wide. This analysis
studies the market for commercial retail demand around the project and portions of the
County within certain drive time distances. There are two related reasons for this type of
analysis.
First, consumers are assumed to maximize benefit over all goods and services
consumed subject to their income. This type of analysis requires that travel costs are
either explicitly or implicitly accounted for during the consideration of the consumers'
income constraint. This analysis requires the Consultant to narrow the scope of the
analysis from the county level down to a local market level.
Second, the Consultant considers whether the choice of location is a Pareto
improvement for consumers. (Pareto improvement means that no consumers are made
worse off, and at least one is made better off.) That is, the Consultant asks the question
whether additional commercial space makes at least one local market better off, without
reducing the welfare of all others. An analysis of commercial space over the whole of a
county may lead to the wrong conclusion of where to develop new space. That is, the
county as a whole may appear to need more commercial space to support the aggregate
level of demand generated by its residents. With many County-wide choices of
commercially-zoned lands available, the development of one site over another may lead
to an over supply in one location and an under supply in another. This is precisely the
outcome the County wants to avoid.
C'~
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
3
,.,,",u___~__.. _,
- "'--,.'..~-_.."'~'"
- ,,--. ""~~-~
Therefore:
o By narrowing the focus of this study to the local market, the Consultant determines if
this market has a need for additional retail space.
o The Consultant can replicate a competitive outcome, and ensure that the welfare of
all other local markets is improved or unchanged.
1.3 Definition of the Trade Area
Based on the character of the proposed development and surrounding uses, the market
trade area utilized in this analysis is neighborhoodlcommunity serving in nature.
According to the Urban Land Institute 1
"A neighborhood center's typical size is about 60,000 square feet of gross
leasable area, but in practice, it may range from 30,000 to 100,000 or
more square feet." Neighborhood centers sell convenience goods,
groceries and personal services to the immediate neighborhood
community. The typical market area for a neighborhood center is a 10-
minute drive time.
"A community center's typical size is about 150,000 square feet of gross
leasable area, but in practice, it may range from 100,000 to 500,000 or
more square feet. Centers that fit the general profile of a community
center but contain more than 250,000 square feet are classified as super
community centers." Community centers sell a wider range of products
that includes apparel, hardware and appliances. The typical market area
for a community retail center is a 20-rninute drive time.
"A regional center's typical size is about 500,000 square feet of gross
leasable area, but in practice, it may range from 250,000 to over
1,000,000 or more square feet Regional centers sell general
merchandise, apparel, home furnishings, and a variety of other goods and
services to a larger regional market. The typical market area for a
regional retail center is a 30-rninute drive time.
The market is centered on the Project, which is located at the southwest corner of
Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in the Golden Gate area of Collier
County, Florida, and extends in a 10-minute drive time radius surrounding the subject
site.
1 Beyard, Michael D., W. Paul O'Mara, et al. Shopping Center Development Handbook. Third Edition.
Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 1999.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
4
-~'.
Based on the ULI guidelines for the site's size, the proposed retail space would draw its
customers from a 10-minute drive time or 'neighborhood' serving market. However,
because the volume of potential retail space at the Project is near the upper threshold of
neighborhood centers, it has the ability to house some store types typically found in
community centers such as: personal servicers, entertainment, and food service tenants.
Therefore, the need to amend the Plan and Future Land Use Map will be based on an
analysis of this 10-minute drive time market's need for additional
'neighborhood/community' commercial retail development. (Map of 10-Minute Drive
Time provided in Appendix #2).
1 .4 Analysis Process
The process of determining the need for additional commercial-retail space consists of
four steps, as outlined below.
o Inventory existing supply of commercial-retail space in the market area;
o Inventory potential supply of commercial-retail space implied by the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM);
o Project future population/employees to determine future commercial-retail demand
and compare against commercial-retail land allocation ratios;
-.-,
o Determine commercial-retail space allocation ratio within the market area.
(Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank)
-
Golden Gale Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
5
_n_ .~___"._
'-'-
..
..~ --
,..--.-----
2.0 The Supply of Retail Space
Having established a trade area for the Project, the next step is to analyze the supply of
retail space the Plan can accommodate within the 1 O-minute trade area.
The analysis of the Plan is articulated in two parts
1) First, the Consultant has utilized Collier Property Appraiser data to inventory the
supply of existing, constructed retail space within the 10-minute trade area (DOR
Codes: 11, 12, 16,21,22,26,27,30-37).
2) Second, the Consultant has utilized the Future Land Use Elements of the Collier
County Growth Management Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as a
guide to estimate how much additional retail space is implicitly allocated within the
trade area.
From this, the Consultant is able to estimate the total retail space holding capacity of the
1 O-minute trade area.
2.1 Existing Retail Supply in Project's Market
The Consultant has utilized Collier County Property Appraiser data (effective date of 3-
25-09) to estimate the amount of existing, constructed retail space within the 10-minute
trade area.
Table 2.1.1 provides the current inventory of retail space utilizing DOR Codes: 11, 12,
16, 21,22,26,27,30-37. (Full dataset provided on CD to Planning Dept.)
Table 2.1.1
Current Supply of Existing Commercial-Retail Space in Project's Market
Exis~in~
Acres ---_.. 255.2
~ _._.n._ .- ----
Square Feet 1,784,506
Source: Collier County Property Appraiser-
Effective Date of Data 3-25-09
The table above shows there are 1.8-million square feet of existing, constructed retail
space in the Project's market with an average density of 6,993 square feet per acre
(1,784,506/255.2). This average density will be used as a guide to estimate the potential
supply of retail space in the section below.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs AnalysIs - Updated 10-21-09
6
2.2 Potential Retail Supply in Project's Market
.-
The Consultant analyzed the Future Land Use Elements of the Collier County and
Golden Gate Area Plans to estimate the total retail space holding capacity within the 20-
minute trade area (effective date of Plan retrieval 4-09-09). The land use categories that
fall within the Project's market are shown in Table 2.2.1 below.
Table 2.2.1
Land Use Categories within Project's Market
,,~,
Collier Count GMP Golden Gate Area Master Plan
Urban Desi nation Urban Oesi nation
Mixed Use District Mixed Use District
-
Davis Blvd I County 8arn Rd Mixed Use District Urban Residential Subdistrict
Urban Residential Subdistrict Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict
Urban Residential Frin e Subdistrict Commercial District
Industrial District G,G. Mixed Use Activitv Center Subdistrict
{Includes all Subdistricts! G.G Urban Commerciallnfill Subdistrict
Commercial District Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict
Mixed Use Activit Center Subdistrict G G. Pkw Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict
Interchan e Activitv Center Subdistrict Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict
Livinqston/Pine Rid e Commerciallnfill Subdistrict
Livin ston Road Commerciallnfill Subdistrict Estates Desi nation
LivinQston Road I Ealonwood Lane Commerciallnfill Mixed Use District
Livinoston/Radio Rd Commerciallnfill Subdistrict Residential Estates Subdistrict
Livtnoston RoadNeterans Memorial Road Nel hborhood Center Subdistrict
G.G. Pkwv Institutional Subdistrict
.
Estates Desi nation Commercial District
(See Golden Gale Plan) lnterchanae Activitv Center Subdistrict (Collier GMP)
Pine Ridne Road Mixed Use Subdistrict
G.G Estates Cammerciallnfill Subdistrict
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Collier County and Golden Gate Plans
The balance of this section will focus only on land use categories that allow commercial
development.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
7
-
--
... ,-..
The first step is to identify any land use categories for which the FLUE describes
maximum commercial allocations with a reasonable degree of certainty. For these
categories, the retail holding capacity can be estimated directly. These categories are
shown in Table 2.2.2 below along with the maximum allocations of allowable
commercial-retail space.
Table 2.2.2
Land Use Categories with Specific Allocations
*Note: 'Max Allowed Retail' estimated as one-half of total acreage (based on existing Collier ORis shown in Table 2.2.4 below)
multiplied by 6,993 sqfUacre (from Table 2.1,1 above)
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Collier County and Golden Gate Plans
Total Max. Allowed Max Allowed
FLU Cate orv Acres Allowable Uses Comm. IS It Retail (S Itl
Collier County GMP
-
,
Urban Desi nation
Mixed Use District
Davis Blvd I County Barn Rd Mixed Use District 22,83 , Res, GoodslSvs 45,000 20,000
Commercial District ,
'livln stan Road I Eatonwood Lane Commerciallnfill 125 Offce. Indoor Stora e 200.000 200,000
Livin ston/Pine Rid e CommerClallnfill Subdistrict 27,97 , Res, GoodsJSvs 165.000 125,000
.
'Livin slonfRadio Rd Commerciallnfill Subdistrict 500 , Res, Goods/Svs 50,000 17,481
,
Livin stan Commerciallnfill Comm. 6 Med/Pro Offices 52.500 Office On Iv
,
,
-.-.----.--...---.-..-..---.-. -----.--- -----. - ."... .__._~~..._..--...."... ". . n_____.n....,.._.__... -.------...----
Golden Gate Area Master Plan ,
,
Estates Desi nation
Commercial District ~----+ i i
i
'Plne Ridae Road MU Subdistnct 16.23 , Commercial 80,000 56,745
,
TOTAL , 419,226
,
, ._--~~.----------_._-_._~- ._.__.____..____._________._~__n....._._._._ _..___._ -_.._-~ -
As the table above shows, it is implied by the Plan that over 400,000 total square feet of
retail space can be accommodated by these land use categories. For categories in the
table where the maximum amount of retail space is not specified, the Consultant
conservatively allocated one-half of total acreage for potential retail uses (based on the
allocation of uses in approved Collier DRls shown in the section below) and applied the
average density per acre from Table 2,1,1 above.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commerciai Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
8
,.,..,-
For the balance of land use categories in the Project's market, the amount of allowable
retail space is not as clearly defined by the FLUE. In light of this, the Consultant has
classified the remaining land use categories as either:
. Traditional; or
. Redevelopment
This distinction is important. For the 'traditional' land use categories, only the amount of
remaining vacant commercial land needs to be analyzed to estimate the amount of
implicit retail capacity. However, for the 'redevelopment' land use categories, total land
area must be analyzed to account for the greater likelihood of conversion.
Table 2.2.3 on the next page shows the remaining land use categories which allow
commercial development and their classification as either 'traditional' or 'redevelopment.'
Additionally, the table shows total acrea~e and vacant commercial acreage based on
GIS analysis performed by the Consultant utilizing data from the Collier County Property
Appraiser and Collier County GIS Department.
~-
(Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank)
2 Please note acreages represent approximations. This is because the borders delineating land use
categories do not exactly match parcel lines. In some instances, outer parcels that partially touch the land
use category boundary are included in their entirety.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict 9
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
._~____.___ _~ __. _ _."h.'."~
-
.
"
--
emalnln an se ae ones WI In rOjec s ar e
FLU Catenorv Total Vacant Comm
Acrea e Acreagg --
. -------. .-.-.----
REDEVELOPMENT
.. a. . __________n -------- .- . "_._--
Golden Gate Area Master Plan
Urban Oesi nation
Mixed Use District
Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict 18.85 --
Commercial District
Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict 22.85 --
-G G Pkwv Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict 2081 n
Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict 14.09 n
--....---.--"-
-~-_..._-_._-_._..__._.._-
TRADITIONAL
I --
, Collier County GMP
. , ..
,
Urban Oesi nation ,
Mixed Use District ,
Urban Residential Fnnae Subdistrict n 1 0.00
. !
Urban Residential Subdistrict n 18.23
I !
, --
i ,
i Commercial District
L_____lnlerchange Activity Center Subdistrict n 53.32
.-----.-.---- ----
, Mixed Use Activitv Center Subdistrict 3961 ,
n
'_"'.~_._'n__~'__",_~..,. n._'_ ~T ~ . -~
n
Industrial District i ,
----
Industrial District .. _~6~~
----- --~-_..""_.--..._.---- .----.--.----- --
--
Golden Gate Area Master Plan n
Urban Desi nation
Mixed Use District n
I Neighborhood Center Subdistrict -- 000
.
Commercial District
i
G G Urban CommerClallnfil1 Subdistrict 129
n
Q:...CLMixesLUse Activ_~ Center Subdistrict -- 3.19
, n
Estates Desi nation n
Commercial District -I-
-
G,G Estates Commerciallnfill Subdistrict i n 1506
R
Table 2.2.3
C t
t'
. .
L
dU
.
'th'
p
.
M
k t
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Collier County and Golden Gate Plans
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
10
The next step is to determine reasonable estimates of retail allocation for these land use
categories. As a guide in determining land allocations, the Consultant has reviewed land
use distribution data from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's Annual DRI
Monitoring Report for Collier County. Table 2.2.4 shows the distribution of approved land
uses for all DRls in Collier County as of the effective date the information was retrieved
(4-17-09). The DRI monitoring report is the only County-specific information available
that separately identifies the allocation of office and retail uses within a unified, planned
development theme. The County's PUD inventory document only lists a 'commercial'
total and does not account for retail/office uses separately.
Table 2.2.4
Distribution of DRI Land Uses (Collier)
.'~-
%of %of
-.-...--- . -". -~ ...----- __nO .-.---.---
Land Use -- Acres Total Acres Comm. Acres
---- ------- ----
Residential Acres 31.693 9387%
,
I
Retail Acres 1,034.16 3.06% 49.9%
Office Acres 670.13 ! 1.98% 32.4%
-
Indus. Acres 247 0.73% 11.9%
-
,
Hotel Acres 119.78 035% 5.8%
,
f--~ ,
-~_..- -- -- -",_.__..__.~--.__.., _.~-
Total Comm. Acres. 2,071 i
_ _ -'-'--'---
Total Acres 33,764
Source: Fishkmd & Associates based on SWFRPC Annual DRI Monitoring Report (retrieved 4-17-09)
The table above shows land allocations from two perspectives: 1) as a percent of total
approved DRI acreage: and 2) as a percent of approved DRI commercial acreage. For
DRls in Collier County, retail space averages 3.06% of total approved DRI land area and
49.9% of approved DRI commercial area. The Consultant has used these data as a
guide in allocating retail space across the land use categories in the Project's market.
For 'traditional' land use categories in Table 2.2.3 on the previous page, the Consultant
estimates one-half (based on Table 2.2.4 above) of vacant approved commercial
acreaqe will be developed as retail.
For the 'redevelopment' land use categories, the Consultant conservatively estimates
one-half of total acreage will be developed as retail - assuming significant conversion of
existing land uses. This is done to maintain the most conservative analysis
possible. It is likely this allocation is entirely too high and these categories will
yield much less retail space.
Once the amount of retail acreage is estimated, the average retail density of 6,993
square feet per acre from Table 2.1.1 is applied. These estimations, along with the
resulting retail yields, are shown in Table 2.2.5 on the next page.
...~,
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
11
-
- ~~~--...-. ,-.,
..~
...
.......
e al .pace 0 In apacl
FLU Cate or Total Vacant Comm % Retail Retail *Retail
Acrea e Acrea e Acres Acres 5 It
REDEVELOPMENT
:
Golden Gate Area Master Plan I
Urban Desi nation
Mixed Use District
---.-.------.-----
Downtown Center CommerCial Subdistrict 18.85 -- 50% 9.42 65,905
. - ------
Commercial District ,
Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict 22.85 n 50% 11.42 79.880 I
I
'GG Pkwv ProfeSSional Office Commercial Subdistrict 20.81 - 10% 208 14,548
Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict 14.09 n 50% 7.04 49,259
TRADITIONAL ,
-
,
Collier County GMP I I
,
I
Urban Desi nation -------- -- ,
. ---- -------
Mixed Use District ,
__w._____u _'_U__ ----.-.---- ..-- ."-.--...--
,
Urban Residential Frin e Subdistrict n 0.00 50% 0.00 - ,
,
Urban Residential Subdistrict n 18.23 50% 9.11 63,726 !
,
- ,
, ,
, Commercial District ,
: ,
Interchan e Activit Center SubdIstrict I n 53.32 50% 26.66 : 186,434
Mixed Use Activity Center SubdistricL , 39.61 50% 19.81 138,488
-- ,
I !
,
I , --
,
I Industrial District ,
! Industrial District , 068 50% 0.34 2,367
, --
,
, -- ,
I ,
Golden Gate Area Master Plan ,
_n ,
---
__..l..__ ! ,
, ,
.- --- .,---_.._.__..._---~-------------------
I Urban Desionation , I
Mixed Use District -- ! I
,
Neighborhood Center Subdistrict..__ 0.00 50% 0.00 ,
f-- e------ -- I -
,"___._..'~_'____"______._"'_'_.'M. '''-~--'1---.---~
Commercial District ,
G,G Urban Commerciallnfill SubdlstricL - 1.29 50% 064 4.509
G G. MIxed Use Activitv Center Subdistrict , 319 I 50% 1.59 11,141 ,
-- ,
,
-- , I
Estates Desi nation j , I
--
,
Commercial District ! ,
G.G Estates Commerciallnfill Subdistrict -- , 1506 50% 7.53 52,657
TOTAL -- , 668,915
Table 2.2.5
R t '1 S Hid' C 't
*Note: GGPPOCSD places specific emphasis on office development As such, retail space is allocated at 10% of total
land area
**Applied average density of 6,993 square feet per acre from Table 2,1.1
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Collier and Golden Gate Plan & Collier Property Appraiser data
As the table above shows, it is implied by the Plan that almost 670,000 total square feet
of retail space can be accommodated by these land use categories.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis n Updated 10-21-09
12
-
2.3 Reconciled Vacant Commercial Lands
For completeness, this section provides an inventory of reconciled parcels designated as
DOR Code 10 (Vacant Commercial) that are not included in the data queries for the
sections above. Retail yields for these parcels are estimated in the same fashion as the
sections above, by applying the distribution of retail space from Table 2.2.4 to the vacant
land and then applying the average sqft/acre density determined in Table 2.2.1. This is
shown in the table below.
Table 2.3.1
Reconciled Vacant Commercial Lands
AddU. % Retail Retail -Retail
Ae. Acres Acres S It
DOR Code 10 DisereDane 249.1 50% 124.54 870,856
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Collier County Property Appraiser data
*Note applied average density as determined by Table 2.2_1
As the table shows, the reconciled parcels total almost 900,000 square feet of potential
office space.
2.4 Total Retail Space Holding Capacity in Project's Market
..,,-
The sections above analyzed the Plan's retail space holding capacity from two
perspectives:
. First, the Consultant utilized Collier Property Appraiser data to inventory the
supply of existing, constructed retail space within the 10-rninute trade area (DOR
Codes: 11, 12, 16, 21,22,26, 27, and 30-37).
. Second, the Consultant has utilized the Future Land Use Elements of the Collier
County Growth Management Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as a
guide to estimate how much additional retail space is implicitly allocated within the
trade area.
. Third, the Consultant provided an inventory of reconciled parcels designated as
DOR Code 10 (Vacant Commercial).
--
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
13
.
'__h__ '..'._,"U "_.__..'~. ,,__.. .'___ , _
....- ,
Table 2.4.1 below provides the total retail space holding capacity in the Project's market
based on the sections above.
Table 2.4.1
Total Retail Space Holding Capacity
, Retail Sit
,
EXlsting..6ll()catlon of Retail SoacelTable 2.1 11 1,784,506
-_.~-"
Defined Allocation of Retail Space (Table 2.2.2) .___ 419,226
Estimated Allocalion of Retail S ace (Table 2.2.5\ 668,915
DOR Code 10 Reconciliation (Table 2.311 870,856
Total Allocation of Retail Soace 3,743,503
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Collier County and Golden Gate Plans
As the table above shows, the total allocation of retail space implied by the Plan within
the Project's market is almost 3.8-rnillion square feet.
(Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank)
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs AnalysIs - Updated 10-21-09
14
3.0 The Demand for Retail Space
^~',-
3.1 Demand for Commercial-Retail Space in the Project's Market
Demand Methodoloqy
A variety of methods exist for quantifying the demand for retail space. A common
approach involves a per capita or ratio (retail square feet/person) methodology. This
approach is useful and not tremendously data-intensive. However, there are more
dynamic methodologies available which better replicate the economic and market forces
that affect the amount and type of retail space in the marketplace.
The approach utilized in this report is a consumer expenditures methodology. The
demand for retail space is driven by the number of households in the trade area, their
income levels, and their expenditure characteristics (e.g. expenditures by tenant
classification and center type). The methodology is rather voluminous and is reproduced
in this report as Appendix #1 .
The steps for determininq the demand for retail space within the trade area are:
-".'~
o Estimate/forecast households and income within trade area;
o Determine retail expenditure characteristics of households (expenditure
percentage, tenant classifications, center types);
o Convert site specific expenditures by tenant classification and center type to
supportable square feet
3.2
Households and Income in the Project's Market
As part of the 2008 Annual Update and Inventory Report ("AUIR") Collier County adopted
population estimates and projections for the County as a whole and each planning
community. While these projections are 'official' and utilized for planning purposes, they
are not available in a form that allows for geo-spatial analysis. That is, the Consultant is
unable to determine the population and income levels within the Project's 10-minute
trade area utilizing the AUIR estimates/projections.
As an alternative, the Consultant has utilized I-Site census-based demographics
package to estimate the number of households and their income level within the trade
area. I-Site utilizes data based on the decennial US Census. To provide estimates in
between decennial Census years at the census block level of geographic detail, I-Site
utilizes data from United States Postal Service and commercial source ZIP+4 level
delivery statistics, Internal Revenue Service statistics on tax filers and year-to-year
migration; as well as the Census Bureaus Current Population Survey. (Please refer to
Appendix #3 for complete I-Site data table for the 10-minute trade area)
,",,-~
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
15
...
.", -~,,---- .----
...._~
" -
__J_____.____ "
Table 3.2.1 shows the estimate of households and average household income within the
trade area based on 2008 I-Site data (the most recent available as of the effective date
of this report). In addition, the table shows the Consultant's projection of population and
income for the year 2030 (please refer to Appendix #4 for full explanation of
projection methodology).
Table 3.2.1 Population and Employment Projection for Project's Market
Year Households Growth GrowthlYear HH Income
2008 20.704 --- $63,557
2010 21.189 485 242 $64.740
2020 23.224 2.035 204 $70,993
2030 24,661 1.437 144 $77.850
--- .. ~-, -
Sources: I-Site Census-based Demographics Package; Collier County Property Appraiser
Effective Date of Data Retrieval: 3-15-09
This new information indicates that the market's demand for neighborhood/community
commercial space will also increase Table 3.2.2 below shows the demand for retail
square footage in the 10-minute market based on the amount of households, their
incomes, and expenditure characteristics A calculation guide is shown below the table
and refers to data provided in Appendix #1.
Table 3.2.2 Population and Employment Projection for Project's Market
2008 2010 2020 2030
(11 10-Min Households 20.704 21,189 23.224 24,661
121 Household Income $63,557 $64,740 $70,993 $77.850
131 .-- -- ---~ ----.-...-..--- ~- I
I
Total10-Min Market Income $1,315,884,128 $1,371.769,971 $1,648.743.590 $1,919.829.088
141 Retail Exp % 32.11% 32.11% 32.11% 32.11% .
-'--."
,
151 A re ate Retail Exp $422.493,829 $440.437,221 $529,365.754 $616.403.775
.
.
161 TOTAL SQFT DEMAND 1,226,630 1,278,725 1,536,912 1,789,610
(1) Table 3.2.1
(2) Table 3.2.2
(3) (1) multiplied by (2)
(4) Table A.12 (found in Appendix #1)
(5) (3) multiplied by (4)
(6) (5) distributed across Table A.1.4 (Sales by Store Type), Table A.1.5 (Sales by Center Type), then
divided by Table A.1.6 (Median Sales per Sqft GLA)
The table shows that in 2008 there is a demand for
neighborhood/community retail space within the market.
expected to reach 18-million square feet.
1.2-million square feet of
By 2030, this demand IS
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
16
4.0 Comparison of Supply-to-Demand
,---,
4.1 Supply/Demand Comparison and the Allocation Ratio
The sections above quantify the supply of, and demand for, retail space within the 10-
minute trade area. The next step is to compare the two. Because of the length of the
analysis horizon and the fact that the supply calculation in Section 2.0 takes into account
lands that mayor may not be developed as retail space - or at all, the comparison is
articulated by an 'allocation ratio' (ratio of supply-to-demand).' For this analysis, the
minimum acceptable level for the allocation ratio is 2.0.
Table 4.1.1 provides a comparison of the retail supply determined in Section 2.0 and the
projected retail demand determined in Section 3.0.
Table 4.1.1 Retail Need in Project's Market
Commercial Retail
2008
2010
2020
2030
3 Allocation Ratio Su I !Demand
(1) Table 3.2.2
(2) Table 2.41
(3) (3) divided by (2)
The table above shows the ratio of the total supply to the total demand equals 3.05, 2.93,
2.44, and 2.09 for the years 2008, 2010, 2020, and 2030 respectively. This comparison
converts all vacant and potential acres and assumes full development within the market.
. Market Retail Demand Cumulative
1.226,630
3743,503
1,278,725
(37435031
1,536,912
3743.503
1,789,610
3,743,503)
3.05
2.93
2.44
2.09
Currently the retail allocation is above the minimum desired level of 2.0. By 2030, the
allocation ratio is expected to drop to 2.09. (Please refer to Appendix #5 for a
memorandum prepared on the use of the Allocation Ratio. Memo also provides
examples of Allocation Ratio validation and acceptance at the Division of
Administrative Hearing level).
Based on this analysis, there is currently a sufficient amount of retail space designated
by the Plan for this market. As noted here, this market's commercial ratio will decrease
to 2.09 in 2030. This ratio is sufficiently high enough to accommodate the expected
demand in a meaningful fashion.
.;."-
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
17
....-----,.--
.
." -" ,-...........-...--...-,.-'-..'" ...-_.-."_.._,~^"_.<~_._-- -~" ~
---,_.~.~..__..---
5.0 Conclusions Concerning the Proposed Amendment
Taking into account all developed, vacant, and FLUM designated commercial land in the
market, there is a reasonable degree of flexibility in the market's ability to accommodate
future retail demand. The 2030 retail allocation ratio of 2.09 indicates a comfortable
relationship between the demand for, and the supply of, retail space in the future.
Therefore, no numerical need exists for additional neighborhood/community retail space
at the Project.
It is important to note however that case law has indicated the need for additional
commercial land may be demonstrated by other factors than numerical allocation. These
factors include: suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, and community
desires3 (1l1terilll Report lIJIIJ-IIJ7 h the Florid" Sel1ateti'olll ()cfoher 2IJIJY. page 3, fiJO!l1ote
13). Furthermore, the presence of an over allocation should result in a more thorough
review of the indicators of urban sprawl and other factors may outweigh the numerical
over allocation4 (1l1terilll Report 2IJIIJ-IIJ7 I)], the Florid" Sel1a!e FOIII O('lOl1er lO(N, p"ge 5.
tho!l1o!e 27}.
(Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank)
3 O'Connell v. Martin County. DOAH 01-4826GM (Oct. 16.2002).
4 Sierra Club v. S1. John's County & DCA, DOAH 01-1851GM (May 20,2002)
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
18
Appendix #1 - Retail Demand Methodology
1.0 Methodology
The methodology employed in the analysis of the demand for retail space at this site is
based on a consumer expenditures model. This model can estimate the aggregate
market demand for retail space, the demand for retail space at a specific location, and
the effective supply of competing retailers in the area. The net demand for retail space
at the location being studied is determined as the difference between the site demand
and the effective supply of competition.
2.0 Aggregate Market. Retail Demand
Fishkind & Associates, Inc. ("Fishkind") has developed an in-house model to determine
retail demand. This model estimates retail demand by square footage, shopping center
type and store type. The model incorporates multiple data sources. These sources are
census based ("I-Site") local area households and household income data, consumer
expenditure profiles from the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Expenditure Survey,
Department of Revenue Gross Sales data, and Urban Land Institute shopping center
tenant profiles, square footage requirements and average sales per square foot by store
type from the publication Dollars and Cents of Shol2'pinq Centers.
,_0."
The model operates by first determining retail household expenditures for market area
households. Expenditures are determined through application of the results of the 2000
Consumer Expenditure Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor. This survey
of over 30,000 households nationwide provides detailed information on average dollar
expenditure amounts and the expenditure percent of household income, for all
household expenditures. The income expenditure percentages are applied to the
average local area household income and multiplied by the number of households to
determine market area spending potential for retail store goods.
Next, the historic Department of Revenue (DOR) Sales data (for the county in question)
is indexed by tenant c1assification5, from the Dollars and Cents of Shol2.pinq Centers.
The expected expenditures on retail goods are then applied to this county specific (DOR)
index to determine an estimate of spending by major store type (tenant classification).
The determination of sales by retail center (neighborhood, community, regional, super-
regional) is determined through the construction of an index of surveyed sales by center
type (also located in the Dollars and Cents of Shof:1pinq Centers).
Supportable square feet of a retail center is determined by applying the average sales
per square foot of GLA, found in Dollars and Cents of ShOllilinq Centers, to the expected
sales by store type (tenant classification). In addition to determining the supportable
square feet of retail space, Fishkind & Associates has determined the expected sales by
DOR retail classification, which is a subset of the individual store types (tenant
classifications ).
-'-.
5 Tenant Classification are; generai merchandise, food. food service, clothing and accessories, shoes,
home furnishings. home appliances/music, buildin9 materials and hardware, automotive, hobby/special
interest. gifts/specialty, jewelry. liquor. drugs, other retail, personal services. entertainmenUcommunity.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict 19
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
..,
,-,
.
-~------"-- -'-'
....'"
....-
.,
Provided below are income and expenditure data utilized in the analysis.
A.1.1 1 O-Minute Market - Households & Incomes
Year 2Qpulation Dwelling Units Households HH Growth GrowthlYear HH Income
2008 57,689 25.456 20.704 on $63,557
--.
2010 59,040 26,053 21,189 485 242 $64,740
2020 64.711 28,555 23,224 2,035 204 $70,993
2030 68.714 30,321 24,661 1.437 144 __ $77.850
----- ---.--". - ~--'- ..--.
Source: I-Site Census-based Demographics Package
Note: HH Income figures are constant $s; not nominal
Effective Date of Data retrieval: 3-25-09
A.1.2 Income Expenditure Percentages
INCOME EXPENDITURE % ON RETAIL I 32.11% I
Source: I-Site Data for Trade Area
Effective Date of Data retrieval: 3-25-09
A.1.3 1 O-Minute Market - Retail Expenditures and Square Foot Supportability
-
,
, 2008 2010 2020 2030 2008 2010 2020 2030
GENERAL MERCHANDISE i $11.516,572 $12,005,683 , $14.429.747 $16,802,278 79,336 82,705 99,404 115.748
,
FOOD i $63,282,610 $65.970.235 $79,290,263 $92.327123 185.182 193,047 232,025 270,174
FOOD SERVICE ; $33735.968 $35,168741 , $42,269,650 $49.219.602 126.955 132.347 159,069 185.223
,
CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES , $5.437,580 $5,668.515 $6,813.043 $7,933.240 28.033 29,224 35,124 40,899
SHOES $436.118 $454640 $546.436 $636,280 2,230 2,325 2,794 3.253
-.--- _'.__m._"__.._.. ___________ - .
HOME FURNISHINGS $20.973.554 Sl21,864.305 526.278,919 $30.599.685 105,394 109.870 132,054 153.766
HOME APPLIANCES/MUSIC $7.385.308 $7698.964 $9.253,459 $10,774,908 29,759 31,023 37,287 43.417
--". ---. - .._~----
BUILDING MATERIALS/HARDWARE 526.550,089 $27 .577677 $33,266,067 538,735,655 160.767 167,595 201.434 234.554
AUTOMOTIVE 598,653540 $102843.375 $123608446 $143.932.078 369.627 385.325 463.126 539.273
HOBBY/SPECIAllNTEREST WITH GIFTISPECIAL TY WITH GIFT/SPECIALTY
GIFT/SPECIALTY 53,837.794 $4.000J86 $4.808583 $5.599,208 25.222 26.293 31,602 36798
JEWLERY $611,345 $637.309 ! $765.%8 5891.932 1.436 1.497 1799 2,095
LIQUOR WITH FOOD SERVICE WITH FOOD SERVICE
DRUGS 53.414.857 $3.559.887 $4.278.662 $4.982.158 8,823 9.197 11,054 12.872
OTHER RETAIL $4,014.664 54,185168 $5.030194 $5,857.255 18,855 19,656 23.625 27,509
PERSONAL SERVICERS , $2108344 52.197.886 $2.641661 ! $3.076.001 14,343 14.953 17,972 20,927
.
ENTERTAINMENT }6,195,658 $6,458789 $7.762,881 $9,039,250 70,668 73,669 88,544 103,102
,
TOTAL $288154,005 $300391.959 $361 043999 : $420.406.652 1,226,630 1,278,725 1.536,912 1,789,610
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc based on Florida Department of Revenue; Dollars & Cents of Shorullilg Centers
- Urban Land Institute
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
20
..'"'~.
A.1.4 Distribution by Store Type
DISTRIBUTIONS BY STORE TYPE
-
GENERAL MERCHANDISE 14.48%
FOOD 15.27%
FOOD SERVICE 10.73%
CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 4.48%
SHOES 0.37%
HOME FURNISHINGS 7.10%
HOME APPLIANCES/MUSIC 3.67%
BUILDING MATERIALS/HARDWARE 11.73%
AUTOMOTIVE 23.35%
HOBBY/SPECIAL INTEREST WITH HOBBY/SPECIAL
GIFT/SPECIALTY 1.86%
.
JEWLERY 0.56%
LIQUOR WITH FOOD SERVICE
DRUGS 0.87%
OTHER RETAIL 1.44%
PERSONAL SERVICERS 0.69%
ENTERTAINMENT 3.40%
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Fiorida Department of Revenue;
Dollars & Cents of ShoQQ[Qg Centers - Urban Land Institute 2007
A.1.5 Index of Sales by Center Type
INDEX OF SALES BY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY
GENERAL MERCHANDISE 1.0804% 17.7493%
FOOD 50.1268% 47.9941%
FOOD SERVICE 16.2423% 58.1773%
CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 1.7763% 26.9659%
SHOES 2.1635% 25.4356%
HOME FURNISHINGS 48325% 65.0722%
HOME APPLIANCES/MUSIC 4.5826% 43.0018%
BUILDING MATERIALS/HARDWARE 8.3074% 45.2640%
AUTOMOTIVE 0.0000% 1000000%
HOBBY/SPECIAL INTEREST With Gifts and Specialty
GIFT/SPECIALTY 7.06% 41.68%
JEWLERY 2.0271 % 11.8288%
LIQUOR 34.2238% 65.7762%
DRUGS 36.8476% 56.2922%
OTHER RETAIL 113333% 54.8145%
PERSONAL SERVICERS 22.9793% 49.1430%
ENTERTAINMENT 8.7526% 34.4114%
Source; Fishkind & Associates, Inc; Florida Department of Revenue;
Dollars & Cents of ShoQQ[Qg Centers - Urban Land Institute 2007
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
21
__w....~~~._'__ .___. . , _'''''-
'N "
A.1.6 Median Sales per Square Foot of GLA
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY
, MED $/SF MED $/SF
GENERAL MERCHANDISE $103.01 $14887
I FOOD 347.1 336.3
--, ~.....- -,
FOOD SERVICE 224.28 280.19
CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES 167.96 195.97
SHOES 165.39 198.66
HOME FURNISHINGS 14735 20432
HOME APPLIANCES/MUSIC 137.85 271.31
BUILDING MATERIALS/HARDWARE 143.3 169.9
AUTOMOTIVE n/a 266.9
HOBBY/SPECIAL INTEREST 16315 20146
,
GIFT/SPECIALTY 186.32 147.58
----. ---~ -,' -- - ----- . n__'u ....
JEWLERY 280.09 445.74
LIQUOR 254.1 321.25
DRUGS 408.4 374.26
----- -----...---...----- -----..- _'.'_n_ .--
OTHER RETAIL 15918 2289
PERSONAL SERVICERS 12773 158.14
ENTERTAINMENT 86.41 88
Dollars & Cents of ShoRQlDg Centers - Urban Land Institute 2007 - Constant $'s
(Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank)
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs AnalysIs - Updated 10-21-09
22
A endix #2 - 10-Minute Drive Time Trade Area Ma
R 2~ E
T27E
-~,>,
T 26 E
.
,
,
,
,
,",..,,<c'(,,""
-
, ".
1-'-:
i
,
.
,
,
.
,
-r-
,
- .-
,
._-
,-
'. ~ "
..
.
,
.-
--.
--
-=--~
-'-
.
---
-
.
0._-
.
-
-
~ -.
.
.
.
.
.--
,
"""'.....
,
I
.~~.
.
.
.
~---
W
GO
~
>---
W
a.
~
>---
I --
--.
..-
. -- W
I
. --.- 0
. -- c',
I ~._-
. >---
-~
:1
,.
'1""-
II . \ ',- ,
'I',.~:.r-~-
,.,.' .
, .
.
~ PlANNED
I UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS,
"
.-~.
---
i COMMERICAl AND
i INDUSTRiAL
I ZONING
--
.
.~ " .
..
-- -~
.-
,
--
--
'"~
,
,
.. .
..
.
Legend
-~ ',-
..---
l
.
.
.
L'-_.
--
puc
.
..
,
L-_~--:' PU: :::0 r:/.l E RCIAL
_PlJ[It~CUS-RIt.L
_INCJS~RIJ"L
_ COl~I.\ERCI....~
.
.
1.5 3
. .
-
..
~."
..',....-..
'..
", .~
-'.-t ". .,....
'\,"-'('- '--:.0.,
\~./",- '-.:~
1 . _ . n~,'
-' ~ -,
.+.
,
.
..
,
.
.
-
.
..
.,
.
.
leg+nd
" ""."',..
CJ".._...........
-
,~;.._kr' _
C__.J""'.....:.!__"'..o,.
6tJliles
w
-
~
>---
Source: Fishktnd & Associates. Inc. based on Collier County PUD, Commercial, and Industrial Zoning Map
(Effective date 3-25,09)
,-
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis.. Updated 10-21-09
-'~'-,-"-'-;
._.~.
-.......
-_....'
, "
""'-...-...
23
Appendix #3 - I-Site Census-based Household Trend Report
10-Minute Drive Time Trade Area
Pupulation (1980)
Population (1990)
Population 1200e1:,
Population (2008)
Population (2013)
Pet Population Growth ('9U-'OO)
Pet. Population Growth ('00-'08)
Pcl Population Growth ('08-'13)
Geographic Area Size
Population Oensilyl2008)
Tuta! Business EstabllshmenlS
Tota: Daytime Emplovme'11
Hou~ehold, (19901
HousehoIQs(2000)
Households 12008)
HouseholdSl201J)
Married Couple Family W,1h Children (2008)
Male (200R:,
Fem81e(2008i
Race White (1980)
Race Black {1980)
R<lce ASian or Pacif,c Islal'lder (19801
Race: Other or Mulli.Racel19flOi
ElhrHC1ly Hispanw(198[))
RaceWlJile!199G1
Race Black (1990;
Race Asian or Paclf,c Islander 11990,
Rilce Olher or Mult,-RaceI1990)
Ethnlclty Hispanlr11>190)
RaceWI1I\ef2000)
Race Black 12000:
Rilce ASian or Paollc ISlander 12000:
Ran,Olhcr{2000i
Race Two or MorE Races (2001)}
Ethnocity Hispanic 12000)
Rar.e White 120081
Race Black 1200S}
Race, ASian or Pacif,cISland€r 12008}
Race Olhe'i200SI
Race Twooo MOle Races 1200B,
Ethn,eity Hlspame,:2008:,
AgeO-41200Bi
Age5.91200Bi
Age 10.13120(8)
Age 14-17 (2008)
Age 1/:;-2412008i
Age 25-34 (20Uei
Age 35-44 i20U8i
Age 45-54 (2008i
Age55-fi4i20081
Aqe65-74i20081
Age 75-84(20081
AgeB5-I<'008}
Median Age 12008)
Median Household Income ,:1~~01
Medlall Housenold tncomei2000i
Medial' HOuSehOIQ Incomei20(8)
Median HouscholdlncomCl201J)
PerCap,ta InCDmel1990i
Per CaplW Income 12000~
Per Capita Incomel200Bi
PerCap,ta Incomel201Ji
Average HousehOI(J Income (1990)
Average HOusehold Income {2(00)
8,B07
23,b4'J
45"42
57689
66,Gl18
~1 8:!
2(1)
tt,4)
21:\48'):;
2,0252~
2.428
19,J8'
8,985
t7,2t,8
20,704
23,112
424t
29,29f
28,:l,';;
83:l6
1!l\,
" !~
250
4H:l
n,634
.77:l
H'
Xli
1 ~UY
3R.08!l
~ Il28
455
? 1~9
1.24:,
1O,5[)fl
t,7.43b
~,:;I '
/l%
:;006
IY/l)
1b 81i~
:.i.%3
:,};1;2
L'58f.
LAY5
~, ::,f-,
!is)?
7,5t~
fj711
5.6j7
6C'2U
3Bb9
1,:Il}
:19,'t
:U,Y7i.i
4Y/199
60:i41
1,i',L1'.'
't),Lhl;
23.%9
:n.1uL
L'i,4Y'j
4::,:,7:,
63.557
Average Household Income {200B)
Average Household Income (2013)
Median Disposable Income (2008)
Aggregate Income ($MM) (2008)
HH Iflc $ o. $ 15k (2008)
HH Inc $15. $ 25k (2008)
HH Inc $25 - $ 35k (2008)
HH Inc $35 - $ 50k (20081
HH Ifle $50. $ 75k (2008i
HH Inc $75. $100k (2008)
HH Inc $100k. $150 (2008)
HH Illc $150 - $200k (20081
HH Inc S200K+ (2008)
Employment Status Tolal Labor Force
Employment Status Employed
Industry Agriculture (2000)
Industry Mining {2000)
Industry Conslructlon(2000)
Industry Manulactunng(2000)
Industly Wholesale Trade (2000)
Industry Retail Trade (2000)
Industry lranspon and Warehousing (2000)
Induslry Utilities (2000\
Industry Information Services (2000)
Industry Finance and Insurance (2000)
Industry Real Estale (2000)
Industry Professional Services (2000)
Industry Management (2000)
Industry Admin Services And Waste Mgmnt (2000)
Induslry Educational Services (2000)
Industry Health Care and Social Assist (2000)
Industry Arts Entertainment and Recreation (2000)
Induslry Food and HospotahtyServices (20001
Industry' Other Services except public (2000)
Industrv PubliC Admlnstratlon(20QOl
Housing Units (2000)
Housing Unots Occupied (2000)
Housmg Units Vacant (2000)
Housing Units Owner-Occupied (2000)
HOUSing Units, Renter-Occupied (2000)
Median Rent (2000)
Median Home Value (2000)
Total Consumer Expenditures (2008)
Tolal Retail Expenditures (2008)
Education less than 9th Grade (2000)
Education Some High Schoot (2000)
[duca\ion High School Graduates (2000)
EducatIOn Some College (2000)
Educahor1 Associate's Degree (2000)
F-ducatlon Bachelor's Degree (2000)
[ducation Graduate School (2000)
Population Age 25- {2000\
75.097
83.695
49.717
1,56698
1367
1.724
2,197
3.467
4,903
2,722
2,507
762
1.055
21,821
21.178
146
3
3,242
1,024
547
3,327
640
226
290
835
771
1,056
o
1,182
1.086
1.852
1,148
1,864
1,160
779
21.207
17,248
3,960
12,012
5.236
692
142.262
56,96467
24,11156
1982
3,898
9.462
6,962
1,838
4.730
2.274
31147
Source; I-Site Census-based Demographics Package; Data Retrieved: 3-25-09
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistnct
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
24
Appendix #4 - Population Projection Methodology
-<..
Table A.4.1 below shows the Consultant's projection of population and resultant growth
rate for the 10-minute trade area ("TA") and compares it to Collier County's 2008 AUIR
population and growth rate.
Table A.4.1
Pooulation . 2008 2010 2020 2030
Collier Co. AUIR 2008 333,858 353,900 455,300 548,900
10-Minute TA '57,689 59,040 64.711 68,714
TA%ofCo. 17.28% 16.68% 14.21% 12.52%
Annual Grwth 2008-2030
Collier Co. 2.29%
10-Minute TA 0.80%
'Note: 2008 Estimate provided by I-Site
Source: Collier County 2008 AUIR; Fishkind & Associates based on I-Site
These projections differ because:
. Geography - The Collier County AUIR population is prepared on a county-wide
basis. The TA population is prepared for the 10-minute drive time surrounding the
Project.
. Availability of vacant developable land - There is more vacant residential capacity
in the County at large than the TA, specifically in the eastern lands, This allows
for the County to sustain a more rapid annual growth rate (above 2%) when
compared to the TA at 0.80%. Second, as Table A.4.1 above shows, the TA's
share of County population will decay over time as the eastern lands become
receiving areas for new growth.
MethodoloQY
To project population growth within the 10-minute trade area ("TA"), the Consultant
utilizes a logistic functional form estimation methodology consistent with the approach
utilized in Collier County's Interactive Growth Model ("IGM"). The approach interpolates
population levels between a starting point (today's current population in the TA) and an
ending point (build out population within the TA). The 2008 population within the TA is
57,689 - based on I-Site. The build out population in the 10-rninute TA is 76,000 - based
on the current population plus vacant developable residential lots (determined from the
Collier County Property Appraiser). The logistic functional form plots a growth trend
between these two points that increasingly decays as the TA reaches saturation. This
trend is shown below in Figure A.4.1
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
25
-
"'--_.._-"._-~ ,
,..
, ..., ~ - .. .-
u Fi9lJre~.4.1
70.000
50,000
I
.
<
. .
65,000
60,000
55,000
2008
2010
2020
2030
~ 10-Mln TA
, -- -- - -- -- - - "-" -- - --.. -
Source' Flshklnd & ASSOCiates based on I-Site and Collier County Property Appraiser data
In the absence of an 'official' County-adopted population projection at the T A level of
geography, the Consultant feels the projection above is supported, reasonable, and in no
way overestimates growth, It was prepared in a manner entirely consistent with the
projections contained in the County-adopted Interactive Growth Model.
(Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank)
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs AnalysIs - Updated 10-21-09
26
.-.
Appendix #5 - Use of the Allocation Ratio
(See Following Page for Memorandum)
-
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Retail Needs Analysis - Updated 10-21-09
27
_ _ ...-...."-
"Q-',~.","~' .",,-.-..
.,
.......
--- , _.._.._~.._._. -,.-..--
FISHKIND
& ASSOCIATES
~ t.. ... ...
1... i.. I..
L ..
~.
MEMORANDUM
--------~------------------------------------------~-------------------
TO: Mr. Mark Strain
Chairman
Collier County Planning Commission
FROM: G. Russell Weyer
Senior Associate
SUBJECT: Explanation of 2.0 allocation ratio
DATE: October 2,2008
VIA: E-Mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At your request, the following is an explanation of the 2.0 allocation ratio used in the
data and analysis reports we provide to the County during Comprehensive Plan land
use changes.
The explanation begins with the data and analysis requirements in Rule 9J-5 (2). The
rule states the following (with our emphasis added):
"(2) Data and Analyses Requirements.
(a) All goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions within the
comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their
support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the
analyses applicable to each element. 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. Data
or summaries thereof shall not be subject to the compliance review process. However,
the Department wi/l review each comprehensive plan for the purpose of
determining whether the plan is based on the data and analyses described in this
chapter and whether the data were collected and applied in a professionally
acceptable manner. All tabies, charts, graphs, maps, figures and data sources, and
their limitations, shall be clearly described where such data occur in the above
documents. Local governments are encouraged to use graphics and other techniques
for making support information more readily useable by the public.
1
-
(b) This chapter shall not be construed to require original data collection by local
government; however, local governments are encouraged to utilize any original data
necessary to update or refine the local government comprehensive plan data base so
long as methodologies are professionally accepted.
(c) Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such
as the United States Census, State Data Center, State University System of
Florida, regional planning councils, water management districts, or existing
technical studies. The data used shall be the best available existing data, unless the
local government desires original data or special studies. Where data augmentation,
updates, or special studies or surveys are deemed necessary by local
government, appropriate methodologies shall be clearly described or referenced
and shall meet professionally accepted standards for such methodologies.
Among the sources available to local governments are those identified in "The Guide to
Local Comprehensive Planning Data Sources" published by the Department in 1989.
Among the sources of data for preliminary identification of wetland locations are the
National Wetland Inventory Maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(d) Primary data sources such as United States Census reports, other government
data documents, local computerized data, and original map sheets used to compile
required maps need not be printed in their entirety within either the support documents
or the comprehensive plan. Summaries of support documents shall be submitted to the
Department along with the comprehensive plan at the time of compliance review to aid
in the Department's determination of compliance and consistency. As a local alternative
to providing data and analyses summaries, complete data and analyses sufficient to
support the comprehensive plan may be submitted to the Department at the time of
compliance review. The Department may require submission of the complete or more
detailed data or analyses during its compliance review if, in the opinion of the
Department, the summaries are insufficient to determine compliance or consistency of
the plan.
(e) The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population
estimates and projections. Resident and seasonal population estimates and projections
shall be either those provided by the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, those provided by the Executive Office of the Governor, or shall be
generated by the local government. If the local government chooses to base its plan on
the figures provided by the University of Florida or the Executive Office of the Governor,
medium range projections should be utilized. If the local government chooses to base
its plan on either low or high range projections provided by the University of Florida or
the Executive Office of the Governor, a detailed description of the rationale for such a
choice shall be included with such projections."
.,,-.
A variety of studies are used when we undertake a needs analysis within the State of
Florida. They are basically broken down into three categories depending on the type of
land use being studied. They are residential needs analysis, commercial needs
analysis and a peculiar needs analysis that economically does not fit the standard
residential and commercial models.
.-
Our analysis has evolved over time with input primarily corning from County Staff with
regard to the analysis at hand. In looking at comprehensive plan changes, we first must
collect the data that goes into the analysis. That data includes population estimates,
existing inventory, approved inventory and potential inventory.
2
_.,.~-_.-.'"-"-'-" -~.-.,,_.,,-- .,-"
.--
With regard to population estimates, we generally try to use the population data that is
used by the County when and where it is available. Our second source is the
population data from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the
University of Florida. Our third source is I-Site, Site Selection Software, produced by
GeoVue, Inc. These estimates and projections are compiled by Applied Geographic
Solutions, Inc. AGS uses historic Census data from 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000;
USPS and commercial source ZIP+4 level delivery statistics; Census Bureau population
estimates and projections at varying levels of geographic detail; Internal Revenue
Service statistics on tax filers and year-to-year migration; as well as the Census
Bureaus Current Population Survey.
The next required data set pertains to the particular land use we are analyzing. We
primarily utilize the Collier County Property Appraiser data to determine the existing
inventory of that particular land use, the approved inventory of that land use and finally
all of the lands on the Future Land Use Map that have potential for that particular land
use. We have also used data sources provided by Collier County staff such as the
commercial inventory list and the planned unit development list.
We then use a variety of models from retail demand gravity models to office
employment demand models to determine the current and future demand for the land
use type in the designated market area. The future demand generally looks out to the
Comprehensive Plan's horizon year, which is currently either 2030 or 2035 depending
on the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and growth management plan horizon year
requirements.
It is at this point of the analysis that has caused an anomaly in determining a true
economic supply and demand result. On the supply side, it is relatively easy to
determine the amount of existing and approved supply from the property appraiser data.
The difficulty lies in the vacant non-approved potential lands. The staff has required us
to take all of those lands that have a commercial or residential overlay on them and
include them as supply by putting a floor area ratio figure to the acreage.
The issue becomes apparent when all of the lands that are not in the existing or
approved category are included in the particular land use analysis. By putting all of the
potential lands in the supply category, the assumption is that all of that land would be
developed as that particular land use and nothing else. For example in the case of the
Airport-Corradi parcel, there were 117 potential commercial parcels totaling 270.68
acres in the 20 minute drive time market (Table 1 on the next page). Those parcels
represent a potential of 1,469,723 square feet of office space.
3
,--.
Table 1. Current Supply of Vacant, Potential, and Existing Commercial-Office
Space in Project's Market
Existin
# of Parcels 340
Acres 457.97
~are Feet 2,549,138
Vacant
# of Parcels 523
Acres 1092.59
Sauare Feet 6,075,006
,
Potential
# of Parcels 117
Acres 270.68
S uare Feet' 1,469,723
,
Total
# of Parcels 980
, 1821.24
. Acres
S uare Feet 10,093,867
Source: Collier County Property Appraiser
*Assumed 5,430 square feet per acre based on market average
,'--.,
There are a number of flaws in the representation of total capacity (supply) which
suggest a greater number of acres be designated in the Comprehensive Plan than
would be indicated simply by an analysis of forecast demand. First, all of those vacant
approved parcels and parcels designated by the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") as
having the potential to be developed as office, in reality, also have the potential to be
retail space or some other commercial use. The same parcels are also counted as
competing supply when a commercial needs analysis is performed for another
commercial use. To include these lands in both retail and office analyses would be
double counting the supply. These lands will actually be developed as the market
demand dictates, with some lands used for office and the remainder for retail and other
permissible uses. A general economic principal states that all markets are efficient and
that supply for the most part is generated as demand dictates. It is a rare situation
where supply generates demand.
Second, though the lands in question are designated with a FLUM category, this does
not mean that 100% of these lands are developable, Within these lands there may be
wetland areas, conservation areas, water bodies, incompatible adjacent uses, policy
setback requirements, drainage and road requirements and infrastructure or access
constraints. As a result of these and other myriad conditions, the maximum
density/intensity of lands designated through the FLUM does not represent the holding
capacity of these lands. Typically, development thresholds are found to be from 50% to
75% of maximum allowable density due to the physical characteristics of the land.
4
____....,.~~.c. ___,,_,,_,,_,___"__'_~ ....
, ,....
Third, while lands are designated with a FLUM land use, there is no requirement they
be used at allover the planning horizon. Many properties are held in land bank trusts,
held by absentee owners, held in estate transfer litigation or held in family ownership
with no intent or desire to use or sell the land, Florida and Collier County in particular
have very large tracts of land held in long term family trusts where lands are not
developed or are purposefully held off the market. In these and other similar instances,
a land use designation on the FLUM does not assure the capacity allocated to these
lands will be available to accommodate future growth within the planning horizon of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Fourth, even if all the lands designated were developable and available it would be
inappropriate to limit supply to exactly the level of forecast demand, represented by a
ratio of 1: 1 where there is one acre of land supply allocated for every acre of land
demand identified. Doing so would limit choices, limit market flexibility and constrain the
market. Constraining supply will drive prices artificially high and decrease the
attractiveness of the market due to price. For example in choosing a new home one
does not typically look at only one house in the selection process. The selection
process may involve multiple properties, perhaps a dozen or more. So too for
commercial land investments, choice and flexibility are required in the selection
process.
Fifth, the supply of land is determined and allocated such that it will accommodate the
forecast demand. The forecast demand is most often based on population forecasts
provided by the University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research
(BEBR). Research has shown the BEBR forecasts to be highly accurate in locations
where the local economic structure does not change substantially over time. In
locations where structural change does occur, the error rate for BEBR medium
forecasts can be from 30% to more than 100% too low in terms of forecasting
population levels over a 25 year forecast period. Rapidly growing locations, locations
which benefit from major highway or interstate expansions, locations which benefit from
enhanced airport facilities and locations which benefit from major employer locations
are all examples of conditions which represent structural change and tend to result in
faster population growth than is forecast in the BEBR projections. Collier County is
subject to these structural change forces, and as such, it can be expected that BEBR
forecasts will have a comparatively higher degree of error than in other locations across
the State. This supports the need for additional flexibility in the allocation of
developable land to accommodate a higher probability of population forecast error.
Table 2 on the next page documents the analysis of forecast error findings.
5
'.'~ -
Table 2. Comparison of Long-Term Population Projections.
--'.. .,~--_.~ ~'.'. ~,,- ~- ~ ,".,-.-.'.-- -.--- .-'.' .. ._.__.~",-'-.~,,--~
1975 BEBR Year 2000
p..r.2iections for 2000 Actual Variance
Flagler 21,700 49,832 -129.6%
Sf. Johns 71,000 123,135 -73.4%
Lake 143,300 210,527 -46.9%
Marion 191,000 258,916 -35.6%
Sf. Lucie 149,800 192,695 -28.6%
--
DeSoto 36,700 32,209 12.2%
Highlands 81,400 87,366 -7.3%
Polk 471,300 483,924 -2.7%
Pasco 343,600 344,768 -0.3%
_._-,-
Counties with Shift Total 576,800 835,105 -44.8%
Counties without Shift Total 933,000 948,267 -1.6%
_._ ___.."._~~.__.__~,_.__,___'e_',_''''' ...__.,~_.._____.._.,___. , __.,
Source: Projections of Flonda Population Bulletm 33, June 1975, U. FL and US Census 2000
Counties
with
Structural
Shift
Counties
without
Structural
Shift
These conditions have been well documented and supported in administrative hearings.
In the course of the evolution of Florida's comprehensive planning process, allocation of
land in the FLUM often exceeds the 1:1 ratio. In general, the allocation ratio of between
2.0 and 2.5 has been determined to be a reasonable level, has been supported in
administrative legal hearings and has been implicitly adopted in comprehensive plans
across the State.
-"-
To account for the conditions described above, comprehensive plan FLUMs typically
represent an allocation of acres for land use by category in excess of a 1: 1 allocation
ratio, The allocation ratio measures the amount of additional acreage required in
relation to the directly utilized acreage over the course of development in the jurisdiction
to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. For the
reasons discussed, the additional acreage is required in order to maintain market level
pricing, to account for the likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market
for sale during the forecast horizon, and that the property will develop at historic
average densities, not maximum allowable densities, or may be subject to future
environmental or other constraints. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be
considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed.
As a result of these discussions, analyses and rulings, growth management practices
have evolved such that the greater the time horizon of the comprehensive plan, the
greater the allocation ratio needed to maintain flexibility of the comprehensive plan.
Other factors that influence the residential acreage allocation ratio are the nature and
speed of the developing area and the area's general exposure to growth trends in the
market as shown in the discussion regarding population forecasts and structural
change. Fishkind believes that to ensure proper flexibility in the comprehensive plan of
a rapidly growing county like Collier, a commercial allocation ratio in the range of 2.0 is
necessary to maintain planning flexibility and to account for the multiple sets of
conditions which might otherwise restrict land usage,
6
~~._~ .- -~~.".'~---"''''
-.".,----.
Although the allocation ratio figure has fluctuated over time depending on who is
reviewing the amendment at the state level, Fishkind's recent experience with the
Florida Department of Community Affairs indicates that the DCA has seen and
approved allocation ratios in the 1.8 to 2.4 range and in some cases even larger
allocation ratios for longer forecast horizons. Otherwise, if allocation ratios are not used
in the analysis, the likely outcome is the Comprehensive Plan will fail to adequately
accommodate growth resulting in higher than normal land prices, constrained economic
development and a less efficient pattern of growth which results from market inflexibility
due to lack of investment choices.
7
FISHKIND
& ASSOCIATES
...I..~..
li..~~
... ~.
~
MEMORANDUM
--------------------------------------~-----_._---~--------------------
TO: Mr. Mark Strain
Chairman
Collier County Planning Commission
FROM: G. Russell Weyer
Senior Associate
SUBJECT: Examples of 2.0 Allocation Ratio Acceptance
DATE: October 2,2008
-
VIA: E-Mail
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark,
You have asked for specific examples where the Allocation Ratio measurement
has been used elsewhere. Here is one example of a legal case and two other
examples in Florida where is has been approved and accepted by both the local
jurisdiction and in some cases the Department of Community Affairs.
Panhandle Citizens Coalition Inc. versus Department of Community Affairs
In the matter Panhandle Citizens Coalition Inc, (PCC) vs. Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), a petition was filed by PCC to challenge DCA's finding
that the West Bay Detailed Specific Area Plan (WB DSAP) was in compliance as
an amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan. The findings of fact in this
case include item #92 which reads:
"In addition to projecting population growth and assessing capacity to
accommodate growth an allocation needs ratio (or multiplier) is necessary to
ensure housing affordability and variety in the market; otherwise, the supply
and demand relationship is too tight, which may cause a rapid escalation of
housing prices. Because the farther in time a local government projects
growth, the less accurate those projections tend to be, actual need is
multiplied by an allocation needs ratio to produce an additional increment of
residential land to accommodate this potential error."
1
'" -
..--.-..--,...--"........-. , .....
_...-,~,,-~. --
Finding #93 states:
"Small Counties that experience above-normal growth rates may use
allocation ratios as high as three more in order to realistically allocate
sufficient buildable land for future growth. The County's allocation ratio of
2.2 before the WB DSAP and FLUM amendments was low from a long term
forecasting perspective. When the WB DSAP amendments are factored into
the allocation ratio, such growth would raise the allocation ratio to 2.3, which
is still relatively low"
Further, in finding #94 it is stated:
"A land use plan should allow for sufficient inventory to accommodate
demand and to provide some choice in order to react to economic factors."
The Administrative Law Judge found the proposed land use amendments in compliance
with section 163.3184 (1) (b) in part because the demonstration of need with respect to
the allocation ratio indicated the allocation ratio of 2.3 was too low to properly
accommodate projected future growth over the planning horizon.
Acceptance of 2,0 Allocation Ratio in the case of Newberry VillaQe Retail In
Alachua County
Newberry Village is a development of approximately 250,000 square feet of retail space
in unincorporated Alachua County. A comprehensive plan change was required to
allow for this use in the County. The applicant performed a commercial needs analysis
as a requirement for their data and analysis portion of their application. The analysis is
attached as Exhibit A. The Florida Department of Community Affairs found the plan
amendment compliant with no requests for further data analysis. We have attached the
notification of compliance as Exhibit B,
City of Leesburq, Florida implicit Allocation Ratio
The City of Leesburg, Florida has an adopted comprehensive plan where the implicit
residential allocation ratio of 2.5 is embedded in the plan. The estimated land
requirement projections are found in the approved 2003 Housing Element of the
Leesburg Comprehensive Plan on page 111-17 The Housing Element of the Leesburg
Comprehensive Plan indicates an allocation ratio of 2.5 in the following passage:
"Based on figures provided by the Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, a total of
8,295 dwelling units will be needed to serve the household population of the City by
year 2010......the City will be able to accommodate approximately 13,292 additional
units, for a total of 21 ,031 residential units by 2010."
2
-"-,
Given the 2010 demand for 8,295 units and 21,031 unit capacity, the empirical
allocation ratio found is 2.5 in the current and approved 2003 Leesburg Comprehensive
Plan Housing Element.
Allocation Ratios of other Florida Counties with updated Comprehensive Plans
Allocation ratios are not only used in analyzing commercial comprehensive plan
amendment changes. The ratios are also used in analyzing residential comprehensive
plan amendment changes as noted here and in the City of Leesburg, Florida above. In
reviewing a number of needs analysis reports submitted for residential comprehensive
plan amendment changes around the state, Fishkind has discovered that there are
number of counties across the state that have substantial allocation ratios that are
embedded in their comprehensive plans.
Fishkind has analyzed allocation ratios in counties across the state with recently
updated comprehensive plans that have been approved by the Department of
Community Affairs. As shown in Table 5.6.1, the future land use maps of these
counties contain allocation ratios that are consistent with those suggested by Fishkind,
Table 5.6.1.
Allocation Ratios in other Florida Counties
---- .'_._,"_...,,_...-.-...................,_.~.. - -".~-
'''' ,~".-- _. ,-' -~._--------"-,,-_._---_.._._._._._,.__...._-_._,
.-
County
Hendry
SI. Johns
Nassau
Martin
Indian River
_._-- ,~-_._..._-----_.~-_._..,.~. ~.,.".._-
Source: Fishkind and Associates, Inc.
Allocation Ratio
5.38
3.08
4.54
3.92
4.62
Forecast Horizon (years)
15
15
15
15
20
-,._--". ,..... ._.......__._--_. -----"."..,~~....- -- "--,~-,,---,,~'~.''''.. '~"'~ ~~ -----.- -_...~,..__.._.
The counties noted above have incorporated significant allocation ratios into their
comprehensive plans to adequately accommodate growth and limit higher than normal
land prices, constrained economic development and less efficient patterns of growth
which result from market inflexibility due to lack of investment choices.
,_.,
3
-
-
EXHIBIT A
Newberry Village Retail Needs Analysis
Newberry Village
Retail Needs Analysis
,,-
Prepared For:
NewUrban WORKS Development
Prepared By:
Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
12501 Corporate Blvd.
Orlando, Florida 32817
(407) 382-3256
October 25, 2005
~-"
-'~--'..._,_., .,..._._~
-- .. ........
__m_______._...___.___
Table Of Contents
Section Title
Page
1.0 Introduction............... ..... ..... ..... .... ......... ....... ....... ...... ............ 1
2.0 Current market Conditions..................................................... 2
3.0 Community-Type Retail Allocation Ratio............................... 3
4.0 Need for Additional Community-Type Retail Zoning ............... 3
5.0 Conclusion.... ........... ..... ............ ... ............. ............. ... ... ......... 4
Appendix 1 - Existing Competitive Supply
Appendix 2 - Vacant Future Supply
Appendix 3 - 20 Minute Drive Time Demographics
..
II
Newberry Village ~ Retail Needs Analysis
,-
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This report analyzes the need to amend the Alachua County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the proposed Newberry Village
development. The development program calls for development of
approximately 250,000 square feet of retail space in unincorporated
Alachua County.
1.2 Overview of needs analysis
In the context of amending the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
Alachua County the applicant must demonstrate the need to amend the
plan. Typically, this takes the form of a comparison of:
. The supply of existing land currently planned for retail uses
. The demand for retail lands based on market conditions
The applicant must determine whether there is sufficient supply of retail
land in the Plan to accommodate future retail space demand. The
analysis was conducted based on a 20 minute drive time market area
surrounding the project site, comparing demand and supply, both existing
and future, within the project market area. The retail market study further
considered both demand and supply for community-type retail space only.
Figure 1 shows the 20 minute drive time market area.
Fi ure 1 ~ 20 Minute Drive Time Market Area
"
flSHClP'D
..,....
..i
..
.
Page 1 of 8
--
--r
.
.-,....-.-- '''' ._,.,'.--_...,..,-'" ,_._~..,_.,--,~----~.
- .
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
2.0 Current Market Conditions
2.1 Existing Supply
The community-type retail supply in the market was determined using the
US Shopping Center directory, listing community type retail centers in
Alachua County. Based on a gravity model of retail shopping patterns,
calibrated for local market conditions, Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
determined the effective competitive retail square footage surrounding the
site, applicable to the subject location. Of 1.6 million square feet of
community type retail space within 20 minutes of the site, Fishkind
determined 1.3 million square feet of this existing supply directly competes
with community type retail space at the subject site. Appendix 1 lists the
existing competitive community-type shopping centers within 20 a minute
drive time of the site, the square feet associated with each center, and its
competitive characteristics based on the market conditions.
2.2 Future Supply
To determine future supply, Fishkind & Associates, Inc. examined all
vacant commercial parcels within the 20 minute market area. Vacant
commercial parcels as designated by the Property Appraiser were then
checked for current zoning. Parcels with current zoning of Business (BR),
highway oriented business (BH), and Automotive (BA) were determined to
represent competitive vacant supply.
The analysis showed there are 38 vacant parcels meeting the criteria for
future competitive supply. The criteria include, vacant parcels having the
required zoning, and of sufficient size to accommodate community-type
retail space, meaning parcels generally greater than 10 acres and less
than 30 acres in size. Parcels with proper zoning in excess of 30 acres
were excluded, as these more appropriately accommodate regional-type
retail demand. Parcels with proper zoning under 10 acres were excluded
as these more appropriately accommodate neighborhood-type retail
demand.
Numerous parcels under 10 acres were also included in the analysis as
these are parcels with adjacency allowing combined parcel sizes of
approximately 10 acres or greater. The sum total of competitive sites is
215 acres. An additional 57.7 acres were added to the supply based on
further planning analysis of properties which appear to qualify for
community type capacity. The vacant competitive supply is 272.7 acres.
At .18 FAR this translates to potential future community-type retail supply
of 2.1 million square feet, within the Newberry Village market area. The
combined existing competitive supply plus future supply equals 3.4 million
fJSH(ltC
Page 2 of 8
""
...
..
,
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
square feet of Community-type retail space capacity in the Newberry
Village market area, through year 2020. Appendix 2 shows the list of
parcels designated for future community type supply, No representations
are made as to the availability for sale or whether there is owner intention
to develop the vacant lands at any time in the future. Because there is no
assurance as to whether these lands will be developed, a market flexibility
factor (allocation ratio) must be included to assure proper supply over the
long term.
2,3 Community-Type Retail Space Demand
The market analysis shows there are 76,090 households within the 20
minute drive time surrounding the site, as of 2005 (see appendix 3),
Average household income is $45,260, This generates community-type
retail demand of 1.6 million square feet of space as of year 2005.
Household growth to year 2020 is expected to raise market area
households to 96,208 households and 2.0 million square feet of demand
by year 2020.
3.0 Community-Type Retail Allocation Ratio
-.~ ..
The community-type retail allocation ratio in the Newberry Village market
area is 1,7. This is determined by dividing the 3.4 million square feet of
supply/capacity by the 2.0 million square feet of demand, through the
planning horizon year of 2020. The addition of 250,000 square feet of
retail space through the proposed Newberry Village retail land use change
results in a marginal increase in the overall Plan allocation ratio from 1.7
to 1.8.
Fishkind & Associates believes an allocation ratio of under 2.0 leaves
insufficient flexibility to accommodate long term retail space needs, Table
1 shows the supply/demand calculation and resulting allocation ratio.
Table 1- 2020 Summary Community Retail Market Conditions
Vacant Community Retail Acres 272.7
Future Community SO FT. Supply 2,138,043
Existing Competitive Supply 1,266,947
TOTAL SUPPLY 3,404,990
Proposed Newberry Village 250,000
Total Demand 2,045,865
Community Commercial Allocation Ratio 1.8
-
,.......,
L..I...
.. .
"
.
Page 3 of 8
--
.,
--..." ..
.._,~ " -----.- --" ....-..,." _-...-- -" , --._-._--_.. .............."..-.........
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
4.0 Need for Additional Community-Type Retail Zoning
With the revised allocation ratio so low in the Newberry Village market
area, there is a need for additional retail capacity to be allocated for the
long-term.
4.2 Acceptable Over-Allocation Ratio
The Department of community Affairs has indicated an acceptable over-
allocation rate for future land use planning purposes is 2.0. Many
communities have considerably higher allocations for retail land uses,
The Newberry Village market area has a current allocation ratio of 1.7.
The addition of 250,000 square feet of community-type retail space in the
proposed project will increase the allocation ratio to 1.8, leaving the
market below 20 and only slightly above the original County allocation.
5.0 Conclusion
Newberry Village has petitioned Alachua County to revise the
Comprehensive Plan to allow the inclusion of 250,000 square feet of
additional community-type retail space in the Newberry Village market
area. The current analysis of available community-type retail lands
indicates a need for additional retail acres in the market area by year
2020, in order to provide proper long range planning flexibility. This report
concludes there is an under-allocation of available community-type retail
lands in the Newberry Village market area
The conversion of lands to retail uses will still provide the ability of the
remainder of the site to reach 80% of the maximum residential density
allowed under the existing zoning and land use. However, by including
the mixed use component, needed additional retail capacity is provided
while still achieving a high proportion of the maximum residential capacity.
Based on this finding, there is justification to include the Newberry Village
lands in the Future Land Use Map as inventory of future retail lands
flSH(lM)
....
Page 4 of 8
. ~ .
, .
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
APPENDIX 1 - Existing Competitive Supply
SITE %
CENTER NAME GLA DIST COMPETING SF COMPETING
NEWBERRY SQUARE 180,524 0.63 98.01% 176,939
NEWBERRY CROSSING 111,010 1.37 95.68% 106,217
OAKS SQUARE 119,000 1.37 95.68% 113,862
OAKS MALL PLAZA 105,252 1.55 95.12% 100,111
TOWER CENTRE 165,000 1.92 93.95% 155,018
CENTRAL PLAZA 132,000 10.00 68.97% 91,043
GAINESVILLE SHOPPING CENTER 186,173 10.08 68.73% 127,959
GAINESVILLE MALL 289,850 1102 65,92% 191,077
-
WAL-MART PLAZA 177,766 11.33 65.00% 115,552
WINN DIXIE MARKETPLACE PLAZA 139,337 11.67 64,00% 89,171
TOTAL
1,605,912
1,266,947
..-'-
.......,
l.....
.....
..
.
Page 5 of 8
-
-
,.
., ....-----
,~~_,."_' _~.__ .......___,~.._"~__.w...,,., , "
,..,.".....,...--
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
APPENDIX 2 - Future Vacant Supply
OBJECTID 1 ZONEDISTRI ZONEDEFIN PIN CALCACRES SOFT
-
200 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06041-003-001 21.8 O.OOOOOC
89 BP Business and Professional (BP) 06041-002.005 9.3 O.OOOOOC
135 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331-002-003 6.0 O.OOOOOC
142 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06800-028-000 1.0 O.OOOOOC
277 BR Business Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344-005.003 1.5 O.OOOOOC
278 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344-005-005 4.0 O.OOOOOC
117 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344-005-003 1.5 O.OOOOOC
118 BR Business Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344-009-000 1.1 O.OOOOOC
119 BR Business Retail Sales and Services (BR) 04345-003-000 0.5 O.OOOOOC
120 BR Business Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345-004-000 1.0 O.OOOOOC
121 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345-006-000 6.2 O.OOOOOC
122 BR Business Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345~01 0-000 0.5 O.OOOOOC
354 BR Business Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344-001-000 8.6 O.OOOOOC
355 BR Business Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345-006-000 6.2 O.OOOOOC
313 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 04350-005-000 9.0 O.OOOOOC
132 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06038-022-000 10.5 O.OOOOOC
353 BR Business Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04345-006-000 6.2 O.OOOOOC
59 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 04344-001.000 8.6 O.OOOOOC
205 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06233.006.001 1.3 O.OOOOOC
100 BH Highway Oriented Business (BHl 06331~002-003 6.0 O.OOOOOC
101 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331-005-000 2.9 O.OOOOOC
102 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331-006-000 1.0 OJ 1C
315 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04350-005-000 9.0 0.OCv00C
284 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 04345-006-000 6.2 O.OOOOOC
124 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344-009-000 1.1 O.OOOOOC
285 BA Automotive Oriented Business (BA) 04344-001-000 8.6 O.OOOOOC
286 BA Automotive Oriented Business (BA) 04345-006-000 6.2 O.OOOOOC
160 BR Business, Retail Sales. and Services (BR) 07251-017~000 1.2 O.OOOOOC
10 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 06655-002-003 29.4 O.OOOOOC
116 BR Business, Retail Sales. and Services (SR) 04344-009-000 1.1 O.OOOOOC
312 BR Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04344-009-000 1.1 O.OOOOOC
314 BH Highway Oriented BUSiness (BH) 04350-005-000 9.0 O.OOOOOC
134 BH Highway Oriented Business (SH) 06655-015-000 4.9 O.OOOOO(
263 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06656-002-008 3.4 OOOOOOC
152 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331-002-003 6.0 O.OOOOO(
153 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331.005-000 2.9 O.OOOOOC
154 BH Highway Oriented Business (BH) 06331-006-000 1.0 0.00000[
316 BR Business Retail Sales, and Services (BR) 04350-005-000 9.0 0.00000[
215.0
flSl<<lp.()
Page 6 of 8
....
.. .
. ,
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
--"-
Appendix 3 - Newberry Village 20 Minute Drive Time Demographics
-.
...."..,
."."
la,i.
..
.
Page 7 of 8
.. . --,......_-^---,-~--~"_.~.~,----~ '"", "'" ....
. -- . ~~'".--...
.. ..__._..__....._0'..
-
-. . "--_._'"_._~". ---.,,- ,-
Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: -82.430144
Prepared By: FISHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page A-1
10/25/05
Household Trend Report
SiTE NAME
TRADE AREA SiZE
Newberry Village -
20min
VALUE "'
'"
Population
Population (1990) 143,256
Population (2000) 172 121
Population (2005) 174990
Population (2010) 177 .778
Pct. Population Growth ('90-'00) 2015
Pct Population Growth ('00-'05) 167
Pct. Population Growth ('05-'10) 159
Geographic Area Size 221 5974
Population Density (2005) 78968
Daytime Marketplace (2005)
Total BUSiness Establishments 7406
Total Daytime Employment 112.110
Households
Households (1990) 57.054
Households (2000) 70.015
Households (2005) 76 090
Households (2010) 81946
Married Couple Family With Children (2005) 11.417 150%
Gender (2005)
Male (2005) 85.523 48.9%
Female (2005) 89.466 51 1 %
Race & Ethnicity (2005)
Race: White (2005) 128.502 73.4%
Race: Black (2005) 31825 182%
Race: ASian or Pacific Islander (2005) 7914 45%
Race. Other Race (2005) 3122 18%
Race. Two or More Races (2005) 3627 21G/o
Ethnlcity: Hispanic (2005) 11.907 68%
Age Distribution (2005)
Age 0-4 (2005) 9448 54%
Age 5-9 (2005) 8.564 49%
Age 10-13 (2005) 7.049 40%
Age 14-17 (2005) 8,516 49%
Age 18-24 (2005) 30.904 177%
Age 25-34 (2005) 40,035 229%
Age 35-44 (2005) 19,947 114% I
Age 45-54 (2005) 19.857 11.3%
Age 55-64 (2005) 13756 79%
Age 65-74 (2005) 8.384 4.8%
Age 75-84 (2005) 5.839 331YG
Age 85+ (2005) 2,288 13%
I
TrafllcSettings Heavy. Travel Speeds 30,50.l:i5.20,30,40
Source: AGS
Report Created with iSITE, Version: 2005.01.16
Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: -82.430144
Prepared By: FISHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page A-2
10125105
,,_.
Household Trend Report
SITE NAME
TRADE AREA SIZE:
Newberry Village -
20min
-""
VALUE %
Median Age
Median Age (2005) 31.31
Median Household Income
Median Household Income (1990) 24.711
Median Household Income (2000) 34,389
Median Household Income (2005) 37,442
Median Household Income (2010) 41.571
Per Capita Income
Per Capita Income (1990) 12.221
Per Capita Income (2000) 17.795
Per Capita Income (2005) 20,389
Per Capita Income (2010) 23.469
Average Household Income
Average Household Income (1990) 30.686
Average Household Income (2000) 43.960
Average Household Income (2005) 45.268
Average Household Income (2010) 49,164
Median Disposable Income
Median Disposable Income (2005) 32.082
Aggregate Income
Aggregate Income ($MM) (2005) 3,56780
Income Distribution (2005)
HH Inc. $ 0 - $ 15k (2005) 20,657 27.1 %
HH Inc. $15 - $ 25k (2005) 10,641 14.0%
HH Inc. $25 - $ 35k (2005) 8,865 11.7%
HH Inc. 535 - $ 50k (2005) 10.143 13.3%
HH Inc. $50 - 5 75k (2005) 10.976 14.4%
HH Inc. $75 - 5100k (2005) 6,092 8.0%
HH Inc. $100k - 5150 (2005) 5.471 7.2%
HH Inc. 5150 - 5200k (2005) 1.608 2.1%
HH Inc. 5200K+ (2005) 1.637 2.2%
Employment By Industry (2000)
Employment Status. Total Labor Force 90,720 527%
Employment Status: Employed 83,786 48.7%
Industry: Agriculture (2000) 505 0.6%
Industry Mining (2000) 12 0.0%
Industry: Construction (2000) 3.550 42%
Industry: Manufacturing (2000) 2,804 3.3%
Industry: Wholesale Trade (2000) 1,237 1.5%
Industry: Retail Trade (2000) 9,348 11.2%
Industry: Transport. and Warehousing (2000) 1.444 1.7%
Industry: Utilities (2000) 714 0.9%
Traffic Sellings: Heavy, Travel Speeds: 30,50 65,20,30 40
~~"
Source: AGS
Report Created with iSITE, Version: 2005,01.16
_ .w,.."",,_...__~~ ..
.. -_.~<""".-
.... '._~---~ .,"',
--- ..
......
.. ,
Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: -82.430144
Prepared By: F1SHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
mADE AREA SIZE
SITE NAME
Traffic$ettings: Heavy, Tr<lvel$peeds: 30,50.65.20,30.40
Employment By Industry (2000)
Industry: Information Ser\iices (2000)
Industry Fmance and Insurance (20001
Industry' Real Estate (2000)
Industry: Professional Services (2000)
Industry Management (2000)
Industry Admm Services And Waste Mgmnt (2000)
Industry' Educational Services (2000)
Industry: Health Care and Social Assist (2000)
Industry Arts. Entertainment and Recreation (2000)
Industry Food and Hospitality Ser\ilces (2000)
Industry Other Ser\iices, except public (20001
Industry Public Adminstration (2000)
Housing (2000)
Housing Units (2000)
Housing Units. Occupied (2000)
Housmg Units. Vacant (2000)
Housing Units, Owner-Occupied (2000)
Housing Units, Renter-Occupied (2000)
Median Rent (2000)
Median Home Value (2000)
Consumer Expenditures (2005, $/HH)
Total Consumer Expenditures (2005)
Total Retail Expenditures (2005)
Educational Attainment (2000)
Education: Less than 9th Grade (2000)
Education: Some High School (2000)
Education High School Graduates (2000)
Education, Some College (2000)
Education' Associate's Degree (2000)
Education Bachelor's Degree (20001
Educalion, Graduate School (2000)
Population, Age 25+ (2000)
Source: AGS
Page A-3
10125105
Household Trend Report
Newberry Village -
20min
VALUE "/"
2.640 3.2%
3,076 3,7%
1 635 2,0%
4.721 56%:
16 00%
2.296
18.924
13.505
1,567
7.821
3.815
4.156
27%
226%
161%
19%
93%
46%
500k,
76,020
70.015921%
6.005 79%
33.624 48 0%
36,391 520%
441
99.302
40,661 64
17 708 70
2.903 31%
6.492 70%
15,973 172%
17,634 19,0"/(,
9,039 97%
20.404 220%
20.408 220%)
92,852 53.9%
Report Created with iSrTE, Version: 2005.01.16
..--
EXHIBIT B
Newberry Village Retail Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Notice of Compliance
,".'~
_.._._.__._---."---~~- ._---".--_..,,~ ._, ---.-'.. --
_. _____..,_~__'.._ ~ ,,_~, "'. ,--" ~_ ,~'" n, ., "
tR
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Dedicated to making Florida a better place to catl home"
CHARLIE CRIST
THOMAS G. PELHAM
Secretary
GC',E'rr'cr
.Iul\ ~~, ~II()S
rhe Honorabk Rodne\ J Long
Chairman. Board of Count\ CClIllmissioners
.
.\Iaehua County
PO, Box '2877
Gaines\ille, FL 3~602-~877
RE: Alachua County Adopted Amendment 08-R I
Dear Chairman Long:
The Depal1ment has completed its rev iew "f the adopted Comprehensive Plan
,\mendment (Ordinance :\umber 08-10: DC\ Amendment :-.Jumhers 06-'2 and 08-RII for
\Iachua County, as adoptcd on .\ugust 17, '2006 and June 10. l008, and determined that it meets
the rcquirements of Chapter 163, Pal1 II. Florida Statutes. lor compliance, as detined in
Suhsection 163.3 184( I )( bl, Florida Statutcs. The Depal1ment is issuing a Cumulati\e Notice of
Intent to tind the plan amendment in compliance. The Cumulati\e Notice of Intent was sent to
the GainesI'i/le Sun for publication on Jul\ '2:1, '2008.
The Depal1ment's cumulative notice of intent to lind a plan amendment in compliance
shall be deemed to be a tinal order if no timely petition challenging the amendment is tiled, Any
affected person may lile a petition with the agency within '21 days alier the publication of the
notice of intent pursuant to Section 16:1.3184(9), r lorida Statutes. :-.Jo de\elopment orders, or
penn its lor a dc\e1opment. dependcnt on the amendment may be issued or commence bet(lre the
plan amendment lakes effect. Pkase he ad\Jsed that Section 163.:1184(8)(e)2, Florida Statutes,
requires a local go\ernment that has an internet site to post a copy of the Department's Notice of
Intent on the site within:i days alier receipt of the mailed copy of the agency's notice ofintcnl.
Please ll<lIe that a ClIPy ,'ithe adopted ('ount\ ClIlllprehensi\e Plan .\mendment. and thc
'\;oti,;( of Intent mu,q be ,,,ailable I"r pnhlie inspection \londay through hida\, except fllr legal
holida:s, Juring nunnal husinl.?ss hours. ~It fhe \ladlUa ('nuntj (iro\\1h \fanagcment ()fficc. 10
S\\- ~;," \'enlIc, Ih"d '.Ioor. (jainc"illc,llorida, lc(,OI-l1c'i4
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE FL 32399-2100
~ <:: ,-, .<.' ~
J _ _ - , '" '~
;; -II.: ij c
.
") ". ) 'J'
',- :;, --, ~, , ,
,
'lie b s' I e
,
. CO~MUNITY PLANNING
. HOUSING AND COMMuNITY DEVHOP~[NT
-:., ,'.
_:__F ,',: '" ',".
rh~ Hunurablc Rodney J. Lung
Julv 2', 2008
Pag~ ~
.~
Iflhis in compliance detemlination is challenged by an atlccted person, you will have the
()ption of meJiatillll pursuant tu Subseetionlh}.3189t})(a). Florida Statutes. If you choose to
attempt to reso" e this matter thwugh mediati'1n, yuu must tile the r~qu~st for mediation" ith the
administrati\e I,m judge assigncd hy the Di\isi(ln uf ..\dministrati\e Hearings. The ehoiee of
m~diatiun "ill nut affeet th~ right ul any party tu an administrative h~aring.
If you ha\ e any qu~stions. please contact Ana Richmund, Planner. at (850) 922-1794.
Sincer~ly.
1!0~}J / ,:tL'L~~i
Mike \1cDani~1
Chief, Office of Comprehensive Planning
\l\1.ar
Enclosure: Notice of Intent
-.
ce: \Ir. Scott Koons. AICP. Exeeutive Direetor, North Central Florida RPC
\fr. Stewn Lachnieht. AICP. Direetor of Growth Managem~nt
Mr. C. David Coffey
Mr. Bradley Stith
.'-'
.-.--
-
-
--
-.
--
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS CUMULATIVE NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND THE
ALACHlJA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PL~\j AMENDMENT
AND REMEDIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND\IENT(S) IN COMPLIANCE
DOCKET NO 08-R 1-\101-0 I 02-(A)-(1)
1l1c Department ISsues thIS cumulatIve notice of intent to find the Ataehua County
Comprehensi,e Plan Amendment adopted b~ Ordinance No 06-26 on .\ugust 17,2006 and the remedIal
amendment(s) adopted by Ordinance No 08-10 on June 10,2008 IN COMPLIANCE. pursuant to
Sections 1633184.1633187 and 1633189. F S
The adopted Alaehua County ComprehenSIve Plan Amendment and the Department's
Objections, Recommendations, and Comments R'l'ort (if any), are available for public insp"etlon
Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays. dunng normal busmcss hours, at the Alachua Countv
Growth Management, 10 SW 2"" Awnue, Third Floor. GainesvIlle, Florida 32601-6294.
Any affected person, as defined in Section 1633184, FS, has a right to petition for an
administrative hearing to challenge the proposed agenc~ determination that the Remedial Amendments
are In Compliance, as defined in SubsectIon 1633184(1), FS The pc'tition must be filed within
twenty-one (21) days after publication of this notice, and must include all of the information and contents
described in Uniform Rule 28-106201. FA C The petition must be filed ,,,th the Agency Clerk.
Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Bculevard. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 and
a copy matled or delivered to the local government. Failure to tImely file a petitIon shall constltute a
waIVer of any nght to request an admll1istratJve proceedll1g as a petitIoner under Sections 120'69 and
120 57. F S If a petition IS filed. the purpose of the admll1lstrative hcanng will be to present eVIdence
and tc'Stlmony and forward a recommended order to the Department If no petitIon IS filed. t/us NOllce of
Intent shall become final agency actIOn.
If a petition is filed, other affected persons may petition for leave to intervene in the proceedll1g
A petItion for lI1tervention must be filed at least twenty (20) days before the final hearing and must
mclude all of the mformatlOn and contents described in Uniform Rule 28-106.205, FAC A petItIon for
leave to Intervene shall be filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of
Admimstration. 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060. Failure to pC'1ition to
mtervene wlthm the allowed tIme /Tame constlMcs a "'Il\'er of any right such a person has to request a
hearmg under Secnons 120569 and 12057, FS. or to participate In the admmistratlVe heanng.
After an administrative heanng petItion IS timely filed. mediatIOn IS available pursuant to
Subsection 163 3 I 89(3)(a), F S, to any atTccted person "ho is made a party to the proceeding by filing
that requc'St With the admmlstrative law Judge asSigned by the Div ,sion of Administrative Heanngs The
chOIce of mediatIOn shall not affcct a party's right to an admmlStratl\ e hcanng
il {.) 2 !,(JL" ' ()
,I<-( ('tL~'---'"
. -.0_.__ . ___ ..__ . __ _.
\hke McDamcl, Chief
DIVISIon of Commul1lty P!anl1lng
D~partmcnl "I' (ommumty Aff.lIIs
2,55 Shumard Oak Boulc\ard
Tll!ah:L~SCC, Flonda 1231N-21 UO
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Needs Analysis
Office Study
April 24, 2008
Revised and Updated: 10-21-09
.'~>
Prepared for
Naples Christian Academy
Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida
Prepared by
Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
1415 Panther Lane, Suites 346/347
Naples, Florida 34109
(239) 254.8585
Attachment P
Fishkind & Associates
Needs Analysis - Office Study
. -'~_....-....-._,,_..__.- -
-~-~......
--~ "...- ,_.
..., . ___'N_'_"..",'._~~
--,---
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........... ........................... ... ..... .............................................................. 3
1.1 PURPOSE.. ........................................... .......................................................... ...................... ..... .....3
1.2 OVERVIEW OF NEEDS ANALySiS.... ... ......................................................................................3
1.3 DEFINITION OF THE TRADE AREA..............................................................................................4
1.4 ANALYSIS PROCESS........................................................................................................................ 5
2.0 THE SUPPL V OF OFFICE SPACE ,................................................"""....."."........"...6
2.1 EXISTING OFFICE SUPPLY IN PROJECT'S TRADE AREA.............................................................6
2.2 POTENTIAL OFFICE SUPPLY IN PROJECT'S MARKET ........................................................................ 7
2.3 OFFICE SPACE HOLDING CAPACITY (LEE COUNTY PORTION OF TRADE AREA) .............................13
24 RECONCILED VACANT COMMERCIAL LANOS...... ........ ..................................................14
2.5 TOTAL OFFICE SPACE HOLDING CAPACITY IN PROJECT'S MARKET ...............................................14
3,0 THE DEMAND FOR OFFICE SPACE .."............"............................................"..."... 16
3.1 METHODOLOGy.............. ..................................................................................................... ........ 16
3.2 EMPLOYMENT-BY-INDUSTRY DISTRIBUTION IN THE PROJECT'S MARKET......................................16
3.3 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH FORECAST AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS................................................18
3.4 DEMAND FOR OFFICE SPACE ...... .. .................... .......................................................19
4.0 COMPARISON OF SUPPL V-TO-DEMAND .............................................................. 20
4.1 SUPPLy/DEMAND COMPARISON AND THE ALLOCATION RATIO....................................................... 20
5.0 CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ......."............... 21
APPENDIX #1 - MAP OF 20-MINUTE DRIVE TIME TRADE AREA"..............".................. 22
APPENDIX #2 -I-SITE CENSUS-BASED HOUSEHOLD TREND REPORT ........."......,.... 23
APPENDIX #3 - BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS - QCEW DATA...,.......,........,............24
APPENDIX #4- USE OF THE ALLOCATION RATIO .........,..........................,....,................25
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
2
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to present a commercial needs analysis for the proposed
change to Golden Gate Area Master Plan ("Plan"), The Naples Christian Academy and
Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida ("Client") are proposing approximately 17.16
+/- acres of mixed use development ("Project") including a commercial office and retail
component and a small amount of residential development at the southwest corner of
Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in the Golden Gate area of
Collier County ("County"), Florida. Fishkind & Associates, Inc., ("Consultant") has been
engaged to prepare this report. This report pertains to the office portion of the
proposal.
1.2 Overview of Needs Analysis
In the context of amending the adopted Plan the applicant must demonstrate the need
to amend the plan. Typically, this takes the form of a comparison of:
o The supply of existing land/square footage currently planned for various commercial
uses; and
o The demand for land/square footage based on projected employment in the market
.~
Historically, these comparisons have focused their studies County-wide, This analysis
studies the market for commercial demand around the project and portions of the
County within certain drive time distances. There are two related reasons for this type
of analysis.
First, consumers are assumed to maximize benefit over all goods and services
consumed subject to their income. This type of analysis requires that travel costs are
either explicitly or implicitly accounted for during the consideration of the consumers'
income constraint. This analysis requires the Consultant to narrow the scope of the
analysis from the county level down to a local market level.
Second, the Consultant considers whether the choice of location is a Pareto
improvement for consumers, (Pareto improvement means that no consumers are made
worse off, and at least one is made better off,) That is, the Consultant asks the
question whether additional commercial space makes at least one local market better
off, without reducing the welfare of all others, An analysis of commercial space over
the whole of a county may lead to the wrong conclusion of where to develop new
space. That is, the county as a whole may appear to need more commercial space to
support the aggregate level of demand generated by its residents. With many County-
wide choices of commercially-zoned lands available, the development of one site over
another may lead to an over supply in one location and an under supply in another,
This is precisely the outcome the County wants to avoid,
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
3
_...._-_..._-~-
--, ,--",,--_.- - --~"",",.~. ~.........". ,
----._..-~-,-,~~,_.-
Therefore:
o By narrowing the focus of this study to the local market, the Consultant determines
if this market has a need for additional office space.
o The Consultant can replicate a competitive outcome, and ensure that the welfare of
all other local markets is improved or unchanged.
1.3 Definition of the Trade Area
The primary trade area utilized for this analysis is a 20-minute drive time surrounding
the subject site (map provided in Appendix #1). Because the demand for office space
is driven by employment, the trade area represents a reasonable employment
commute distance for workers surrounding the Project. Narrowing the focus of the
analysis from the County-level down to the trade area level is especially useful
because the employment distribution attributes of the County as a whole may not
reflect those of the area surrounding the Project.
The trade area was delineated utilizing two sources of information on employment
commute times:
1) US Census Bureau commute times to work for employees in Collier County;
2) East Central Florida Housing Methodology - reasonable employment commute
factors to accessible employment opportunities;
US Census Bureau Commute Times - Collier County
Table 13.1 below shows the distribution of commute times for employees in Collier
County according to the US Census Bureau
Table 1.3.1 Commute Times to Work for Employees in Collier County
, ____n_____ ---,',--
, Emploved Percent of Total
,
, 103,068
: Total:
~
: Did not work at home: 98,199 ---
Less than 5 minutes 2,665 2.71%
5 to 9 minutes 10,396 10.59%
10 to 14 minutes 14,833 15.11%
, 15 to 19 minutes 17.593 17.92%
,
-- .
i 20 to 24 minutes 16.481 16.78%
, 5,586 5.69%
I 25 to 29 minutes
30 to 34 minutes 15.077 15.35%
----. ------
35 to 39 minutes 1.481 1.51%
i 40 to 44 mmutes 2.682 2.73% ,
,
45 to 59 minutes 5.943 6.05%
,
60 to 89 minutes 3,336 3.40%
, 90 or more minutes 2,126 2.16%
-..-.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs AnalysIs - Updated 10-15-09
4
_...--~
The table above indicates the two most common employment commute time intervals
in Collier County are 15 to 19 minutes (17,92% of employees) and 20 to 24 minutes
(16.78% of employees). Further, 63.1% of employees had a commute time of 24
minutes or less.
East Central Florida Housin(J Methodolo(JY
The East Central Florida HousinQ MethodoloQY, a methodoloQY for assessinQ the
affordable housinq impact of Developments of ReQionallmpact,' was developed by the
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council in 1999 to analyze the availability of
housing opportunities for employees generated by a Development of Regional Impact
("DRI"), This methodology has been accepted for use in lieu of the Adequate Housing
Rule adopted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA").
While the Project analyzed in this report is not a DRI, the employment commute
distance utilized by the ECFRPC Methodology is instructive in terms of delineating a
trade area for analyzing the need for office space. The methodology utilizes a
commute (trade) area of a 1 O-mile radius or 20-minute drive time surrounding a project.
Housing within this area represents a reasonable commute distance to work for
employees of the proposed Project under analysis.
Trade Area Conclusions
.-.
Based on the information above, the need to amend the Plan is based on an analysis
of this 20-minute drive time market's need for additional commercial-office
development (map provided in Appendix #1),
1.4
Analysis Process
The process of determining the need for additional commercial-office space consists of
three steps, as outlined below.
o Inventory existing supply of commercial-office space in the market area;
o Inventory vacant commercial space and parcels designated as having the potential
for commercial-office space by the Collier County Future Land Use Map ("FLUM")
and Golden Gate Future Land Use Area Map ("GGAFLUM");
o Project future population/employees in the identified commute (trade) area to
determine future commercial-office demand and compare against commercial-office
land allocation ratios;
"..-
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
5
--...-.-...- ----_._.....,~_.~_., -----, _.._._._"----..._._._".~~~..~
-, ~ -----
2.0 The Supply of Office Space
Having established a trade area for the Project, the next step is to analyze the supply
of office space the Plan can accommodate within the 20-minute drive time trade area.
The supply analysis of the Plan is articulated in three parts:
1) First, the Consultant has utilized Collier Property Appraiser data to inventory the
supply of existing office space within the 20-minute trade area (DOR Codes: 17,
18,19, and 23).
2) Second, the Consultant has utilized the Future Land Use Elements of the Collier
County Growth Management Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as a
guide to estimate how much additional office space is implicitly allocated within
the trade area.
3) Third, the Consultant has inventoried the existing and vacant/potential supply
that falls within the City of Bonita Springs, Lee County (extreme northern portion
of the trade area).
From this, the Consultant is able to estimate the total office space holding capacity of
the 20-minute drive time trade area.
21 Existing Office Supply in Project's Trade Area
The Consultant has utilized Collier County Property Appraiser data (effective date of 3-
25-09) to estimate the amount of existing, constructed office space within the 20-
minute trade area.
Table 2.1.1 provides the current inventory of office space utilizing DOR Codes: 17, 18,
19, and 23. (Full dataset provided on CD to Planning Dept.)
Table 2,1.1
Current Supply of Existing Commercial-Office Space in Project's Market
Existin
Acres 354.17
S uare Feet 4,506,S9S
S fVacre 12,725
Source: Collier County Property Appraiser-
EffectIVe Date of Data 3-25-09
The table above shows there are 4.5-million square feet of existing, constructed office
space in the Project's market with an average density of 12,725 square feet per acre
(4,506,898/354.17). Going forward, this average density will be used as a guide to
estimate the potential supply of office space on vacant approved commercial lands and
FLUM designated commercial lands in the section below.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
6
2.2 Potential Office Supply in Project's Market
,~'"
The Consultant analyzed the Future Land Use Elements of the Collier County and
Golden Gate Area Plans to estimate the total office space holding capacity within the
20-minute trade area (effective date of Plan retrieval 4-09-09), The land use
categories that fall within the Project's market are shown in Table 2.2.1 below.
Table 2.2.1
Land Use Categories within Project's Market
"'-
Collier Count GMP Golden Gate Area Master Plan
Urban Oesi nation Urban Desi nation
Mixed Use District Mixed Use District
Goodlette/Pine Rid e Comm. Infill Subdistrict Urban Residential Subdistrict
Oranqe Blossom MU SUB Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict
Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict Commercial District
Bucklev Mixed Use Subdistrict G,G. Mixed Use Activitv Center Subdistrict
Davis Blvd I County Barn Rd Mixed Use Distnct G.G Urban Commerciallnfill Subdistrict
Urban Residential Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict
Urban Residential Frin e Subdistrict G.G. Pkwv Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict
Urban Coastal Frin e Subdistrict Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict
Industrial District
(Includes all Subdistricts Estates Desi nation
Commercial District Mixed Use District
Mixed Use Activit Center Subdistrict Residential Estates Subdistrict
Interchan e Activity Center Subdistrict Neinhborhood Center Subdistrict
Livinaston/Pine Rid e Commerciallnfill Subdlstnct G.G. Pkwv Institutional Subdistrict
.
LivtnQston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Commercial District
Livinaston Road / Eatonwood Lane Commerciallnfill Interchan e Activitv Center Subdistrict {Collier GM~
Livin ston/Radio Rd Commerciallnfill SubdIstrict Pine Rid e Road Mixed Use Subdistrict
Livin stan RoadNeterans Memorial Road Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict
Vanderbilt Beach Rd Nel hborhood Commercial Subdistrict G.G Estates Commerciallnfill Subdistrict
Estates Desi nation
Overla sand S ecial Features
Bavshore/Gatewav Trianale Redevelo ment
Incorporated Area
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Collier County and Golden Gate Plans
The balance of this section will focus on only on land use land use categories that
allow commercial development.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
7
._...~--_..'~._-~
..
.--.
.-
-.-........
..__..,,_...."~._.-.,....,
"'_....."_,~.~._....~..,.., ".h_'~_'_~"'"
.-.
The first step is to identify any land use categories for which the FLUE describes
maximum commercial allocations with a reasonable degree of certainty, For these
categories, the office holding capacity can be estimated directly, These categories are
shown in Table 2.2.2 below along with the maximum allocations of allowable
commercial-office space taken directly from the FLUE.
Table 2.2.2
Land Use Categories with Specific Allocations
Total Max. Allowed Max Allowed
FLU Cate or Acres Allowable Uses Comm~ Office '$ fl\
.~..._~.-
Collier County GMP
Urban Oesi nation
, Mixed Use District
,
Davis Blvd I County Barn Rd Mixed Use Subdistrict 22.83 Res, Goods/Svs 45,000 15.000
'Vanderbilt Beach/Coller Blvd Commercial Subdistrict , 4933 Res. Goods/Svs 200.000 207.153
*OranQe Blossom MU Subdlstnct 1355 Res, Goods/Svs Undefined 56.901
*Goodlette/Pine Rid e Comm Infill Subdistrict 31.00 Commercial 275.000 130.179
-.-.-.-...--..- -
'Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict 22 84 I Res. Goods/Svs Undefined 95.913
,
Commercial District
____..!:-ivlngslon RoadlEatonwood Lane Commerciallnfill Sub, -i---~?' 5.+ Office, Storace 200.000 90.000
Livln stan/Pine Rid e Commercial Infill Subdistrict 2797 I Res, Goods/Svs 165.000 40,000
, 'Vanderbilt Beach Rd Neiqhborhood Commercial Subdistrict 17 00 Res. Goods/Svs 180.000 71.389
: 'llvln ston/Radlo Rd Commerciallnfill Subdistrict 5.00 Res. Goods/Svs 50.000 20.997
Llvin ston Road CommerClallnfil1 Subdistrict 600 Med/Pro Offices 52.500 52.500
Llvln ston RoadNeterans Memorial Road Commlnfill Sub. 225 Med!Pro Offices 50.000 50,000
, !
,
-~-
, Golden Gate Area Master Plan
i
, ,
, Estates Desi nation
Commercial District ,
'Plne Rid e Road MU Subdistrict 1623 Commercial 80.000 68.155
Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict , 623 ' Commerclal 41.490 41.490
I --
i ,
--1-
i TOTAL i 939,676
'Note' 'Max Allowed Office' estimated as one-third of total acreage (based on existing Collier ORis shown in Table 2.2 4
below) multiplied by 12.725 sqftlacre (from Table 2.1.1 above)
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Collier County and Golden Gate Plans
As the table above shows, It is implied by the Plan that almost 1-million total square
feet of office space can be accommodated by these land use categories. For
categories in the table where the maximum amount of office space is not specified, the
Consultant conservatively allocated one-third of total acreage for potential office uses
(based on the allocation of uses in approved Collier DRls shown in the section below)
and applied the average density per acre from Table 2.1.1 above
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistricl
Commercial Office Needs AnalYSIS - Updated 10-15-09
8
,~.~.
For the balance of land use categories in the Project's market, the amount of allowable
office space is not as clearly defined by the FLUE. In light of this, the Consultant has
classified the remaining land use categories as either:
. Traditional; or
. Redevelopment
This distinction is important. For the 'traditional' land use categories, only the amount
of remaining vacant commercial land needs to be analyzed to estimate the amount of
implicit office capacity. However, for the 'redevelopment' land use categories, total
land area must be analyzed to account for the greater likelihood of conversion.
Table 2.2.3 on the next page shows the remaining land use categories which allow
commercial development and their classification as either 'traditional' or
'redevelopment.' Additionally, the table shows total acreage and vacant commercial
acreage based on GIS analysis performed by the Consultant' utilizing data from the
Collier County Property Appraiser and Collier County GIS Department.
-
(Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank)
-
1 Please note acreages represent approximations. This is because the borders delineating land use
categories do not exactly match parcel lines. In some Instances, outer parcels that partially touch the
land use category boundary are included in their entirety.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict g
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
,~.
..
" .,
.,,,,"' , ----~._-_. --...._.~...~,_.- "......, - ,-------.-,.,-.-.-.-
Table 2.2.3
Remaining Land Use Categories within Project's Market
REDEVELOPMENT
Collier Cou~ GMP
Overl~ and ~ecial Features
8a shore/Gateway Trian Ie Redevelooment
Golden Gate Area Master Plan
Urban Oesi nation
----------- ------
Mixed Use District
Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict
Commercial District
Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict
*G.G, Pkwv Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict
Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict
TRADITIONAL
Collier Cou'2!r....GMP
Urban Desl9Dation
Mixed Use District
-------------,...
Urban Coastal Frinqe Subdistrict
Urban Residential Frin e Subdistrict
Urban Residential Subdistnct
Total
Acrea e
Vacant
Comm. Ac.
60340
18.85
48.52
18.52
14.09
I
:
:
.. ....---- .. ---- --e--- ..
,
Commercial District
Interchan e Activit Center Subdistrict
Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
Industrial District
Industrial District
n
n
n
,
,
i
i n
--
,
____nm____
Overla sand S ecial Features
Incorporated Area
I Golden Gate Area Master Plan
Urban Desi!walion IGG\
Commercial District
G.G. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict
G.G Urban Commerclallnfill Subdistrict
Mixed Use District
Neiqhborhood Center Subdistrict
Estates Desi nation (GG\
Commercial District
l_, .__.,..8,G Estates Commerclallnfill Subdistrict
i
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Collier County and Golden Gate Plans
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
10.08
0.00
37481
57.76
157.71
2.46
42.56
3.19
129
0.00
1506
10
-
The next step IS to determine reasonable estimates of office allocation for these land
use categories. As a guide in determining land allocations, the Consultant has
reviewed land use distribution data from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council's Annual DRI Monitoring Report for Collier County. Table 2.2.4 shows the
distribution of approved land uses for all DRls in Collier County (date retrieved 4-17-
09). The DRI monitoring report is the only County-specific information available that
separately identifies the allocation of office and retail uses within a unified, planned
development theme. The County's PUD inventory document only lists a 'commercial'
total and does not account for retail/office uses separately.
Table 2.2.4
Distribution of DRI Land Uses (Collier)
--
%of
--
Total Acres
93.87%
%of
Land Use
Residential Acres
Acres
Comm. Acres
31.693
Retail Acres
Office Acres
Indus. Acres
. .
1,03416 306% 49.9%
.--
670.13 1.98% 32.4%
247 073% 11.9%
11978 0.35% 5.8%
I Hotel Acres
,
-- ..... .... .-------------
Total Comm. ACT.~.~_~ _________n______ ______
-. . - - -J----------
__ _2,071 __ .:._____
33,764
Total Acres
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on SWFRPC Annual DRI Monitoring Report (retrieved 4-17-09)
The table above shows land allocations from two perspectives: 1) as a percent of total
approved DRI acreage: and 2) as a percent of approved DRI commercial acreage. For
DR Is in Collier County, office space averages 1.98% of total approved DRI land area
and 32.4% of approved DRI commercial area. The Consultant has used these data as
a guide in allocating office space across the land use categories in the Project's
market.
For 'traditional' land use categories in Table 2.2.3 on the previous page, the Consultant
estimates one-third (based on Table 2.2.4 above) of vacant approved commercial
acreaqe will be developed as office.
For the 'redevelopment' land use categories, the Consultant conservatively estimates
one-third of total acreage will be developed as office -- assuming significant conversion
of existing land uses. This is done to maintain the most conservative analysis
possible. It is likely this allocation is entirely too high and these categories will
yield much less office space.
Once the amount of office acreage is estimated, the average office density of 12,725
square feet per acre from Table 21.1 is applied. These estimations, along with the
resulting office yields, are shown in Table 2.2.5 on the next page.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
11
.,,_._".
. .-
_._- '" ..".,_.>.~-
-....~,
. ..- -,-,-~,~_.'.~-
.~----_.-.
sIma e Ice ;pace 0 In a aCltv
Total Vacant % Office Office Office
Acre!9!- Comm. Ac. Acres Acres 5 It --~-
--_.-...,-_...~~._._- --.-----
REDEVELOPMENT
"~'- ........__n__ ..-- --
Collier Count GMP
Overlavs and 5 ecial Features
BavshorefGatewav Trianale Redevelo men! 603 40 ~~ 33.3% 2011 2.559.479
Golden Gate Area Master Plan
-.
Urban Oesinnation
Mixed Use District
Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict 1885 .. 333% 6.3 79,957
Commercial District ,
Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict 4852 .. 33_3% 16.2 205.804
------ - .".--..-
'G.G_ Pkw Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict 1852 ~~ 900% 16.7 212,051
_._._.~
Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict 1409 .. 33.3% 4 7 59.762
I
,
TRADITIONAL ,
,
Collier Count GMP ,-
I ,
Urban Desi nation
Mixed Use District i
Urban Coastal F rin e Subdistrict .. , 1008 33.3% 3.4
Urban Residential Frln e Subdistrict , 0.00 33.3% 00
n ,
~
Urban Residential Subdistrict n 37481 33.3% 1249 1.589.865
.. ..---
Commercial District un-+- ~~-
.-- _._~.-
Interchan e Activity Center Subdistrict . ~ , 5776 33.3% 193 244.999 ,
---. --.-.
Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistnct i n i 15771 33_3% 52.6 668,946
, i
------ ----------+----.--...- ..H +_..__
,
Industrial District j ,
Industrial District n i 246 33,3% 0.8 10,416
,
, i
I
I ,
Overla sand 5 ecial Features ,
,
Incorporated Area ~~ 4256 333% 142 180.513
, , -
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
i Golden Gate Area Master Plan ,
,
,
I ,
Urban Designation (QQl
,
I Commercial District
-------- -------- --.,,~- ..---.---.---.--..-
; G,G, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdlstnct 319 I 33_3% 1.1 , 13.516
n
G.G Urban Commerciallnfill Subdlstnct i n 1.29 33.3% 04 5.471
Mixed Use District I
Nei hborhood Center Subdistrict n 000 33_3% 00 ~
,
; --
, Estates Designation /GG) ,
, ,
I ,
i Commercial District ,
i ,
G,G Estates Commerciallnfill Subdistrict ~~ , 15,06 33,3% 5.0 63 884
,
, TOTAL 5,894,662
, ,
E f
Table 2.2.5
t dOff' S Hid'
c
*Note' GGPPOCSD places specific emphaSIS on office development. As such. office space is allocated at 90% of
total land area
**Applled average density of 12.725 square feet per acre from Table 2_1 1
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Collier and Golden Gate Plan & Collier Property Appraiser data
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis u Updated 10-15-09
12
_,0_,.
As the table above shows, it is implied by the Plan that over 5.8-million total square
feet of office space can be accommodated by these land use categories.
2.3 Office Space Holding Capacity (Lee County Portion of Trade Area)
The extreme northern portion of the 20-minute trade area extends into the City of
Bonita Springs region of Lee County. The table below provides the estimate of office
holding capacity for this area utilizing Lee County Property Appraiser Data (effective
date of data - 4-30-09).
. Existing Office - Includes all instances of OOR Codes 17, 18, 19, 23, & 24
(when present);
. Vacant/Potential Office - Includes all instances of DOR Code 10 and only
instances of DOR Codes 50-69 (vacant agricultural) when they fall within a
commercial land use category. The primary commercial land use category in
the portion of the trade area that extends to Bonita Springs is 'Interchange
Commercial'. The office yields for Vacant/Potential supply are calculated in the
same manner as the sections above.
Table 2.3.1
Estimated Office Space Holding Capacity (City of Bonita Springs - Lee County)
..-
Total % Office Office Office
Acrea e , Acres Acres S It
Lee Countv
Existi~Office 11.84 100.0% 1184 '89,770
VacanUPotential Office 123.44 33.3% 41.15 "523 588
TOTAL 135.28 613,358
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Lee County Property Appraiser data
*Note. 'Existing' office square footage taken directly from property records.
"Note: Density from Table 2.2.1 applied to Vacant/Potential Supply.
The table shows there are almost 90-thousand square feet of existing office space and
almost 525-thousand square feet of vacant and potential office space within the portion
of the trade area which extends into Bonita Springs.
.....-.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
13
~ ----.."...... ._--'"'.
-,',
-
---~
2.4 Reconciled Vacant Commercial Lands
For completeness, this section provides an inventory of reconciled parcels designated
as DOR Code 10 (Vacant Commercial) that are not included in the data queries for the
sections above. Office yields for these parcels are estimated in the same fashion as
the sections above, by applying the distribution of office space from Table 2.2.4 to the
vacant land and then applying the average sqft/acre density determined in Table 2.2.1.
This is shown in the table below.
Table 2.4.1
Reconciled Vacant Commercial Lands
Addt!. % Office Office *Office
Ac. Acres Acres 5 It
OOR Code 10 Reconciliation 230.91 33.3% no 979,441
Source: Fishkind & Associates based on Collier County Property Appraiser data
*Note applied average density as determined by Table 2.2.1
As the table shows, the reconciled parcels total almost 1-million square feet of potential
office space.
2.5 Total Office Space Holding Capacity in Project's Market
The sections above analyzed the Plan's office space holding capacity from a number of
perspectives:
. First, the Consultant utilized Collier Property Appraiser data to inventory the
supply of existing, constructed office space within the 20-minute trade area
(DOR Codes: 17, 18, 19, and 23).
. Second, the Consultant has utilized the Future Land Use Elements of the Collier
County Growth Management Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as a
guide to estimate how much additional office space is implicitly allocated within
the trade area.
. Third, the Consultant utilized Lee County Property Appraiser data to inventory
the supply of existing, constructed and vacant/potential office space for the
portion of the 20-minute trade area that extends into the City of Bonita Springs.
. Fourth, the Consultant provided an inventory of reconciled parcels designated
as DOR Code 10 (Vacant Commercial).
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
14
--_.~,
Table 2.5.1 below provides the estimate of total office space holding capacity in the
Project's market based on the sections above.
Table 2.5.1
Total Office S ace Holdin Ca acit
Office S It
4,506,898
939,676
5,894,662
Lee Count Exist;n Allocation of Office S ace Table 2.3.1
Lee Count VacantlPotential Office S ace Table 2.3.1
89,770
523,588
OOR Code 10 Reconciled Table 2.4.1
979,441
Total Allocation of Office S ace
12,934,035
As the table above shows, the total allocation of office space - both existing and
implied by the Plan - within the Project's market is almost 13-million square feet.
(Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank)
.,.-,
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
15
-.
.~___.._.,. ___ __.._._M"-.'_'
-. .. ~-""'-~---".'--"-"'----"-'-----~",-
'"
3.0 The Demand for Office Space
3.1 Methodology
A variety of methods exist for quantifying the demand for office space. A common
approach involves a per capita or ratio (office square feet/person) methodology. This
approach is useful and not tremendously data-intensive. However, there are more
dynamic methodologies available.
The approach utilized in this report is a segmentation methodology. This method
estimates office demand as a function of the number of employees that occupy office
space in the 20-minute trade area.
For this report, "employees" refers to individuals who are employed within the trade
area and not to employed individuals who are residents of the trade area - as these
employed residents may work outside the market. This analysis is not concerned with
where employees live.
The steps for determining the demand for office space within the trade area are as
follows:
o Determine the employment-by-industry distribution within the trade area
() Estimate the percentage of workforce occupying office space
o Estimate square foot size requirement per office employee
3.2 Employment-by-Industry Distribution in the Project's Market
Collier County does not maintain 'official' employment-by-industry estimates or
forecasts for sub-regions within the County. As an alternative, the Consultant has
utilized I-Site census-based demographics package to determine the current
employment distribution within the trade area.
Table 3.2.1 shows the employment-by-industry distribution within the trade area based
on 2008 I-Site data,2 the most recent available as of the effective date of this report.
(Please refer to Appendix #2 for complete I-Site data table for the 20-minute trade
area). Additionally, the table shows the Consultant's estimation of the percent of
employees that occupy office space according to their industry.
2 I-Site utilizes data based on the decennial US Census. To provide estimates In between decennial
Census years at the census block level of geographic detail, I-Site utilizes data from United States
Postal Service and commercial source ZIP+4 level delivery statistics, Internal Revenue Service statistics
on tax filers and year-to-year migration: as well as the Census Bureaus Currenl Population Survey.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict 16
Commercial Office Needs AnalysIs - Updated 10-15-09
,,'-,
Table 3.2.1 Employment-by-Industry Distribution for Project's Market
20-Minute Trade Area 2008 % of Emn. # of Office % of Tolal Emn
~ in Office ~ in Office
Employees, Aqricultural, Forestrv, FishinG ISIC 01-09; 2,507 0% 0 0.00%
Employees, Mini~gJSIC 10-14; 70 0% 0 0.00%
Em lovees, Construclion ISIC 15-17) 13,460 10% 1,346 1.12%
Em lovees, Manufacturin I ISIC 20-39) 2,831 15% 425 0.35%
Em lovees, Transoortation and Communications ISIC 40-49) 3,408 15% 511 0.42%
Employees, Wholesale Trade ISIC 50-511 3,776 0% 0 0.00%
Employees, Retail Trade ISIC 52-59) 28,688 0% 0 0.00%
Employees, Finance, Insuance and Real Estate ISIC 60-69 12,135 100% 12,135 10.06%
.-
Emnlovees, Services ISIC 70-89; 45,011 15% 6,752 5.60%
Emplovees, Public Administration (SIC 90-981 7,260 15% 1,089 0.90%
Employees, Unclassified ISIC ggl 1 493 0% 0 0.00%
Total 120,640 22,258 18,45%
Sources: I-Site Census-based Demographics Package; Fishkind & Associates
Effective Date of Data Retrieval: 4-02-09
As the table above shows, it is estimated that 18.45% of all employees within the trade
area occupy office space. To provide context, this estimation is along the very low end
of the spectrum. According to the Appraisal Institute3, the percentage of office workers
typically ranges from 20% to 34% of total employment in a market area. As such, the
Consultant feels the estimation in Table 3.2.1 above is conservative and in no way
overstates the number of office employees in the trade area.
Please note the employees shown in the table above refer to individuals who are
employed within the trade area and not to employed individuals who are residents of
the trade area - as these employed residents may work outside the market.
(Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank)
,,~""
3 Stephen F. Fanning, MAl, Market Analysis for Real Estate 'Concepts and Applications in Valuation and Highest
and Best Use' Chicago Illinois: The Appraisal Institute 2005, Pg. 287
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict 17
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
-
-
.
----~,.,..
-'_. ,....,..~. , - , --",~,~,.,"...,. .>'_...._...'.-...~....~~...~,
3.3 Employment Growth Forecast and Space Requirements
Now that the number of office workers has been estimated, the next step is to forecast
employment growth within the trade area, The County does not maintain 'official'
projections for employment. As such, the Consultant has utilized the Quarterly Census
of Employment and Wages4 ("QCEW") program from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to
analyze employment trends over the past eight years in Collier County. (Please refer to
Appendix #3 for complete data table) Table 3.3.1 below shows the average annual
percentage change in employment-by-industry for Collier County from 2001 to the
second quarter of 2008 (latest available as of this report).
Table 3,3.1 Collier Employment Trends QCEW
(% Change Period-to-Period)
AVG Annual Grwth
Industrv Title 2001-2008Q2
Construction 1.61%
Education and Health Services 3.49%
--------.
Financial Activities 2.59%
-------...---- ,._.,_._-~-~ .
Information 0.53%
Leisure and Hospitality 4.30%
ManufactUring 0.14%
Natural Resources and Mini'"-9... -3.51%
, Other Services 2.05%
. Professional and BUSiness Services 2.01%
,
, Public Administration 3.50%
I Trade, Transportation, and Utilities -
0.87%
Unclassified 7.91%
Grand Total 1,93%
Sources: Fishkind & Associates based on Bureau of Labor Statistics QCEW
Effective Date of Data Retrieval: 4-02-09
Collier County has experienced broad based declines in employment over the last one
to one-half years. This is consistent with the recent contractions at the State and
National level. Alternatively, different Industries have been changing at different rates
for other reasons. For example, 'Natural Resources and Mining' has been steadily
declining due to the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. While institutional
industries such as education/health services and public administration have shown
increases over time to accommodate the once rapidly growing population.
Despite recent employment contractions, it is anticipated the County will again
experience growth once the local, national, and global economies stabilize. This
sentiment is affirmed by County planning staff in their 2008 Annual Update and
Inventory Report ("AUIR"), 'No one within the AUIR planning team expects that growth
will no longer come to Collier County The question is when growth will restart and at
what annual rate. .
4 The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program publishes a quarterly count of employment
and wages reported by employers covering 98 percent of U S jobs, available at the county, MSA, state and national
levels by industry.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict 18
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
.,~
On that basis, a long-term forecast for employment that shows very little or no growth
based on recent events is not reasonable or likely. Instead, the average change over
the past eight years is a more instructive guide,
The Consultant has utilized the average annual employment growth rate for all
industries shown in Table 3.3.1 above (1.93%) to forecast employment growth for
office employees in the trade area. Because the rate takes into account declining
industries (natural resources and mining), while at the same time office based
industries have been expanding, the Consultant feels it in no way overstates growth for
the long-term,
Having developed a forecast for the number of workers that occupy office space in the
trade area, the next step is to estimate the office space requirement per employee.
The Fiscal Impact Analysis Model ("FIAM") - as maintained by Collier County long
range planning staff and adopted for use by the Board of County Commissioners
utilizes - the following office square foot per employee parameters: Office One-Story -
300 sqft per employee, Office Class A - 350 square feet per employee, and Medical
Office 250 square feet per employee. For this analysis the Consultant has utilized 325
square feet per employee - the average of the One-Story and Class A office
requirements.
3.4
Demand for Office Space
.,-',.
Based on the material presented in the sections above, Table 3.4.1 shows the demand
for office space within the 20-minute trade area.
Table 3.4.1 Demand for Office Space in Project's Market
2008 2010 2020 2030
(1) Total Trade Area Emolovment 120,640 125,297 148,583 171,869
(2) % Occu Ino Office Soace 18.45% 18.45% 18.45% 18.45%
131 Total Emolo ed in Office S ace 22,258 23,117 27,413 31,709
(4) A VG Office S ft ner Em . Re uirement 325 325 325 325
(5) Total Trade Area Office Demand IS ft\ 7,233,688 7,512,939 8,909,194 10,305,449
(1) Total employees from Table 3.2.1 forecasted at annual growth rate from Table 3.2.2
(2) % of Total Emp. In Office from Table 3.2.1
(3) (1) multiplied by (2)
(4) Collier County Fiscal Impact AnalYSIS Model
(5) (3) mulliplied by (4)
As the table shows, in 2008 there is a total demand for 7.2-million square feet of office
space within the 20-minute trade area, This figure is expected to grow to 10.3-million
by 2030.
,--"".
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
19
-
.
--.."-' ,.
,_.,.,. ,.k~~,_".=.. 'U~,'_"'''
. "_~O"'_"'~"__"_"'''_''''~___'___''_'''_''W.'_.________
4.0 Comparison of Supply-to-Demand
4.1 Supply/Demand Comparison and the Allocation Ratio
The sections above quantify the supply of, and demand for, office space within the 20-
minute trade area The next step is to compare the two. Because of the length of the
analysis horizon and the fact that the supply calculation In Section 2.0 takes into
account lands that mayor may not be developed as office space - or at all, the
comparison is articulated by an 'allocation ratioS (ratio of supply-to-demand). For this
analysis, the minimum acceptable level for the allocation ratio is 2.0 (Refer to
Appendix #4 for a memorandum prepared and previously transmitted to the
Collier County Planning Commission on the use of Allocation Ratios).
Table 4.1.1 provides a comparison of the office supply determined in Section 2.0 and
the projected office demand determined in Section 3.0.
Table 4,1,1 Office Need in Project's Market
Commercial Office
---I
--- 2008 I --- --_._-~
2010 2020 2030
.. M" ----"------
- --------------... --
7.233.688 7,51 2.939 8,909194 , 1O,305,449
-
, " , .j" "J["'" I 1 2 C]-q (ij5) 1 :J:q UYi)
, 'c, '. y',1<-l U J' I ,
- . . '"
-----------~.-
I
-- - ___u....,,_._. .' .., _"._ .------1'-----
1.79 1.72 1,45 1 ,26
'" ..--...-------...------ ----- -..--- _____J
1 Markel Office Demand gur:nl~I.!:J_t_I.Y_~_____________
(21 ~ply Net GLA (Sq Ftl________
Allocation Ratio
(1) Table 34 1
(2) Table 2.31
(3) (3) divided by (2)
I 1Demi!nd)
The table above shows the ratio of the total supply to the total demand equals 1.79,
1.72, 1.45, and 1.26 for the years 2008, 2010. 2020, and 2030 respectively. This
comparison converts all vacant and potential acres and assumes full development
within the market.
Currently the office allocation is sufficiently below the minimum desired level of 2.0. By
2030, the allocation ratio is expected to drop to 1.26 indicating a tight relationship
between the demand for, and the supply of, office space. As the situation currently
stands there is an insufficient degree of flexibility in this market's ability to
accommodate office demand The lack of available supply will artificially constrain the
market and raise prices in the short- to mid-term It IS important to note that the 2.0
supply-to-demand ratio represents a sufficient over-allocation of land to ensure proper
market functioning. The additional lands are needed to maintain market level pricing,
account for the likelihood that certain lands will not be introduced to the market over
the forecast horizon or may be subject to other future ownership or environmental
constraints.
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs AnalYSIS - Updated 10-15-09
20
-_.
5.0
-
".._----~
Based on this analysis, there is a clear and compelling case for adding additional
commercial-office designated land to this market. As noted here, this market's office
allocation ratio will decrease to 1.26 by 2030. It is just these types of situations that
make it good planning policy to have a sufficiently high ratio to accommodate the
expected demand in a meaningful fashion over such a long planning horizon.
Conclusions Concerning the Proposed Amendment
Taking into account all developed, vacant, and FLUM designated commercial land in
the market, there is not a reasonable degree of flexibility in the market's ability to
accommodate future office demand. The 2030 office allocation ratio of 1,26 indicates
an extremely tight relationship between the demand for, and the supply of, office space
in the future. Any ratio below the minimum desired level of 2.0 warrants the addition of
new office land to the market. The Project's location provides the access and visibility
that are required for this type of development.
The under-allocation of suitable office property supports the need for the additional
office acreage.
(Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank)
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
21
,. . _,~._.._, ._.__,,_.'_'_' ,__e, -- "___^_.,_"___,._,,,.,_. ..,,__~___~
_~.., u__~.
A endix #1 - Ma of 20-Minute Drive Time Trade Area
R 2::, E
, -.,
'\ , ,
'~. .
,
. ,
,
, , ,
12([
i
I
,
r--~
,
T27E
,
PlANNED
UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS,
~-
,..----_.~---
tu
,
,
.--
--
-'-' -
,
"
, '
..
w
ro
~
r
--
--
-_.
-
------
_._4,,:"_
-
,-
-
~----
I
I
i
.
il
.
--'-----..,-
,
- -I
,
,
I
I
,
I"
I
I
In
'--
- ----.
------
,
,
- i
~ . ,""'''''-
.~'''-''-
-
,
,
.
,
.
w
,'--
0,
"
r
'-""'I .-.-
,.--t- .
. _..'
, '
I ~
~
, -.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
..... ~ ".
,
\
I
.
r
,
j"' ,
I
f-
-~'-'-"-'-
--+-
--f-
,
i
,
I
,
,
I
)
'1
. 'JJ' '~ti,
'. ,
,-
-- .-
,
u
o
~.
f-
L----'."
..
; COMMERICAl AND
I INOU STRlAl
ZONIIIG
------;
,,-
.
,
,
,
-, "
---
-..-
Legend
,
,
I
.--j
,
w
, ~LT
Lt!goend
.
('. So. ~~,.
"
r
Pl:CC:.W!.ifR.::::AL
_F'IJCIl'[L1S~RI~
_1',::US-RIt..L
_:::-0)_:-,:0,::11..,[
0- ,_-.,. I'
'f' ,!
'-
.
[-~-''-'-'''-': '
-'-'
-'\-.....
"
1.
3
,
.
,~
-,--
,
..,..,...........
Source. Fishkmd & Associates, Inc based on Collier County PUD, Commercial. and Industrial zoning map
(Effective date 3-25-091
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
22
,.._"
Appendix #2 - I-Site Census-based Household Trend Report
20-Minute Drive Time Trade Area
To\<llEmployees
TotalEstablishme~ts
WhiteCollarOccupatio~s
Occupatio~ Executive
Occupation: Professional Specialty Occupations
Occupatio~ Sales Prolessiorl8ls
Occupabon TechrlOlogles and TechnlCklns
Occupahon.SalesWorkersa~dClerks
Occupation AdministraliveSupportWorkers
Occupation: Technical. Sales and Administrative Field Ol::cupatio
Blue Collar Occupations
Occupation PrrvateHouseMldServlces
Occupa1io~: Protective Services
Occupatio~ OtherServicesSrte Based
OccupatIOn Other Services Field Based
Occupatio~ Farming, Forestry a~d Fishi~g
OccupatIOn Precislo~, Crall. a~d Repair: Site Based
OccupahonConstrochon,Repair,andMiningField8ased
Occupation Machine Operators. Assemblers an~ Inspectors
Occupat,on: Transpoo1ationand Materials Moving Workers
Occupation Handlers, Helpers and laborers
Average ESlablishmenlSiz€
MedlanEst.'3blishmentSile
AverageSize.Agricuhure Foreslry Fishing
Average Size: Mining
Average Size Construction
Average Size: Manufacturing
Average Size: Transportahon and Communicalions
Average Size: Wholesale Trade
Average Size Ret.'3ilTrade
Average S lZe F Ina n ce, I ns u r ance a nd R ea I Es 1iltl~
AverageSiZeServoces
Average Size Public Administration
AverageSizeUnclassdied
Employees.Agricultural,Forestry, Fishing {SIC 01-09)
Employees MiningISICHI.14)
Employees, Construclion ISIC 15-17)
Employees, ManufacturinglSIC 20-391
Employees Transpoo1ation and Communications (SIC 40.49)
Empioyees, Wholesale Trade (SIC 50-51)
Employees, Retail Trade (SIC 52.59)
Employees, FinarlCe, Insuanceand Real Estate (SIC 60.691
Employees,Services(SIC70.B9)
Employees, Public Administrabon ISIC 90-98)
Employees, Unclassified {SIC 99)
Eslablishments, Agricullural. Forestry. Fishing ISIC 01-09)
Establ,Shments, Mining {SIC 10-141
Eslablishments, Construct,on(SIC 15-17)
Establishments Manulactunng (SIC 20-39)
Establishments Trans a~d Communicall(lns (SIC 40-49)
EstabliShments Wholesale Trade ISIC 50-51)
Establishments Retail Trade (StC 52-59)
Establishments Finance Ins And ReaIEst~te!SIC60-691
Establishments ServicesISIC70.B9)
Establishments PubhcAdministrationlSIC9ll-9Bi
Establishments Unclassdled ISIC 99)
Employees Building Materials HarlM'are andGarde~
Employees General Merchandise Stores
Employees Food Markets
Employees ConvenienceSlores
Employees Other FoodSlores
Employees: Auto Dealers and GasSL3hons
Employees: Clothing Stores
Emptoyees Furniture Stores
Employees Home Furnish'ngs
Employees Etectronics and computer Stores
Employees MusicSlores
Employees Restaurants
EmpjoyeesDtherFoodService
Employees Bars
Employees OrugStores
EmplOyees LiQuorStores
120640
1-'1575
69,980
1:1,729
14,853
3.711
4,222
11.6011
21627
23f1
49,151
"
2,227
16.529
628
4.416
10.98n
5,55:1
1,941)
3,67~,
},202
BlItl
:\1
837
17
7.9'1
7.44
1262
7.44
1134
566
799
1346
307
2507
FJ
13461
2.831
3.408
3,776
28,688
12.1:J5
45,011
7260
1.49:1
322
q
1570
277
m
515
2,590
1,840
5,285
2.15
5:,6
2,660
2.317
3,243
213
528
2.484
1,651
7~7
734
660
50
8,676
904
1'3
6(J4
68
Employees: Specia~ySjores
Employees: Catalogaod Direct Sales
Employees: Baoks aoo Fioanciallnstitulions
Employees Insurance Carriers
Employees Insurance Agents and Brokers
Employees Real Estate
Empjoyees Hotels and lodging
Employees: Dry Cleaning and laurldry
Employees: Beauty and BarberShops
Employees: Other Personal Service
Employees Advertising
Employees CompulerSe[V,ces
Employees Other Business Services
Employees Au1oRepairl5ervices
Employees Miscellaneous Repair Services
Employees Motion Pictures
Employees Enlerta'nmentaooRecreationServ,ces
Employees Hea"h and Medical S"rvices
Empioyees Hospitals
Employees Le{lalServices
Employees Primary ano Seccmdary Educallon
Employees Colle{les and Unlvers,ties
Employees Oll1e' Education and I.,bfarres
EmDloyees SociatServices
EmDloyees Child Care Services
Emplo\'pes Museums aod Zoos
Employees' MembershiDOrganizations
Empioyees Proless,onalServlces
Employees Governmenl
Emptoyees Unclassified Establishments
Es1abllshments Buildi~g Materials, Hafdware and Gardcn
ESlabllShments Genefal MerChandise Stores
Establishments Food MarKets
Eslabllshments Convenience Stores
ESlablls~menls Olher Food Stores
Establishments: Auto Dealers ,md Gas Stations
Establishments ClotlllngStores
Establishments FurniturcStores
Establishments Home FurniSh'ngs
Establ,shments ElectronicsarrdCon'Dute,SlOres
Establishments Mus,cSlOres
Establishments Restaufams
Establ,shmenls Other FooaService
ESlabliShmenls:Bals
Eslablishments DrugStore',
Establishments' LiQuOIStores
Eslablishments Spec'allyStores
Establishments Calaiog and Oired Sales
Establishments Banks and Financial Instilu1ions
ESTablishments InsuranceCarrie~s
Establishments Insurance Agents and Brokers
Establishments RealEstate
Establls~1l1)ents HotelS and Lodging
EstabliShments Dry Cleaning and Laundry
Establishments Beautyano BarbelS~ops
Establ,shmenls OIl,erPersonalService
ESlabl,sl,ments Advertising
ESlabl,sr,mel1ts ComDutefServices
EsrabliShments OlherBuslnessServices
ESlat,list,menls Auto RepairlServices
E:srabliShments MiscellaneousRepai,Service,
Establishments'MOlionPictures
Eslablishments Entenainme~1 and RecreationServ,ces
Establishments Health and MedwalServlces
Eslabbshments.Hospitals
Establrshments le9alServices
Estabhsl1ments Primarya~dSecondaryEducalion
Establ'sllments Colleges and UniverSities
Establ,shments OtherEducationanoLibrarles
EstabliShments Child Care Services
Establishments Museums and Zoos
Establisllments,Membersh,pOrgaolzations
Establishmeots'ProlessionaISer,ices
ESlabllsl,ments:Government
Establishments: Unclassified ESlablishments
Source: I-Site Census-based Demographics Package; Data Retrieved: 3-25-09
..~~
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
_..--.__.'~'--'~'
-
,_._~.,~...._.,_ r ..... ....'_ ,..
...__._.~,.."._-
2,892
"'
3,860
243
1,059
6,973
2,088
5"'
1.452
729
382
366
3,175
1,195
397
325
4908
5953
9,516
1,697
3,715
279
274
2,541
496
52
1.732
3.247
7,260
1.493
'"
58
53
39
84
"3
267
>40
'40
76
'6
,..
WO
"
'6
"
'"
"
566
54
209
9"
64
W2
354
222
"
96
750
3'0
'"
45
296
1,060
155
389
53
o
55
57
9
273
620
255
536
23
--".-
Appendix #3 - Bureau of Labor Statistics - QCEW Data
(Collier County)
Total Em lovment ,
,
Indust Title 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 200~
. ., -
Construction 14.284 14.255 14,263 16,127 19.724 23.343 18,765 14.508
Education and Health Services 17,076 18,148 18,829 18,713 19.803 20.341 21,654 21,665
- - -,--" --_.~-
Financial Activities 6.055 6,343 6,485 6784 7_541 7.936 7,953 7,153
Information 1,706 1,687 1,683 1814 1,796 1,835 1.764 1.764
Leisure and HOSPitality 17,300 18.257 18.814 19,934 21,840 22.151 23,233 23,160
Manutaclurin 2,908 2,798 2.620 2,812 3226 3.261 3,223 2,873
Natural Resources and Mminn 7,043 7,190 6.714 6.719 6,368 5,593 5,861 5.419
I Other Services 4.706 4.603 5,233
, , 4.561 4,814 , 4,890 4,850 4,919
Professional and BUSiness Services 12.493 13.364 , 14,171 15,374 14.446 15,036 14,171 14,212
Public Administration 4,666 5,008 5,204 5.441 5.492 5.746 6,058 5,919
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 22,031 22432 22,137 22.750 24,015 , 24,633 24,297 23.335
~ ..._-_..._-,'---._.....j.~--
; Unclassified 118 202 126 145 , 183 213 130 134
Grand Total , 110241 114.498 i 115,752 121216 129,324 134,938 132,028 125,375
!
~ -~_._-- -- --i----j ..--_... -',-- ....-..".-.- --
% Chan , i AVG
. ,
, , 2007-200802
2003-2004 , 2004-2005 , Channe
lndust Title 2001-2002 2002-2003 , , 2005-2006 2006-2007
,
Construction -0.20% 0,06% 1307% 2230% 1835% 19,61% -22,69% 1,61%
Education and Health Services ; 375% , -062% 582'\'; 645% 005010 3.49%
628% , 272%
Financial Activities 4,76% 224"1<- ! 4610/0 1-:16%, 5,24% 0.21'/" -1006% 2.59%
----. -
,
Information -111'1;, -024% 778% , -099% 217% -387% 000% 0.53%
,
leisure and Hospitalitv 553% 305% 595'!, , 956';{ 1.42% 488% , o 310ft) 4.30%
Manufactunnq , -378% -6,36'j,; 733'';;, 0472% 108% -1,17% -1086% 0.14%
_____"__"__'"'_4''''' ,
, .--.,,- ---------- ----- -.--.-......-...
, 6.62% I
, Natural Resources and Minln , 209'1" 007%, -522% -12_17% 479% -7,54% -3.51%
-
Other Services 555% '. ' -219% 0-"4'/0 082% , 142% 638% 2.05%
-2,24;<> '
, , , ,
ProfeSSional and Busmess Services 6,97% 604"1" 8.4gek , .604% 4,08% -575% 0,29% 2.01%
-_._-_._.----_._._~ i ---- --
Public Administration 7,33% 391% 455% 094% 4,62% 5.43% -229% 3.50%
I Trade, Transportation_ and Utilities 182% , -1.32% 2.77% 5,56"k 257O/,: -136% -3,96% 0.87%
, I ,
, .37_62% i
, Unclassified 7119'Yc 1508"/0 2621%, 1639% -3897% 308% 7.91%
,
, 1.10% I
I Grand Total 3.86% 4.72% : 6.69% 4.34% , -2.16% -5.04% 1.93%
Source, Bureau of Labor Statistics - OCEW Collier County 2001-2008 - Data Retrieved 4-09-09
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs AnalYSIS - Updated 10-15-09
24
Appendix #4 - Use of the Allocation Ratio
(See Memorandum on Following Page)
~
Golden Gate Parkway Mixed Use Subdistrict
Commercial Office Needs Analysis - Updated 10-15-09
25
.~~~~
".~~.-^,-
""-'___'_~_.___ v, "..-.....
-_._~._,....'--' '....'.....-."----.
-'
FISHKIND
& ASSOCIATES
~ ~ ~ ~
.. ~. L
~ L
L
MEMORANDUM
~~-------~-~-----------_._----- - ---------------------------------------
TO: Mr. Mark Strain
Chairman
Collier County Planning Commission
FROM: G. Russell Weyer
Senior Associate
SUBJECT: Explanation of 2.0 allocation ratio
DATE: October 2,2008
VIA: E-Mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At your request, the following is an explanation of the 2.0 allocation ratio used in the
data and analysis reports we provide to the County during Comprehensive Plan land
use changes.
The explanation begins with the data and analysis requirements in Rule 9J-5 (2). The
rule states the following (with our emphasis added):
"(2) Data and Analyses Requirements.
(a) All goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions within the
comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their
support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the
analyses applicable to each element. 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. Data
or summaries thereof shall not be subject to the compliance review process. However,
the Department will review each comprehensive plan for the purpose of
determining whether the plan is based on the data and analyses described in this
chapter and whether the data were collected and applied in a professionally
acceptable manner. All tables, charts, graphs, maps, figures and data sources, and
their limitations, shall be clearly described where such data occur in the above
documents, Local governments are encouraged to use graphics and other techniques
for making support information more readily useable by the public.
1
..
(b) This chapter shall not be construed to require original data collection by local
government; however, local governments are encouraged to utilize any original data
necessary to update or refine the local government comprehensive plan data base so
long as methodologies are professionally accepted,
(c) Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such
as the United States Census, State Data Center, State University System of
Florida, regional planning councils, water management districts, or existing
technical studies. The data used shall be the best available existing data, unless the
local government desires original data or special studies, Where data augmentation,
updates, or special studies or surveys are deemed necessary by local
government, appropriate methodologies shall be clearly described or referenced
and shall meet professionally accepted standards for such methodologies.
Among the sources available to local governments are those identified in "The Guide to
Local Comprehensive Planning Data Sources" published by the Department in 1989.
Among the sources of data for preliminary identification of wetland locations are the
National Wetland Inventory Maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(d) Primary data sources such as United States Census reports, other government
data documents, local computerized data, and original map sheets used to compile
required maps need not be printed in their entirety within either the support documents
or the comprehensive plan. Summaries of support documents shall be submitted to the
Department along with the comprehensive plan at the time of compliance review to aid
in the Department's determination of compliance and consistency. As a local alternative
to providing data and analyses summaries, complete data and analyses sufficient to
support the comprehensive plan may be submitted to the Department at the time of
compliance review. The Department may require submission of the complete or more
detailed data or analyses during its compliance review if, in the opinion of the
Department, the summaries are insufficient to determine compliance or consistency of
the plan.
(e) The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population
estimates and projections. Resident and seasonal population estimates and projections
shall be either those provided by the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, those provided by the Executive Office of the Governor, or shall be
generated by the local government. If the local government chooses to base its plan on
the figures provided by the University of Florida or the Executive Office of the Governor,
medium range projections should be utilized, If the local government chooses to base
its plan on either low or high range projections provided by the University of Florida or
the Executive Office of the Governor, a detailed description of the rationale for such a
choice shall be included with such projections."
..-
A variety of studies are used when we undertake a needs analysis within the State of
Florida. They are basically broken down into three categories depending on the type of
land use being studied. They are residential needs analysis, commercial needs
analysis and a peculiar needs analysis that economically does not fit the standard
residential and commercial models.
.-
Our analysis has evolved over time with input primarily coming from County Staff with
regard to the analysis at hand. In looking at comprehensive plan changes, we first must
collect the data that goes into the analysis. That data includes population estimates,
existing inventory, approved inventory and potential inventory.
2
,-._---~
--
.
"_.<w_,,' ," _ "~'~'_.__" ,,"'_
._,-~~~--~;-.^-<--- "
_._-._-,---,-
With regard to population estimates, we generally try to use the population data that is
used by the County when and where it is available. Our second source is the
population data from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the
University of Florida. Our third source is I-Site, Site Selection Software, produced by
GeoVue, Inc. These estimates and projections are compiled by Applied Geographic
Solutions, Inc. AGS uses historic Census data from 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000;
USPS and commercial source ZIP+4 level delivery statistics; Census Bureau population
estimates and projections at varying levels of geographic detail; Internal Revenue
Service statistics on tax filers and year-to-year migration; as well as the Census
Bureaus Current Population Survey.
The next required data set pertains to the particular land use we are analyzing. We
primarily utilize the Collier County Property Appraiser data to determine the existing
inventory of that particular land use, the approved inventory of that land use and finally
all of the lands on the Future Land Use Map that have potential for that particular land
use. We have also used data sources provided by Collier County staff such as the
commercial inventory list and the planned unit development list.
We then use a variety of models from retail demand gravity models to office
employment demand models to determine the current and future demand for the land
use type in the designated market area The future demand generally looks out to the
Comprehensive Plan's horizon year, which is currently either 2030 or 2035 depending
on the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and growth management plan horizon year
requirements.
It is at this point of the analysis that has caused an anomaly in determining a true
economic supply and demand result. On the supply side, it is relatively easy to
determine the amount of existing and approved supply from the property appraiser data.
The difficulty lies in the vacant non-approved potential lands. The staff has required us
to take all of those lands that have a commercial or residential overlay on them and
include them as supply by putting a floor area ratio figure to the acreage.
The issue becomes apparent when all of the lands that are not in the existing or
approved category are included in the particular land use analysis. By putting all of the
potential lands in the supply category, the assumption is that all of that land would be
developed as that particular land use and nothing else. For example in the case of the
Airport-Corradi parcel, there were 117 potential commercial parcels totaling 270.68
acres in the 20 minute drive time market (Table 1 on the next page). Those parcels
represent a potential of 1,469,723 square feet of office space,
3
."-,,
Table 1. Current Supply of Vacant, Potential, and Existing Commercial-Office
Space in Project's Market
Existi~
# of Parcels 340
Acres 457.97
Sauare Feet 2,549,138
Vacant
# of Parcels 523
Acres 1092.59
S,guare Feet 6,075,006
Potential
# of Parcels 117
Acres 270.68
~are Feet' 1,469,723
Total
# of Parcels 980
Acres 1821.24
L2g,uare Feet 10,093,867
Source: Collier County Property Appraiser
*Assumed 5,430 square feet per acre based on market average
-
There are a number of flaws in the representation of total capacity (supply) which
suggest a greater number of acres be designated in the Comprehensive Plan than
would be indicated simply by an analysis of forecast demand. First, all of those vacant
approved parcels and parcels designated by the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") as
having the potential to be developed as office, in reality, also have the potential to be
retail space or some other commercial use. The same parcels are also counted as
competing supply when a commercial needs analysis is performed for another
commercial use, To include these lands in both retail and office analyses would be
double counting the supply. These lands will actually be developed as the market
demand dictates, with some lands used for office and the remainder for retail and other
permissible uses. A general economic principal states that all markets are efficient and
that supply for the most part is generated as demand dictates. It is a rare situation
where supply generates demand.
.~--
Second, though the lands in question are designated with a FLUM category, this does
not mean that 100% of these lands are developable. Within these lands there may be
wetland areas, conservation areas, water bodies, incompatible adjacent uses, policy
setback requirements, drainage. and road requirements and infrastructure or access
constraints, As a result of these and other myriad conditions, the maximum
density/intensity of lands designated through the FLUM does not represent the holding
capacity of these lands. Typically, development thresholds are found to be from 50% to
75% of maximum allowable density due to the physical characteristics of the land.
4
,_._~-
_..~~,.~....
---.. ,-_.~- ".,'
,-------,---,<-~-~
Third, while lands are designated with a FLUM land use, there is no requirement they
be used at allover the planning horizon, Many properties are held in land bank trusts,
held by absentee owners, held in estate transfer litigation or held in family ownership
with no intent or desire to use or sell the land. Florida and Collier County in particular
have very large tracts of land held in long term family trusts where lands are not
developed or are purposefully held off the market. In these and other similar instances,
a land use designation on the FLUM does not assure the capacity allocated to these
lands will be available to accommodate future growth within the planning horizon of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Fourth, even if all the lands designated were developable and available it would be
inappropriate to limit supply to exactly the level of forecast demand, represented by a
ratio of 1: 1 where there is one acre of land supply allocated for every acre of land
demand identified. Doing so would limit choices, limit market flexibility and constrain the
market. Constraining supply will drive prices artificially high and decrease the
attractiveness of the market due to price. For example in choosing a new home one
does not typically look at only one house in the selection process. The selection
process may involve multiple properties, perhaps a dozen or more. So too for
commercial land investments, choice and flexibility are required in the selection
process.
Fifth, the supply of land is determined and allocated such that it will accommodate the
forecast demand. The forecast demand is most often based on population forecasts
provided by the University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research
(BEBR). Research has shown the BEBR forecasts to be highly accurate in locations
where the local economic structure does not change substantially over time, In
locations where structural change does occur, the error rate for BEBR medium
forecasts can be from 30% to more than 100% too low in terms of forecasting
population levels over a 25 year forecast period. Rapidly growing locations, locations
which benefit from major highway or interstate expansions, locations which benefit from
enhanced airport facilities and locations which benefit from major employer locations
are all examples of conditions which represent structural change and tend to result in
faster population growth than is forecast in the BEBR projections. Collier County is
subject to these structural change forces, and as such, it can be expected that BEBR
forecasts will have a comparatively higher degree of error than in other locations across
the State. This supports the need for additional flexibility in the allocation of
developable land to accommodate a higher probability of population forecast error.
Table 2 on the next page documents the analysis of forecast error findings.
5
,-
Table 2. Comparison of Long-Term Population Projections.
-'--,"'~--""-'-' ,-,- -.-., ~,~..,_.._~._.- ~-_._._.-._~,~.-
~-_._~._-
1975 BEBR Year 2000
~ections for 2000 Actual Variance
Flagler 21,700 49,832 -129.6%
81. Johns 71,000 123,135 -73.4%
Lake 143,300 210,527 -46.9%
Marion 191,000 258,916 -35.6%
SI. Lucie 149,800 192,695 -28.6%
-,- ---- --
DeSoto 36,700 32,209 12.2%
Highlands 81,400 87,366 -7.3%
Polk 471,300 483,924 -2.7%
Pasco 343,600 344,768 -0.3%
- -- -- .---. --------
Counties with Shift Total 576,800 835,105 -44.8%
Counties without Shift Total 933,000 948,267 -1.6%
----.,.., ._.,_..~~~..,~...,.,_.,..,~..__.,,~..,--~-,.~_.~._~....,.,.,-_.'-~----~~'- - ~--,,-, ,-~"
Source Projections of Florida Population Bulletin 33, June 1975, U. FL and US Census 2000
Counties
with
Structural
Shift
--
Counties
without
Structural
Shift
These conditions have been well documented and supported in administrative hearings.
In the course of the evolution of Florida's comprehensive planning process, allocation of
land in the FLUM often exceeds the 1:1 ratio In general, the allocation ratio of between
2,0 and 2,5 has been determined to be a reasonable level, has been supported in
administrative legal hearings and has been implicitly adopted in comprehensive plans
across the State.
.-..
To account for the conditions described above, comprehensive plan FLUMs typically
represent an allocation of acres for land use by category in excess of a 1: 1 allocation
ratio, The allocation ratio measures the amount of additional acreage required in
relation to the directly utilized acreage over the course of development in the jurisdiction
to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. For the
reasons discussed, the additional acreage is required in order to maintain market level
pricing, to account for the likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market
for sale during the forecast horizon, and that the property will develop at historic
average densities, not maximum allowable densities, or may be subject to future
environmental or other constraints. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be
considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed,
-
As a result of these discussions, analyses and rulings, growth management practices
have evolved such that the greater the time horizon of the comprehensive plan, the
greater the allocation ratio needed to maintain flexibility of the comprehensive plan,
Other factors that influence the residential acreage allocation ratio are the nature and
speed of the developing area and the area's general exposure to growth trends in the
market as shown in the discussion regarding population forecasts and structural
change. Fishkind believes that to ensure proper flexibility in the comprehensive plan of
a rapidly growing county like Collier, a commercial allocation ratio in the range of 2.0 is
necessary to maintain planning flexibility and to account for the multiple sets of
conditions which might otherwise restrict land usage,
6
, .......
. -
_........... ,'."",.-....--',-. - --- -
.. ," ----~. ..~ _. ,
,.
, ,
Although the allocation ratio figure has fluctuated over time depending on who is
reviewing the amendment at the state level, Fishkind's recent experience with the
Florida Department of Community Affairs indicates that the DCA has seen and
approved allocation ratios in the 1.8 to 2.4 range and in some cases even larger
allocation ratios for longer forecast horizons. Otherwise, if allocation ratios are not used
in the analysis, the likely outcome is the Comprehensive Plan will fail to adequately
accommodate growth resulting in higher than normal land prices, constrained economic
development and a less efficient pattern of growth which results from market inflexibility
due to lack of investment choices.
7
-~.
FISHKIND
& ASSOCIATES
~ lL. ~. ~
......~
..... k..
~
MEMORANDUM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Mr. Mark Strain
Chairman
Collier County Planning Commission
FROM: G, Russell Weyer
Senior Associate
SUBJECT: Examples of 2.0 Allocation Ratio Acceptance
DATE: October 2,2008
..
VIA: E-Mail
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark,
You have asked for specific examples where the Allocation Ratio measurement
has been used elsewhere. Here is one example of a legal case and two other
examples in Florida where is has been approved and accepted by both the local
jurisdiction and in some cases the Department of Community Affairs.
Panhandle Citizens Coalition Inc. versus Department of Community Affairs
In the matter Panhandle Citizens Coalition Inc. (PCC) vs, Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), a petition was filed by PCC to challenge DCA's finding
that the West Bay Detailed Specific Area Plan (WB DSAP) was in compliance as
an amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan. The findings of fact in this
case include item #92 which reads:
-
"In addition to projecting population growth and assessing capacity to
accommodate growth an allocation needs ratio (or multiplier) is necessary to
ensure housing affordability and variety in the market; otherwise, the supply
and demand relationship is too tight, which may cause a rapid escalation of
housing prices. Because the farther in time a local government projects
growth, the less accurate those projections tend to be, actual need is
multiplied by an allocation needs ratio to produce an additional increment of
residential land to accommodate this potential error."
1
,.-.---
-
. .. . _._---_."'~- .,- ,--,,--_.,,-,~..
"'_..
-" -.."
_._..,-~,-._- ....
Finding #93 states:
"Small Counties that experience above-normal growth rates may use
allocation ratios as high as three more in order to realistically allocate
sufficient buildable land for future growth. The County's allocation ratio of
2.2 before the WB DSAP and FLUM amendments was low from a long term
forecasting perspective. When the WB DSAP amendments are factored into
the allocation ratio, such growth would raise the allocation ratio to 2.3, which
is still relatively low.'.
Further, in finding #94 it is stated:
"A land use plan should allow for sufficient inventory to accommodate
demand and to provide some choice in order to react to economic factors"
The Administrative Law Judge found the proposed land use amendments in compliance
with section 1633184 (1) (b) in part because the demonstration of need with respect to
the allocation ratio indicated the allocation ratio of 2.3 was too low to properly
accommodate projected future growth over the planning horizon.
Acceptance of 2.0 Allocation Ratio in the case of Newberrv Villa~e Retail in
Alachua County
Newberry Village is a development of approximately 250,000 square feet of retail space
in unincorporated Alachua County. A comprehensive plan change was required to
allow for this use in the County. The applicant performed a commercial needs analysis
as a requirement for their data and analysis portion of their application, The analysis is
attached as Exhibit A. The Florida Department of Community Affairs found the plan
amendment compliant with no requests for further data analysis. We have attached the
notification of compliance as Exhibit B.
City of Leesburq, Florida implicit Allocation Ratio
The City of Leesburg, Florida has an adopted comprehensive plan where the implicit
residential allocation ratio of 2.5 is embedded in the plan. The estimated land
requirement projections are found in the approved 2003 Housing Element of the
Leesburg Comprehensive Plan on page 111-17. The Housing Element of the Leesburg
Comprehensive Plan indicates an allocation ratio of 2.5 in the following passage:
"Based on figures provided by the Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, a total of
8,295 dwelling units will be needed to serve the household population of the City by
year 2010"".,the City will be able to accommodate approximately 13,292 additional
units, for a total of 21,031 residential units by 2010."
2
,"-.
Given the 2010 demand for 8,295 units and 21,031 unit capacity, the empirical
allocation ratio found is 2.5 in the current and approved 2003 Leesburg Comprehensive
Plan Housing Element.
Allocation Ratios of other Florida Counties with updated Comprehensive Plans
Allocation ratios are not only used in analyzing commercial comprehensive plan
amendment changes, The ratios are also used in analyzing residential comprehensive
plan amendment changes as noted here and in the City of Leesburg, Florida above. In
reviewing a number of needs analysis reports submitted for residential comprehensive
plan amendment changes around the state, Fishkind has discovered that there are
number of counties across the state that have substantial allocation ratios that are
embedded in their comprehensive plans.
Fishkind has analyzed allocation ratios in counties across the state with recently
updated comprehensive plans that have been approved by the Department of
Community Affairs. As shown in Table 5.6.1, the future land use maps of these
counties contain allocation ratios that are consistent with those suggested by Fishkind,
Table 5.6.1.
Allocation Ratios in other Florida Counties
_, __",_'__'_' ~._,.__~.___ .,..... ~.. .. ,.......'" ".-. ... .__._..,...~.__.~.._".__~"._".____~_"___'_~'~.~~___'_'''''...,,___.___4
County
Hendry
SI. Johns
Nassau
Martin
Indian River
_~ _ "'~__"~"_"___"'_"_'_~"__'~'_" .,.._ ~~ "~~~_,"_,'W"____~
Source: Fishkind and Associates, Inc.
Allocation Ratio
5.38
3.08
4.54
3.92
4.62
Forecast Horizon (years)
15
15
15
15
20
,_....__....._,_.. '''.___..~.. .._. _~___n.._._', __~~_..., ~_." ..._..,. ~.~...__.., ....
The counties noted above have incorporated significant allocation ratios into their
comprehensive plans to adequately accommodate growth and limit higher than normal
land prices, constrained economic development and less efficient patterns of growth
which result from market inflexibility due to lack of investment choices.
3
. .
-_..-"
--'_......."-,"-~
.
-", ,
EXHIBIT A
Newberry Village Retail Needs Analysis
,__n_
Newberry Village
Retail Needs Analysis
,,-~.
Prepared For:
NewUrban WORKS Development
Prepared By:
Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
12501 Corporate Blvd.
Orlando, Florida 32817
(407) 382-3256
October 25, 2005
,~--
._- ---
"
., ..... ",_,,",'"''''m'~_,_''''' ,., ,u...,_ ,.,."" "
.........~...._,.
Table Of Contents
Section Title
Page
1.0 Introduction. ..... .... ..... ...... .... ....................... .......... .............. 1
2.0 Current market Conditions..................................................... 2
3.0 Community-Type Retail Allocation Ratio................................ 3
4.0 Need for Additional Community-Type Retail Zoning ......... 3
5.0 Conclusion.. .... ................ .... ............ ............. ....... ................ 4
Appendix 1 - Existing Competitive Supply
Appendix 2 - Vacant Future Supply
Appendix 3 - 20 Minute Drive Time Demographics
II
'-".
p.'--
"~--
'~'_.-- ,.
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This report analyzes the need to amend the Alachua County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the proposed Newberry Village
development. The development program calls for development of
approximately 250,000 square feet of retail space in unincorporated
Alachua County.
1.2 Overview of needs analysis
In the context of amending the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
Alachua County the applicant must demonstrate the need to amend the
plan. Typically, this takes the form of a comparison of:
. The supply of existing land currently planned for retail uses
. The demand for retail lands based on market conditions
The applicant must determine whether there is sufficient supply of retail
land in the Plan to accommodate future retail space demand. The
analysis was conducted based on a 20 minute drive time market area
surrounding the project site, comparing demand and supply, both existing
and future, within the project market area. The retail market study further
considered both demand and supply for community-type retail space only.
Figure 1 shows the 20 minute drive time market area
Fi ure 1 - 20 Minute Drive Time Market Area
,
,
,..."..,
..~.. ..
...
. .
.
,
Page 1 of 8
" ..
.. .-.-.".'"'.''''' ~"'''---'---'.,'''''" ..."."...--
--,-~,,>....._.~,,~ -".-., .._--"., . ".-'--,-
-
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
2.0 Current Market Conditions
2.1 Existing Supply
The community-type retail supply in the market was determined using the
US Shopping Center directory, listing community type retail centers in
Alachua County. Based on a gravity model of retail shopping patterns,
calibrated for local market conditions, Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
determined the effective competitive retail square footage surrounding the
site, applicable to the subject location. Of 1.6 million square feet of
community type retail space within 20 minutes of the site, Fishkind
determined 1.3 million square feet of this existing supply directly competes
with community type retail space at the subject site. Appendix 1 lists the
existing competitive community-type shopping centers within 20 a minute
drive time of the site, the square feet associated with each center, and its
competitive characteristics based on the market conditions.
2.2 Future Supply
To determine future supply, Fishkind & Associates, Inc. examined all
vacant commercial parcels within the 20 minute market area. Vacant
commercial parcels as designated by the Property Appraiser were then
checked for current zoning. Parcels with current zoning of Business (BR),
highway oriented business (BH), and Automotive (BA) were determined to
represent competitive vacant supply.
The analysis showed there are 38 vacant parcels meeting the criteria for
future competitive supply. The criteria include, vacant parcels having the
required zoning, and of sufficient size to accommodate community-type
retail space, meaning parcels generally greater than 10 acres and less
than 30 acres in size Parcels with proper zoning in excess of 30 acres
were excluded, as these more appropriately accommodate regional-type
retail demand. Parcels with proper zoning under 10 acres were excluded
as these more appropriately accommodate neighborhood-type retail
demand.
Numerous parcels under 10 acres were also included in the analysis as
these are parcels with adjacency allowing combined parcel sizes of
approximately 10 acres or greater. The sum total of competitive sites is
215 acres. An additional 57.7 acres were added to the supply based on
further planning analysis of properties which appear to qualify for
community type capacity. The vacant competitive supply is 272.7 acres.
At .18 FAR this translates to potential future community-type retail supply
of 2.1 million square feet, within the Newberry Village market area. The
combined existing competitive supply plus future supply equals 3.4 million
FlSH"""
Page 2 of 8
";'
. . .
. ,
.
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
.,--
square feet of Community-type retail space capacity in the Newberry
Village market area, through year 2020. Appendix 2 shows the list of
parcels designated for future community type supply. No representations
are made as to the availability for sale or whether there is owner intention
to develop the vacant lands at any time in the future. Because there is no
assurance as to whether these lands will be developed, a market flexibility
factor (allocation ratio) must be included to assure proper supply over the
long term.
2,3 Community-Type Retail Space Demand
The market analysis shows there are 76,090 households within the 20
minute drive time surrounding the site, as of 2005 (see appendix 3).
Average household income is $45,260. This generates community-type
retail demand of 1.6 million square feet of space as of year 2005.
Household growth to year 2020 is expected to raise market area
households to 96,208 households and 2.0 million square feet of demand
by year 2020.
3.0 Community-Type Retail Allocation Ratio
The community-type retail allocation ratio in the Newberry Village market
area is 1.7. This is determined by dividing the 3.4 million square feet of
supply/capacity by the 2.0 million square feet of demand, through the
planning horizon year of 2020, The addition of 250,000 square feet of
retail space through the proposed Newberry Village retail land use change
results in a marginal increase in the overall Plan allocation ratio from 1.7
to 1.8.
Fishkind & Associates believes an allocation ratio of under 2,0 leaves
insufficient flexibility to accommodate long term retail space needs. Table
1 shows the supply/demand calculation and resulting allocation ratio.
Table 1- 2020 Summary Community Retail Market Conditions
Vacant Community Retail Acres 272.7
Future Community SO FT. Supply 2,138,043
Existing Competitive Supply 1,266,947
TOTAL SUPPLY 3,404,990
Proposed Newberry Village 250,000
Total Demand 2,045,865
Community Commercial Allocation Ratio 1.8
-
.......,
~ l " i
"-"..
"
.
Page 3 of 8
.",---,~-'
, " ",'-'-".~--' ."
~,~. R_""~~"____""
-"-"'-'~----'--~- .
..-- ---,-' ..
.
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
4.0 Need for Additional Community-Type Retail Zoning
With the revised allocation ratio so low in the Newberry Village market
area, there is a need for additional retail capacity to be allocated for the
long-term.
4.2 Acceptable Over-Allocation Ratio
The Department of community Affairs has indicated an acceptable over-
allocation rate for future land use planning purposes is 2.0. Many
communities have considerably higher allocations for retail land uses.
The Newberry Village market area has a current allocation ratio of 1.7.
The addition of 250,000 square feet of community-type retail space in the
proposed project will increase the allocation ratio to 1.8, leaving the
market below 2.0 and only slightly above the original County allocation.
5.0 Conclusion
Newberry Village has petitioned Alachua County to revise the
Comprehensive Plan to allow the inclusion of 250,000 square feet of
additional community-type retail space in the Newberry Village market
area. The current analysis of available community-type retail lands
indicates a need for additional retail acres in the market area by year
2020, in order to provide proper long range planning flexibility. This report
concludes there is an under-allocation of available community-type retail
lands in the Newberry Village market area
The conversion of lands to retail uses will still provide the ability of the
remainder of the site to reach 80% of the maximum residential density
allowed under the existing zoning and land use. However, by including
the mixed use component, needed additional retail capacity is provided
while still achieving a high proportion of the maximum residential capacity.
Based on this finding, there is justification to include the Newberry Village
lands in the Future Land Use Map as inventory of future retail lands.
"""""
Page 4 of 8
.,..
.. .
. .
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
APPENDIX 1 - Existing Competitive Supply
SITE %
CENTER NAME GLA DIST COMPETING SF COMPETING
NEWBERRY SQUARE 180,524 0.63 98.01% 176,939
NEWBERRY CROSSING 111,010 1.37 95.68% 106,217
OAKS SQUARE 119,000 1.37 95.68% 113,862
OAKS MALL PLAZA 105,252 1.55 95.12% 100,111
TOWER CENTRE 165,000 192 93.95% 155,018
CENTRAL PLAZA 132,000 10.00 68.97% 91,043
GAINESVILLE SHOPPING CENTER 186,173 1008 68.73% 127,959
GAINESVILLE MALL 289,850 11.02 65.92% 191,077
-
WAL-MART PLAZA 177,766 11.33 65.00% 115,552
WINN DIXIE MARKETPLACE PLAZA 139,337 11.67 64.00% 89,171
TOTAL
1,605,912
1,266,947
-.-
Fl''''''
~L)'..
...
..
.
Page 5 of 8
-
-
-'~~<'.."-.~'<'-"
-",~",".",,-- . ""....
-.,-,~~.."._......,.._._..,~, ,.
.
.^,'_.."~--'-
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
OBJECTID 1
200
89
135
142
277
278
117
118
119
120
121
122
354
355
313
132
353
59
205
100
101
102
315
284
124
285
286
160
10
116
312
314
134
263
152
153
154
316
APPENDIX 2 - Future Vacant Supply
ZONEDISTRI
BH
BP
BH
BH
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BH
BH
BR
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BR
BH
BR
BA
BA
BR
BR
BR
BR
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BR
ZONEDEFIN
Highway Oriented Business (BH)
Business and Professional (BP)
Highway Oriented Business (BH)
Highway Oriented Business (BH)
Business. Retail Sales, and Services (BR)
Business. Retail Sales and Services (BR)
Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR)
BUSiness, Retail Sales. and Services (BR)
Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR)
Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR)
Business. Retail Sales, and Services (BR)
Business. Retail Sales, and Services (SR)
Business, Retail Sales and Services (BR)
Business, Retail Sales. and Services (BR)
Highway Oriented Business (BH)
Highway Oriented Busmess (BHI
Busmess, Retail Sales and Services (BR)
Highway Oriented Busmess (BH)
Highway Oriented Business iBH)
Highway Oriented Business (BH)
Highway Oriented Business (SH)
Highway Oriented Business (BH)
Busmess, Retail Sales, and Services (BR)
Highway Oriented Busmess (BH)
Business. Retail Sales and Services (BR)
Automotive Oriented BUSiness (SA)
Automotive Oriented Business (SA)
Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR)
Business, Retail Sales and Services (BR)
Busmess, Retail Sales, and Services (BR)
Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR)
Highway Oriented Business {BH}
Highway Oriented Business (SH)
Highway Oriented Business (BH)
Highway Oriented Busmess (BH)
Highway Oriented Business (BH)
Highway Oriented Business (BH)
Business, Retail Sales, and Services (BR)
PIN
06041-003-001
06041.002-005
06331-002-003
06800.028-000
04344-005~003
04344-005-005
04344-005-003
04344-009-000
04345-003-000
04345-004-000
04345-006-000
04345-010-000
04344-001-000
04345-006-000
04350-005-000
06038-022-000
04345-006-000
04344-001.000
06233-006-001
06331-002.003
06331-005-000
06331-006-000
04350.005-000
04345-006-000
04344-009-000
04344-001-000
04345-006-000
07251-017-000
06655-002-003
04344-009-000
04344-009-000
04350-005-000
06655-015-000
06656-002-008
06331.002-003
06331-005-000
06331.006.000
04350-005-000
CALCACRES
21.8
9.3
6.0
1.0
1.5
4.0
1.5
1.1
0.5
1.0
6.2
0.5
8.6
6.2
9.0
10.5
6.2
8.6
1.3
6.0
2.9
1.0
9.0
6.2
1.1
8.6
6.2
1.2
29.4
1.1
1.1
9.0
4.9
3.4
6.0
2.9
1.0
9.0
215.0
flSH(l~
Page 6 of 8
j",
.,>
. ,
SQFT
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
0.000000
0.000000
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
0.000000
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
0.000000
0.000000
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
0.000000
0.000000
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
0.000000
0.0 '0
O.OL. .JC
O.OOOOOC
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
O.OOOOOC
--
._.
.-
_.
"
-
Newberry Village - Retail Needs Analysis
Appendix 3 - Newberry Village 20 Minute Drive Time Demographics
"""''''
. l . ~
...
..
.
-'
.., .,
,,_.._-"...., ~
......
-
"
Page 7 of 8
Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: -82,430144
Prepared By: FISHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page A-1
10125105
Household Trend Report
SITE NAME
Newberry Village -
20min
TRADE AREA SIZE
VALUE 'Yo
Population
Population (1990) 143.256
Population (2000) 172.121
Population (2005) 174.990
Population (2010) 177 '778
Pct Population Growth ('90-'00) 2015
Pet Population Growth ('00-'05) 167
Pct Population Growth ('05-'10) 159
Geographic Area Size 221 5974
Population Density (2005) 789 68
Daytime Marketplace (2005)
Total Business Establishments 7406
Total Daytime Employment 112,110
Households
Households (1990) 57054
Households (2000) 70015
Households (2005) 76090
Households (2010) 81,946
Married Couple Family With Children (2005) 11.417 150%
Gender (2005)
Male (2005) 85 523 48 9%
Female (2005) 89,466 51 1 %
Race & Ethnicity (2005)
Race White (2005) 128.502 734%
Race' Black (2005) 31825 182%
Race Asian or Pacific Islander (2005) 7.914 45%
Race: Other Race (2005) 3,122 18%
Race: Two or More Races (2005) 3627 21%
Ethnleity. HispaniC (2005) 11,907 68%
Age Distribution (2005)
Age 0-4 (2005) 9448 54%
Age 5-9 (2005) 8564 49%
Age 10-13 (2005) 7049 40%
Age 14-17 (2005) 8.516 49%
Age 18-24 (2005) 30,904 177%
Age 25-34 (2005) 40.035 22.9%
Age 35-44 (2005) 19.947 1140/0
Age 45-54 (2005) 19.857 113%
Age 55-64 (2005) 13,756 7,9%
Age 65-74 (2005) 8,384 48%
Age 75-84 (2005) 5.839 33%
Age 85+ (2005) 2.288 13%
Traff.c Sethf"'lgs, Heavy, Trilvel Speed~ 3L15D,b5,LD,3C',40
Source: AGS
Report Created with iSITE, Version: 2005.01,16
Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: -82.430144
Prepared By: FISHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page A.2
10/25/05
.,~"
Household Trend Report
SITE NAME'
TRADE AREA SIZE
Newberry Village -
20min
,,~_.
VALUE %
Median Age
Median Age (2005) 31.31
Median Household Income
Median Household Income (1990) 24.711
Median Household Income (2000) 34,389
Median Household Income (2005) 37,442
Median Household Income (2010) 41,571
Per Capita Income
Per Capita Income (1990) 12,221
Per Capita Income (2000) 17.795
Per Capita Income (2005) 20,389
Per Capita Income (2010) 23,469
Average Household Income
Average Household Income (1990) 30.686
Average Household Income (2000) 43.960
Average Household Income (2005) 45,268
Average Household Income (2010) 49,184
Median Disposable Income
Median Disposable Income (2005) 32,082
Aggregate Income
Aggregate Income ($MM) (2005) 3.567.80
Income Distribution (2005)
HH Inc. $ 0 - $ 15k (2005) 20,65727.1%
HH Inc. $15 - $ 25k (2005) 10.641 14.0%
HH Inc. $25 - $ 35k (2005) 8.865 117%
HH Inc. $35 - $ 50k (2005) 10.143 13.3%
HH Inc. $50 - $ 75k (2005) 10,976 14.4%
HH Inc. $75 - $100k (2005) 6,092 8.0%
HH Inc. $100k - $150 (2005) 5,471 7.2%
HH Inc. $150 - $200k (2005) 1,608 2.1%
HH Inc. $200K+ (2005) 1.637 2.2%
Employment By Industry (2000)
Employment Status' Total Labor Force 90,720 52.7%
Employment Status: Employed 83,786 48.7%
Industry: Agriculture (2000) 505 0.6%
Industry: Mining (2000) 12 0.0%
Industry: Construction (2000) 3.550 4.2%
Industry: Manufacturing (2000) 2.804 3.3%
Industry: Wholesale Trade (2000) 1,237 1.5%
Industry. Retail Trade (2000) 9.348 11.2%
Industry' Transport. and Warehousing (2000) 1,444 1.7%
Industry: Utilities (2000) 714 0.9%
Traffic Settings: Heavy, Travel Speeds: 30,50,65.20,30,40
,,'~
Source: AGS
Report Created with iSITE, Version: 2005.01.16
-_.._-<._---~
_.- _.~
.-...-_._..."~,^-",,, -_.__....'_.~."-' , ."----.__...__.,.........,=--~,-=--"'.....-
..
._---
Site Location: Lat: 29.661634 Lon: .82.430144
Prepared By: FISHKIND AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page A.3
10/25105
Household Trend Report
SITE NAME
TRADE AREA SIZE
Newberry Village -
20mi"
TrafficSeltings Heavy. Travel Speeds: 30.50,65.20.30.40
VALUE %
Employment By Industry (2000)
Industry Information Services (2000) 2.640 3.2%
Industry Finance and Insurance (2000) 3,076 37%
Industry Real Estate (2000) 1.635 20%
Industry Professional Services (2000) 4,721 56%
Industry Management (2000) 16 0,0%
Industry Admin Services And Waste Mgmnt (2000) 2.296 27%
Industry. Educational Services (2000) 18,924 226%
Industry. Health Care and Social AssIst. (2000) 13.505 161%
Industry: Arts, Entertainment and Recreation (2000) 1.567 19%
Industry' Food and Hospitality Services (2000) 7.821 93%
Industry Other Services. except public (2000) 3,815 46%
Industry. Public Admlnstration (2000) 4.156 5,0%
Housing (2000)
Housing Units (2000) 76.020
Housing Units, Occupied (2000) 70,015 921%.
Housing Units, Vacant (2000) 6005 79%
Housing Units, Owner-OccupIed (2000) 33.624 480%
Housing Units Renter-Occupied (2000) 36391 520%
Median Rent (2000) 441
Median Home Value (2000) 99.302
Consumer Expenditures (2005, $/HH)
Total Consumer Expenditures (2005) 40,661 64
Total Retail Expenditures (2005) 17,70870
Educational Attainment (2000)
Education: Less than 9th Grade (2000) 2,903 31%
Education' Some High School (2000) 6492 70%
Education: High School Graduates (2000) 15,973 172%
Educa\lon Some College (2000) 17,634 190%
I
Education Associate's Degree (2000) 9039 97%
;
I
; Education Bachelor's Degree (2000) 20A04 220%
,
I Education Graduate School (2000) 20408 220%
I
Population, Age 25+ (2000) 92852 539%
;
Source: AGS
Report Created with iSITE, Version: 2005.01.16
_.
EXHIBIT B
Newberry Village Retail Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Notice of Compliance
....-
,~, .
.~._..~ ---,,--- .-.......- _._,,' , ...
'. "
" -~.__._-_..-
AK-
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Dedicated to making Flof/da a better place to call home"
CHARLIE CRIST
THOMAS G PELHAM
Se<::retaC";
Gc.,,,,rrCf
lul\ cc. cllOk
rhe Honorahle Rodn~\ 1. l_ong
Chairman. Board of County C(lllllllissinners
,
\Ia~hua Countl
,
PO. Box c877
(jain~s\iIIe. FL 3 "602- "877
RE: Alachua County Adopted Amendment 08-R 1
[)~ar Chairman Long:
fhc D~partm~nt has ~omplet~d its reI I~W Ill' th~ adopt~d Compr~hensi\~ Plan
,\m~ndment (()rdinan~e 'iumher 08-10: DC\ ,\m~ndm~nt 'lumbers 06-2 and 08-Rl) for
.\Iaehua County. as adopted on .\ugust 17. C006 and June 10, C008. and determined that it meets
th~ requirements of Chapter 163. Part II. Flonda Statutes, for eomplianc~, as detined in
Suhsection 163.3184( Illb), Florida Statutes. The Department is issuing a Cumulati\e "iotice of
Intent to find the plan amendment in compliance. The Cumulative "iotiee of Intent was sent to
the (Juinesri//e Sun for publieation on July "3. 2008.
The Department's cumulative notice of intent to lind a plan amendment in complianc~
shall he d~emed to be a tinal order ifno timety petition ~hallenging the amendment is tiled. Any
aflected person may lile a petition with the agency within 21 days ancr the publication of the
notice of intent pursuant lI) Section 163.3184(9). Florida Statutes. 'Jo development orders. or
pennits lor a delelopment, dependent on the amendment may be issued or commence bef()re the
plan amendment takes effect. Please be adl ised that Section 163.3184( 8)(cl2. Florida Statutes.
requires a local government that has an internt't sit~ to post a copy of the Department's Notice of
Int~nt on the site within') d'1\s an,'r r~e~ipt ofth~ mailed copy orthe agency's notice of intent.
Pleas~ note Ihat a copy of th~ adopted Countl ('lI111preh~nsi\e Plan .\mendment. and the
'illtic~ of Intent must he ,1\ ailahle t(lr public inspection \londa\ Ihrllugh Iridal'. ~xcept I(lr legal
h(llid:J:s. Jurin~ npnnal husincs<.; hnurs. ;11 the .\Iachua ('ount)- (iro\\th \.fanagt'rnent ()fficc. 10
S\V ~;Id \\\.:'TlllC. IhlrJ rlunr. (jaim.'s\ilk. ~'lnriJa_ :;:(lOl.(1::94
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVA.RD . TALLA.HASSEE FL 32399-2100
J " ':.: i~ .~
" .< F;'; "
... ". .~ ....
.
~ ::;) .~;:: ]' 1 '
.
'lie b s. I e
,
,..
. CO"'MUNln- PlM,NI....G
. HOUSING AND COMMUNiTY DEVELOP"'ENl
,
.
~"f ,'.
" . <.
The Honorable Rodnev .I. I.ong
JulY 2~, 2008
Pal!e .:
~
.-
If this in compliance determination is l'hallenged by an atTected person. ) ou will ha\e the
l)ption of mediatilll1 pursuant to SubsectionI63.3189(3)(a). Florida Statutes. If \ou choose to
allempt to resotle this mailer Ihwugh mediation, you must tile the request !()r mediation \\ ith the
administrative la\\ judl!e assil!ned bv the lJivisil)n of Administrative Hearinl!s. The choice of
. ~ - ~ -
mediation \\ ill not atkct the right 01 an) pany to an administrative hearing.
If you ha\e any questions. please contact Ana Richmond. Planner. at (850) 9~2-1794.
Sincerely.
J ) Il) J (', ) ^ /
. (01U )- !-J..ftlL<. ~
Mike McDaniel
Chiet: Of1ice of Comprehensive Planning
"!\tar
Enclosure: Notice of Intent
cc: :VIr. SCOIl Koons. AICP. Executi\ e Director, North Central Florida RPC
\Ir. Steven l.achnicht. AICP, Director ofGro\\th \Ianagement
\-Ir. C. David Coffev
.
Mr. Bradley Stith
..,-
..-----,..--.---
~-_.~-~._.-
.-~-_.
.. .~.__.
~ '"'
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMU:-iITY AFFAIRS CUMULATIVE NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND THE
ALACHUA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "\,,\fENDMEl'.T
AND REMEDIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(S) IN COMPLIANCE
DOCKET NO 08-R 1-\i01-0 I 02-(A)-(1)
TI1c Department ISSU~'S thIS cumulatIve notice of IOtent to find the Alachua Count\
Comprchcnsi\ e Plan Amendment adopted bv Ordinance No 06-26 on .\ugust 17.2006 and the remeJlal
amendment(s) adopted bv Ordinance No. 08-10 on June IIJ, 201J8 IN COMPLIANCE. pursuant to
Sections 1633184. ]633187 and 1633189. F S
The adopted A]aehua Countv Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Department's
ObJectiOns, Recommendations, and Comments Report (if any). arc available for public inspection
Monday through Fnday, except for legal holidays. dunng normal busmess hours, at the Alachua Counlv
GrO\vth Management, 10 S.W 2nd Avenue, TIurd Floor, GamesviUe, Florida 32601-6294.
Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3184, FS, has a nght to petition for an
adminis!rative hearing to challenge the proposed agency determination that the Remedial Amendments
are In Compliance, as defined in SubsectIOn 163. 3184( I). FS The p~'tition must be filed within
twenty-one (21) days after publication of this notice, and must include all of the informatIOn and contents
de 'Scribed In Uniform Rule 28-106201. FA C The petitIOn must be filed WIth the Agency Clerk,
Department ofCommuOl!Y Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 and
a copy maIled or delivered to the local government FaIlure to timely file a petition shall constItute a
\Valver of any nght to request an administrative proceeding as a pctltloner under Sections 120. .$69 and
120 57. F S. If a petItion IS filed. the purpose of the administrative heanng will be to present ev idence
and testImony and fomard a recommended order to the Department. If no petItion IS filed, thIS Notice of
Intent shall become final agency actIOn.
If a petition IS filed, other affected persons may petition for leave to intervene in the proceeding
A petItion for Intervention must be filed at least twenty (20) days before the final heanng and must
include all of the informatIOn and contents described in Umform Rule 28-106.205, FA C A petitIOn for
leave to Intervene shall be filed at the DiviSIOn of Administrative Hearings, Department of
Admimstration, 1230 Apalachcc Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Failurc to petItion to
mtervene within the allowed time frame constllIJtes a Waiver of any right sueh a pcrson has to request a
heanng under SectIOns ] 20 '\69 and 120 57. F S. or to participate In the admInistratIVe hearing.
After an aLlministratlVe hcanng p~'1ition IS timely filed. mediatIOn IS available pursuant to
Subsection 163 3 1 89(3)(a), F S, to any affected person "ho is made a party to the proceeding by filing
that request "Ith the admlnlstrallVe law Judge asSIgned by the Di, ISlOn of Administrative f1eanngs. The
choice of mediation shall not affect a party's right to an administratIVe hcanng
'j I /,1 2 1,""/) . ()
. -' L e 1:-1 L, . J ~..Ii..s-i'- ": ,'----"
\lIke "leDamel, ChIef
Dl\'ISlOn of Community Planning
Dc:partmcnt nf Community AffaIrs
255$ Shumard Oak Boule\ard
LllJah:L'iSL'C. Flonda 1.nIN-2IUO