Agenda 09/25/2018 Item #11D09/25/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to direct Staff to prepare amendments to the Growth Management Plan (GMP),
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) based upon the completed public planning process and
direction provided to Staff at three individual workshops conducted with the Board during 2017.
OBJECTIVE: To direct staff to prepare the amendments to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District based
upon the public planning process completed in 2015-16, as well as workshops with the Board conducted
January 3, May 11, and June 20, 2017.
CONSIDERATIONS: On January 3, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) convened a
Workshop to discuss the four area restudies, with emphasis on the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
(RFMUD). Staff presented the RFMUD White Paper (attached), which describes the public process and
rationale for the Initial Recommendations for changes to the Growth Management Plan. The concepts
and recommendations within the White Paper derived from objectives set by the Board in 2015 and
reflect ideas and broad consensus among citizens and stakeholders who donated time, energy and
creativity to the process.
The January 3rd Workshop discussion centered on three pivotal decision points put forward as part of the
initial recommendations:
Whether to increase village and non-village density in support of public goals in Receiving
Lands;
Whether to pursue a “TDR Bank” as a catalyst for the TDR program;
Whether to accept donations of Sending Lands parcels if no other governmental agency is
willing to accept them.
At that time, the Board directed staff to discontinue any further consideration of a TDR Bank. It also
directed staff to provide further data and analysis related to Receiving Lands development patterns and
Sending Lands donations so that additional direction could be provided.
The May 11, 2017 Workshop included additional data and scenario testing and analysis related to land
development patterns for the Board’s consideration. Comparisons of build-out scenarios at different
densities were provided, noting strong public support for mixed-use compact development. Baseline, mid-
range and high-range scenarios provided a basis for comparison of housing diversity, retail, business and
institutional uses, mobility impacts and taxable values.
Receiving area “decision points” such as number of villages and density ranges were supported by a
narrow majority. The Board requested further input and discussion related to infrastructure impacts and a
better understanding of the allowable dwelling units both before and after the 2002 RFMUD Growth
Management Plan Amendments.
Additionally, the May workshop provided an update on the viability of a mitigation bank to support
County Ownership of Sending Lands, which cannot be conveyed to another governmental entity. There
was narrow support for County ownership and for a mitigation bank. Staff was tasked to provide additional
information on agricultural uses, TDR bank alternatives and costs for conservation land management.
The June 20, 2017 workshop provided the Board the opportunity to review specific amendments to the
RFMUD and provide Staff direction on issues relating to the three-land use designations within the
program: Sending, Neutral and Receiving lands. The following were the major recommendations
provided:
11.D
Packet Pg. 495
09/25/2018
1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing business park/employment centers outside of
Villages.
2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the Village Center
and the Research and Technology Park.
3. Modify the TDR requirements:
a. Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily unit.
b. Change from .5 to 0 TDR for defined affordable housing.
4. Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR.
5. Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits
should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property attributes.
6. Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to maintain or expand a bone fide
agricultural operation. In NRPA locations, only passive agricultural operations, excluding
aquaculture, would qualify.
7. Allow landowner’s who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate
in any applicable program changes.
8. Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native
vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements. A permanent easement in
favor of Collier County would be required.
9. Expand concept of donation to a governmental entity to include a not-for profit or land trust if
specifically approved by the BCC.
10. Adopt a standard whereby Collier County agrees to take clear title to land donated by sending
owners in locations where no other public agency is available and willing to take title.
11. Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by perpetual
easements.
Additionally, based upon the feedback provided at the workshops specific concepts are no longer being
pursued. These include the no longer requesting the establishment of a Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) bank or the establishment of a mitigation bank in the North Belle Meade sending area.
Additionally, the concept of a simple majority approval for village development is no longer bei ng
pursued.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is adequate revenue within the FY18-19 Zoning budget to satisfy the GMP
amendment required process.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality. A majority vote is needed
for approval of this Executive Summary. However, an affirmative vote of four is needed for the potential
Growth Management Plan amendments. -HFAC
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The direction provided by Board will initiate the
amendment process for Growth Management Plan related to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.
11.D
Packet Pg. 496
09/25/2018
RECOMMENDATION: To direct staff to prepare amendments to the GMP Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District for transmittal hearings with the CCPC and the Board, based upon the outcome of the public
planning process, as well as the three individual workshops conducted in 2017. Below are the concepts
that the amendments will be based upon:
Promoting economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing business park/employment centers
outside of Villages.
Within a Village, removing the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the Village
Center and the Research and Technology Park.
Modifying the TDR requirements.
Eliminating the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR.
Providing additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits
should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property
attributes.
Making TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to maintain a bone fide
agricultural operation.
Allowing TDR credits in Neutral Lands for agriculture and conservation uses where the
uses are secured by perpetual easements.
Allowing landowner’s who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to
participate in any applicable program changes.
Allowing TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or
native vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements.
Expanding concept of donation to a governmental entity to include a not-for profit or land trust
if specifically approved by the BCC.
Adopting a standard whereby Collier County agrees to take clear title to land donated by
sending owners in locations where no other public agency is available and willing to take title.
Replacing the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base
severance of dwelling unit rights.
Capping the total acreage in villages to existing acreage provided but removing limitation of
number of villages.
Modifying the spatial arrangement of land uses and open space requirements to promote wider
range of housing option.
Develop a policy that requires for a site-specific approach to the South Receiving area,
incorporating the Agricultural TDR credits, Village Density, and Employment Centers in
coordination with Transportation modeling
Prepared by: Mike Bosi, Director, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. [Linked] RFMUD-White-Paper (PDF)
2. RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (PPTX)
11.D
Packet Pg. 497
09/25/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.D
Doc ID: 6486
Item Summary: Recommendation to direct Staff to prepare amendments to the Growth
Management Plan (GMP), Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) based upon the completed public
planning process and direction provided to Staff at three individual workshops conducted with the Board
during 2017. (Mike Bosi, Director, Zoning Division)
Meeting Date: 09/25/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
08/21/2018 3:54 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
08/21/2018 3:54 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 08/21/2018 4:42 PM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 08/22/2018 3:44 PM
Growth Management Department James C French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 08/22/2018 4:28 PM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 08/27/2018 1:58 PM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 08/28/2018 9:51 AM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 08/29/2018 4:37 PM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 08/29/2018 4:39 PM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 09/19/2018 2:27 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 09/25/2018 9:00 AM
11.D
Packet Pg. 498
Seeking direction from the BCC
to bring forwa rd the RFMUD
amendments
Re quested at: January 3, 2017 Workshop
May 11, 2017 BCC Public Hearing
June 20, 2017 BCC Public Hearing
11.D.2
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (6486 : Direction to initiate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District GMP-
Public Outreach
ü Engage residents, landowners and stakeholders under
guidance from the Growth Management Oversight
Committee
ü Coordinate with parallel community efforts
Complementary Land Uses
ü Consider adjoining Future Land Use areas
ü Improve housing diversity and affordability
ü Limit sprawl development/Alternative to Gated Communities
ü Maintain the existing boundaries
ü Incentive based
The RFMUD Restudy Objectives
11.D.2
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (6486 : Direction to initiate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District GMP-
Tr ansportation and Mobility
ü Incentivize development that could provide goods, services and
jobs to reverse and shorten auto trip lengths
ü Consider development pattern that supports viable public transit &
Wa lkability
Environmental Stewardship
ü Prioritize the protection of the Sending areas
ü Assure sufficient compensation for Sending Land owners via TDR
credits
ü Identify agencies for short term and long term maintenance
ü Embrace simplicity where possible to help owners of small Sending
parcels
Economic Vitality and Diversification
ü Balance the TDR credit system
ü Promote economic development and a diversified economy
ü Support community character -placemaking
11.D.2
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (6486 : Direction to initiate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District GMP-
Sending Land ~ Primary Issue
•Without County (Conservation
Collier) ownership of the North
Belle Meade Natural Resource
Protection Area (NRPA) the
RFMUD program does not fullly
accomplish it ’s intended goal and
the recalibration of the TDR
credits to balance the system is
compromised.
11.D.2
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (6486 : Direction to initiate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District GMP-
TDR Credit Ava ilability Imbalance -Re calibration
•There is a long term undersupply
of available and potential TDR’s in
the system, this imbalance has
affected the ability to develop the
receiving lands due to the scarcity
of credits. Additional credits are
being proposed as part of the
proposed amendments.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1
13,400
5,500
Likely Demand vs. Likely Supply
Existing Growth Management Plan
11.D.2
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (6486 : Direction to initiate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District GMP-
Village Density
•The villages density should be increased to max 7 units per acre and the entitlement of a village must allocate the designation of a village center with a minimum commercial square footage requirement and if the need for the fullallocation of commercial does not materialize, the village center can be developed with higher density multi-fa mily development.
11.D.2
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (6486 : Direction to initiate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District GMP-
Southern Receiving Area Approach
•Recognize the need for a site-specific approach to the South Receiving area and add policy to begin the process for a design plan for the area incorporating the proposed Agricultural TDR Credit System, the revised Village Density and Employment Centers within coordination with the land owners and a specific time frame from the date of the RFMUD-amendments being adopted.
11.D.2
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (6486 : Direction to initiate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District GMP-
Concepts no longer being pursued
•No TDR bank or mitigation bank
being recommended to be added
to the program at this point, but
these ideas may make sense at a
future date post GMP
amendments.
•Additionally, concept of simple
majority approval process for
village development will not be
recommended.
11.D.2
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (6486 : Direction to initiate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District GMP-
A.TDR Credit System
1.Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR.
2.Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR
credits should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or
property attributes.
3.Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to continue a bone fide
agricultural operation.
4.Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for
base severance of dwelling unit rights, subject to any additional credits assigned.
5.Allow landowner ’s who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to
participate in any applicable program changes.
6.Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or
native vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements.
7.Allow TDR credits in Neutral Lands for agriculture and conservation uses where the
uses are secured by perpetual easements.
Additional Recommendations
11.D.2
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (6486 : Direction to initiate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District GMP-
1.Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing business
park/employment centers outside of Villages.
2.Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area
limitation of the Village Center and the Research and Te chnology Park.
3.Cap on total acreage on villages, but a remove limitation of number of
villages.
4.Modify the TDR requirements:
a)Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily unit.b)Change from .5 to 0 TDR for defined affordable housing.c)No TDRs for industrial/business park uses.
5.Modify the spatial arrangement of land uses and open space requirements to promote wider range of housing option
Receiving Lands Recommendations
11.D.2
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (6486 : Direction to initiate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District GMP-
Support Documents & To ols
•Community Character Plan
•Master Mobility Plan
•Housing Plan
•Collier Inter-Active Growth Model (CIGM)
11.D.2
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: RFMUD-Forward-9-18-18 (6486 : Direction to initiate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District GMP-
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy
White Paper
Prepared by the Growth Management Department,
Planning and Zoning Division, Community Planning Section Staff
BCC Workshop
January 3, 2017
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper
Table of Contents Page
Section 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………1
Section 2: Background…………………….…………………………………………………………………….………………….……..……..5
Section 3: Planning Process……………………………………………………………………………………….………………………....10
Section 4: Findings and Initial Recommendations…………………………………………………….………………………….. 32
Appendix A: Public Outreach
Appendix B: North Belle Meade Mitigation Feasibility Report
Appendix C: TDR Bank Memo
Appendix D: TDR Supply and Demand
List of Tables
Table 2-1 RFMUD Sending Parcel and Acreage Totals by Area………………………………………………..……………….7
Table 2-2 RFMUD TDR Credits Processed of Pending Process……………………………………………………..…………..8
Table 2-3 Outstanding TDR Credits………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Table 3-1 RFMUD Development Characteristics…………………………………………………………………..………………..23
Table 3-2 Measuring the Mix in the RFMUD Village and RLSA Village…………………………………………………….27
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 RFMUD Sending and Receiving Areas……………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Figure 2-1 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Transactions Sending Parcels to Receiving Projects…....8
Figure 3-1 Sending, Neutral and Receiving Lands Recommendations Survey Results……………..……………..13
Figure 3-2 Committed Highway Projects for Construction by 2020………………………………………….…………….17
Figure 3-3 Freight Activity Centers………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19
Figure 3-4 Transportation Study Areas…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
Figure 3-5 Collier Well-Being Index………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….. 24
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper
Section 1: Introduction
This White Paper provides a conceptual framework to address elements of the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) restudy. The RFMUD restudy is the first of four restudies focused
on eastern Collier County, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on February
10, 2015. Focus areas of all four restudies include complementary land uses, transportation and
mobility, environmental stewardship and economic vitality. As the restudies unfold,
relationships and synergies between the study areas are identified and maximized.
The Community Planning staff in the Zoning Division of the Growth Management Department
provides this document as a first point of direct contact with elected officials to describe the
history and status of the RFMUD (Section 2), the planning process , including outreach and
sources of data and analysis (Section 3), and findings and initial recommendations (Section 4).
This paper is supplemented by appendices of importance at this juncture, final quarter of FY
2016. Appendix A contains summaries of public workshops as well as communications from
stakeholders with their remarks subsequent to our distribution of a first draft of initial
recommendations on July 13, 2016. Appendix B contains a memo from a TDR consultant on the
provision of a County sponsored TDR Bank. Appendix C is the Phase 1 Feasibility Report for a
Mitigation Bank in North Belle Meade.
One reason to bring the RFMUD restudy forward in report form is to lay the groundwork of
information relating to the RFMUD, the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program and the
ideas and perceptions of its stakeholders. Another important reas on is that, given the
complexity of the elements within the RFMUD and TDR program, a conceptual approach should
be a preferred way to begin. Many elements or ideas for change are related to many other
program elements. Often, a change in one aspect of the program echoes in other program
elements. By considering the breadth and scope of potential changes together, a better
understanding of these interrelationships emerges. Put another way, it i s helpful in a program
of this complexity to move from more general concepts at first to more specific proposals later.
As understood by staff at the beginning of this restudy in 2015, the original goals of the
program should be maintained, deriving from the Final Order in 1999, through the assessment
period and adoption of elements and regulations from 2002 to 2004. These include:
Protect wetlands, wildlife and habitat from unrestrained growth
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 1 of 62
Protect agricultural land from premature conversion to other uses
Direct growth potential to appropriate locations
Utilize creative land use planning techniques, including new towns, satellite
communities, clustering, mixed use and open space
Along with retention of the original goals and the geographic (Sending/Neutral/Receiving)
designations that were made, restudy goals also include:
Improve the TDR credit system
o Achieve proper balance of credits (optimize supply and demand)
o Incentivize preservation and stewardship
o Ensure reasonable demand for and availability of credits in Receiving areas
Identify agencies or entities for long term ownership and maintenance
Review and improve development uses, regulations and standards, based on:
o Community values
o Sustainability
o Economic development
o Consistency with area needs, other sub-area needs and County policies
Some of the coordination called for in the course of the restudy requires close collaboration
with other County Departments or outside agencies, often at the expense of a strict adoption
or implementation timetable. For example, planning for affordable hou sing, mobility,
watershed and infrastructure require knowledge and recognition of parallel efforts, each
moving along its own trajectory and timetable. Staff is mindful that interdepartmental and
intergovernmental coordination help yield the optimal result.
The RFMUD contains approximately 77,000 acres; lands designated RFMUD are not contiguous.
One of the interesting observations that emerged early on in the restudy is that there are
significant differences in the character and status of the four main Se nding areas and the four
main Receiving areas.
For consistency, we have labeled the RFMUD sub-areas as follows (see Figure 1-1):
Sending:
North
North Belle Meade- NRPA
North Belle Meade-West
South Belle Meade
Receiving:
North
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 2 of 62
West
North Belle Meade
South
Note that the Findings and Initial Recommendations in Section 4 are conceptual and contain
changes that would be suitable for the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the Land
Development Code (LDC) or both. Following feedback and direction from White Paper
presentations, staff, with consultation from the County Attorney’s Office, will sort through the
appropriate regulatory locations for proposed program changes, and return with specific
amendment proposals for the Growth Management Plan first.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 3 of 62
IMMOKALEE RD COLLIER BLVDDAVIS BLVD
RADIO RD
IMMOKALEE RD E
GOLD EN GATE BLVD LIVINGSTON RD WILSON BLVD TAMIAMI TRL EI 75CR 858
EVERGLADES BLVD DESOTO BLVD I 7 5
RANDALL BLVD
R U R A L F R I N G ERURAL F R I N G EMIXED U S E D I S T R I C TMIXED U S E D I S T R I C T
Í
0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
RECEIVING
SENDING
NEUTRAL
North BelleMeade NRPANorth BelleMeade - West
South Belle Meade
North Sending
North Bel leMeade
South
North
West
Figure 1-1 RFMUD Sending and Receiving Areas
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 4 of 62
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper
Section 2: Background
In June 1999, the State of Florida Final Order, Case ACC-99-002, found the County’s Growth
Management Plan lacking in protection for environmentally sensitive areas, failing to
adequately discourage urban sprawl and failing to prevent the premature conversion of
agricultural land. The Final Order required the following modifications to the GMP to address
the issues within three specified areas.
1. Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas.
2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect
water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect
listed animal species and their habitats.
3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential c onversion of rural
lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing
incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that
utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but no t limited to, public and
private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based
allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development.
In order to address these concerns, the County created the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. The
Growth Management Plan was amended in 2002 to include the majority of today’s RFMUD
provisions and the basic structure of the TDR program. It was amended soon thereafter, to
include bonus TDR provisions and provisions incorporating an intervener agreement known as
the North Belle Meade Overlay. The implementing Land Development Code (LDC) provisions,
reflecting and implementing all of these GMP amendments were adopted in 2004. Only
miscellaneous amendments have been made since that time.
The RFMUD contains approximately 77,000 acres. It provides a transition between the Urban
and Estates Designated lands, between the Urban and Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA),
and Conservation designated lands farther to the east.
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is separated into three specific areas, Sending Lands,
Neutral Lands, and Receiving Lands. Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree
of environmental value and sensitivity. These sending lands generally include significant
wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. The uses within the Sending Lands are limited
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 5 of 62
to a narrow list of permitted and conditional uses. The current regulations allow for the
maximum density of one (1) dwelling unit per 40 acres or, one (1) dwelling unit per lot or
parcel of less than 40 acres, which was recorded on or before June 22, 1999 (and non-
conforming lots <5 acres which existed as of October 15, 1974 or January 5, 1982, depending
upon location).
Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been
identified as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development
units may be transferred from Sending Lands. These lands have a lesser degree of
environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally
have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations.
Within the Receiving Lands the base residential density allowable is one (1) unit per five (5)
gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum (non-village) density achievable in
Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per acre, with a minimum
project size of 40 contiguous acres.
The RFMUD also allows Rural Villages in the Receiving areas. Rural Villages must be located
where public infrastructure exists or is planned, including direct access to an arterial or
collector roadway. With the creation a Rural Village, the sense of community and convenience
can be increased, emphasizing mixed use, social and civic interaction and walkability. However,
the current development standards for Rural Villages do not easily accommodate neighboring
communities and Districts.
Neutral Lands have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development. Assessment
data indicated that Neutral Lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation, and thus higher
habitat values, than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but these values do not approach
those of Sending Lands. Therefore, these lands are appropriate for limited development, if
such development is directed away from existing native vegetation and habitat. A lower
maximum gross density is prescribed for Neutral Lands when compared to Receiving Lands : 1
dwelling unit per 5 gross acres (0.2 units per acre).
The TDR program is a major component of the RFMUD, as it allows the transfer of development
units from Sending parcels to Receiving parcels. The Collier program is somewhat unique in its
structure, using a series of TDR credit types that can be sold and used for Receiving
development. From a 5 acre area, an Owner might achieve 4 TDRs: Base credit; Early Entry
credit; Restoration and Maintenance credit; and Conveyance credit.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 6 of 62
As noted in the Table 2.1, the RFMUD Sending land is comprised of thousands of parcels, mostly
5 and 10 acres in size. Sending Land acreage, although 40,973 in total, yields only 16,643
privately held acreage, capable of earning and selling TDR credits.
Table 2.1 RFMUD Sending Parcel and Acreage Totals by Area
Sending Area # of
Parcels
# of Owners Acres
South Belle Meade 353 227 5,905
North Belle Meade -NRPA 760 340 6,451
North Belle Meade-West 373 271 3,074
North 60 45 1,213
Private Owned Total 1,546 883 16,643
Government Owned 606 1 24,330
Private and Government Owned Total 2,152 884 40,973
Source: GIS rev. March 2016
Note: Government owned parcels stated separately; purchase or prior TDR Conveyance
The program set a minimum price point for the Base TDRs at $25,000. The Early Entry
expiration date was extended several times over the years, most recently to 2019. Although the
concept of “conveyance TDRs” was intended to boost the number of TDR credits and transfer
the property ownership into government hands, no governmental agency has been willing to
accept Sending lands in North Belle Meade, or in Section 11 (T 48S; R 26 E) in the North Sending
area.
Despite these issues and the intervening economic downturn, there have been TDR transfers
and redemptions in both the West Receiving area and in the Urban Residential Fringe. To date,
several developments have used the cluster residential development option in the form of
gated communities. In the RFMUD, non-village density is capped at 1 unit per acre and includes
the communities of Twin Eagles South, Lamorada, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Golf Club of
the Everglades.
In the Urban Fringe, densities are generally capped at 2.5 units per acre and include entitled
communities such as Naples Reserve, Hacienda Lakes, Lords Way, San Marino, Lido Isles and
Rockledge. These developments have an approved total of 6,786 units; the majority of units are
detached single family.
As shown in Table 2-2, approximately 3,953 TDR credits have been processed. These TDR
credits were generated from approximately 6,532 acres.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 7 of 62
Table 2-2 RFMUD TDR Credits Processed or Pending Process
TDRs
Base Credits Processed 1,326.10
Early Entry Bonus Credits Processed 1,326.10
R&M Bonus TDR Credits Processed 905.32
Conveyance Bonus Credits Processed 395.82
TDRs Pending Process 658.40
Total 4,611.74
As shown in Table 2-3, under the current system, approximately 10,947 TDRs remain to be
processed. These TDR credits are associated with approximately 16,363 acres of Sending Land.
The theoretical credits under the present system both processed and outstanding, total
approximately 15,558. Of this total, approximately 25% have been issued.
Table 2-3 Outstanding TDR Credits
Outstanding TDR Credits
Base TDR Credits 2,403.67
Early Entry Bonus TDR Credits 2,403.67
R&M Bonus TDR Credits 2,804.67
Conveyance Bonus Credits 3,335.02
Total 10,947.03
To date, approximately 2,129 TDRs have been redeemed to support the increased density
found in the Receiving area development projects. These transactions between Sending Lands
and Receiving Lands are shown on Figure 2-1.
Given the activity that has occurred to date, the greatest development potential in Receiving
Lands will be the North, North Belle Meade and South Receiving areas, where the majority of
the changes adopted as part of the RFMUD restudy will occur.
Based on the difficulty for Sending owners to generate the restoration and maintenance cr edit,
or the conveyance credit, TDR supply under the current system is estimated to be far less than
shown in Table 2-3. Staff’s assessment estimates a more realistic credit supply of approximately
5,500 TDRs. The demand assessment prepared by staff assumes one village each in the North
Receiving area, the North Belle Meade Receiving area, and the South receiving area, along with
about 60 percent of the remaining vacant proper ty using the cluster provisions. This scenario
would require approximately 13,443 TDR credits. This significant difference between the TDR
supply and likely demand demonstrates an imbalance in the program.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 8 of 62
RANDALL BLVD
EVERGLADES BLVD NDESOTO BLVDEVERGLADES BLVD SDESOTO BLVDOIL WELL RDOI
L
WE
L
L
GR
A
D
E
R
DEVERGLADES BLVD NIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RDWILSON BLVD I-75I-75
GOLDEN GATE BLVD
RADIO RDGOLDENGAT E P K W Y COLLIER BLVDIMMOKALEE RD
DAVIS BLVDIMMOKALEE RD E 1ST ST SGREEN BLVD
GOLDEN GATE BLVD
PINE RIDGE RD
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD WILSON BLVD OIL WELL RD
TAMIAMI TRL E
TAMIAMI TRL E
LEECOUNTY
§¨¦75
!(951
!(951
£¤41
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) TRANSACTIONSSENDING PARCELS TO RECEIVING PROJECTS
HERITAGE BAY
QUARRY
LAMORADA
TWINEAGLES
HACIENDALAKES
THE LORD'SWAY
NAPLESRESERVE
MOCKING BIRDCROSSING
§¨¦75
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG. AICPGROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTDATE: JANUARY 29, 2016 Í
£¤41
!(951
GOLF CLUB OFTHE EVERGLADES
TWINEAGLESSOUTH
!(951
RF-Sending RF-Receiving RF-Neutral Govt. Owned Parcels
Quarry
Lamorada
Mockingbird Crossing
RECEIVING PROJECTS
Twin Eagles
Golf Club of the Everglades
Hacienda Lakes
Heritage Bay
Naples Reserve
The Lord's Way
SENDING PARCELS*
The Lords Way(1,100 ac, 193 credits)
Quarry(64 ac, 18 credits)
Twin Eagles(2,542 ac, 1,271 credits)
Mockingbird Crossing(397 ac, 95 credits)
Lamorada(538 ac, 213 credits)
Golf Club of the Everglades(14 ac, 44 credits)
Hacienda Lakes(252 ac, 113 credits)
Heritage Bay(84 ac, 33 credits)
Naples Reserve(204 ac, 40 credits)
* Credits shown are only those redeemed as of Jan. 2016, and do not necessarily represent all credits generated or needed for project buildout.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 9 of 62
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper
Section 3: The Planning Process
In early 2015, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) directed staff to initiate a restudy of
the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD), along with three other master plans east of
County Road 951: Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP); Rural Land Stewardship Area
(RLSA); and the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP).
To support the RFMUD planning effort, the BCC initiated the public participation process
through the adoption Resolution 2015-111 establishing a 7 member Growth Management
Oversight Committee (GMOC). The functions, powers, and duties of the GMOC are to aid and
assist the public participation phase of the regulatory review. This includes:
1. Assist in determining the most effective venues and dates to hold the public
presentations:
2. Assist in composing the information materials to be presented to the public at
community meeting at various locations throughout the study area .
3. Assist in determining the agendas for public meetings;
4. Assist in providing consistency between the planning efforts.
In reviewing proposals for program change, the GMOC scope will be “high level and non -
granular, emphasizing consistency, sustainability and economic vitality.”
The GMOC set their schedule to meet quarterly throughout the restudies planning timeframe.
They met three times through June, 2016 providing input to staff on community outreach
schedule and presentation materials. With the guidance of the GMOC, this restudy process was
a focused, stakeholder effort. All interested parties were encouraged to participate in public
workshops, on-line surveys and in direct communication with staff.
Public Outreach
To engage landowner participation in the RFMUD restudy, letters were mailed to over 800
RFMUD property owners informing them of the restudy and the public workshop schedule. A
total of six public workshops were held from January, 2016 through May, 2016. A summary of
each meeting is attached as Appendix A, Public Outreach Summary.
The first three public workshops were held during evening hours at the IFAS Center and focused
on the RFMUD Sending Lands. Fifty to sixty people attended each workshop. During the first
workshop there was strong sentiment among Sending Land owners that the program should
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 10 of 62
not have been devised in the way it was; many thought that the RFMUD governing provisions
should be abandoned altogether. Through the public workshop process, some came to
understand that the program was created as a result of litigation and the State’s Final Order;
that the program has been in place for over ten years; that TDR credits have been redeemed
and converted to density; and that the County needs to move forward and not back. The public
workshops for the Sending Lands focused on the important issues to the landowners including
improving the economic viability of the program, promoting smarter development patterns and
protecting natural resources. Staff continuously encouraged owner input on how to improve
the program. Several techniques were used for this outreach: public presentations; comment
cards; breakout group exercises; on-line surveys; telephone calls; and individual meetings. The
public was encouraged to explore resources on the website, including a library of materials and
video-taped meetings.
The first public meeting was introductory in nature. Staff summarized the history and current
status of the RFMUD and the TDR program. Participants were encouraged to express opinions
on the rules adopted over a decade earlier, and staff outlined the anticipated progression of the
study and the public involvement phase going forward. The meeting summary can be found in
Appendix A, Public Workshop #1.
The second public workshop focused on issues related to the Sending Lands in North Belle
Meade. A panel of local experts was seated to discuss possible solutions for the Sending Lands
long-term ownership and maintenance. The full discussion, questions and responses are found
in Appendix A, Public Workshop #2.
The third and final public workshop focusing on Sending Lands topics included two majo r
components. First, staff provided an overview of the economic considerations involved in TDR
transfers; and second, a list of changes suggested by the public was vetted using breakout
group approach. Each group discussed the potential changes, ranked their agreement and
reported back to the entire group. The full discussion, questions and responses are found in
Appendix A, Public Workshop #3.
In summary, through the public workshop process, Sending Land participants agreed upon the
following:
Add TDR credits to all sending lands regardless of location or attributes, such as higher
natural resource values or watershed improvement potential.
Eliminate the $25,000 minimum price for a base TDR credit.
Allow TDR Credits to be used outside of the RFMUD, but agreement to where to use the
credits was not defined.
Reduce or eliminate TDR application fees.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 11 of 62
County staff should offer free workshop assistance to complete TDR application process.
Improve the link between buyers and sellers through an improved listing or a TDR bank.
Create a TDR bank.
Allow TDR credits for agriculture preservation.
Allow additional family home if agricultural land owner has over 20 acres.
Collier County should be managing entity of Sending Lands.
Long term maintenance cost should be paid for by a County mitigation program.
Following the Sending Lands workshops, staff focused on the Neutral and Receiving Lands.
Approximately sixty residents attended the workshops, of which about half had not attended
the Sending Lands workshops. Staff presented the future development potential allowed under
the current program, including vacant land, allowed land uses, density and intensity. Break out
groups were invited to provide feedback on several key questions including: specific issues and
concerns about future development; improvements or changes for the Receiving Lands; what is
liked best about the Receiving Lands; and opinions about the Neutral Lands. All responses to
the questions are included in Append ix A, Public Workshop #4. Members of Collier County’s
consultant team, AECOM, wrapped up this workshop with a primer on different kinds of
development models with a focus on sustainability. This presentation was well received by
participants with many asking for copies of the PowerPoint slides.
The fifth workshop built on the previous workshop discussion of development potential and
patterns. Participants were invited to vision future development through a “framework
mapping” exercise. Two of the RFMUD Receiving areas were used as examples for participants.
The exercise allowed participants to experience how these areas might be planned by
identifying destinations, development areas, street networks and green infrastructure. The
results demonstrated the values expressed in previous workshops: more village mixed-use
development and less single-use gated community development. The mapping exercises are
included in Appendix A, Public Workshop #5.
The final workshop provided a forum for residents and stakeholders to review ideas provided
by the public through previous workshops, surveys, and correspondence, which were
incorporated into the staff’s initial recommendations. Each initial recommendation was
presented and discussed. Participants were then asked to rank each one from strongly disagree
to strongly agree. The survey results are shown in Figure 3-1.
In conclusion, the public workshops were dynamic and well attended. Participants were fully
engaged in identifying issues, concerns and potential solutions. Many of the initial
recommendations included in this white paper stemmed from public input. The survey results
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 12 of 62
Sending and Neutral Lands Recommendations Survey Results
26-May, 2016
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Additional credits should be provided to balance the anticipated
demand from Receiving Areas. Sending Land owners, if they
participate, should benefit from additional credits.
Additional credits should not favor one Sending Land location over
another.
Additional credits should be provided to those who entered the
program early.
TDRs should be awarded also for owners who commit to keeping their
land in agricultural production
Eliminate minimum pricing on Base TDRs.
Improve the Buyer/Seller registries.
Reduce cost and complexity of applications.
Create a County-sponsored TDR bank that can buy credits from
Sending Lands owners
The County should accept land that owners wish to donate, if no
other agency is willing.
The County should finance maintenance of donated Sending Land
through a mitigation bank, if feasible.
If a mitigation bank is not a feasible funding source, require a
donation to the County with the land, equivalent to all or a portion of
any additional TDRs issued.
Allow a second dwelling unit to dedicated farming operations of at
least 20 acres.
Study recreational uses that could be compatible on donated lands
that go beyond "passive recreation."
Eliminate the use of TDRs in urban areas if they come from RFMUD
Sending Lands.
Extend the same advantages to Neutral Land owners who want to
commit to agricultural uses by offering TDRs.
Reward Neutral Land owners with TDRs for preserving habitat or
native vegetation under a conservation easement.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 13 of 62
Receiving Lands Recommendations Survey Results
26-May, 2016
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Allow business park stand-alone uses to increase employment
opportunities in research technology and other targeted
businesses.
Revise village rules to allow larger commercial and employment
areas.
Increase density allowed in rural villages to 4 units per gross acre
(TDRs required)
Increase density allowd in non-village development to 2 units per
acre (TDRs required) and remove 40-acre minimum size
Analyze arterial roadway capacity issues.
Enhance requirements for greater project connectivity.
Consider roadway design standards that promote low speed and
safety.
Add requirements for transit stops in large developments,
business parks or villages.
Allow TDRs in Receiving Areas for protection of native
vegetation/habitat or agriculture.
Reward projects that advance the greater public interest
(examples: greenway connections, flowway connections).
Incentivize mixed-use developments by studying potential impact
fees for mixed-use.
Use overlays or optional design standards that promote greater
certainty in review process.
Developments complying with zoning overlays should get
approval through simple BCC majority or Hearing Examiner
process.
Hearing Examiner can approve individual deviations.
Hearing Examiner can approve business park proposals.
Modify the TDR requirements to 0.5 credit for multi-family units
and 0 credit for target industry/business park uses
Currently no provisions for stand-alone commercial. Propose
design guidelines (no strip) and use of TDR credits (ex, 1 credit
per 6,000 SF).
Additional incentives for innovative green designs, such as solar
power, zero net water, aquifer storage and recovery sites, etc.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 14 of 62
show, through the public outreach process, that consensus was reached on the initial
recommendations put forward in the final workshop.
In addition to public workshops, public outreach incl uded numerous interviews, meetings and
telephone calls with citizens, agency representatives, stakeholders and media. In fact, prior to
public workshops, at least 15 one on one interviews were conducted to obtain factual
information and initial opinion. Ultimately, staff met 3 times with the Rural Fringe Coalition
(development group), and twice with representatives from Conservancy, Florida Wildlife
Federation, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and Collier Citizens Council. Necessarily,
horizontal communication within the County Managers agency was frequent.
Data Analysis
Staff was directed to address four major topic areas through this planning effort:
1) Environment;
2) Land Use;
3) Transportation and Mobility; and
4) Economic Vitality.
Through the first several months of the planning process, staff gathered and analyzed data
relative to the major topics from several sources with the intent to understand and coordinate
major planning efforts, recent or on-going, in the County including, but not limited to:
Current RFMUD Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code sections
The Master Mobility Plan (2012)
MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (2015)
TDR Activity Log and Comprehensive Planning data (2016)
East of CR 951 Final Report (2008)
Collier Interactive Growth Model (2008)
Picayune Restoration Plan (2008)
Watershed Management Plan (2011)
North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Study (2013)
Utility Master Plans (2008, 2015)
Towards Better Places: Collier County Community Character Plan (2001)
Wellfield Protection Zones; Aquifer Recharge Areas
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce “Opportunity Naples” (2014)
Current national planning studies
During the past decade, many studies and efforts have addressed Collier County’s environment,
transportation, land use, and economic vitality. Many of the recommendations found in
previous studies relate to and can be implemented in the RFMUD. National planning studies,
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 15 of 62
like those conducted in Collier County, continue to focus on implementing planning policy
toward sustainability, smart growth and multi-modal principles.
Environment
The seminal documents relating to environmental issues are the very subject of this restudy:
the Growth Management Plan RFMUD provisions and related LDC provisions. The RFMUD, as
indicated in Section 2, Background, was designed following challenges to the County’s existing
and proposed plans for eastern Collier County, and was necessitated due to State action.
Specifically with respect to Sending Lands downzoning and TDR incentives, environmental goals
were intended to fulfill the directives of the Final Order: “Direct incompatible uses away from
wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the
natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats.”
The core RFMUD provisions, now nearly 15 years old, are a major area of focus in this restudy.
In 2015 and 2016, Collier’s RFMUD regulations were vetted through public meetings with
residents and stakeholders, as described above. Feedback from staff and public resulted in the
need to bring quantitative and technical analysis to bear on environmental issues.
As watershed planning is one of the major components of environmental restora tion in Sending
Lands, the County’s Watershed Management Plan (2011) emerges as a key source of data and
analysis for environmental aspects of the RFMUD. In turn, that plan resulted in the
appointment of the Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Plan (GGWIP) Technical Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee and its successor, the current Comprehensive Watershed Management
Plan (CWIP) Technical Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. RFMUD restudy staff has attended and
participated in those committee meetings since September, 2015.
There are many important issues centric to both RFMUD regulations and watershed
improvement programs. For example, the RESTORE grant funding initiative presents a specific
opportunity to balance water surplus and water deficits within the watersheds in RFMUD a nd
Golden Gate Estates planning areas; staff has attended and participated in numerous meetings
with Project Managers, state and federal agency officials and consultants. The RESTORE
initiative informs priorities and coordination of effort within RFMUD Sen ding areas.
In order to further incentivize TDR program participation and at the same time recommend
sustainable long-term management and protection of environmentally important Sending
Lands, a Phase 1 North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank Feasibility Study was commissioned. If
feasible, adoption of a ROMA or similar program could allow a means for County ownership
with long term funding that could favor transportation budgeting, and incentivize Sending
owner participation.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 16 of 62
Collier County has had success in the past in mitigating its own impacts. The Caracara Prairie
Preserve Conservation Bank (and successor Trust Fund) saved the County $346,100 (26%) in
Panther Habitat Unit (PHU) costs, as compared to a private mitigation bank, in permitting its
Resource Recovery Business Park in 2014. A discussion of the North Belle Meade mitigation
bank concept is included in Section 4 and the Phase 1 Report is attached as Appendix B. Staff
will look to the BCC for direction in carrying this study forward to its next phase .
Related to all aspects of the major topic areas is the ongoing economic modelling that
addresses the balance of credits from Sending Lands to Receiving Lands. Scenario modelling is
applied to assure appropriate credit supply and demand so that additional credits can
incentivize Sending participation and allow adequate credit resourcing for future development.
It is understood by our consultant that additional credits will be recommended, but that the
number of credits and their distribution rely on a myri ad of factors, making scenario modelling
an important tool in restudy data and analysis. These scenarios will become a part of the CCPC
and BCC presentations and will ultimately help answer the quantitative question regarding
additional credits within the system.
Finally, additional consultation is underway with respect to TDR banks. TDR bank analysis will
provide the pros and cons of entering into a banking system for the purpose of assuring
confidence and liquidity in the TDR transfer system. The first deliverable is attached as
Appendix C. The concepts are further discussed in this paper in Section 4, (C.3).
Transportation
Every day more than 116,000 auto work trips are completed within Collier County. Many of
these trips are generated in eastern Collier County as residents make the commute to jobs in
the coastal area.
The Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is Collier County’s guiding
transportation document. The purpose of the LRTP is to assist Collier County in cultivating its
transportation vision through the next 20 years. It identifies needed improvements to the
network, and provides a long-term investment framework that addresses current and future
transportation challenges.
LRTP goals are:
Ensure the Security of Transportation System for Users
Protect Environmental Resources
Improve System Continuity and Connectivity
Reduce Roadway Congestion
Promote Freight Movement
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 17 of 62
Increase the Safety of the Transportation System for Users
Promote Multi-modal Solutions
Promote the Integrated Planning of Transportation and Land Use
The LRTP stresses, the key to enhancing mobility for users of the transportation system is to
improve connectivity and continuity through the system, and especially across all modes. The
MPO recognized the importance of prioritizing projects that enhance connectivity by including
system continuity and connectivity as two of the several project selection criteria. Connectivity
and continuity are also important for bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes. Users of the transit
system rely on bicycle, pedestrian or park-and-ride facilities in order to “make the connection.”
Connectivity and system continuity is about advancing an interconnected multi-modal
transportation system. The LRTP committed highway projects for construction by 2020 are
nearly all located in eastern Collier County, and several are wit hin Receiving Lands (Figure 3-2).
Figure 3-2 Committed Highway Projects for Construction by 2020
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 18 of 62
Freight Activity Centers (FACs) and Network are also identified in the LRTP. The growing
importance of freight movement has been reflected in the latest federal transportation
authorizing legislation, MAP-21. Recognizing the contribution that the movement of freight
makes to the State’s economy, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) created the
Office of Freight Logistics and Passenger Operations to establish policies and plans investments
that enhance Florida’s economic development efforts. As a result, special attention was given
to freight movement and is reflected in the needs assessment. These FACs contribute to the
economic well-being of Collier County. As shown on Figure 3-3, two Receiving Areas, which
include significant mining and agricultural operations, are designated as secondary freight
activity centers numbers 6 and 8.
Figure 3-3 Freight Activity Centers
The LRTP also identifies future study areas to further define and clarify the scope of
improvements needed in the area. Three study areas were identified, and one serves the
RFMUD. The Green Boulevard Extension/North Belle Meade Study Area extends eastward from
CR-951 to surround the North Belle Meade Area from Golden Gate Estates to I-75 and eastward
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 19 of 62
to Everglades Boulevard. The purpose of the study is to define future collector road network in
this area. A number of corridors that would enhance circulation throughout the area have been
identified, as illustrated on Figure 3-4. The study effort would determine the feasibility and
preferred alignment for the identified corridors or alternative s that may be developed during
the course of the study.
Figure 3-4 Transportation Study Areas
Additionally, in the North Belle Meade Receiving area, following the recommendations of the
East of 951 Bridge Study, Collier County has programmed several bridges. Two bridges within
the North Belle Meade Receiving Area are identified for construction.
Bicycle, pedestrian and transit needs are identified within the LRTP, however these are specific
to existing network infrastructure. Planning for multi-modal needs within the RFMUD will be
guided by the Receiving Area development standards, along with the Collier County Master
Mobility Plan (MMP).
A major effort in understanding Collier County’s mobility was the Master Mobility Plan (2011).
The MMP considered six planning sub-areas, including the RFMUD. The MMP developed a
long-term vision to aid in planning for the county’s mobility, land use, and infrastructure needs
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 20 of 62
at population buildout. The primary goal of the MMP is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and traffic demands specifically by reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled
while at the same time protecting habitats, environmentally sensitive lands and agriculture.
The Board of County Commissioners on January 24, 2012, reviewed and accepted the MMP
strategies developed in cooperation with the Collier County Planning Commission through an
enhanced public involvement process. Related to the RFMUD, the MMP recommends a new
multi-modal Mobility Analysis, done at the time of development application, to create the
needed linkage between land use and transportation policy.
A Mobility Analysis would expand the current methodology found in a Transportation Impact
Statement (TIS) by addressing not only the automobile, but also i ncluding analysis of transit,
bicycle and pedestrian mobility. Components of a Mobility Analysis measure the reduction in
number or length of external automobile trips.
Mobility Analysis Components
Mixed Use Trip Generation Model (or similar technique) to calculate external trips
(internal capture), external walk trips, external transit trips, etc.
For single-use development, a demonstration of what VMT-reduction
strategies/techniques are to be used
An analysis of current and proposed transit access
An analysis of local street connectivity
An analysis of non-motorized travel suitability
Further addressing the need for a multi-modal network, in 2014, the Florida Department of
Transportation adopted a Complete Streets policy. The goal is to implement policy that
promotes safety, quality of life, and economic development. FDOT specifically recognized that
Complete Streets are context-sensitive and requires design that considers local land
development patterns and built form.
The overall intent of a Complete Streets policy is to provide safe access for all road users—
pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users, and motorists—of all ages and abilities. Although
design features vary based on local context, basic elements should include wide sidewalks, well-
marked or raised crosswalks, traffic calming measures, protected bike lanes, and pedestrian
safety islands. Complete Streets can help reduce costs and improve health by significantly
reducing crash rates, injuries, and fatalities.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 21 of 62
Congested transportation networks are generally caused by low density, single -use
development with sparse connectivity and the majority of users on the network during the
same peak hours. Collier County’s transportation planning efforts and FDOT are in agreement-
to enhance mobility it is critical to plan for a multi-modal system that serves all users of all ages,
is interconnected, and with continuity.
Transportation planning efforts have identified several efforts within the RFMUD inc luding new
corridors, bridges, FAC designations, and areas for further study. This signifies considerable
attention is being given to the transportation network surrounding the RFMUD.
Land Use
Growth is sustainable when it diversifies our economy, provides a more affordable lifestyle
through housing and transportation choices, fosters design that encourages social, civic, and
physical activity, and preserves a thriving natural environment and agriculture lands. The
RFMUD land use policies support guiding sustainable principles, but as identified through the
public outreach process and this restudy, there is room for improvement.
There are three land use designations in the RFMUD; Sending, Receiving, and Neutral. The
overall goal of the program is to protect the natural resources within Sending Lands by directing
future growth to the Receiving Lands. Upon the full realization of the program, the Sending
Lands will remain substantially undeveloped, supporting quality habitat for listed species and
functioning to improve the watershed and quality of surrounding estuaries and bays. Neutral
Lands will remain low density as large estates lots able to support some agriculture uses, open
space and habitat. Receiving Lands, determined to be those most suitable to accommodate
future growth, will be developed.
The current RFMUD development standards, summarized in Table 3-1, allows for three
development options: 1) base rights development; 2) clustering; and 3) mixed-use village.
To date, several developments have occurred in the western Receiving area. Each of these
developments, Golf Club of the Everglades, Mockingbird Crossings, Lamarado, Heritage Bay and
Twin Eagle used the clustering option with 1 unit per acre. These developments are marketed
as “active adult communities” or “private gated communities.” Each development is generally
single-family residential, was planned independently of the other, and has little or no
connection to neighboring development.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 22 of 62
Table 3-1 RFMUD Development Characteristics
Typical
Characteristics
RFMUD Base
Rights
RFMUD
Clustering
RFMUD Village
Size Minimum 5 acres Minimum 40 acres 300-2,500 acres
Residential Gross
Density
1 unit per 5 acres 1 unit per acre Minimum 2 Maximum 3
units per acre
Land Use* Ag
SF and MF
Staff housing
Family Care
Facilities
Farm labor
housing
Sporting and
Recreation
camps
Essential
Services
Golf Courses
Ag
SF and MF
Staff housing
Family Care
Facilities
Farm labor
housing
Sporting and
Recreation
camps
Essential
Services
Golf Courses
Diversity of SF and
MF with a
minimum of 2
neighborhoods
Neighborhood
Center max 10
acres, 8,500 SF
leasable floor
area/ac
Village Center max
10% total village
area, 10,000 SF
leasable floor
area/ac
Research &
Technology park
max 4% total village
acreage
Civic and public
parks min 10%
total village
acreage
Recreation and
Open Space
N/A Min 70% of gross
acres
40% open space
Green belt 300’
average width
Transportation N/A N/A Formal grid design
Pedestrian paths
and bikeways for
access and
connectivity
*Bold denotes required
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 23 of 62
During the public workshops, participants stated they prefer that the RFMUD develop with
more mixed-use development and less gated communities as has been occurring in the RFMUD.
Towards Better Places, The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida (2001) states,
“creating new neighborhoods with interconnectivity and greater density is the only way to
avoid the worst-case scenario presented by the sprawl approach. New neighborhoods should
be based on a sound pattern of streets and lots. A wider variety of housing choices should be
made available by reintroducing traditional neighborhood concepts as an alternative to balance
the many gated subdivisions that have been built over the past 20 years.”
The body of national research on negative impacts of sprawl continues to grow. Studies have
expanded beyond the interest of transportation and land use professionals to the Community
Health Departments across the nation. A growing body of research indicates mixed-use,
appropriate placement of buildings, easy-to-reach parks, multi-modal transportation have an
extraordinary impact on community health. “One of the strongest health/land use correlations
is between obesity and the automobile: one California study showed each additional hour spent
in a car per day is associated with a 6 percent increase in body weight, whereas every kilometer
(0.6miles) walked each day is associated with a 5 percent decrease, according to a study in
British Columbia.”1
This correlates with the local Blue
Zones well-being assessment of
Collier County where the lowest
well-being indicators were found in
areas east of CR-951 surrounding
the RFMUD including, Golden Gate
Estates, areas of low density and
longer commutes (Figure 3-5).
The Urban Land Institute, (ULI) has
been using health studies to
promote healthy communities
through design. Physical design
affects human behavior at all
scales—buildings, neighborhoods, communities, and regions. The places in which we live, work,
and play can affect both our mental and physical well-being. Our built environment offers both
opportunities for and barriers to improving public health and increasing active living.1
Figure 3-5 Collier Well-Being Index
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 24 of 62
The Florida Department of Health in Collier County is also advocating healthy communities
principles, striving to educate the community on the link between health and the built
environment. They are working to promote community design that will increase active living
and healthy lifestyles by advocating for a network of connected b ike and pedestrian pathways,
accessible transit and places where people can age in place.
In ULI’s Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places, they advocate “All comprehensive plans
should incorporate health. It provides the opportunity to make explicit the connection between
development and health, to elevate health among planning considerations, and to lay the
groundwork for a healthy community for generations to come. A tool to use as a guide to
measuring health impacts is the health impact assessment (HIA). An HIA helps evaluate the
potential health effects of a plan, project, or policy before it is built or implemented. HIAs bring
potential public health impacts and considerations to the decision-making process for plans,
projects, and policies that fall outside the traditional public health arenas, such as
transportation and land use. It is a “health lens” that can help increase positive health
outcomes and minimize adverse health outcomes. San Francisco has been an early adopter of
HIAs, using the tool on diverse projects, such as neighborhood plans, affordable housing, and
highway projects. The development community, local government, or both in cooperation can
develop HIAs. This guidance helps communities make informed choices about improving public
health through community design.” Collier County may consider the HIA as an option in
measuring the effectiveness of developments increasing positive health outcomes.
Mixed-use development has dimensions beyond land use. Healthy places are also found to
provide for mix incomes, generations, and housing type. This relates directly to affordable
housing. The RFMUD currently requires approximately 10 percent of residential units in villages
to be affordable. The issue of the need for affordable housing withi n the RFMUD was clearly
stated in Mr. William Poteet’s letter to staff dated June 6, 2016, “The future Rural Fringe plans
must include specific opportunities for affordable housing for our entire workforce, not just first
time responders or those classified as “work force housing.” Affordable housing must include a
mix of apartments, multi-family and possibly single family opportunities.” While, Collier
County’s current comprehensive affordable housing study may provide greater guidance on
principles to include in the RFMUD, the program can be improved through this process through
greater density and removing the TDR credits currently required for affordable housing.
To meet the public’s ideals of more mixed-use villages, the RFMUD should incentivize mixed-
use development and villages using a variety of tools to entice desired mixes and densities.
Incentives that are currently used include higher density, more intense uses, and bonus TDRs,
however these incentives have not yet produced a village within the RFMUD. Current density
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 25 of 62
for a village is now limited to 3 units per acre. Density is arguably the most powerful tool
controlled by Collier County to create a more sustainable development. Density that is well
designed and assembled makes transit and retail more viable, and supports more services close
to homes. Studies agree, density needed to support viable transit is 7 units per acre.2 Higher
densities also make walkability possible, and great design makes it enjoyable. Density
necessarily requires a high
percentage of multifamily
homes in a neighborhood
thereby providing a greater
range of residential units,
increasing affordable
housing opportunities. For
example, the image from the
Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy, Visualizing Density,
shows a new project in
Huntersville, NC. This new
neighborhood is 6.3 units
per acre and will offer a
robust mix of residential units.
Well-designed density is vital to a strong economic foundation in any neighborhood as it brings
a critical mass of local employees and customers to support a variety of community
needs. Increasing density in the RFMUD was well supported through the public outreach
process. By strategically increasing the number of dwelling units per acre, Collier County will go
a long way toward meeting the sustainable housing and transportation objectives within the
RFMUD.
In addition to higher density, incentives being used in other areas include a mixed-use impact
fee index. The County’s transportation impact fee consultants from Tindall Oliver shared with
staff that this type of impact fee has been found to encourage mixed -use by lowering overall
project impact fees by 10 to 30 percent.
The measure for mixed-use villages is found to be different in Collier County’s eastern lands.
The RFMUD and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) have different standards for
measuring the mix. Table 3-2 shows the RFMUD establishes guidance for maximum village
center and leasable square feet, and a minimum size for civic and public parks. The RLSA
measures the mix of uses with direct correlation of residential unit, such as goods and services
minimum 25 square feet per residential unit. Another difference between the RFMUD and the
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 26 of 62
RLSA is allowed development patterns. The RLSA policies provide only for the village or town
option, with the exception of a small 40 acre hamlet. The RFMUD has no such requirem ent so
single-use, residential development can consume 40 acres or 4,000 acres. The RFMUD
guidelines for measuring mixed-use and village size could be improved by bringing consistency
between the standards found in these two TDR plans.
Table 3-2: Measuring the Mix in the RFMUD Village and RLSA Village
Typical
Characteristics
RFMUD Village RLSA Village
Size 300-2,500 acres 100-1,000 acres
Density 2-3 UPA 1-4 UPA
Land Use*
Diversity of SF and MF with a
minimum of 2 neighborhoods
Neighborhood Center max 10 acres,
8,500 SF leasable floor area/ac
Village Center max 10% total village
area, 10,000 SF leasable floor
area/ac
Research & Technology park max 4%
total village acreage
Civic and public parks min 10% total
village acreage
Diversity of SF and MF
Goods and Services Minimum 25
SF/DU. Max FAR .5
Civic/Institutional Min 10 SF/DU
Max FAR .6
Group Housing FAR .45
Lodging 26 UPA net
*bold is required
The village option, over the sprawl option, will be far more beneficial to Collier County,
including Golden Gate Estates. Villages will increase tax revenue, support jobs, goods and
services needed in eastern Collier County, and reduce commute times for some now traveling
to the coastal area. Research shows, “mixed-use, walkable downtown developments generate
ten times as much tax revenue per acre, save almost 40 percent on up front infrastructure
costs, and result in about 10 percent lower costs for service delivery than sprawl development .3
Economic Vitality
Achieving prosperity in eastern Collier County challenges consideration for land use and
transportation strategies to balance environmental, social and economic interests. Guidance
for the RFMUD is found in Opportunity Naples (2014), an economic development strategy that
will advance economic opportunity for all residents of Greater Naples. The process for
Opportunity Naples leveraged the thoughts and opinions of Greater Naples residents and
leaders. Public input and stakeholder perspectives, along with a thorough analysis of the Collier
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 27 of 62
County’s competitive position, directly informed the process. Several identified challenges can
be directly related to the RFMUD:
Workforce growth trends;
Site availability; and
Impact fees.
Opportunity Naples found, “growth trends in Collier County’s age dynamics risk the future
sustainability of the local workforce. Collier County’s 25 to 44 year old population is
proportionally smaller than every comparison area except Sarasota County, as is Collier’s
percentage of 0 to 19 year old residents. Without an influx of younger workers migrating to the
County or a spike in birth rates, Greater Naples could face a significant shortfall of replacement
workers for future retirees. Likewise there will be an occupational shortage in Collier County if
qualified workers aged 24 to 44 are not recruited to the area to replace retirees .”
This age group, and most specifically the millennials, is one of the most sought-after market
segments. So how can Collier County’s RFMUD land use policy support the attraction and
retention of this demographic? Study after study shows millennials are increasingly choosing
vibrant, healthy, walkable communities and rejecting the automobile-centric land use patterns
of the generations before them. Further supporting mixed-use and integrating health into
planning and development policy can become an economic development strategy—a tool to
attract a skilled workforce and to build a sustainable economic base. Incentivizing mixed-use,
healthy communities within the RFMUD is critical to attract the workforce needed to diversify
and sustain eastern Collier County’s economy.
A mixed-use, healthy community can provide economic advantage by appealing to millennials
who, as a generation, place more value on active lifestyles. In fact, The Rockefeller Foundation
and Transportation for America commissioned a survey in 2014, through which 80 percent of
millennials reported that they wanted to live in a walkable neighborhoods.4 Similarly, a 2011
AARP survey found that the vast majority of seniors want to live within a half mile of common
daily goods and services such a grocery stores, drug stores and doctor’s offices.5 Developers can
create enduring value by meeting these demands.
Mixed-use places will gain a competitive advantage, using healthy community design as a way
to attract investment in the community, foster growth, and increase revenues. This point of
view is backed up by serious research. Today, prospective office tenants prefer amenity-rich
mixed-use centers (also known as “live-work-play” locations) over single-use office parks by a
margin of 83 to 17 percent, according to a 2014 study by the NAIOP Research Foundation,
which represents the commercial real estate industry in the US. The report's bottom line: "…
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 28 of 62
any company wanting to attract and retain young educated workers who prefer live, work, play
locations needs to locate in a compact, mixed-use, walkable place, either downtown or in the
suburbs."
Countless other studies have explored how physical design and walkability impact the economic
prosperity and growth of a community. For example, in Asheville, NC, it was found that
property taxes for downtown mixed-use development projects yield an 800 percent greater
return on a per-acre basis than large, single use projects near city limits.6 And, In the 30 largest
metro regions in the U.S., office space located within the more walkable urban parts of the
metro commands and average of 74 percent more rent -per square-foot than elsewhere in the
metro.7
Collier County has a limited supply of land available for new development and there is high
competition for residential land uses. The development trend in the RFMUD has been gated
residential communities. In fact, nearly all of the “West” Receiving area has built out in this
pattern, leaving little room for future business uses. This is one of the largest challenges
Opportunity Naples found to Collier County’s economic diversity - “suitable, large-scale, pad-
ready development sites.”
Under the current RFMU policies, businesses would only be allowed within the Village option.
Therefore, at this time, any business willing to locate within the RFMUD would need to find
residential partners to go through a rezoning process to create a Villa ge in order for the
business to locate within the RFMUD. For Collier County’s competitive edge, land use policies
within the RFMUD need to provide greater flexibility for business development. Allowing stand -
alone business parks and light industrial uses that are designated in zoning overlays would
provide more sites readily available for development. This would directly address the business
community’s identified barrier, a lack of certain in the rezone process. At the same time, by
allowing businesses as permitted uses, shorten approval times may be realized. This can be
accomplished through business park zoning overlays or by establishing criteria similar to the
conditional use process where compatibility can be determined by the Hearing Examiner.
The last item, impact fees, is always up for debate in Collier County. There are processes in
place that can provide businesses impact fee credits or waivers and other incentives to address
this issue. At the same time, as discussed under the land use incentives, a new mixed-use
impact fee has the potential to reduce development impact fees within a mixed-use project by
10 to 30 percent. This type of impact fee may provide the reduced fees sought by the business
community.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 29 of 62
To support economic vitality in the RFMUD Collier County needs to leverage the mixed-use,
healthy community advantage to stay competitive and relevant to the new generations needed
for the workforce. This means supporting land use policy that incentivizes mixed -use
development and villages within the RFMUD. “Many businesses are increasingly making their
expansion, relocation, and new business development decisions based on which communities
are most walkable.”8 The villages within the RFMUD should be designed to accommodate the
desires of both businesses and their workforce – a focus on vibrant, mixed-use communities
that support transportation choices and health lifestyles. While villages may take years to come
to fruition in RFMUD, land use policy should also be able to rapidly respond to business
opportunities that are ready to locate in the RFMUD . This is accomplished by allowing business
uses outside of a village in appropriate locations, with approvals as promptly as possible. These
steps will support the economic diversification of eastern Collier County.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 30 of 62
Footnotes
1ULI. 2013. Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places.
http://www.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/10-Principles-for-Building-Healthy-Places.pdf
2 Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy. 2006. “ Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence.”
Opolis: An International Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies. Vol. 2, Issue 1, Article 3.
3 Mariel Alfonzo. 2015. “Making the Economic Case for More Walkability.” Urban Land. Urban Land
Institute. http://urbanland.uli.org/sustainability/houston-economic-case-walkability/
4 Global Strategy Group. 2014. Rockefeller Millennials Survey. Transportation for America.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/about-us/news-media/access-public-transportation-top/
5 AARP. 2012. 2011 Boomer Housing Survey.
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/il/2012/2011-Boomer-Housing-Survey-
AARP.pdf
6 Badger, Emily. 2010. “The Simple Math that can Save Cities from Bankruptcy.” The Atlantic: City Lab.
http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/03/simple-math-can-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/
7 Gary Pivo and Jeffrey D. Fisher. 2001. “The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate
Investments”. Real Estate Economics 39.2. 185-219.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gpivo/Walkability%20Paper%208_4%20draft.pdf
8 Public Sector Consultants. 2016. Creating 21st Century Communities: Making the economic case for
place. http://smartgrowth.org/creating-21st-century-communities-making-economic-case-place/
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 31 of 62
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District White Paper
Section 4: Findings and Initial Recommendations
1
Last revised: 12/17/16
The findings and initial recommendation below emerged from the public engagement, data and
analysis discussed in Section 3. These are initial recommendations and reflect an approach that
begins with general principles. Once settled in broad concept, more specificity will be brought
forward as the process moves to Growth Management Plan amendments and Land
Development Code amendment processes. The issue topics discussed herein are organized
under the areas of:
SENDING LANDS:
A. TDR Credit System
B. Credits and Areas Outside of the RFMUD
C. TDR Program Management
D. Sending Land Management
E. Other Program Suggestions
NEUTRAL LANDS
RECEIVING LANDS:
A. Land Use and Economic Vitality
B. Transportation and Mobility
C. Development Standards and Process
For ease of use, this Section includes different ink color. The different ink colors reflect:
Issue identification and background
Bold narrative is public input
Staff’s initial recommendations
Impacts to stakeholder interests
For simplicity, throughout this section, owners of parcels within RFMUD Sending Lands will be
denoted as “Sending owners”; owners of parcels within RFMUD Neutral Lands will be denoted
as “Neutral owners”; owners of parcels within RFMUD Receiving Lands will be denoted as
“Receiving owners”.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 32 of 62
SENDING LANDS
A: TDR CREDIT SYSTEM
1. Minimum Sales Price, Buyer and Seller
One of the most frequently heard recommendations related to TDR credits is the elimination of
the minimum $25,000 sales price for Base TDR credits. Since the adoption of the Bonus credit
system in late 2004, there have been two classes of credits in the system: Base TDR credits,
which are subject to the minimum sales price, and Bonus TDR credits, which are not.
The TDR system was designed to be “market driven”; however, minimum pricing requirements
interferes with willing buyer/willing seller free market principles. A true market rate should be
maintained so that credit sale prices reflect actual market conditions. With the possible
exception of a County TDR bank, market price should be left solely to market forces.
The present requirement creates distortion in the market price of bonus credits compared to
base credits, frequently selling for just a fraction of the base price. The Rural Fringe Coalition
reports combining a base TDR with a bonus TDR results in a current market average price of
$13,500 per TDR. A single market price for all credit types requires the elimination of separate
treatment for base credits compared to bonus credits.
A corollary of a unified TDR value is the elimination of any use restriction (based on TDR credit
type) as presently interpreted in village development. (See staff recommendations:
Receiving/Village).
Staff initial recommendation:
Eliminate the minimum $25,000 price per base TDR.
All groups generally support this provision: the Coalition, Sending owners, interested citizen
groups and environmental advocates have supported this elimination. In the opinion of staff,
no interest group would be adversely affected by this change.
2. Additional Credits to Sending Owners
An analysis of likely credit availability and likely (long term) credit demand reveals an imbalance
between supply and demand. Under its “likely case” scenario, County staff estimated that
demand would ultimately be more than double the supply under the current program
structure. Further economic analysis provides scenario planning to address proper balance and
suggest additional credits for Sending owners. Alternatives may need to be considered because
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 33 of 62
changes in Receiving Lands rules will also affect the balance. Use of credits for incentivized
development and increase in allowed density in Receiving Lands must be factored into the
equation.
For purposes of this White Paper, recommended minimum and maximum densities in Receiving
Lands provide the analytical framework for scenario testing, provided in Appendix D: “TDR
Economic Analysis”. The County’s consultants illustrate the provision of four (4) additional TDR
credits to Sending owners, along with collateral bonuses and credits, as a test of market
penetration under increased density and credit recommendations. As further guidance refines
density and additional credit goals, economic scenario testing will be adjusted and refined. At
present time, the illustration provided in Appendix D should be reviewed as an example and as
a platform for further discussion.
It was suggested by some individuals that credit balance could be achieved by allowing the
same credits (existing credit structure) to count more favorably in the hands of Receiving
owners for development purposes. It is true that a mathematical application could result in the
same economic balance by using this approach. On the other hand, by using a combination of
approaches, a more tailored result is possible. Thus, additional TDRs can be used both as
compensation to Sending owners and as incentives to Receiving owners.
With respect to the application of additional credits for the be nefit of Sending Land owners, a
number of recommendations have been made by stakeholders, including prioritization (more
bonus credits) for: NRPA lands; parcels that are 10 or 20 acres or greater; lands that require
higher level of restoration; lands that remain in private ownership with agreements with
Forestry Service for controlled burns; lands that remain in private ownership with
agreements for flow ways across property; lands that retain agriculture activity; lands that
are donated to accommodate flow ways; lands that are donated where habitat value is
highest; or, all sending lands regardless of attributes. Many of these recommendations were
made in the Rural Fringe Coalition’s “White Paper” (January, 2015); many were echoed in
correspondence, surveys and public meetings.
Meeting participants were more favorable to the “all Sending Lands equally” approach than to
all others listed above. Staff is highly supportive of this approach due to simplicity and equity in
application. Staff also anticipates that this general preference may yield to some limited
exceptions, such as a scenario in which no governmental or other entity can be established to
own and maintain environmentally sensitive properties (see D.2, below).
Additional TDR credits to add liquidity to the supply/demand balance is a central and
fundamental change to the existing TDR program. By providing more potential credits to
Sending owners, they will derive more compensation through the program than presently
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 34 of 62
possible. At the same time, the additional liquidity will place downward pressure on TDR price,
thus making credits slightly less expensive for development.
As described in Appendix D, the ultimate recommended number of additional bonus credits will
depend on adopted TDR incentives in the Receiving Lands, the minimum and maximum
densities applicable to Receiving villages and non-village development, and additional or
contingent incentives applied to specific areas within Sending Lands. A final true-up of the
credit system, and therefore additional credit needs in Sending Lands, must necessarily await
consideration of density availability in Receiving Lands. A “what if” scenario tool has been
completed by a consulting economist, and will help inform the discussion.
Staff is confident that overall credit demand from Sending Lands will not diminish due to
adopted changes following the restudy. Therefore, staff is confident that at least two (2)
additional TDR credits per 5 acres should be anticipated for Sending program activity; and that
more may be possible, depending on support for recommended changes in the Receiving
Lands.
Staff initial recommendation:
Provide additional TDR credits to Sending owners. Where possible, additional TDR credits
should be apportioned equally to all Sending owners regardless of location or property
attributes.
The addition of 2 or possibly more credits available for Sending owner TDR participation will
result in more affordable credits for development and a greater overall return to Send ing
owners. This was a fundamental tenant suggested by the Rural Fringe Coalition and well
received by Sending owners in meetings and by survey. To the extent that a greater financial
return incentivizes Sending owners to enter the program, conservation groups have been
enthusiastic. All groups benefit from this proposed change.
Sending owners had many different points of view on distribution of additional credits; the
notion that all sending area owners would be subject to the same TDR availabilities was favored
by five out of six groups in the Public Workshop break-out table exercise. Because of the nature
of the various options, it is clear that “equity” is favo red over parochial interests of owners.
Thus, all Sending owners would benefit equally.
3. Agricultural Uses
Under current rules, parcels located in Sending Lands are eligible for TDR severance credits.
However, TDR severance is abated for 25 years “from any parcel, or portion thereof…cleared
for agricultural purposes after June 19, 2002”.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 35 of 62
The Final Order, dated June 22, 1999, directed the County to conduct assessments that
included, at a minimum, provisions to “protect prime agricultural areas” and to “prev ent the
premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses” (p.11). In addition, uses remaining in
NRPA areas were limited to single family dwellings per parcel and agricultural uses (p. 14).
There is no specific directive in the Final Order to encourage new agricultural uses other than
the protection of “prime agricultural land” in general. The extent to which this language applies
to RFMUD Sending Lands could be debated. On the other hand, nothing in the Final order
would prohibit the County from removing disincentives, or in incentivizing appropriate
agricultural activity.
The RFMUD rules adopted in 2003 and 2004 discourage agriculture on Sending Lands by
eliminating the possibility of creating TDR credits for any land put in agricultural use after 2002.
The rationale for this provision may have been based on the concept that agricultural
operations were more widespread and established in the RLSA; by comparison, a relatively
small amount of agricultural activity was found in RFMUD Sending areas. However, there may
be agricultural activities that are consistent and compatible with environmental goals. For
example, land managers in the area have maintained that passive agriculture, specifically
grazing, is a cost-effective way to reduce invasive plants.
The suitability of the environment for agricultural activity beyond grazing is limited. It is
possible that an owner will find that a non-NRPA property is suitable for growing certain crops
or landscape materials given the specific location. Further reduction of density in western North
Belle Meade may be a desirable trade-off for the allowance of more active agricultural uses in
that location. However, an administrative or conditional use review may be appropriate to
avoid conflicts with large scale land management practices such as prescribed burns or with
water management initiatives.
When asked about views concerning agricultural incentives, five of six groups at break-out table
exercises (Public Workshop #2) concluded that TDR credits should be provided to incentivize
agricultural activity in Sending Lands. Our first on -line survey indicated that a majority of
respondents had plans to continue or commence agriculture on their properties. 76% of
persons attending the final Public Workshop #6 agreed that TDRs should be awarded for
owners who keep property in agricultural production.
Staff initial recommendation:
Make TDR credits available to Sending owners who wish to begin or expand a bone fide
agricultural operation. In NRPA locations, only passive agricultural operations, excluding
aquaculture, would qualify. Passive agricultural uses may be considered for Restoration and
Maintenance TDRs through an approved Restoration and Maintenance Plan.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 36 of 62
Incentivized agricultural use of Sending Land provides a viable alternative to owners who wish
to retain a beneficial interest in their properties. If compatible with environmental interests,
including water quality, there do not appear to be negative consequences for any stakeholder
interest group, so long as a review process is established to assure compatibility.
4. Parcels smaller than 5 acres
RFMUD properties smaller than 5 acres are eligible for the TDR program today if legally non-
conforming (LNC). That is, a property less than 5 acres created before October 14, 1974, the
establishment of the Agricultural Zoning District, Coastal Area, enjoys development rights and,
as provided in the GMP, TDR incentives. For example, a full base TDR is available reg ardless of
the size of the LNC lot. Conversely, illegal non-conforming lots enjoy no development rights and
no TDR availability.
In response to an individual petition in 2008, the Comprehen sive Planning Department
researched the extent of illegal lots and brought various options to the BCC for consideration. It
found 189 non-conforming lots in Sending areas, of which 126 were deemed LNC; 51 were
found to be illegal non-conforming and 12 inconclusive, due to lack of available data from
Property Appraiser’s Office.
An integral part of the analysis concerning non -conforming parcels relates strictly to parcel size.
Parcels slightly less than 5 acres can be determined to be legal lots, regardless of date of
creation, if the owner can prove that a portion is attributed to ROW taking at some point in
time. Of the 51 illegal non-conforming lots and the 12 inconclusive determinations, 24 exceed
4.5 acres in size.
Illegal non-conforming parcels enjoy no development rights and this principle should continue.
However, a cornerstone RFMUD program goal is the accumulation of parcels and ultimate
ownership in a governmental (or other qualified) agency for long term environmental, unified
stewardship. Proportional TDR availability would foster that result and provide a reason able
exit strategy for owners of such parcels. Documents associated with this transaction would
clearly reflect the lack of current development rights and the public purpose for creating the
TDR availability. For example, an owner of a 2 acre illegal non -conforming parcel would be
eligible for 40% of the TDR credits otherwise available to a 5 acre parcel. When drafting the
GMP amendment, a requirement of conveyance would be applied in order to achieve any TDR
value from legal non-conforming lots.
Further, any property in excess of 4.5 acres should be deemed to be a 5 acre parcel for
purposes of this program. Again, actual development rights to be exercised outside of the TDR
program would require an LNC determination, as is presently the case. However, as an
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 37 of 62
incentive to enter the program by eliminating a sometimes onerous or inconclusive
determination, such parcel would be granted 1 full credit for each base and bonus TDR.
Staff initial recommendation:
Allow TDR participation for illegal non-conforming properties based on public policy goals, and
waive requirements related to proof of LNC status if greater than 4.5 acres in size.
This change benefits owners who do not have access or means to achieve proof of LNC status
where the property is greater than 4.5 acres in size. It also benefits owners of non-conforming
properties created after 1974, by allowing them an exit strategy. There are no known
stakeholders who are adversely affected.
5. Retroactivity of Suggested Program Changes
As discussed under A-2, Additional Credits to Sending Owners, 2 or more additional TDRs may
be provided to further incentivize participation and balance supply with anticipated demand.
Approximately one quarter of all Sending acreage has previously entered the program at the
Base and Early Entry levels. Of the 6,532 acres where base rights have been severed, 1,979
acres (30%) have been conveyed to a governmental agency.
Land owners who have previously entered into a Limitation of Development Rights agreement
should be allowed to apply for any additional TDR credits made available as a result of program
changes. This would provide an equitable solution to owners who entered the program earlier
in time and have not transferred ownership.
The supply side of the TDR credit system will be impacted to a significant degree. (Under
Scenario 1, Appendix D, 1,863 additional credits would be created retroactively; the actual
number will depend on the number of additional bonus credits approved). This additional
supply is added to the dynamic analysis at a macro level.
Staff initial recommendations:
Allow landowner’s who have generated TDRs but have not conveyed their land to participate in
any applicable program changes.
The proposition benefits owners who faithfully earned Base TDR credits prior to the current
restudy and economic analysis of overall credit needs. One possible inequity could be
perceived by prior Sending owners who transferred properties to a governmenta l agency or
third party in the past; they no longer have a nexus to the land. No other stakeholder group
would be adversely affected.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 38 of 62
6. Early Entry TDR Credits
Early Entry TDR credits were adopted as part of the 2004 RFMUD Amendments providing bonus
credits to help balance the system. At the time, the Early Entry Bonus was seen as a means to
jump-start the program: Sending owners who severed TDRs in the early years would be
rewarded for their trust in the program and belief in the likelihood of a successful negotiation
and sale.
The Early Entry Bonus TDR, when first enacted, was set to expire in three years (2007). It has
since been extended several times and is now set for expiration in 2019, 15 years after the start
of the program.
The time period associated with early participation expired a number of times. Incentives for
participation should be monetary, and can fairly reflect the fact that the reference to “early”
has become de facto permanent.
Staff initial recommendation:
Replace the reference to Early Entry Bonus TDRs and simply provide 2 TDRs for base sev erance
of dwelling unit rights, subject to any additional credits assigned as discussed in A.2, above.
No stakeholders will be adversely impacted; this change provides more clarity to the program.
The BCC would abandon one potential program “tool”- the potential of non-extension of the
Early Entry Bonus credit that exists today.
7. TDR Credits from Receiving Land
Within the Receiving Land there are opportunities to further the goals of environmental
protection and agriculture preservation. In fact, some of the most valuable agriculture land in
Collier County is located in the RFMUD Receiving Land. Collier County has had success in
preserving agriculture lands through a system of TDR-like incentives in the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area. Additionally, there are some limited natural resources found in Receiving
areas that are valuable for preservation. Recognizing this, and the need for greater incentives in
the RFMUD, stakeholders support the ideas to allow Receiving Lands to generate TDR credits
for the purpose of retaining agricultural uses/rights and/or where greater environmental
protection is demonstrated.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 39 of 62
Staff initial recommendation:
Allow TDRs to be generated from Receiving Lands for agriculture preservation, or native
vegetation and habitat protection beyond minimum requirements, secured by appropriate
easements in favor of Collier County.
Preserving agriculture in Collier County will benefit the overall agriculture economy, and the
stakeholders involved in agricultural operations. Preserved areas will not be available for future
development.
B: TDR CREDITS AND AREAS OUTSIDE THE RFMUD
1. Urban Residential Fringe and the One Mile Rule
Development within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF), mile-wide buffer between the urban
area and the RFMUD, has a base density for development of 1.5 units per acre. Given its
location, the GMP describes its purpose: “to provide transitional densities between the Urban
Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area” to the east. Additional density can be added
through the purchase of TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the URF. Up to 1
unit per acre can be added in this way, although specific properties were gra nted slightly higher
allocations through private plan amendment petitions. Also as a result of private plan
amendment petitions, the requirement of obtaining TDRs from Sending Lands within one mile ,
in order to increase density, was modified for the Naples Reserve PUD and the San Marino PUD.
Private GMP Amendments have established the precedent to derive TDRs from the Sending
Lands beyond 1 mile, reflecting Board direction. The vast majority of URF acreage is now
entitled for Planned Unit Developments. Of the total 5,500 acres, only 371 acres remain in
agricultural zoning.
Regardless of policy considerations for or against this geographical allowance, a change to the
Urban Residential Fringe rules to reflect this Board direction would provid e consistency for the
remaining areas that have not been entitled and may wish to increase density through the TDR
mechanism.
Staff initial recommendation:
Eliminate the one mile boundary from which TDRs must be derived for Urban Rural Fringe.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 40 of 62
This change favors the majority of Sending owners whose holding s are outside the one mile
band, although the additional demand is very small. It negatively impacts Sending owners
whose holdings are within the one mile band, and may have purchase d such property in
expectation of higher return for sale of those TDRs. Again, looking forward, this potential
demand is very small.
2. The Urban Residential Infill Bonus Provision
The Residential Infill Bonus (Density Rating System, Future Land Use Element) encourages infil l
within urban areas, outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area. Parcels less than 20 acres are
eligible, under certain conditions, for 3 additional dwelling units. The first of these must be
derived from the purchase of a TDR from the RFMUD.
This density bonus provision is intended to incentivize compatible in-fill development in the
Urban Mixed Use District, but has been seldom used. Removal of the TDR component would
eliminate a barrier to what is intended as an incentive to foster in -fill development; likewise, it
would eliminate a minor demand uncertainty in calculating the supply/demand ratio in the
RFMUD.
Staff initial recommendation:
Eliminate the requirement to purchase a TDR in the Urban Residential Infill bonus provision.
The community at large would benefit from urban infill development at appropriate locations;
no other stakeholders are significantly affected.
3. Golden Gate Estates TDRs for Environmental Protection
Unlike allowable uses of TDRs outside of the RFMUD, no locations outside of the RF MUD
currently provide additional sources of TDRs for use within RFMUD. The Comprehensive
Watershed Improvement Plan (CWIP) Ad Hoc Advisory Committee (CWIP Committee) is
currently studying the technical implications of various goals and strategies associated with
wetland areas in Northern Golden Gate Estates. The Watershed Management Plan (2011)
identifies an area within Golden Gate Estates as North Golden Gate Estates Flowway
Restoration Area. This area, as well other low-lying areas in Golden Gate Estates could be
considered as additional Sending locations related to the RFMUD TDR program. I n-holdings
within Red Maple Swamp and Winchester Head (managed by Conservation Collier) or other
important areas could also be considered.
The Ordinance creating the Growth Management Oversight Committee included within the
Committee’s scope an evaluation of consistency among restudies. Watershed issues are one of
the topic areas where consistency and coordinatio n have been frequently mentioned.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 41 of 62
Historically, the Rookery Bay watershed started in the North Golden Gate Estates area,
sheetflowed through North Belle Meade and South Belle Meade, then outflowed into the
Rookery Bay estuaries.
The historic Rookery Bay watershed has been heavily influenced by the Golden Gate canal, and
various stormwater projects have been identified by the Watershed Management Plan,
accepted by the BCC in 2011, to address the problem. Diversion or attenuation of stormwater
before it reaches the Golden Gate canal is one of those projects, and continues to be the
subject of discussion at the CWIP Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.
Any extension of TDR Sending credits to an area outside of the RFMUD must be cautiously
considered. Additional Sending areas should be limited in acreage and prioritized for wetland or
flowway preservation, as determined by the BCC. Staff recommends coordination and
accommodation of this concept through various incentives and programs, including the TDR
program, only for select and high value (wetland/flowway) parcels. By allowing a number of
parcels to receive TDR credit allowance under the program, watershed goals can be more easily
met.
One important consideration is the volume of donations made possible through the TDR
program within Golden Gate Estates. The RFMUD and its TDR program has been a relatively
“closed” program, particularly from the Sending or supply side. It is important to consider the
effect on value if additional supply is added. Staff believes, for example, that a progra m limited
to 400 acres in total, derived from property owners of the most valuable parcels (from a water
attenuation perspective) would be appropriate. It would equate to a roughly 2-3% impact in
total supply (depending on program details), and could be considered a de minimis impact to
TDR price, according to the economic consultant for this restudy.
It is important to note that this concept will be vetted in the context of the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan Restudy as well. The TDR concept is related to, and will be affected by, a parallel
initiative that would provide incentives for combining smaller lots into larger lots in North
Golden Gate Estates- an initiative that will reduce some of the floodplain impacts of smaller lots
and aid in aquifer recharge.
Staff initial recommendation:
Accommodate implementation measures recommended by the CWIP committee and the
Watershed Management Plan that are consistent with TDR program success. Where TDRs are
used as an incentive, limit the number of credits for critical wetland parcels to avoid significant
impacts to the TDR credit system.
C: TDR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 42 of 62
1. General Administration
Under the current program, the Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division administers
the TDR program. Administration includes the intake of applications and related requirements
for severance of development rights (Base and Early Entry TDRs), Restoration and Maintenance
TDRs, Conveyance TDRs, transfers of credits, redemptions of credits and lost certificates.
Administration reflects the private sector basis of the program- willing sellers and willing buyers
who plan and arrange their purchase and sale transactions. At the same time, it is designed to
protect system integrity and accuracy through a carefully maintained Activity Log, tracking each
parcel and related credits through time, including final use d uring the platting process when
redemption of identified credits are recorded.
In addition to these functions, the Division maintains both a Buyers List and a Sellers list, to
facilitate identification for interested parties. While some new listings have occurred recently,
the County understands that these lists have not worked well in the past.
The Buyer and Seller lists have provided names, phone numbers and numbers of credits sought
or available for sale. However, the listings typically lack an offering price by either buyer or
seller. In addition, these lists have been difficult for some parties to easily locate on the
County’s website. There is room for improvement based on the needs of the parties.
Staff initial recommendation:
At a minimum, an improved exchange program should be designed with input from potential
buyers and sellers.
County staff would not incur additional expense in improving communications for the benefit of
all parties. No stakeholders are negatively affected.
2. Cost Components for Sending Owners
Cost components for Sending owners include application fees as well as other out of pocket
costs associated with obtaining Base and Bonus TDRs.
Application fees for Base TDR severance with early Entry Bonus: $250 plus $25 per TDR
issued
Application fee for Restoration and Maintenance TDR: $250
Application fee for Transfer of TDRs: $250
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 43 of 62
Application fee for redemption of TDRs: $250
Restoration and Maintenance TDR: Private Land Management Plan (LMP) requires
surety bond
Professional work product:
o Legal sketch and description (Base TDR)
o Title search for CEs or other land use restrictions (Base TDRs)
o Preparation of LMP, qualified biologist (Private R&M plan)
o Title work, preparation of deed, doc stamps (Conveyance TDRs)
o Title insurance (Conveyance TDRs)
o Negotiation with Governmental agency (Conveyance TDRs)
o Potential brokerage fees for sale of the TDRs
o “The County recommends that you consult with an attorney” (Base TDR
application form)
Application fees fall disproportionately on small Sending owners. An owner of a 5 acre tract
would pay $775 in application fees for 5 acres, in order to obtain all 4 TDRs. This fee is in
addition to professional fees associated with the work.
To obtain Base and Early Entry TDRs, a title search is required, along with sketch and
description. Legal advice is recommended in the process. More substantial work is involved in a
private Land Management Plan for the Restoration and Maintenance TDR. Professional real
estate services are typically required for the conveyance TDR, since the receiving entity will
require a standard title search and documentary stamps will be required.
There are limited possibilities for additional County staff assistance with some processes, in the
future. For example, staff could supply a legal sketch and description through its GIS Section or
other appropriate Division. A standard or model Land Management Plan could be develop ed by
the Environmental Planning Section to reduce professional fees.
Collier County devised a sophisticated and important program to protect environmentally
sensitive lands in the RFMUD Sending areas, allowing Sending owners to “choose” to
participate, but providing TDRs as an incentive and as just compensation for the change in FLUE
designation and zoning. Costs and complexity to Sending owners cannot be eliminated;
however, where possible, these should be reduced. The recommendation regarding a TDR
Bank, below, would take this concept further.
Staff initial recommendation:
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 44 of 62
Application fees should be reduced or eliminated for Sending owners; work product required
for TDRs should be evaluated for cost effectiveness and in limited instances, provided by
County staff.
The reduction or elimination of application fees would result in an im pact to taxpayers, since
the administration would not have an enterprise fund component. Likewise, additional work
assignments for County staff would be borne by County taxpayers. Sending owners would
benefit from these changes by reducing cost and complexity in the process of obtaining TDR
credits. All stakeholders would benefit from increased participation by Sending owners.
3. TDR Bank
The recommendation for a TDR Bank may be the single-most powerful recommendation made
by staff. As many important community members have expressed the concern that “the TDR
system is broken,” a bank would provide confidence in the system on many levels. It would
demonstrate that the County is committed to the program and its success. It would provide
assurance to small Sending owners that TDR severance will result in a monetary return within a
reasonable timeframe, thus spurring program participation. It would provide assurance to the
development community that TDRs will be available when needed, so that locating, structuring
and executing numerous small transactions can be avoided.
The current GMP provisions covering the TDR process state ”…the County shall consider the
feasibility of establishing a ‘TDR Bank’, to be administered by the County or some other not-for-
profit governmental or quasi-governmental public agency established for this purpose” (FLUE,
Designation Description Section: B.1 (D)(2)). In its White Paper dated January, 2015, the Rural
Fringe Coalition included the recommendation to consider a TDR bank to help foster the
program. Its rationale included the high cost to developers to aggregate smaller parcels to
derive TDRs or to purchase from many uncertain sellers. Likewise, the Golden Gate Estates
Area Civic Association recommends its use to facilitate the process.
A TDR bank is an intermediary between seller and buyer, which can be designed in many
different ways. Either a division within the County Manager’s agency or a non-profit
organization can serve in this role. It typically requires a substantial fund to allow purchase of
land or purchase of credits from Sending owners. The fund becomes replenished through the
sale of credits to Receiving entities, which must possess the necessary credits in order to obtain
a development order (plat or SDP).
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 45 of 62
The creation of the initial fund may come from dedicated tax revenue, general revenue, sale of
credits derived from County-owned property, TDRs provided to the County through the
program, or other means.
In the TDR Bank Capitalization report (Pruetz and Gunnells: “Placeworks”; Appendix C; dated
December, 2016), Rick Pruetz, FAICP, a nationally recognized TDR program expert, outlines the
many possible ways to create a TDR bank in Collier County. This report is included as Appendix
C. It covers the advantages and disadvantages of using a bank in the context of the RFMUD
program, noting that its chief importance lies in the fact that the County wishes to promote
significant Sending land severance in the short term while expecting demand over a lengthy
period of time. This “time lag” points to the importance of a bank in achieving environmental
success and Sending owner fairness; at the same time, it requires a significant hold ing period
before the County could sell its inventory, costing taxpayer dollars.
Pricing of Banked TDRs would support a separate market-driven (direct Sending/Receiving)
exchange and price point. The bank would not purchase TDRs for more than the market r ate,
and should consider a higher resale rate so as not to frustrate non -bank sales.
For reasons stated in this analysis, Mr. Pruetz favors a capitalization approach using bonded
dedicated millage to create an account of sufficient size to purchase TDRs, holding them until
demanded. Once a point of equilibrium is reached, the fund becomes self-sustaining- TDRs sold
to the development community provide funds to purchase more. Ultimately, fund principal is
recovered in the bank and can be used to support oth er environmental initiatives or returned
to taxpayers through reduced millage. The Placeworks Capitalization report illustrates the
funding required over an initial 5 year period when the Bank would be actively buying a
substantial number of credits, and a 30 year period during which the credits would be sold and
the bank funding returned.
Other funding means are available, and could be supported without the use of public dollars for
capitalization; however, none of these options addresses the “time lag” i ssues. These options
include the use of County owned land to derive initial TDRs for the bank or the issuance of TDRs
to the County as a component of the severance process (see related, D.2).
Community support for a bank is vital. A fund created for its purpose may serve related
purposes, such as funding restoration and management of lands that are not within a state
acquisition or potential ROMA mitigation area, Conservation Collier restoration and
maintenance funding or capital and O&M related to important hydrological projects. The
community would need to recognize and appreciate the value of the conservation involved, its
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 46 of 62
County-wide ecological impact, opportunities for recreation and the value of publicly-owned
preserves as a legacy for grandchildren.
Staff initial recommendation:
The County should consider the appeal of a publicly funded TDR bank and a dedicated
assessment and/or bonding for the program, based on an evaluation of costs and benefits.
As an indication of stakeholder impact, there was broad support for the TDR bank concept
among Sending owners and the development community. Sending owners would enjoy a
significant incentive to participate in the TDR program, knowing that compensation for severed
credits may be more readily obtained. A bank would shift some of the administrative burden to
the County, and administration cost must be considered in addition to capitalization costs.
Taxpayers would bear the burden of the time value of the funds along with additional
administrative costs. Residents and visitors would benefit from an asset that might otherwise
be diminished without intermediary funding, and from the County-wide hydrological benefits
that can be achieved.
D. SENDING LAND MANAGEMENT:
Land management strategies for environmentally sensitive areas, including preserves and open
spaces, can take several different forms. One point of agreement among environmentalists,
land managers and planners is that management does not happen by itself. As discussed by a
panel of experts at Public Workshop #2, the prospect of a “do nothing” scenario following
Restriction of Development Rights agreement and the issuance of TDRs, would result in much
more extensive infestation of exotic plants and a compromise of viable habitat for important
species. Ultimately, the cost to restore lands unattended for a long period of time can
increase significantly. Private Land Management Plans are possible, but very difficult because
of small and fragmented ownership patterns that do not support a coordinated effort.
At the present time, the 4th TDR (bonus credit), “donation to a public agency”, cannot be
obtained in several locations, including North Belle Meade and Section 11 (T48S/R26E). For
those locations, there are no public agencies that have stated an intention to accept donations.
Staff had previously made inquiry to the Division of State Lands, FDEP, to determine whether
the State could take title to, and responsibility for, donated parcels in North Belle Meade. The
agency described the fact that this area was outside of its acquisition authority under the
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 47 of 62
Florida Forever (Picayune Strand) acquisition program, even if the parcels were donated .
Similarly, SFWMD was contacted regarding both North Belle Meade and Section 11 properties,
but declined any involvement beyond an advisory role.
In contrast, the South Belle Meade area is situated within the Picayune Stand State Forest
acquisition area, where donated lands can be held by The Internal Improvement Trust Fund
(TIITF) and managed by Florida Forestry Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission. Here, Sending owners obtain the Restoration and Maintenance bonus credit along
with the Conveyance bonus credit by donating the parcel(s) to the state along with a modest
fee for restoration and perpetual maintenance. This serves the interests of the State because it
is much easier to restore and manage large contiguous land areas than individual parcels.
The fragmented pattern of ownership in North Belle Meade and Section 11 is similar to the
pattern in South Belle Meade, prior to State acquisition. Again, the most effective means of
long term management would be under a unified plan administered by a single agency (or
coordinated agencies) for each geographic area. It is not practical or effective to encourage
numerous small owners to create or implement plans to maintain or even restore 5, 10 and 20
acre tracts individually, particularly because plans may not be implemented in the same
timeframe as neighboring properties. Eradicating and managing nuisance and exotic vegetation
requires large scale coordination and timing.
For this reason, coupling the Restoration and Maintenance TDR with the Conveyance TDR
results in a more effective framework and a simplification for Sending owners. As presently
structured in South Belle Meade, two TDRs can be provided for these dual purposes, simply by
conveying the property along with an appropriate endowment sum.
Finally, rehydration of parts of North Belle Meade has been on the list of priorities listed in the
Watershed Management Plan (2011). The potential projects in North Belle Meade for wetland
restoration or rehydration should be coordinated with restudy recommendations.
Accommodation of such activity would be clearly demonstrated by maximizing the transfers of
private parcels into public or quasi-public ownership, thus minimizing the potential for conflict
with an otherwise successful watershed program in the future.
Options to address this problem, by order of priority; also consider the combination of two or
more options in concert:
1. Option One- North Belle Meade Mitigation Bank:
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 48 of 62
During Public Workshop #2, a panel of subject matter experts was convened to discuss North
Belle Meade land management in particular, given the lack of interest from State agencies and
given the fragmented ownership pattern. The panelists indicated a preference for coordinated
ownership and management by a single entity, and agreed that Collier County should take
direct responsibility, if no other state or federal agency would accept ownership or
management responsibility. Public-private partnerships were also discussed. It was noted that
County ownership would provide some County benefits, such as potential recreational
opportunities.
More specifically, panelists discussed the advantage of creating a mitigation bank option in
order to finance the restoration and long term maintenance. The same concept had been
suggested previously by an informal scoping meeting with agency peers.
In April, 2016, staff launched an initial feasibility study to determine the viability of creating a
mitigation bank of any kind. The idea of using mitigation funds from the County ’s own
transportation or other capital projects was part of the conceptual framework. If the County
could act as project manager for a mitigation bank while saving money over an extended time
period, this option would be feasible and program design could b e recommended. The
advantage of such a program would be threefold: (1) aid Sending owners in their efforts to
obtain all available TDRs, including Conveyance, thus furthering program participation; (2)
provide a cost-effective means to County ownership and long-term maintenance of parcels; (3)
provide a more cost-effective and coordinated long term approach for mitigation of County
projects that impact wetlands or habitat.
The initial “Phase 1” Feasibility Study for the creation of a mitigation area is att ached as
Appendix B. Conceptually, the bank would complement existing mitigation activities in this area
under private ownership. The plan would be adopted by agreement of both state (FDEP) and
federal (ACOE) permitting agencies, encompassing the necessary requirements of each. At this
time there is a reasonable expectation of approval and financial viability of a Regional Offsite
Mitigation Area/In-Lieu Fee program (“ROMA”) in North Belle Meade.
Funding to provide restoration, maintenance and management of the ROMA area would come
from required mitigation of County-owned infrastructure projects. Notably, the 2040 LRTP cost -
feasible plan estimates approximately $11 million and $7 million for wetland mitigation and
panther compensation units respectively, associated with construction of new or expanded
roadways. The ROMA plan would allow for a competitive use of these mitigation dollars, in turn
fostering the preservation and maintenance of parcels within the North Belle Meade Area.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 49 of 62
The Phase 1 study of the North Belle Meade area for potential use as wetland mitigation or
habitat compensation indicates the area will not likely yield sufficient cost -effective wetland
credits or habitat compensation to be competitive on an open market (sales to private
interests). However, it concludes that a ROMA “is potentially feasible and cost-effective, based
on broad characterizations of North Belle Meade and a range of reasonable assumptions.”
Background data, for example, was derived from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI ) and
Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS).
In short, the Phase 1 Feasibility report concludes that: “A Collier County single -user ROMA/ILF
project within North Belle Meade appears to be a cost -feasible generator of wetland mitigation
credits and panther habitat compensation if the ROMA/ILF is of sufficient size and properly
located to assure long-term support for the Florida panther.”
Based on the reasonable expectation of approval and financial viability in Phase 1, a Phase 2
Feasibility Study has commenced to study the ROMA concept in finer grain. Field work will
more closely correlate the levels of exotic infestation to site specific areas in North Belle
Meade. A mitigation analysis tool, developed for this project, will pr ovide more detailed
analysis of the credit generation potential (revenue) and mitigation costs. Additional meetings
with all permitting and review agencies will be completed, including USACOE, USFWS, FDEP,
and FFWCC. Timelines will be associated with cost and revenue streams, allowing for pro-forma
financial analysis of the ROMA and comparison to private mitigation bank costs for County
capital projects.
In light of the fact that there are a significant number of private permittee responsible
mitigation (PRM) parcels in the North Belle Meade area, coordination of activities in a broad
geographic area may be an important consideration for permitting agencies as well as the
County. To this end, consideration of a public private partnership (PPP), trust agreem ent or
third party monitoring might be considered for umbrella cooperation. Staff has identified only
one experienced Land Trust operating in Collier County: Southwest Florida Land Preservation
Trust. This entity has been contacted and began initial discussions with staff; it is not clear at
this time whether this Land Trust will wish to play a role in a potential ROMA/umbrella
agreement.
While the Phase 2 Feasibility Study will provide the County greater assurance of program
success, it will not guarantee approval from the permitting agencies. The timeframe for
permitting a program of this kind may be up to two (2) years in duration. Because of this factor,
a GMPA recommendation would state the options listed here in priority order rather th an
mandatory implementation.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 50 of 62
Staff initial recommendation:
Complete Phase 2 Feasibility Analysis for a County to County mitigation bank program
(ROMA/ILF) to establish a higher confidence of a successful mitigation program that can benefit
the TDR program, the environment and Collier County capital spending.. Explore options
involving Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) parcels to achieve coordinated or umbrella
management options for greater overall land management efficiency.
County government would assume responsibilities inherent in a ROMA agreement, although
the operation and administrative functions could be assigned under contract. County taxpayers
could anticipate some cost savings in the use of a ROMA over more convention al mitigation
banking approaches. Taxpayers would also be gaining an asset: ownership of large land areas,
ecologically stable, that could be used for passive recreational purposes. Residents and visitors
would gain from improved hydrological functionality, providing watershed gains and balances
between sheds and in associated groundwater and aquifers. Sending owners in that area would
be on equal footing with counterparts in South Belle Meade so as to enjoy th e better
availability of the Restoration/Maintenance and Conveyance TDR credits. The environmental
community would gain assurance that this valuable resource is managed and protected, both
for watershed and for important plant and animal species. Receiving owners would know that
the number of TDRs necessary for future projects can be made more readily available, both
through the additional credits and through increased Sending owner participation. To the
extent that grant funding becomes available for structural rehydration projects in North Belle
Meade, additional wetland credits could be realized, resulting in further taxpayer benefits.
2. Option 2- Additional TDR for funding in North Belle Meade and Section 11:
It is possible to design an additional TDR only for those properties intended for County
ownership. This “County TDR” could supplement other funding. It could be used for “seed
money” for purposes of the ROMA engagement, or could form a po rtion of the funds necessary
to create an endowment for County owned and man aged areas without a ROMA. Additional
contributions should be required, similar to the program in South Belle Meade.
For example, if the program changes include two additional TDRs for each 5 acres of Sending
Lands, an additional TDR could be assigned where other (non-County) governmental agencies
will not take ownership. Instead, the County would assume ownership of the last TDR or
equivalent, as part of the conveyance application to the County. Proceeds from the additi onal
TDR would go to the County to partially fund the restoration and long term maintenance of the
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 51 of 62
property, to provide seed money for a ROMA/ILF bank and/or to provide seed money for a TDR
bank.
Along with the value of the last TDR, the County could assess a fee for donation roughly
equivalent to that amount required, on average, in South Belle Meade by the Florida Forestry
Service. In this way, there would be rough parity between owners in North Belle Meade, South
Belle Mead and Section 11.
Staff initial recommendation:
Establish a special TDR for the benefit of the County where no other entity has been established
to take ownership. Also require donors of Sending lands to the County to convey a sum of
money or other consideration to partially fund a lo ng term endowment.
This concept would be an exception to issuing additional TDRs t o all Sending lands regardless of
location. However, the end goal would be to put equal numbers of TDRs in Sending owners’
pockets at the same expense. When considering the opportunity provided to South Belle
Meade Sending owners by State acquisition, this provision would be in line with equitable
treatment or rough equivalence. Sending Owners would benefit from knowing that the
conveyance TDR is available to them, along with any other bonus TDRs. Receiving owners
would benefit from the availability of TDRs in general, based on added market liquidity.
Financial return to participating Sending owners would be equivalent regardless of location.
3. Option 3- Green Utility Fee/ County Environmental Separate Fund
An idea presented by a panelist at Public Workshop #2 was a “Green Utility Fee.” This could be
a fee determined on the basis of land use and applied Countywide. No doubt, it could be
designed in many different ways. One purpose, like the two Options listed above, would be to
provide a fund from which properties donated to the County could be restored and
maintained.
If initiated by referendum, dedicated millage could fund several environmentally based and
related needs from a special fund, allowing the BCC to make annual budget determinations
according to annual priorities. For example, the dedicated millage could serve a stormwater
utility in its efforts to restore or improve watershed projects in different locations w ithin the
County’s sub-basins, could be used to fund perpetual maintenance of Conservation Collier
holdings, and could be used for TDR bank capitalization. As noted in the TDR bank discussion
(Appendix C), the bank will ultimately realize a return of initial capital, which could then be
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 52 of 62
allocated by the BCC for perpetual maintenance of County holdings such as Conservation Collier
Lands or Sending Lands, to additional hydrologic projects, or to other environmental initiatives.
Staff initial recommendation:
Study the idea of a Collier Environmental Fund and consider whether it should be the subject of
a County-wide referendum. Allow various complementary uses of the dedicated fund to
support County environmental initiatives.
Given its close association with hydrology issues, the concept might also be part of the
Stormwater Utility Fee currently under study; revenue could apply to green infrastructure that
benefits water quantity, quality, recharge or flood control. Additionally, the green utility fee
might encompass a dedicated millage for both County-wide “green” initiatives and the TDR
bank capitalization discussed at Sending (C.3).
4. Option 4- Model Land Management Plan and Private Ownership
There are circumstances where a private Land Management Plan would be optimal. Some
owners do not wish to give up ownership of their land, although they wish to engage in the
TDR process up to that point. For example, land holdings are planned as natural amenities of
nearby development areas in the western part of South Belle Meade, adjacent to the Urban
Residential Fringe. Another example is land maintained for a hunting lodge, where TDRs have
been severed from all but 5 acres to make it possible, but no conveyance TDRs are issued.
Although applicants for Restoration and Maintenance TDR credits would be required to submit
or commission an environmental consultant, the basics of the Land Management Plan and
required elements would be in place, eliminating uncertainty and reducing costs to the
applicant.
Staff initial recommendation:
Provide a standard or model Land Management Plan for adoption by owners who wish to
provide Restoration and Maintenance activities in return for TDR credits.
Private owners would save time, cost and uncertainty in instances where they wish to maintain
ownership in their Sending land and also participate in the TDR process.
E. OTHER PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 53 of 62
1. Adjust property appraisal for tax benefit on TDR severed lands.
Staff reviewed the taxable values associated with Sending Lands where TDRs have been
severed. It was found that the land use code assigned to these lands, and the associated value,
varies greatly. Collier County Property Appraiser’s Office, a Constitutional branch of County
Government, agrees in principle to review market value appraisals where base TDRs are
severed. Given the limitation of development rights on such privately maintained land, its lower
market value may result in lower tax assessments.
Staff has discussed this issue with the Property Appraisers Offices and stands ready to assist
with any data needed by that agency.
Staff initial recommendation:
Staff should provide any data needed to the Property Appraiser’s Office in support of its efforts
to review tax assessments based on appraised land values and resulting tax assessments in
Sending Lands.
Improved assessment outcomes are favorable to Sending owners who have severed
development rights but have not transferred ownership. No parties are adversely affected.
2. Allow County-owned (post-conveyance) Sending land to be used for recreational uses.
Currently, approved Land Management Plans include only passive recreational uses, consistent
with the permitted uses after severance in Sending Lands. The GMP could conceivably contain
conditional uses that expand the range of recreational uses, where the County takes ownership,
such as North Belle Meade.
In general, permitted uses limit recreation to “passive parks and passive recreation uses”. By
definition, passive recreation is “characterized by natural resource emphasis and non -
motorized activities”. There may be appropriate instances where motorized uses are consistent
with environmental preservation. For example, the County may wish to create a modest eco-
tourism site for residents and visitors, allowing some off-road transport to and from different
locations, or accommodating persons with disabilities to visit some locations.
Staff initial recommendation:
County-owned land in North Belle Meade should qualify for conditional use approval for
expanded recreational uses, if compatible with environmental goals. Definitions of “active” and
“passive” recreation will require further vetting.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 54 of 62
County residents may enjoy greater use of and access to natural areas. No known negative
impacts on stakeholder groups.
3. Allow clustering of density on large tracts of land
Where parcels or assemblages allow for more than one dwelling unit under base density (1 unit
per 40 acres), owners may wish to cluster the units in closer proximity to each other, to
infrastructure, etc. Currently, there is no opportunity to create a better de velopment plan than
1 unit per 40 (separate) acres.
Allow large land owners to cluster dwelling units, retaining the 1 unit per 40 acre standard, but
also allowing 1 additional clustered unit for each additional 40 acres retained.
Where development rights are retained on large parcels, owners would enjoy better design
alternatives. No stakeholders would be adversely affected.
NEUTRAL LANDS:
1. Allow for some participation in the TDR program as allowed in Sending area.
Neutral Lands typically enjoy the same uses and restrictions under the RFMUD as were enjoyed
under the base agricultural zoning prior to TDR program and RFMUD adoption. However, unlike
Sending owners, Neutral owners have no ability to generate and sell TDR credits.
Parcels in the Neutral lands can be subdivided into 5 acre parcels, allowing for greater
residential density than would be allowed in the Sending Lands. Other non-residential uses are
allowed, including agriculture and conservation.
Permanent agricultural use or permanent conservation easements are appropriate in Neutral
Lands where the quality of the conserved use is demonstrated. In fact, these additional
reservations should be encouraged.
County staff could make administrative review and approval of applications based on
environmental criteria in the Land Development Code. Conservation areas would remain in
private ownership and would require conservation easements. Likewise, agricultural uses can
be encouraged on Neutral Lands by generating TDRs for permanent agricultural easements, as
was suggested for Sending areas.
Staff initial recommendation:
Allow TDR credits for agriculture and conservation uses where the uses are secured by
perpetual easements.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 55 of 62
Neutral owners of larger parcels would be provided with a viable choice in preservation of land
instead of 5 acre development. The total additional TDRs generated from this change would be
very small in comparison to all likely Sending TDRs, and so would not impact Sending owner
expectations to any significant degree.
2. Minimum Project Size
One additional right provided to Neutral owners within the RFMUD is the ability to “cluster”
development. For example, a 40 acre parcel could be subdivided into eight 5 acre parcels; or,
using the clustering rules, could place 8 dwelling units on the parcel in closer proximity to one
another, fostering the possibility of greater efficiency in infrastructure, among other
advantages.
Like the recommended change within Receiving Lands, advantages to clustered development
would appear to apply to parcels smaller than 40 acres. Efficiency in shared resources as well as
social advantages are possible. No increase in overall density would result.
Staff initial recommendation:
Remove the 40 acre minimum project size for clustered development .
This recommendation would benefit Neutral owners of properties 10 acres or greater by
providing alternative design possibilities. No other stakeholder group is affected.
RECEIVING LANDS
A: LAND USE AND ECONOMIC VITALITY
Growth presents a tremendous opportunity for progress. It also presents many challenges.
What, where and how we build have major impacts to our community and resident’s quality of
life. The Receiving lands within the RFMUD total 28,054 acres, of which, 14,531 acres remain
vacant and undeveloped. This is where growth will occur in the RFMUD.
Currently, the RFMUD provides for an increase in development rights with the us e of TDRs
within Receiving lands. Density can be increased using two forms of development, 1) cluster
residential, and 2) villages. To date, the only development pattern occurring in the Fringe is
cluster residential development in the form of gated communities such as Naples Reserve,
Hacienda Lakes, Lords Way, San Marino, Lido Isles, Rockledge (in Urban Fringe at 2.5 units per
acre), Twin Eagles South, Lamorada, Mockingbird Crossing, and the Golf Club of the Everglades
(in RFMUD at 1 unit per acre). These developments have an approved total of 6,786 units, the
majority single family. While these communities are attractive, this single-dimensional
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 56 of 62
development pattern furthers Collier County’s challenges of diversifying the economy,
providing affordable housing and financing an overburdened roadway network.
During the public workshops participants were clear; the preference for new development in
the limited available land in the Receiving area is something different than gated
communities. Participants were more favorable towards standalone business/commercial, and
mixed-use development. They want to see employment, goods and services, and a mix of
housing types in the Receiving areas.
One of the most common suggestions for program improvement was to allow employment and
goods and services outside of the Village concept. Currently, commercial uses in Receiving lands
are limited to locations within approved Villages with a maximum of 10% of the total village
area and 10,000 SF leasable floor area per acre. Consensus was found in the need to change the
requirements to promote commercial uses within the Receiving lands, not only to support the
residents within the Receiving lands, but also for the surrounding area. It was suggested that
Rural villages envisioned within receiving areas don’t provide sufficient commercial capacity,
and the design criteria for commercial locations within the villages isolate them from major
transportation corridors making them infeasible. There should be greater incentives for
employment, industrial uses, agriculture research, and technology development.
While consensus demonstrated the RFMUD should better support commercial uses, it was also
suggested by one commenter that the RFMUD plan is not compatible with the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan; it eliminates functionality because it creates lost commercial opportunities
for the Estates in the RFMUD Plan. The members of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association expressed their thoughts by letter dated April 19, 2016 saying, it is imperative that
changes in land use in the RFMUD which borders the Estates be permitted to provide services
and employment to compliment the build out of the Estates. The RFMUD can also provide
opportunities for employment, economic development, and needed recreational activities to
Collier County as a whole.
In addition to the suggested changes to commercial uses, many participants expressed desired
adjustments to residential uses. The RFMUD clustering provisions currently requires minimum
of 40 acres to allow a density increase from 1 unit per 5 acres, to 1 unit per acre. It was
suggested to increase base rights for properties less than 40 acres, or to all together eliminate
the 40 acre minimum. Some participants thought base rights should increase to 1 unit per 2.5
acres for 5 acre tracts, others thought is should go up to 2 units per acre.
Changes in Village density were also suggested and highly supported by the data and analysis
referenced in Section 3 of this white paper. “Smart growth” principles support sustainable
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 57 of 62
development patterns that are multi-dimensional, provide for a demographic mix, and support
transportation choices; density should be an optimum of 7 units per acre. Increasing the density
in the RFMUD will allow greater diversity in residential product, greater efficiency in providing
infrastructure and services and lower development costs.
Participants were supportive of increased density, and they were passionate about the need to
address affordable housing saying, it needs to be a much higher priority in the discussion [of
the RFMUD). The Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District plan must have a dynamic affordable
housing component built into the plan to avoid both the affordable housing and future
workforce crisis. Without it our community will suffer. Currently, the RFMUD addresses
affordable housing only in the village concept; “A minimum of 0.2 units per acre in a village
shall be affordable housing, which at least 0.1 units per acres shall be workforce housing.”
These units are required to use 0.5 TDR credits. Affordable and workforce housing is an on -
going challenge for Collier County. Collier County has just initiated the first comprehensive
housing plan to address the needs for affordable housing. This plan is reported to be completed
by September, 2017. Community Planning staff will closely follow this planning effort and bring
forward recommendations implementable through the Comprehensive Plan.
Robert Hickey, Senior Research Associate at the Center for Housing Policy, suggested a few
methods currently being utilized to work towards broadening housing affordability during a
workshop sponsored by United Way. One of the suggested methods can be implemented in the
RFMUD and that is “allowing mixed housing such as apartments/condos, manufactured homes,
cottage housing and micro homes. This widens the diversity in housing markets, allowing
residents to have more affordable alternative options when looking for housing.” Participants in
the RFMUD restudy have supported the idea of a mix of housing with particular focus on
reducing the required size of units. With the positive national trend in “tiny” or micro homes,
the RFMUD can support affordable housing by promoting the acceptance of the size limitations
of 600 sq ft. found in the residential zoning districts. Additional recommendation s addressing
affordable housing may be incorporated into the RFMUD amendments as influenced by the
comprehensive affordable housing plan.
Staff initial recommendations
1. Promote economic vitality in the RFMUD by allowing employment uses outside of
Villages as defined in the industrial and business park zoning district (with exceptions) in
locations with access to major collector or arterial roads.
2. Within a Village, remove the maximum acres and leasable floor area limitation of the
Village Center and the Research and Technology Park.
3. Explore designating Receiving areas as Innovation Zones.
4. Eliminate the maximum size of a Village.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 58 of 62
5. Consider new measures for mixed-use standards, such those found in RLSA
6. Modify residential density standards:
Clustering – remove 40 acre minimum, increase density to 2 units per acre; (higher
density for affordable/workforce only projects)
Village – increase density to 7 units per acre
Change minimum Village density to 4 units per acre
7. Development over 300 acres shall use the Village option.
8. Modify the TDR requirements:
a. Change from 1 TDR to .75 TDR for multifamily unit.
b. Change from .5 to 0 TDR for affordable housing
c. Density over 4 units per acre requires 0 TDRs.
d. No TDRs for industrial/business park uses.
“Opportunity Naples” is a report that heightens the awareness for the need to div ersify the
economy, particularly in eastern Collier County. The report found that Collier County needs
more suitable, large-scale, pad-ready development sites. Collier County as a whole will benefit
from recommended changes allowing business uses in the RFMUD.
Increasing density, improving mixed-use requirements and adjusting the TDR credits will
promote a diverse and more affordable community, expand mobility choices and engage a
healthy and active lifestyle – the development trends sought after by employers, employees
and baby boomers.
B: TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY
The RFMUD is served by a congested arterial network with limited funding for improvements.
While development will help pay for impacts to the network, promoting a mix of land uses that
shorten trips into the urban area, and is served by transit, will help offset the ever increasing
roadway needs.
A majority of public comments on transportation emphasized the need to increase roadway
network connectivity surrounding the Receiving areas, at the same time keep speed low (< 36
mph). Low speed along with additional wildlife crossings is essential for wildlife preservation.
Connectivity is important not only within the Receiving lands, but also connecting surrounding
areas to destinations within the Receiving areas such as future employment, goods and
services. Other transportation comments support including transportation alternatives such as
bus transit.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 59 of 62
There is considerable attention given to transportation planning in eastern Collier County. The
transportation study surrounding North Belle Meade will furth er inform the transportation
network needed to support the RFMUD. Further consideration and implementation of the
techniques identified in the Master Mobility Study will advance Collier County’s goals to achieve
a multi-modal community.
Staff initial recommendations
1. Analyze arterial roadway and utility capacity issues surrounding Receiving Lands.
2. Review roadway design standards and suggest changes if necessary to support
Complete Streets and low speed.
3. Add provisions for transit stops and park and ride facilities within Villages and business
parks.
4. Develop a methodology for a Mobility Analysis including a standard of measuring a
development’s level of interconnectivity such as a “link-node” ratio, and the transit,
bicycle and pedestrian coverage and connectivity with a project and surrounding
destinations.
The community as a whole will benefit from a multi-modal system that provides for all users,
reduces trip lengths and supports greater efficiency in our transportation network.
Stakeholders with development interests in the RFMUD should participate in the development
of any new methodology created for a Mobility Analysis.
C: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROCESS
During the public workshops participants were clear; within the Receiving lands they want to
create more than houses, a defined place, a live, work, play approach to promote thoughtful
community design. Some were so specific to say limit gated communities. The finding of this
report and the community input supports greater incentives for village development to
promote mixed-use in the RFMUD.
To incentivize mixed-use development and business park uses, the development community
shared ideas that are process related. Overall, the idea is to find ways to reduce the risk
associated with mixed-use development while also providing greater flexibility. Suggestions
included, maximize opportunities to develop in Receiving lands through the mostly
administrative SDP or Planning processes (subject to compliance with adopted design and
development standards). Establish maximum flexibility and administrative or hearing
examiner approval process for LDC deviations, and modify the process to follow the SRA
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 60 of 62
designation process where an application for a Receiving Area Village is approved by simple
majority vote by BCC. Other participants support the idea to ensure that the current public
hearing process for approval of new development within the RFMUD is retained .
Specific design standards should be kept to a minimum and should b e placed in the LDC, only
as guidelines or in some cases as baseline standards. Wherever possible, provide for
incentives rather than regulations to achieve design objectives. Create opportunities for
additional flexibility in designing mixed-use projects within receiving lands.
Recognizing the distinct differences and potential for each of the Receiving Areas, participants
support the idea to establish separate overlays for each of the four distinct Rural Fringe
development areas, similar to the North Bell e Meade Overlay which has its own set of
development standards. This could be accomplished through Land Development Code
amendments. At a minimum, specific design standards found in the Growth Management Plan
should be moved to the implementing LDC, and th e LDC standards should be carefully reviewed
and amended to support the design concepts identified herein.
Developers and industry leaders report that a hurdle to more intense, mixed-use development
design is the added cost of impact fees. As stated in Section 3 of this white paper, other
communities’ successful implementation of a mixed-use impact fee has shown a ten to thirty
percent reduction in impact fees. This reduction could be another strategy to incentivize the
type of development desired in eastern Collier County.
Staff initial recommendations
1. Consider adoption of zoning overlays, or separate area design standards to provide
greater certainty for developers
2. Allow BCC simple majority approval when complying with zoning overlays.
3. Require a housing analysis with a Village application that demonstrates a percentage of
employees within the village will have housing accommodations within the village.
4. Initiate study to create an impact fee index for mixed-use.
5. Explore with Collier County Health Department the creation of Health Assessment
Index.
6. Review and modify design standards within the Growth Management Plan and Land
Development Code for greater flexibility while supporting the intent of employment
zones and mixed-use development, suggest modifications to standards e.g., remove
greenbelt requirement.
7. Develop further incentives for innovative features such as solar power, zero net water
use, aquifer storage and recovery systems.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 61 of 62
The adoption of zoning overlays could allow both the developer and the public greater certainty
in the development standards for Receiving Areas. Modifying some approval processes could
allow complying projects to proceed with minimal delay. The intent of the modifications is to
diversify the mix of uses including residential product, provide greater certainty, and to support
economic development in eastern Collier County.
RFMUD White Paper BCC Workshop 01/03/2017 Page 62 of 62