CAPTIONING MARCH 14, 2007 BOCC WORKSHOP E.A.R.-BASED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate. >>JIM NORMAN: WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO THE WORKSHOP FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CONCERNING THE -- THE E.A.R.-BASED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO OPEN OUR SESSION THIS AFTERNOON WITH A BRIEF COMMENT? >>STEVE GRIFFIN: CERTAINLY, MR. NORMAN. I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO DO THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. STEPHEN GRIFFIN, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THIS IS THE SECOND OF THREE WORKSHOPS THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH YOU ON THE E.A.R.-BASED PLAN AMENDMENTS TO UPDATE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. TODAY'S WORKSHOP WILL BE FOCUSED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE ASSOCIATED MAP AMENDMENTS; HOWEVER, PRIOR TO GETTING INTO THAT WORKSHOP, WE HAVE THE COUNTY STAFF AND EPC THAT WANTED TO ADDRESS YOU ON SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU RAISED ON YOUR FEBRUARY 28th WORKSHOP, AND I'LL HAVE THE COUNTY COME UP AND SPEAK TO YOU ON THAT. >>DAN BLOOD: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. DANIEL BLOOD, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. PART OF YOUR PACKAGE IS A GOLDENROD SET OF HANDOUTS. WHAT WE'RE BRINGING YOU IS -- COMMISSIONER NORMAN AND OTHERS, MR. BLAIR AND OTHERS, HAD QUESTIONS FROM OUR LAST MEETING. WE'VE EXTRACTED THOSE QUESTIONS FROM THE CLOSED CAPTIONING, AND WE'D LIKE TO PRESENT THOSE TO YOU VERY QUICKLY IF YOU'D ALLOW US TO. THERE WERE SIX QUESTIONS, AND IF I COULD DO THAT, CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO BEGIN. YOUR FIRST QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH -- FOR THE BUFFERS POLICY, WE HAD PROPOSED A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS THE IDEA IN ORDER TO LOOK AT HOW TO CREATE BUFFERS AND THE TECHNICAL PROCESS IN ADDITION TO THE POLICY PROCESS, SO THE FIRST QUESTION WE WERE ASKED WAS HOW -- HOW WILL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEES BE CHOSEN PURSUANT TO THE POLICY 19.1, WHICH WAS WHAT WAS PROPOSED TO YOU. WE'VE GIVEN YOU A DETAILED ANSWER TO THAT, MAYBE MORE DETAILED THAN YOU WOULD HAVE WISHED. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS COUNTY STAFF IS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A COMMITTEE IN TWO PARTS, A TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, WHICH IS A POLICY COMMITTEE, AND ALSO THAT WE HAVE A TECHNICAL MANUAL SCIENCE COMMITTEE, WHICH WOULD BE THE GROUP THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CREATE THE SCIENCE AND THE REST OF THE TECHNICAL MATERIALS. THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS, WHAT WE WOULD SAY TO YOU IS THAT SOME OR ALL OF THE POLICY COMMITTEES -- SOME OR ALL OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERS SHOULD BE APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERS YOU WANTED TO HAVE, SOME OF THOSE COULD ALSO BE APPOINTED BY THE STAFF. FOR THE TECHNICAL SCIENCE COMMITTEE WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNTY STAFF WITH SOME ADVISING CONSENT FROM THE POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ACTUALLY SELECT THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE SIZES -- JUST TO BRING THAT ISSUE FORWARD, THE SIZE OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE, WE SAW SOMEPLACE BETWEEN 10 AND 15 MEMBERS. FOR THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE WE SAW A GROUP OF SOMEPLACE BETWEEN FIVE AND SEVEN MEMBERS. OUR COMMITTEE -- OUR PROJECT, THIS WHOLE IDEA OF STUDYING THE WETLANDS BUFFERS WAS, TO US, SOMETHING ABOUT 14 MONTHS' WORTH OF COMMITTEE WORK. WE WOULD START IN FALL OF 2007 -- WHICH IS THIS FALL -- WE'D WORK THROUGH 2008, AND WE'D BE BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR ACTIONS BEGINNING IN JANUARY OF 2009, WHICH WOULD BE YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CYCLE. AT THAT -- AT THAT POINT IN TIME, AS FAR AS THE PROJECT COST OR THE PROJECT BUDGET, IN LOOKING AT THIS -- AND WE DO HAVE SOME HISTORY OF DOING THESE KINDS OF THINGS ON THIS KIND OF SCALE IN A FACILITATED PROCESS. OUR FY 08 COST WOULD BE ABOUT $165,000, OUR FY 09 COST WOULD BE ABOUT $69,000. THAT'S OUR ESTIMATE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. >>JIM NORMAN: THAT'S -- THAT'S YOUR COST OR ALL THE COSTS IN THAT RECOMMENDED REPORT? >>DAN BLOOD: THAT'S THE -- THAT'S THE COST OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING WRITING THE REPORT. >>JIM NORMAN: ON THAT -- ON YOUR SPECIFIC PIECE? >>DAN BLOOD: YES. YES, JUST -- JUST -- >>JIM NORMAN: BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE 20 DIFFERENT STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS IN THERE, SO -- >>DAN BLOOD: OKAY. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR PIECE? >>DAN BLOOD: JUST FOR THE PROJECT FOR THE BUFFER MANUAL, YES, SIR. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. >>DAN BLOOD: THE OTHER -- JUST TO WRAP THIS UP, THE VISION THAT WE HAD WAS THAT THIS WOULD BE A FACILITATED PROCESS BY A PROFESSIONAL FACILITATOR. WE WOULD HAVE HIRED PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS THAT WOULD WRITE THE REPORTS, DO THE RESEARCH FOR BOTH THE POLICY AND THE -- AND THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE, AND ALSO THEY WOULD WRITE THE ACTUAL BUFFER MANUAL ITSELF, SO THAT'S THE -- THAT'S MY PRESENTATION FOR QUESTION 1. >>JIM NORMAN: THANK YOU. >>RICK GARRITY: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. RICK GARRITY WITH EPC. NICE TO SEE YOU. I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE OTHER QUESTIONS. QUESTION 2 IS HOW CAN WE AVOID BURDENING THE EXISTING SINGLE-LOT OWNER, AND THE THOUGHT THERE WAS THAT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, YOU WOULD -- THAT THOSE TYPES OF DECISIONS WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT THE FINAL PROPOSAL WOULD INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO EXEMPT PERHAPS ALL PLOTTED -- PLATTED LOTS IN THE COUNTY, ALL EXISTING PLATTED COUNTS. THERE COULD BE OTHER TYPES OF LAND USES THAT WOULD COME UP FOR DISCUSSION FOR EXEMPTIONS ALSO. ITEM 3, QUESTION 3, IS WHAT WILL BE THE COST TO DEVELOPERS DUE TO NEW BUFFERS? WELL, BECAUSE THE SCOPE AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE BUFFERS IS NOT SET YET, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE TECHNICAL MANUAL, SO WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE BUFFERS WOULD BE, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY WOULD BE. FOR INSTANCE, THERE COULD BE CERTAIN TYPES OF WATERS THAT WOULD BE EXEMPTED OUT. WE CAN'T REALLY SAY EXACTLY WHAT THE COST TO THE DEVELOPERS WOULD BE; HOWEVER, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE THOUGHT PROCESS HERE IS THAT YOU WOULD INCLUDE ECONOMICS AS PART OF THE WORK OF THE TASK FORCE. SO THE TASK FORCE WOULD CONSIDER NOT ONLY THE PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES BUT ALSO THE ECONOMICS, THE COST TO THE DEVELOPERS, AND SO FORTH. >>JIM NORMAN: WHO ASKED THAT QUESTION? >>RICK GARRITY: THAT WOULD ALL BE PART OF THE PICTURE. YES, SIR. >>JIM NORMAN: WHO ASKED THAT QUESTION? >>RICK GARRITY: I BELIEVE IT WAS -- I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS YOU, COMMISSIONER, OR -- >>JIM NORMAN: I ACTUALLY SAID NO, I DIDN'T GIVE A FLIP ABOUT WHAT IT COST DEVELOPERS. I SAID I WAS WORRIED ABOUT WHAT IT COST THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND LIKE -- I GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE MA-AND-PA, GRANNY FOLKS THAT HAD OWNED IT FOR 50 YEARS AND WHAT KIND OF IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE ON THEM. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THAT QUESTION, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO ASKED IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE OUR BOARD HAVE A CONCERN THERE. >>RICK GARRITY: OKAY. >>JIM NORMAN: WOULD YOU RESEARCH THAT FOR ME AND PLEASE TELL ME -- >>RICK GARRITY: I SURE WILL. >>JIM NORMAN: -- SINCE YOU-ALL SAID YOU-ALL HAD THE MINUTES. >>RICK GARRITY: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL. AND AS FAR AS LIKE THE MOM-AND-POP, WE WOULD THINK THOSE WOULD BE THE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, PLATTED LOTS, THOSE WOULD BE THE TYPES OF AREAS -- THE LOTS THAT WOULD BE EXEMPTED OUT THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT ALSO WE -- UNDER THE ISSUE OF DEVELOPERS, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE POSSIBILITY OF FINANCIAL INCENTIVES BEING LOOKED AT SUCH AS DENSITY COMPENSATION WOULD BE ANOTHER THING THAT THE ADVISORY GROUP WOULD LOOK AT. QUESTION 4 IS -- WE HAD DOWN AS WHAT IS THE COST TO TAXPAYERS? AND THE SHORT-TERM COST TO THE TAXPAYERS WOULD BE THE COST OF THE STUDY WHICH DAN WENT OVER WITH YOU. THE LONG-TERM WE WOULD SEE AS A POTENTIAL SAVINGS IN THE SENSE THAT HOPEFULLY THE SCIENTIFICALLY BASED BUFFERS WOULD BE ABLE TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS -- AS OFFSETS TO FIX MANY OF THE IMPAIRED WATERS THAT WE HAVE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE COUNTY WOULD NOT HAVE TO ENGAGE IN, PERHAPS, SOME OTHER MORE COSTLY STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS, STORMWATER WATER-QUALITY-BASED IMPROVEMENTS, AND HOPEFULLY THERE WOULD BE AN ULTIMATE SAVINGS TO THE TAXPAYERS THERE. AS FAR AS ANY OTHER COST TO THE TAXPAYERS REGARDING POSSIBILITY OF BEING STUCK FOR A TAKINGS TYPE OF AN ISSUE, WE THOUGHT THAT THE WAY THIS IS BEING STRUCTURED IS IT'S BEING STRUCTURED TO LIMIT ANY LIABILITY TO THE TAXPAYERS REGARDING ANY TAKING -- TAKINGS OR BERT HARRIS TYPES OF ISSUES. THERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION, QUESTION 5, CAN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LIMIT RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION OF FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES? AND I THINK OUR ANSWER -- WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO MENTION THAT WE'LL BE TAKING THAT UP AT THE EPC MEETING TOMORROW. WE PLAN ON DOING A PRESENTATION ON FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES. I THINK YOU'LL FIND THAT VERY INTERESTING. BUT REGARDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT LIMITING THE APPLICATION, THE ANSWER -- SHORT ANSWER IS FOR FERTILIZERS YES AND FOR PESTICIDES NO, AND AS AN EXAMPLE, SEVERAL STATE GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, THE CITY OF SANIBEL, AND THE CITY OF NAPLES HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES THAT LIMIT TURF APPLICATION OF NITROGEN, LIMITED THE APPLICATION TO SLOW-RELEASED FERTILIZERS AND ALSO SOME STATEMENTS THAT THE APPLICATION CANNOT OCCUR DURING CRITICAL TIME PERIODS LIKE HEAVY RAINFALL EVENTS -- THE HEAVY RAINFALL SEASON RATHER. NOW, TO ME THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THERE ARE SOME STATE GOVERNMENT -- SOME COUNTIES AND CITIES, AS I SAY, THAT HAVE GONE THAT ROUTE. I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN THE FORM OF FDACS IS JUST ABOUT TO PUBLISH A RULE, AND THAT RULE IS GOING TO ALLOW SPECIAL LABELING CRITERIA DEFINING FERTILIZERS FOR -- FOR APPLICATION ON LAWNS AS SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZERS, SO BY -- PERHAPS DURING THE SUMMERTIME, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE AT HOMES -- AT LOWE'S AND HOME DEPOT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE TURF FERTILIZER WITH BIG LABELS ON IT SAYING, FOR APPLICATION FOR TURF ONLY. THESE ARE GOING TO BE FERTILIZERS THAT ARE SLOW RELEASE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE FERTILIZERS THAT ARE VERY, VERY LOW OR HAVE NO PHOSPHATE CONTENT. AND I WOULD THINK ONCE THIS IS DONE, IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT TIME FOR US AS A COUNTY GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND IMPLEMENT AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM PROMOTING THAT STATE RULE. FDACS WILL BE PUBLISHING A LOT OF BROCHURES TO EDUCATE THE CITIZENS, AND WE CAN PLAY A LARGE ROLE IN THAT REGARD. AND FINALLY, ITEM 6, CAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT LIMIT THE SALE OF FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES? WE -- WE THINK FROM LOOKING AT THAT THAT PESTICIDES IS A DEFINITE NO BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY MUCH REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. FERTILIZERS PROBABLY NO AS FAR AS ACTUALLY REGULATING THE SALES. BUT WITH THAT, WE HOPE THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED SOME OR ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS, AND DAN AND I AND THE REST OF THE STAFF, IF YOU HAVE ANYMORE -- IF YOU'D LIKE ANY CLARIFICATION, WE'LL TRY TO DO THAT. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: DR. GARRITY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND RESPONSES. I OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT LISTENING TO YOU, I BELIEVE PART OF THE QUESTION YOU ANSWERED WAS DIRECTED TO OUR CHAIRMAN'S CONCERN ABOUT THE MOM-AND-POP PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO SEE ACTUALLY, BY COINCIDENCE OR NOT, THAT YOU'RE BEING VERY COMPREHENSIVE IN YOUR RESPONSE. I THINK YOU ADDRESSED SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT MOM-AND- POP AND AVOIDING BURDENS TO THOSE SINGLE PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL AS -- AS THROUGH THE TECHNICAL MANUAL TAKING CARE OF ISSUES THAT CERTAINLY ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE -- ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AND, AT THE SAME TIME, THE DEVELOPER. I MEAN, ALL THOSE THREE PEOPLE COUNT, ALL THOSE GROUPS, THE SMALL MOM-AND-POP, THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS THAT WANT TO TAKE CARE OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE DEVELOPERS AND THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DENSITY COMPENSATION AND FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR THE DEVELOPERS, I LIKE THE FACT THAT YOUR ANSWER WAS COMPREHENSIVE, AND THAT ANSWERS THE THREE CATEGORIES' CONCERNS. THANK YOU, SIR. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: DR. GARRITY, A QUESTION. I KNOW WE'LL MEET TOMORROW, BUT WHO CERTIFIES WATER QUALITY? >>RICK GARRITY: WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ARE SET BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND WE HAVE ADOPTED THE SAME STANDARDS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. >>BRIAN BLAIR: SO WE'RE TRYING -- I ASKED YOU THE OTHER DAY AND WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO -- WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO UNIFORMLY ADHERE TO ALL STATE STANDARDS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU WERE IN FRONT OF US, AND WE ADHERE -- WE ADHERE TO ALL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS RIGHT NOW; CORRECT? >>RICK GARRITY: RIGHT. I BELIEVE YOU ASKED ABOUT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. WE DO IT HERE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, YES, AND AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. >>BRIAN BLAIR: WE ARE RIGHT NOW STRICTER THAN DEP, SWFWMD, THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WHICH HAVE A 15-FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK, AS LONG AS IT AVERAGES 25. WE HAVE A 30-FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK. I REALLY APPLAUD YOU FOR THE FDACS AND FOR THE PURSUIT OF THAT, FOR THE PURSUIT OF MANY OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT, OUR ENDANGERED, OUR -- OUR WATER -- DRINKING WATER SOURCES THAT HAVE PRESSURE RIGHT NOW FINDING ANY WAY WE CAN TO HELP THOSE, BUT IF WE'RE STRICTER THAN THE STATE IS RIGHT NOW AND WE DON'T CERTIFY WATER QUALITY, AND ALL -- ALL DEVELOPMENTS MUST HAVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS WHERE THE FLOW GOES OPPOSITE OF THE WETLAND AND THAT WATER HAS TO BE CERTIFIED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA -- IS THAT CORRECT? -- THAT IT HAS TO MEET STATE OF FLORIDA WATER STANDARDS, THE WATER THAT COMES OUT OF THE -- >>RICK GARRITY: AS FAR AS THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND RECEIVING WATERS, THOSE ARE STATE SET, THAT'S CORRECT. >>BRIAN BLAIR: SO ARE WE SAYING THAT WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE BY DEP, SWFWMD, AND THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IS FLAWED? >>RICK GARRITY: COMMISSIONER, WE WERE CHARGED, EPC, WITH COMING UP WITH TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT. THE -- THE STANDARDS AS -- WE'VE TRIED TO LOOK TO SEE WHAT THE EXISTING HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY STANDARDS OF 30 AND 50 FEET WERE BASED ON, AND WE CAN'T FIND THE TECHNICAL STUDIES THEY WERE BASED ON AS WELL AS THE SWFWMD STUDIES. WE BELIEVE THAT WAS ADOPTED BY A COMPROMISE BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, SO WE'VE TRIED OUR BEST TO -- TO GIVE YOU THE ANSWER AS FAR AS FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST RECOMMENDATION WE CAN COME UP WITH, AND IT'S THIS APPROACH WITH THIS TECHNICAL MANUAL. >>BRIAN BLAIR: DO WE HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE WETLANDS ARE SUSTAINING, THAT THEY'RE DECLINING, THAT THEY'RE GETTING BETTER? WHAT EVIDENCE DO WE HAVE? >>RICK GARRITY: WELL, WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE SURFACE WATERS ARE NOT UP TO WHAT THEY SHOULD BE, THAT WE HAVE -- INCLUDING ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PARAMETERS IN THE -- THAT THE STATE LOOKS AT FOR TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS, WE HAVE ABOUT 180-ODD IMPAIRED SEGMENTS AND WATER -- WATER RIVER SEGMENTS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT THE STATE IS DEMANDING THAT WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT. SO THERE'S -- SOMETHING'S NOT RIGHT WITH THOSE WATERS. >>BRIAN BLAIR: SHOULDN'T WE BE FOCUSING ON THOSE SPECIFICALLY? >>RICK GARRITY: THAT'S A GOOD POINT, COMMISSIONER. THAT MAY BE INDEED WHAT THIS TASK FORCE WOULD FOCUS ON BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT IS THE PRIORITIZATION OF IMPAIRED WATERS, AND THAT, INDEED, WOULD BE, IN MY VIEWPOINT, THE HIGHEST PRIORITY. >>BRIAN BLAIR: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. STEPHEN GRIFFIN AGAIN. THIS AFTERNOON WE'RE GOING TO BE REVIEWING WITH YOU THE E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND ITS ASSOCIATED MAP AMENDMENTS. >>JIM NORMAN: BEFORE YOU WENT THERE, ONE QUESTION I DIDN'T GET ANSWERED. ERIC JOHNSON OR PGM OR -- WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE COST -- THE OVERALL COST THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT AND DO AN ANALYSIS OF IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. DID ANYBODY DO THAT? MAYBE -- YES, SIR. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THIS AND YOU'VE LOOKED AT WHAT WE'RE DOING? >>PETER ALUOTTO: YES. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HAS TAKEN A LOOK AT THE E.A.R.-BASED PLAN AMENDMENTS. WE DO KNOW THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF STUDIES IN THERE IN THE TEENS OR LOW 20s, VARIOUS STUDIES, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A COST. WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO TAG A COST ON WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THOSE STUDIES AT THIS TIME. WE ARE PREPARING A BRIEF REPORT FOR THE COMMISSION WHICH GOES OVER THE VARIOUS POINTS THAT THE -- THAT WE HAVE ISSUE WITH, AND -- AND WE'LL PRESENT THOSE TO YOU AS SOON AS WE GET IT CONCLUDED. >>JIM NORMAN: MR. JOHNSON. >>ERIC JOHNSON: ERIC JOHNSON, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DEPARTMENT. I AGREE ENTIRELY WITH -- WITH PETER. I HAVEN'T HAD AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME SINCE -- SINCE THE QUESTION WAS RAISED, BUT IN MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND EPC AND PGM AND SOME OF THE COMMUNITY INTERESTS, PARTICULARLY THE -- THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ELEMENT JUST HAS POTENTIALLY STUDY AFTER STUDY AFTER STUDY. IN ADDITION TO STUDIES, THERE'S REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S MONITORING REQUIREMENTS, THINGS LIKE WHERE BIKE LANES ARE NOT CURRENTLY PART OF THE ROAD INSTALLED DURING ROAD MAINTENANCE, RESURFACING, OR RESTRIPING WHERE FEASIBLE. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE REALLY TO GET THROUGH ALL THOSE, BUT THERE'S CLEARLY SOME -- SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN -- IN THAT ELEMENT THAT COULD HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS, AND WE JUST GOT OUT OF A BUDGET WORKSHOP WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE MAY HAVE LESS MONEY, NOT MORE, SO I'M WHERE PETER IS. WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A -- A SENSE YET OF THE COSTS, BUT CLEARLY THROUGHOUT PARTICULARLY THAT ELEMENT, THERE'S A LOT OF POTENTIAL COSTS, NOT JUST FOR THE STUDIES -- AND THOSE ALONE MAY BE EXPENSIVE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO MONITOR, IMPLEMENT, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO GO IN AND RETROFIT ROADWAYS AS WE GO IN TO DO ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, YOU KNOW, I ASSUME THAT THERE'S SOME HEAVY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. AND I'LL WORK WITH PGM AS -- AS THEY DEAL WITH -- WITH RESPONDING TO THIS ISSUE. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. STEPHEN GRIFFIN, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THIS AFTERNOON WE'LL BE REVIEWING WITH YOU THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE ASSOCIATED MAP AMENDMENTS AS PART OF THE E.A.R.-BASED PLAN AMENDMENTS. AGAIN, THESE ARE PART OF THE FIRST CYCLE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2007. WE HAD TWO GROUPS OF AMENDMENTS, PRIVATELY INITIATED/COUNTY-INITIATED PLAN AMENDMENTS, AND THE E.A.R.- BASED PLAN AMENDMENTS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE REVIEWING WITH YOU TODAY, THE E.A.R.-BASED PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. JUST A QUICK UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCHEDULE THAT WE'VE FOLLOWED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED THE E.A.R. IN 2005 OF MAY, BOCC ADOPTED IT IN JUNE OF '05, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOUND THE E.A.R. SUFFICIENT IN AUGUST OF '05, WE HAD WORKSHOPS WITH BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOCC FROM MARCH THROUGH SEPTEMBER OF '06, THE E.A.R.-BASED PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE STARTED IN SEPTEMBER OF '06. WE HAD PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, AND WE'RE HAVING WORKSHOPS WITH YOU STARTING IN FEBRUARY AND TODAY, THE 14th OF MARCH, AND ALSO ON THE 22nd OF MARCH. THIS IS WORKSHOP NUMBER TWO, AND WE WILL BE FOCUSING ON THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. MS. MELISSA ZORNITTA WILL GO THROUGH THAT WITH YOU. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: GOOD AFTERNOON. MELISSA ZORNITTA WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IS ON THE BLUE PAGES IN YOUR BINDER, AND THERE IS A LOT OF CONTENT THAT I'M GOING TO BE GOING OVER, SO I'M GOING TO TRY AND GO OVER IT QUICKLY AND SUCCINCTLY, BUT PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO STOP ME IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A COMMENT BECAUSE WE WANT YOUR FEEDBACK. OKAY. WE -- WE STARTED THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT WITH GOING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND FINDING OUT WHAT THEY WERE INTERESTED IN. THEY TALKED TO US ABOUT MANAGING GROWTH, CREATING NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THEY COULD WALK, RIDE THEIR BIKES TO DIFFERENT PLACES, ENCOURAGING REDEVELOPMENT, AND ENSURING THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT PROTECTING RURAL AREAS AND ENCOURAGING A MIX OF USES. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS ABOUT ENSURING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE WAS IN PLACE TO SERVE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. SO IN THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT, WE DEVELOPED A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED AND UPDATED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS DOING A REAL GOOD JOB ON -- IN A NUMBER OF AREAS, BUT THERE WERE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE, AND THESE WERE IN THE AREAS OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT, PAYING FOR GROWTH, REDEVELOPMENT, RURAL LANDS, DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AND ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. ADDITIONALLY, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' STRATEGIC PLAN, THERE WERE TWO ITEMS THAT HAD DIRECTION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THESE WERE ADDRESSING THE TIMING OF GROWTH AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPING POLICIES THAT PROMOTE A BALANCED AND DIVERSIFIED LAND USE PATTERN AND PROTECT AGRICULTURAL LANDS, SO THOSE STRATEGIC PLAN DIRECTIONS WERE A PERFECT REFLECTION OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAD HAD TO SAY, SO WE ADDRESSED THOSE THROUGH THE E.A.R. AMENDMENTS AS WELL. SO WE CAME UP WITH THIS THEME OF EFFICIENT, FOCUSED, AND BALANCED GROWTH, AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS FOCUSING DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE, USING THAT LAND EFFICIENTLY, AND ENSURING THERE'S A BALANCE OF LAND USES. BY HAVING FOCUSED DEVELOPMENT AND A MIX OF USES IN THE AREAS, IT PROVIDES FOR MORE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS TO PEOPLE. IT ALLOWS PLACES WHERE PEOPLE CAN WALK OR RIDE THEIR BIKES TO GO SHOP. IT ALSO PROVIDES MORE EFFICIENT USE OF OUR TRANSIT SERVICES. IT ALSO -- BY FOCUSING GROWTH IN CERTAIN AREAS, IT PROTECTS CERTAIN ASPECTS OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE HEARD FROM THE CITIZENS WERE IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN, A RURAL LIFESTYLE, AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. AND BALANCED GROWTH, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ENSURE THAT THERE ARE A MIX OF USES IN UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THAT THERE ARE PLACES WHERE PEOPLE CAN WORK CLOSE TO WHERE THEY LIVE, ADDITIONALLY PLACES WHERE THEY CAN SHOP AND PLACES WHERE THEY CAN FIND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. SO ESSENTIALLY, EFFICIENT, BALANCED -- EFFICIENT, BALANCED, AND FOCUSED GROWTH IS INTENDED TO CREATE PLACES WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE, WORK, SHOP, AND PLAY. SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO IMPROVE UPON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ATTEMPT TO CONTINUE DOING THIS? THE FUTURE -- THERE ARE FOUR MAJOR AREAS OF CHANGES IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. THESE ADDRESS THE TIMING AND DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH, THE BALANCE OF LAND USES, SOME NEW TOPICS AND ORGANIZATION OF THE ELEMENT, AND THEN A NUMBER OF MAP AMENDMENTS. SO UNDER TIMING AND DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TOPICS THAT I'LL GO INTO. THE FIRST RELATES TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT PROJECTED THAT IN 2025 THE POPULATION FOR UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WOULD BE 1,032,950 PEOPLE, AND THAT'S AN INCREASE OF 276,500 PEOPLE. CURRENTLY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WE HAVE A GOAL THAT 80% OF OUR POPULATION AND NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL GO INTO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, SO IF WE MAINTAIN THAT SAME GOAL, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT 221,200 PEOPLE WOULD NEED TO BE ACCOMMODATED IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BY 2025. SO WE TOOK A LOOK AT HOW MUCH VACANT AND DEVELOPABLE LAND IS STILL AVAILABLE WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND FIRST OFF, WE -- WE COUNTED ALL THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WERE VACANT OR AGRICULTURAL THAT ARE GREATER THAN FIVE ACRES AND THAT EXCLUDED ANY ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS OR ANY CURRENTLY APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, OF WHICH THERE ARE A NUMBER OUT THERE, AND WE CAME UP WITH A VACANT AND DEVELOPABLE LAND ACREAGE OF 15,518. WITHOUT ANY OF THE CHANGES IN THE -- THAT ARE -- WE'RE PROPOSING IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT THAT MIGHT INCREASE DENSITY OR PROMOTE REDEVELOPMENT, THAT VACANT AND DEVELOPABLE LAND COULD ACCOMMODATE 39,535 DWELLING UNITS OR APPROXIMATELY 93,480 PEOPLE. AND THAT IS ON TOP OF ALL OF THE CURRENTLY APPROVED GROWTH. FOR EXAMPLE, WE WORKED WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND GOT AN ESTIMATION THAT IN SOUTH COUNTY THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 51,000 DWELLING UNITS THAT ARE APPROVED AND NOT DEVELOPED YET, SO THAT'S NOT COUNTED IN OUR VACANT AND DEVELOPABLE LANDS ACREAGE, BUT THAT NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WOULD ACCOMMODATE ABOUT 120,000 PEOPLE. SO WE -- WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR URBAN SERVICE AREA IS ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE POPULATION GROWTH THAT WE HAVE ANTICIPATED OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS. TO FURTHER ENSURE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH LAND AREA TO SUPPORT THE POPULATION GROWTH, WE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT TOOLS TO HELP INCENTIVIZE, GIVE DENSITY BONUSES, TO TRY AND INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF WHAT THAT URBAN SERVICE AREA CAN ACCOMMODATE, AND THE FIRST OF THESE IS THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TIERS. AS MANY OF YOU MAY KNOW, AS WE REVIEW REZONING APPLICATIONS, WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A SITE IS WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OF THE URBAN EXPANSION AREA OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THAT IS OUR CURRENT CONCEPT FOR PHASING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OUR URBAN SERVICE AREA. AND WHAT THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT FOUND WAS THAT IT'S NOT WORKING VERY WELL, THAT THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS OCCURRED IN THE URBAN EXPANSION AREA, AND SO WE NEEDED TO FIND A NEW WAY -- A NEW TOOL TO TIME GROWTH WITHIN OUR URBAN SERVICE AREA. AND THIS IS JUST A MAP OF THE -- THE PINK AREAS ARE THE TAMPA SERVICE AREA, THE AREAS SERVICED BY WATER AND SEWER BY THE CITY OF TAMPA; THE YELLOW THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA; AND THE GREEN THE URBAN EXPANSION AREA. SO THE TOOL THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS CALLED "URBAN SERVICE AREA TIERS," AND THE IDEA IS TO DIRECT AND TIME GROWTH TO WHERE SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. SO WE TRY AND ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT TO GO TO THE PLACES WHERE THE COUNTY ALREADY HAS MADE AN INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND MAXIMIZE THAT INVESTMENT BY USING OUR LAND EFFECTIVELY IN THOSE AREAS. THE TIERS ARE REFLECTIVE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF INTENSITY AND DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. IT'S NOT ALL THE SAME IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THERE ARE PLACES THAT HAVE MUCH HIGHER INTENSITY AND WHERE HIGHER INTENSITY IS APPROPRIATE AND PLACES THAT ARE OF A MUCH LOWER INTENSITY AS WELL, AND SO WE WANTED TO REFLECT THAT, THAT NOT EVERYPLACE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SAME INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT. AS WE DEVELOPED THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TIERS, WE DID LOOK AT A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA THAT HAVE URBAN SERVICE AREAS, FOR EXAMPLE, PALM BEACH COUNTY HAS A MANAGED GROWTH TIER SYSTEM, SARASOTA COUNTY HAS AN URBAN SURVEYS AREA WITH TEN SUBAREAS, SO WE LOOKED AT WHAT OTHER TOOLS ARE BEING UTILIZED AROUND THE STATE. AND IN DEVELOPING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TIER DESIGNATIONS, THERE ARE THREE MAJOR THINGS THAT WERE LOOKED AT. FIRST, THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, SO IT IS BASED ON THE DENSITY/INTENSITY OF OUR CURRENT LONG-RANGE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THEN WE APPLIED THE AREAS THAT ARE DESIGNATED AS ELAPP LANDS. THOSE AREN'T A TIER. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THEM. AND THEN WE APPLIED THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA BECAUSE THAT ALSO IS NOT AN AREA THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENCOURAGES HIGHER-DENSITY OR INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN WE APPLIED MULTIMODAL OPTIONS, LOOKING AT TRYING TO CONNECT TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE. IN THE PAST THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WAS PHASED BASED ON WATER AND SEWER SERVICE, BUT AS WE LOOKED GOING FORWARD, WE SAW THAT THE CONNECTION NEEDED TO BE MADE BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE, AND THAT RESULTED IN THE DIFFERENT TIER ASSIGNMENTS. THIS, AGAIN, JUST GOES OVER THE METHODOLOGY, AND I'LL WALK THROUGH THE MAPS, WHICH ARE MORE MEANINGFUL THAN THE WORDS HERE. THE -- THE FIRST STEP WAS LOOKING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE A DENSITY OF NINE UNITS PER ACRE OR HIGHER OR A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .5 OR GREATER WERE INITIALLY DESIGNATED AS A TIER 1. THEN THOSE THAT ARE FOUR AND SIX AND MORE SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WERE A TIER 2, AND THEN THERE ARE AREAS OF LOWER DENSITY UP IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE COUNTY, NORTHWEST, DOWN AROUND FISHHAWK, THEY HAVE A LOWER DENSITY, BUT THEY'RE IN OUR URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND THOSE NEED TO BE RECOGNIZED AS WELL, SO THOSE BECAME TIER 3. NEXT WE APPLIED THE ELAPP LANDS AND THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. THE ELAPP IS SHOWN IN GREEN. THOSE GOT TAKEN OUT OF THE TIER SYSTEM BECAUSE, AS I SAID, THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT PLANNED THERE, AND THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA, WHICH IS ALL THESE LITTLE SPOTS ALONG THE COASTLINE, BECAME TIER 3. WE ALSO LOOKED AT WHERE HARTLINE HAD TRANSIT ROUTES AND WHERE THE -- THERE WERE TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDORS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEN LOOKED AT A DISTANCE FROM THOSE. AREAS THAT WERE IN -- WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF A BUS LINE WERE ENCOURAGED AREAS BECAUSE WE WANT TO HAVE HIGHER DENSITY TO SUPPORT THOSE BUS ROUTES, AND THEN THE THREE- QUARTER MILES DISTANCE IS THE AREA THAT'S SERVED BY HARTLINE, BY PARATRANSIT, AND THAT WAS MORE REFLECTIVE OF A TIER 2. SO THE RESULTING MAP IS THE TIER MAP, AND THE -- AND YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE SMALLER COPIES OF THIS IN YOUR -- IN YOUR BINDERS, THE DARK RED BEING TIER 1, THE ORANGE TIER 2, AND THE YELLOW TIER 3. SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE IN EACH OF THESE TIERS? WELL, TIER 1 IS OUR HIGHEST-DENSITY/INTENSITY AREAS. THIS IS WHERE WE WANT TO REALLY ENCOURAGE AND INCENTIVIZE GROWTH TO OCCUR BECAUSE IT'S GOT A HIGH-DENSITY LAND USE CATEGORY, IT'S ALONG MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, THERE'S TRANSIT SERVICE NEARBY, SO WE WANT TO PUT IN PLACE SOME INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE GROWTH TO HAPPEN IN THESE AREAS. WE ALSO ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM DENSITIES OF 75% OF THE LAND USE CATEGORY IN THESE AREAS TO HELP PROMOTE THAT HIGHER DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT. TIER 2 IS MORE OF THE SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. IT'S THE TRANSITION FROM TIER 1, AND SO IT'S GENERALLY THE FOUR TO SIX UNITS PER ACRE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, LOWER FLOOR AREA RATIOS. IT'S ALSO THREE-QUARTER MILES FROM FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT OR PARATRANSIT, AND WHILE WE -- IT IS LOWER-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, WE STILL WANT -- ANTICIPATE A LOT OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA AND ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM DENSITIES OF 75% OF THE LAND USE CATEGORY. AND THEN LASTLY IS TIER 3, AND THIS IS PREDOMINANTLY AREAS THAT ARE LESS THAN FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, AREAS LIKE FISHHAWK OR THE EAGLES THAT ARE NOT A HIGHER DENSITY, AND THE AREAS SURROUNDING THEM NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN INFILL DEVELOPMENT OCCURS AROUND THEM THAT THEY'RE NOT THE HIGHEST INTENSITY. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE FIRST PRIORITY FOR GROWTH. AND SO REFLECTIVE OF THAT, WE ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM DENSITY OF 65% FOR THOSE LAND USE CATEGORIES. SO LOOKING AGAIN AT THE TIER MAP, YOU CAN SEE THE -- THE TIER 1 ALONG THE I-75 CORRIDOR. SOME OF OUR HIGHEST-DENSITY LAND USE CATEGORIES, MUCH OF CARROLLWOOD, BRANDON, SOUTH COUNTY, ARE TIER 2 AREAS. THEY'RE MORE OF A SUBURBAN INTENSITY AND DENSITY. AND THEN TIER 3 REFLECTING THOSE LOWER-DENSITY AREAS, IT REFLECTS THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA, WHICH GIVES YOU THIS KIND OF SPECKLED PATTERN ACROSS THE COASTLINE, AND IT REFLECTS SOME AREAS THAT ARE A FOUR- OR A SIX-UNIT-PER-ACRE LAND USE CATEGORY. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS AREA ALONG U.S. 301, IT'S IN SIX OR FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, BUT IT'S GREATER THAN THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILE FROM A TRANSIT LINE, AND THAT'S WHY IT GOT PUT INTO A TIER 3. WE ALSO HAVE POLICY LANGUAGE PROPOSED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADJUST THESE TIERS FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. WE HAVE A POLICY SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT ADJUSTING THEM BASED ON COMMUNITY PLANS BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT AS THE COMMUNITY PLANS ARE COMING ON-LINE, THEY HAVE SPECIFIC DESIRES ABOUT WHAT KIND OF DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES AND PRIORITIES FOR WHERE THEY WANT TO SEE GROWTH OCCUR, AND WE ALSO HAVE POLICIES TO ADJUST ANNUALLY BECAUSE HARTLINE CERTAINLY CHANGES THEIR ROUTES ON A REGULAR BASIS. THERE ARE OTHER MARKET AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES THAT OCCUR. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON, THE NEXT TOOL IS MINIMUM DENSITIES, AND AS I DESCRIBED IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TIERS, BY TIER, THERE IS A MINIMUM DENSITY ESTABLISHED OF EITHER 75% OR 65% OF THE LAND USE CATEGORY, AND WHILE WE WANTED TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM DENSITY, AS WAS CALLED FOR IN THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT, WE ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE A MINIMUM DENSITY MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE, SO WE ESTABLISHED SOME POLICY GUIDANCE ABOUT INSTANCES WHEN COMPATIBILITY OR A LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE OR IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT MAY CAUSE LESS THAN THE MINIMUM DENSITY TO BE APPROPRIATE IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. AND THE IDEA BEHIND THE MINIMUM DENSITIES IS TO ENCOURAGE A MORE EFFICIENT USE OF LAND. IF WE'RE DEVELOPING CLOSER TO OUR LAND USE CATEGORY MAXIMUMS, WE'RE UTILIZING LAND AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE. AND THE MINIMUM DENSITIES ALSO ALLOW THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL POPULATION. AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION, CURRENTLY, BASED ON CURRENT DENSITY BUILD-OUTS, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA ON THE VACANT AND DEVELOPABLE LAND COULD ACCOMMODATE ABOUT 39,500 DWELLING UNITS, AND WITH MINIMUM DENSITIES IMPLEMENTED, THAT WOULD INCREASE TO 42,755 DWELLING UNITS, ACCOMMODATING AN ADDITIONAL 7,643 PEOPLE. OKAY. EXPANSION OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. WHILE CERTAINLY THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT FOUND THAT THE URBAN SERVICE AREA HAD ADEQUATE LAND TO SUPPORT THE POPULATION WE'RE ANTICIPATING OVER OUR TIME FRAME, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE MAY BE INSTANCES WHERE WE NEED TO CONSIDER EXPANDING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. YOU MAY BE FACED WITH PLAN AMENDMENTS REQUESTING EXPANSIONS TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND SO POLICY LANGUAGE TO PROVIDE CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE ABOUT WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WAS PROVIDED. IT PREDOMINANTLY RELATES TO ENSURING THAT IT'S A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND THAT SERVICES ARE PLANNED OR PROGRAMMED TO SERVICE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONALLY, SOME POLICIES RELATING TO THE TIMING OF GROWTH AND WHEN A PROJECT WOULD BE DEEMED PREMATURE WAS ALSO PROVIDED. THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY IS THE NEXT TOOL, AND THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY IS DIFFERENT FROM THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE VERY SIMILAR NAMES. THIS WAS A TOOL THAT WAS PROVIDED IN STATE LAW IN 2005'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION, AND SIMPLY, WE ADDED POLICY FRAMEWORK THAT IF THE COUNTY WANTS TO PURSUE THIS IN THE FUTURE THROUGH A VISIONING EFFORT TO TARGET DEVELOPMENT IN AN EVEN MORE COMPACT AREA WITH A TEN-YEAR PLANNING TIME FRAME, THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY, AND THE INCENTIVE THAT THE STATE PROVIDED IS THAT IT ALLOWS FOR AN ABBREVIATED PLAN AMENDMENT AND DRI PROCESS FOR THOSE AREAS THAT ARE DEEMED AN URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, BUT AT THIS TIME WE'RE NOT ESTABLISHING IT, WE'RE JUST LAYING OUT THE FRAMEWORK THAT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE COUNTY WANTS TO PURSUE IN THE FUTURE, IT IS ENABLED TO DO SO. THE NEXT TOOL IN THE TIMING AND DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH IS THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, AND TDRs, AS WE CALL THEM, IS A TECHNIQUE TO ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS TO SEND THEIR DENSITY OR INTENSITY RIGHTS FROM ONE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER TO FACILITATE A DESIRED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND TO PROTECT OPEN SPACE, FARMLAND, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, AND THE COUNTY HAS A CURRENT TDR PROGRAM. IT WAS ADOPTED IN THE 1980s AND UPDATED IN 2002, AND RIGHT NOW THE SENDING AREAS ARE DEFINED BY ZONING DISTRICTS, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS, THE ENTIRE RURAL AREA, AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS, SO YOU CAN SEND YOUR DENSITY FROM ANY ONE OF THOSE FOUR AREAS INTO SPECIFIC RECEIVING AREAS THAT ARE LIMITED TO AREAS OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DESIGN AND TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN, AND AT THIS POINT THERE'S ONLY ONE OF THOSE DESIGNATIONS IN THE COUNTY. ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SOME AREAS IN THE COMMUNITY PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS RECEIVING AREAS. THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT -- WELL, THIS IS THE MAP OF THE CURRENT TDR SENDING AND RECEIVING AREAS AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW, SO THERE'S A LOT OF AREA THAT COULD SEND ITS DENSITY TO A VERY LIMITED AREA TO ACCEPT IT. AND SO WHAT THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT SAID WAS THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT THIS AS -- AS A REAL VIABLE GROWTH MANAGEMENT TOOL AND TRY AND IMPROVE UPON THE CURRENT COUNTY PROGRAM. AND AS SUCH, STRATEGIES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO REVISE THAT SENDING AND RECEIVING AREA MAP TO REALLY CREATE MORE OF A MARKET FOR THIS TO OCCUR, BY PROVIDING FOR ADEQUATE INCENTIVES, BALANCING THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AND CREATING MECHANISMS FOR ADMINISTRATION SUCH AS POSSIBLY WORKING WITH PARTNERSHIPS WITH A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION TO ESTABLISH A TDR BANK. IT ALSO RECOMMENDS CONSIDERING MULTIPLIERS OR CREDITS SO THAT IF YOU TRANSFER ONE UNIT FROM THE RURAL AREA IT MIGHT EQUAL FOUR UNITS IN THE URBAN AREA, AND SO THE SENDING AND RECEIVING AREAS HAVE BEEN REOUTLINED, AND I'LL LET YOU SEE A LOOK AT THAT MAP. THE SENDING AREAS INCLUDE SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT, AREAS NOMINATED FOR ELAPP LANDS BUT NOT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED BY THE COUNTY, AS WELL AS THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. THE RECEIVING AREAS INCLUDE ACTIVITY CENTERS AND THE TIER 1 OF OUR URBAN SERVICE AREA, SO THAT'S WHERE THE DENSITY COULD BE TRANSFERRED INTO, AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTIAL-2 PLANNED LAND USE CATEGORY, WHICH IS SORT OF IN THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE COUNTY HERE. AND THAT LEADS ME RIGHT INTO THE NEXT TOOL IN TIMING AND DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH, WHICH IS THAT LAND USE CATEGORY, RP-2 OR RESIDENTIAL-2 PLANNED. THIS IS A LAND USE CATEGORY THAT ESSENTIALLY COVERS THE FRINGE JUST OUTSIDE MUCH OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA IN SOUTHEAST COUNTY, AND IT PROMOTES A VILLAGE CONCEPT; HOWEVER, IN THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE VILLAGE CONCEPT WAS NOT REALLY WORKING, AS WE HADN'T REALLY SEEN ANY DEVELOPMENTS IMPLEMENT OR UTILIZE THAT LAND USE CATEGORY. SO WE WORKED WITH A GROUP OF DEVELOPERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, INTERESTED PARTIES IN THAT AREA TO REVISE THE RP-2 LAND USE CATEGORY TO PROVIDE FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY, TO SEE IF WE COULD GET IT TO WORK ESSENTIALLY, AND SOME OF THOSE CHANGES INCLUDED HAVING THIS BEING A RECEIVING AREA FOR TDRs, ALLOWING THEM TO GO UP TO FOUR UNITS PER ACRE IF THEY PURCHASED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FROM ONE OF THOSE AREAS WE WANT TO PROTECT, ALSO ALLOWING FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN THE VILLAGE REQUIREMENTS, HOW MUCH COMMERCIAL AND WHAT SORT OF TIMING WHEN THE COMMERCIAL HAS TO BE ON-LINE. THOSE CHANGES WERE -- CHANGES WERE MADE IN THOSE AREAS AS WELL AS CHANGES TO PROMOTE ROAD CONNECTIVITY. AND OUR LAST TOPIC UNDER THE TIMING AND DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH IS COMPATIBILITY IN THE RURAL AREA, AND WE HEARD A LOT FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT PROTECTING THE RURAL NATURE OF THE COUNTY AND THAT THERE MIGHT NEED TO BE SOME DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE RURAL AREA THAN THERE ARE IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND SO THERE ARE TWO TOOLS THAT WE USE OR OFTEN UTILIZE TO INCREASE DENSITY. THE FLEX PROVISION IS UTILIZED TO FLEX A LAND USE CATEGORY, OFTEN TO GET ADDITIONAL DENSITY, AS WELL AS THE WETLAND DENSITY CREDIT ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONAL DENSITY CREDITS IF YOU HAVE WETLANDS GREATER THAN 25% OF YOUR SITE. AND THE PROPOSAL IS TO NO LONGER UTILIZE THOSE TOOLS IN THE RURAL AREA. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE IN THE LUTZ AND THE KEYSTONE COMMUNITY PLANS, AND SO IT WAS WORKING SUCCESSFULLY THERE, WE THOUGHT MIGHT APPLY TO THE REST OF THE RURAL AREA TO HELP ENSURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT ARE OCCURRING IN THE RURAL AREA ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE. SO THAT CONCLUDES OUR FIRST SET OF TOPICS ON THE TIMING AND DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH. BEFORE I MOVE ON, DO YOU-ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK ON THAT? I DON'T WANT TO MOVE TOO FAR AND -- KEEP GOING? OKAY. GOT IT. THE NEXT TOPIC IS THE BALANCE OF LAND USES, AND THE FIRST TOOL UNDER BALANCE OF LAND USES IS ACTIVITY CENTERS. WE HAVE ACTIVITY CENTERS CURRENTLY IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT THEY'RE BASICALLY THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR WHERE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN OCCUR BASED ON INTERSECTIONS, AND WHAT THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT CALLED FOR WAS CREATING MORE VIBRANT, WALKABLE ACTIVITY CENTERS WITH MIXED-USE AND PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT CREATING SOME HIGHER-DENSITY/INTENSITY MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTERS, AND THE METHODOLOGY USED TO IDENTIFY THESE AREAS WAS LOOKING AT EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS, IDENTIFYING AREAS OF REGIONAL, COMMERCIAL, AND SERVICE EMPLOYMENT LOCATIONS, SO PLACES WHERE WE CURRENTLY HAVE A LOT OF JOBS AND NONRESIDENTIAL USES ALREADY; PROXIMITY TO FUTURE AND EXISTING MASS TRANSPORTATION OR MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS; PLACES THAT HAD UNDERUTILIZED LANDS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MORE EFFICIENTLY UTILIZE THAT LAND USE PATTERN AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN MADE THERE; AND THEN AREAS THAT WERE POLICY CONSTRAINED WHERE WE WOULDN'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTERS. WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED IS TWO LEVELS OF ACTIVITY CENTERS, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL ACTIVITY CENTERS ARE -- WHEN YOU SEE THE MAP, IT'S BASED ON THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES, IDENTIFYING THOSE AREAS THAT HAD THE HIGH REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT, AND SO WE RECOGNIZED THOSE BOUNDARIES ARE NOT - - I MEAN, THEY'RE UTILIZED FOR TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS. THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY ACTIVITY CENTER BOUNDARIES, SO WE WANT TO LOOK AT DOING SPECIAL AREA PLAN ANALYSIS FOR EACH OF THESE ACTIVITY CENTERS, AND AS I GET TO THE MAP HERE, YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT. WE'VE GOT A -- THE GREEN -- THE PURPLE AREAS ARE THE PRIMARY ACTIVITY CENTERS, THE GREEN THE SECONDARY ACTIVITY CENTERS, AND THE -- THE ANALYSIS THAT -- AND -- WOULD NEED TO BE DONE ON EACH OF THESE IS SOMETHING AKIN TO WHAT WE DO IN OUR CURRENT COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS, AND WE THINK THIS WOULD FIT IN VERY NICELY WITH THAT COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS, THAT AS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CARROLLWOOD COMMUNITY PLAN GETS UNDERWAY, THEY MIGHT TAKE A LOOK AT THESE ACTIVITY CENTERS, DETERMINE WHAT THE RIGHT DENSITY AND INTENSITY AND MIX OF USES, THE TYPE OF DESIGN STANDARDS THEY WANT THAT ACTIVITY CENTER TO HAVE AND THEN ALLOW THAT ACTIVITY CENTER TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS DEVELOPMENT COMES FORWARD. ADDITIONALLY, A DEVELOPER COULD ALSO DO THAT KIND OF ANALYSIS IF THEY SAW A SITE THEY WANTED TO DEVELOP OR REDEVELOP AND UTILIZE SOME OF THESE ACTIVITY CENTER INCENTIVES. AGAIN, THE IDEA IS THAT THEY'D BE MIXED USE, WALKABLE, PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED, AND THAT IF BY DOING AN ACTIVITY CENTER THERE ARE INCENTIVES, THEY COULD UTILIZE A MULTIMODAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY ALLOWING A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY. WE RECOGNIZE THAT A NUMBER OF THESE AREAS HAVE TRANSPORTATION CONSTRAINTS, BUT THEY MAY BE AREAS WHERE WE COULD LOOK AT DOING A MULTIMODAL DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR WALKING, FOR BIKING, FOR TRANSIT BECAUSE AS THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT'S MIXED USE, MANY OF THOSE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES THEN BECOME AVAILABLE TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND WORK IN THOSE ACTIVITY CENTERS. ALSO, THERE ARE DENSITY AND INTENSITY BONUSES ASSOCIATED AS WELL. THOSE BONUSES ALSO GET HIGHER IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS INTO THE AREA. SO THE PRIMARY ACTIVITY CENTERS, THOSE AREAS THAT WERE PURPLE ON THE MAP, ARE THOSE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES WITH A THOUSAND OR MORE REGIONAL, COMMERCIAL, AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES; THEY'RE CLOSE TO POTENTIAL TRANSIT OR MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS; AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A MIX OF USES OF 60% RESIDENTIAL AND 40% NONRESIDENTIAL, AND THIS IS JUST A LIST OF THE DIFFERENT AREAS. I'M CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO READ IT TO YOU. THE SECONDARY ACTIVITY CENTERS ARE THOSE AREAS THAT ARE PROJECTED IN THE FUTURE TO HAVE A THOUSAND REGIONAL EMPLOYEES BY 2015, SO THEY'RE MORE OF EMERGING AREAS. MANY OF THEM ARE MORE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY FOCUSED. THEY'D REALLY BECOME SORT OF THE FOCAL POINT FOR THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, SO THEY HAVE MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL MIX OF USES, 70% RESIDENTIAL, 30% NONRESIDENTIAL. AND THAT'S THE LIST OF THOSE. OUR NEXT TOPIC UNDER THE BALANCE OF LAND USES IS OUR MIXED- USE LAND USE CATEGORIES. THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE HAVE MIXED-USE LAND USE CATEGORIES, AND THERE'S POLICY LANGUAGE IN THERE STATING THAT WE NEED TO HAVE PERCENTAGES FOR WHAT KIND OF MIX OF USES WE WANT TO SEE IN THOSE CATEGORIES, SO THE E.A.R. ECHOED THAT SAME SENTIMENT THAT WE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH SOME MINIMUM PERCENTAGES FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES A MIXED USE. WE LOOKED AT THE BUILD-OUT OF THE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORIES AS WELL AS WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES UTILIZED IN THEIR MIXED-USE CATEGORIES AND DEVELOPED SOME PERCENTAGES THAT WOULD APPLY TO PROPERTIES OF TEN ACRES OR GREATER. WHAT WE ESTABLISHED WAS ESSENTIALLY A PERCENTAGE OF A MAIN USE AND A SECONDARY PERCENTAGE OF A DIFFERENT USE. WE DIDN'T WANT TO DICTATE THAT IT NEEDED A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL, WE WANTED THE MARKET AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CONTEXT OF THE AREA TO DICTATE WHAT USES REALLY WERE APPROPRIATE IN AN AREA, SO WE WANTED THERE COULD BE FLEXIBILITY, SO WE FOCUSED ON -- THE IDEA WAS AS OPPOSED TO JUST HAVING SINGLE-USE PROJECTS, THIS WOULD ENCOURAGE AT LEAST TWO USES SO PEOPLE COULD WALK, BIKE, AND EFFICIENTLY UTILIZE LAND BETTER. THE -- THERE ALSO ARE ESTABLISHED PERCENTAGES FOR OPEN SPACE AND FOR CIVIC USES. AND THE -- THE PERCENTAGES DEPEND ON EACH OF THE LAND USE CATEGORIES. THE NEXT TOPIC IS REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY, AND THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT -- IN THAT PROCESS WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT HOW SOME PARTS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ARE -- ARE GETTING OLDER, THEY'RE IN NEED OF SOME REVITALIZATION, AND THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE SOME STRATEGIES IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADDRESS THAT. AND SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IDENTIFY NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION AREAS, AND THESE ARE ALL CANDIDATES FOR POTENTIAL REVITALIZATION. IT WOULD TAKE FURTHER STUDY TO DETERMINE WHAT PRIORITY FOR THE REVITALIZATION. MANY OF THEM MIRROR WHAT IS IN THE COMMUNITY PLANS BECAUSE WE LOOKED AT THE COMMUNITY PLANS, AND A NUMBER OF THEM HAVE ALREADY IDENTIFIED AREAS THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE REVITALIZED, SUCH AS RIVERVIEW IDENTIFIED ITS RIVERVIEW DOWNTOWN AS AN AREA THEY WANTED TO SEE REVITALIZED. WE ALSO LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF CRITERIA ABOUT PROPERTY CONDITION AND VALUE TO HELP DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE AREAS, AND THE MAP IS A LITTLE HARD TO READ, BUT THE COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION AREAS ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE AREAS OUTLINED IN BLACK AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION AREAS ARE IDENTIFIED IN -- OUTLINED IN BLUE, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, A NUMBER OF THEM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION AREA HIGHLIGHTED HERE REFLECTS STATE ROAD 60. THAT ALREADY THROUGH THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS HAS DONE -- THEY'VE DONE A DESIGN OVERLAY TO ENCOURAGE THE REVITALIZATION OF THAT AREA, SIMILAR THAT'S OCCURRED ALONG HILLSBOROUGH AVENUE, WHICH WAS ALSO IDENTIFIED, AND MANY OF THEM MIRROR WHAT'S OCCURRING IN THE COMMUNITY PLANS, SUCH AS IN GIBSONTON AND IN RUSKIN, THEIR DOWNTOWN, THEY'VE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED SOME ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STRATEGIES TO ASSIST IN THOSE AREAS. SO ESSENTIALLY BY DESIGNATING THESE AREAS, WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THE FUTURE, THROUGH THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS, CONTINUING TO FOCUS ON THESE AREAS FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION THROUGH STRATEGIES SUCH AS THOSE THAT ARE ALREADY OCCURRING, AND THAT WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER POTENTIAL INCREASES IN LAND USE INTENSITY, LOOKING AT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ELIMINATE ANY BARRIERS TO REDEVELOPMENT, POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT STREAMLINING PERMITTING AND SOME REGULATORY RELIEF TO THOSE AREAS, AS WELL AS CONTINUING TO SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES AND PARTNERSHIPS THAT CAN HELP FOSTER THIS REDEVELOPMENT. NEXT TOPIC IS BONUSES AND INCENTIVES. >>JIM NORMAN: YOU DO NEED TO GET THROUGH THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DISCUSS SOME OF THIS. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: I KNOW. I'M TRYING TO GO AS FAST AS I CAN. I PROMISE, I'LL HURRY UP. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BONUSES AND INCENTIVES ALREADY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE LOOKED AT ADDING FLEXIBILITY TO THOSE, LOOKING AT FLEXIBILITY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO -- FOR MIXED- USE PROJECTS. WE ALSO ADDED A NEW BONUS FOR VERTICALLY INTEGRATED MIXED USE WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ABOVE IT, COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ABOVE IT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. INFILL DEVELOPMENT. WE ALSO HAD A BONUS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ADDED SOME FLEXIBILITY TO THAT. WE ALSO ARE PROPOSING EIGHT MAP AMENDMENTS, WHICH I'LL GET TO HOPEFULLY VERY SHORTLY TO -- THAT FOCUSED ON INCREASING DENSITY AND INTENSITY FOR INFILL. COMPATIBILITY WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT IN THE E.A.R. PROCESS, AND SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS ALWAYS DEFINED WHAT COMPATIBILITY MEANS, BUT WE ADDED THAT INTO THE POLICY LANGUAGE SO IT PROVIDED SOME GREATER GUIDANCE ON THAT. WE ALSO ADDED POLICIES ENCOURAGING A VARIATION OF LOT SIZES AND HOUSING TYPES AND PROVIDING SOME GUIDANCE THAT LOT SIZES SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH DEVELOPMENT WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF A SITE. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WAS ALSO ADDRESSED. THIS WAS ADDRESSED PREDOMINANTLY BY INCORPORATING THE TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO CREATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREAS BY 2008 AND TO ADDRESS THE INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT OF OUR MIXED-USE LAND USE CATEGORIES. THERE ARE ALSO SOME REVISIONS TO THE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED GROUPS ELEMENT, AND THAT ELEMENT WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE NEXT WORKSHOP. AND LASTLY UNDER THIS TOPIC IS OPEN SPACE, AND WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT FOLKS WANTING TO SEE MORE OPEN SPACE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, IN THEIR NEW DEVELOPMENTS, AND CURRENTLY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIRES A 25% MINIMUM OF OPEN SPACE IN A NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE -- OUR PROPOSAL IS THAT 5% OF THAT EXISTING 25% BE SET ASIDE FOR RECREATION OR CIVIC USES, AREAS THAT PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY CAN USE, SO THAT IF YOU'RE UTILIZING YOUR STORMWATER POND AS YOUR RECREATION AREA, THAT MAYBE YOU PUT A WALKING TRAIL AND PATH AROUND IT SO PEOPLE CAN USE IT TO RECREATE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. THERE'S ALSO DIFFERENT PERCENTAGES IN OPEN SPACE IN THE MIXED-USE AND THE ACTIVITY CENTERS. >>JIM NORMAN: WE'RE GOING TO TAKE -- WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK HERE FOR ONE SECOND. THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE YOU'VE GOT TO REALLY RUN THROUGH. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: WELL, WE DO HAVE ALL THE MAP AMENDMENTS. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I PROBABLY -- MY QUESTIONS WILL PROBABLY BE REPLICATED BY OTHERS, AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE DON'T HAVE -- I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS, SO YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GIVE ME YOUR ANSWERS RIGHT AWAY, BUT MY FIRST QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE WE PROJECTING IN THE WAY OF PEOPLE MOVING INTO OUR COMMUNITY EACH YEAR? HOW MANY PEOPLE DO WE THINK ARE GOING TO BE MOVING HERE? I'VE OFTEN USED THE NUMBER 24,000, BUT -- >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: I THINK THAT WE'VE AVERAGED ABOUT 20,000. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. SO ARE YOU BASICALLY SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO -- IS -- IS THE LOGIC HERE THAT AS 20,000 OR 24,000 PEOPLE MOVE INTO THE COUNTY THAT WE'RE GOING -- THEY'RE GOING TO GO INTO TIER 1? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, PUSH -- >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: WELL, CERTAINLY, WE CAN'T DICTATE WHERE SOMEBODY CHOOSES TO BUY A HOME, BUT OUR -- OUR GOAL IS TO TRY AND INCENTIVIZE AND ENCOURAGE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT TO FIRST HAPPEN IN TIER 1 BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS, AND WE WANT TO EFFICIENTLY UTILIZE THAT INVESTMENT. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. DO WE -- I PROBABLY MISSED THIS, BUT WHAT'S THE DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE THAT'S IN TIER 1? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: I HAVE THE DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE OF THE WHOLE URBAN SERVICE AREA. I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK WITH YOU WITH EXACTLY WHAT THAT TIER -- >>MARK SHARPE: I'D LIKE TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT'S AVAILABLE. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: WE CAN DO THAT. >>MARK SHARPE: ONE OF THE CHALLENGES I HAD WHEN I WENT THROUGH THIS WITH MY OFFICE AND LOOKING AT IT -- LISTENING TO THE PRESENTATION -- IT'S A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE TIERS DON'T OBVIOUSLY REFLECT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. FOR INSTANCE, TIER 3 OR -- WHICH IS OUR -- I GUESS OUR LAST PRIORITY WITH REGARD TO WHERE WE WOULD WANT PEOPLE TO GO -- ALREADY HAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT; IS THAT CORRECT? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: I WOULD AGREE COMPLETELY, YES. THERE IS A NUMBER -- THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXISTING COMMUNITIES IN TIER 3, BOTH ON THE GROUND AND PLANNED, AND ONE COMPONENT OF THAT IS THAT THEY'RE -- SOME OF THEM ARE AT A MUCH LOWER DENSITY, AND SO NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES IN AROUND, SAY, AN EAGLES IN THE NORTHWEST NEEDS TO BE REFLECTIVE OF THAT LOWER-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THE OTHER COMPONENT IS IS THAT THEY'RE FURTHER AWAY FROM TRANSIT LINES, AND THAT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT CAN CHANGE OVER TIME. >>MARK SHARPE: AND WHEN YOU MEAN -- WHEN YOU MEAN TRANSIT LINES, YOU MEAN -- >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: BUS. BUS LINES. >>MARK SHARPE: RIGHT. WHICH -- I MEAN, IT'S THE TRANSIT OF -- OF LAST RESORT. I MEAN, IT'S NOT A REAL TRANSIT LINE, IT'S WHAT -- WAS THERE ANY ATTEMPT MADE TO WORK WITH THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED? MY CONCERN IS WE'RE GOING TO -- IT'S ALMOST AS IF WE'VE GOT A PLAN, BUT IT'S -- IT'S -- IT'S NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE REALITY OF WHAT'S OUT THERE, AND I HAVE A CONCERN THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE A MASSIVE IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP AND BUILD, AND HAVE WE -- HAVE YOU WORKED WITH OR TALKED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY? I MEAN, I THINK THAT -- HAVE THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT INTO THIS PROCESS? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: WE MADE A PRESENTATION TO THE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, I BELIEVE IT WAS JANUARY OR EARLY FEBRUARY, AND WE'VE ALSO OFFERED TO MEET WITH THEM FURTHER TO DISCUSS THIS. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IT DOES NOT CHANGE THEIR FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. IF SOMEBODY'S RESIDENTIAL-4, THEY CAN DEVELOP AT FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT. IT'S SIMPLY A TOOL, A SNAPSHOT, IF YOU WOULD, OF WHERE WE WOULD WANT TO FOCUS AND INCENTIVIZE GROWTH BASED ON OUR CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE, OUR CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORIES, SO THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE OVER TIME. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS REALLY GUIDING EXACTLY WHAT DENSITY AND INTENSITY FUTURE GROWTH IS GOING TO TAKE. THAT -- THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. THIS DOESN'T TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM ANYBODY, IT SIMPLY IS A TOOL TO HELP GUIDE DECISION-MAKING. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: WELL, I WAS WONDERING FIRST HOW THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT ALL THE COMMUNITY-BASED PLANS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH FOR SO LONG. THESE PEOPLE HAVE PUT SO MUCH EFFORT INTO ALL THESE COMMUNITY-BASED PLANS, AND I SEE A COUPLE PEOPLE FROM SUN CITY CENTER SITTING RIGHT HERE, DEE AND JANET, AND I KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN IN SUN CITY CENTER FOR A LONG TIME, AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE CARE OF OUR SENIORS. THEY PROBABLY HAVE THE OLDEST PLAN IN THE COMMUNITY. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: UH-HUH. >>BRIAN BLAIR: AND I KNOW THAT THIS PLAN HAS -- WHAT DOES IT HAVE? IT HAS THE CORRIDORS RUNNING THROUGH IT. I GUESS IT KIND OF DISRUPTS THE PLAN AS IT SITS. THIS IS A GOLF CLUB -- OR A GOLF CART COMMUNITY, AND IT KIND OF -- IT ELIMINATES -- IF -- IF THE PLAN -- IF YOU -- IF YOU ELIMINATE THAT, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE A LOT OF PROBLEMS, AND -- AND THAT'S WHAT I SAW WITHIN THE PLAN, THAT IT DISRUPTS THE COMMUNITY. DID YOU SEE THAT? IT CHANGES THE WAY THAT SUN CITY CENTER IS LAID OUT. CORRIDORS RUN -- IT MAY BE GOOD FOR NEW NEIGHBORHOODS, TO BRING CORRIDORS TO NEW NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT NOT FOR EXISTING ONES. I DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: WELL -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: AND WE CHAMPION THE COMMUNITY PLANS ALL OVER THE COUNTY, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A DIRECT DEMOCRACY WHERE PEOPLE PLAN THEIR OWN FUTURE. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS LIKE A SOCIALISTIC MASTER PLAN. THAT'S ONE THING. AND THEN THE SECOND THING, THIS IS AN E.A.R., THIS IS AN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT, AND I JUST BROUGHT THESE OUT JUST SO YOU CAN SEE, THIS LOOKS LIKE A TOTAL -- THIS LOOKS LIKE A TOTAL REWRITE OF THE -- A TOTAL REWRITE OF THE COMP PLAN, AND I'M JUST AFRAID THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE A LOT OF PROBLEMS IF THIS IS ADHERED TO. IT'S NICE TO GIVE THE DEVELOPERS A CARROT. THAT'S -- THAT'S NICE TO MOVE HERE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST, AND THEN YOU -- WE TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY. WE GO AFTER NEW COMPANIES TO LOCATE HERE. DO YOU THINK THEY'RE LOOKING AT HOUSES, YOU KNOW, AT 12 UNITS PER ACRE IN TIER 1? ARE WE GOING TO HURT OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY -- BY IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN? AND TO ANSWER MARK'S QUESTION OR WHAT HE ASKED, HE ASKED IN TIER 1, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY ACRES WERE DEVELOPABLE. THERE'S ONLY -- I THINK THERE'S -- THERE'S 23 PARCELS THAT ARE 100 ACRES OR MORE IN TIER 1, AND ONLY 11 OF THOSE ARE PRIVATELY HELD. THE OTHER ONES ARE PUBLICLY HELD BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. AND THEN YOU -- THEN YOU SHOWED US A MAP, AND WE HAD TAKEN THIS MAP -- WHERE'S THAT MAP AT? LET ME SHOW YOU THE ELMO. >>JIM NORMAN: THIS IS A FIRST. [LAUGHTER] >>BRIAN BLAIR: OKAY. ARE WE SET? OKAY. IT'S UP HERE, BUT IN THE ELMO, IF YOU -- IF YOU LOOK WHERE YOUR -- YOUR URBAN SERVICE ARTERIALS ARE AND WHERE YOUR MAP IS, FOR EXAMPLE, NUMBER -- IF YOU GO TO 1, WHERE I HAVE IT LABELED RIGHT HERE, THAT'S THE FALKENBURG JAIL AND THE WASTEWATER PLANT. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: UH-HUH. >>BRIAN BLAIR: ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: UH-HUH. >>BRIAN BLAIR: OKAY. AND NUMBER 4 IS FISHHAWK, LAKE HUTTO. NUMBER 5, UP HERE, THAT IS CHEVAL AND CALUSA TRACE. NUMBER 3 IS EAST BAY HIGH SCHOOL. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PUT SOMETHING THROUGH EAST BAY HIGH SCHOOL? I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF THIS THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, AND IF YOUR MAPS ARE WRONG, I'M WONDERING WHAT THE METHODOLOGY THAT WENT INTO THIS -- HOW RELIABLE THAT IS. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: OKAY. I'LL TRY AND RESPOND TO THOSE QUESTIONS. I'LL START WITH THAT ONE SINCE THAT'S FRESH ON MY MIND. THE METHODOLOGY LOOKED AT THE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORIES AND PUT THEM INTO DIFFERENT TIERS, SO FOR EXAMPLE, AN -- ALL OF THE PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, WHICH INCLUDES SCHOOLS, THE JAIL, THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT -- IT ALSO HAPPENS TO INCLUDE THINGS LIKE THE FAIRGROUNDS AND TAMPA BAY DOWNS -- THOSE WERE PUBLIC LAND USE CATEGORIES. THEY DON'T HAVE A DENSITY, THEY -- THEIR INTENSITY IS BASED ON THE LAND USE CATEGORIES AROUND THEM, SO THEY GOT PUT INTO A TIER 3, AND SO THAT'S HOW THEY GOT INTO TIER 3. THE INTENT IS NOT -- THE INTENT OF THE TIER MAP IS TO ILLUSTRATE AREAS WHERE WE WANT TO TRY AND FOCUS GROWTH FIRST PRIORITY, SECOND PRIORITY, THIRD PRIORITY. IT DOESN'T TAKE ANY DENSITY OR INTENSITY AWAY, AND IT SIMPLY WOULD PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO THOSE AREAS THAT ARE IN A TIER 1. SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS, LIKE A CHEVAL OR A FISHHAWK, THEY HAVE A DENSITY ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF TWO UNITS PER ACRE, SO THEY'RE LOWER-DENSITY COMMUNITIES, AND THAT'S HOW THEY FELL INTO A TIER 3 BECAUSE THAT MAY NOT BE OUR FIRST PRIORITY TO PUT A LOT OF OUR GROWTH RIGHT NEXT TO A TWO- UNIT-PER-ACRE CATEGORY. IT MAY ALSO BE AN AREA WHERE WHEN THAT DEVELOPMENT COMES IN, IT SHOULD BE AT A LOWER DENSITY THAT RECOGNIZED THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. LOOKING AT THE COMMUNITY PLANS, WE CERTAINLY AGREE THAT THE COMMUNITY PLANS ARE OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE, AND WE PUT IN POLICY LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THE TIER MAP DOES NOT OVERRIDE A COMMUNITY PLAN AND THAT WE ARE GOING TO ANNUALLY UPDATE THE TIER MAP TO REFLECT WHAT THE COMMUNITY PLANS' DESIRES ARE. AT THIS POINT, THE TIER MAP REFLECTS THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. IT DOES NOT YET REFLECT ALL OF THOSE COMMUNITY PLANS, AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD WORK IN OUR UPDATE -- OUR REGULAR ANNUAL UPDATES OF THE TIER MAP TO ENSURE THAT THOSE WERE ALL RECOGNIZED BECAUSE WE AGREE THAT THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT. LASTLY, REGARDING THE REWRITE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CERTAINLY IT IS EXTREMELY -- IT'S A BIG DOCUMENT, AND THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT IDENTIFIED A LOT OF CHANGES, ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES AND -- AND BIGGER POLICY CHANGES THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE, AND SO WE'VE PRESENTED YOU WITH AN ENTIRE COPY OF EACH ELEMENT SO THAT YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THOSE CHANGES, EVEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ONES WHERE WE JUST CHANGED THE NAME OF A -- OF A AGENCY, SO IT -- IT DOESN'T -- IT DOES TURN INTO A LARGE VOLUME OF PAPER, I WON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU THERE, SO I HOPE THAT ANSWERED SOME OF THE QUESTIONS. >>BRIAN BLAIR: WELL, I MEAN, EVEN IN THE NORTHWEST -- IN THE YELLOW PART OF THE MAP IN THE NORTHWEST PLAN, THAT'S TAMPA BAY DOWNS, AND THAT'S THE TRICOUNTY AREA, AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW -- YOU KNOW, I KNOW WHAT YOU EXPLAINED JUST NOW IN YOUR MAPPING SYSTEM, BUT THAT'S STILL -- I DON'T THINK THAT'S A LOGICAL -- THAT'S A LOGICAL ANSWER, SO -- >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: OKAY. >>BRIAN BLAIR: -- AND THAT'S JUST -- YOU KNOW, I JUST EXPLAINED -- IN TIER 3, IT'S A TRANSITION AREA TO THE RURAL; RIGHT? IS THAT RIGHT? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: IT'S ALSO RECOGNIZING EXISTING COMMUNITIES THAT ARE OF A LOWER-DENSITY NATURE. IT ALSO RECOGNIZES AREAS THAT ARE FURTHER FROM INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSIT, SO YES, IT DOES ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS? >>BRIAN BLAIR: OKAY. WHY IS THE FAIRGROUNDS AND FALKENBURG PLANT LABELED AS TIER 3 SURROUNDED BY TIER 1. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: AGAIN, THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC LAND USE CATEGORY, AND THE PUBLIC LAND USE CATEGORY DOES NOT HAVE A DENSITY OR INTENSITY ASSOCIATED WITH IT, SO THAT'S WHY IT FELL INTO TIER 3. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER HAGAN. >>KEN HAGAN: I SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS AS COMMISSIONER BLAIR AND SHARPE WITH RESPECT TO THE TIER PLANS. THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WAS SUPPOSED TO HANDLE 80% OF THE GROWTH, AND NOW THE TIER SYSTEM, ACCORDING TO WHAT WAS REFLECTED HERE, 80% SHOULD GO INTO TIER 1 ALONE, SO I DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK. SOUTH COUNTY, AGAIN, YOU'VE GOT FISHHAWK AND LAKE HUTTO IN TIER 3, IN THE NORTHWEST YOU'VE GOT CHEVAL, VILLA ROSA, AND THE [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] HARBOR IN TIER 3. PALM HARBOR WAS TIER 1, AGAIN WHERE THE GROWTH WAS SUPPOSED TO GO. THE CITY OF TAMPA WON'T RUN WATER THERE. WE JUST DENIED A ZONING APPLICATION LAST MEETING OR TWO MEETINGS AGO IN THAT AREA, SO THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. SHE MENTIONED TAMPA BAY DOWNS. UNLESS I LOOKED AT THE MAP WRONG, THAT'S ACTUALLY SPLIT. IT'S GOT SOME IN TIER 2 AND SOME IN TIER 3, SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M CONCERNED MAYBE THAT SOME OF THE GOALS OF THE NORTHWEST PLAN ARE NOT BEING ACCURATELY REFLECTED THERE, SO I GOT SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE TIER PLAN. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. MELISSA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPLANATION. THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT DIRECTED TO YOU, BUT I THINK WE ALL SHARE THOSE CONCERNS. THIS IS A LOT TO DIGEST. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: SURE. >>ROSE FERLITA: AND PARTICULARLY WITH THE FAIRGROUNDS AND TAMPA BAY DOWNS. YOU KNOW, IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE'RE FAULTING SOMEBODY IF THEY'RE NOT CLOSE TO TRANSIT OR IF THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE LOW DENSITY RIGHT NOW, AND I DON'T THINK THAT -- LIKE, SAY, FOR INSTANCE, WE CONTINUE TO REFER BACK TO THE NORTHWEST PLAN. I'M NOT SURE THAT THE METHODOLOGY OF WHAT WE HAVE IN TERMS OF THESE TIERS IS -- IS ENOUGH. I'M NOT SURE IF WE NEED TO -- TO GET THE -- THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND KIND OF LET THEM KNOW ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS. I GUESS IT -- THE MAPPING PROCESS, THE -- THE LOOSE CRITERIA ON THE TIER SYSTEM, I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING, BUT IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE PEOPLE LIKE IN THE AREA OF TAMPA BAY DOWNS OR THE FAIRGROUNDS ARE GOING TO BE PUNISHED BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN NOT TO BE CLOSE TO -- TO TRANSIT OR BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A HIGH RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THIS IS NOT A MANDATE, THIS IS A SUGGESTION, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 51,000 DWELLING UNITS THAT ARE APPROVED BUT NOT EVEN DEVELOPED YET, SO WE'VE GOT SOME STUFF ON THE BOARD, BUT I THINK IT JUST NEEDS SOME MORE TWEAKING. I THINK WE NEED SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE CRITERIA WE'RE USING AS THE TIERING PROCESS. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S WELL INTENDED, AND I'M GLAD I'M NOT IN YOUR PLACE BECAUSE TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO DEVELOP EVEN SOMETHING TO SUGGEST TO US IS -- IS BAD ENOUGH, AND THEN WHEN MR. BLAIR TALKS ABOUT THESE THINGS, I -- I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF THE GUYS HERE, I AM ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMED, AND WITH THAT COMES SOME CONFUSION, AND THAT'S WHAT THESE WORKSHOPS ARE ABOUT. WE WANT TO START WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING, PARTICULARLY IN THE TIER PROCESS, BUT I THINK IT NEEDS SOME MORE READJUSTING SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE BEING PUNISHED IF YOU PUT IN ONE TIER, BUT WHAT DO YOU DO TO GET OUT OF IT? WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOU HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S A MIXED TIER 1, 2, 3, LIKE TAMPA BAY DOWNS? I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR, SOME OF THE CONCERNS OR CONFUSION YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ECHOED FROM US. I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS SO IT SOUNDS LIKE A PROCESS THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN EMBRACE, THAT'S REALLY MY FRUSTRATION. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: OKAY. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I'M ENJOYING THE CHALLENGE OF THIS PROCESS, AND I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A HUGE STAFF AND A HUGE BUDGET TO SEND PEOPLE OUT AND DO THESE RESEARCHES AND TO -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: PARDON? >>KEVIN WHITE: I WAS TELLING HIM BLESS YOU. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I THOUGHT YOU WERE TELLING ME TO BE QUIET. >>JIM NORMAN: THAT'S MY JOB. [LAUGHTER] NO. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: DON'T GET SMART WITH ME. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. HIGGINBOTHAM. APPROPRIATE COMMENT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: BUT ANYWAY, YOU KNOW, TO -- TO REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND GET THESE STUDIES, BUT I'VE GOT PROBLEMS HERE TOO, AND AS I'M LISTENING AND AS I'M WORKING THROUGH THIS, YOU KNOW, I -- FOR EXAMPLE, THE LIVABLE COMMUNITY ELEMENT. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT SHOULD FIT IN, IT'S OPTIONAL, SHOULD IT BE DELETED, BUT I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW AND REVISE THIS -- THESE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE -- TO THE E.A.R. AND BRING BACK SOME RESULTS TO THE BOARD. I'M EXCITED ABOUT OUR PROCESS AND WHAT WE'RE DOING, BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO PASS THIS ON AND GET -- GET ANOTHER SET OF EYES TO LOOK AT IT. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? >>BRIAN BLAIR: YEAH, I'D SECOND THE MOTION AND ASK -- >>JIM NORMAN: I'LL COME TO YOU, BUT COMMISSIONER SHARPE HAD THE FLOOR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: I'D SECOND THE MOTION AND ASK THAT THEY DELETE THE TIER PROCESS OR LOOK AT POTENTIALLY DELETING THE TIER PROCESS, AS LONG AS THEY -- >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE, THEN I'LL COME BACK TO YOU, COMMISSIONER. >>MARK SHARPE: WHAT IS THE PROCESS? AND I APPRECIATE YOUR STANDING THERE WITH SUCH A NICE SMILE AS WE TEAR THROUGH THIS. I WAS IN YOUR PLACE MANY YEARS BACK, AND I USED TO HAVE TO DO THE EXACT SAME THING, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH, BUT LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. WHAT IS -- WHAT IS YOUR -- YOUR PROCESS? I -- MR. GRIFFIN GOT UP AND KIND OF EXPLAINED HOW THIS IS GOING TO GO. ARE -- ARE YOU GOING TO BE TAKING YOURSELF SOME OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCERNS BACK AND -- MY CONCERN IS THIS: I DON'T WANT US TO DEVELOP A PLAN WHICH IS DIVORCED FROM REALITY AND WHICH DOESN'T REFLECT THE -- THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT ARE PROBABLY LIKELY GOING TO TAKE PLACE IN THE FUTURE. I -- I -- AND WE CAN CREATE A WORLD THAT WE WOULD -- IN OUR -- WE'D LOVE TO SEE, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO REFLECT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I ALSO DON'T WANT TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT'S GOING TO SHUT DOWN GROWTH OR STOP DEVELOPMENT, AND -- AND WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO COME MOVE TO OUR COUNTY, AND WHAT I'M HEARING FROM A NUMBER OF FOLKS IS THAT WE'RE NOT -- AND THAT'S -- THE BLAME IS SHARED IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT AREAS, BUT WE'RE NOT DOING THAT, AND -- AND PEOPLE MIGHT GO ELSEWHERE. I GO BACK TO MY FIRST QUESTION, WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, WE WERE EXPERIENCING GROWTH, 20, 24,000 PEOPLE. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN JAM THEM INTO TIER 1, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S NOT YOUR INTENTION, BUT WE STILL WANT TO TRY TO FOCUS THEM INTO TIER 1, WHEREAS BRIAN SAID THE NUMBER OF PARCELS THAT MIGHT BE DEVELOPABLE MAY BE SMALL. IF WE'RE GOING TO BE A GROWING COMMUNITY, I THINK THIS PLAN NEEDS TO ACCURATELY REFLECT GROWTH PATTERNS. I'M REAL CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBERS THEMSELVES, THE DATA. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GROWTH PROJECTIONS, PROJECTIONS ARE ALWAYS OFF, WE KNOW THAT. WE, IN MANY OTHER AREAS, HAVE HAD THOSE CHALLENGES, BUT I'D LIKE FOR US TO REALLY LOOK AT OUR PROJECTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE CURRENTLY HERE AND WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT, AND LET'S -- LET'S THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AND LOOK AT OTHER NUMBERS, WHICH MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE, BUT I'M SURE THERE'S OTHER INFORMATION OUT THERE THAT -- THAT SHOW LARGER GROWTH PATTERNS. SOME MIGHT BE SMALLER. I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS AS WELL, SO IF YOU COULD DO THAT. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER, THAT'S NOT THE DIRECTION RIGHT NOW. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GIVE IT TO PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT, IS THAT -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: TO THE ADMINISTRATOR. >>JIM NORMAN: THE ADMINISTRATOR AND PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: CORRECT. >>MARK SHARPE: DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL NO LONGER BE A PART OF THIS PROCESS? >>JIM NORMAN: I WANT TO UNDERSTAND, BUT -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: THAT'S UP TO STAFF. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THAT WOULD BE UP TO -- I'D LIKE OUR STAFF -- I THINK THEY OUGHT TO BOTH PARTICIPATE, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'VE GONE FROM RECOMMENDATIONS TO A MANUAL THAT ALL OF US ARE WORKING VERY HARD -- I KNOW I AM IN MY OFFICE, AND COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT -- >>JIM NORMAN: I JUST NEED YOU TO RESTATE THE MOTION. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I CAN DO THAT. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: LET ME SEE IF I CAN. WE HAVE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND REVISE OUR COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE -- TO THE E.A.R. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. THAT WAS DIRECTING IT TO THEM. THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, AND IT WAS SECONDED. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD WITH THEIR RESULTS. YOU HAD -- >>JIM NORMAN: I'LL COME BACK TO YOU. COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. HIGGINBOTHAM, YOU'RE NOT SAYING YOU'RE TAKING THIS AWAY FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GIVING IT TO PLANNING AND GROWTH AND THE ADMINISTRATOR, YOU WANT THEM -- DO YOU -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WANT THEM TO COME BACK WITH A REPORT. >>ROSE FERLITA: WITH A REPORT? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YES. >>ROSE FERLITA: WITH A REPORT OF WHAT, OF WHAT THEY LIKE OR DON'T LIKE ABOUT WHAT MELISSA AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE SUBMITTING? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: CORRECT. BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING, WE'VE ALL GOT QUESTIONS. I'D LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER SET OF EYES AND EARS -- PARDON? >>MARK SHARPE: ANOTHER SET. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YEAH, ANOTHER SET OF EYES AND EARS TO GIVE US MORE INPUT BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN IMPACT THAT'S 20, 30, 50 YEARS OUT. >>ROSE FERLITA: THE ONLY REASON I'M ASKING YOU IS BECAUSE I NEED SOME CLEARER DEFINITION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO SUPPORT YOUR MOTION. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ABSOLUTELY. >>ROSE FERLITA: THIS IS WHAT MY DILEMMA IS. I AGREE, MORE PEOPLE THAT COME IN AND WEIGH ON STUFF, WE ULTIMATELY ARE GOING TO TAKE THE BURDEN, THE BLAME, OR CREDIT OF APPROVING THIS. PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T MAKE DECISIONS, THEY ADVISE. ADMINISTRATOR, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, SAME, BUT IN SO DOING, ARE YOU INTENDING -- BECAUSE I HEARD FROM THIS SIDE -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS TALKING UNDER HIS BREATH OR IF HE WAS GOING TO ASK YOU FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT -- MR. BLAIR -- I BELIEVE I HEARD YOU SAY THIS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I DID OR NOT, BUT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE TIER PROCESS IN TOTAL AS OPPOSED TO IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER CRITERIA ABOUT WHERE WE TRY TO DIRECT GROWTH AND NOT ABSOLUTELY FORCE GROWTH -- I THINK THE TIER PROCESS IS OKAY, BUT I THINK THE CRITERIA OF THE PARAMETERS NEED TO BE DIFFERENT. IF YOUR MOTION SAYS TAKE IT FROM THEM AND GIVE IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND WE'RE GETTING AWAY FROM THE TIER PROGRAM, THEN I'M NOT SUPPORTING IT, NO OFFENSE, BUT IF YOU'RE JUST SAYING HAVE THEM COME BACK AND TELL US SOME MORE BEFORE WE DETERMINE HOW WE ARE GOING TO ALTER, NOT ELIMINATE THIS, SO THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE STUCK IN TIER 3 AND WANT TO JUMP 1 OR VICE VERSA, OF COURSE -- THERE'S -- THERE'S MORE -- THERE'S MORE ABILITY TO DO THAT. RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU'RE IN LOW-DENSITY AREAS, AWAY FROM TRANSIT, YOU CAN'T GO ANYPLACE ELSE BUT IN THAT TIER, SO I'M JUST LOOKING FOR -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: YOU'RE RIGHT. >>ROSE FERLITA: I'M SORRY? >>BRIAN BLAIR: YOU'RE RIGHT. >>ROSE FERLITA: YOUR MOTION IS NOT TO ELIMINATE THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOT SOME GOOD POINTS. WE'RE ALL OVERWHELMED AND A LITTLE BIT INDECISIVE ABOUT WHERE WE WANT TO GO. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I'D LIKE THEM TO COME BACK WITH A REPORT WITH SOME REVISIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR US TO USE AS WE MAKE OUR FINAL DECISION. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DID YOU -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: I WANT TO SECOND THAT, BUT I WANT THEM TO COMMENT ON THE TIER SYSTEM, WHETHER THAT'S A VALUABLE TOOL OR NOT. LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. COULD YOU IMAGINE IN SOUTH COUNTY THEM BUILDING, YOU KNOW, HIGH-DENSITY, BIG, YOU KNOW, HEAVY APARTMENTS, TOWN HOUSES, MIXED-USE PLACES? I MEAN, WE GET PEOPLE ALL THE TIME FROM SOUTH COUNTY -- I MEAN, YOU KNOW HOW IT IS RIGHT NOW -- JUST TRYING TO APPROVE, YOU KNOW, 20 -- 20 HOMES OR 30 HOMES. THERE'S -- THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS THAT REALLY GET UPSET, ESPECIALLY -- AND THEN PALM RIVER. I THINK OF PALM RIVER AND THAT AREA, THERE'S NOT EVEN WATER THERE YET, I DON'T THINK, SO THEY'D HAVE TO MAKE A DEAL WITH THE CITY. SO THERE'S A LOT OF FLAWS IS WHAT I'M SAYING. I SECOND IT, BUT I QUESTION THE TIER SYSTEM, AND I WANT SOMEBODY ELSE TO -- TO LOOK AT THAT AND -- AND SAY, HEY, IS THIS -- IS THIS REAL, DOES THIS REALLY HAVE VALUE OR IS THIS JUST SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS GOOD, A GREAT SOUND BITE. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WHAT HE'S PUTTING INTO THIS IS CONFUSING MY DETERMINATION OF SUPPORTING OR NOT. WE COULD ARGUE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE'S ALREADY 51,000 DWELLING UNITS APPROVED, BUT IF YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR THEM TO COME BACK WITH A REPORT SO WE COLLECTIVELY AS A BOARD CAN DECIDE IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THE TIER SYSTEM, ADD TO IT, USE OTHER CRITERIA, I'M SUPPORTING IT. IF YOUR MOTION ADDS ALL OF THIS STUFF THAT MR. BLAIR IS SAYING, I'M NOT SUPPORTING IT. >>JIM NORMAN: I'M TRYING TO GET IT UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE MOTION ACTUALLY IS. >>ROSE FERLITA: THAT'S FINE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I THOUGHT I HAD CLARIFIED IT. >>JIM NORMAN: I DIDN'T KNOW IF HE WAS ADDING SOMETHING. COMMISSIONER HAGAN. WE'LL GET TO YOU. WE'RE GOING TO GET A MOTION RIGHT HERE IN A SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: I FULLY SUPPORT COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM'S MOTION. I THINK IT'S AN EXCELLENT IDEA TO HAVE AN OBJECTIVE SET OF EYES AND HAVE OUR STAFF REVIEW -- REVIEW THIS PROPOSAL. AT THE SAME TIME, I WOULD SUPPORT ELIMINATING THE TIER SYSTEM AND THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ELEMENT, SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL MOTION ON THAT, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. I THINK IT'S NOTHING -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: I'LL SECOND THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: -- BUT PROBLEMS WITH THAT. >>ROSE FERLITA: WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE. SO ARE YOU SECONDING COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM'S MOTION? >>JIM NORMAN: THERE'S AN AMENDMENT HE PUT ON. HE SECONDED THAT AMENDMENT. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE. YOU'RE SAYING YOU'LL SUPPORT THAT TOO, BUT MR. HIGGINBOTHAM, THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, HAS NOT SAID IT WOULD BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WON'T DON'T WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ONES. [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>KEN HAGAN: IF COMMISSIONER BLAIR WANTED TO MAKE IT OR I COULD MAKE IT. >>JIM NORMAN: HE SECONDED IT ALREADY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH BOTH THE ISSUES, THE TIER. MY MOTION WAS TO GET IT TO THE STAFF, HAVE THEM LOOK AT IT, EVALUATE THE COST. >>JIM NORMAN: YOU ARE NEXT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YEAH. I DID TAKE YOU OUT OF TURN. >>ROSE FERLITA: NO. ALL I WANT TO ASK IS, MR. HIGGINBOTHAM, THAT'S FINE IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH BOTH, I RESPECT THAT, BUT FOR THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS WITH BOTH AND JUST CHANGING SOME AND SOME NOT, WOULD YOU PLEASE CONSIDER MAKING THESE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS SO I COULD SUPPORT WHAT I WANT AND NOT SUPPORT WHAT I DON'T AGREE WITH? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THE PARLIAMENTARIAN. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, I'M ASKING THE CHAIRMAN -- >>JIM NORMAN: ACTUALLY, THEY ARE -- >>ROSE FERLITA: I THOUGHT THEY WERE -- >>JIM NORMAN: HE MADE THE MOTION, HE MADE A SECOND, HE MADE AN AMENDMENT, AND HE SECONDED IT. WE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AND THEN VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION. >>ROSE FERLITA: PLEASE STATE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON NOW. >>JIM NORMAN: I WILL. ONCE WE GET AROUND THE HORN AGAIN. COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I LIKE THE IDEA OF GOING BACK AND HAVING AN EXTRA SET OF EYES ANALYZE WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON. THERE ARE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, WHICH I'M SURE I WILL DISAGREE WITH, AND I'VE VOICED SOME OF THOSE, BUT I -- BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MOTION I'M SUPPORTING IS NOT ELIMINATING ANYTHING YET. CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR PROCESS, BUT PLEASE WORK WITH THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THIS, DO THIS, AND MAKE SURE THAT IT REFLECTS REALITY, THE FOLKS OF THE COMMUNITY-BASED PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND OTHERS, SO THAT IS YOUR MOTION -- I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER STUFF THAT I HEARD, BUT THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER -- >>JIM NORMAN: THAT'S THE MAIN MOTION. THERE IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION. >>MARK SHARPE: BUT YOU COULD VOTE AGAINST THE AMENDMENT AND STILL VOTE FOR THE MAIN -- >>JIM NORMAN: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND NOT KNOWING WHAT THE OTHER SENTIMENTS WERE, I JUST -- I WANTED TO GET IT TO ANOTHER SET OF EYES AND EARS, BUT I SHARE THE CONCERNS THAT BOTH AMENDMENTS AND THE SUBSTITUTE -- BOTH THESE GENTLEMEN MADE ON THEIR AMENDMENTS. I HAVE THOSE CONCERNS, BUT RIGHT NOW I WANT TO GET IT TO OUR STAFF TO PUT ANOTHER -- ANOTHER PENCIL TO AND THE EYES AND EARS TO. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: WOULD THE MAKER OF THE AMENDMENT ALSO INCLUDE A COST ANALYSIS WITH THAT, CONSIDER A COST ANALYSIS BY THE SECOND SET OF EYES? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I BELIEVE WE'VE ALREADY GOT THAT REQUEST IN, AND WE'RE WAITING ON IT. >>BRIAN BLAIR: IS THAT ALREADY -- I THOUGHT THAT WAS MADE, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, I ASKED THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING THAT IT WOULD BE, BUT TO MEMORIALIZE IT IN THE MOTION MIGHT HELP. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THAT WE ADD IN HERE TO THIS MOTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO REQUEST A COST ANALYSIS FOR -- HOW DID YOU - - CHAIRMAN, HOW -- >>JIM NORMAN: I JUST ASKED THAT THEY -- PG & M ALONG WITH OUR MANAGEMENT TEAM, OUR FINANCE TEAM WOULD TRY TO DO BEST ANALYSIS THEY COULD POSSIBLY GIVE US IN THAT SHORT WINDOW ON THE COSTS TO IMPLEMENT THIS, WHAT WE'RE PUTTING INTO THESE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: JUST INCLUDE THAT IN THIS. I'M FINE WITH IT. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: AGAIN, JUST PLEASE STATE THE SUBSTITUTE THAT WE'RE VOTING ON, THE ORIGINAL ONE, THE AMENDMENTS. >>JIM NORMAN: WE WILL. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. AT SOME POINT I'M ASSUMING WE'LL GET THAT CLARIFIED. >>JIM NORMAN: ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD, AND IT GETS BACK TO, I GUESS, WHAT YOU -- OR SOME ARE SUGGESTING. I -- I DID ASK PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND OUR PUBLIC WORKS DID THEY MAKE COMMENTS IN THIS PROCESS. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: YES. >>JIM NORMAN: AND THEY SHOWED ME IN WRITING THAT THEY DID. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: YES. >>JIM NORMAN: WHERE ARE THEY ADDRESSED IN HERE BECAUSE NONE OF THEM SEEMED TO HAVE MADE IT. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: OH, WE MADE A NUMBER OF CHANGES. I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THEIR COMMENTS AND IDENTIFY IT, BUT WE DID MAKE A NUMBER OF CHANGES. >>JIM NORMAN: I ASKED THEM. THEY DIDN'T FEEL THAT THEY WERE TAKEN -- AS AN EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT I RECALL WAS TO ELIMINATE THE TIER SYSTEM. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: PUBLIC WORKS DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT TIER 3 OF THE TIER SYSTEM SPECIFICALLY, AND WE TRIED TO CHANGE THE DESCRIPTION OF IT TO BETTER DESCRIBE WHAT THE INTENT OF TIER 3 WAS TO ADDRESS THEIR COMMENT. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE -- WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO THE MAIN MOTION FIRST. COMMISSIONER HAGAN TO MAKE IT VERY, VERY CLEAR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE IT? >>KEN HAGAN: IT'S JUST TO ELIMINATE THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ELEMENT AND THE TIER ELEMENT. >>BRIAN BLAIR: AND TO SEND IT TO -- >>KEN HAGAN: IF YOU ELIMINATE IT, WHY DO YOU SEND IT? >>BRIAN BLAIR: OH, OKAY. >>JIM NORMAN: AND YOU'RE SECONDING THAT? >>BRIAN BLAIR: YEP. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. PLEASE -- COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: YES. A BIG PART OF THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ELEMENT IS ALREADY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT WAS JUST MOVED FROM OTHER ELEMENTS TO ONE AREA AND CALLED THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ELEMENT, SO, I MEAN, BY DOING THAT, YOU WOULD, IN ESSENCE, BE TAKING ALL KINDS OF EXISTING THINGS THAT ARE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I WOULD JUST SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT DOING THAT BEFORE YOU KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS. MAYBE THAT ELEMENT NEEDS MORE DISCUSSION TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE PARTS THAT ARE OF CONCERN TO THE BOARD, BUT -- >>KEN HAGAN: HOW ABOUT IF WE ELIMINATE THE PART THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL, THAT'S GOING TO DOUBLE THE STUDIES AND ORDINANCE THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADOPTED BECAUSE OF THAT? >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: OKAY. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PARTS THAT ARE MORE DEALING WITH STUDIES THAT ARE PROPOSED? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS ELEMENT WILL REQUIRE PROBABLY CLOSE TO 30 OR 40 NEW STUDIES AND/OR ORDINANCES WITH THAT. IT WILL ALSO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M -- I DO NOT SUPPORT, SO HOWEVER YOU WANT TO WORD IT, IT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CHANGES AND THAT'S FINE. YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO ELIMINATE ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT -- >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR, THOUGH, THAT BY VOTING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT, THOUGH -- THOSE ARE FINE POINTS. I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. THAT'S WHY I WANT TO SEE MR. HIGGINBOTHAM'S MOTION SUCCEED, GET THE DATA BACK, AND THEN WE CAN AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE VOTE YES, NO, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S SOME ACTUAL POINTS BEING MADE HERE, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF THAT INFORMATION, AND I'M NOT PREPARED TO VOTE ANYTHING DOWN, BUT I DON'T WANT PEOPLE PANICKING THINKING THAT BECAUSE I'M VOTING AGAINST TURNING SOMETHING DOWN NOW DOESN'T MEAN IN THE FUTURE I MIGHT NOT. IT'S JUST THAT I WANT TO HAVE A CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT IT AND STUDY IT AND ANALYZE IT AND TALK TO FOLKS. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO OUR EXISTING COMP PLAN. IT'S GREAT THAT WE HAVE THREE, RURAL, URBAN, AND SUBURBAN LIFESTYLES IDENTIFIED IN THAT, AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT PLAN. I THOUGHT WE WERE JUST GOING TO GET THE E.A.R., JUST AN EVALUATION, LIKE I SAID ONCE BEFORE, INSTEAD OF A COMPLETE REWRITE THAT I BET IS GOING TO COST MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. SHARPE, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU, AND I THINK JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE SOME THINGS, IT'S PROBABLY AT THIS POINT NOT PRUDENT TO ELIMINATE WHAT WE DON'T LIKE. WE ARE GIVING THEM A STRONG RECOMMENDATION, BRINGING IN PLANNING AND GROWTH AND OUR ADMINISTRATOR TO REVIEW IT AND TO HAVE MORE ADDITIONAL OPINIONS, THAT'S FINE. FOR THAT REASON, IF IT'S NOT SIMPLY THE MOTION TO BRING THEM TO THE TABLE TO DISCUSS IT AND GIVE US THEIR OPINION AND MAKE THAT SUGGESTION LOUD AND CLEAR TO PLANNING COMMISSION -- I KNOW THEY'RE HEARING IT -- I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ANY OF THOSE ADDITIONAL ONES, SIMPLY THE MAIN MOTION. IF WE GO BACK TO THAT, IT JUST FAILS BECAUSE ENOUGH PEOPLE DON'T VOTE AGAINST IT. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER HAGAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO -- >>KEN HAGAN: IT'S JUST TO ELIMINATE ALL NEW CHANGES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE COMP PLAN WITH RESPECT TO THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ELEMENT. >>JIM NORMAN: AND YOUR OTHER PIECE? >>KEN HAGAN: ELIMINATE THE TIER SYSTEM. >>JIM NORMAN: THAT IS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: THE MOTION CARRIED 5-2. COMMISSIONERS FERLITA AND SHARPE VOTED NO. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. MAIN MOTION, TO SEND THE REMAINING SECTION OVER TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND PG & M FOR A REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD AT OUR -- DO YOU -- DO WE HAVE A -- DO YOU WANT TO WORK WITH ANYONE TO MAYBE TAKE THAT TIME TO REWRITE THIS AND WHEN IT SHOULD COME BACK? >>PETER ALUOTTO: WELL, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT -- SORRY. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT REWRITING IT. I THOUGHT THE UNDERSTANDING WAS TO REVIEW -- REVIEW AND REVISE. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, THAT'S MY POINT. I MEAN, WHAT KIND OF TIME DO YOU THINK YOU NEED BEFORE WE WOULD REVISIT THE WORKSHOP PROCESS? >>PETER ALUOTTO: IF I COULD HAVE A LOOK AT THE SLIDE TO SEE WHAT YOUR TIMELINE -- WHAT IS YOUR DUE DATE? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: SURE. THE E.A.R. IS DUE TO BE ADOPTED BY AUGUST OF THIS YEAR. WE WERE SCHEDULED TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE MIDDLE AND END OF APRIL. CERTAINLY WE COULD SCHEDULE ANOTHER WORKSHOP PRIOR TO THAT. WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT MOVING THE HEARINGS AROUND. IT ALSO HAS TO GO UP TO DCA FOR ITS REVIEW BEFORE ADOPTION IN AUGUST, SO WE HAVE TO WORK IN TIME FRAME TO THAT. >>PETER ALUOTTO: SO 45 DAYS, IS THAT DOABLE? >>STEVE GRIFFIN: GIVEN WE HAVE APRIL 19th TO WORK ON THIS, THAT 45 DAYS IS JUST A LITTLE BIT TIGHT. THAT'S WHEN OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS. I WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH THE BOCC SCHEDULE TO TRY TO SCHEDULE SOME MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS. I WAS QUITE DILIGENT IN TRYING TO DO THAT. YOUR BOARD SCHEDULE IS REAL TIGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN GET ANYMORE WORKSHOPS OR PUBLIC HEARING DAYS. I'LL WORK WITH THE CLERK TO TRY TO DO THAT. SO THE 45-DAY PERIOD MAY BE A LITTLE TIGHT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T -- CAN'T GET ON YOUR CALENDAR, AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY DATES WE WERE ABLE TO GET TO. I'LL TRY TO PUSH IT BACK A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE THESE SUBMITTED TO DCA BY AUGUST 19th OF THIS YEAR. >>PETER ALUOTTO: YEAH. MY ONLY CONCERN IS -- IS THE COST ANALYSIS PART BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD HANDLE ON WHAT OUR CONCERNS ARE. ACTUALLY, OUR CONCERNS ARE NOT ON A PHILOSOPHICAL OR CONCEPTUAL LEVEL, THEY'RE ON A LEVEL OF IS THIS DOABLE, CAN WE ACTUALLY DO THIS, AND HOW IT AFFECTS THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WE CAN DO IN PRETTY SHORT ORDER, 30 DAYS. >>JIM NORMAN: DO THE BEST YOU CAN ON THE FINANCIAL PIECE. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: WE DID MEET WITH MR. JOHNSON, AND WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO IS GIVE HIM A LISTING OF ALL THE PROPOSED STUDIES AND BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS THAT WERE CALLED FOR IN OUR COMP PLAN UPDATE SO HE'LL HAVE THAT TO MAKE A REVIEW ON. >>PETER ALUOTTO: WELL, THAT'S GOOD, BUT ALSO THE THING THAT'S OF CONCERN TO US IS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT. IF WE ADOPT CERTAIN THINGS AND WE MAKE CERTAIN COMMITMENTS TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE IN CERTAIN PLACES, ANY UPGRADES, REPLACEMENTS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, THAT COULD BE A SIGNIFICANT UNDERTAKING. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, THAT WAS MY PROBLEM READING THAT. I WAS SEEING THAT AND DIDN'T HAVE A NUMBER WITH IT. >>PETER ALUOTTO: RIGHT. >>JIM NORMAN: DO THE BEST YOU CAN. THAT'S ALL CAN I TELL YOU. 30 DAYS. >>PETER ALUOTTO: WE'LL SHOOT FOR 30 DAYS. >>JIM NORMAN: IS THAT AGREEABLE BY BOARD MEMBERS? >>BRIAN BLAIR: SURE. >>JIM NORMAN: PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THAT, BUT I JUST WANT IT ON RECORD AGAIN. I'M SUPPORTING WHAT IS BEING ASKED NOW, ALTHOUGH I STILL DON'T AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT WE REMOVED THE NEW LIVABLE COMMUNITY ELEMENTS AND THE TIERS, WE KILLED IT BEFORE IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY IMPROVED. I JUST WANTED THAT ON THE RECORD. >>JIM NORMAN: PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: LAST -- AT LAST MEETING, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE ON THE NORTH DALE MABRY CORRIDOR -- THAT WAS THE TIME FRAME THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED WAS -- IS GOING TO BE ADHERED TO. DID WE HAVE TO BRING THAT BACK OR WAS IT -- >>JIM NORMAN: THAT WAS ASSIGNED. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: WE MADE THAT CHANGE IN THE TEXT OF THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ELEMENT, YES. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: [INAUDIBLE] >>BRIAN BLAIR: WILL THAT CHANGE? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: WELL, THAT WAS AN EXISTING POLICY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND -- AND SO WE UPDATED -- WE CHANGED THE DATE AS REQUESTED, YES. >>BRIAN BLAIR: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH -- I'LL GO THROUGH VERY QUICKLY, AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE, THIS LAST SECTION. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF NEW TOPICS THAT ARE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. WORKING WATERFRONTS WAS ADDRESSED BECAUSE THAT IS A STATE LAW TO COASTAL COUNTIES NEED TO ADDRESS AND HAVE POLICIES IN THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ABOUT WORKING WATERFRONTS, SO WE ADDED SOME POLICY LANGUAGE THAT THE COUNTY WILL BY 2010 HAVE SOME POLICIES TO ADDRESS THIS. TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS WAS A TECHNOLOGY THAT WASN'T HERE BEFORE, AND WE INCORPORATED POLICY LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO WHAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING THOSE. LIKEWISE, WITH LARGE POWER FACILITIES SUCH AS WHAT OCCURRED IN THE EGYPT LAKE AREA, WE REFLECTED THE COUNTY'S ADOPTION OF THE UTILITY ACCOMMODATION AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY ORDINANCE WITH POLICY LANGUAGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND LASTLY, YOU CAN SEE THERE WERE A NUMBER -- A LOT OF STRIKE-THROUGH AND UNDERLINES TO ADMINISTRATIVELY REORGANIZE THE ELEMENTS. BASICALLY THERE WAS AN IMPLEMENTATION SECTION THAT WAS ADOPTED AS PART OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND THAT HAS BEEN ADDED INTO GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT THEY'RE OF EQUAL WEIGHT ADOPTED PORTIONS AND TO REMOVE DUPLICATIVE LANGUAGE. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF MAP AMENDMENTS. I'LL GO THROUGH THEM QUICKLY. THE E.A.R. HAD US LOOK AT AREAS THAT ARE DESIGNATED RP-2, WHICH IS THAT PLANNED VILLAGE LAND USE CATEGORY, IN OUR URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE AREAS THAT WERE NOT PART OF ANY LARGER PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS BUT WERE SMALLER PARCELS IN THE RP-2 AREA AND LOOKED AT CHANGING THEM TO RESIDENTIAL-2 AND TO RESIDENTIAL-4. AND SO THIS IDENTIFIES THE AREAS. THIS IS THE AREA AROUND FISHHAWK. THIS AREA IS LAKE HUTTO, WHICH WAS RECENTLY A PLAN AMENDMENT. SO THESE ARE ALL OF THE SMALLER PARCELS THAT COULD NEVER MEET THE VILLAGE REQUIREMENT, AND SO WE WANTED TO GET THEM OUT OF THAT REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAD TO DO A VILLAGE TO GET THE HIGHER DENSITY, AND SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING THEM BE RESIDENTIAL-2 FOR THESE PARCELS AND RESIDENTIAL-4 FOR THESE PARCELS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE ALSO WERE SOME AREAS OF LAND USE CONFLICTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED THAT NEEDED TO -- WHERE WE HEARD A LOT OF COMMUNITY CONCERN ABOUT THE LAND USE IN THEIR AREA. THE FIRST ONE OF THESE IS THE EL GRECO COMMUNITY, WHICH IS GENERALLY NORTH OF BLOOMINGDALE AVENUE, BETWEEN KINGS AND JOHN MOORE ROAD. IT CURRENTLY HAS A DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL-6, AND THE COMMUNITY WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT HIGHER DENSITY AND WANTED TO SEE THAT LOWERED, SO WE LOOKED AT -- WE'RE PROPOSING THAT IT GO DOWN FROM A RESIDENTIAL-6 AS SHOWN HERE TO A RESIDENTIAL-2. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THAT BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SIMMONS LOOP COMMUNITY ALONG -- JUST SOUTH OF BIG BEND ROAD, WEST OF 301, ALSO WAS AN AREA IDENTIFIED OF COMMUNITY CONFLICT, AND A PROPOSAL WAS MADE TO REDUCE THE DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF THAT AREA FROM SIX UNITS PER ACRE TO THREE UNITS PER ACRE. IT'S CURRENTLY SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6. THE PROPOSAL IS TO NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE-3. WE HELD TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS. WE HELD MEETINGS IN EACH OF THESE COMMUNITIES. THE EL GRECO COMMUNITY THERE WAS A LARGE CONSENSUS. THEY WANTED TO REDUCE THEIR DENSITY. IN THIS -- IN THE SIMMONS LOOP COMMUNITY, THERE WAS A LACK OF CONSENSUS, AND SO BASED ON THAT, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THERE BE NO CHANGE TO THE LAND USE CATEGORY, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED TO MAINTAIN THE SMU-6 LAND USE CATEGORY AND FIND THE AMENDMENT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE WILDE PROPERTY IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN NORTH -- THE FAR NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER THE NATURAL PRESERVATION LAND USE CATEGORY. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT CATEGORY ARE THAT IT EITHER -- THE PROPERTY EITHER BE IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OR HAVE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER IT. THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY CAME TO US. IT'S A PRIVATELY OWNED PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATURAL PRESERVATION, AND AS SUCH, WE'RE RECOMMENDING IT GO TO THE AGRICULTURAL RURAL LAND USE CATEGORY, ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES. PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEN WE HAVE EIGHT AREAS THAT ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT, PLACES WHERE BASED ON PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, DEVELOPMENT TRENDS, OR THE FACT THAT THERE WERE SOME UNDERUTILIZED LANDS, STAFF IDENTIFIED AREAS THAT MIGHT COULD ACCOMMODATE FURTHER HIGHER-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. ONE OF THESE IS THE -- THE FIRST OF THESE IS THE EAGLES, WHICH IS ALSO IN NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH. IT'S IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND IT'S CURRENTLY DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL-1. ALL OF THE ADJACENT AREA TO THE SOUTH IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA IS RESIDENTIAL-2. THEY HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITIES ON SOME VACANT REMAINING PARCELS WITHIN THE EAGLES TO ACCOMMODATE SOME ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THERE, SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING IT GO TO A RESIDENTIAL-2 LAND USE CATEGORY. THE -- ALONG BLOOMINGDALE AVENUE, THERE'S ABOUT 275 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BLOOMINGDALE AVENUE THAT CURRENTLY IS RESIDENTIAL-6 IN THE YELLOW AREA, RESIDENTIAL-4 IN THE PEACH. IT'S GOT SORT OF A LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND SOME UNDERUTILIZED LANDS THERE, SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING A CHANGE TO THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12 TO PROMOTE A MORE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN TO SORT OF COMPLEMENT THE ACTIVITY CENTER THAT'S SHOWN HERE IN THE RED AREA AND PROVIDE SOME HIGHER-DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF USES. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. LINEBAUGH AVENUE AND SHELDON IS 28 ACRES. IT'S SURROUNDED BY LINEBAUGH, OLD LINEBAUGH, AND SHELDON ROAD. IT'S GOT ROADS ON ALL THREE SIDES. IT'S RESIDENTIAL-4. THE WESTCHASE DEVELOPMENT IS TO THE WEST OF IT, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF HIGHER-DENSITY AND INTENSITY ACTIVITY CENTERS THAT HAVE DEVELOPED IN THIS AREA, AND AS SUCH, THIS BEING SORT OF AN UNDERUTILIZED LAND AREA, WE WANTED TO PROMOTE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HIGHER-DENSITY AND INTENSITY MIXED USE BY RECOMMENDING IT TO THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12 LAND USE CATEGORY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. LINEBAUGH AVENUE AND ANDERSON ROAD. WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF PLAN AMENDMENTS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. THIS SITE WAS A PLAN AMENDMENT TO SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6 AND RESIDENTIAL-9. WE HAD PLAN AMENDMENTS IN THESE THREE LOCATIONS TO RESIDENTIAL-9, SO WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE WHOLE CORRIDOR AND ARE PROPOSING TO ALLOW FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS BY UPPING THE DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF THESE LAND USE CATEGORIES TO RESIDENTIAL-9 ON THESE TWO PARCELS AND TO SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6 ON THIS CORNER PIECE. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ALONG STATE ROAD 60 WE IDENTIFIED SOME AREAS THAT HAD SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR INFILL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. ONE OF THESE IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20. IT'S SORT OF NORTH OF THE HOSPITAL, SOUTH OF STATE ROAD 60, AND IT'S -- AND THEN THE OTHER ONE BEING CLOSER DOWN TOWARDS MT. CARMEL ROAD. THESE PARCELS ARE SPLIT RIGHT NOW BETWEEN THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20 AND THE RESIDENTIAL-9, WHICH MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO DEVELOP. WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THE AREA CLOSER TO THE HOSPITAL BE CHANGED TO AN URBAN MIXED USE-20. THAT WOULD GIVE THEM A HIGHER FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA, AND THEN THAT THE AREA -- THE EASTERN PORTION BE COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12 TO ALLOW FOR THE MORE COMPREHENSIVE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE SPLIT RIGHT NOW. AND THAT'S -- THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THAT AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE NEXT ITEM IS COUNTY 579 AREA, AND THIS IS CLOSE TO A HUNDRED ACRES IN THE SEFFNER AREA THAT IS CURRENTLY RESIDENTIAL-9 AND RESIDENTIAL-6. OUR PROPOSAL WAS TO CHANGE THIS AREA TO COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12; HOWEVER, AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HEARD A NUMBER OF COMMUNITY INTEREST -- CITIZEN COMMENTS THAT -- REQUESTING THAT THE CHANGE NOT BE MADE AT THIS TIME. THEY WANT TO SEE THIS CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN, WHICH IS STARTING DEVELOPMENT THIS YEAR, AND SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMENDED NO CHANGE TO THAT AREA AT THIS TIME. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: I JUST WANTED TO SAY ONE THING, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT RIGHT THERE BECAUSE YOU -- IT'S SIX TO NINE UNITS YOU SAID RIGHT NOW AND YOU WANTED TO MOVE IT TO 12. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: UH-HUH. >>BRIAN BLAIR: AND I MISTAKENLY SAID SOUTH COUNTY WHEN I MEANT SUN CITY CENTER. CAN YOU IMAGINE THOSE GROUPS IN SUN CITY CENTER, THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE FLYING AND THEY'D BE CHOKING US OVER THE DAIS HERE IF WE APPROVED THOSE LARGE MIXED DEVELOPMENTS, AND IT'S THE SAME THING WITH SEFFNER. LET THEM DEVELOP THEIR COMMUNITY PLANS. SO THANK YOU. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: GREAT. THE NEXT AREA IS IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA. THIS WAS 143 ACRES THAT WAS CURRENTLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND TO PROVIDE SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONTINUED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUT ALSO SOME POTENTIAL MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT, STAFF WAS PROPOSING THIS BE AMENDED TO COMMUNITY MIXED USE- 12; HOWEVER, AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WE HEARD COMMUNITY INPUT FROM ONE OF THE MAJOR PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS AREA REQUESTING THAT THE CHANGE NOT BE MADE. WE ALSO GOT AGENCY COMMENTS FROM PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGARDING THE IMPACT OF CONVERSIONS OF INDUSTRIAL LANDS, AND BASED ON THAT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THIS AMENDMENT BE FOUND INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FINAL ONE IS ALONG THE SHELDON ROAD CORRIDOR. THIS IS 166 ACRES, AND CURRENTLY IT'S DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL-9 ON ALL OF THE PEACH-COLORED PARCELS, RESIDENTIAL-6 ON THE YELLOW, AND BECAUSE THIS IS A MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, THERE ARE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO BETTER UTILIZE THE INVESTMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE ALONG SHELDON ROAD TO INCREASE DENSITY AND INTENSITY. WE'RE LOOKING AT A COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12 ALONG THESE PURPLE PARCELS AND A RESIDENTIAL-12 FOR THE POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THIS BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE WORKSHOP ON THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. AND I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO STEVE. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE ONE MORE WORKSHOP WITH YOU ON MARCH 22nd. AT THAT WORKSHOP WE'LL BE BRINGING TO YOU THE NON-E.A.R.- BASED PLAN AMENDMENTS. THAT WILL INCLUDE THE WIMAUMA COMMUNITY PLAN, THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PLAN, AND THE RIVERVIEW RIVERFRONT DISTRICT. ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL BE GOING OVER THE REMAINING ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THAT WILL BE ON MARCH 22nd. OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19th AT 6:00 P.M. AND APRIL 26th AT 6:00 P.M. TO TRANSMIT THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. >>JIM NORMAN: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE NOW ADJOURNED. 1