CAPTIONING OCTOBER 10, 2007 BOCC WORKSHOP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - 2nd CYCLE 2007 ***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 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FIRST CYCLE FOR 2008, AND BEFORE WE GET STARTED TODAY, I NEED TO READ INTO THE RECORD FROM COMMISSIONER HAGAN THAT I WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS AFTERNOON'S WORKSHOP DUE TO A FAMILY MATTER THAT REQUIRES MY ATTENTION. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU READ THE REASON FOR MY ABSENCE INTO THE RECORD. AND AFTER DOING SO, NOW I'VE ALSO GOT NOTICE THAT COMMISSIONER BLAIR'S RUNNING ABOUT 15 MINUTES LATE, BUT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND START TAKING UP SOME OF THE REVIEW. WELCOME, SIR. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. STEPHEN GRIFFIN, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THIS AFTERNOON WE'RE BACK BEFORE YOU WITH THE E.A.R.-BASED PLAN AMENDMENTS. WE'VE BEEN AWAY FROM YOU FOR A LITTLE WHILE ON A LITTLE BRIEF HIATUS TO WORK ON SOME THINGS AND WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY, BUT NOW WE'RE BACK BEFORE YOU, AND WE WANT TO PRESENT TO YOU SOME OF THE REVISIONS THAT WE'VE MADE TO THE E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS AS A RESULT OF VARIOUS PUBLIC MEETINGS. SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO REVIEW THAT WITH YOU TODAY AND KIND OF GET YOU UP TO SPEED OF WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS. JUST TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF UPDATE WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS, THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN JUNE OF 2005. THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT WAS FOUND SUFFICIENT BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN AUGUST OF 2005. THE E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS REVIEW BEGAN SEPTEMBER OF 2006. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF A CONSISTENCY FINDING ON THESE AMENDMENTS IN FEBRUARY OF 2007. YOU-ALL HAD WORKSHOPS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THESE AMENDMENTS IN MARCH AND APRIL OF 2007. AT YOUR REQUEST, WE SENT TO DCA A REQUEST FOR ANOTHER SIX- MONTH EXTENSION TO ADDRESS CERTAIN ISSUES. THAT WAS THE COORDINATION BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE AND THE MPO TRANSPORTATION STUDY ALONG WITH THE COUNTY'S TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS. THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DID APPROVE THAT REQUEST FOR THE EXTENSION, AND THEY MOVED THE EXTENSION TO THE -- FOR THE ADOPTION OF THESE E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS TO FEBRUARY 19th OF 2008. AT A PREVIOUS WORKSHOP, YOU HEARD FROM MR. ADAM GORMLY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THESE E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS ADOPTED BY FEBRUARY 19th. WE HAVE SINCE CONFIRMED WHAT MR. GORMLY HAD TOLD YOU, THAT IF WE DO NOT ADOPT THESE AMENDMENTS BY FEBRUARY 19th, 2008, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROCESS ANY FURTHER PLAN AMENDMENTS UNTIL YOUR E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS ARE ADOPTED. SO THAT WILL BE WHAT WILL BE HAPPENING AFTER FEBRUARY 19th. WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THESE LAST SIX MONTHS SINCE WE LAST CAME BEFORE YOU, WE'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS GROUP, AND THAT WAS MEETINGS WITH CITIZENS, CITIZEN ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESS INTERESTS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, PLANNING CONSULTANTS, ATTORNEYS, PROPERTY OWNERS. WE MET WITH THEM FROM JUNE THROUGH AUGUST TO GET FURTHER INPUT AND COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT-BASED AMENDMENTS. IN ADDITION, WE HAD FOUR OPEN HOUSES THROUGHOUT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO GET PUBLIC FEEDBACK. THOSE OPEN HOUSES WERE HELD AT GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL, ALONSO HIGH SCHOOL, THE BRANDON HCC CAMPUS, AND THE SOUTHSHORE REGIONAL SERVICE CENTER. WE ALSO WORKED WITH THE COORDINATION OF TRANSPORTATION LAND USE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ALONG WITH THE MPO STAFF. AS A RESULT OF THESE MEETINGS WITH THE PUBLIC AND THE STAKEHOLDERS, WE HAVE MADE A NUMBER OF POLICY CHANGES IN THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS, THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT, THE CONSERVATION AND AQUIFER RECHARGE, THE FUTURE LAND USE, HOUSING, LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, AND THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT. THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEWED THESE E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS AND THE REVISIONS TO THEM AND FOUND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON THE 24th OF SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR. BEFORE WE GO ON, I'D HAVE MR. CHIARAMONTE MAKE A FEW ADDITIONAL OPENING COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS. MR. CHIARAMONTE. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: I WANTED TO DISCUSS WHAT I FEEL IS LIKE A MAJOR ISSUE THAT UNDERPINS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WAS ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES THAT WAS DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT THE STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, AND THAT'S REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. SINCE SO MUCH DISCUSSION HAS OCCURRED ON THIS ISSUE, WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GO BACK AND REALLY CHECK WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS AGAINST WHAT WE INITIALLY IDENTIFIED AS AN ISSUE IN THE E.A.R. BACK IN 2004 INITIALLY AND GET SOME UPDATED STATISTICS ON THAT. AT THE TIME, WE PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, WHICH IS BASICALLY 80% OF THE GROWTH IN UNINCORPORATED COUNTY, WE PROJECT TO GO INTO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WAS 238,000 PEOPLE. UPDATED NOW WE ARE PROJECTING 182,000 PEOPLE BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THIS PERIOD FROM 2004 TO 2007 OBVIOUSLY WHERE DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED AND USED UP SOME OF THAT CAPACITY. OUR ACREAGE WENT FROM DEVELOPABLE ACRES -- THIS IS VACANT AND DEVELOPABLE ACRES -- FROM ABOUT 36,500 TO 26,100 ACRES. WHEN YOU INTERPRET THAT INTO HOUSING UNIT CAPACITY, YOU SEE THAT IN 2004 WE HAD THE CAPACITY FOR 114,000 HOUSING UNITS, WHICH COULD HOLD 277,000 PEOPLE, NOW ABOUT 97,000 CAPACITY HOUSING UNITS THAT COULD 211,000. IN BOTH CASES THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN WHAT THE PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH IS, SO REALLY, WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS REINFORCES OUR POSITION THAT THERE IS ENOUGH OPPORTUNITY FOR GROWTH WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THE CRITERIA WE USED, WE EXCLUDED PARCELS THAT WERE LESS THAN FIVE ACRES, WHICH COULD HOLD IN THE LONG RUN AN ADDITIONAL 36,000 PEOPLE, SO WE DIDN'T EVEN COUNT THAT AS BEING AVAILABLE, TRYING TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE IN OUR APPROACH AND BE MORE FAIR TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AS FAR AS NOT ESTIMATING TOO TIGHT, BUT WE DIDN'T EVEN INCLUDE VACANT PARCELS OF LESS THAN FIVE ACRES. WE LOOKED AT IT BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL USE PER FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, WE BASED IT ON THE PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD IN EACH TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, AND WE USED THE LATEST AVAILABLE DATA AND DETAILED GIS ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC PROJECTS. WE ALSO MET WITH YOUR WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT STAFF TO MAKE SURE WE WERE ON TARGET WITH THEIR INFORMATION, AND I WILL TELL YOU I THINK YOUR WATER DEPARTMENT DID ONE OF THE BEST STUDIES THAT I'VE EVER SEEN DONE OF WHERE HOUSING UNITS ARE APPROVED AND NOT YET CONNECTED OR HOUSING UNITS EXIST OR WHERE VACANT LAND THAT HAS NOT BEEN ZONED EXISTS, SO THEY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB WITH THAT, AND THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL TO US, THAT INFORMATION FROM THE WATER DEPARTMENT, AND I COMMEND THEM ON THE GOOD JOB THAT THEY DID, BUT IT DOES REINFORCE THAT VIEW AGAIN, ESPECIALLY WITH THE SLOWER GROWTH THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, EVEN EXTENDS IT OUT FARTHER THAN IT WAS BEFORE. AGAIN, WE WENT BACK IN A VERY DETAILED WAY -- AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL NOW BECAUSE WHEN MELISSA ZORNITTA PRESENTS THE LAND USE ELEMENT, SHE CAN GET INTO SOME OF THE SPECIFICS. WE HAVE THE MAPS INCLUDING THE ONES FROM YOUR WATER DEPARTMENT. BUT IF YOU LOOK, JUST TO TAKE ONE STATISTIC OUT, JUST IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL AREA, THE WATER DEPARTMENT PROJECTS THAT THERE IS ABOUT 57,000 UNITS THAT ARE APPROVED AND NOT YET BUILT, WHICH HAS A CAPACITY, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO ABOUT 140,000 PEOPLE JUST THERE. ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION WE HAVE I THINK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY HOW WE LOOK AT IT IS OFTEN SOME MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DON'T WANT TO INCLUDE PROJECTS THAT ARE APPROVED BUT NOT YET BUILT, BUT FROM A PLANNER'S PERSPECTIVE, THOSE PROJECTS, LIKE LAKE HUTTO, OTHER PROJECTS LIKE THAT, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE APPROVED, THEY HAVE NOT ABSORBED THE POPULATION YET BECAUSE THE HOUSES AREN'T THERE YET. YOU KNOW, OFTEN THE -- I GUESS, AGAIN, IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THEY ARE LOOKING FOR AVAILABLE VACANT LAND, LARGE TRACTS THAT ARE NOT YET ZONED OR APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S THE BUSINESS THEY'RE IN, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT CHARGE WE HAVE AS PLANNERS. AS PLANNERS, OUR CHARGE IS TO MAKE SURE THE CAPACITY EXISTS FOR THE POPULATION GROWTH WE EXPECT, NOT WHETHER IT'S BUILT YET OR NOT, NOT WHETHER IT'S ZONED YET OR NOT, NOT WHETHER IT HAS APPROVALS OR HAS BEEN SUBDIVIDED, BUT WHETHER IT EXISTS. THAT'S THE KEY THING. IF IT DOESN'T EXIST, IN OUR OPINION IT'S AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST YET, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT ALREADY BE APPROVED ON PAPER. >>JIM NORMAN: THANK YOU. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: I WANTED TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT. AND THEN THEY'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL AND STEVE WILL -- >>JIM NORMAN: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT SEEMS TO BE ASKED A LOT WITH REGARD TO THE DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE AND HOW MANY INDIVIDUALS COULD ACTUALLY MOVE INTO THAT IS THIS QUESTION OF DENSITY. WE RARELY EVER APPROVE A PROJECT ACCORDING TO THE -- YOU KNOW, TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. WE ALWAYS FIND OURSELVES KIND OF GOING LOWER. DID YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU MADE THESE ESTIMATES ON -- >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: YES, WE DID, AND I AGREE. HOPEFULLY THAT WILL HAPPEN LESS IN THE FUTURE, BUT WHAT WE DID IS WE ANALYZED THE CATEGORY HISTORICALLY. WE DID NOT TAKE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF THE CATEGORY. WE ANALYZED THE CATEGORY, HOW IT HISTORICALLY DEVELOPED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, AND WE USED THAT FIGURE, SO IF IT'S A FOUR-UNIT CATEGORY AND IT'S ONLY BEEN DEVELOPING AT THREE, WE USE THREE, AND AGAIN, I HAVE STAFF THAT ARE MUCH MORE TECHNICALLY SAVVY THAN I AM WITH THOSE KIND OF DETAILS AS TO EXACTLY HOW THEY CALCULATED THAT, BUT WE DID NOT USE THE MAXIMUM. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. AND MR. ALUOTTO, YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE POPULATION ESTIMATES. I MEAN, CAN YOU COMMENT ON -- >>PETER ALUOTTO: YES, SIR, WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH IT. >>MARK SHARPE: WITH REGARD TO -- ONE OF THE OTHER POINTS THAT I'VE HEARD OFTEN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE COUNTY WAS GROWING, PEOPLE PRETTY MUCH COULD MOVE WHERE THEY WANTED TO MOVE, THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO BUY A BIG HOUSE, GET A NICE, LARGE YARD, AND THAT'S WHAT THE DEMAND WAS FOR, AND WE'VE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THIS A BIT, BUT NOW WE FIND THAT THINGS ARE GETTING A LITTLE TIGHTER AND THERE'S NOT AS MUCH SPACE. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL ALLOW FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL BE MOVING INTO OUR COMMUNITY IN THE FUTURE TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS THOSE WHO'VE MOVED HERE OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS BUT TO FIND THE TYPE OF HOME THEY WANT TO LIVE IN AND NOT BE FORCED INTO A HIGHER-DENSITY COMMUNITY WHERE THEY MIGHT NOT WANT TO LIVE? >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: YES, I DO BELIEVE THAT FOR TWO REASONS. ONE IS THAT YOU CANNOT DISCOUNT THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK, WHICH LARGELY EXISTS ALONG THE PATTERNS THAT YOU HAVE. I WILL TELL YOU, AT A RECENT CONFERENCE I WAS AT IT WAS FELT -- AND THIS WAS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, MAYBE IT WOULDN'T APPLY HERE, BUT THERE'S ENOUGH SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES BUILT TO MEET THE DEMAND UP TO THE YEAR 2025 ACROSS THE COUNTRY BECAUSE A LOT OF THE DEMANDS AS THE BABY BOOM AGES ARE NOT GOING TO BE FOR TRADITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE ON A LARGE LOT, SO OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE OUR EXISTING HOUSING STOCK IN THE PLAN. 20% OF THE GROWTH WE PROJECT TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. OBVIOUSLY THOSE WOULD BE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES ON LARGE LOTS FROM ONE ACRE TO FIVE ACRES, PLUS THERE'S AMPLE LAND PLANNED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. YOU WILL HAVE CONCENTRATED MULTIFAMILY IN SOME AREAS, BUT I STILL THINK THE PREDOMINANT HOUSING TYPE WILL BE SINGLE- FAMILY. WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY. >>MARK SHARPE: THANK YOU. >>JIM NORMAN: THANK YOU. PRESENTATION. YES, SIR. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: OKAY. WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE CONSERVATION -- EXCUSE ME, THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT. MR. SHAWN COLLEGE WILL REVIEW THAT WITH YOU, COMMISSIONERS. >>SHAWN COLLEGE: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. SHAWN COLLEGE, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THERE WERE JUST TWO CHANGES MADE TO THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT SINCE YOU LAST SAW THIS PLAN, THE FIRST BEING THE POLICY THAT TALKS ABOUT WETLAND BUFFERS. THAT WAS AMENDED TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE THAT TALKED ABOUT AN IMMEDIATE CHANGE, AS YOU MAY RECALL, THAT WAS CHANGED TO WHERE THERE WILL NOT BE AN IMMEDIATE CHANGE IN THE WETLAND BUFFERS BUT THERE WILL BE A PROCESS OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS TO EVALUATE WHAT, IF ANYTHING, NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH WETLAND BUFFERS. THE SECOND CHANGE IS THAT A POLICY WAS ADDED THAT'S A REQUIREMENT OF STATE LAW TO ESTABLISH A LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EVACUATION. THAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, AND THAT WAS ADDED TO THE PLAN TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW. THAT CONCLUDES THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. >>SHAWN COLLEGE: COMMISSIONERS, I'LL CONTINUE WITH THE CONSERVATION AND AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT. THE FIRST CHANGE -- THERE WERE A NUMBER OF CHANGES THAT WERE DONE TO THIS ELEMENT AS A RESULT OF STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, FIRST BEING THERE WAS A POLICY THAT WAS ADDRESSED OR AMENDED TO HELP ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE- REQUIRED UNIFORM MITIGATION ASSESSMENT METHOD FOR WETLAND MITIGATION AT THE REQUIREMENT OF STATE LAW. EVERY JURISDICTION IN THE STATE HAS TO COMPLY WITH THAT. THERE WAS AN UPDATE TO -- AGAIN, TO THE WETLAND BUFFER PROCESS. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO WETLAND BUFFERS. THIS POLICY WAS DISCUSSED AT YOUR EARLIER WORKSHOPS ABOUT A PROCESS FOR EVALUATING BUFFERS IN THE FUTURE. THERE WERE SOME SLIGHT REVISIONS TO THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED HAZARD MITIGATION POLICIES. THERE WERE SOME TERMINOLOGY UPDATES, SOME OUTDATED TERM KNOWLEDGE THAT'S NO LONGER BEING USED THAT WAS UPDATED. THERE WERE VARIOUS CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING COORDINATION WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION. THERE WERE SOME COMPLETION DATES THAT WERE REVISED. SOME OF THE DATES WERE FOUND TO BE NOT REASONABLE, SO THEY WERE EXTENDED FOR VARIOUS THINGS. AND THERE WERE SOME OBSOLETE POLICIES THAT WERE NO LONGER APPLICABLE THAT WERE DELETED. THERE WAS ALSO SOME CONSOLIDATION OF SOME REPEATED POLICIES ADDRESSING RIVER ISSUES THAT WERE CONSOLIDATED TO HELP STREAMLINE THE PLAN. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DEFINITIONS THAT WERE UPDATED, AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DEFINITIONS THAT WERE ALSO DELETED THAT WERE NO LONGER APPLICABLE, NO LONGER BEING USED. AND FINALLY, JUST RECENTLY THERE WERE TWO MINOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS FOUND IN THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, AND THOSE ARE IDENTIFIED IN YOUR PACKET. AND THAT DOES CONCLUDE THE RECENT CHANGES TO THE CONSERVATION AND AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT. >>JIM NORMAN: ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. PLEASE MOVE ON TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: GOOD AFTERNOON. MELISSA ZORNITTA WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT HAD SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES MADE TO IT OVER THIS LAST SIX MONTHS. THE PRIMARY AREAS OF CHANGES WERE RELATED TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, COMPATIBILITY, MIXED-USE LAND USE CATEGORIES, THE WETLAND DENSITY CREDITS, OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION, THE RP-2 LAND USE CATEGORY, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT. THERE ALSO WERE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE AND GRAMMATICAL CHANGES THAT WERE MADE. WITH RELATION TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE STAKEHOLDERS MEETINGS AND AT THE OPEN HOUSES ABOUT THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND WHETHER THE LINE SHOULD STAY WHERE IT IS, WHAT KIND OF INCENTIVES WE SHOULD PROVIDE TO DEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE, BASED ON YOUR DIRECTION AT THE WORKSHOPS LAST SPRING, WE DELETED THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TIERS CONCEPT. WE DID OUTLINE SOME POSSIBLE INCENTIVES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, THINGS LIKE POSSIBLY GOING OUT AND PREZONING AREAS, GIVING SOME DENSITY AND INTENSITY BONUSES. WE ALSO -- AS MR. CHIARAMONTE DESCRIBED -- TOOK A LOOK AT UPDATED DATA ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ADEQUATE LAND IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TO ACCOMMODATE THE POPULATION PROJECTED FOR 2025, AND THIS CHART SIMPLY REITERATES WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE YELLOW SHEET THAT MR. CHIARAMONTE WENT THROUGH. ESSENTIALLY, THE UPDATED DATA SHOWS THE PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA OF 182,582 PEOPLE ANTICIPATED BY 2025, AND OUR -- BASED ON OUR ANALYSIS, THE POPULATION CAPACITY IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TODAY IS 211,705, SO OUR DATA CONTINUES TO SHOW THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE LAND IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TO SUPPORT OUR POPULATION. AND WE FEEL THAT THIS NUMBER IS EVEN MORE RELIABLE THAN WHAT WAS UTILIZED IN 2004 BECAUSE WE HAD THE BENEFIT OF THAT INFORMATION FROM THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT THAT MR. CHIARAMONTE OUTLINED. ADDITIONALLY, IN DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNTY STAFF, THERE -- THE -- THE NEED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT ANY EXPANSION OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, NOT ONLY EXTENDING THE LINES BUT MAINTAINING AND OPERATING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY FOUND TO BE FEASIBLE AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, WE DID UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS POTENTIALLY THE NEED TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, AND SO WE IDENTIFIED SOME CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING FUTURE PROPOSALS TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO GUIDANCE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ABOUT WHEN, WHERE, UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES IS IT APPROPRIATE TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. SO WE OUTLINED SOME CRITERIA THAT ADDRESSED THINGS LIKE BEING A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, THAT ANY EXPANSION WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS, THAT THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABLE OR PLANNED TO SERVICE AN EXPANSION OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, IT WOULD EVALUATE ANY IMPACTS ON NATURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES, THAT OVER -- IN PROJECTS OVER A CERTAIN THRESHOLD THAT ARE -- THERE WOULD BE PROVISIONS FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WHICH WOULD REDUCE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS, AND FINALLY, THAT THERE WOULD BE DATA SHOWING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LAND, EITHER TO SERVE AS POPULATION OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS. SO WE WANTED TO PROPOSE SOME -- THESE -- THIS POLICY TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE AS WE HAVE FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ON WHERE AND WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THE NEXT TOPIC IS RELATING TO COMPATIBILITY, AND AS YOU-ALL KNOW FROM ALL OF YOUR ZONING MEETINGS EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS, COMPATIBILITY IS ALWAYS A HOT TOPIC. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE, DID YOU -- DID -- >>MARK SHARPE: SHE ANSWERED MY QUESTION. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: OH, OKAY. GREAT. COMPATIBILITY'S ALWAYS A HOT TOPIC, AND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT TRYING TO PUT OUR POPULATION INTO OUR URBAN SERVICE AREA, SOMETIMES WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO BE LOOKING AT SOME HIGHER DENSITIES. AS SUCH, WE WANTED TO PROVIDE A BETTER DEFINITION OF "COMPATIBILITY" IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IS MORE EXPLICIT AND LESS SUBJECTIVE. THIS DEFINITION IDENTIFIES SPECIFIC DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT AFFECT COMPATIBILITY AND REITERATES THE FACT THAT BEING COMPATIBLE DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT'S THE SAME AS WHAT'S SURROUNDING IT. ADDITIONALLY, WHEN WE HAD PROPOSED THE MINIMUM DENSITIES IN THE PREVIOUS ITERATION OF AMENDMENTS, WE HAD PROPOSED THAT YOU COULD NOT DO THE MINIMUM DENSITY IF THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH DEVELOPMENT IN A HALF-MILE RADIUS AROUND THE SITE. WE HEARD FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE THAT THIS WAS TOO FAR OF A RADIUS, THAT THERE WOULD BE TOO MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THAT RADIUS, AND SO WE REDUCED THAT TO A THOUSAND FEET. THE NEXT TOPIC IS THE MIXED-USE LAND USE CATEGORIES. IF YOU'LL RECALL, WHEN WE WERE BEFORE YOU PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD PROPOSED PERCENTAGES OF MIX OF USE THAT WERE VERY PRESCRIPTIVE. IT OUTLINED A CERTAIN MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES, AND WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE THAT THAT WASN'T WORKABLE, AND WE WENT BACK AND TOOK A LOOK AT IT AND WANTED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE FLEXIBLE THAT INCORPORATED SOME MORE INCENTIVES. AS SUCH, WE CAME UP WITH THAT ON PROJECTS OF 20 ACRES OR GREATER, YOU WOULD HAVE -- COULD HAVE A RANGE OF ONE USE, 50% TO 80% OF A PRIMARY USE, AND THEN 20% TO 50% OF A SECONDARY USE. WE DIDN'T WANT TO DICTATE WHAT THOSE USES WERE, WE WANTED THAT TO BE SOMETHING THAT WAS DICTATED BY THE MARKET, AND WE WANTED TO ADD SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THAT THERE WAS A RANGE. WE ALSO SAID THAT IF THERE WAS A SECOND USE WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF THE -- THAT 20-ACRE SITE, THEN YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO PUT MIXED USE ON YOUR PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU COULD JUST DO A SINGLE USE. SO WE WANTED TO GIVE THAT FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE, REALLY, THE INTENT IS TO CREATE A MIXED-USE AREA WHERE PEOPLE CAN WALK TO DIFFERENT USES. WE ALSO ADDED IN A NUMBER OF INCENTIVES TO ALLOW IF YOU HAVE THREE OR MORE USES IN A PROJECT, YOU CAN HAVE DECREASED OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. IF YOU HAVE THREE OR MORE USES OR TWO USES THAT ARE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER VERTICALLY INTEGRATED, THEN YOU CAN HAVE AN INCREASED FLOOR AREA RATIO, SO WE WANTED TO INCLUDE SOME INCENTIVES. THE NEXT TOPIC IS THE WETLAND DENSITY CREDIT. DURING OUR STAKEHOLDERS MEETINGS, WE HEARD FROM THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY REGARDING OUR PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE THE WETLAND DENSITY CREDIT FROM THE RURAL AREA. WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THIS AS A MEANS TO ADDRESS COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS THAT WE HAD HEARD DURING OUR INITIAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS THAT SAID, WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF SMALLER LOTS AND INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE RURAL AREA. BUT THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THEY RELIED ON THOSE DENSITY CREDITS FOR LOANS AND THINGS LIKE THAT RELATED TO THEIR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, AND IT WAS NOT OUR INTENT TO PROMOTE THE PREMATURE CONVERSION OF THOSE LANDS. AS SUCH, WE'VE ELIMINATED -- REVISED OUR PROPOSAL TO JUST ELIMINATE THE WETLAND DENSITY CREDIT IN THE RESIDENTIAL-1 AND THE AGRICULTURAL ESTATE LAND USE CATEGORIES ONLY. THOSE ARE THE TWO CATEGORIES THAT REALLY ARE ABOVE THE ONE- UNIT-PER-FIVE-ACRE DENSITY THAT IS DESIRED IN THE RURAL AREA AND WHERE THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES GENERALLY ARISE. THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, WE ALSO HEARD FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE ABOUT MAKING SURE WE HAD SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND AS SUCH, WE CHANGED A NUMBER OF THE DEFINITIONS FOR RURAL AND URBAN AND SUBURBAN OPEN SPACES AS WELL AS WHAT COUNTS AS RECREATION AND CIVIC SPACES SO THAT THERE'S SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY IN HOW THEY CAN MEET THEM. NOW STORMWATER PONDS CAN COUNT AS OPEN SPACE, STORMWATER PONDS THAT HAVE SOME AMENITIES AROUND THEM THAT PEOPLE CAN USE CAN COUNT AS RECREATION AREAS, SO THAT MAKES IT EASIER TO MEET THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. WE ALSO HAD AN INITIAL REQUIREMENT THAT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDE RECREATION AND CIVIC SPACE. WE HAVE PUT A THRESHOLD ON THAT, THAT THAT ONLY BE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS OF 50 UNITS OR GREATER. NEXT TOPIC IS THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM. AS WE REVIEWED THIS WITH COUNTY STAFF, WE FOUND THAT A NUMBER OF THE POLICIES THAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED IN THERE WERE REALLY MORE GEARED TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TDR PROGRAM, AND AS SUCH, A NUMBER OF POLICIES WERE ELIMINATED, AND THOSE WILL BE MOVED INTO THE UPDATE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE WAS ONE OF THE PRIMARY FOCUSES FOR STAFF BECAUSE THAT WAS THE REASON FOR OUR EXTENSION THIS SIX MONTHS. AS SUCH, WE LOOKED AT WAYS TO TIE TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES THAT ARE FOUND IN STATE LAW TO CERTAIN AREAS WHERE WE WANTED TO DIRECT GROWTH. THE ACTIVITY CENTERS WERE COMBINED INTO ONE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY CENTER, THE COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER, AND THOSE AREAS WOULD BE TARGET AREAS FOR TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES, SUCH AS MULTIMODAL DISTRICTS, AND WE WOULD ALLOW FOR THE ANALYSIS THAT IS NEEDED FOR THAT MULTIMODAL DISTRICT TO SERVE AS THE PLANNING THAT WAS REQUIRED FOR THAT ACTIVITY CENTER TO BE DEVELOPED AT HIGHER DENSITY AND INTENSITIES THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE PLAN. WE ALSO IDENTIFIED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AREAS THAT WERE OUTLINED IN THE PLAN COULD BE POTENTIAL AREAS FOR EITHER TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREAS OR MULTIMODAL DISTRICTS. AND THE FINAL ITEM HERE IS THE RESIDENTIAL-2 PLANNED LAND USE CATEGORY. WE HAD -- HAVE PROPOSED A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THIS LAND USE CATEGORY. WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A MECHANISM WHERE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CAN BE UTILIZED TO TRANSFER DENSITY FROM OTHER AREAS OF THE RURAL AREA INTO THIS LAND USE CATEGORY AND THAT GREATER DENSITY WOULD BE ALLOWED IF SOMEBODY DID THAT. WE ALSO HAVE ADDED IN GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN THE PROVISIONS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHERE YOU CAN -- THERE'S NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT FOR EMPLOYMENT ON-SITE. THERE ALSO IS AN ALLOWANCE THAT RATHER THAN HAVING TO PROVIDE ALL YOUR COMMERCIAL ON-SITE, YOU CAN LOOK AT A FIVE-MILE RADIUS AROUND YOUR PROJECT SITE, AND IF THE COMMERCIAL THAT IS NEEDED TO EVERYBODY THE RESIDENTIAL YOU'RE PROPOSING IS FOUND IN THAT FIVE-MILE RADIUS, YOU DON'T NEED TO PROVIDE THAT COMMERCIAL ON-SITE. WE'VE ALSO REVISED SOME OF THE TIMING REQUIREMENTS FOR WHEN COMMERCIAL -- ON-SITE COMMERCIAL WOULD HAVE TO BE DEVELOPED IN TERMS OF THE RESIDENTIAL, AND WE'VE PUT IN POLICIES TO PROMOTE ROAD CONNECTIVITY. WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS WAS THAT THEY'RE STILL NOT REALLY HAPPY WITH THAT. ON THE ONE SIDE, THE CITIZENS DON'T LIKE THIS CATEGORY AT ALL AND WOULD PREFER IT TO BE ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES. ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US MAKE IT EVEN MORE FLEXIBLE AND EASIER TO USE THIS LAND USE CATEGORY. WE FEEL WE'VE MADE SOME POSITIVE CHANGES TO THIS, BUT WE DID AGREE THAT -- AND ADDED A POLICY TO THE EFFECT THAT WE WOULD RECONVENE A COMMITTEE THAT WE HAD FORMULATED TO TALK ABOUT THIS LAND USE CATEGORY AND CONSIDER FURTHER REVISIONS TO THIS IN FUTURE -- FUTURE AMENDMENT CYCLES. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: WHAT WAS THE -- RP-2 WAS ESTABLISHED IN '89; IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF RP-2? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: RP-2 WAS PART OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS WHEN -- BASED ON THE -- THEY FOUND OUR ORIGINAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THERE WAS TOO MUCH DENSITY WELL EXCEEDING THE PROJECTED POPULATION AT THE TIME. AS SUCH, THEY WANTED US TO LOWER DENSITIES, AND THIS WAS A COMPROMISE FOR THIS AREA, TO ALLOW FOR THE BASE DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER FIVE, WHICH IS TYPICAL RURAL DENSITY, BUT ALLOW THIS VILLAGE CONCEPT AT THE TWO-UNIT-PER-ACRE DENSITY AS LONG AS THEY WERE SELF-SUSTAINING VILLAGES AND THAT THEY PROVIDED BUFFERS AND OTHER SITE DESIGN TECHNIQUES THAT WOULD PROVIDE A TRANSITION TO THE RURAL AREA. SO THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE CATEGORY. >>MARK SHARPE: AND I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF SMART FOLKS THAT GOT TOGETHER TO HELP PUT THE RP-2 TOGETHER. I GUESS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS, THE INTENT WAS NOT TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE GROWTH IN THOSE AREAS? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: CORRECT. >>MARK SHARPE: BUT THE INTENT WAS -- WAS IT TO DISCOURAGE? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: I THINK PROBABLY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, YES, IT WAS TO DISCOURAGE GROWTH. >>MARK SHARPE: SO -- TO CREATE SOME BARRIERS SO THAT IF YOU WANTED TO GO THERE, THERE WOULD BE A CHALLENGE. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: IT WAS -- YES. IT WAS NOT MEANT TO BE EASY. >>MARK SHARPE: HAVE YOU GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION TO -- AND I'M JUST -- YOU KNOW, WE ASK QUESTIONS OUT IN PUBLIC, BUT WOULD AN INCREASE IN THE DENSITY OF RP-2 -- BUT WOULD THE SAME CRITERIA THAT YOU'VE PLACED THERE MAKE IT -- IT SEEMS LIKE I'VE HEARD EITHER IT'S "A," NOT VIABLE, OR AS MR. CHIARAMONTE HAS SAID, IT'S JUST -- THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY REASON TO GO THERE, THEY'VE GOTTEN TO WHERE IT'S BEEN RELATIVELY EASY TO DEVELOP, BUT NOW THEY'RE STARTING TO LOOK AT THE RP-2. DO YOU RECOMMEND MAINTAINING THE RP-2 AS IT IS NOW OR -- >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: WE RECOMMEND THIS PACKAGE OF CHANGES THAT WE THINK MAKES IT EASIER AND MORE WORKABLE FOR THE CATEGORY TO ACTUALLY BE DEVELOPED. IT STILL MAINTAINS SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SELF- SUSTAINING VILLAGE IN THAT THE -- ANYONE CHOOSING TO GO THAT ROUTE AND DEVELOP A VILLAGE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES TO SERVE THAT SITE. WE THINK THE ALLOWANCE OF THE TDRs AS A MECHANISM TO GET THE FOUR-UNIT-PER-ACRE DENSITY IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT WOULD -- WE'D BE PRESERVING OTHER RURAL LAND AS PART OF THAT, AND THIS WAS REALLY INTENDED -- >>MARK SHARPE: AND THAT'S NEW; IS THAT CORRECT? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THAT IS NEW, YES. THAT'S A PROPOSAL NOW. AND THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A TRANSITION FROM THE URBAN TO THE RURAL AREA, SO WE THINK ON A WHOLE THE TWO-UNIT-PER- ACRE IS PROBABLY THE MOST APPROPRIATE DENSITY. >>MARK SHARPE: AND THEN TO YOUR MIXED USE -- >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: YES. >>MARK SHARPE: SOMETIMES I THINK WHEN YOU'RE DISCUSSING HOW THESE THINGS ARE VIABLE, WHAT YOU ALSO NEED TO HAVE ARE BANKERS AND FINANCIERS SITTING HERE WITH THEIR LITTLE CALCULATORS. A 20-ACRE FACILITY, IS THERE -- A 20-ACRE DEVELOPMENT, IS THAT LARGE ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN THE REQUIREMENT YOU'RE PLACING ON THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WITH REGARD TO REQUIRING THE MULTIPLE MIXED USE? I MEAN, AND I HAVE LONG -- I MEAN, I WANT TO SEE MIXED USE, BUT I'M ASKING -- LET ME ASK RAY FIRST, THEN I'LL -- RAY. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: I THINK -- I THINK IN THE WAY WE'VE REVISED THE CATEGORY, IT DEFINITELY IS BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING A RANGE OF USE. IT'S MUCH LESS PRESCRIPTIVE THAN IT WAS BEFORE. YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE TO HAVE A SECONDARY USE. THE PRIMARY USE, AGAIN, WOULD BE A RANGE OF, I GUESS, 50% TO 80%, SECONDARY USE 20% TO 50%, AND IT GIVES THEM FLEXIBILITY ON WHAT THOSE USES ARE, SO IT'S MUCH MORE FLEXIBLE THAN WHAT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL IS. YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE BANKERS -- AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS -- IS THAT I THINK THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY IS BECOMING MORE ADVANCED WITH DEALING WITH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS SINCE IT SEEMS TO BE A TREND ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND WHERE YOU HAD LENDING INSTITUTIONS THAT ONLY LENT ON ONE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ARE FINDING CREATIVE WAYS TO FINANCE MIXED-USE PROJECTS, SO I THINK THAT PROBLEM IS KIND OF GOING BY THE WAY OF THE MARKETPLACE ITSELF. >>MARK SHARPE: YOU KIND OF ADDRESSED THIS, BUT I WANT TO ASK IT AGAIN. THIS ISSUE OF -- YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THE DEVELOPERS, THEY'RE SPECIALISTS, THEY WORK IN CERTAIN AREAS. THEY DON'T -- AND I KNOW THERE ARE MORE MIXED-USE EXPERTS - - DEVELOPER EXPERTS COMING ALONG, BUT WAS THERE ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO WAYS IN WHICH YOU -- WE WOULD WORK WITH -- AS THEY'RE BUILDING THESE MIXED-USE COMMUNITIES -- AND YOU'VE GOT MAYBE THE RESIDENTIAL FOLKS COME IN AND SAY, OKAY, HERE'S WHAT WE CAN DO AND YOU GIVE THEM A CONDITIONAL PERMIT, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD UNTIL YOU GET THE APPROPRIATE COMMERCIAL WITHIN THE -- WITHIN THE DISTANCE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR -- YOU'RE NOT REQUIRING THAT ONE DEVELOPMENT TO DO BOTH. YOU SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING -- WE THINK THAT YOUR PORTION WORKS BUT NOT UNTIL WE GET THE REST OF THE FIT, AND THEN YOU EITHER WAIT FOR THE FIT OR WE GO OUT AND TRY TO MAKE THAT FIT HAPPEN. I MEAN -- >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA. WE APPROACHED IT FROM WAS THE USE -- EITHER -- WAS THE SECOND USE PLANNED OR -- EITHER EXISTING OR PLANNED WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF THE SITE, WHICH A QUARTER MILE IS THE TYPICAL WALKING RADIUS, AND SO IF THERE WAS A SITE THAT WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL BUT NOT BUILT YET IN THAT QUARTER MILE, THAT IT -- >>MARK SHARPE: THAT WOULD COUNT. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: -- THAT IT COULD BE CONSIDERED. WE DIDN'T LOOK AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT I THINK YOU WERE SUGGESTING, BUT -- WHICH IS SORT OF A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO ACHIEVING THE SAME THING POTENTIALLY. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE IDEA OF ALLOWING ANOTHER DEVELOPER TO DO OTHER PARTS OF THE PROJECT. I REALLY DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE THE SAME DEVELOPER. THE KEY WOULD BE THAT WHATEVER IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IS DONE AT THE RIGHT TIME. I DON'T THINK WE CARE WHO DOES THAT, AND TYPICALLY, WHAT YOU'RE HAVING IS DEVELOPERS ARE BEGINNING TO TAKE ON SOME MIXTURE, LIKE SOME OF THE APARTMENT DEVELOPERS NOW WILL PUT COMMERCIAL IN ON THE FIRST FLOOR, AND THEY'LL MANAGE AND LEASE THAT COMMERCIAL SPACE. WE HAVE SOME DEVELOPMENTS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LIKE THAT RIGHT NOW. THIS IS A NEW TREND, BUT THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT'S HAPPENING, WHERE YOU DO HAVE A BIG PROJECT DIVIDED AMONG A NUMBER OF DEVELOPERS, EACH MEETING THEIR PART OF WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENTS ARE AND WHAT THEY SPECIALIZE IN. >>MARK SHARPE: ARE THERE OTHER -- ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMUNITIES OUT THERE THAT ARE SIMILAR TO OURS WHERE THESE TYPE OF MIXED-USE REQUIREMENTS ARE WORKING? >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: THERE'S ALL KINDS OF COMMUNITIES, YES. I WOULD SAY ANY MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS HAVE MIXED-USE CATEGORIES, SOME FAR MORE DETAILED THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. I WOULD SAY OURS ARE PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBLE THAN MOST. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. THANKS. >>JIM NORMAN: AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS AS A COMMENT. I -- YOU KNOW, THE AG ISSUE THAT YOU SPOKE OF, I SEE THAT AS A MAJOR HICCUP. IT WAS A REAL, REAL MESS-UP, AND IF THE AG COMMUNITY HADN'T BEEN KEEPING THEIR EYE ON THE BALL, THERE WAS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS BOARD THAT WOULD HAVE DEVASTATED THEM, AND IF WE WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THAT AND MOVED FORWARD, WE WOULD HAVE PUT FARMERS ALL OVER THE PLACE OUT OF BUSINESS. WE GOTTA DO A BETTER JOB WHEN WE MAKE DEVASTATING RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WAY. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: YES, SIR. >>JIM NORMAN: AND I DON'T KNOW HOW -- I HOPE WE LEARNED SOMETHING. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: WELL, I MEAN, GOING BACK AND HAVING MORE TIME ALWAYS HELPS YOU. I'M NOT SURE THAT I'D CHARACTERIZE IT -- >>JIM NORMAN: NO, NO. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: -- AS DEVASTATING. IT WAS JUST A DENSITY CREDIT ITSELF. >>JIM NORMAN: I THINK IT IS WHEN THEY ARE WORKING OFF OF A MARGIN, AND I THINK IT IS WHEN YOU'RE -- YOU'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS HERE -- NO MATTER -- YOU DON'T MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME. IT'S NOT -- >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: BUT A LOT OF COMMUNITIES WHERE YOU HAVE AGRICULTURE DON'T GIVE DENSITY CREDITS AT ALL. REMEMBER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES. INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES, THE DENSITY CREDIT, THE MOST THEY COULD GET IS 1.25. >>JIM NORMAN: I WOULD TALK TO THEM. THEY FELT IT WAS DEVASTATING. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: WELL, AND THAT'S WHY WE -- WELL, SOMETIMES THEY MAY HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE IMPACT TO BE WORSE THAN IT WAS, BUT WE DID GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THEM, WE DID CHANGE IT IN THE CATEGORIES THAT THEY WERE, AND THAT WAS A GOOD THING THAT WE HAD THE TIME TO DO THAT. >>JIM NORMAN: SPECIFICALLY IN THE AG WORLD, I HOPE -- THAT IS A LARGE MARKET FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND I JUST HOPE THAT WE MAKE SURE WE -- WE TREAT THEM VERY FAIRLY AND WE LISTEN BEFORE WE MAKE AG RECOMMENDATIONS. COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE A GENERAL POLICY POSITION FOR ME. I DON'T REALLY WANT TO SUBSCRIBE TO SAYING THAT WHAT THEY DID INITIALLY WITHOUT CORRECTIONS FROM US WAS A DEVASTATING MOVE. I THINK THAT THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF THE PROCESS. PLANNING COMMISSION COMES TO US WITH WHAT WE THINK ARE GOOD IDEAS, AND SOMETIMES THEY COME TO US WITH THINGS WE THINK ARE BAD IDEAS, BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO EMBRACE WHAT WE THINK IS GOOD AND ASK THEM TO RECONSIDER, SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE GO THROUGH ALL THE TIME WITH EVERY DEPARTMENT AND EVERY DIVISION AND EVERY PLANNING COMMISSION AND EVERY EPC AND EVERYTHING ELSE, SO I THINK THAT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT STRONG, AND I -- AND I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY INTENTION OF DOING SOMETHING TO MESS UP THE AG COMMUNITY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION INTENDED. >>JIM NORMAN: NO, I DON'T THINK IT WAS INTENTIONAL, NO, I DON'T. >>ROSE FERLITA: NO, I'M JUST SAYING -- BUT YOU'RE SAYING THIS WAS REALLY BAD AND WE NEED TO DO BETTER. WELL, HOPEFULLY WE ALL NEED TO DO BETTER AS WE GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE PROCESS THAT WE DO AS A GOVERNMENT, SO THE FACT THAT THEY CAME TO US AND -- THAT'S WHY SOMETIMES IT'S GOOD FOR ONE THING TO OVERLAP THE NEXT. WE SAW SOME THINGS THAT WE THOUGHT WEREN'T FAIR AND WEREN'T PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO GO, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT TODAY, SO JUST WANTED TO PUT MY POSITION ON THE RECORD. NOTHING TO COUNTER WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I JUST SEE IT DIFFERENTLY. >>JIM NORMAN: WE DIDN'T CATCH IT, COMMISSIONER. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING -- >>JIM NORMAN: THAT WAS THE POINT. IT WAS BEING PROCESSED, BEING RECOMMENDED, AND MOVING FORWARD, AND IF THEY HADN'T HAVE HAD THEIR EYE ON THE BALL AND BROUGHT SOME ATTENTION TO IT THROUGH THESE DELAYS, IT WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH, AND THAT WOULD HAVE HURT, AND I JUST THINK THAT FOR ME THAT IT'S A BIG PART OF OUR COMMUNITY, A BIG ECONOMIC PART OF OUR COMMUNITY, AND I FELT WE LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THIS, AND THAT'S ALL. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: AND THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL IS A REVIEWING AGENCY OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS EVERY TIME NOW AS WE SEND THEM OUT. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: YEAH. BECAUSE THE ADC -- THEY DENIED 19-2, THEY ASKED US TO PLEASE DENY 19-2, SO IS THIS THE COMPROMISE -- >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: YES. >>BRIAN BLAIR: -- THAT BOTH PARTIES AGREED ON THAT YOU REFERRED TO EARLIER? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEIR -- THAT INDUSTRY, BUT WE DID WORK WITH STEVE GRAN, WHO IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: RIGHT. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: -- ON THIS LANGUAGE, AND IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY ARE OKAY WITH THIS LANGUAGE. >>JIM NORMAN: THANK YOU. >>BRIAN BLAIR: THANK YOU. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THE FINAL COMPONENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT THAT I ALMOST FORGOT IS THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT, AND LISA SILVA WILL PRESENT THIS SEGMENT. THANK YOU. >>LISA SILVA: GOOD AFTERNOON. LISA SILVA, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. AND THE LAST COMPONENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IS THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT. PER YOUR ACTIONS IN MARCH AND APRIL OF THIS YEAR, WE DID MOVE THAT COMPONENT BACK TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND WE DELETED -- YOUR ACTIONS RECOMMENDED DELETING ALL THE NEW COMPONENTS. DURING THE SIX-MONTH WORK THAT WE COMPLETED THERE WERE SOME REVISIONS TO THE LANGUAGE HERE. WE INCLUDED A COUPLE OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS AND ADDRESSED THOSE. BECAUSE OPEN SPACE WAS UPDATED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND WOULD BE A DUPLICATION HERE, IT WAS DELETED. THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING COMPONENT WAS A NEW SECTION, SO IT WAS DELETED, BUT THOSE IDEAS WERE SENT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THEIR FUTURE UPDATES. AND THEN THERE WERE SEVERAL GENERAL COMMENTS FROM SOME OF THE STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATIVES TO SOFTEN THE LANGUAGE, SO A LOT OF "WHERE FEASIBLE," "CONSIDER," "SHOULDS VERSUS SHALLS" WERE INCLUDED. NOW, BECAUSE SOME OF THE NEW POLICIES DID ADDRESS E.A.R. ISSUES, THESE FIVE THAT ARE LISTED HERE, 25 OF THE 70 DELETED POLICIES WERE LOOKED AT IN DETAIL BY THE STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE, REVISED, AND REPROPOSED IN THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT. AND THEN THE FINAL ELEMENT IS THAT WE RETAIN THE NEW FORMAT WITH THE VISUAL GRAPHICS AND THE NEW LAYOUT TO MAKE IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. THAT CONCLUDES THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT. IF THERE AREN'T ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO HOUSING. >>JIM NORMAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >>PEDRO PARRA: PEDRO PARRA, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. CHANGES TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT SINCE THE LAST TIME IT WAS BEFORE YOU INCLUDED REMOVING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATION TEXT FROM THE ADOPTED SECTION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND PROVIDING THEM AS NONADOPTED BACKGROUND MATERIAL INTO THE BACKGROUND SECTION OF THE PLAN, BUT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS WERE IMPLEMENTED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT, WE DID ADD A GOAL AFFIRMING THAT THE TASK FORCE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE STUDIED AND IMPLEMENTED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE HOUSING OFFICER FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THAT THEY WILL BE BROUGHT INTO -- BASED ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS -- INTO THE HOUSING ELEMENT. AND THOSE ARE TO BE DONE THROUGH AN OBJECTIVE AND TWO POLICIES. THE FIRST OBJECTIVE IS THAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OFFICER WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ELEMENT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME FROM THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE BY THE END OF 2008 AND THAT THROUGH THE TWO POLICIES, THE FIRST ONE, THAT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BEING ANALYZED THROUGH AN EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE HOUSING OFFICER AND WILL BE SENT ON TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKFORCE COMMITTEE IMPANELED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THEN IN THE SECOND POLICY, THAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OFFICER WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT TO DEVELOP CHANGES BASED ON THAT ANALYSIS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE SECOND PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE OF 2009. IN ADDITION, THERE WERE SOME CHANGES THAT INCLUDED CHANGING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS THAT WAS -- THAT CURRENTLY RESIDES IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT. THERE WERE SOME CHANGES TO WHERE THE WORD "AFFORDABLE" APPEARED IN THE ELEMENT TO INCLUDE WHERE THEY APPLIED UNDER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE DISCUSSION OF AFFORDABLE AND ATTAINABLE HOUSING. A DEFINITION WAS ADDED THAT INCLUDED -- FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CONSOLIDATED PLAN DOCUMENT WHICH IS USED AS A GUIDE IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT, AND THERE WERE SOME NONSUBSTANTIVE MINOR GRAMMAR AND SPELLING CORRECTIONS IN THE ELEMENT. AND THAT IS IT. >>JIM NORMAN: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. >>LISA SILVA: LISA SILVA AGAIN. THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ELEMENT. BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT WAS MOVED TO THE FUTURE LAND USE, ALL THAT DOES REMAIN ARE THE ADOPTED COMMUNITY AND SPECIAL AREA STUDIES. THE ONLY CHANGE IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS IS THAT THE BOARD DID APPROVE THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE PLAN, SO AS THAT TEXT BECOMES EFFECTIVE, IT WILL BE INSERTED INTO THIS ELEMENT. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. YES, MA'AM. >>KRISTA KELLY: GOOD EVENING. KRISTA KELLY WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, AND THIS IS THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT. THERE WERE THREE CHANGES TO THIS ELEMENT. TWO OF THE CHANGES WERE TO REVISE POLICIES TO ELIMINATE ANY SPECIFIC BUDGET IMPLICATIONS. POLICY 3.13 CALLED FOR THE CREATION OF A HORTICULTURE PROGRAM. BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE TO SAY "SHALL CONSIDER A HORTICULTURE PROGRAM IN THE FUTURE." POLICY 4.17 WAS REVISED. THIS POLICY CALLED FOR FUNDING GREENWAY PROJECTS AND HAD A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF PROJECTS FOR EACH BUDGET CYCLE. THAT SPECIFIC NUMBER WAS ELIMINATED. AND FINALLY, A REVISION TO THE DEFINITION OF THE LOCAL PARKS WAS CREATED, AND ALL THAT DID WAS INCLUDE TENNIS COURTS ALONG WITH OTHER TYPES OF COURTS. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>KRISTA KELLY: THANK YOU. >>JOE ZAMBITO: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. JOE ZAMBITO WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION STAFF. AS A RESULT OF THE STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS THAT OCCURRED OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, A NUMBER OF CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THOSE VERY BRIEFLY. FIRST, A NOTE THAT FOLLOWED POLICY 1.1.1 THAT REFERRED TO THE CONSTRAINED ROAD TABLES. THE NOTE WAS CORRECTED TO REFERENCE THE RIGHT TABLE NUMBERS. THE NUMBERS ON THOSE TABLES WERE CHANGED, AND THE NOTE DIDN'T REFLECT THAT. IN POLICY 1.1.2, WE ADDED TO THAT POLICY REFERENCE TO OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION AVAILABLE. AGAIN, THIS WAS REQUESTED BY THE STAKEHOLDERS, AND, FOR EXAMPLE, RECENTLY THE BOARD APPROVED A PROPORTIONATE FAIR- SHARE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS BY PAYING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF A COST OF AN IMPROVEMENT, SO WE ADDED REFERENCE TO PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE IN THAT POLICY. IN POLICY 1.1.8 WE CHANGED SOME WORDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE CONSTRAINED ROAD TABLES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE POLICY REFERENCED SOCIAL IMPACTS, AND THE STAKEHOLDERS SAID, WELL, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SOCIAL IMPACTS, SO RATHER THAN USING THAT WORD, WE USED NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS, BUSINESS IMPACTS, AND KIND OF TRIED TO SPELL IT OUT A LITTLE BIT CLEARER WHAT WE MEANT BY SOCIAL IMPACTS. POLICY 1.4.2 REFERRED TO SOME LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN 2005 AND REFERENCED SPECIFICALLY SENATE BILL 360. THE STAKEHOLDERS POINTED OUT THAT THE SENATE BILL REALLY JUST AMENDS A FLORIDA STATUTE, AND SO RATHER THAN REFER TO SENATE BILL 360, WE SHOULD REFER TO THE STATUTE THAT IT AMENDED, SO WE CHANGED THE REFERENCE TO THE STATUTE THAT IT AMENDED. WE ADDED A NEW POLICY THAT ASKS THE COUNTY TO REEVALUATE ITS IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AND ITS PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW CONTRIBUTIONS FOR MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. AS YOU MAY RECALL, MELISSA MENTIONED TO YOU THAT THERE -- WE'VE ADDED POLICIES THAT ALLOW THE DESIGNATION BY THE COUNTY OF SOMETHING CALLED A "MULTIMODAL DISTRICT." A MULTIMODAL DISTRICT IS AN AREA WHERE YOU MAY WANT TO ALLOW SOME DEVELOPMENT TO TAKE PLACE SUCH AS REDEVELOPMENT OF AN EXISTING AREA OR MAYBE SOME INFILL DEVELOPMENT, BUT PERHAPS THE ROADWAYS ARE ALREADY OVER CAPACITY AND POSSIBLY ALREADY SO WIDE THAT THEY CAN'T BE WIDENED FURTHER OR THERE'S SO MANY IMPACTS ALONG THE ROAD THAT IT WOULDN'T BE PRACTICAL TO WIDEN THEM FURTHER. SO A MULTIMODAL DISTRICT ALLOWS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT IMPROVING THE ROADWAY, BUT IN THOSE DISTRICTS, YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY LEVEL-OF-SERVICE STANDARDS FOR SIDEWALKS, FOR TRANSIT, AND FOR BICYCLE FACILITIES, AND THEN TO MEET THOSE LEVEL-OF-SERVICE STANDARDS, DEVELOPERS WHO ARE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP WITHIN THAT MULTIMODAL DISTRICT CAN CONTRIBUTE EITHER THROUGH -- WE'RE PROPOSING THROUGH IMPACT FEES OR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE TO PROVIDING THAT SIDEWALK OR THAT ADDITIONAL TRANSIT SERVICE OR BICYCLE FACILITIES. SO THIS IS A WAY TO ALLOW SOME DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR IN AREAS WHERE NORMALLY YOU WOULD JUST HAVE TO SAY NO BECAUSE YOU DON'T MEET THE ROADWAY CONCURRENCY. IN POLICY 1.5.1 WE UPDATED THE CORRIDOR PRESERVATION MAP TO INCLUDE THOSE NEW CORRIDORS THAT WERE ADOPTED BY THE BOCC IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR. IN POLICY 1.5.7 THERE WAS A LISTING OF FUTURE TRANSIT CORRIDORS, AND SOMETIMES THAT LISTING WASN'T VERY CLEAR OR DESCRIPTIVE, SO RATHER THAN HAVING A LIST, WE REPLACED IT WITH A MAP THAT SHOWED WHAT THE TRANSIT -- WHAT THESE FUTURE TRANSIT CORRIDORS WERE SPECIFICALLY. IN POLICY 1.5.13 THE STAKEHOLDERS WANTED US TO CLARIFY WORDING AND DELETE REFERENCES TO WHERE WE SAID SOMETHING WOULD BE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR IN THE TECHNICAL MANUALS AND JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, IN THE APPROPRIATE MANUAL BECAUSE SOMETIMES THINGS END UP -- AND I'M NOT SURE HOW IT HAPPENS -- SOMETIMES THEY END UP IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SOMETIMES THEY END UP IN THE PUBLIC WORKS TECHNICAL MANUALS, SO RATHER THAN SPECIFY ONE OR THE OTHER, THEY FELT IT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE COUNTY AS TO WHERE SUCH REGULATIONS SHOULD APPEAR. IN POLICY 2.1.6 WE UPDATED THE TABLE OF TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDORS. A COUPLE OF NEW CORRIDORS HAVE BEEN ADDED AS A RESULT OF A HARTLINE STUDY THAT WAS JUST RECENTLY COMPLETED, SO WE ADDED ONE MORE CORRIDOR. IN POLICY 3.2.4 AND IN CHAPTER 4, WHICH IS THE DEFINITIONS SECTION, WE ADDED A DEFINITION OF "STREET FURNITURE." WE HAD USED THE TERM "STREET FURNITURE" IN ONE OF THE POLICIES, AND STAKEHOLDERS SAID THEY WEREN'T SURE WHAT THAT MEANT AND THAT WE SHOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC, SO WE'VE ADDED THE DEFINITION. THE DEFINITION, BY THE WAY, CAME OUT OF THE COUNTY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU CURRENTLY USE. IN POLICY 4.4.2 WE CLARIFIED THE WORDING IN THE POLICY THAT RELATES TO TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, CARPOOLING, VANPOOLING, TELECOMMUTING, A NUMBER OF THOSE THINGS THAT REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TRIPS ON THE ROAD, BUT RATHER THAN SPECIFY THOSE TERMS THAT I JUST USED, THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MORE INCLUSIVE SIMPLY TO SAY, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MEASURES RATHER THAN SPECIFY PARTICULAR ONES BECAUSE THERE MAY BE OTHERS BESIDES THE ONES THAT WERE LISTED. SOME OF THE STAKEHOLDERS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT BACS, B-A-C-S, MEANT, IT'S AN ACRONYM, SO WE REPLACED IT WITH BAY AREA COMMUTER SERVICES SO IT WOULD BE CLEAR IN THE POLICY. OBJECTIVE 4.5 HAD A DATE THAT A PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WOULD BE DEVELOPED BY THE COUNTY BY DECEMBER 31st OF THIS YEAR, AND SINCE THE WORK HASN'T ACTUALLY STARTED ON THAT YET AND IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKELY THAT IT WOULD BE FINISHED BY THEN, WE CHANGED THE WORDING TO SAY WITHIN A YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT THE COUNTY WOULD DO IT, SO IT GIVES MORE TIME TO GET THAT DONE. IN POLICY 4.5.2 WE CLARIFIED THE WORDING RELATING TO PROVIDING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PARKING LOTS. AGAIN, THERE ARE -- OFTEN WE SEE CASES WHERE THERE ARE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER WITH PARKING LOTS RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, BUT YOU HAVE TO DRIVE OUT ONTO THE ROAD OUT OF ONE DRIVEWAY AND INTO THE NEXT DRIVEWAY TO GET TO THE GUY NEXT DOOR, SO WE SAID -- WE ADDED THAT WE SHOULD DEVELOP SOME GUIDANCE AS TO WHEN WE SHOULD REQUIRE THIS CONNECTION, AND IT DOES INCLUDE SOME FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO DO IT, BUT IT SAYS WHERE APPROPRIATE, SO IT DOES ALLOW YOU TO LOOK AND MAKE A DECISION. SOMETIMES THE GUY NEXT DOOR MIGHT BE YOUR COMPETITOR AND MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO SHARE PARKING WITH HIM, SO -- I MEAN, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE IT, BUT IT DOES ENCOURAGE IT WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE. IN POLICY 4.5.3 WE CLARIFIED THE WORDING OF THE POLICY THAT REFERS TO PREFERENTIAL PARKING. AGAIN, PREFERENTIAL PARKING SIMPLY MEANS THAT -- WHERE YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROPRIATE SIZE THAT CARPOOLING AND VANPOOLING MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT THAT EMPLOYER COULD USE, THAT HE WOULD PROVIDE PARKING NEAR THE ENTRANCE OR COVERED PARKING OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN THE REGULAR PARKING SPACES TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CARPOOL AND VANPOOL, AND I THINK WE EVEN INCLUDED HYBRID VEHICLES TO TRY TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE INCENTIVE FOR SOMEONE TO BUY A HYBRID VEHICLE. AGAIN, WE CLARIFIED AND SIMPLIFIED THE WORDING OF DEVELOPING A POLICY FOR THE DESIGN OF LOCAL ROADS THAT -- RATHER THAN GIVE SPECIFICS ABOUT PROVIDING TRAFFIC CIRCLES OR SPECIFYING HOW THAT WAS TO BE DONE, WE SIMPLY SAID THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD LOOK AT DEVELOPING A STANDARD FOR DESIGNING LOCAL ROADS THAT DISCOURAGES SPEEDING SO WE DON'T HAVE TO BUILD A ROAD AND THEN GO OUT THERE IN A FEW MONTHS AND PUT IN SPEED BUMPS OR SOMETHING. IF YOU DESIGN IT RIGHT TO BEGIN WITH WHEN YOU BUILD IT -- WHEN THE DEVELOPER BUILDS IT, HOPEFULLY YOU WON'T HAVE ALL THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT SPEEDING AND CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC, AND IT'LL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. AND FINALLY, WE DELETED THREE POLICIES THAT WERE EITHER REDUNDANT OR NO LONGER NEEDED DUE TO SOME CHANGES IN STATE LAW. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 24th WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHERE WE PRESENTED THESE CHANGES, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE -- THE PUBLIC -- SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO WHAT IS CALLED THE BRANDON BYPASS, AND I DON'T THINK IT SHOWS UP VERY WELL IN THAT GRAPHIC, BUT IT'S KIND OF THAT YELLOW SWATH ALONG THE EDGE OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA GOING FROM BASICALLY I-75 IN THE APOLLO BEACH AREA NORTHWARD TOWARDS STATE ROAD 60, THEN OVER INTO POLK COUNTY. THIS MAP THAT HAS THIS IS MAP 25 IN THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, AND IT'S THE MAP OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CORRIDOR PRESERVATION PLAN. THE ROADS SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE THE ROADS THAT THE COUNTY HAS THE ABILITY TO ASK A DEVELOPER TO SET BACK OR PROVIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A FUTURE ROADWAY AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY. THE CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED RANGED FROM IT'S A TWO- MILE WIDE SWATH BECAUSE NO SPECIFIC LINE HAS EVER BEEN DEVELOPED, SO HOW WOULD THE COUNTY EVER IMPLEMENT THIS? YOU CAN'T RESERVE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR TWO MILES, WHICH IS PROBABLY TRUE. AND ALSO THAT IN THIS -- THIS GENERALIZED ALIGNMENT DID GO THROUGH SOME ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS, SOME ELAPP PROPERTIES, AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE SAID THEY LIVED WITHIN THIS AND WERE CONCERNED THAT THIS ROADWAY WOULD BE IMPACTING THEM. SO AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT, WE REMOVED THIS -- THE BRANDON BYPASS FROM THIS MAP, AND WE WILL -- WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO YOU AS PART OF THE E.A.R. AMENDMENTS THAT THIS BYPASS CORRIDOR BE REMOVED. THAT IS THE END OF THE TRANSPORTATION CHANGES. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT -- >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: WITH REGARD TO THE BYPASS CORRIDOR -- >>JOE ZAMBITO: UH-HUH. >>MARK SHARPE: -- I'VE LONG FELT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU'VE GOT TO FOLLOW A VERY METHODICAL PROCESS, MAKE SURE THAT WE DO OUR HOMEWORK AND MAKE A CASE, AND I THINK, RAY, YOU'VE SAID THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE THE PROPER ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE NEED, SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, MY QUESTION IS, YOU CAN HAVE THE -- JUST THE OBSERVATION -- YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ON I-75 TRAVELING SOUTH AND YOU'RE SURROUNDED BY TRUCKS, YOU'RE ON I-4 HEADING WEST FROM PLANT CITY AND YOU'RE BASICALLY IN A DEAD STANDSTILL IF IT'S 9:00 IN THE MORNING, AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO GET TRAFFIC THROUGH OUR REGION HOPEFULLY FROM PASCO, MAYBE PINELLAS, DOWN AND OUT TO MANATEE. WHAT WOULD WE -- AND THIS WOULD BE IN -- I ALWAYS SAW THIS AS IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR OTHER TRANSIT ACTIVITIES. PEOPLE TALK ABOUT RAIL, LIGHT AND COMMUTER. THAT'S FINE, EXCEPT THAT LIGHT AND COMMUTER DOESN'T MOVE ANY COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC, DOESN'T MOVE ANY OF THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS. YOU STILL HAVE TRUCKS, AND SO WE'VE GOT TO MOVE THEM, AND I'D LIKE TO GET THEM AWAY FROM FAMILY CARS TRYING TO -- YOU KNOW, WHO ARE USING THE INTERSTATE. WHAT WOULD WE NEED TO DO TO TAKE THE STEPS TO AT LEAST GET THE DATA NECESSARY TO MAKE AN EVALUATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD HAVE A -- AND I'M GLAD YOU USED THE WORD "BYPASS" AND NOT BELT WAY, BUT A BYPASS, AND THEN WHAT WOULD THE PROPER STEPS BE IF WE WERE GOING TO AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE INCORPORATE THIS INTO OUR PLAN? HOW WOULD WE DO THAT? >>JOE ZAMBITO: WELL, PART OF THE REASON GIVEN FOR REMOVING IT WAS THAT IT CAN'T BE USED THE WAY IT IS. YOU KNOW, IT'S A TWO-MILE-WIDE SWATH, AND THE COUNTY WOULDN'T KNOW WHERE TO ASK FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT, SO I THINK THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION WOULD BE IF IT WERE TO REMAIN, THEN THE COUNTY SHOULD BEGIN SOME SORT OF AN ALIGNMENT STUDY THAT WOULD ACTUALLY PIN DOWN THE ALIGNMENT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO AVOID WETLANDS AND ELAPP SITES AND ALL THOSE OTHER AREAS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO REALLY BUILD ROADS THROUGH, AND THEN, YOU KNOW -- AND THEN ONCE THAT'S PINNED DOWN, YOU'LL HAVE YOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND ONCE THE ALIGNMENT IS SET, THEN, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY CAN USE IT TO REQUIRE THE PRESERVATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE FUTURE. AS I SAID, A LOT OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC DEALT WITH THE FACT THAT -- OF THE UNCERTAINTY, YOU KNOW. I LIVE IN THAT TWO-SMILE SWATH, IS THAT ROAD GOING TO BE RIGHT NEXT TO MY HOUSE OR IS IT GOING TO BE TWO MILES AWAY? YOU KNOW, AND I THINK UNTIL THE SPECIFIC ALIGNMENT IS IDENTIFIED, THAT QUESTION REMAINS, AND SO IF -- IF IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE BOARD TO PLAN FOR SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, REMEMBER THIS CORRIDOR PLAN GOES OUT TO THE YEAR 2050, SO WE'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT AND BUILD IT TOMORROW. >>MARK SHARPE: RIGHT. >>JOE ZAMBITO: BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO START RESERVING RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THIS BYPASS, THEN YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW WHERE THAT ROAD WOULD BE WHENEVER IT IS BUILT. SO THE LONG ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS, IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO KEEP THIS IN THERE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU START SOME SORT OF -- >>MARK SHARPE: I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD KEEP IT IN, I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF -- FIRST OFF, WE'RE PLANNING OUT INTO THE FUTURE. IF THERE'S ALREADY HEAVILY CONGESTED MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADS, WHICH THERE ARE, AND WE NEED TO START PLANNING FOR HOW WE'RE GOING TO NOT ONLY, AGAIN, MOVE PEOPLE BUT COMMERCE, AND -- THROUGH THE REGION. THIS IS THE IDEA THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT -- YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT WHAT IT MIGHT BE, WHICH IS A WAY OF ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, SPRAWL, BUT FOR ME THE PURPOSE IS DEALING WITH AN ALREADY TROUBLESOME TRAFFIC SITUATION AND THEN LOOKING OUT INTO THE FUTURE, 2025, 2050, WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE PEOPLE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE ASKING WHO PLANNED THIS AND WHY ON EARTH DON'T WE HAVE OTHER WAYS OF GETTING AROUND AND GETTING THROUGH. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS, IN THE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, THROW A STINK BOMB INTO THE ROOM AND HAVE PEOPLE GOING NUTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW -- AND THERE'S NO REASON TO DO IT. LET'S JUST TAKE THE STEPS SLOW, THOUGHTFUL, METHODICAL UNTIL WE HAVE THE INFORMATION. RAY. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: YEAH, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK WHAT YOU FIRST SAID ABOUT -- FIRST I THINK YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ROAD YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD. YOU TALKED ABOUT TRAFFIC ON I-4 AND I-275. WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE COMMERCE IS GOING, THE TRUCKS ARE COMING FROM, GOING TO, WHAT DO WE WANT THIS ROAD TO DO, YOU KNOW, ANALYZE ALL THAT TO TRY TO DECIDE WHAT IS THE BEST PATH FOR A ROAD TO DO THOSE THINGS, AND THAT -- YOU KNOW, THAT REALLY NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE. THIS PARTICULAR TWO-MILE SWATH -- AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, JOE -- COMES FROM A FEW YEARS AGO. I THINK THERE WAS A PROPOSAL, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE ANY AGENCY HAS THIS PARTICULAR ROUTE ON ANY OF THEIR THOUGHT PROCESSES RIGHT NOW. THEY'RE LOOKING ACTUALLY IN THE FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY'S CORRIDOR PLAN, A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ROUTE THAN THIS, AND I THINK PART OF THE CONCERN WAS TO PUT SOMETHING INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT REALLY HAS NO VALIDITY OR NOBODY IS -- THIS PARTICULAR ROUTE ISN'T PART OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE THINKING ABOUT NOW FOR THE REASONS JOE MENTIONED. >>JIM NORMAN: I THINK THAT ANSWERS IT. I MEAN, THIS NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OFF. >>MARK SHARPE: YEAH, IT DOES NEED TO BE TAKEN OFF. >>JIM NORMAN: ONE OF THE THINGS, MR. CHIARAMONTE, THAT I ASKED YOU IN OUR SESSION WHEN YOU CAME BACK IS THE LISTS THAT ARE BEFORE US -- I JUST WANTED YOU TO SAY IT ON THE RECORD. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: OKAY. >>JIM NORMAN: ALL OF THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT WE HAD, THE PUBLIC MEETINGS, THAT ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU-ALL FELT WERE VALUABLE, THAT HAD VALUE, THAT COMPETENT INFORMATION OR WHATEVER, YOU-ALL SCRUBBED IT, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU CAME UP WITH THESE ITEMS AND -- >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: RIGHT. THESE ARE THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE BASED ON INPUT THAT WE TOOK AT THE STAKEHOLDERS MEETINGS. JUST TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT WHAT WE DID, EVERY COMMENT THAT WAS MADE WE ANSWERED, AND SOMETIMES THE ANSWERED WAS WE DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MAKE A CHANGE BASED ON THIS COMMENT. OFTEN THE ANSWER WAS WE WERE GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE AND THIS IS WHAT THE CHANGE WAS, BUT WE DID ADDRESS EVERY COMMENT THAT WAS MADE IN SOME WAY. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. FROM BOTH -- FROM ANYONE THAT SHOWED UP AT STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS? >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: YES. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: RAY, HOW MANY PEOPLE SHOWED UP AGAIN ON -- ON THE AVERAGE AT EACH STAKEHOLDER MEETING IN TOTALITY. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: WELL, THE STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS WERE -- AND YOU CAN HELP ME. >>BRIAN BLAIR: IN TOTALITY. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: IN TOTALITY? OKAY. WELL, LET ME EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE. WE HAD THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, WHICH I THINK RANGED FROM MAYBE 50 TO 70, 80 AT EACH ONE OF THOSE, THERE WERE FOUR OF THOSE. THAT WAS GENERAL CITIZENS. THE STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS WERE ACTUALLY MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, MORE ACTIVE CITIZENS, COUNTY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, AND THOSE WE ALWAYS HAD GOOD TURNOUT, I'D SAY 20 PEOPLE USUALLY VERY FOCUSED ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE ISSUES WERE IN THE PLAN, SO THERE WAS REALLY TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS. YOU HAD THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT COMMUNITY MEETINGS THEN THE PEOPLE THAT HAD AN INTEREST IN THIS PLAN THAT HAD BEEN GOING THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS ALL ALONG, AND THOSE WERE THE SAME PEOPLE. WE HAD TEN OF THOSE MEETINGS, I BELIEVE, WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS. AND THEN WHAT WE WOULD DO IS THE NEXT DAY WE WOULD MEET AGAIN WITH COUNTY STAFF. WE WOULD GO OVER ALL THE COMMENTS AND COME UP WITH WHAT WE FELT WAS A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. >>BRIAN BLAIR: SO WHAT IS THE -- WHAT'S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW TO RELIEVE THE TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA? >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: I BELIEVE -- WELL, WHEN YOU SAY "THAT AREA," I'M NOT SURE -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: I'M SORRY, THE AREA THAT COMMISSIONER SHARPE JUST SPOKE TO AND COMMISSIONER NORMAN ALSO REFERRED TO, THE BRANDON AREA. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: WELL, THAT'S KIND OF A HARD QUESTION. THERE'S A NUMBER OF ROADS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN YOUR CORRIDOR PRESERVATION PLANS THAT I THINK ADDRESS GENERALLY -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: NO, JUST THE MAJOR ONE, JUST -- WHAT IS OUR MAJOR PROJECT, OR ARE THEY ALL JUST FEEDERS AND -- >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: THE ONLY PROJECTS I KNOW COMING UP, AND THEY'RE NOT -- THEY'RE BEING PROPOSED AS PLAN AMENDMENTS IN THE FUTURE IS THE COUNTY'S CORRIDOR PRESERVATION MAP, WHICH HAS SOME PATH FOR SOME TYPE OF BELTWAY IN IT, BUT WE HAVEN'T REVIEWED THAT YET. >>MARK SHARPE: BYPASS. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: BYPASS, I'M SORRY. >>BRIAN BLAIR: BUT THERE'S NO RESTRICTIONS, THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S GOING TO HANDCUFF PROGRESS IN THE PLAN, THOUGH? THAT'S -- >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: NO. >>BRIAN BLAIR: THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I WANT TO HEAR IS THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S GOING TO -- >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: I THINK IF A STUDY IS DONE AND IT SHOWS A NEED FOR SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE AND IDENTIFIES WHERE THAT IS, YES. >>JIM NORMAN: WHERE I WAS GOING, THOUGH, IS I WANTED TO SEE EVEN WHAT THE BAD SUGGESTIONS WERE. THAT'S WHY I ASKED. I LOOKED THROUGH ALL THE BOOK AND I DIDN'T SEE -- >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: RIGHT. >>JIM NORMAN: -- WHAT WAS KICKED OUT, WHAT WERE PEOPLE IN ALL AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY THINKING WOULD HAVE -- I KNOW YOU-ALL SCRUBBED THEM AND YOU CAME TO THESE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WERE THE DIFFERENT IDEAS THAT WERE OUT THERE FROM ALL SECTIONS OF OUR COMMUNITY ON IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PLAN THAT -- I KNOW YOU-ALL SCRUBBED THEM DOWN, YOU GOT TO THESE, AND THESE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU-ALL BROUGHT FORWARD BECAUSE YOU-ALL FELT THESE WERE THE ONES THAT HAD VALUE, BUT I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO AT LEAST SEE THE COMMENT SHEET OF WHAT YOU-ALL -- WHAT WERE THE ONES -- WHAT WERE THE BAD ONES, WHAT ARE PEOPLE THINKING? >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: I THINK WE HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION AND WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU. WE'LL COMPILE EACH MEETING AND EACH STAKEHOLDER MEETING AND GIVE YOU ALL THAT INFORMATION. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: YEAH. COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE A LIST OF THE -- >>JIM NORMAN: YOU TOLD ME -- ACTUALLY, YOU TOLD ME SOME. YOU TOLD ME LIKE THE TWO UNITS PER ACRE, LIKE YOU FELT IT SHOULD GO BACK TO ONE AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS. YOU SHARED SOME OF THAT WITH ME, I KNOW, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHAT THE PARAMETER WAS ON ALL THE DIFFERENT SUGGESTIONS THAT PEOPLE WERE MAKING. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: SIR, WE CAN GET YOU THE COMMENTS THAT WE SAVED FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE AND STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS AND THE COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC AT OUR OPEN HOUSES. WE CAN PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO YOU. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: OKAY. WE CAN DEFINITELY GET THAT TO YOU. >>JIM NORMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >>STEVE GRIFFIN: JUST TO GO OVER WITH YOU THE NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS TO GET YOU ONBOARD WITH WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THE UPDATE, LATER THIS MONTH ON THE 24th WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER WORKSHOP WITH YOU, COMMISSIONERS, TO REVIEW THOSE REMAINING ELEMENTS IN THE COMP PLAN THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANY REVISIONS JUST TO REFAMILIARIZE YOU WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING TO UPDATE THOSE ELEMENTS. AND THEN WE HAD THREE NON-E.A.R. AMENDMENTS THAT WERE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS ROUNDS THAT WE'RE GOING TO WORKSHOP WITH YOU, AND WE'LL DO THAT ON THE 24th OF OCTOBER. ON NOVEMBER 8th WE'LL BE HOLDING A FIRST TRANSMITTAL PUBLIC HEARING, AND THAT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CONTINUED, AND AT THAT HEARING WE WANT TO HAVE THE PUBLIC SPEAK TO THE REVISIONS THAT WE MADE TO THE UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THROUGH THE E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS. ON JANUARY 24th OF 2008, WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER WORKSHOP WITH YOU TO WORKSHOP THOSE 13 NEW NON-EAR-BASED AMENDMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED AT THE FIRST PART OF SEPTEMBER. THE TRANSMITTAL PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 7th, 2008 DATE, AND THAT'S THE TRANSMITTAL PUBLIC HEARING WHERE YOU'LL SUBMIT BOTH THE E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS AND NON-E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY REVIEW FOR COMMENT. ONCE THEY DO THAT, THEY'LL HAVE THE TIME TO REVIEW AND MAKE THEIR OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS REPORT TO THE COUNTY. WE'LL GET THAT BACK, AND WE WILL HAVE AN ADOPTION PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THESE PLAN AMENDMENTS ON MAY THE 8th OF 2008, TO ADOPT THE E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS AND THE NON- E.A.R.-BASED AMENDMENTS, AND THAT IS THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE THAT IS GOING TO BE COMING BEFORE YOU IN THE NEXT STEPS OF THE UPDATE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR WORKSHOP TODAY, COMMISSIONERS. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU-ALL DID, PLANNING COMMISSION, CITIZENS, ALL THE OTHERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE MEETINGS. I KNOW IT WASN'T EASY, AND I'M SURE THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS OUT THERE WHO ARE -- YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO SATISFY EVERYBODY, BUT I THINK THAT YOU-ALL HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF TAKING THE PROCESS FORWARD AND LISTENING, SO THANK YOU. >>JIM NORMAN: AND ALSO THROW PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN THERE. >>MARK SHARPE: ABSOLUTELY. >>JIM NORMAN: THEY ALSO WORKED AWFUL HARD. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: WE DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT THE HELP WE GOT FROM THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AND ALSO THE OTHER COUNTY AGENCIES, THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT. THEY WERE VERY INSTRUMENTAL IN OUR REVIEW OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT AMENDMENTS. >>MARK SHARPE: I'LL JUST SAY AGAIN THAT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE ALL THE DIFFERENT GROUPS TO CONTINUE IN THE FUTURE TO SIT DOWN AND TALK BECAUSE AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE, I BELIEVE, A COMPREHENSIVE VISION FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT WE CAN ALL IN SOME WAY -- WE MAY NOT AGREE ON ALL THE DETAILS BUT AT LEAST HAVE SOME SENSE OF WELL, GEE, THIS MAKES SENSE. THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT EVEN THIS DISCUSSION OF GOING OUT WITH YOUR 50-YEAR PLAN IS A GOOD IDEA. JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE INCLUDE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. >>RAY CHIARAMONTE: ABSOLUTELY. >>MARK SHARPE: I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT SO THAT WE HAVE A VISION THAT WE CAN OPERATE FROM. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. >>BRIAN BLAIR: I AGREE. I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL THE PEOPLE, TO THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE COME OUT TIME AFTER TIME THAT SPEND THEIR HOURS. WHETHER WE AGREE OR DISAGREE, YOU GUYS TAKE YOUR TIME, YOU COME OUT, AND IT'S VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. THANK YOU. >>JIM NORMAN: NOW WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE REALLY THINK WHEN WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THOUGH, RIGHT? [LAUGHTER] >>STEVE GRIFFIN: THAT IS CORRECT. >>JIM NORMAN: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU. WE'RE NOW ADJOURNED. 1