9.17.26 Pasco Planning Commission 2050 Workshop

Right. We have a roll call, please.

Jamie Gerard

here.

Christopher P

here.

John Moody

here.

Matthew Muns.

Derek Conitz. Richard Tanello

here.

Chairman Charles Graham

here. Yeah, that's a good idea. Stand for a moment of silence and the pledge of allegiance. Algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Okay.

Try it. Thank you. Good morning, Plane Commission members. Good morning, Mr. Gray. I'm Hi, Miss Lee with Plane Development Economic Growth. It's good to see everyone again. It feels like it's been a while since we've had a Pesco 2050 workshop. So, I hope that you guys did not forget about us. [laughter]

Okay, so we've been keeping keeping very busy behind the scenes, working through the plan and making [music] some um refinements along the way. of course in collaboration with our stakeholders, county attorney's office and other internal departments. [music] Um so today we are back at it ready to continue our journey through Pasco 2050. So let's get this party started.

All right.

Okay. So gentlemen, pop quiz. Do we remember this slide?

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Okay. Good. Everybody gets an A. So um by now we should all be very familiar with this uh with this slide. It shows the Basco 2050 family of chapters. Um we have worked through our way or worked our way through most of these chapters and um today we are going to tackle Pasco grows. So Pasco grows is pretty much the elephant of the comprehensive plan. This is the biggest chapter in our comprehensive plan because um pretty much touches on every single topic that we had already discussed in previous workshops. So we kept it last by design because it pretty much encompasses everything that we had already discussed. So today we are not going to tackle this elephant all at once. We are going to be doing a series of workshops. Um uh we are pretty much just going to focus on the future land use categories today and then we're going to come back in subsequent uh workshops to work on the rest of the chapter which will include uh the goals, objectives and policies. So after making our way through the family we are um finally ready to tackle this elephant. All righty. So here we go. Pasco grows. So this chapter combines the existing future land use element and the property rights element into one chapter. We renamed it Pasco grows to better fit the overall structure and the theme of the Pasco 2050. Um as required by chapter 163 of the Florida statutes. This is a mandatory element of the comprehensive plan.

No problem. Um, at its core, Pasco Grows establishes the framework for how we accommodate future growth while maintaining a range of choices for where people can live from rural communities um to suburban neighborhoods to more urban environments. Now, there are quite a few changes in this chapter and you can see the big picture here. Um we have eight goals, 30 objectives and 125 policies or yeah 125. [music] I had 127 but yes it is 125.25 policies excluding the sub area policies. The changes include updates to reflect current Florida statutes. Um we have consolidate consolidated policies and objectives. We updated outdated information and removed policies that have either been um accomplished or already addressed through the land development code. We also moved a few policies from other chapters into Pasco grows where they fit more appropriately and vice versa. We took some policies from this chapter and put them in other chapters because [music] they fit in those chapters um better. Uh but the biggest piece and really the reason we are starting our discussion today is the future land use map series as well as the future land use um categories. So we have made um some significant changes to the way we organize and approach our future land use categories. We have moved several of the special area plans into Pasco specializes. These area plans include um Newport Corners, uh Connor, New Town, uh connected city, VOP, um all of those CPEV. Um so all of those policies and those area plans move to specializes to be housed under one chapter. Um we have consolidated our residential future land use categories into one suburban density residential category. We call it SDR, the SDR flu. And we have established a tier system within that category to pretty much organize that um future land use category better and that is where we are going to spend our time today. So make sure that we have our copies and we are ready to understand the SDR view. Uh we're going to focus specifically on the future land use categories as I mentioned and the changes to the map series. uh we'll save the goals, objectives and policies to our next Pasco grows work workshops where we can um give those those a little bit more attention and actually the attention they deserve. So today again as I mentioned earlier is really about understanding what the land use framework looks like and how we are organizing it moving forward. and to help us put all those pieces together. Terry is standing by to walk us through the future land use category. So with that, I will hand it over to Terry.

Morning Mr. Chairman, planning commission or local planning agency as that is a workshop on the comprehensive planos planning development economic growth. Um thank you Hayyatt. We're going to talk today about the future land use categories and we're going to start with [clears throat] um our agricultural and residential categories. This slide should uh come to some should be familiar to you all. You've seen this before. This might be the second or third time that you're you're seeing a summarization of the future land use category. So what's on the slide just to be clear is not everything that is in the future land use description that has been provided to you in redline format and also in uh final so draft format but what it would look like in its final form when we're done with this. Um so all of the detail can still be found. It's not going to be on the slide but it will be in your materials. Um to that end I'm only going to talk about uh these categories at a high level. I'll walk through all of them first and if there's any particular questions we can uh dive into those uh deeply if you want uh at the end of the presentation. So here are here we're talking about the agricultural and residential future land use categories and at the onset of the comprehensive plan update the board of county commissioners had requested that we try to streamline the comprehensive plan. uh over the last 20 30 years we've done a lot of comprehensive plan amending and a lot of that comprehensive plan amending took place in the movement between agricultural future land use categories and residential future land use categories. Certainly there were other amendments there changing to com commercial PDS and things like that. But a good chunk of those amendments were between the agricultural flu bouncing between AG and AGR for example um and the res flu bouncing between res 3 and six and 9 and 12 and so on and so forth. So in this update we have uh worked to consolidate and streamline the comprehensive plan. AG we have on the on the very left um the 2025 future land use categories. Those are what we have on the books today. And then right next to it we have the 2050 future land use category illustrating the uh consolidation of which flues are are now located within the new 2050 flu. So the AG and the AGR of the 2025 plan are being combined into the new AGR flu of the 2050 plan. And this does not have a minimum density associated with it. Um, obviously if you have a 10acre parcel that has no house on it, for example, and it's just being farmed, it's an orange grove or, you know, a pasture field or whatever, that continues to be um, uh, consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the density climbs to a 0.2 dwelling units per acre or put set another way, one dwelling unit every five acres. Um essentially the AGR flu of the 2025 plan is expanded uh and [music] uh incorporates the AG flu that is in uh for the most part the north market area in the rural transition area and in northeast Asco

but there's also a lot of it in the east market area as well. Um the main reason for this is because as I noted earlier for 30 years these have been interchanging flues and there's never been any concern when AG moves to AGR or vice versa. Uh so the consolidation uh is presented as part of the 2050 update. Um that will be the one agricultural future land use category. It also has residential capability. So it's grouped together with the residential flu. Uh, continuing on, we have the res one future land use.

J, can I ask you one question about that one before we move on?

Sure.

Um,

I noticed in the list of range of uses, you have neighborhood commercial uses.

Um, is that I'm just trying to figure out how that's going to work in practice. So that means that [music] you can basically do C C1 zoning and AG blue.

I I just

Yeah, that's an existing uh land use capability of the AGR future land use that we have today. My recollection on that is that it's referencing the commercial activities that the farm stands and the things like that that might take place within the agricultural flu.

I I don't think that it's been translated in the past C1.

So when it says neighbor commercial uses, it's it's really commercial uses related to egg.

Yes,

I guess there's a comment. Yeah, there there's a complete in

maybe you need to fix your commas there, but

because the description the way the range of uses [music] it says an office is related to a but then

yes

the neighbor commercial uses makes it sound like it's

it's a standalone

it's a standalone use.

We'll get rid of that comma.

So if the intent is that it's neighbor commercial uses related to a then you need to try to fix your commas.

Yeah, I marked it.

Okay. And is the current F for those uses or is this change 23 the current flu has it at 23 F. Okay. So um we'll bring it we'll continue the conversation out to res one. Uh res one is being translated in Pasco 2050 to RDR rural density residential. Um one of the things that we wanted to make sure uh we covered is the gap between the flu. So a lot of times in the 2025 plan a future land use [music] only comes up to a maximum level and then it jumps three points if you will to the next flu. And so in order to accommodate something that's in between the two flu, you have to go to the very next higher flu. the clearest uh we we've dealt with this a lot in the res flu issues where if somebody wanted to do a 1.5 dwelling units per gross acre project they had to go up to res three in order to accommodate they wanted to do 3.25 dwelling units per acre they had to jump to res six and there was always this uh a little bit of heartburn to give that much density on a project that was just barely over the top of the maximum of the current flu. Uh so what we've this the part of the strategy here is to close that gap and incorporate um we've calibrated the RDR uh future land use to follow along with the utility uh policies that we've talked about in some of the other workshops to make sure that if you're a density between one and three you have the option for utility connections. It's not mandated in the same way that if you had a three dwelling unit per acre project you must connect. Um so if the option exists and we had previously said that res one is a at least in the in the rural areas considered a rural flu in the non-rural areas considered a sprawl flu. Uh it was the idea was to consider RDR as a flu that is going to get us away from the sprawl and intensify where we can. Uh so where we have res one outside of the rural areas, there is the ability to obviously stay the same status quo. That's always a an option for everybody under PESCO 2050 or they can proceed to densify. So if you have a 3acre parcel under a res one and somebody wants to split it for their kids or whatever, under the current res one, they'd have to jump to res 3 in order to accommodate it. But under RDR, they would be able to divide uh as long as they fell um under the maximum of 2.9 dwelling units per acre. Uh in the northeast rural area, we've maintained the status quo and capped RDR at a maximum of one. That's what we have today. That's what will continue to exist under PESO 2050. And in the rural transition area, um, we've added a policy to cap the max at two for RDR. The rural transition area, um, without getting too deeply into the policies, we'll talk about it when we actually bring the policies forward, but just as a quick overview, it's supposed to be transitioning between the suburban environment of Paso County and the rural environment. If the suburban environment is beginning at three dwelling units per acre and the and the rural environment tops out at one dwelling unit per acre,

that's the current framework that we have through the comprehensive plan, then the rural transition area is somewhere in between. We've identified that to be at capping at two. All of the development that has to date occurred within the rural transition area, developments like uh 4G ranch, palmetto ridge, etc. All of those despite the quantities that they are presenting uh of housing units nevertheless are under two dwelling units per per acre density. Those are also large projects that's why they have large quantities. Uh so that so that's uh RDR in in a nutshell. Uh now we're going to come to the biggest

in the northeast rural area where somebody was requesting I think the one where something res one given that that's considered a small level of density is there other policies in the comp plan that will ensure that northeastaster rule doesn't become straw. I mean,

yes.

I mean, I I applaud the fact that you're kind of getting rid of res one because I think that is a stroll land use category, but it seems like you're effectively still allowing it in northeast rural. So, what are you doing to make sure you're not going to get sprawl in northeast rural? So we we and we'll talk about it when we bring the GOP's forward goals, objectives and policies. Um but in short, there is a policy proposed to freeze RDR northeast rule. So there's no further expansions of it. Once Pasco 2050 is adopted, what exists on the ground today at RES 1 or what will translate into RDR and PESCO 2050, that'll be it for for Northeast Rule.

So you won't approve any new RDR? That's the proposal.

Yes, that's the proposal.

And we won't keep in mind though that in the northeast rural there are I think two or three other um res six areas in northeast rural just the overlay hit those areas too and they're quite uh central to the northeast rural area. um for whatever reason they res 6 is out there those are going to be capped also under SDR at six because that's what they have today and there will not be an expansion of those either in 2015

okay

so uh that brings us to SDR which is suburban density residential this is where a lot of the comprehensive plan amending has u transpired over the last three decades uh we're combining res 3 6 9 and 12 into the single category known as SDR, Suburban Density Residential. This because this is going to be our main flu. You'll see on the map in a little bit how much geography it uh contains. We are proposing a minimum density within uh within SDR. That minimum density is about 2.8. So, it overlaps a little bit with RDR. And we've done that in order to capture some of those developments that are not quite sitting at res 3 today. Maybe they're a little bit under because they had to put in extra infrastructure or whatever and didn't and they just didn't get to the u dwelling units per acre that they were targeting. Nevertheless, we've overlapped it a little bit to accomplish that. We want that minimum to help combat sprawl, fill in the suburban areas of the county that have all of the utilities and and the transportation infrastructure. And uh right now the proposal is to have a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. um which will help cover the gap between 12 where we have today res 12 and res uh 24. We will talk about SDR specifically in subsequent slides because there's a couple things that we need to talk about. One is so how does that relationship work between the densities when you've consolidated this much uh category into one category and also we also need to talk about where do we want that maximum threshold? Do we want really want it at 18? Do we want to bring it down to 15? Do we want to bring it down to 12? There are some policy implications associated with affordable housing that I we hope to talk about today also on that point.

Can you

So um

elaborate a little bit more about the minimum that's like a new concept.

Right. So the the minimum because this is the main suburban future land use category, we would want to see [snorts] uh development optimized to a to a particular density that will help pay for the infrastructure that we um that's going to be serving basically.

So what about areas where there isn't? My own neighborhood is res three and we all live on lots one acre or more. There's a few large tracks still left in the area. So, you're saying if anybody want to come in and develop any of those other tracks, they'd have to develop at least 2.8, even though that would be inconsistent with what the rest of the neighborhood is.

Generally, the policy would be yeah to bring them up to that flu to the extent that there are existing situations. Uh I believe in the in the other flu we've accommodated that. we do address the arts.

Okay. So if you've built at a lesser density and you're there today, you are essentially uh consistent with the comprehensive plan.

So well I guess let me elaborate on that. So what what triggers the minimum density requirement? Is it a is it a reszoning? Is it a site plan approval?

Because if somebody is it building an ADU? I mean like at what point are you subject to that minimum density. I think that may be the root of the question. I mean, if somebody just comes, if one of his neighbors comes in and says, "I just want to build an ADU." Are you going to tell him you got to build five ADUs?

No.

I mean,

yeah, the Yeah, I the ADU does not count against density. So, that discussion was

But we're talking about a minimum density. So, the home is destroyed by sinkhole, flood, hurricane, and now it's time to rebuild. Do they get told they have to rebuild at 2.8 growing in to the acre?

No. In that scenario, no. I think uh to to the to the county attorney's point, uh the the issue would be at the time of resoning. So if something is going to change on the site, then we're going to look at it and say, okay, what is the proper development intensity here? And

you're saying if somebody's operating within their existing zoning, you're not going to enforce this minimum requirement.

Yeah. So, and just elaborate a little bit. In my particular neighborhood, we have a res three flu, but everybody has an AR zoning, which is one dwelling unit to the acre. So they come in and they want, let's say they got five acres, which would entitle them to five potentially five dwelling units in the AR zoning. Are they going to get told they need to reszone to something that provides a minimum density of 2.8?

I think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying that if Unless you're reszoning, you're not going to be subject to this. [snorts] Is that what you're saying, Jerry?

Correct.

The reasoning

is there a specific policy statement that clarifies that or elaborates on?

Yeah, there's policies, but there's a whole SDR section in the GOPs that will discuss that. And Terry, how how do you deal with it on a do those policies address how you deal with it on like a multi-phase piece of property? I mean like will you allow like a phase one to be two dwelling units if phase 2 is 3.8 dwelling units? I mean

it could

or they can blended.

Yeah. If a if a large project came in and they had different areas that had different densities within them. Yes. you're going to allow them to average it to get to the minimum. Basically,

they could there's there's different ways to get to that, but yes, that's possible.

So, just to be clear, let's say somebody had a today a res 3 flu and an AC zoning. You would not allow them to reszone to AR or ER. if it requires a a 2.8 density. Yeah.

Okay. But again, this is where the suburban development patterns are currently today. So you're saying if somebody and David I I'm not sure about the term sprawl. I hear that used in a lot of different contexts and I'm not sure why that is such a negative thing but there are people who choose to live a little bit away and you're saying well you don't have a choice. You got to live ne you got to live on top of your neighbor. No, I don't think that's what sprawl means. Um, there's rural development.

I'm not saying sprawl means that. I'm saying this policy of the minimum 2.8 dwelling units per acre says that.

I think what Terry is saying is in the areas in our suburban areas, they want to make sure they're maximizing the infrastructure so that we don't we don't achieve sprawl.

Yeah. The point I'm making is they're zoned AC today. You go in my neighborhood, they're zoned AR. There is no infrastructure. There's no water. There's no sewer. There's no fire protection. There's a street. That's it. There's nothing there. I guess Terry, this this begs the larger question. I mean has has staff looked at all of our existing all the SDR areas to know whether they are served with adequate infrastructure to

achieve to achieve a 2.8 minimum.

I could show you a lot of res3 areas in the county especially in the western part of the county [clears throat] that there is no infrastructure. There's no public utility services available.

There are locations where current res 3es and sixes for example exist. that utilities have not reached yet. So there there are places like that. The vast majority of the SDR or the the res 3 through 12 future land use categories however are lined up with utility access. Um and where there is for example like in the Hudson area um it's in the West Market area. So those are urban service areas where utilities are expected to expand into if they're not there today at some point in the future. Yeah, but our utility our utilities don't expand for the purposes of extending service. They rely on developers to extend those utilities. So what's the impetus? It would be different if utilities came in and said, you know what, we're going to come in and install water and sewer in your neighborhood and extend it up to this big 20 acre tract on the north end of your neighborhood. But that's not how our utilities division works. They expect the developers to extend the utilities. And I've known I've not yet seen our county commission move to on their own extend utilities into an area unless there's some developer doing it.

I understood. But there's also the flip side of that coin, which is that some some utilities have been extended already into areas that are uh that don't have the density necessary to support the utility that's already there. So, there's a little bit of both that's happening on the map. I don't know which is more prevalent, which scenario is more prevalent. Um but we we do know that there are areas of the county where the zoning and the density is low but there are utilities passing by them. Those properties are connected. Understood. Um but it's not at the density or intensity level that can actually support the length of utility that has actually been laid. Well, so

and maybe this is I mean I don't I don't know, John, but maybe that's a situation where that neighborhood need to look at asking to be switched already are. I don't know.

I can think of movement states for example, hundreds and hundreds of people living in there on 35 foot lots and there's no utilities. I mean, I think what Terry's I think what Terry's saying is that there's an expectation that if you're res three and higher and now STDR that you're going to be on utilities at a higher levels of density. So, if that neighborhood doesn't have that expectation, maybe we need to look at making them already are,

right? There's that, too. I mean, maybe let's actually match the land use with what the neighborhood should be.

I mean, I think the only reason we have this dilemma is that you have this res three overlay on your neighborhood that maybe isn't appropriate.

Well, yeah, because a neighborhood was developed before there was a comprehensive plan and somebody in their infinite wisdom in 1989 decided this is res 3 even though it's already developed at what you call sprawl density. Um, but that is what it is. And

I'm just saying that if if it's not in reality operating that way, maybe somebody needs to look at changing it to RDR,

which in that scenario, RDR would cover them. Ideally,

I just think, don't get me wrong, I'm open to all of this. I'm trying to trying to digest it all. But I'm thinking about a neighborhood like Arista Chuck. They're in the res 3 and you wouldn't never be able to develop an equestrian type community. You know, we say, let's say we attract a major employer industry in here and we got some executives that'd like to have, you know, estate homes with horses. they can't do it unless they want to move out to the northeast rural area or something. I just think you're foreclosing an opportunity for stuff like that, but

Well, I don't I'm not sure that's quite accurate. I think they could change it RDR. I I don't think this I don't think this says that RDR is limited to the northeast rural area.

Are we going to allow people to down zone down land use their property?

But if you're going to grant

We allow it all the time. We all the time.

If you're going to grant grant those I mean it sounds like you're not going to have a lot of heartburn with people wanting to change the comp plan of the land use already. Why do we have a minimum limit in the first place? you would want

that right that I

I think you would want the minimum in the SDR flu and in the subsequent UDR flu um because you're suburbanizing and urbanizing.

I just I mean I'm just having trouble getting my arm a minimum and how it I mean it seems like it's going to create a whole lot of problems

for a lot of people. I'm just having my arm. I mean, is there is there another way to do I mean, is there a way to incentivize or something to try to get people? I mean, I think there's a lot of examples where you may have other limiting factors on the property, be it wetlands or or reasons why you can't even meet that density. We have comp plan amendments and zonings coming all the time where they don't come close to meeting the densities, the maximum densities allowed. Yes, they don't come close to meeting the maximum densities, but to the extent that they're proposing a development say in an in the middle of SDR and they're coming in at 2.5.

Well, but so so what you're saying I mean we have all kinds of res 3es come through here where they're not between 2.8 and three.

Right.

I just think we're creating a whole lot of paperwork for that. Well, I mean there's the other again we're talking about a suburb the suburban density residential. So the expectation is suburban density. Our current comprehensive plan is already expecting that at res 3.

No, that's your expectation.

Well, the comprehensive plan has

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Hold on. My neighborhood was developed long before 1989. There was no expectation of any of the owners of that property that they were going to be told, you're now a suburban community. They the land was developed in a I don't want to use the word sprawl. I prefer more rural density.

It's as RDR rural density residential.

Well, okay. And then along comes the state of Florida that says you that you shall adopt a comprehensive plan and some bureaucrat says, "Well, this is suburban density residential or this is RES 3." Do you think back then in 1989, hell, the people at the county here didn't even know what a comprehensive plan was back then when they were told to create one, nor did they want to create one. They were made one because the state said you had to make one.

Do you think the the actual citizenry that owned that property had a say in the matter or understood what was going on and now you're going to tell them, "Well, we're changing that. Now you have to be like this." Well, if I can clarify my comment, the the expectation is established at the point the county makes the policy that says that three dwelling units per acre utility connection is uh is mandated. So, at that point, the expectation, the reason why they would do that is because you want to have enough amendment three aside, enough of a tax base anyway to support the infrastructure that's going to get built by the developer but maintained in perpetuity by the county. So, uh, that's where the expectation line effectively, um, gets dropped into the comprehensive plan. So, if we're talking about that expectation with at these density levels, then perhaps there is a case to be made that some neighborhoods ought to be RDR, we haven't done that exercise to identify them. And that's going to require uh a lot of neighborhood meetings to hold people's hands and not scare them with the downflowing and the potential value change to their property if that were to happen. But nevertheless, that those meetings or those uh neighborhoods could become RDR, more more descriptive of what they actually are and what's actually happening on the ground. That's totally possible.

So you're you're treading on thin ice. Okay. Well, we're here. we're going to come and take an entitlement away from you and devalue your property or in turn we're going to impose a minimum on you and devalue your property. I'm kind of with Jamie on this. Why why have a minimum? I hear what you're saying Terry. I mean I it makes perfect sense. try to you know where you have the infrastructure in place to try to focus development and utilize that infrastructure. That part makes sense.

Yes.

It just becomes difficult whenever you maximums on people or minimums on people. I I'm just trying to get my arms around like John think

um there one answer to this could be a policy crafted specific that says if if you were built prior to the adoption of Pascal 2050 let's say and you're you're grandfathered essentially and so then

maybe maybe an answer

yeah that could be easily incorporated

and I want you to understand I'm I'm open to all of this and trying to understand and then trying to figure out what the implications are as we go through this.

Absolutely.

So, can I ask a question a practical matter like

just say for example in a situation in John's neighborhood you've got that empty lot and I think we had this before planning commission before the guy went to put in a duplex. So, can we just not approve that as if going forward?

Well, yes. So, this is part of the tier discussion that we'll have in just a minute. We're not going to talk about the tiers right now, but there are a couple of slides that are specific to SDR. Um, the regulation. So the comprehensive plan is not going to regulate the and sort of p it's going to identify the densities that are allowed in in the SDR flu but the actual regulation of that density is going to take place through the land development code and through the zoning districts. So to the extent that there may be a reason to say no to something that reason will uh be identified in the zoning when we when we come forward for an entitlement on that property. So on that point, I would say that the land development code may very well give you the reason to say no. That does mean that the land development code is going to be updated and the zoning districts are going to be calibrated appropriately to meet the the what the future land use is directing essentially. So the specifics of those regulations that will come with the land development plan update which will follow this pass 2050 update. It's a I think it's a two-year program on the land phase one of the land development plan update will be specific to addressing those those uh regulations and provisions that have been adjusted as a consequence of the comprehensive plan update. Phase two of the land development code update will be um the broader hey this wasn't handled by the comprehensive plan but now that we have the land development code open we really need to think about X Y and Z and then we're going to get into that part of fixing the land development code also. So that's kind of how it's currently shaking up.

How does it work in the interim?

The state gives you a uh a grace period to affect into the land development code what's been changed in the comprehensive plan.

No no

but it but in the in the actual interim if you notice the future land use um in 2050 is mimicking very closely what the current comprehensive plans. So existing zoning districts, we've identified how the various zoning districts that we have today on the books are fitting into each of these flu. So it's still possible to effectuate the zoning districts that we have today under the new flu scheme. Uh but it does it it will require an optimization because chapter 500 of the land development code does need an overhaul even under the current situation that we're in. We're just waiting for 2050 to be finished and just calibrate the whole thing all at once.

So Jerry, I have two follow-up questions. One, are these are these net or gross?

These are net.

Okay. Um,

which is different because in our current comprehensive plan, there's a there's a there's a battle between gross and net that's happening and we've streamlined that all into net in 20150. And then my second question is I I know you said that ADUs don't count as density and that makes some sense for maximum. I'm not sure it makes sense for minimum because if your goal is to make sure you've got density there that's using the infrastructure and ADU does somewhat serve that purpose. And so each of these units has the potential of having an ADU as well.

So

correct. Yeah.

If if a unit has an ADU, it is sort of helping achieve the minimum

that you're looking for. So, [clears throat] I'm not sure it's I mean I don't know how you factor the ADUs in on the minimum, but I don't know that you can just say that they should not be factoring in at all because they are in fact achieving what you're looking for.

That's a good point. I I mean, if we wanted to add an incentive or bonus to say you can achieve you can actually hit the minimum with an ADU theoretical or

the problem is that ADUs I know what Jamie's going to say is that you don't know whether a house is going to have an ADU when you first build it. I mean, usually it's well, you know, it could be 5 10 years later that the ADU is added. So, you're probably going to have to just make some assumption that,

right,

you know, 10% of houses or 20% of houses are going to have

or there could be an we could we could look at that. That's an idea to look at and make maybe make that a bonus. of how to how to hit that 2.8 minimum in the SD.

And the other idea to throw I'm going to throw out as a bonus is if somebody's willing to provide an affordable unit, maybe you should give them a bonus towards the minimum.

Um, you think they'll happen at such low densities?

We're talking about suburban density residential. This is this is our

But to hit the minimum at 2.8, I mean, I have no problem with it. Yes, that's potential.

I'm just wondering if they're actually going to build.

Well, our study shows that 120% of AMI is for single family residential is considered affordable, which is not a incredibly difficult target to hit. I mean, it's over $300,000.

We can we can work with that.

I mean, it's something that a market rate builder could probably meet.

So, and my only point is if you're going to have an incentive structure, you probably should have some incentive for units as well.

Okay, that may not be necessarily built into the fluid description, but we can we can look at adding policies under SDR when we talk about the GOPS in a few weeks and present that back um for consideration. Um so we'll talk about the tier structure in just a minute. I just want to get through this slide. Um the next categor So the point that I made earlier there is res six in northeast rural. We're capping that if SDR appears in northeast real which it does in two two or three locations that's going to be capped at six. There's no further expansion of that cap available in northeast rule. And then finally, res 24 converts and turns into UDR um which is the urban density residential. This only exists within the urban service area. It only exists today within the urban service areas. It won't exist anywhere else in the county. Here we've also established the minimum density sitting at 18. Now, if if in our subsequent conversation uh we identify a lower maximum for SDR, we're going to want to shift the scale proportionally in UDR to close the gap between SDR and UDR. So, that's I'm just giving that as a heads up that right now we're showing it at 18 to 40. That may move as a consequence of some of the conversation we have with SDR. Um there's only I think four or five locations in the county, no across the county that has res 24 actually. Um most of them are not meeting the maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre. They're usually around 8 to 10ish and some of them are just farm fields still um or to some extent of them. So though this density is the highest that would be allowed within the county, the board would have plenty of opportunity to deliberate as to whether or not they want to issue any new UDRS in the future. Um that's the agricultural and residential future annies. Again uh these slides are not comprehensive. What's comprehensive is the document that was shared with you that has the actual flu categories and descriptions. The consolidations continue with our what we call the productive or business flu. So the employment center and the town center future land use categories get combined into the 2050 version of the ECR employment center. Essentially ECR is EC with some adjustments to capture the best of town center. There was only one location that I could find anyway um in all the years that I've worked here that actually had town center future land use. That was at Curly and Overpass. Uh three of the four intersections. Is there another one?

Yeah.

Okay. Um the town center future land only exists at um Curly overpass. Three of the four corners of that intersection which would be the northeast, northwest and southwest corners are in connected city. They have opted into connected city in fact and so are operating under connected city um goals, objectives and policies essentially. The fourth corner which is the north or excuse me the southeast corner is uh watergrass which or part of the watergrass family of development there um which is uh in a planned development. There are three or four parcels that are outside of that PD now that retain their old TC future land use. Two of those are detention ponds. One is a fire station location. So, uh, with fire station's not yet built there, at least it's not showing on the aerials. Um, and I last time I was out there a couple months ago, it wasn't there. So, um, that said, the town center doesn't really exist on our map today. Um, so we're combining some of the policy aspects of it into the ECR flu. The intensity and density levels uh, remain the same except for the fact that in the urban service area, we are proposing 5.0 F. Um, so that's a maximum. If you hit 5.0, congratulations. If you're down at 0.6, that's what the development needed. That's what they could build. Um, 32 dwelling units per acre is the currently allowed density in EC. Uh, and it it's retained in the new ECR flu for 2050. Uh, comm is essentially the same in 2050. It's what is known as core to be a little bit more descriptive. Often people forget that COM actually allows residential uh it has residential capability. So we wanted it to be very clear that what we're talking about here is the commercial office and residential zoning or future land use, excuse me. Um and that is going to be an intensity in F of 75. So we're upping it from the 6 that it is today. We're giving it a little bit more. And a maximum outside of the urban service area of 3.0 0 F inside the urban service area 5.0 F and the density the maximum density remains the same at 24 dwelling units per acre.

So Terry I agree with you that existing comm allows residential that has to be vertically integrated

correct

but your new text appears to only require to be vertically integrated along arterials and collectors.

Yes. So does that mean if it's not in an arterial collector you can put residential and comm the way that it's that we've b that we've dealt with it in in the past is if the if multif family is being proposed under the com flu the com flu currently says across the whole site you have to have a mix of land uses you have to have first floor retail let's say with uh residential above, but we know that the buildings that are in the back of that particular site have no visibility to the frontage to the arterial or the collector that the that the site is located on. We have um and as a result not much uh residential development gets built. The distinction that we're making in Pasco 2050 is if you're going to build multif family within uh comm or core in this case on the arterial and the collector you're going to put our commercial activity that we want and if the rear buildings end up being one two three stories of residential that's fine you can do that but the frontage is going to be maintained for commercial activity. Can you go back to the intensity density part? I'm confused. It's

so Oh, so

7523 or

how does how does that work? Are you saying there's a minimum?

You have 75, 3.1, 5,

right? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I think

Okay. So, it's 3.0 there. There's a typo there.

3.0 F outside of the urban

5.0 inside the urban. And then does that conflict with the we had allowed um in R up to 32 dwelling units per acre in the west market area for redevelopment?

No. So it doesn't confir because ROI is untouched.

We'll get to that in a second.

Okay. It's separate.

So Jerry, I just want to make sure I'm understanding the intent with core. This is not a revamped ROI where

no

you only have to do one of those three use. You really have to do a mix. Like if you're doing residential, it has to be a mix.

Yes. If it's residential, it must be a mix. It cannot be standalone.

Got why 24 rather than 32?

I'm sorry, M. I'm just curious about the selection of the number of 24 dwelling units to the acre rather than 32.

Uh that's what our current comprehensive plan has on comm. So if if we want to do the same thing we did in RO, we can for the west market area.

It's just that the West market area is mainly dominated by ROI. What I'm thinking about is you've got this kind of mixeduse commercial along arterial or collector roadways. When you go to the UDR density, you're allowing up to 40 dwelling units to the acre. I'm trying to understand is there some rationale for the 24? Is it is it a traffic problem? Is it a utility problem? Why not 32? or why not up to 40? Because it seems like it would be in the same type of setting in in an urbanized setting. No one's going to go out in the country and build a vertically integrated mixeduse.

Sure. Yeah.

Building. It's going to do that more in an urbanized or heavily suburbanized area. And I'm curious about the limitation on the density. Um, one rationale that I would offer and we'll talk about it at the end of the presentation is are the mixeduse node overlays which offer densification capabilities at specific intersections. So our thought was or specific parts of the county and we'll show map two. Our thought was let's push density in those particular areas and maintain existing allowances outside of those areas. Um but to the extent that we wanted to facilitate a similar strategy that we deployed in RO using core for the urban service area or the west market area, we could do that too.

But if you want to put a pin in that and when we get to the mixeduse overlays, well, you'll see the intensification and densification that takes place and where that's targeted as an overlay.

[clears throat]

Um

Terry, just for real quick on the CO stuff in the text, the description of the the categories.

Yes,

I think the F in the text says 75. Was it 75 or three?

Yeah, I'm I'm being dyslexic at the moment. 3.0 is the typo.

I'm sorry.

They underlined it for me.

Small scale museums less than 10,000 square feet. What's What's the problem with a 11,000 square foot museum?

I think it gets into the PSP territory.

I'm just surprised we're calling out museums as a use at all. [laughter]

We're not getting a whole lot of museums.

Yeah, we can we can take care of that. I there was an inquiry on it and clarifications needed to be made and somewhere the line had to be drawn between PSP territory and it's fine. It's not

Terry on the densities did you there's reason but there's not a minimum

correct there's not a minimum density because we would prefer that the core be commercial so that you could potentially have 100% commercial no one living there. Yeah.

Yeah. Um the next one is uh the consolidation of IIL industrialite and of office. So office as a future land use that we have today is kind of interesting. First of all, it's limited to 10 acres for some reason. So you can never get more than a 10acre site with office flu. We haven't had very many office flu amendments. Uh but also office is allowed pretty much everywhere in core ro ecel you name it. it's it's there it's possible. So we consolidated office into the IL which is we considered the IL sort of the flagship economic development future land use alongside EC. Uh and so we created the combined research office industrial light and institutional or ROI flu and so um that has a uh 2.0 F maximum with 5.0 in the in the USA in the urban service area and basically it is IL just with a little bit more expanded geographic footprint because it's taken over some some additional OAF sites that existed um mainly along uh State Road 54. Um and then finally, IH, heavy industrial. Um that's uh been a flu that a lot of over the years there's been a lot of uh heartburn around just because of the amount of intensity and uh nuisance associated with heavy industrial. uh oftent times when heavy industrials proposed it ends up becoming PD plan development which makes a map uh pro mapping problem for our economic development teams where they can't quite tell where industrial users can potentially locate within the county because the label is PD instead of industrial. It's not as obvious to them. Even though the PD has great capability to accommodate, they skim past it and unfortunately miss the opportunity. So um we've rebranded IH to be planned industrial. So you can actually see that hey we're we're planning here for industrial purposes. Um and also we've added the sub area policy capability that PD has currently to the PI flu so that we can uh craft a a an economic development project that can meet PI or meet the objectives of the county and get the industrial that we want. That doesn't necessarily mean that PI has to be heavy industrial. It can be a light industrial scenario and now we have a mechanism to capture that without doing PD. Um so that will bring us to the mixuse flu which is PD itself. Hiatt's going to take over because you don't want to hear me droning all morning. So go ahead.

Thank you Terry. Okay, everybody still following along with us? Awesome. Um, so now we are at our mixeduse future land use category which is PD. So right now we only have one mixeduse flu category. Um, this is a category where the 2025 designation carries forward to um, Pasco 2050. In other words, PD remains PD. um we are not removing or eliminating the PD designation from properties that already have it and existing properties with PD um as their future land use category will continue to have that designation in Pasco 2050. So the intensity and density are established when the PD category is assigned to um a specific parcel or parcels through a future land use amendment. Um so those parameters um are very specific to the PD designation established on those parcels. The intent of this category is to continue supporting mixeduse development patterns with a variety of residential and non-residential uses densities as well as intensities. So really the takeaway here is that we are carrying the plan development category into Pasco 2050 along with the existing PD designations that are already established throughout the county. Next we have the um the next group of categories are our resource protection and public purpose future land use categories. This includes coastal lands, conservation lands, major recreation, open space, um ROS and public semi-public PSP. For the most part, these categories are carrying forward into Pasco 2050 with very minimal changes. Coastal lands and PSP remain in unchanged for conservation lands. We are making a small adjustment to the range of uses to recognize res residential uses for on-site security and management of the conservation lands. We are establishing an intensity for nature centers and other educational uses not to exceed 10,000 square feet. We're making a small adjustment to ROS or recreation open space category by adding um residential uses for on-site security as a potential use and for intensity um recreational facilities would be limited to 40,000 square ft. So overall these are the major changes to this group of categories. Uh we're largely largely carrying over um or forward what we already have with uh very few targeted adjustment to conservation lands and ROS. Next we have special area planning. I mentioned in the beginning of the presentation that our special area planning um or our special areas have moved to Pasco specializes. So Connor New Town, Newport Corners Gateway Hub, Central Pasco Employment Village, VOP VOP, Villages of Pasadena Hills and Connected City. The important thing to note here is that nothing is changing with these special area plans. The future land use categories as well as the policies and the sub area provisions remain as they are today. What we're changing is where they live in the comp plan. So right now these special area provisions or these special area policies are scattered throughout the comprehensive plan um or throughout the

future land use element um chapter. We're rem we're moving them into Pasco specialized. So specializes so they are all under housed under one chapter.

Hi

that CPEV that's been done that chain name change.

So so that's what I that's what I'm bringing or we're bringing to you today. BCC recommended to change the name from CPEV to Cypress Employment Village and uh we just wanted to get your take on it if that's something that planning commission members think should change.

You should call it Bob.

Yeah, I like that name.

Why is it Why would it not be central? I mean, it's pretty descriptive of where

what it is.

Yeah.

Yeah. It was just a preference of the BCC when we did the workshop.

Cooler cooler name.

They just wanted to rebrand it to Cyprus.

Yeah. We should probably take a vote on that.

Is there anything actually happening there?

Absolutely nothing. Remains the same.

There's been a couple reasonings approved within it.

Well, in 2015, nothing is happening, but actual on the ground. Yes. Okay, next we have the two future land use categories that are also carrying forward into Pasco 2050 with a very minor change. Before I get into these categories themselves, um I want to point out that our terminology, there's a terminology change. So we currently refer to these as inactive future land use categories but that terminology could be a little bit misleading. Um inactive does not mean that this category is not effective. It is these designation remain fully effective as in properties that already have them um can continue to develop or redevelop under the established uses densities and intensities. So in Pasco 2015, we're moving away from the term inactive and referring to these as legacy future land use categories. Instead, we think that it better communicates what they are. They are established categories that remain in place for properties that already carry that that designation or those two designations, but we're not allowing any new amendments to these two future land use categories. Okay. So for RO uh retail office residential the designation carries forward from 2025 into 2050 the intent and range of uses remain the same with the FAR um within the urban service area increased into 5.0 and if you have noticed um when uh Terry was presenting the productive business uh 5.0 was throughout all those categories for the urban service area. The same applies for MU mixed use. The designation intents and range of uses carry forward with the FAR also being 5.0. So the big picture here is that the existing designation of MU and RO remain fully effective where we're simply changing the name to legacy and making that terminology less confusing moving forward. Okay, we'll finish up the categories with uh a new or should I say revived. This is not necessarily new, but we kind of resurrected it. Um it's called attraction and entertainment AE. So in the existing comprehensive plan, we did not have a usable tourism future land use category. It was essentially identified as other. It's called currently well it is identified right now as other. It's at major attractors. Um it's [clears throat] also inactive so you cannot amend to it but for Pasco 2050 we're bringing it back and making it an actual future land use category that you can amend to. Um it's important to mention that this idea really came um during our visioning process about um two years ago. We had a workshop with the tourism development council and we have received a lot of feedback from the the community or the the the council. Well, we had people at the workshop as well other from the community. Um so the feedback um was about the importance of encouraging um tourism and creating opportunities to attract visitors to Pasco County. So this one this is one of the tools that we're proposing to help the tourism in our county. Uh and the intent is again to encourage tourism and sport destinations that can uh draw significant visitors to our county

whether that's for sports, entertainment, recreation, uh cultural or experiential retail. So as we develop we developed this language, we also worked with Adam, the director of Florida Sports Coast to make sure that we're capturing the the types of tourism and sports related uses that we want this category to accommodate. And also we works with Elizabeth, our county attorney.

Shout out to Elizabeth for actually helping us with all of these future land categories. It wasn't just tourism. Tourism is just her baby, but she helps us with everything else. So that wraps up our review of the future land use categories.

What is experiential retail?

Experiential retail is not just about shopping. It's also about giving the visitors and the shoppers an experience. For example, we have wire grass.

Um, you know, when they have like the Christmas trees. Yeah.

Yeah. So, you're going there in restaurants, of course. So, you're going there not just to shop, but to

have fun with your family.

Okay. There's a lot more to the SDR framework. Um, I'm going to turn it back to Terry to walk us through all that details or those details.

Thanks. Hi. Um so we're back at uh talking about SDR to to look at the the range of density as I mentioned earlier it's a fairly large range um at least in the concept in the context that we've been operating between res 3 69 and 12 now we're talking between 2.8 and uh 18 as I noted um previously. So how does that get organized in uh Pasco 2050? Um the general range of uses within the SDR flu are going to be um are going to include what are known as SDR tier one which is basically the single family detached family of residential products. Um the SDR tier 2, single family detached town homes, duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, cottage courts. So immediately SDR what we want to do in passport 2050 is essentially legalize all the other types of housing that our current comprehensive plan is maybe um either uh constraining or our land development code is not even considering. Uh so we want to add a much wider range of what's known as the missing metal housing to help us both in terms of the diversity of um product type as well as diversity of cost. Um, not everybody can afford a $400,000 single family home, but they might be able to afford a $400,000 duplex because they can rent the other unit and and live there, too. It's that sort of idea. And then, uh, SDR tier three, which is the four forplexes, cottage courts, town homes, apartment houses, low-rise apartments, garden apartments. Is there a slide that shows the tiers?

Uh, yes. Uh, actually, no, I don't have that slide. Do we can we get the um you're talking about uh an image of what uh these might look like or

No, I mean a description.

It's in the material that I that we have uh given to you all. I don't have it on that slide though.

But we can pull it up if you like.

That' be helpful.

It'll be page 13 of 42. Um, while Patty pulls that up, I'm gonna continue to speak to the tiers. I mentioned these. There's there's additional uses in the general range of uses such as assisted and independent living facilities, recreation facilities, ADUs, that sort of thing. Um,

Mary, just before I forget about it,

yes.

How are we handling ADU? is Airbnb properties, short-term rental properties. How do we handle that?

That's handled through the land development code. So, as a comprehensive plan is going to look at the unit itself. So, someone builds a house, they're going to build it according to our density requirements, etc. What they do with that house comes later. They can live in it. they can rent it out or they can do it as a short-term rental which would fall under our short-term rental uh ordinance which is governed by the land code. But from a comprehensive plan standpoint, a house is a house.

So um page 13

the red line version of it

there. Uh a little bit more a little bit more uh up. There we are. General range of uses. That's what I was reading from. So um these tiers are u a further organization of the overall density range. So the 2.8 to 18 are going to be divided by three. Tier one is going to be 2.8 to six dwell units per acre. Um on the future land use map. What you'll see when we present them in a few minutes is properties that have SDR3 and SDR6 [clears throat] uh labels on them or hatching if you're zoomed out far enough. Uh the reason why we have that is to respect the future land use starting point that exists at at the end of 2025's comprehensive plan. So if today you have res 3 in 2050, we're not going to make you fight for three. you have three, you you have the capability of doing three, we'll mark it down in Pascal 2050 as SDR3. That way, we know that your starting point is three. If you have six, we'll mark your starting point as SDR6. If you have 12, we'll mark you down as SDR12 and so forth. Uh, but that's just identifying what you're currently allowed because we didn't want to enter into a situation where we could be un um unintentionally taking away someone's existing capabilities. So that's what the the the uh the starting point of SDR will look like in the future. If new SDR is established, it's just going to be established as SDR. There's not going to be a number associated with it. And the way we're going to the way that we're going to handle the density is going to be through this tier structure. Um if you scroll down, Patty, um under standards, yeah, there you go. Um the second bullet is where I'm going to be focusing on right now. Uh so this this density range is further organized into tier one which is 2.8 to six. This is going to provide for the lower and medium suburban density residential uses and housing types. Tier 2 is going to pick up from 6.1 and climb to 12. This is going to provide for the medium suburban density residential uses while preserving the character of the existing proposed residential neighborhoods around them. And then tier three is going to be 12.1 to 18. And of course in about two slides we're going to talk about affordable housing and we may be adjusting this range just so we're clear. We're not if the if the range gets adjusted the tier structures are going to get adjusted a little bit too. Um so the comprehensive plan is identifying these tiers but it's not regulating the development. the regulation of the development is going to happen in the land development code when the land development code is optimized to uh recognize the tier structure of SDR flu. So if you're an SDR and you have like I'm not saying that this is what what the land development code update is going to do but just as a simple example if you have MF1 MF2 and MF3 and in the land development code update we uh end up merging MF1 and MF2 and we start calling it S uh suburban density 2 for example uh zoning and suburban density

three is your you know called an up uh uh zoning category. That's how you'll match zoning with tier structure in the SDR flu. Uh the other purpose of the of uh the tier structures is going to be that um HB399 of this past legislative term had compatibility uh factors that needed to be incorporated within future land use categories. um SDR happens to be the one future land use that has to address this. And so we've we've identified in the comprehensive plan the different compatibility factors that each tier needs to address uh in relationship to neighboring density. So for example, if I'm a garden style apartment developer and I'm coming in at 13 dwelling units per acre, that's going to be a tier three density. But if if if the development to the north, for example, is a single family home subdivision that comes in at three dwelling units per acre or something, that's a tier one density. So the comprehensive plan has has established which factors are going to address uh the relationship between the tier three to the tier one development. That is all going to be handled, however, through the land development code and the entitlement process. As a result, uh, we're going to need to know how that development is going to lay out and there'll be binding concept plans, but that's not a requirement of the comprehensive plan. Binding concept plan is not talked about in the comprehensive plan. It's just something that we're contemplating as [snorts] part of the land development code update uh later on. Uh, the factors themselves we will talk about in more detail when we bring the GOPs forward for discuss. when we actually talk about the SDR flu policies, not necessarily the flu description. Today in the flu description, we're just giving this background information so you understand what the purpose of the tiers are. Then when we talk about the policy, we can look at the factors specifically. Um any any questions?

So Terry, I'm just make sure I'm

the HP 399 compatibility requirements are going to be in the comp plan or in the code or in both. They're going to be in the land development code.

So there won't be anything in the comp plan that implements 399.

Correct. Only that the comp plan is setting up the tier structure that will facilitate the land development code compatibility. Um so those are the factors that I was mentioning. So, parking orientation, height restrictions, building form and design, manufactured building form and design, architectural articulation, screening stepbacks, stepbacks. Stepbacks is when the building climbs to a certain height and then you bring the architecture back a little bit. Um, and then vegetative buffering or landscape buffers. These are not applicable to all the tiers. Um for example, architectural articulation is not applicable to tier one densities or um height restrictions are not or manufactured building forms are not um necessarily applicable to tier three densities. Right? So uh we're just throwing them up on the slide al together but there is a relationship that we'll talk about when we bring forward the GOPs and which of these factors are more applicable. Suffice it to say, apartment developers have the more ownorous task of meeting more factors than a single family neighborhood developer would. Um, so that's those are the the concept of the factors. And then finally, um, our last conversation about S SDR has to be about affordable housing. Why? Because SDR presents itself as the one flu in all of our flu that has the flexibility to adjust its maximum. In order to effectuate um a density incentive, we have to identify the highest or the maximum threshold that we will allow by right. And then if you want to exceed that threshold, we'll give it to you. But you need to meet uh certain affordability um requirements. So the question that we have uh today and also the other thing that's really good about SDR is that it's our biggest flu. It's the largest geography. So if we want to make a move on affordable housing, SDR is the place to do it. Um, so the question that we have today is what is the density threshold in SDR that will enable developers to build their product still and allow the county to mandate an affordable housing set aside. So Dave, Mr. Goldstein noted earlier that the inclusionary zoning uh ordinance study had identified um certain types of uh incentives that could be matched with any kind of set aside mandate. And so we're pulling this information from report number three specifically. Um so based on that uh report number three, we're looking at 60% AMI. And what we would think about is one of one of the two bullets that we've shown on the on the slide here. a 10% set aside with a 5% density bonus, impact fee waiverss, and a 10% parking reduction, or a 20% set aside with a 10% bonus, impact fee waivers, and 10% parking reductions. I'm not going to go through the whole background of what Report 3 is talking about, but that's the main takeaway. And what we've been grappling with internally and sort of

the question that we need to discuss as a as a community is um where do we want the maximum of SDR to sit? Do we want it to be at 12? Do we want it to be at 15? Do we want it to be at 18? The conundrum is this that if you put the maximum density too high and the market is only building at a density that's lower than that then say say our maximum is 18 and the market's only building at 13. there's no density incentive that we can offer to compensate for the set aside that we would request. So we have to find where that threshold is, cap it, and then say we'll give you more density. If you do a 10 or 20% set aside for affordable housing purposes and as I said, SDR is the place if we're going to do that. That's where we have the most flexibility to adjust the maximum density threshold. Um I have worked with um uh private sector stakeholders to try to figure out where that the the report doesn't identify where that threshold is. I've tried to talk to the marketplace to figure out where is that uh threshold. It's a wide range of opinions. The report identifies one developer saying 30 dwelling units per gross acre is the place to put it. um as recently as yesterday, a stakeholder got back to me and noted that doesn't matter where you put it, it's not going to work. That was their opinion. So, it's it's a wide range of of uh opinions on the affordable housing set aside. Um

I think your problem is you're assuming that the market the market is constant. the market evolves and changes with time and changes with what's happening in the economy, what's happening politically. You know, when you let 10 million people in the country and they suck up all the houses, then you have a housing affordability problem. If we deport 10 million problem, then we probably have a housing value problem, [laughter] you know. So, um, so that's where we've been, we've been grappling between the 12 and 18. Where do you put that? Do you put it at 12? Do you put at 15? Do you put it at 18? Um, most of the recent apartment projects that we've seen come through have been sitting in the range of, and this is really depends on how they're measuring it, but it's between 12 and uh 14. That's kind of where they're at. the affordable housing projects like the projects by Dominion that have come forward on occasion, they've been even higher at 19, but they're coming in fully subsidized etc by the state um and they're voluntarily building that kind of product um versus a development mandate that we that we're talking about here. Um if we want to if we want to ponder that we don't have to answer that question right now but we can proceed through the rest of the slideshow to show you the maps etc. Um but that is a question that we need to answer. We don't necessarily need to answer that today even we could answer that at a subsequent workshop. Just know that that's the uh the big question one of the big question marks for SDR as it stands today. Um hi do you want to talk about the maps?

Thank you. Well I'll be back again but Um, Patty, if you could stay on the presentation so I can just show the maps and then we'll do the interactive map afterwards.

So, stay on the presentation. Yes, please. Okay, we are mapping the future of Pasco County. Let's start with the future land use map. So these are or this is the proposed future land use map for 2025 through 2050. And as you can see all these colors over here represent the future land use categories that um Terry and I had gone um over with uh with all of you just a few moments ago. So, the peach color that I'm noting on the screen, uh, let's do the pointy thingy. Oh, there you go. So, all of these categories are SDR, which as you can see is the majority of our county. And we had made sure that we are pretty much denoting where SDR3, SDR 6, SDR 9, SDR12 is to avoid any of that slide back. So if your property is at SDR3 right now, um you can develop at three dwelling unit per acre and the yellow is

as a starting point. Yes. So your minimum is not necessarily 2.8. Uh let's see. So yellow is RDR. VOP is the purple over here. So VOP is pretty much um if we're calling it a flu right now. Um and this is the VOP boundary. So if your property is within VOP boundary, you're going to have to refer to the VOP comprehensive plan to pretty much see where you are within VOP. Same thing with connected city. Any questions about this map?

Hi, I just real clear on connected city and VH. I believe both of those special districts allow you to develop in accordance with your underlying and original flu.

Correct.

Is there some way that somebody's going to know what that is still?

Yes. So, Hayatt mentioned earlier that connected city comprehensive plan and the BOP comprehensive plan are going to be located in the Pasco specializes chapter. So if they're looking at the this future land use map, let's say it's 2035 and someone's like, "Oh, I'm in this purple area, VP," then this is going to mean that they go to the VOP comprehensive plan and see exactly what they need to be doing within VOP. Um, if they're in connected city, uh, connected city is an opt-in scenario. So there are portions of connected city that have not opted in, they continue to carry the flu that we've talked about. So they'll have a pass 2050 flu. A good example is Pasco Town Center. It currently is constructing and developing under EC flu. It will have ECR flu um in Pasco 2050 because it has not opted into uh connected city. But there are parts of connected city that have that have opted in. They get the connected city future land use designation on our flu map indicating that if I'm in this geography, I'm going to go into the connected city comprehensive plan and follow exactly that. that if I'm in the south innovation zone for example, those are the policies that I follow.

I guess I'm asking a more basic question to like even in villages passing hills there's outside areas outside of the villages where the underlying flu matters more than

Yes.

And so but I I can it's just purple on this map. So what how would I know what I am still?

Because the villages of Pasadena's comprehensive plan identifies those underlying flu and those underlying flu could be res six. They're not going to be SDR. They're going to be uh res 6 or what we will make we will clarify in the villages of Pasadena Hills update that we're working on now. Um we're getting the scope together for that is uh vop res 6. And so whatever res 6 was when VOP was created is what's going to be applicable in VOP.

So you're going to have legacy resiz.

Yes. Yes. Correct.

Yeah. the which is a good point because some of the sub area policies of the PDS that exist across the map those are the the blue is that light gray

gray

the the gray on the map there are PDS so some of those sub area policies are actually referencing legacy flu sometimes they say thou shalt do have a density of res 24 or something depending on how they worded it at that time uh in that case we do have a policy statement in our GOPS that will say if the sub area policy is identifying a legacy flu res 6 res 24 whatever follow what the 2025 comprehensive plan was doing in that way there's no change to the to the playing field for for the developers or or builders that are reliant on those um sub area policies. So the 2025 comprehensive plan will continue to exist as a reference point for things uh certain policies in DOP certain policies and or subary policies within PDS. It's just you won't be able to amend the 2025 comprehensive plan anymore. If one of those PDs came in and said we want to change something, well they would change something according to the pestle 2050 framework after that. Okay, before we get into the rural areas map, uh there is this really cool exercise that I would like to to share with the plane commission and also with the public. If we go to Patty, let me start from the beginning. That way they can see how they can get to it from our Pasco 2050. So go to go back to the map on on the presentation. Okay. Did it pop up on your screen? Okay, perfect. So, this is our Pasco 2050 projects website. This is pulling straight from our Pasco 2050 projects website, I should say. And this is an interactive map that our GIS department has done a fabulous job creating for us. So, shout out to GIS as well for helping us with this map. It is housed, like I said, um and their Pasco 2050 website. So, this map is the 2050. If you are a property owner and you would like to see what happened to your property as part of this change or as part of the future land use categories change, you can plug in right up here your parcel ID number or your address uh or your property your name your property owner name. Patty, if you could please uh copy and paste that parcel ID that I sent you. Okay, so we have our parcel ID right there. You click enter and it will take you straight to your property or to the parcel that you're inquiring about. So, we have it right here. We're just going to keep it [snorts] right there for a second. We're going to come down here to the map layers to the farther left. Click on it. We're going to get rid of addresses so we don't see those numbers on there. Hopefully, it works. It's going to take a minute to kind of load. So, we have the proposed future land use 2050. And then we're also going to turn on the 2025, which is the existing future land use. And then we're going to come to this. Does that say swipe? Yeah. So, there's a funnel um icon. The farther right icon says swipe. We're going to turn on this swipe feature up here. We're going to click to make sure that our layers are

selected. So, these are good to go. And now I have this cool little swipe to see what it was. So to the left I have 2020 2025 and then to the right I have 2050. So here's my parcel right here. It was res I'm going zoom in a little bit. So in 2025 it was rest three or I'm sorry rest six. res six and then if you swipe to the left it will show that it's SDR6. This is how you can uh see what your property was and what it is right now.

Oh, you can control from here.

Yeah. So you'll notice um res one areas which is in this yellow as you start to swipe certain parcels convert into the red which is core. Um we'll get to that in a second but that we we happily resolved 26

2668 conflict zonings. Um so That is something that was a huge benefit in this exercise. But that's why you suddenly see it's not the case that you know suddenly people's houses are going commercial or something. It's that there are there's commercial zoning under there commercial development and the flu are finally catching up to the reality of what's on the ground. We've also received the requests from um property owners to change uh flu to core or to ROI uh which is the uh light industry on office. We uh made sure that we have analyzed those requests and we had asked for transportation needs assessment and of of course we made sure that it's in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan and we converted those uh parcels into the requested flu.

We had about uh

yeah we do go back to the presentation. No, not the presentation. The This map here only shows the or shows the conflict zoning conversions that we had done for all those 2,667 [clears throat] parcels.

Can you elaborate on what you just said about you received requests for people to change to ROI and

and um

what were they before?

So, uh Patty, if you could please pull up the other map that shows the future land use requests. Okay. So if we can zoom in to let's see I have ROI in blue right here it was rest three and rest four. Some of these also were conflict zoning. So they had said oh I had an I1 or I2 on as a zoning um on my property but there is a rest three flu. So,

I understand in the case of the conflict zoning,

what I'm trying to get at is are there ones that weren't conflict zoning

for ROI? No. For ROI, most of those were conflict zoning, but we got requests from the property owners which were already part of our change, but I just made sure that I included it on this map just to show that they also the property owner also requested it to be changed. It wasn't just us, you know, cleaning it up. But you only change it if it was a conflict.

If it was a conflict, yes, we did change it as part of the conflict zoning.

Are there ones that are changed that weren't conflicts?

That weren't conflicts for ROI? No.

I think the ROI adjustment up here. Oops. What did I press?

Wrong button. The ROI, the main ROI changes happened up here in the Luchi area. And in that case it was a combination of a request that was being made but also it was conflict.

So

I think let me

because it was a request

did we open up the comp plan for people just to ask for changes and then we made them

or are we just resolving conflicts?

So there's two parts. We are resolving conflicts. That's the majority of it. [cough and clears throat] How many

requests? I realize that some people made requests to resolve conflicts, but did we also allow people just to make a request to change where there was no conflict?

There were there were uh requests that came in to do comprehensive plan amendments as part of the Pasco 2050 update. When a property owner came in seeking a comprehensive plan amendment and then they learned about Pasco 2050, it was like, well, can we just make it part of 2050? We documented all of those. That's what this map is showing here. We documented all of those. They submitted transportation needs assessments, etc. And we did consistent.

But where does where's the public hearing part? And where does where do the members of the public get to comment on whether those changes are acceptable and compatible? I got I got some issue with that. That that that goes right around the process for the reason we show up here every two weeks.

But that's also why we're we're bringing them up here in the workshop session.

Yeah. But the point is we hold public hearings and the public gets to come in and comment. I realize that comp plan amendments are legislative matters, but they still are public hearings and the public still gets to participate. Not that doesn't happen in a back room somewhere.

Was it was there signs posted on those properties?

Uh not yet because we have this isn't the public hearing for the adoption of the comprehensive plan.

I think that's Mr. Mr. Moody's point is when are we going to have the hearing to discuss the changes for those particular properties that where there's actually going to be signs posted on the property? I mean, I think our code requires us posting the signs on those properties that are being changed, right?

Correct.

So, when is that going to occur?

When we're bringing the the whole set forward. So the neighbors will get some notice when those those are changing.

Yes, that's the process that we would have. Yeah.

Okay.

But how long are we planning on having a hearing for like six months where we can

Well, how many of them are there where they're not conflict zoning?

Um

we have the table. We have it in table format. Are these upgrades of land use or downgrades of land use?

Uh, it depends. Depends. I think there's a mixed Some of these like these here, this here is um conservation lands. So yes, there's there's downing and then as I noted earlier, some of the ones that were in Luchi that were also conflict in that scenario were upping to RO ROI. Um

well, I understand the conflict resolution and we are supposed to resolve the conflicts in the 2025 comprehensive plan. What I'm asking is there are there nonconlict requests that are upgrades of land use

that are upgrades

even if they're downgrades you're still supposed to have a process.

Yeah. So I doubt there's going to be a lot of people objecting to the res 3 to convert.

I agree. That's why I asked the question.

Well, I'm a little confused, too. I mean, isn't all AG AGR going to RDR?

But there's a list on here to

the map is showing 25 properties that were not conflicting upgrades.

I I just go on the record say I got some problem with that. I mean, there's a process and it's a public process,

not a behind closed doors process.

It's not something that's when this all comes back to us for a public hearing.

There's a whole lot of stuff here. Somebody to call out and notice that

that that's exactly that's my point, Jamie. Yeah.

I said we're going to have a 60-day long hearing or

Right.

That already feels like one. [laughter]

Well, I mean, yeah, we're in it. So, So it looks like it's actually 12 13

15

there's 15 of them not 25 because the 10 of them were con properties. So those are off the table public lands. So those have been identified. That's what we're mapping uh as part of this exercise here so that we can um properly identify those as proposed changes in the comprehensive plan coming in from from the public that happen during uh open houses and uh other workshops throughout the county.

Terry, is there a way to like separately itemize them on the agenda so that

Yeah, we can do that. So that the public I mean because I think part of the heartburn is that normally if that amendment was coming through it would be a separate item on the agenda. It would be separately noticed. The public could look on the agenda and know when that to come speak to it.

Mhm.

When it gets folded into this larger groves, nobody would know

when when to come speak to it.

Sure.

So I think you need to separately itemize those 15 on the agenda somehow. so that somebody knows to come speak to that item.

Okay, that's fair.

I'm not sure it's fair to make somebody from the public show up

to have to sit through a 5-hour discussion of Rose when they're here to they would just want to object to their one land use amendment.

That makes sense. And maybe you could have that discussion first so that the objecting neighbors who don't want to sit through a five-hour discussion of growth can can leave.

Or maybe they can just go back through the process and pay all the fees and do everything else that everybody else has to do. It just seems like, well, you're special. You got a special process.

I mean, that's an alternative, too. I'm only pointing out that if you're going to allow them to use process that somehow should be identified separately on the agenda.

Yeah.

So that the public has some way of knowing that when they come and speak to it.

Sure.

Right. And and that's why we were identifying the requests that came in and mapped it out so that we could see exactly where these requests are and why we're bringing it up at the workshop session so that we can properly identify how to treat those.

I I hear you. I'm seeing a how many square miles is Pascal County?

I'm supposed to pick out everyone out of this one to one bazillion scale map.

Yeah, we we have the table identified all the

the paral IDs, etc.

Well, presumably if there's separate items on the agenda, there would be at least a little bit of a write up on each one

identifying what the change is from and to and why staff is recommending each one of these, right?

Yes.

I realize that's not a full-blown application, but at least you get some

a separate item on the agenda for you.

I understand where you're going. I'm just looking at the general fairness of that. If someone walks in my office and says, "Hey, I'd like to seek a comprehensive plan amendment, Mr. Moody. What do I do?" Besides send them next door to Barbara, um, you know, we outline what the process are, what the costs are. Or here, we can just go have a behind closed doors meeting and change it in a back room somewhere if long as you're willing to wait a couple of months while we get the rest of this thing. I will tell you that in my opinion there was a risk in these people doing it the way they did it

because they were aware of that.

We made that aware to them

because we have no idea what the state's going to do with our comp plan when we send it up to them.

Oh.

So if they were smart, they would have hired Barbara and vetted it independently. But they took a big risk and did it this way. I don't even know. I mean, I wouldn't have done this if I was a private applicant. I would never have done what they're doing, but they chose to do it that way. So, I mean, apparently they're not in a hurry because the we don't know what's going to happen with our comp plan once we transmit. They could be in litigation for the next three years for all we know. So, apparently these people don't care about how long it takes to get their landings changed. But that's also the reason why we wanted to map it out and bring it to everyone's attention that these requests have been made.

Well, so the county attorney can figure out what what's legal and what's not legal. I'm just saying if you're watching this workshop right now, that sure doesn't look like a fair process. That doesn't look like a fair and open process. Maybe it is, but it doesn't look like one.

It It's still an amendment of I mean, this whole thing is an amendment to our complex.

I Yeah, I I get that. I get that. And it it is a other communities have done similar

but activities

but our code does require individual notice for each of these

map changes which that's why I asked are they doing individual notice for them. [clears throat] So apparently they are going to do individual notice for them [clears throat]

and I do think that it should be separately itemized on the agenda so that when they're noticed

somebody has something in the agenda to look

you figure out how to make it legal. I'm just saying this doesn't

appear

there's difference between legal and fair. That's

you're you're you're speaking to fair. I'm speaking to legal. So I said, you figure out how to make it legal, but I'm just saying if somebody's watching this workshop or they're sitting out here in the audience.

Doesn't look like we exactly have a fair system.

And I'm pointing out that the fairness

I realize this isn't rampant. It's 15 parcels, but at the end of the day,

it doesn't look good.

And I'm pointing out the fairness is somewhat balanced by the fact that these people are taking a huge risk in my opinion that Okay. If I were their attorney, I would not have advised them to do.

Um there's a there's a there are a few more slides to go through, but um this afternoon's agenda is a little bit on the on the lighter side we can pick up in the afternoon given the time if if the chairman

Yeah.

agrees.

I see that.

So we have plenty of time to talk about it.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Dary. Thank you. Hi.

Thank you.

Okay. [clears throat] There's no further questions until this afternoon. Is

lunch.

Oh, I brought my I got a bunch of stuff.

Stay in her