Pasco 2050 workshop on Pasco Grows chapter
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
This archive found it in the recording: a call to order, a recess, or business the board never listed. The county recorded nothing about it, so everything below is our reading.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Sep 17, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Sep 17, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 51m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 97% of 489 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay. Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Plan Commission members. Good morning, Mr. Gray. I'm Hyatt Massili with Planning Development Economic Growth. It's good to see everyone again. It feels like it's been a while since we've had a Pasco Twenty Fifty workshop. So I hope that you guys did not forget about
us.
Okay, so we've been keeping keeping very busy behind the scenes, working through the plan and making some um refinements along the way. Of course, in collaboration with our stakeholders, County Attorney's Office, and other internal departments. Um so today we are back at it, ready to continue our journey through Pasco 2050. So let's get this party started. Okay. So Gentlemen,
Pop quiz. Do we remember this slide?
Yes.
Yes. Okay, good. Everybody gets an A. So by now, we should all be very familiar with this slide. It shows the Pasco 2050 family of chapters. We have worked through our way or worked our way through most of these chapters. And today we are going to tackle Pasco Gros. Mm-hmm. So Pasco Grows is pretty much the elephant of the comprehensive plan. This
is the biggest chapter in our comprehensive plan because it 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 gonna tackle this elephant all at once. We are gonna be doing a series of workshops. Um we are pretty much just gonna focus on the future land use categories today, and then we're gonna come back
in subsequent uh workshops to work on the rest of the chapter, which will include uh the goals, objectives, and policy. So after making our way through the family, we are finally ready to tackle this elephant.
Alrighty, 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. As required by Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, this is a mandatory element of the comprehensive plan. Okay.
No problem. At its core, Pasco Gross establishes the framework for how we accommodate future growth while maintaining a range of choices for where people can live from rural communities 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. I had 127, but yes, it is 125. 125 policies excluding the sub-area policies.
The changes include updates to reflect current Florida statute. We have consolidated policies and objectives. We updated outdated information and removed policies that have either been accomplished or already addressed through the Land Development Code. We also moved a few policies from other chapters into Pasco Gross where they fit more appropriately. And vice versa. We took some policies from this chapter and put them in other chapters because they fit in those chapters
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 Newport Corners, Connors
or Newtown, Connected City, VOPH, all of those CPEV. So all of those policies and those areas. Area plans move to specializes to be housed under one chapter. 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
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 SDRQ. Uh we're going to focus specifically on the future Land Development Code, as I mentioned, and the changes to the map series. We'll save the goals, objectives, and policies to our next Basco Gross work uh 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 categories. So with that, I will hand it over to Terry.
Morning Mr. Chairman Mariano Commission or Local Planning Agency as that is a workshop on the comprehensive plan. Niktarios Pythos Planning Development Economic Growth. Um thank you, Hayat. We're gonna talk today about the future land use categories and we're gonna start with 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 um final sort draft format, but what it would look like in its final form when we're done with this. 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. To that end, I'm only going to talk about 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 twenty, thirty 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 flus, bouncing between AG and AGR, for example, um and the res flus bouncing between res three and six and nine and twelve and so on and so forth. So in this update, we have uh work to consolidate and streamline the comprehensive plan. A G, we we have on the on
the very left um the twenty twenty-five future land use categories. Those are what we have on the books today. And then right next to it we have uh the twenty fifty 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 ten acre parcel that uh has no house on it, for example, and it's just being farmed as an orange grove or, you know, a a a pasture field or whatever, that continues to be um Uh uh consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the density climbs to a point two dwelling units per acre, or put it said another way, one dwelling unit every five acres. Um essentially the AGR flu of the twenty twenty-five plan is expanded uh and
uh incorporates the A G flu that is in uh for the most part the north market area in the rural transition area and the northeast Pasco, 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 thirty years these have been interchanging flus and there's never been any concern when A G 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 flues. Uh continuing on, we have the Res One future land use category.
Can I ask you one question about that one before we move on? Sure. Um I noticed in the list of range of uses to have neighborhood commercial uses. Um Is that the right-of-way? I'm just trying to figure out how that's gonna work in practice. So
That means that you can basically do C
C one zoning and A G
Clue? I I just um
Yeah, uh 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 I d I don't think that it's been translated in the past as C one.
So when it says neighborhood commercial uses, it's it's really commercial uses related to A.
Yes.
Yes,
I guess there's
a comment and maybe you need to fix your commas there, but
Because the description, the way the range of uses it says an office is related to AG, 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 its neighboring commercial use is related to ag, then you need to try to fix your commas.
Yeah, I marked it.
Okay.
And is the Current. F A R for those kinda uses twenty two five? Or is this a change?
Point two three. Yeah, the current flu has it at point two three F A R.
Okay. So um we'll bring it we'll continue the conversation now to Res1. Uh Res1 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 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 flues, you have to go to the very next higher flu. The clearest uh we we've dealt with this a lot in the res flues where if somebody wanted to do a one point five dwelling units per gross acre project, they had to go up to res three in order to accommodate. If they wanted to do a three point two five 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. So what we've, the part of the strategy here is to close that gap and incorporate. We've calibrated the RDR future land use to follow along with the utility 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. So So if the option exists, and we had previously said that Res1 is a, at least in the in the rural areas, considered a rural flu, in the non-rural areas, considered a sprawl flu.
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. So we where we have res one outside of the rural areas. There is the ability to obviously stay the same status quo. That's always an option for everybody under Pasco 2050. Or they can proceed to densify. So if you have a three-acre 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 three in order to accommodate it, but under RDR, they would be able to divide. As long as they fell under the maximum of 2.9 dwelling units per acre. 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 Pasco 2050. And in the rural transition area, We've added a policy to cap the max at
two for RDR. The rural transition area 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 Pasco County and the rural environment. If the suburban environment is beginning at three dwelling units per acre. And the r 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 two date occurred within the rural transition area, developments like 4G RAN. Palmetto Ridge, etc. All of those, despite the quantities that they are presenting of housing units, nevertheless are under two dwelling units 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 gonna come to the biggest
question as it relates to Northeast Rural, because I think we had a recent sinuse application. in the northeast rural area was somebody who was requesting I think the one where something res one.
Given that that's considered a sprawl level of density, what is there other policies in the Com plan that will Ensure that Northeast Rule doesn't become sprawl.
Yeah.
I mean I I applaud the fact that you're kind of getting rid of res one, 'cause I think that is a scroll 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 gonna get sprawl in Northeast Rural?
So we we will and we'll talk about it when we bring the GOPs forward, the goals, objectives, and policies. Um but in short, there
is
a policy proposed to freeze RDR in Northeast Rural so there's no further expansions. of it. Once Pasco 2050 is adopted, what exists on the ground today at REST one or what will translate into RDR in Pasco 2050, that'll be it for for Northeast Rural.
So you won't approve any new RDR That's
proposal. That's the proposal. Uh and we won't uh keep in mind though that in the Northeast Rural there are I think two or three other um res 6 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 the res six 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 SO twenty fifty.
Okay.
So uh that brings us to SDR, which is Suburban Density Residential. This is where a lot of the comprehensive plan amending has um 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 how much geography it it uh contains. We are proposing a minimum density within uh
with an 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 three today. Maybe they're a little bit under because they had to put in extra infrastructure or whatever and didn't they just didn't get to the uh 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 the transportation infrastructure. And uh right now, the proposal is to have a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. Which will help cover the gap between 12, where we have today, Res 12 and Res 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 category into one category? And also we also need to talk about where do we want that maximum threshold? 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 uh 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, uh, we would want to see uh development optimized to a to a particular density that will help pay for the infrastructure that we um that's gonna be serving it. Basically.
So what about areas where there isn't? My own neighborhood is Res 3 and we all live on lots one acre or more. There's a few large tracts. Still left in the area. So you're saying if anybody wanted to come in and develop any of those other tracks, they'd have to develop it at least two point eight? Even though that would be inconsistent with what the rest of the neighborhood is?
Uh 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 uh in the other flues we've accommodated them. Did we do it for S C R T. 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 where I guess let me elaborate on that too. So what what triggers the minimum density requirement? Is it a is it a rezoning? 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 in if one of his neighbors comes in and says, I just want to build an ADU, are you gonna tell him you gotta buy build five ADUs?
No. I mean Yeah, the Yeah, I the ADU does not count against density. So that discussion was a
But we're talking about a minimum density.
The home is destroyed by sinkhole, flood, hurricane, and now it's time to rebuild.
Did they get told they have to do rebuild the two point eight dwelling units 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 rezoning. So if something is going to change on the site, then we're gonna look at it and say, okay, what is the proper development intensity here? here. And that's
you're saying if somebody's operating within their existing zoning, You're not gonna enforce this minimum requirement.
Yeah, so but and just elaborate a little bit. In my particular neighborhood we have a res three flu, but everybody has an A R zoning, which is one dwelling unit to the acre.
So they come in and they want to let's say they got five acres, which would entitle them to five. potentially five dwelling units in the AR zoning, are they gonna get told they need to rezone to something that provides a minimum Density of two point eight.
I think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying that if Unless you're rezoning you're not going to be subject to this. Is that what you're saying, Jerry?
Correct.
Yeah.
Is there a specific policy statement that Clarifies that or elaborates on that.
Yeah, there's policies, but there's a whole SDR section and like G OPs that will discuss that.
And Terry, how uh how do you deal with it on a those policies addressed, how do you deal with it on like a multi phase? His property, I mean like will you allow Like a phase one to be two dwelling units, a phase two is three point eight y dwelling units? I mean. Where they can blend it.
Yeah. If a if a large project came in and they had different areas that had different densities within them, yes.
You're gonna allow them to average it to get to the minimum basically?
They could. There's d there's different ways to get to that, but yes, that's possible.
So just to be clear, let's say somebody had a ri today a res three flu and an AC. Zoning. you would not allow them to rezone to AR or ER?
If it requires a a two point eight density, yeah.
Okay.
But again this is where the suburban development patterns Uh currently today. So
you're saying if somebody w And 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 gotta live neck you gotta live on top of your neighbor.
No, I don't think that's what sprawl means. Um you there's rural development is I'm
not saying sprawl means that. I'm saying hit the this policy of the minimum two point eight dwelling units per acre.
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 you don't achieve sprawl.
Yeah, but 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.
Well I guess Terry, this this begs a larger question. I mean has has staff looked at all of our existing all the S D R areas to know whether they are served with adequate infrastructure to achieve to achieve a two point eight minimum?
I could show you a lot of res three areas. in the county, especially in the western part of the county, that there is no infrastructure. There's no public utility services available.
There are locations where current res 3s and 6s, for example, exist that utilities have not reached yet. So there are there are places like that. The vast majority of the SDR or the Res 3 through 12 future land use categories, however, are lined up with utility acts. access. 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 gonna come in and install water and sewer in your neighborhood and extend it up to this big twenty 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 u 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. Uh 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 I mean I don't I don't know, John, but maybe this situation where that neighborhood needs to look at asking to be switched to RDR. I don't know.
Probably think of Moon L uh movement like the States, for example. Hundreds and hundreds of people living in their own thirty five foot lots.
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 S T R the
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 RDR.
Right. There's that too.
I mean maybe let's actually m match the land use with what the neighborhood should be.
Okay. 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, 'cause the neighborhood was developed before there was a comprehensive plan and somebody in their infinite wisdom in nineteen eighty nine decided this is res three 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.
With which in that scenario R D R would cover them.
I just think that's a good idea. And don't get me wrong, I'm open to all of this. I'm trying to I'm trying to digest it all. But I'm thinking about a neighborhood like Aristida, Chuck.
They're in the res three. And you wouldn't ever 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 f 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 d I don't think this I don't think this says that R D R is limited to the northeast rural area.
Or are we going to allow people to
Down zone down land use their property?
If you're gonna grant allow it all the time. We're gonna allow it all the time. If you're gonna grant grant those I mean it sounds like you're not gonna have a lot of heartburn with people wanting to change the comp plan of the land use to R D R, why do we have the minimum in there in the first place?
Uh you would
want that right.
I I I think you would want the minimum in the S D R flu and in the subsequent UDR flu um because you're suburbanizing and urbanizing.
I just think I mean I I'm just having trouble getting my arm to the minimum how it th I mean it seems like it's gonna 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 it? 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 density's the maximum density is allowed.
W 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 S D R and they're coming in at two point five.
Well but so so what you're saying, I mean We have all kinds of res threes come through here where they're not between two point eight and three.
Right.
I just think we're creating a whole lot of paperwork for that. I
mean, Well, I mean th th th there's the other uh again, we're talking about a subur the suburban density residential, so the expectation is suburban density. Our current comprehensive plan is already expecting that at Res three.
Well the comprehensive plan has
no no no no no no no no. Hold on. My neighborhood was developed long before nineteen eighty nine. There was no expectation of any of the owners of that property. that they were gonna 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 there you shall adopt a comprehensive plan. And some bureaucrat says, well, this is suburban density residential, or this is res 3. Did you think back then in nineteen eighty nine, 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 gonna tell 'em, 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 you 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 gets dropped into the comprehensive plan. So 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 gonna require uh a lot of neighborhood meetings to Hold people's hands and not scare them with the downfluing and the potential value change to their property if that were to happen.
But nevertheless, the those meetings or those uh neighborhoods could become RDR, more care 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 Yeah, nice. Okay, well we're here, we're gonna 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 kinda with Jamie on this. Why why have a minimum?
I I hear what you're saying, Terry. I mean I it makes perfect sense. I mean try to you know, where you have the infrastructure in place uh to try to focus development and utilize that infrastructure. That that part makes sense. Yes. It just becomes difficult whenever you impose maximums on people or minimums on people. That's I w I'm just trying to get my arms around this like John and I think everybody up here.
Um th there one answer to this could be uh a policy crafted specific that says if if you were built prior to the adoption of Pascoal twenty fifty, let's say, uh your your grandfather essentially. And so then
maybe maybe an answer.
Yeah.
I want you to understand I'm a I'm open to all of this. I'm trying to understand and then trying to figure out what the implications are as we go through this.
Absolutely. Uh
can I ask a question in a practical matter? Like just say for example in the 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 Could we just not approve that as
going forward? Well, y yes. So this is part of the tier discussion that we'll have in just a minute. We're not gonna 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 gonna regulate. the and sort of it's going to identify the densities that are allowed in it 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 be identified in the zoning when we when we come forward for an entitlement on that project. 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 direct. So the specifics of those regulations that will come with the land development
clin update, which will follow this Pascoal 2050 update. It's a I think it's a two-year program on the land. Phase one of the land development clin 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 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 uh a grace period t to effect into the land development code what's been changed in the comprehensive plan. No no no but it but in the in the actual interim if you notice the future land use um in twenty fifty is Mimicking very closely what the current comprehensive plan is doing. 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 flues. So it's still possible to effectuate the zoning districts that we have today under the new flu scheme. 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 twenty fifty to be finished and just calibrate the whole thing all at once.
So Terry have a two follow up questions. One, are these are these net or gross?
These are net.
Okay. Um
Which is different because our 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 twenty fifty.
And then my second question is, I I know you said that ADUs don't count a density, and that makes some sense for maximum, but 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 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 mean 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 I know what Jimmy's gonna say is that you don't know whether pr a house is gonna have an ADU when you first build it. I mean usually it's Well, you know, it could be five, ten years later that the ADU's added. So you're probably gonna have to just make some assumption that right, you know, ten percent of houses or twenty percent of houses are gonna have
There could be there could be an uh we could we could look at that. That's an idea to look at and make it maybe make that a bonus of how to how to hit that two point eight minimum in the SD. And
the other idea to throw I'm gonna 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 two point eight? I mean I have no problem with it. Yes, that's potential. I'm just wondering if they're actually gonna build that.
Our study shows that 120% of AMI is for a single family residential is considered affordable.
Which is not a incredibly difficult target to hit. I mean it's
Over three hundred thousand dollars.
We we can we can work with that.
Builder could probably meet.
So I my only point is if you're gonna have an incentive structure you probably should have some incentive for affordable units as well.
Okay. That may not be necessarily built into the flu 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.
So we'll talk about the tier structure in just a minute. I just want to get through this slide. The next category, so the point that I made earlier, there is res 6 in northeast rural. We're capping that. If SDR appears in Northeast Rural, which it does in two or three locations, that's going to be capped at 6. There's no further expansion of that cape available in Northeast Rural. And then finally, Res 24 converts and turns into UDR, 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, 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 in the county.
No, uh o across the county that has res twenty four actually. Um, most of them are not meeting the maximum density of twenty four dwelling units per acre. They're usually around eight to ten ish. And some of them are just farm fields still, um, or or to some extent of them. So though this density is the highest that would uh 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 land use um categories. Again, uh these slides are not comprehensive. What's comprehensive is the um 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 is only one location that I could find anyway 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. Was there another one? Yeah.
Let's have that.
Oh okay yeah. Um the town center for future landings only exists at um Curly and 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 water grass 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 with the fire station is not yet built there. At least it's not showing on the area. And I last time I was out there a couple months ago I wasn't there. So that
said, the town center doesn't really exist on our map today. So we're combining some of the policy aspects of it into the ECR flu. The intensity and density levels remain the same, except for the fact that in the urban service area we are proposing 5.0 FAR. 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. 32 dwelling units
per acre is the currently allowed density in EC. and it's retained in the new ECR flu for 2050. Calm is essentially the same in 2050. It's what is known as Core to be a little bit more descriptive. Often people forget that Calm actually allows residential. 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. And
that is going to be an intensity in FAR of 0.75. So we're upping it from the 0.6 that it is today. We're giving it a little bit more. and a maximum outside of the urban service area of three point oh FAR, inside the urban service area five point oh FAR. And the density, the maximum density remains the same at twenty four dwelling minutes per acre.
So Terry, I agree with you that Existing com allows residential But it 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 an arterial collector, you can put Residential and calm.
Uh the way that it's that we've bat that we've dealt with it in in the past is if the if multifamily is being proposed under the comm 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 uh residential above. But we know that the buildings that are in the back of that particular site have no visibility to the frontage ro 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 gonna build multifamily within uh com or core in this case, on the arterial and the collector, you're gonna 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 so point seven five two three or How does how does that work?
Seth.
Are you saying there's a minimum? What's the point that fire?
It's the maximum power. There's no minimal.
No. You have point seven five, three point zero and five point oh.
Right, that's what I'm trying to figure out.
I think
that
oh.
Okay. So it's it's 3.0. There there's a typo there. It's 3.0 F AR outside of the urban oh inside the
urban. And then does that conflict with the we had allowed um in ROR up to thirty-two dwelling units per acre in the
West market area for redevelopment.
No. So it doesn't conflict because ROR is untouched. We'll get to that in a second. Okay. Yeah. It's separate.
So Terry, I just want to make sure I'm understanding the intent with core. This is not a revamped ROR where 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 Stand alone. Got
ya.
And
then why twenty four rather than thirty two?
I'm sorry, I'm Mr. Moody. I'm just curious about the selection of the number of twenty four dwelling units to the acre rather than thirty two
Uh that's what our current comprehensive plan has on Calm. So if if we want to do the same thing we did in ROR we can. For the West Market area.
It's just that the West Market Area is mainly dominated by ROR.
What I'm thinking about is you've got this kind of mixed use commercial along arterial or collector roadways. When you go to the UDR density you're allowing up to forty dwelling units to the acre. I'm trying to understand is there some rationale
For the twenty four Is it is it a traffic problem? Is it a utility problem? Why not thirty two or why not up to forty?
Because it seems like it would be in the same type of setting in in an urbanized setting. No one's gonna go out in the country and build a vertically integrated mixed-use building. It's gonna do that more in an urbanized or heavily suburbanized area, and I'm curious about the limitation. On the density.
One rationale that I would offer, and we'll talk about it at the end of the presentation, is are the mixed-use node overlays, which offer densification capabilities at specific intersections. So our thought was, or specific parts of the county and we'll show a map too. Our thought was let's Let's push density in those particular areas and maintain existing allowances outside of those areas. But to the extent that we wanted to facilitate
a similar strategy that we deployed in ROR using Core for the urban service area or the West Market area, we could do that too.
But if you wanna put a pin in that and when we get to the mixed use overlays, we'll you'll see the intensification and densification that takes place and where that's targeted as an overlay. Um
Terry, just for real quick on the C O R stuff in the text, the description of the the categories.
Yes.
I think the F A R in the text is point seven five.
Yeah, I'm I'm I'm being dyslexic at the moment. Three point oh is the typo. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And I'm curious.
Small scale museums less than ten thousand square feet.
What's the right-of-way?
What's the problem with a eleven thousand square foot museum?
Uh I think it gets into the P S P territory.
I'm just surprised we're calling out museums as a use at all.
th there was an inquiry on it and clarifications needed to be made and somewhere the line had to be drawn between P S P territory and it's it's fine. It's not a big deal.
Terry, on the densities, did you there's a 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 a hundred percent commercial no one living there.
Yeah.
Yeah. Um The next one is uh the consolidation of IL, Industrial Lite, 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 10-acre site with the office flu. We haven't had very many office flu amendments. But also Office is allowed pretty much everywhere in core, ROR, EC, IL, you name it, it's it's there, it's possible.
So we consolidated Office into the IL, which is we considered the IL the sort of the flagship economic development, future land use alongside EC. And so we created the combined research office industrial, light, and institutional or ROI flu. And so um that has a uh 2.0 FAR 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 OF sites that existed. Um Mainly along uh State Road fifty four.
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 uh nuisance associated with heavy industrial. Uh oftentimes when heavy industrials proposed it ends up becoming PD Plan Development, which makes a map uh prop 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 P D instead of industrial. It's not as obvious to them. Even though the P D has
They skim past it and unfortunately miss the opportunity. So 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 P D.
Um
So that will bring us to the mix-use flu, which is PD itself. Hyatt's gonna take over because you don't wanna hear me droning all morning. So Go ahead, I think.
Thank you, Terry.
Okay, everybody still following along with us? Awesome. So now we are at our mixed use future land use category, which is PD. So right now we only have one mixed use flu category. This is a category where the 2025 designation carries forward to Pasco 2050. In other words, PD remains PD. 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 a specific parcel or parcels through a future land use amendment. So those parameters are very specific to the PD designation established on those parcels. The intent of this category is to continue. Supporting mixed-use 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 PSB. For the most part, these categories are carrying forward into Pasco 2050 with very minimal changes. Coastal lands and PSP remain unchanged.
For conservation lands, we are making a small adjustment to the range of uses to recognize 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
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 instance, recreational facilities would be limited to 40,000 square feet. So overall, these are the major changes to this group of categories. We're largely carrying over or forward what we already have with very few targeted
adjustments 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 Connerton Newtown, Newport Corners Gateway Hub, Central Pasco Employment Village, VOP V VOPH, Villages of Pasadena Hills and Connecticut. 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 or throughout the future. land use element um chapter, we're rem we're moving them into Pasco specialized it, so specialized so they are all and they're housed under one chapter.
Hi. Yes sir. That C P E V that's been done, that change 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 name from C P E V to Cyprus Employment Village. and uh we just wanted to get your take on it. if that's something the Planning Commission members think should change.
We should call it Bob.
Yeah. I like that name.
Why is it why would it not be central pa 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. 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 of
rezoning approved within it.
Well, in twenty fifteen nothing is happening, but actual on the ground, yes.
Okay, next we have the two future land use categories that are also carrying forward the Anti-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. Inaxive does not mean that this category is not effective. It is these designations remain
fully effective, as in properties that already have them can continue to develop or redevelop under the established uses, densities, and intensities. So in Pasco 2050, 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 designation or those two designations. But
we're not allowing any new amendments to these two future. Yeah. Okay. So for ROR, uh retail office residential, the designation carries forward from twenty twenty five into twenty fifty. The intents and range of uses remain the same, with the FAR um within the urban service area increasing to five point oh. And if you have noticed, um when uh Terry was presenting the productive business, uh five point oh 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 ROR 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 shall I say revived. This is not necessarily new, but we kind of redirected 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 A T major attractors. It's
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. It's important to mention that this idea really came during our visioning process about two years ago. We had a workshop with the Tourism Development Council, and we have received a lot of feedback from. From the community or the council. Well, we had people at the workshop as well, other from the community. So
the feedback was about the importance of encouraging 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. And the intent is again to encourage tourism and suinations that can draw significant visitors to our county, whether that's for sports, entertainment, recreation, 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 types of tourism and sports relationships. related uses that we want this category to accommodate. And also we worked with Elizabeth. Our county attorney. Shout out to Elizabeth for actually helping us with all of these future length 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's
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 Wiregrass. Okay. 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 the 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 it's a fairly large range, um, at least in the concept in the context that we've been operating between res 3, 6, 9, and 12. Now we're talking between 2.8 and uh 18, as I noted um previously. So how does that get organized in PASCO 2050? The general range of uses within the
SDR flu are going to be are going to include what are known as SDR Tier 1, which is basically the single family detached family of residential products. Um the SDR tier two, single family detached, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts. So immediately SDR what we want to do in Pasco 2050 is essentially legalize all the other types of housing that our current comprehensive plan is maybe um either constraining
or our land development code is not even considering. So we want to add a a much wider range of what's known as the missing middle housing to help us both in terms of the diversity of product type as well as diversity of cost. 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 S D R
Tier three, which is the four four plexes, cottage courts, townhomes, apartment houses, low rise apartments, garden apartments.
Is there a slide that shows the tiers?
Uh yeah. 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 you
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. Yeah, it'd be helpful. It'll be page thirteen of forty two.
Yeah, I don't think I have that. And yeah. It's yeah, it's in there. Yeah. It's in the clean before. At least that's what I wrote.
Um while Patty pulls that up.
Continue to speak to the tears.
Um
I mentioned these there's uh 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
how are we handling uh ADU I mean not ADUs, Airbnb properties, short term rental properties, how do we handle that?
That's handled through the land development code. So the Carburis Plan is going to look at the unit itself. So someone builds a house, they're gonna 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 O' Lakeshore. But from a comprehensive plan standpoint, a house is a house. So
um page thirteen.
I mean the red line version of it.
A little bit more, a little bit more? Uh up up. There we are. General range of uses. That's what I was reading from.
So these tiers are a further organization of the overall density range. So the 2.8 to 18 are going to be divided by 3. Tier 1 is going to be 2.8 to 6 dwelling units per acre. On the future land use map, what you'll see when we present it in a few minutes is properties that have SDR three and SDR six. 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 t if today you have REST three in 2050, we're not gonna make you fight for three. You have three, you have the capability of doing three. We will mark it down in Pasco 2050 as SDR three. That way we know that your starting point is three. If you have six, we'll mark your starting point as As SDR 6. If you have 12, we'll mark
you down as SDR twelve and so forth. But that's just identifying what you're currently allowed, because we didn't want to enter into a situation where we could be 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 gonna be a number associated with it. And the way we're gonna the
way that we're going to handle the density is going to be through this tier structure. If you scroll down Patty, under standards Yeah, there you go. The second bullet is where I'm going to be focusing on right now. So this density range is further organized into Tier 1, which is 2.8 to 6. 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 3 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. 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 Suburban Density 2. for example, zoning and suburban density three is your you know 12 and up uh uh zoning category that's how you'll match zoning with tier structure in the SDR flu.
The other purpose of the of uh the tier structures is going to be that um HB 399 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 I we've identified in the comprehensive plan the different compatibility factors that each tier needs to address 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 gonna be a tier three density. But if if my 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 uh 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, we're going to need to know how that development is going to lay out, and there will 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 part of the land development code update later on.
Uh
The factors themselves we will talk about in more detail when we bring the GOPs forward for discussion and 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?
Sethia, I'm just to make sure I'm clear. The H B three ninety nine compatibility requirements are gonna be in the comp line or in the code or in both? Yeah. So there won't be anything in the Comp Plan that implements three ninety nine?
Correct. Only that the Comp Plan is setting up the tier structure that will facilitate the land development code compatibility.
Um
And so th 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 setbacks, stepbacks. Stepbacks is when a building climbs to a certain height and then you bring the architecture back. A little bit. And then vegetative buffering or landscape buffers. These are not applicable to all the tiers. For example, architectural articulation is not applicable to tier one densities. Or height
restrictions are not, or manufactured building forms are not necessarily applicable to tier three densities. Right? So we're just throwing them up on the slide altogether, 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 onerous task of meeting more factors than a single family neighborhood developer would. Um so that's
th those are the the concept of the factors. And then finally, um our last conversation about S S Dr has to be about affordable housing. Why? Because SDR presents itself as the one flu in all of our flus that has the flexibility to adjust its maximum. In order to effectuate 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 ha meet uh certain affordability. Requirements. So the question that we have 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. It. So the question that we have today is what is the density threshold in SDR that will enable developers
to build their products still and allow the county to mandate an affordable housing set aside? So Dave Mr. Goldstein noted earlier that uh 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 specific So, based on
that 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 waivers 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 three was 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 community. Is um where do we want the maximum of SDR to sit? Do we want it to be at twelve? Do we want it to be at fifteen? Do we want it to be at eighteen? 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 if we'll give you more density. If you do a ten or twenty percent 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.
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. As recently as yesterday, a stakeholder got back to me and noted that doesn't matter where you
put it, it's not gonna work. That was their opinion. So it's it's a wide range of of uh opinions on the the affordable housing set aside. Um
I think your problem is you're assuming that the market the m 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 ten million people in the country and they suck up all the houses then you have a housing affordability problem. If we deport ten million problem, then we probably have a housing value problem.
So um so that's where w we've been we've been grappling between the twelve and eighteen. Where where do you put that? Do you put it at twelve, do you put it at fifteen, do you put it at eighteen? 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 twelve and uh fourteen. 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 nineteen. 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 s 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, et cetera. 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 wanna 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 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, SDR6, SDR9, 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 units per acre. And the yellow is uh our as a starting point. Yeah. So your minimum is not necessarily two point eight.
Uh let's see. So yellow is RDR. V O P H is the the purple over here. So VOPH is pretty much if we're calling it our flu right now. Um and this is the VOPH boundary. So if your property is within VOPH boundary, you're gonna have to Refers to the V OPH comprehensive plan to pretty much see where you are within VOPH. Same thing with Connected City.
Any questions about this map?
Hi, I just real clear on connected city and V OPH. 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 gonna know what that is still?
Yes. So Hayek mentioned earlier that Connected City Comprehensive Plan and the VOPH comprehensive plan aren't gonna be located in the Pasco specializes chapter. So if they're looking at the this future land use map, let's say it's twenty thirty-five and someone's like, oh I'm in this purple area, V OPH, then this is gonna mean that they go to the VOPH comprehensive plan and see exactly what they need to be doing within V OPH. 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 flues that we've talked about. So they'll have a Pasco 2050 flu. A good example is Pasco Town Center. It currently is constructing and developing under an EC flu. It will have ECR flu in Pasco 2050 because it has not opted into Connected City. But there are parts of Connected City that have up 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 gonna go into the Connected City Comprehensive Plan and follow exactly that. If I'm in the South Innovation Zone, for example, those are the policies that I follow.
Yeah, I guess I'm asking a more basic question too. Like even in villages of Pasadena Hills, there's outside areas outside of the villages
where the underlying flu matters more than so but I I can it's just purple on this map. So what how would I know what I am still?
Because the village is the Pasadena Hills Comprehensive Plan identifies those underlying flues. And those underlying flues could be res six. They they're not gonna be S D R. They're going to be uh res six or what we'll 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 VOPH res six. And so whatever res six was when V OPH was created is what's going to be applicable
in V OPH.
So you're gonna have Legacy Res six in VOP
inside VOP. Correct. Yeah, that's good on the right-of-way.
Correct. Yes, yes, correct. Yeah. Th uh which is a good point because some of the sub area policies of the P Ds that exist across the map those are the the blue Is that lightweight? Gray. The the gray on the map there are P Ds. So some of those sub area policies are actually referencing legacy flus. Sometimes they say thou shalt do have a density of res twenty four or something, depending on how they worded it at that time. Uh in that case we do have a policy statement in our G OPs 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. And that way there's no change to the to the playing field for the developers or or builders that are reliant on those sub-area policies. So the twenty twenty five comprehensive plan. Will continue to exist as a reference point for thing
uh certain policies in DOPH, certain policies and or sub-area policies within PDs. It's just you won't be able to amend the twenty twenty five conference plan anymore. If one of those PDs came in and said we want to change something, well they would change something according to the Pasco twenty fifty framework after that.
Sorry.
Should
we do the
interactive map right now? Yeah, do we interact with 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 Planning 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.
Okay.
Did it pop up on your screen? Okay. Perfect. So
This is our Pasco 2050 project 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 gonna keep it right there for a second. We're gonna come down here to the map layers. Це да Farther left, click on it. We're gonna get rid of addresses so we don't see those numbers on there. Hopefully it works. It's gonna take a minute to kind of load. So we have the proposed future land use 2050 and then we're
also gonna turn on the 2025, which is the existent future land use. And then we're gonna come to this Is that the swipe? Yeah. So there is a funnel um icon. The farther right icon says swipe. We're gonna turn on this swipe feature up here. We're gonna 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. Twenty twenty five. And then to the right I have twenty fifty. So here's my parcel right here.
It was res, I'm gonna zoom in a little bit. So in 2025 it was res 3, or I'm sorry, res 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.
Swipe claim.
Oh, you can control from here.
So you'll you'll notice um R res one areas, which is in this yellow, as you start to swipe, certain parcels convert into the red, which is core. We'll get to that in a second, but that we s we happily resolved 2016. 2668 conflict zonings. Um, so that is something that was a
huge benefit in this exercise. But that's why you 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 flus are finally catching up.
Mm-hmm.
We've also received the request from property owners to change uh flues to CORE or to ROI, which is the light industry on office. We uh made sure that we have analyzed those requests and we had asked for transportation needs assessment. And of all 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 Yeah, two graphics.
This map here only shows uh the or shows the conflict zoning conversions that we had done for all those two thousand six hundred and sixty-seven 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 3 and REST 4. Some of these also were conflict zoning. So they had said, Oh, I had an I one or I two on as a zone in um on my property, but there's 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.
Was it 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 we're in conflicts for ROY, no.
I think the ROI adjustments up here in Oops, what did I press?
Wrong button. The ROI, the main ROI changes happened up here in the Lacoochee area. And in that case, it was a combination of a request that was being made, but also it was conflict. So
Let me see. 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?
W so there's two parts. We are resolving conflicts, that's the majority of it.
Yeah.
Requests.
I realize that some people may request to resolve conflicts, but Did we also allow people just to make a request to change where there was no conflict?
Th there were there were uh requests that came in to do comprehensive plan amendments uh as part of the Pasco twenty fifty update. When a property owner came in seeking a comprehensive plan amendment and then they learned about Pasco twenty fifty was like, Well, can we just make it part of twenty fifty? We documented all of those. That's what this map is showing here. We documented all of those. They submitted transportation needs assessments, et cetera. And we did a consistency
now. Where's the public hearing part and where does the where do the members of the public get to comment on whether those changes are acceptable and compatible? I got a I got some issue with that. That that that goes right around the process for the reason we show up here every two weeks.
Uh 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 hearing and the public gets to come in and comment. I realize that comp plan amendments are legislative matters, but they still are public hearing 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 Of this isn't the public hearing for the adoption of the comprehensive plan.
Well I think that's Mr Moody's point is when are we gonna have the hearing to discuss the changes for those particular properties that Where there's actually gonna be signs posted on the property. I mean, I think our code requires us posting of signs on those properties that are being changed, right?
Correct.
What 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.
Mm. Yes, that's the process that we would have. Yeah. Okay.
But for
now.
For like six months where we can Well
how how many of them are there? Where they're not conflict zonings? Um
We have the table. We have it in table table format.
We're not coming.
Are these upgrades of land use or downgrades of land use?
Uh it depends. It depends. I think there's a mixed. Some of these like th 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 Lakuchi that were also conflict in that scenario were upping to R O R ROI. Um
well I understand the conflict resolution and we are supposed to resolve the conflicts in the twenty twenty five comprehensive plan. What I'm asking is there are there non conflict requests that are upgrades of land use? That are upgrades of land
use. So
twenty eight, right? Twenty eight. Twenty eight.
Those are the non credits. Yes. Incontinue lack.
Well even if they're downgrades, we're still supposed to have a process.
Yeah, so I doubt there's gonna be a lot of people objecting to the res three to call converted.
I agree. That's why I
asked the question.
Well I'm a little confused too. I mean isn't all A G A G R going to R D R but there's a list on here stuff went A G to R D R
The map is showing twenty-five properties that were not conflicting upgrades.
Um I I just go on the record and say I got some problem with that. I mean there is 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 public hearing. There's a whole lot of stuff here.
That already feels like one. Yeah.
Well I mean yeah, we're in it. So
So it looks like it's actually twelve. Thirteen. Fifteen. Fifteen. There's fifteen of them, not twenty five. Cause the uh ten 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 the public that happened during uh open
houses and uh other workshops throughout the county.
Terry, is a way to like separately itemize them on the agenda so that
Yeah, we can do that.
So the the public I mean 'cause I think part of the heartburn is that normally if that amendment was coming through it'd be a separate item on the agenda, it would be separately noticed. The public could look on the agenda and know when they to come speak to it. When it gets folded into this larger grows, nobody would know when when to come speak to it.
Sure.
So I think you need to separately itemize those fifteen on the agenda somehow so that somebody knows to come speak to that item.
Okay.
I'm not sure it's fair to make somebody From the public show up to have to sit through a five hour discussion of rows when they're here to they just want to object to their one land use amendment.
That makes sense.
Then maybe you could have that discussion first. So that the objecting neighbors who don't want to sit through a five hour discussion of grows 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 gonna allow them to use this process, it somehow should be identified separately on the agenda. so that the public has some way of knowing that When they come speak to it.
Right. And then 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 uh how many square miles is Pasco 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 parcel IDs, etcetera.
Well presumably if they're separate items on the agenda, there would be at least a little bit of a write up on each one identifying what the changes 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
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.
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 the back room somewhere if as 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.
We made that aware to them.
Because we have no idea what the State's gonna do with our Calm plan when we send it up to them. Well yeah, all right.
If they were smart, they would have hired Barbara and done it i 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. Cause the we don't know what's gonna happen with our comp plan once we transmit it. It 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 plannings changed up.
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. Wow. 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 it is a
Other communities have done similar
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 me?
So apparently they are going to do individual notes for them. And I do think that it should be separately itemized on the agenda so that when they're noticed somebody has something on the agenda to look
to figure out how to make it legal. I'm just saying this doesn't
Appear.
The difference stands up the difference between legal and fair. That's what
I You're
you're already 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 third,
it's fifteen 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.
If I were their attorney I would not have advised them to do.
Um there's a d there's a j the 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 agrees.
Let's do that.
So
we have plenty of time to talk about it.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay, thank you, Derry. Thank you. Hiya.
Thank you.