Sarasota 2050 Phase 3 changes

ATTACHMENT 1

Staff Report dated May 21, 2014

SUBJECT: Consideration of Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy Revisited Phase 3

MEETING DATE: May 21, 2014

PREPARED BY: Planning and Development Services Department, Long Range Planning Division, Zoning Administration Division, Natural Resources

PURPOSE

This staff report addresses 9 issues that remain from the original scope of work and includes an additional issue on Conservation Subdivisions recommended for inclusion by the Planning Commission. The relevant policy and regulatory citations involved, along with analysis behind each recommended amendment to the 2050 related policies and regulations, are provided for each issue. 2050 Policy Revisited Phase 3 scope of work elements:

A. Issues to be addressed within the 10 to 14 month timeframe: FN?1:FiscalNeutrality NU?8:HamletFocalPointsFN?2:Timing/PhasingofDevelopment NU?9:400DwellingUnit(DU)LimitonHamletsFN?3:AffordableHousing OS?9b:GreenbeltsbetweenHamletsNU?5:MinimumofOneVillageCenter OS?5:GreenwaysasOpenSpaceinHamletsNU?7:HamletWalk?ability ConservationSubdivisions

B. Community Engagement: 1. Informational and educational material on proposed modifications will be made available

at the Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy Evaluation web page on the Countys web site. 2. Three public workshops will be conducted. 3. Local Planning Authority (LPA) review at a public hearing. 4. Board of County Commissioners public hearing on proposed modifications.

C. Third Phase Tentative Schedule: 1. May 21, 2014 Board authorization to proceed with CPA No. 2013-I. 2. June 18, 26, and 30, 2014 Public Workshops. 3. July 24, 2014 Planning Commission Public Hearing. 4. Late August 2014 Board Transmittal Public Hearing. 5. Early November 2014 Board Public Hearing / Action.

Each section of this report has been prepared to address all issues pursuant to the following outline:

A. Issue Statement: Presents a brief summary statement of the issue being addressed. B. Issue Direction Proposed: Provides a concise statement describing the direction being

pursued that responds to the issue with a brief rationale for the proposed direction. C. Relevant Policy & Regulatory Citations: Provides the text of the relevant policy and

regulatory citations for the issue with a statement as to why each is relevant. D. Information Supporting Direction: Provides qualified supportive information utilized

within the analysis / deliberative process in consideration of the proposed direction. E. Information Refuting Direction: Identifies information that may refute the proposed

direction to be addressed within the analysis. F. Analysis of Information: Addresses differing sides of the issue. G. Conclusion: Summary statement as to how the proposed direction addresses the issue. H. Proposed Regulatory Language Changes (if applicable): Presents the specific

modifications being proposed to be made to Comprehensive Plan policy and regulatory text of the County Code.

Consideration of Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy Revisited Phase 3

Page 2 of 109 May 21, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. FN-1: Fiscal Neutrality 3

II. FN-1a: Fiscal Neutrality Compliance for Public Transit . 15

III. FN-2: Timing / Phasing of Development 19

IV. FN-3: Affordable Housing ... 36

V. NU-5: Minimum of One Village Center .. 51

VI. Hamlet Issues 59

NU-7: Hamlet Walk-ability

NU-8: Hamlet Focal Points

NU-9: 400 Dwelling Unit (DU) Limit on Hamlets

OS-9b: Greenbelts between Hamlets

OS-5: Greenways as Open Space in Hamlets

VII. Conservation Subdivisions 83

Conclusions .. 106

Appendix .. 109


Page 3 of 109 May 21, 2014

I. FN-1 Fiscal Neutrality

A. Issue Statement: Review Fiscal Neutrality monitoring requirements and potential

disincentives related to the goals of developing affordable housing.

B. Issue Direction Proposed: Proposed policy and regulatory changes. A review of Fiscal Impact Analysis related literature revealed that expectations that developments should be able to demonstrate conditions of fiscal neutrality at any point along their development life-cycles would be atypical. In addition, a consultant review (Laffer Associates) of the existing Fiscal Neutrality monitoring related requirements indicates that the impacts associated with the county stopping development, in response to a development not demonstrating fiscal neutrality at either phased or annual increments during the development cycle, has a significant detrimental effect on project financing. In addition, Fiscal Impact Analyses results are strongly correlated with property taxes and associated assessment values. The overarching requirement to demonstrate fiscal neutrality may inadvertently be a deterrent to the provision of affordable housing due to the strong correlation between higher assessed property values and fiscal neutrality results.

C. Relevant Policy & Regulatory Citations: The full text of the relevant policy and regulatory citations for this issue are provided below. Highlighted portions indicate the applicable language and requirements that are the focus of the evaluation.

Note: (* * *)- Denotes non-applicable language omitted.

Comprehensive Plan Policies

Policy VOS2.9 Fiscal Neutrality for Villages and Hamlets

Each Village and each Hamlet development within the Village/Open Space RMA shall

provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the levels of service standards

adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County

Government, the School Board, and residents outside that development. The intent of

Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local government services and

infrastructure that are built or provided for the Villages or Hamlets shall be funded by

properties within the approved Villages and Hamlets.

1. Landowners, developers, or Community Development Districts shall demonstrate

Fiscal Neutrality as part of the master development plan approval process, and for

each phase of each Village or Hamlet, according to the procedures established by

the County, for review by the Board of County Commissioners. Such procedures

shall require that Fiscal Neutrality be determined for each development project on a

case-by-case basis, considering the location, phasing, and development program of

the project. For off-site impacts, the procedures will require that the total

proportionate share cost of infrastructure be included and not simply the existing

impact fee rates. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article VII, Chapter 94 of the

Sarasota County Code pertaining to Concurrency Management this shall include,

but not be limited to, both localized and Countywide impacts on County, City, State,

and Federal transportation facilities (such as roads, intersections, sidewalks,


Page 4 of 109 May 21, 2014

lighting, medians, etc.), public transit, schools, water supply and delivery, sewage

transmission and treatment, solid waste, storm and surface water management, law

enforcement, fire and emergency management, courts, jails, administrative facilities,

libraries, parks and recreation, and public hospitals. As an example, the Fiscal

Neutrality analysis for transportation facilities will estimate the trip generation, trip

lengths, internal trip capture, and average off-site road improvement costs that are

applicable to the specific development project. Fiscal Neutrality for funds that are

not fungible (i.e., generally enterprise funds) shall be measured separately. Nothing

within this policy is intended to establish a school concurrency system.

2. The Board of County Commissioners shall require that these procedures for

measuring Fiscal Neutrality, the Fiscal Neutrality plans submitted as part of

applications for development approval, and for each phase of each Village or

Hamlet, be reviewed and certified by independent advisors retained by Sarasota

County at the expense of the landowner, developer or Community Development

District prior to acceptance by the County. Fiscal Neutrality procedures and

calculations for school demands shall be submitted to the School Board for review

prior to review by the Board of County Commissioners. All calculations of costs

shall be based on current cost data.

The enforceability of Policy VOS2.9 and of any ordinances adopted to implement

Fiscal Neutrality are expressly determined to be overarching to achieving the public

benefits of the Sarasota 2050 RMA-1 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. If

necessary, additional amendments will be made to The Sarasota County

Comprehensive Plan and to any ordinances that implement the principles of Fiscal

Neutrality to ensure the enforceability thereof. No new development in the Village

or Hamlet form shall be approved outside the Urban Services Area Boundary until

and unless the Board of County Commissioners adopts the amendments to The

Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan and any ordinances that implement the

principles of Fiscal Neutrality.

Zoning Regulations

Section 11.2.14. Fiscal Neutrality Requirements.

11.2.14. Fiscal Neutrality.

a. Intent. The intent of the Fiscal Neutrality requirement is to ensure that the

costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built,

expanded, improved or otherwise provided for any HPD, VPD and SAPD

development or as a result of the additional demand on those services and

infrastructure resulting from that development shall be funded by properties

within the approved development.

b. Fiscal Neutrality Requirements.

1. Prior to the approval of any rezoning action to designate a Village

Planned Development, Settlement Area Planned Development or a Hamlet

Planned Development, and prior to the initiation of development of any phase

of development approved under a Master Land Use Plan, the applicant shall

demonstrate "Fiscal Neutrality" according to the procedures established


Page 5 of 109 May 21, 2014

herein. This demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality shall be submitted to the

Board of County Commissioners for review and action.

2. "Fiscal Neutrality" is when a development will pay the full costs of all

public facilities and services that are required to support the development and

that are required to meet or exceed the level of service standards adopted by

the County. This requirement includes the initial costs of all required

infrastructure and the on-going costs for operations and maintenance.

3. Fiscal Neutrality shall be determined for each development project on a

case-by-case basis, considering the location, phasing, and development

program of the project.

4. The facilities and services that are required to be analyzed for Fiscal

Neutrality shall include:

i. Both localized and Countywide impacts on County, City,

State, and Federal transportation facilities;

ii. Public transit;

iii. Schools;

iv. Water supply and delivery;

v. Sewage transmission and treatment;

vi. Solid waste;

vii. Storm and surface water management;

viii. Law enforcement;

ix. Fire and emergency management;

x. Courts;

xi. Jails;

xii. Administrative facilities;

xiii. Libraries;

xix. Parks and recreation; and

xx. Public hospitals.

5.An applicant must demonstrate Fiscal Neutrality to the satisfaction of the

County Commission for each phase of a project prior to commencement of

development of that phase. This analysis shall be based upon a revised

Facility Assessment in the form of a Monitoring Report that shall reflect

updated financial and level of service standard evaluations to reflect the most

current data available at the time of the review for all future phases. Fiscal

Neutrality Plans that are submitted for a phased project shall prepare an

evaluation and monitoring report of any prior phase to determine whether or

not the Capital Program/Financing Plan was sufficient to meet the standards

of Fiscal Neutrality. If the Capital Program/Financing Plan failed to meet the

standards for Fiscal Neutrality, the applicant must revise such plan for all


Page 6 of 109 May 21, 2014

future phases to 1) compensate for the prior "shortfall" and 2) readdress the

assumptions of the future phases based upon the results of the monitoring

report.

6. For a single-phase Village or Settlement Area project, the applicant shall

prepare and submit an evaluation and monitoring report annually to

determine whether or not the Capital Program/Financing Plan was sufficient

to meet the standards of Fiscal Neutrality. If the Capital Program/Financing

Plan failed to meet the standards for Fiscal Neutrality, the applicant must

revise such plan prior to any additional platting or subdivision or property or

any additional construction activities, except for those activities that are

vested. The revised plan must include methods to 1) compensate for the prior

"shortfall" and 2) readdress the assumptions of the balance of the project

based upon the results of the monitoring report.

7.For Hamlet development, the applicant may demonstrate Fiscal Neutrality

through the use of the County pre-approved methodology which analysis may

be prepared by County staff or a by certified independent advisor retained by

Sarasota County at the expense of the applicant.

D. Information Supporting Proposed Direction: Sarasota Countys Fiscal Neutrality

requirements are relatively unique, in regard to requiring demonstrations of Fiscal

Neutrality as a prerequisite to a development projects initial approval(s). An additional

unique component of Sarasota Countys existing requirements would appear to require

such a demonstration at each given phase of a development or at annual intervals in a

single-phase development (Zoning Code Sec. 11.2.14.b.6)

Both the economic/planning literature and empirical evidence indicate that there is variability through time with regard to the fiscal performance of developments and their ability, or shortage thereof, to fully cover the costs of infrastructure construction, maintenance and local government services. An important consideration for fiscal impact analysis is the timing of any additional cost or revenue stream. While a project may ultimately have a positive net effect on government finances, this may not be the case initially. Often, developments take years to realize benefits, while costs are incurred early in the project. The Government Finance Officers Association1 produced the following example highlighting the issue of timing and relationship to costs and revenues:

1 An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis for Development Projects, Michael J. Mucha, Government Finance Officers Association.


Page 7 of 109 May 21, 2014

Sarasota 2050 requirements, presently, call for a demonstration of fiscal neutrality for each phase of a project prior to commencement of development of that phase and annually for a single-phase project. If the development fails to demonstrate a finding of fiscal neutrality at those junctures, the applicant must revise such plan prior to any additional platting or subdivision or property or any additional construction activities,

except for those activities that are vested. The revised plan must include methods to 1)

compensate for the prior "shortfall" and 2) readdress the assumptions of the balance of

the project based upon the results of the monitoring report.

It is this ability of the County to halt development that was the primary source of feedback on the issue of Fiscal Neutrality during the initial public input portion of the Sarasota 2050 Evaluation. The Laffer Associates Report devotes significant attention to the impact this continuous demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality has on a development projects financing and overall viability noting that, to have the potential for a project to be stopped midstream, or be burdened with large, unanticipated fees, makes the

ability to forecast financial statements for the development nearly impossible, adding

significant risk to underwriting such a project. This is even more true given that, in

multi-stage development projects, the developer often does not begin making money on

the project until the final stage(s). Another important issue relates to the impact that Affordable Housing has on fiscal impact analyses. Sarasota 2050 requirements in the Zoning Code presently require the provision of 15% of the total housing units constructed to be provided to income qualified persons. Property taxes are one of the primary revenue components in a fiscal


Page 8 of 109 May 21, 2014

impact analysis, with the outcome that more expensive homes yield more revenue than affordable homes. The requirements for both affordable housing and fiscal neutrality can be at odds. An additional issue is that while both the overall understanding of fiscal impacts and models used to evaluate those fiscal impacts have improved over time, practitioners of modeling the fiscal impacts of developments caution that there are significant limitations to the predictive value of any model that attempts to forecast the future. As noted above, the Laffer Associates Report acknowledges that there is not a consistent methodology to fiscal impact analysis that allows for direct comparison of the results across studies,

but there is substantial evidence that typical subdivision development has a positive

fiscal impact on the county, often even without the imposition of impact fees. Their overall conclusion was that Fiscal Neutrality is routinely achieved in a wide variety of development types and would be expected in Sarasota 2050 development types under the conditions that: 1) developments pay for their directly affected on-site capital costs; and 2) full-cost, appropriately calculated impact fees cover applicable portions of remaining off-site capital expenditures. Both of these conditions are associated with Sarasota County development requirements. However, their importance is heightened with the overarching intent for Sarasota 2050 to ultimately demonstrate a fiscally neutral outcome. Given the limitations of any models ability to accurately predict the future and the acknowledged variability in the fiscal impacts of differing developments, there is an indication, including in the abovementioned Laffer Associates Report, that significant shifts in actual development performance compared to predictions in an initial model should necessitate reevaluation. The timing at which that reevaluation takes place and the countys potential to halt development should changes take place are recommended to be determined at the administrative level.

E. Information Refuting Proposed Direction: Requirements to demonstrate fiscal

neutrality during measureable points in a developments lifecycle are primarily related

to the shortcomings of both complicated and limited models and their ability to forecast

the future. The Laffer Associates Report repeatedly acknowledges that fiscal neutrality

analyses can be gamed. It was in this spirit of verification, that the initial monitoring

requirements were incorporated into the 2050 policy and regulations.

Fiscal impact analyses can be subject to not only underestimating costs but also to

overestimating the revenues likely to be associated with a project. There are

assumptions that may result from unrealistic expectations about a developments ability

to capture a share of the local or regional market for housing and commercial space.

Large projects, which are usually phased, typically lead to later portions being

developed only if the previous phases were successful and local economic conditions are

favorable. Developments compete with similar projects and other development for

whatever growth can reasonably be expected.


Page 9 of 109 May 21, 2014

The existing requirements, to demonstrate development results on a pre-identified

timeline compared to one-time model projections, are in anticipation of the likelihood of

changed conditions that include a multitude of factors that can vary including market

absorption, assumed sales prices or rents and overall revenue and cost assumptions

performance.

Given that the requirement to demonstrate fiscal neutrality is considered to be

overarching in the 2050 policy, the challenges that this may cause with regard to other

near equally important tenets such as the provision of a wide variety of housing

including affordable housing is not directly dealt with. Demonstrations of fiscal

neutrality are expected at all points in the development cycle and expressly the

responsibility of each individual development.

F. Analysis of Information: It is recognized that the issue of fiscal neutrality and its

importance to the expectations associated with Sarasota 2050 developments create high

stakes if potential changes to any of the component parts of fiscal neutrality are

proposed. From the outset it is important to acknowledge that the concept of fiscal

neutrality remains central to Sarasota 2050.

There appear to be compelling indications (Laffer Associates Report, literature review) that the development expected in the Sarasota 2050 Settlements, Villages and Hamlets will be fiscally neutral. This likelihood is further strengthened by the conditions, associated with Sarasota County development that developments pay for the on-site costs of development infrastructure and additionally pay for off-site impacts via full cost impact fees. The significance of then assuring that on-site and off-site costs are calculated adequately will be raised in importance going forward. As noted above, the requirement to demonstrate fiscal neutrality as a prerequisite to a development projects initial approval(s) is relatively unique in the widespread use of fiscal impact analyses by local governments. The more common usage of these fiscal impact analyses is to provide general indicators of the fiscal performance of developments to inform decision making but not as an absolute requirement. The evaluation of this topic benefits from: the additional experience of conducting fiscal neutrality analyses; recognizing the limitations of fiscal impact modeling; the unintended consequences of penalizing affordable housing; and having a fuller appreciation for developments fiscal performance through their life cycles. The first key finding is related to the impact associated with the countys ability to halt development if it does not demonstrate fiscal neutrality at each phase (in a multi-phased project) or annually, in a single-phased project. The detrimental impact to development financing associated with this was one of the key feedback items from 2050 developers and was heavily emphasized in the Laffer Associates Report. While this perspective is important, and on its own may necessitate changes, it is the associated issue that developments vary in their fiscal performance over time that leads to a recommendation that expectations for developments to be fiscally neutral at all points should change.


Page 10 of 109 May 21, 2014

Staff recommends that the appropriate monitoring of development performance should be handled administratively. Administrative guidance should be provided to applicants regarding provisions for monitoring project development results. The County Commission can then approve appropriate development condition(s) or a specific agreement to indicate the conditions that would require an updating and revising of the initial Fiscal Neutrality analysis due to variation of actual development results from initial Fiscal Neutrality analyses projections. The second key finding relates to the impact that Affordable Housing has on fiscal impact analyses via the correlation between assessed property values and positive revenues. Staff recommends that administrative authority be provided to assess an utilize measures that may account for the provision of affordable housing in a manner that could potentially off-set a negative correlation. Any potential solutions would be intended to be part of the administrative guidelines provided to future applicants and can be reviewed and approved by the County Commission.

G. Conclusion: Staff recommends changes to the implementation of the overarching

concept of fiscal neutrality for Sarasota 2050 developments and not the concept itself.

Two primary unintended consequences are proposed to be addressed with the changes.

The first unintended consequence is the negative impact to development financing by the county potentially halting development if a development was unable to demonstrate fiscal neutrality at pre-defined points along a development life cycle (by phase or annually). Experience has shown that most developments are not uniformly fiscally neutral throughout their life cycle with typical heavier infrastructure investments earlier in the development. In many cases, the solution to the early negative fiscal performance is to allow subsequent development to take place to ameliorate that condition. Staff recommends that a case by case evaluation of fiscal neutrality analysis modeling determine key factors that would influence an analysis results be identified and appropriate stipulations or agreement(s), as necessary define both on-going monitoring obligations and the conditions which would require an updating and revising of the initial fiscal neutrality analysis due to variation of actual development results from initial fiscal neutrality analysis projections. The second unintended consequence is related to meeting goals for the provision of affordable housing and subsequently penalizing the performance of a key fiscal neutrality revenue input of assessed value. Staff believes that appropriate incentives may be able to be provided to applicants to allow for the provision of affordable housing within a fiscal neutrality analysis model. Both of issues noted immediately above are being pursued administratively working with the Office of Financial Planning and economic consultant that have performed independent, third party reviews of Sarasota 2050 fiscal neutrality analyses. The intent is to provide more certain administrative guidance to applicants to address consistent methodologies for the performance of fiscal neutrality analyses.


Page 11 of 109 May 21, 2014

Staff also recommends that the direct connection between fiscal neutrality related results and appropriate impact fees be acknowledged and the importance of establishing and maintaining said impact fees be recognized.

H. Proposed Policy & Regulatory Language Changes (if applicable): Provided below -

Proposed new language is represented with double underline: New Language Proposed language being removed is represented with strikethrough: Old Language (* * *) Denotes non-applicable language omitted.

* * *


Policy VOS2.9 Fiscal Neutrality for Villages and Hamlets Each Village and each Hamlet development within the Village/Open Space RMA shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the levels of service standards adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County Government, the School Board, and residents outside that development. The intent of Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the Villages or Hamlets shall be funded by properties within the approved Villages and Hamlets.

1. Landowners, developers, or Community Development Districts shall demonstrate Fiscal Neutrality as part of the master development plan approval process, and for each phase of each Village or Hamlet, according to the procedures established by the County, for review by the Board of County Commissioners. Such procedures shall require that Fiscal Neutrality be determined for each development project on a case-by-case basis, considering the location, phasing, and development program of the project. In addition, such procedures may allow for incentives to provide affordable housing. For off-site impacts, the procedures will require that the total proportionate share cost of infrastructure be included and not simply the existing impact fee rates. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article VII, Chapter 94 of the Sarasota County Code pertaining to Concurrency Management tThis shall include, but not be limited to, both localized and Countywide impacts on County, City, State, and Federal transportation facilities (such as roads, intersections, sidewalks, lighting, medians, etc.) such transportation related components shall be analysed as a separate item from the remaining items of:, public transit, schools, water supply and delivery, sewage transmission and treatment, solid waste, storm and surface water management, law enforcement, fire and emergency management, courts, jails justice, administrative facilities general government, libraries, parks and recreation, and public hospitals. As an example, the Fiscal Neutrality analysis for transportation facilities will estimate the trip generation, trip lengths, internal trip capture, and average off-site road improvement costs that are applicable to the specific development project. Fiscal Neutrality for funds that are not fungible (i.e., generally enterprise funds) shall be measured separately. Nothing within this policy is intended to establish a school concurrency system.

2. The Board of County Commissioners shall require that these procedures for measuring Fiscal Neutrality, the Fiscal Neutrality plans submitted as part of applications for development approval, and for each phase of each Village or Hamlet, be reviewed and certified by independent advisors retained by Sarasota


Page 12 of 109 May 21, 2014

County at the expense of the landowner, developer or Community Development District prior to acceptance by the County. Fiscal Neutrality procedures and calculations for school demands shall be submitted to the School Board for review prior to review by the Board of County Commissioners. All calculations of costs shall be based on current cost data.

3. The enforceability of Policy VOS2.9 and of any ordinances adopted to implement Fiscal Neutrality are expressly determined to be overarching to achieving the public benefits of the Sarasota 2050 RMA-1 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. If necessary, additional amendments will be made to The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan and to any ordinances that implement the principles of Fiscal Neutrality to ensure the enforceability thereof. No new development in the Village or Hamlet form shall be approved outside the Urban Services Area Boundary until and unless the Board of County Commissioners adopts the amendments to The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan and any ordinances that implement the principles of Fiscal Neutrality.

Zoning Regulations

Zoning Section 11.2.14. Fiscal Neutrality Requirements.


a. Intent. The intent of the Fiscal Neutrality requirement is to ensure that the

costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built,

expanded, improved or otherwise provided for any HPD, VPD and SAPD

development or as a result of the additional demand on those services and

infrastructure resulting from that development shall be funded by properties

within the owner of the approved development.


1. Prior to the approval of any rezoning action to designate a Village Planned Development, Settlement Area Planned Development or a Hamlet Planned Development, and prior to the initiation of development of any phase of development approved under a Master Land Use Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate "Fiscal Neutrality" according to the procedures established herein. This demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality shall be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for review and action.

2. "Fiscal Neutrality" is when a development will pay the full costs of all public facilities and services that are required to support the development and that are required to meet or exceed the level of service standards adopted by the County. This requirement includes the initial costs of all required infrastructure and the on-going costs for operations and maintenance.

3. Fiscal Neutrality shall be determined for each development project on a case-by-case basis, considering the location, phasing, and development


Page 13 of 109 May 21, 2014

program of the project. Fiscal Neutrality analyses may include incentives to provide affordable housing.

4. The facilities and services that are required to be analyzed for Fiscal Neutrality shall include:


State, and Federal transportation facilities (Note: the

transportation related components shall be analyzed as a

separate item from the remaining items);

ii. Public transit;

iii. Schools;



vi. Solid waste;




x. JusticeCourts;

xi. Jails;

xii. Administrative facilitiesGeneral Government;

xiii. Libraries;

xiiix. Parks and recreation; and

xivx. Public hospitals.

5. An applicant must demonstrate Fiscal Neutrality to the satisfaction of the County Commission for each phase of a project prior to the approval of any rezone action commencement of development of that phase. Administrative guidance shall be provided to applicants regarding provisions for monitoring project development results. The County Commission approval shall include a development condition or agreement indicating the conditions requiring an updating and revising of the initial Fiscal Neutrality analysis due to variation of actual development results from initial Fiscal Neutrality analyses projections. This Any subsequent analysis shall be based upon a revised Facility Assessment in the form the results of an Evaluation and Monitoring Report that shall reflect updated financial and level of service standard evaluations to reflect the most current data available at the time of the review for all future phases. Fiscal Neutrality Plans that are submitted for a pPhased projects shall prepare an eEvaluation and mMonitoring rReport of any prior to each phase or other appropriate interval to assess the validity and conformance of the initial Fiscal Impact Analysis projections with actual development results determine whether or not the Capital Program/Financing Plan was sufficient to meet the standards of Fiscal Neutrality. If the actual development results exceeds the agreed upon Fiscal Neutrality analysis


Page 14 of 109 May 21, 2014

projections variation Capital Program/Financing Plan failed to meet the standards for Fiscal Neutrality, the applicant must update and revise the initial Fiscal Impact Analysis to ensure that such plan for all future phases address any potential overall to 1) compensate for the prior "shortfall" and 2) readdress the assumptions of the future phases based upon the results of the monitoring report.

6. For a single-phase Hamlet, Village or Settlement Area project, the applicant shall prepare and submit an eEvaluation and mMonitoring rReport annually at administratively determined intervals and duration to determine the assess the validity and conformance of the initial Fiscal Impact Analysis projections with actual development results whether or not the Capital Program/Financing Plan was sufficient to meet the standards of Fiscal Neutrality. If the actual development results exceeds the agreed upon Fiscal Neutrality analysis projections variation Capital Program/Financing Plan failed to meet the standards for Fiscal Neutrality, the applicant must update and revise the initial Fiscal Impact Analysis to ensure that such plan prior to any additional platting or subdivision or property or any additional construction activities, except for those activities that are vested. The revised plan must include methods to 1) compensate for the prior future development addresses any potential overall "shortfall" and 2) readdress the assumptions of the balance of the project based upon the results of the monitoring report.

7. For Hamlet development, the applicant may demonstrate Fiscal Neutrality through the use of the County pre-approved methodology which analysis may be prepared by County staff or a by certified independent advisor retained by Sarasota County at the expense of the applicant.


Page 15 of 109 May 21, 2014

II. FN-1a Fiscal Neutrality Compliance for Public Transit

A. Issue Statement: Review the recommendation of Fiscal Neutrality consultant, Laffer

and Associates, to delete Public Transit as one of the fifteen identified items for which Fiscal Neutrality must be demonstrated as part of Sarasota 2050 development projects.

B. Issue Direction Proposed: No policy or regulatory changes are proposed. In each of the existing 2050 development applications submitted, and their associated Fiscal Neutrality analyses, there have been one of two findings: 1) the project is already served by mass transit, therefore there is no capital or operating impact (Blackburn Creek, 8/2010); 2) the project is not, or will not be, served by public transit and therefore there is no impact on mass transit (Villages of Manasota Beach, Villages of Lakewood Ranch South, Grand Palm). These findings suggest that, to date, there have been no project specific fiscal impacts associated with Public Transit. In addition, a potential revenue source, in the form of mobility fees may provide funding for public transit. Presently, road impact fees are solely dedicated to roadway capacity improvements. The Countys pending consideration of mobility fees may allow funding to be provided to public transit associated with 2050 development projects.

C. Relevant Policy & Regulatory Citations: The full text of the relevant policy and

regulatory citations for this issue are provided with a brief explanation as to why each is relevant.

Note: (* * *)- Denotes non-applicable language omitted.


Policy VOS2.9 Fiscal Neutrality for Villages and Hamlets

Each Village and each Hamlet development within the Village/Open Space RMA shall

provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the levels of service standards

adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County

Government, the School Board, and residents outside that development. The intent of

Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local government services and

infrastructure that are built or provided for the Villages or Hamlets shall be funded by

properties within the approved Villages and Hamlets.

1. Landowners, developers, or Community Development Districts shall demonstrate

Fiscal Neutrality as part of the master development plan approval process, and for

each phase of each Village or Hamlet, according to the procedures established by

the County, for review by the Board of County Commissioners. Such procedures

shall require that Fiscal Neutrality be determined for each development project on a

case-by-case basis, considering the location, phasing, and development program of

the project. For off-site impacts, the procedures will require that the total

proportionate share cost of infrastructure be included and not simply the existing

impact fee rates. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article VII, Chapter 94 of the

Sarasota County Code pertaining to Concurrency Management this shall include,

but not be limited to, both localized and Countywide impacts on County, City, State,

and Federal transportation facilities (such as roads, intersections, sidewalks,


Page 16 of 109 May 21, 2014

lighting, medians, etc.), public transit, schools, water supply and delivery, sewage

transmission and treatment, solid waste, storm and surface water management, law

enforcement, fire and emergency management, courts, jails, administrative facilities,

libraries, parks and recreation, and public hospitals. As an example, the Fiscal

Neutrality analysis for transportation facilities will estimate the trip generation, trip

lengths, internal trip capture, and average off-site road improvement costs that are

applicable to the specific development project. Fiscal Neutrality for funds that are

not fungible (i.e., generally enterprise funds) shall be measured separately. Nothing

within this policy is intended to establish a school concurrency system.

* * *

Zoning Regulations

Zoning Section 11.2.14. Fiscal Neutrality Requirements.


* * *


* * *

4. The facilities and services that are required to be analyzed for Fiscal

Neutrality shall include:


State, and Federal transportation facilities;

ii. Public transit;

iii. Schools;



vi. Solid waste;




x. Courts;

xi. Jails;

xii. Administrative facilities;

xiii. Libraries;

xix. Parks and recreation; and

xx. Public hospitals.

* * *

D. Information Supporting Proposed Direction: The Sarasota 2050 planning framework

explicitly encourages what it characterizes as a new form of development outside the

Urban Service Boundary as an alternative to Urban Sprawl. Among other objectives,

the new development form is intended to support a fully connected system of streets

and roads that encourage alternative means of transportation such as pedestrians, bicycle

and transit (Policy VOS 1.1). Policy VOS 1.4 identifies development characteristics

that include the development of Village Centers with sufficient non-residential uses, in

a form that is conveniently served by regional bus service. Public transit is hardwired


Page 17 of 109 May 21, 2014

into the 2050 development framework as a supportive mechanism to achieve an

alternative to urban sprawl pattern.

How public transit is funded, is a related but separate issue. As noted above, existing approved 2050 development projects have provided Fiscal Neutrality analyses, as part of their initial rezoning approvals that have included demonstrations of fiscal neutrality for public transit without requiring any specific monetary contributions from the developments. Sarasota County has accepted the findings that projects can be approved with no capital or operating impact in both areas already served by transit and in those areas not presently, or planned to be, served by transit. Retaining the demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality for Public Transit would leave in place the potential for future appropriate revenue sources. As an example, Sarasota County will be studying the possibility of replacing road impact fees with mobility fees. Presently road impact fees are solely dedicated to roadway capacity improvements. The Countys pending consideration of mobility fees may allow funding to be provided to public transit, among other overall transportation related improvements.

E. Information Refuting Proposed Direction: The Laffer and Associates, Economic

Analysis of Sarasota Countys Fiscal Neutrality Provisions report included a review of

recent legislative changes related to proportionate share2 satisfaction of transportation

concurrency requirements. In their review, the consultant concluded that impact fees

are a justifiable way to satisfy the proportionate share requirement reflective of the

full cost to provide transportation capacity associated with new development.

The report cautioned that such fees cannot exceed the proportionate share assessment and that requiring a demonstration of fiscal neutrality for public transit would exceed a developments transportation proportionate share impact, which is based on appropriate roadway capacity. The consultants assertion was that public transit should be removed as one of the 15 items for which fiscal neutrality must be demonstrated and instead public transportation should charge an adequate use fee to supplement other tax receipts that help pay for public transportation. The consultants primary rationale was based on the standard view of economics that local governments should levy user fees on citizens to pay for those items where there is a direct linkage between personal expenditure and benefit. In other words, public transit should be treated differently than other transportation impacts because users of public transit are the direct beneficiaries of such a service.

F. Analysis of Information: Local governments are responsible for developing policies

to address potential negative impacts of future development. The statutory toolkit for

addressing transportation impacts has been expanded beyond providing for roadway

2 The Community Planning Act (2011) provides that a local government shall not require an applicant to pay more than a developments proportionate share of the improvements needed to mitigate its impacts. In addition, the Act provides the applicant shall not be held responsible for the additional costs to correct deficient roadways.


Page 18 of 109 May 21, 2014

capacity via concurrency. In the context of the Laffer and Associates assessment of

transportation proportionate share limitations, a conclusion that public transit should not

be a required component of transportation concurrency is appropriate. However, public

transits role in the Sarasota 2050 planning framework is not simply to achieve

transportation concurrency. It is intended to provide support to a connected and less

impactful form of development.

The existing requirement has not impacted existing entitled 2050 development projects and the potential to provide appropriate funding via mechanisms such as a mobility fee, provides future potential revenue to support an alternative development pattern.

G. Conclusion: No changes to Sarasota 2050 policy or implementing regulations are

recommended.

H. Proposed Policy & Regulatory Language Changes (if applicable): Not Applicable.


Page 19 of 109 May 21, 2014

III. FN-2 Timing/Phasing of Development

A. Issue Statement: Evaluate the validity of the timing and phasing mechanisms for Village development.

B. Issue Direction Proposed: Eliminate policy which prevents the approval of a Village

development if the proposed units would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban development within the unincorporated County to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent 20-year period. Eliminate the 15-year waiting period required for consecutive Village approval. Also, modify the area designated for inclusion in the residential capacity analysis to include the Urban Service Area, the Future Urban Area and lands west of the countryside line in North County.

C. Relevant Policy & Regulatory Citations: There are four relevant policies contained in the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Three policies are in the Sarasota 2050 Chapter and one policy is in the Future Land Use Chapter. There are no relevant zoning regulations.


Policy VOS2.1 Timing/Phasing of Development The Village and Hamlet future land use designations represent long-term compatible land uses for the areas within the Village/Open Space RMA and only become effective through the rezoning and master development plan process. Specific timing and phasing of Village development is regulated as follows:

(a) Village Approval Process. 1. Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Review. The minimum size

requirement for Village development that is not adjacent to the Urban Service Area Boundary requires each development to undergo review as a DRI, except as otherwise provided under Policy VOS2.1(d). For Village development that is adjacent to the Urban Service Area Boundary and does not meet the DRI thresholds, the project shall be reviewed and approved as one phase.

2. Rezone and Master Development Plan Process. Development within each Village may only be approved through the rezoning and master development plan approval process, established by Policies VOS 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5. To limit the maximum amount of urban development that may be approved, Village development shall not be approved through the rezoning and master development plan process if such approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban development within the unincorporated County to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent 20-year period. Within the existing Urban Service Area Boundary, potential dwelling unit capacity for urban development shall include the estimated dwelling unit capacity of vacant tracts, the number of unconstructed units approved in Developments of Regional Impact and rezonings for multi-phase developments and the number of vacant lots


Page 20 of 109 May 21, 2014

within single-family residential subdivisions. Outside the Urban Service Area Boundary, potential dwelling unit capacity shall include the actual number of new dwelling units approved within a Village or Settlement by a Master Development Plan that remain to be constructed.

Housing demand shall be calculated by the County through a development monitoring program which shall be based on small area forecasts. The small area forecasts will be implemented to monitor the housing demand annually.

An update of the actual number of new dwelling units within a Village approved through this rezoning process that remain to be constructed shall be included as potential capacity in Future Land Use Policy 2.3.1.

3. Development Phasing. The DRI development order and the Master Development Plan required for rezoning approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall establish the phases of development and the conditions under which future phases of development will be approved.

4. Facility Capacity. The phasing conditions of each development shall

address at a minimum: (1) the requirement that adequate public facilities and services be available to accommodate the development and maintain the adopted level of service standards, and (2) the availability of water supply to serve the development. The availability of water supply shall be demonstrated through: a) A demand analysis for the proposed development extended throughout

buildout and thereafter; b) A list of potential, permittable supply sources and the capacities thereof; c) A comparison of the demand vs. supply capacity of all sources on the list

throughout buildout and thereafter; d) The availability of reclaimed water and stormwater for irrigation use

within the developments and the quantity of potable water these sources will offset; and

e) The potential for water conservation practices to reduce demand, such as installation of high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, appliances, and other water conserving devices in households, as well as public and commercial restroom facilities and the use of xeriscape principles in all landscaped areas, where ecologically viable portions of existing native vegetation shall be incorporated into the landscape design to the greatest extent practicable so as not to require irrigation.

5. South Village Area. The Fiscal Neutrality Plan for any Village

development within the South Village Area must include a proportionate share of funding for the interchange at I-75 and State Road 681.

6. Central Village Area. Only one Village Master Development Plan may

initially be approved on land designated for Village Land Use located between Fruitville Road and Clark Road. Additional Village development may be approved no sooner than 15 years after the initial Village Master


Page 21 of 109 May 21, 2014

Development Plan is approved. 7. North Village Area. Only one Village Master Development Plan may

initially be approved on land designated for Village Land Use located north of Fruitville Road.

(b) Hamlet Approval Process.

1.Rezone and Master Development Plan Process. Development

within each Hamlet may only be approved through the rezoning and master development plan approval process, established by Policies VOS 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.

(c) The delineation between Village land use and Hamlet land use is hereby established as depicted in Figure RMA-3. Villages may be developed only in Village land use and Hamlets may be developed only in the Hamlet land use. This delineation is based on the concept of a countryside line, defined as the easternmost boundary of Village land use, as depicted in Figure RMA-3, which supports a community vision to establish a clear transition from urban character west of this delineation to rural character east of this delineation.

1. Hamlet and Conservation Subdivision Incentives. Density

Incentives to encourage the development of Hamlets and Conservation Subdivisions within the Hamlet land use of the Village/Open Space RMA shall be provided as detailed in Objective TDR1.

2. The delineation of Village land use represents the ultimate

extent of Village development. 3. The intent of providing the Village land use designation is to

encourage a new urban form and to prevent the need for the further extension of the Urban Service Area Boundary in North County which may result in incremental sprawl.

Policy FLU2.3.1.

A development monitoring program including small area forecasts shall be established and implemented to monitor residential capacity annually. The program shall include the Urban Service Area, as designated on the Future Land Use Map, and includes urban forms of development in Sarasota 2050 and the Affordable Housing Overlay that are outside the Urban Service Area. The program shall also consider the impacts of municipal growth on unincorporated county capacity.

Policy VOS2.2 Monitoring Program

To ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure, the County shall annually monitor the actual growth within Sarasota County, including development within


Page 22 of 109 May 21, 2014

the Village/Open Space RMA, and adopt any necessary amendments to The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the update of the Capital Improvements Program. Any amendments to the Capital Improvements Program will be made consistent with the requirement for Fiscal Neutrality for Village/Open Space RMA development. The annual monitoring shall be reported to the Board in public workshop and may include, but not be limited to:

population estimates and trends infrastructure levels of service community indicators environmental indicators

In the event the Countys current annual growth rate exceeds by 20% the Countys annual average growth rate calculated over the past ten years, the monitoring and reports shall be performed annually until the Countys annual growth rate drops below the 20% threshold. The Board of County Commissioners may take actions to deal with the annual growth rate, including, but not limited to, deferring the approval of new development.

Policy VOS2.4 Village/Open Space RMA Approval Process: Zoning Development activity that is designed as a Village or Hamlet within the Village/Open Space RMA shall be rezoned to a planned unit development-type zoning district and shall be planned through a master development plan process that integrates development, Open Space, related Greenway RMA and infrastructure corridors. For Villages, the application and development order shall include the following:

Master Development Plan Specific Design Guidelines for the Development Fiscal Neutrality Plan and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality Permanent Conservation Easements for Open Space and Greenway RMA

areas Phasing Plan for development (including timing and amount and phasing

of residential and non-residential development) For Hamlets, the application and development order shall include the following:

Master Development Plan Specific Design Guidelines for the Development Fiscal Neutrality Plan and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality Permanent Conservation Easements for Open Space and Greenway RMA

areas An update of the actual number of new dwelling units within a Village approved through this rezoning process that remain to be constructed shall be included as potential capacity in Future Land Use Policy 2.3.1.

D. Information Supporting Proposed Direction: The primary purpose of the timing and phasing policies is to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Florida Statute (F.S) 163.3177 describes the required and optional elements of the comprehensive plan, and also lists in subsection (6)(a)9, the development patterns and urban forms which can be indicative of urban sprawl. Many of the states design standards aimed at discouraging sprawl are incorporated in the Village/Open Space (VOS) Resource Management Area


Page 23 of 109 May 21, 2014

(RMA) policies. These include preserving open space, identifying a clear delineation between rural and urban uses with the countryside line and promoting walkable neighborhoods. The VOS policies also incorporate timing mechanisms that minimize the fiscal impacts of infrastructure and services required by new development.

163.3177 Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan; studies and surveys. (1) The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards,

and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements.

* * *

3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each areas proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth.

* * *

(a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed.

1. Each future land use category must be defined in terms of uses included, and must include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensities. The proposed distribution, location, and extent of the various categories of land use shall be shown on a land use map or map series which shall be supplemented by goals, policies, and measurable objectives. 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including:

a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services.


Page 24 of 109 May 21, 2014

e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the communitys economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions.

3. The future land use plan element shall include criteria to be used to: a. Achieve the compatibility of lands adjacent or closely proximate to military installations, considering factors identified in s. 163.3175(5). b. Achieve the compatibility of lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. c. Encourage preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfronts for water-dependent uses in coastal communities. d. Encourage the location of schools proximate to urban residential areas to the extent possible. e. Coordinate future land uses with the topography and soil conditions, and the availability of facilities and services. f. Ensure the protection of natural and historic resources. g. Provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses. h. Provide guidelines for the implementation of mixed-use development including the types of uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other standards, and the density and intensity of each use.

4. The amount of land designated for future planned uses shall provide a balance of uses that foster vibrant, viable communities and economic development opportunities and address outdated development patterns, such as antiquated subdivisions. The amount of land designated for future land uses should allow the operation of real estate markets to provide adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents and business and may not be limited solely by the projected population. The element shall accommodate at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission.

* * *

9. The future land use element and any amendment to the future land use element shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.

a. The primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not


Page 25 of 109 May 21, 2014

discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl are listed below. The evaluation of the presence of these indicators shall consist of an analysis of the plan or plan amendment within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality in order to determine whether the plan or plan amendment: (I) Promotes, allows, or designates for development substantial

areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses.

(II) Promotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development.

(III) Promotes, allows, or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated, or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments.

(IV) Fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems.

(V) Fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, active agricultural and silvicultural activities, passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.

(VI) Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services.

(VII) Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. (VIII) Allows for land use patterns or timing which

disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government.

(IX) Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses.

(X) Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities.

(XI) Fails to encourage a functional mix of uses. (XII) Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land

uses. (XIII) Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open

space.

b. The future land use element or plan amendment shall be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following: (I) Directs or locates economic growth and associated land


Page 26 of 109 May 21, 2014

development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.

(II) Promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services.

(III) Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available.

(IV) Promotes conservation of water and energy. (V) Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including

silviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.

(VI) Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs.

(VII) Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area.

(VIII) Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented developments or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164.

* * *

E. Information Refuting Proposed Direction: Sarasota County has identified a need to

focus on redevelopment initiatives. Chapter 9 of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan stresses the importance of redevelopment as a means to capitalize on existing infrastructure, improve neighborhoods and expand the Countys tax base. It is generally accepted that greenfield development can be less complicated than infill or redevelopment, and, therefore, without adequate regulatory incentives, infill and redevelopment may not occur or may only occur minimally. Much research has been published exploring this relationship, but with varying conclusions. Each community has unique characteristics (e.g., demographics, geography, growth rates, land regulations, land ownership, etc.) that make it difficult to determine a universal cause-and-effect relationship. It is adequate here to recognize that approval of large-scale greenfield developments away from the urban core, particularly in the absence of timing restrictions, could undermine efforts for infill or redevelopment to occur. Additionally, the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan contemplates a gradual and ordered growth, per FLU Policy 2.3.4. (below).

FLU Policy 2.3.4

The Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide for the future use of land in Sarasota County and contemplates a gradual and ordered growth. The Future Land Use Map establishes a long-range maximum limit on the possible intensity of land use; it does not simultaneously establish an immediate minimum limit. The present use of land may, by the adopted Zoning Atlas, continue to be more limited than the future use designated on the Future Land Use Map.


Page 27 of 109 May 21, 2014

The desire for the orderly development of land in Sarasota County is also emphasized in FLU Goal 3 (below). FLU Goal 3

Promote the orderly development and redevelopment of the land uses needed to accommodate the projected population growth to the extent such growth is financially feasible and consistent with the other goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the quality of life of the people of Sarasota County.

The policy and goal above represents the Countys value in ensuring that development occurs at a pace appropriate for its expected population growth. While this is in the context of financial feasibility, the objective of orderly growth is to prevent an oversupply of housing and overextension of infrastructure.

F. Analysis of Information: The VOS timing and phasing mechanisms were incorporated in the Sarasota 2050 Plan to ensure that growth would occur in an orderly pattern and not result in sprawl. The phasing of development is intended to avoid strain on existing infrastructure and to avoid disproportionate fiscal impacts of providing new infrastructure and services. Two such timing and phasing mechanisms are: (1) preventing the approval of Village development if such approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban development within the unincorporated County to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent 20-year period; and (2) preventing the approval of additional Village development until 15 years after the initial Village Master Development Plan in a Village area is approved.

These two timing and phasing mechanisms are analyzed to determine if they are necessary restrictions aimed at discouraging sprawl and minimizing the fiscal impact of new development.

CAPACITY The Sarasota 2050 Plan was designed to provide land use needs for the projected population to the year 2050. The 50-year time frame originated from Future Land Use (FLU) Policy 4.1.7 (below) in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. This policy served to create and implement the Sarasota 2050 Plan. It was deleted from the Comprehensive Plan after the Sarasota 2050 Plan was adopted.

FLU Policy 4.1.7.

A plan shall be prepared for the area east of I-75, excluding the areas to the east and south of the Public Conservation Areas, which shall delineate the ultimate uses to which the land shall be put. The planning process shall be initiated no later than six months after adoption of this policy. The planning process shall utilize vision planning techniques; shall evaluate the land consumption and fiscal costs of alternative development patterns; and, shall take into consideration existing land uses, the remaining development capacity in the Urban Service


Page 28 of 109 May 21, 2014

Areas and the Future Urban Service Area relative to projected demand to the year 2050, the comprehensive plans of the adjoining counties, the projected capital improvement needs of alternative scenarios, and the impact on existing and proposed facilities and services in the urbanized areas of the County. (RU-27, Ord. 96-027, April 30, 1996)

The Sarasota 2050 Plan is a build-out scenario for Unincorporated Sarasota County. In other words, the intent was to provide capacity for 100% of the projected need over a 50-year planning period. Timing and phasing mechanisms were included in the Sarasota 2050 Plan to monitor the approval of development over the 50-year planning horizon. FLU Policy 2.3.1 (below), from the 1997 Comprehensive Plan, was used to provide a standard methodology and familiar context for the calculation of potential dwelling unit capacity and housing demand projections that could be applied to the Sarasota 2050 Plan.

FLU Policy 2.3.1

The Urban Service Areas, as designated on the Future Land Use Map, shall be adequate to accommodate the population growth projected for the ten year period following adoption of each Evaluation and Appraisal Report required pursuant to Chapter 9J-5.0053 F.A.C. Adequate residential capacity shall be defined as a minimum dwelling unit potential of one hundred thirty three percent of the housing demand projected for the ten year planning period. The measure of potential capacity shall include the estimated dwelling unit capacity of vacant tracts, the number of unconstructed units approved in Developments of Regional Impact and rezoning for multi-phase developments, and the number of vacant lots within single family residential subdivisions created within the preceding ten years. The projection of demand shall be based on the mid-range projection of the University of Floridas Bureau of Economic and Business Research. (RU-27, Ord. 96-027, April 30, 1996)

Recognizing the extended multi-year phasing of large-scale 2050 Village developments, it was determined that demand over a 20-year planning period would be more reasonable to consider in capacity calculations than a 10-year period as specified in FLU Policy 2.3.1. Additionally, while FLU Policy 2.3.1 required that potential dwelling units must be a minimum 133 percent of project housing demand to allow for market flexibility, Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy VOS2.1 specified a maximum percent. The original Sarasota 2050 Plan approved by the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners (the Board) on February 15, 2002 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) included the following language in Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy VOS2.1(a)2:

To limit the maximum amount of urban development that may be approved, village development shall not be approved through the rezoning and master plan process if such approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban development within the unincorporated County to exceed 200 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent 20-year period. Within the existing urban Service Area Boundary, potential dwelling unit capacity for urban development shall include the estimated dwelling unit capacity of vacant tracts,


Page 29 of 109 May 21, 2014

the number of unconstructed units approved in Developments of Regional impact and rezoning for multi-phase developments and the number of vacant lots within single-family residential subdivisions. Outside the Urban Service Area Boundary, potential dwelling unit capacity shall include the actual number of new dwelling units approved within a Village or Settlement by a Master Plan that remain to be constructed. Housing demand shall be calculated by the County and shall consider the medium range population projections of the University of Floridas Bureau of Economic and Business Research for Sarasota County, projected growth in the Municipalities and residential building permit activity in the Municipalities and unincorporated County. An update of the actual number of new dwelling units within a Village approved through this rezoning process that remain to be constructed shall be included as potential capacity in Future Land Use Policy 2.3.1

In May 2002, the County received the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) from DCA. Within the report, DCA recommended that the potential dwelling unit capacity for development within the unincorporated county not exceed 125% for a 20-year period. At the time, DCA relied on a rule of thumb to review the land use allocation methodology for the entire planning period as a part of their urban sprawl analysis for each plan amendment. A target land use allocation maximum of 125% of total need over the planning period was established by DCA as one of the review factors that may indicate the presence of urban sprawl. Although the County stressed that the Sarasota 2050 Plan was ultimately designed to provide for less than the maximum of 125% of the need over the planning horizon of 50 years, the policy was modified. The Countys proposal, which was approved by DCA and is in effect today, prevents the approval of village development if such approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban development within the unincorporated County to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent 20-year period Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy VOS2.1 (a) (2) prevents approval of Village development if a residential capacity threshold is exceeded. This inhibits the real estate market to provide housing choices and flexibility for residents and contradicts the original intent of FLU Policy 2.3.1 which was designed to include a buffer in which the real estate market could operate. It should be noted that FLU Policy 2.3.1 in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan, which served as the basis for the capacity calculation described in VOS2.1, was modified per the 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The methodology required updating because it excluded redevelopment potential, more flexibility was needed to incorporate current demographic and development trends, and there was a desire to better track development spatially for smaller geographic areas. FLU Policy 2.3.1 in effect today requires the County to provide adequate lands for projected populations and also requires establishing an annual monitoring program to better track development and trends.


Page 30 of 109 May 21, 2014

TIMING The second timing and phasing mechanism examined in this report is limiting additional Village development in a Village Area until 15 years after the initial Village is approved. This restriction was not included in the original Sarasota 2050 Plan approved by the Board on February 15, 2002 for transmittal to DCA. Within the May 2002 ORC report, DCA commented that the Sarasota 2050 Plan did not specify any order for the creation of Village development. DCA expressed further concern that, in addition to the lack of timing mechanisms, without requiring a comprehensive plan amendment for Village approval, all Villages could be approved at once subsequent to the adoption of the Sarasota 2050 Plan. In response to DCAs ORC report, the County modified Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy VOS2.1 to specify that additional Village development may not be approved any earlier than 15 years after the initial Village Master Development Plan is approved within each Village Area (South, Central and North). Following a Board Workshop on June 11, 2002, the 15-year waiting period was eliminated from the North Village Area, leaving the requirement only for the South and Central Village Areas. On March 5, 2013, the Board approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2013-C (Ordinance No. 2013-022) which includes the deletion of policy requiring the 15-year waiting period for the South Village area. Therefore, the 15-year waiting period currently applies only to the Central Village area.

It should also be noted, that Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs), Developments of Critical Concern (DOCCs) or other large scale developments, do not have similar timing restrictions to prevent multiple large-scale developments from coming online too rapidly. SPRAWL Florida Statute 163.3177 (provided in Section D above) identifies an extensive list of criteria used to determine if a comprehensive plan discourages sprawl. The timing of development is referenced in only one item, 163.3177 (6)(a) 9.a.(VIII), which states that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it (among other indicators):

Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government

The Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), which replaced the role of DCA in 2011, is concerned with the timing of development as it relates to the availability of infrastructure and the levels of service. The Sarasota 2050 Plan, through its monitoring program and fiscal neutrality requirements, addresses this concern. Policy VOS2.2 Monitoring Program (provided in Section C above) states that:

To ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure, the County shall annually monitor the actual growth within Sarasota County, including


Page 31 of 109 May 21, 2014

development within the Village/Open Space RMA, and adopt any necessary amendments to The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the update of the Capital Improvements Program. Any amendments to the Capital Improvements Program will be made consistent with the requirement for Fiscal Neutrality for Village/Open Space RMA development

DEO continues to require that plans provide for a minimum amount of land required to accommodate projected growth; however, there is no maximum threshold. Instead, there is preference to allow the real estate market to adjust to the conditions. Florida Statute 163.3177 (6)(a)4 states that

The amount of land designated for future planned uses shall provide a balance of uses that foster vibrant, viable communities and economic development opportunities and address outdated development patterns, such as antiquated subdivisions. The amount of land designated for future land uses should allow the operation of real estate markets to provide adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents and business and may not be limited solely by the projected population. The element shall accommodate at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission.

The maximum capacity threshold included in Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy VOS2.1 inhibits the market to adjust for demand. Furthermore, while the policys intent is to prevent excess capacity from being approved and contributing to sprawl, potential capacity can likely be overestimated at the beginning of the planning period. The methodology for calculating potential capacity described in Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy VOS2.1 requires that when a Village is approved, ALL potential dwelling units of that Village will be added to potential capacity, regardless of when construction begins or when all phases of the development are completed. The 15-year waiting period also does not consider when the units of the initially approved Village will be built. The result is that one large scale development can lock out potential new developments from being built, or even approved, although demand may exist.

G. Conclusion: This report reviewed Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy VOS2.1. Timing/Phasing

of Development, specifically:

(1) preventing the approval of a Village development if the proposed units would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban development within the unincorporated County to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent 20-year period; and (2) preventing the approval of additional Village development until 15 years after the initial Village Master Development Plan in a Village Area is approved.

Analysis reveals that there is no correlation between these timing mechanisms and the intent to prevent sprawl. Timing of development only becomes relevant as an indicator of sprawl when it negatively impacts the ability of a community to provide and maintain

Sarasota 2050 Phase 3 changes

Documents

Transcript of Sarasota 2050 Phase 3 changes