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:
FN1:FiscalNeutrality NU8:HamletFocalPoints
FN2:Timing/PhasingofDevelopment NU9:400DwellingUnit(DU)LimitonHamlets
FN3:AffordableHousing OS9b:GreenbeltsbetweenHamlets
NU5:MinimumofOneVillageCenter OS5:GreenwaysasOpenSpaceinHamlets
NU7:HamletWalkability 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.

* * *
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
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,
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.
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.

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

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

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
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,
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.
* * *
* * *
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:
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
Page 32 of 109
May 21, 2014
facilities and services. The monitoring program established in Sarasota 2050 RMA
Policy VOS2.2 is designed to ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure and
prevent additional and disproportionate costs by adhering to the Fiscal Neutrality
requirements for Village development. Furthermore, the monitoring program can help
determine if elimination of the timing and phasing restrictions negatively impact infill
and redevelopment efforts and if strengthening of redevelopment incentives are required.

A residential capacity analysis is conducted annually to ensure that there is sufficient
acreage available to accommodate projected population growth for a ten-year planning
period and that the availability of infrastructure is financially feasible. The analysis area
should, therefore, include not only lands within the Urban Service Area, 2050 Village and
Settlement Area developments and the Affordable Housing Overlay, but recognize all
areas where urban forms of development are allowed or currently existing west of the
countryside line and within the Future Urban Area.



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 within single-family residential
subdivisions. Outside the Urban Service Area Boundary, potential dwelling
Page 33 of 109
May 21, 2014
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 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.
Page 34 of 109
May 21, 2014

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 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 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
Page 35 of 109
May 21, 2014
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:
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:
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.
* * *

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 and Future Urban 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. include additional lands west of the
countryside line, as designated on Figure RMA-3. The program shall also consider the
impacts of municipal growth on unincorporated county capacity.
* * *

Page 36 of 109
May 21, 2014

IV. FN-3 Affordable Housing

A. Issue Statement: The provision of affordable housing for developments within the
Village/Open Space Resource Management Area (RMA) should not be mandatory.

B. Issue Direction Proposed: Proposed policy and regulatory changes. Incentive provisions
shall be added to the Affordable Housing language within the zoning for Villages.
Alternative methodology for meeting the Affordable Housing requirement shall also be
included. This is due to the current regulatory provisions, inconsistent with policy, which
calls for an incentivized program. Additionally, a County-Wide Affordable Housing program
is recommended.

C. Relevant Policy & Regulatory Citations: There are relevant policies and regulations
affected by this issue; policy VOS1.4 and Zoning Regulation 11.2.3.c.4.v are affected by the
change of Affordable Housing requirements. In this Staff Report, full text of the relevant
policy and regulatory citations for this issue are provided with a brief explanation as to why
each is relevant.


Policy RMA1.1 Resource Management Area Ideals (RMA Ideals)
The Resource Management Area Map, depicted in Figure RMA-1, is an overlay to the
Sarasota County Future Land Use Map. The Resource Management Areas are designed
to:
(Second bullet point)
Provide for a variety of land uses and lifestyles to support residents of diverse ages,
incomes, and family sizes, including housing that is affordable to residents at or
below the median income for Sarasota County.

Policy VOS1.1 Intent
The Village/Open Space RMA creates an opportunity for a new form of development in
Sarasota County to replace what has become known as Urban Sprawl. This new
development pattern shall:
(First bullet point)
Be formed around Neighborhoods that include a broad range of family sizes and
incomes in a variety of housing types, including a substantial number and proportion
of Affordable Housing Units, which are integrated with commercial, office and civic
uses.

Policy VOS1.2 Village/Open Space RMA: Development Framework
The preferred development pattern within the Village/Open Space RMA designated on
Figure RMA-1 shall be in the form of Villages and Hamlets as illustrated in Figure VOS-
1: Example of Village Concept and Figure VOS-2: Example of Hamlet Concept, and in
the locations as depicted on Figure RMA-3, Village/Open Space RMA Land Use Map.
The boundaries of the Greenway RMA have been delineated using County-wide mapping
techniques which shall be adjusted to reflect more detailed on-site information obtained
Page 37 of 109
May 21, 2014
during the master planning process including the actual field verification of each
Greenway component as defined in Policy GS1.1. The purpose of such adjustment is to
provide interpretive relief by allowing minor adjustments to the Greenway boundary.
When such adjustments occur adjacent to a Village or Hamlet land use and are based
upon the demonstration that certain property does not meet the requirements of the
Greenway, then the future land use designation shall be construed to be the same
designation as the adjacent use. When such adjustments occur based on the
demonstration that certain properties in the Village/Open Space RMA meet the
requirements of the Greenway, then the resource overlay designation shall be construed
to be Greenway RMA. The approval of a Master Development Plan, in accordance with
Policies VOS2.3 and VOS2.4, shall be required prior to the commencement of any
specific Village or Hamlet development. Development densities greater than the
underlying Rural or Semi-Rural densities may only be achieved through the Transfer of
Development Rights in accordance with Objective TDR1, TDR2, and the associated
policies.

As an incentive to provide affordable housing, the maximum density of the Village may
be increased to 6 du/Gross Developable Acre, provided that 100% of the additional
dwelling units allowed by the density increase are Affordable Housing Units.

Policy VOS1.4 Village/Open Space RMA Principles
Developments within the Village/Open Space RMA shall exhibit all of the following
characteristics to qualify as a Receiving Zone under Density Incentives Program outlined
in Objective TDR1:
(Fifth bullet point)
Villages and Hamlets shall include a range of housing types that supports a broad
range of family sizes and incomes. Villages shall include housing for families with
incomes below the median family income for Sarasota County, with a goal that at
least 15% of the housing will be available for families with incomes below the
median family income for Sarasota County using techniques, including but not
limited to, density bonuses and inclusionary requirements in the Land Development
Regulations and Zoning Ordinance;

Zoning Regulations

Zoning Section 11.2.3.c.4.v. Village Affordable Housing Requirements.
(a) Intent. It is intent of Village development to provide for a broad range of
land uses and lifestyles to support residents of diverse ages, incomes, and
family sizes, including housing that is affordable to residents at or below
the median income for Sarasota County.
(b) Requirements to Build Affordable Housing. At a minimum, 15 percent of
the dwelling units within the Village shall be affordable. This requirement
shall be fulfilled as follows:
(1) At a minimum, ten percent of dwelling units within the Village shall
be made affordable to families at or below 80 percent of the median
income for Sarasota County.
Page 38 of 109
May 21, 2014
(2) At a minimum, an additional five percent of dwelling units within the
Village shall be made affordable to families making up to 100 percent
of the median income for Sarasota County.
(c) Location and Design of Affordable Housing Units.
(1) The external design requirements for dwelling units, as viewed from
public streets, shall not be relaxed for Affordable Housing Units.
(2) All affordable housing units shall be dispersed throughout the Village,
and all residents of Affordable Housing Units shall have equal access
to Village amenities.
(3) Each phase of development shall include some affordable housing
units.
(d) Income and Eligibility Standards.
(1) A home shall be deemed to be affordable when all housing costs
(including Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance for homeownership
or total rent for renters) do not exceed 30 percent of the gross income
of the above income requirements based upon household size. The
relationship of household size to each home shall be determined based
upon the number of bedrooms that are provided to insure that the home
is sufficiently sized to support an eligible household. The Board of
County Commissioners may grant an exception to the eligibility
standards to permit up to 40 percent of the gross income to cover all
housing costs if and when the 30-year conventional home loan interest
rate reaches nine percent.
(2) The purchaser or leaseholder of each affordable housing unit shall be
verified as income eligible by the Administrative/Regulatory Agency.
(3) Income from the following sources shall be considered for the
purposes of income eligibility:
(i) Earned Income from wages, salaries, commissions, tips, and
bonuses.
(ii) Rental Income from investment properties.
(iii) Income from pensions and retirement plans.
(iv) Income from investments and securities.
(4) Income from the following sources shall not be considered for the
purposes of income eligibility:
(i) Child Support.
(ii) Social Security Income/Disability.
(iii) Public Assistance (welfare benefits, food stamps).
(iv) Earned Income Tax Credits.
(v) Social Security.
Page 39 of 109
May 21, 2014
(5) All rental units that fulfill the development obligation for affordable
housing shall require any new occupant of a dwelling unit to meet the
above income eligibility requirements.
(e) Deed Restrictions.
(1) Deed restrictions for Affordable Housing Units shall require the rental
of an Affordable Housing Unit at an affordable price for a period of
five years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Within the
first five years, the rental rates for Affordable Housing Units may only
increase consistent with:
(i) The increase in cost of living since the unit was first sold as
determined by the Consumer Price Index; and
(ii) Fair market value of any improvements to the structure or lot.
(f) Administration.
(1) As a part of the Master Development Plan review process the applicant
shall make the necessary provisions to identify the mechanism for
reporting the sale price or rental price for all affordable housing units.
(2) The development order conditions of the rezoning action shall include
a requirement that an annual monitoring report be prepared by the
applicant or his/her successor regarding the affordable housing
program including a description of the mechanisms in place for
enforcing the terms of the affordable housing plan and the deed
restrictions. This annual report may be included as a part of the DRI
annual monitoring report, where applicable.

D. Information Supporting Proposed Direction: There are substantive changes in regulation
and policy direction being proposed. Research that identifies supportive information for
new language is as follows:

2013 Rental Market Study, Affordable Housing Needs Shimberg Center for Housing
Studies, University of Florida, 2013.
This report documents housing market conditions and affordable housing needs in Florida's
counties, cities and neighborhoods, with specific data available by county.

Affordable Housing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/
A comprehensive website which provides data on rent-burdened households across the
United States.

Housing and Wealth Accumulation: Intergenerational Impacts Boehm, T. and A.
Schlotman. Working Paper LIHO-01.15, 2001. Harvard University: Center for Housing
Studies.
A research paper investigating the impacts of home-ownership on low-income families.

Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing Douglass R. Porter, Urban Land Institute.
Page 40 of 109
May 21, 2014
This publication explores mechanisms by which inclusionary zoning is utilized for creating
affordable housing.

Out of Reach. National Low-income Housing Coalition, 2011.
A report on the wages necessary to afford modest rental homes in communities across the
country.

Out of Reach 2010, Fact Sheet National Low-income Housing Coalition, 2010.
An in-depth analysis by state and county of the wages necessary to afford modest rental
homes in communities across the country, and what percentages are burdened paying more
than 50% on housing.

Race, Poverty and Urban Sprawl: Access to Opportunities through Regional Strategies
John A. Powell, 2010.
A research paper on programs that target affordable housing regionally.

Residential Density and Psychological Health Among Children in Low-Income Families R.
Harris. Environment and Behavior. 33(2): 165-180, 2001.
This study focuses on the impact of low income housing on education outcomes.

Somethings Gotta Give: Working Families and the Cost of Housing B. J. Lipman, Center
for Housing Policy, Washington, D.C., 2005.
A publication studying the impacts and strategies to address affordable housing for working
families in the United States.

E. Information Refuting Proposed Direction: No information that may refute the proposed
direction has been identified.

F. Analysis of Information: Affordable housing takes many different forms, and this review
uses the term broadly to encompass all housing developed at levels affordable to extremely
low-, low- and moderate-income households (0-120% AMI). This review of the affordable
housing requirements of Village/Open Space RMA was generated in part by a concern of
the development community which stated that the requirement of 15 percent affordable
units within the development is incentivized in Comprehensive Plan policy, but mandatory
within the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the concern is that affordable housing seems
more prescriptive within the Village/Open Space RMA than anywhere else in Sarasota
County.

The inclusion of consideration of affordable housing in Sarasota 2050 Comprehensive Plan
Policies and Zoning Regulations is promoted by the Comprehensive Plan Policies of the
Housing Chapter that encourage the production of affordable housing through zoning
regulation and density incentives. Policy VOS1.4 Village/Open Space RMA Principles,
states that Villages shall include housing for families with incomes below the median
family income for Sarasota County, with a goal that at least 15% of the housing will be
available for families with incomes below the median family income for Sarasota
County Policy VOS1.2 Village/Open Space RMA: Development Framework, States
that As an incentive to provide affordable housing, the maximum density of the Village
may be increased to 6 du/Gross Developable Acre, provided that 100 percent of the
Page 41 of 109
May 21, 2014
additional dwelling units allowed by the density increase are Affordable Housing Units.
These policies were implemented through the 2050 Zoning Ordinance provisions which
states that 15 percent of all units in a Village shall be affordable, and that the maximum
density of the developed area of a Village can be increased from 5 to 6 dwelling units per
acre if all additional units are affordable. An Affordable Housing Plan that provides the
details of how the affordable housing requirements are to be met is required as part of the
Master Plan and Rezoning approval process.

Affordable Housing in Sarasota County
Affordable housing is defined as housing with monthly rents or monthly mortgage payments
(including taxes and insurance) that do not exceed 30 percent of the annual gross income of
families at or below Area Median Income (AMI). The AMI for a family of 4 in Sarasota
County is $57,300 (refer to the 2014 subsidy table below). This simply means that a family
of four can afford a maximum rent or $1,433 per month, or maintain a maximum mortgage
of $248,839, according to 2014 calculations. According to the American Community
Surveys 2012 data highlighting Household Income for the past 12 Months in Sarasota
County, over 50% of the Countys population makes at or below 120% AMI (< $69,000).
Regulations implementing the Sarasota 2050 Plan for Village/Open Space housing
developments require that a minimum of 15% of the dwelling units be affordable; two-thirds
of which should be affordable to families at or below 80% of area median income for
Sarasota County and one third affordable to families making up to 100 % of the median
income for Sarasota County.

Page 42 of 109
May 21, 2014
Data from the Shimberg Center for
Affordable Housing Report shows
investing in affordable housing is a critical
and growing need in Sarasota County. In
2010, about 38 percent of Sarasota
Countys renter households (some 13,973
renter households) were estimated as rent-
burdened. In 2012, the percentage fell to
36. The report concludes that this
proportion of rent-burdened households is
projected to remain the same until 2020. By
then, less than half of rent-burdened
families will be severely cost-burdened,
with more than 50 percent of their earnings
going toward rent and utilities. As shown
in the image to the left, the shortfall occurs
in the Orlando-Kissimmee, Fort Lauderdale
and Sarasota-Bradenton areas; there are 22
or fewer affordable and available units per
100 for those meeting 0-30% AMI.

Although socioeconomic conditions vary widely within the County, the need to create
affordable housing is important, due to the percentage of the Countys population at or
below 120% AMI. The development of affordable housing increases spending and
employment in the surrounding economy, acts as an important source of revenue for local
governments, and reduces the likelihood of foreclosure. Without a sufcient supply of
affordable housing, employers can be at a competitive disadvantage because of their
subsequent difculty attracting and retaining workers. In addition, not only does affordable
housing change the lives of its residents, the benefits are passed along to the community in
significant ways; it promotes economic and social integration while building community.
Additionally, there are segments of the population living on very low, fixed incomes
because of age or disabilities that affect a persons earning capacity. Studies have
demonstrated that providing stable housing for these groups is a good investment because
social service spending is reduced once such populations are living in housing they can
afford.

The Impacts and Location of Affordable Housing
There are misconceptions about Affordable Housing within the community. Some residents
are of the belief that affordable housing decreases property values, has a negative impact on
education outcomes, generates crime and burdens tax-payers. Research shows that properly
designed, integrated and managed affordable housing can have a positive impact on
surrounding neighborhoods.

Imagesource:U.S.CensusBureau,20092011American
CommunitySurvey.
Page 43 of 109
May 21, 2014
Impact on Property Values
According to recent research, affordable housing does not definitively have a positive or
negative impact on nearby property values. Studies finding that affordable housing
projects have negative, positive, or no impact on nearby property values are all common.
The impact of a particular housing project depends on complex interactions between
factors such as project scale, management type, and the characteristics of the
neighborhood in which the project is located. It should be noted that many studies on this
topic are based on data from major metropolitan areas, mostly in urban settings. Findings
may not be transferable from larger cities to Sarasota County. However, these studies
have access to some of the most comprehensive data on affordable housing projects
spanning many different types of neighborhoods and project types. The benefit of these
studies is that they are the best able to reliably examine the complex interactive effects
that play a role in determining the impact of affordable housing projects.

Impact on Neighborhood Crime
Research on the relationship between affordable housing and crime identifies project
scale as the most important factor in determining the impact on neighborhood crime rates.
Multiple studies find that smaller integrated projects (affordable housing integrated
within developments) have no impact on neighborhood crime; but that larger
concentrated affordable housing projects (80% or higher affordable housing-units) may
result in increased crime. This finding was common across multiple types of concentrated
affordable housing, including non-profit rental housing, public housing, and supportive
housing.

Impact on Education Outcomes
Housing has the potential to significantly influence education outcomes for residents and
communities; however, few studies explore what direct impact that quality, affordable
housing has on education outcomes. Rather, studies tend to examine how poor housing
conditions or high residential mobility are related to negative education outcomes. As
affordable housing programs are specifically intended to provide quality living
environments and improve residential stability, it can be logically inferred that higher-
quality affordable housing improves education outcomes. However, since most literature
does not explicitly examine this fully, it cannot be said that affordable housing
definitively improves education outcomes.

Impact on Earnings, and Public Service Dependence
Affordable housing may increase wealth accumulation among low-income families by
providing opportunities for homeownership, which represents the largest source of wealth
accumulation for most households. Additionally, affordable housing programs may
increase earnings and decrease public service dependence among low-income
households.

The conversation about where affordable housing should be located within Sarasota County
cannot be had without further evaluation; however, affordable housing should not be
focused in one general area or location, as studies show. Affordable housing should be
dispersed fairly throughout the entire County in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plans housing policies and the Countys intent to achieve a balance of incomes in all
Page 44 of 109
May 21, 2014
communities. No single neighborhood should experience an uneven concentration of
housing units affordable to very low, low, moderate or workforce households.

Affordable Housing Issues within Current Policy and Regulations
The Comprehensive Plan has 4 policies that deal directly and specifically with providing
new affordable housing units, however, no units have been constructed under these policies.
In addition, the Zoning Code creates an incentive through item 11.2.13.e.5 by allowing
bonus units which has not been widely utilized. It also should be noted that neither policy
nor regulation stipulates how long the properties should remain affordable.

FLU Policy 3.1.1 states that the county may adopt an inclusionary zoning ordinance that
will allow an increase of up to 120% of the upper limit of each of the residential
designations. This has not been implemented.

FLU 3.1.7 establishes the Affordable Housing Overlay designation and applies to only one
parcel in the county. This has been codified as a zoning overlay district and may not apply
to any other parcel in the county, thereby reducing affordable housing throughout the entire
county.

FLU 3.14 and 3.18 provide density bonuses that allow projects to exceed 13 units per acre,
up to 25 units per acre when providing a portion of the units as affordable housing, in
addition to other development criteria. However, there are only 2 zoning districts (PMI,
PED) that allow more than 13 units per acre and the intent of both districts is to develop
mixed use, greatly reducing the need for additional density above 13 units per acre. Neither
of these districts, has, or references, provisions and standards for affordable housing.

VOS 1.2 attempts to create an incentive to develop affordable housing units by allowing an
increase of 6du/Gross Developable Area, provided that 100% of the additional dwelling
units allowed by the density increase are affordable housing units. This policy doesnt
create enough of an incentive for developers to create less-than-market rate units as
affordable housing. It provides no additional benefit to them, so it is not used.

Zoning Regulation 11.2.13.e.5 attempts to create a density bonus through the use of
Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) of up to 2 du/ac. This is providing that any
Community Housing (100-120% AMI) or Affordable Housing Units (at or below 100%
AMI) created over the required 15% are built on site. To be eligible for this increase, at
least 50% of the units over and above the number required should be Affordable Housing
Units. Because this is a TDR condition, only those utilizing Transfer of Development Rights
can use this bonus. It is unlikely that smaller developments can or will take advantage of
this bonus.

Affordable Housing in the context of Fiscal Neutrality
One of the primary goals of the Sarasota 2050 Plan is to create and retain more affordable
housing. Presently, this goal is approached by imposing an affordable housing requirement
on development within the Village/Open Space Resource Management Area (RMA). The
Laffer Report on Fiscal Neutrality (2014) encourages the use of market based incentives to
generate and allocate affordable housing. The Report also suggests that developers should
be allowed to opt out of Affordable Housing requirements based on an agreed-upon
Page 45 of 109
May 21, 2014
surcharge, used to subsidize housing affordability for applicable residents, as well as
through the use of market based incentives to generate and allocate affordable housing.

According to the Laffer Report the higher the proportion of affordable housing, the less
likely the developments will be to exhibit fiscal neutrality, as the property tax receipts from
those homes will be lower than the County average. However, with the addition of
additional options, such as opt out fees, inclusionary density (discussed below),
developers may be more stimulated to create affordable housing within Village/Open Space
Resource Management Areas (RMA).

An earlier examination of In Lieu fees was undertaken by the Board of County
Commissioners under Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2013-B Affordable Housing
Overlay/Palmer Place. Although this is a preferred method of many municipalities is to
require the village to pay a predetermined amount into an account set up specifically for
affordable housing-related purposes, instead of building the Affordable Units on site, this
measure has been deemed inappropriate legally on a small scale basis, siting constitutional
muster.

Incentives and Options for Affordable Housing
Across the United States, municipalities have offered a wide range of incentives and
bonuses for creating Affordable Housing. These incentives offer less rigid strategies for
creating housing which is affordable to those making less than 120 percent of area median
income. The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan specifies as among its principles, derived
from the 2004 Housing for All report of the Affordable Housing Work Group that
Incentives and regulatory changes that stimulate private sector development of community
housing are integral to community housing. This is a very desirable principle that would
help to maintain private sector development of adequate housing supply sufficient to
maintain housing affordability.

Housing Policy HOU 1.2.4 of the Comprehensive Plan states, Facilitate the development of
Community housing through the provision of a Community and Affordable Housing
incentive program based on regulatory concessions, financial incentives and assistance,
density bonuses or other means. Continue and promote the existing incentive program,
which grants expedited processing to projects including Community housing. This
principle even more explicitly endorses maintaining sufficient private sector incentives for
the market to produce sufficient housing supply.

Current policy requires that, when a developer seeks to build a number of residential units,
that development must include a percentage of so-called affordable units in this case, 15%
of units within Village/Open Space RMA must be affordable. The development community
has found that there are inconsistences with incentivized policy and mandatory regulations.
A summary of tools which can be used to enable developers to provide the majority of the
affordable units needed:

Inclusionary Housing
Designed as a local regulatory tool, inclusionary housing requires developers to include a
number of affordable homes in new residential developments over a certain size. The
number of affordable units to be included in the new developments is based on a
Page 46 of 109
May 21, 2014
percentage of the total number of units in the development (generally 12% - 15%). The
cost of providing the affordable units is offset with a density bonus. The affordability
level of the designated units can target one income group, such as households earning
50% of the median income, or may serve a range of incomes. Additionally, the resale
price of the affordable units is restricted for a number of years. Currently 2050 policy
implements inclusionary housing in Villages, however the affordability is measured as a
one-time transaction and does not remain affordable for a specified time-frame.

Must be enacted through local ordinance.
Applies to new residential developments at and above a certain size (e.g., 50 units
or more).
Cost of developing the affordable units is generally offset with a density bonus.
Affordable units may target particular income groups or serve a range of incomes.
Price controls are set for a number of years (e.g., 2030 years).

In Practice | Montgomery County, Maryland
Enacted in 1974, the countys Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) Ordinance
requires developers of projects of 20 or more units to make 12.5% to 15% of the new
units affordable to lower-income households. In exchange for the affordable units,
developers are granted a 22% density bonus. An MPDU has a legally enforceable
control period of 30 years from the date of settlement and if the unit is sold during
this time period the price is determined by the MPDU office. Owners are required to
live in the MPDU as their primary residence throughout the 30 year time period.
Since the inception of the ordinance in 1976, more than 11,800 affordable units have
been developed. Developers reported their profits on projects with inclusionary units
were about equal to those of market-rate developments.

Down Payment Assistance
Down Payment Assistance programs provide interest-free or low-interest loans
provided by the developer to qualified low- to moderate-income homebuyers, which
may be used for down payment or closing costs. In some programs, the loans are
forgivable over a number of years as long as the property remains the applicants primary
residence for a given number of years. In a Village, a developer shall provide down
payment assistance to qualified residents who fall at or below 120% AMI.

Provides down payment or closing cost assistance to qualifying homebuyers.
Loans are low-interest or interest-free.

In Practice
Due to the shortage of data from developer-assisted down payment assistance
programs in the United States, it is difficult to measure their success.

Bonus Units
As an incentive for providing Affordable Housing Units within a Village, the developer
would be allowed an additional market-rate unit as of right for every Affordable
Housing Unit or Community Housing Unit created, up to 15% of total units.

Page 47 of 109
May 21, 2014
Provides a logical incentive to create affordable housing.
Provides a fair exchange for the developers agreement to build affordable
housing on site.
In Practice | Arlington County, Virginia
In the early 1980s, Arlington officials were using density bonuses in select areas of
the county. By 2001, the county began granting 25 percent bonuses and one-to-one
units to promote mixed-income housing developments containing units affordable to
low and moderate-income families. The market rate units are designed to offset the
costs of the affordable units contained within the property. Today Arlington County
uses density bonuses in a variety of land-use and planning incentives to promote the
production of new affordable housing units throughout the county.

G. Conclusion: Given the changes in the past few years in the housing market and the
economic environment, it may be appropriate to comprehensively re-examine the objectives,
policies, and implementing regulations, for providing affordable housing in Sarasota County
as a whole. It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners investigate
Affordable Housing strategies County-wide, not just as it relates to Village/Open Space
RMA developments, as it is the only portion of the county where Affordable Housing
policies and regulations are prescriptive. A more integrated approach to neighborhood
development efforts is necessary to respond to the needs of those living below 120% AMI
and to increase access to stable, quality and affordable housing throughout Sarasota County.
Staff recommends provisions for incentivizing Affordable Housing Units for low, very low,
moderate income and workforce households including, but not limited to, bonuses providing
additional units for every provided affordable unit, and a developer-funded down-payment
assistance program.

Current Regulations
Under the current policy, Villages are encouraged to provide Affordable Housing at a goal
of fifteen percent. Within regulations, Villages are required to provide Affordable Units,
and they are not incentivized.

Proposed Changes
The proposed changes attempt to incentivize Affordable Housing by creating additional
methods for Villages to create affordable housing, while maintaining housing affordability
for Sarasota residents. Developers have the option of using current regulations, OR, they
shall be allowed to create another creative and innovative methodology to achieve the
2050s affordable housing goal of fifteen percent. To incentivize the Affordable Housing
Units, residential density will be granted with the approval of a Master Land Use Plan in
addition to the base residential density as follows; 1.5 dwelling units for every Affordable
Housing Unit provided, and .5 dwelling units for every Community Housing Unit provided.
The following graphic shows an illustrated calculation for a conceptual Village with 1,000
Units. The left of the image illustrates what regulations currently allow; 15% Affordable
Housing Units with no incentive. On the right, the proposed regulations show 15%
Affordable Housing Units, with the Bonus Units allowed under the proposed regulations.
Page 48 of 109
May 21, 2014

Staffs analysis of Affordable Housing scratches the surface of a larger issue which should
be tackled county-wide. This solution for Village/Open Space RMA is not permanent for
addressing long term affordability. There is a need to create a balanced housing stock which
offers housing choices affordable for all income groups throughout Sarasota County, to
mitigate the demand for affordable housing caused by new development projects and to
mitigate the shortage of affordable housing stock created by development of housing that is
affordable only to higher income households. The inclusion of the proposed incentives will
help to insure that new development projects within the Village/Open Space RMA provide a
fair portion of affordable housing to meet the 2050s affordable housing goals.

H. Proposed Policy & Regulatory Language Changes: Provided below -


Policy VOS1.2 Village/Open Space RMA: Development Framework
* * *
As an incentive to provide affordable housing for families with incomes below the Area
Median Family Income (AMI) for Sarasota County, the maximum density of the Village
Page 49 of 109
May 21, 2014
may be increased to 6 du/Gross Developable Acre, provided that 100% of the additional
dwelling units allowed by the density increase are Affordable Housing Units.

As an additional incentive to provide housing that is affordable, Villages shall be allowed
2.0 additional bonus units for every Affordable Housing Unit provided on site to
residents at or below 80% AMI, and 1.0 additional bonus unit for every community
housing unit provided on site to residents at or below 120% AMI.
* * *

Policy VOS1.4 Village/Open Space RMA Principles
characteristics to qualify as a Receiving Zone under Density Incentives Program outlined in
Objective TDR1:
(Fifth bullet point)

Villages and Hamlets shall include a range of housing types that support a broad
range of family sizes and incomes. Villages shall include housing for families with
incomes below the Area Median Family Income (AMI) for Sarasota County, with a
goal that at least 15% of the housing will be available for families with incomes
below the Median Family Income for Sarasota County using techniques including but
not limited to, density bonuses dwelling units and inclusionary requirements in the
Land Development Regulations and Zoning Ordinance.
* * *
Zoning Regulations
Zoning Section 11.2.3. Village Planned Development District (VPD) Zoning Standards.
* * *
c. General District Requirements.
* * *
1. Residential Density
i. Villages are entitled to a base residential density of 0.29 dwelling units per
acre of Developed Area. Additional density may be obtained only by
transfer from sending zones under the Transfer of Development Rights
program.

ii. Required Minimum Density within Developed Area: 3 du/Gross Developable
Acre.

iii. Target Density: 6 du/Net Residential Acre.

iv. Maximum Density within Developed Area: 5du/Gross Developable Area or
6 du/Gross Developable Area if the additional units are Affordable Housing
Units.
* * *
4. VillageGeneral.
* * *
Page 50 of 109
May 21, 2014
v. Village Affordable Housing Requirements.
(a) Intent. It is intent of Village development to provide for a broad range
of land uses and lifestyles to support residents of diverse ages, incomes,
and family sizes, including housing that is affordable to residents at or
below the median income for Sarasota County.
(b) Requirements to Build Affordable Housing. At a minimum, 15 percent
of the dwelling units within the Village shall be affordable. This
requirement shall be fulfilled as follows:
(1) At a minimum, ten percent of dwelling units within the Village
shall be sold or rented to families at or below 80 percent of the
median income Area Median Income (AMI) for Sarasota County,
and an additional five percent of dwelling units within the Village
shall be sold or rented to families at or below 100 percent of the
AMI for Sarasota County.; or
(2) At a minimum, an additional five percent of dwelling units within
the Village shall be sold or rented to families making up to 100
percent of the median income for Sarasota County.
(2) Any other methodology or program that, at a minimum, achieves
these levels of housing affordability within a Village, and is
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
* * *
(g) Residential Bonus Dwelling Unit Incentive for Villages: As an incentive
for providing housing that is affordable within Villages, the following
residential bonus dwelling units shall be granted with the approval of a
Master Land Use Plan in addition to the base residential unit count
established by Section 11.2.3.c.1.i.
(1) 2.0 bonus dwelling units for every Affordable Housing unit
provided on site.
(2) 1.0 bonus dwelling unit for every Community Housing unit
provided on site.
* * *

Page 51 of 109
May 21, 2014
V. NU-5: Minimum of One Village Center

A. Issue Statement: Evaluate the requirement that there be at least one Village Center for
each Village. Recommend options for providing no Village Center.

B. Issue Direction Proposed: Of the three basic directions available (1-No change; 2-
Modify provisions; 3-Eliminate provisions), the recommendation is to modify provisions
to allow a reduction or elimination of the non-residential building square footage
required within a Village Center and to clarify that each of the three areas designated
Village Land Use on the RMA-3 Land Use Map (North, Central and South) have at least
one Village Center

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


Policy VOS1.2a - Villages
Villages are a collection of Neighborhoods that have been designed so that a majority of
the housing units are within a walking distance or mile radius of a Neighborhood
Center. Villages shall be supported by internally designed, mixed-use Village Centers
(designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and government
use and services needs of Village residents), and the Village shall be surrounded by large
expanses of Open Space that are designed to protect the character of the rural landscape
and provide separation between Villages and existing low density rural development.

The minimum size of a Village is intended to be sufficient to support a public elementary
school.

Village Center
Village Center Maximum
Size:

100 acres
Non-Residential
Commercial/ Office
Maximum Size: 300,000 gross leasable square feet
Minimum Size: 50,000 gross leasable square feet
Village Center Land Use Mix:
Developed Land
Minimum Land Area
Residential 25%
Commercial/ Office 30%
Public/Civic 10%
Public Parks 5%

Page 52 of 109
May 21, 2014
Policy VOS1.4 - Village/Open Space RMA Principles
characteristics to qualify as a Receiving Zone under Density Incentives Program outlined
in Objective TDR1:
(Fourth Bullet)
Villages shall include a Village Center with sufficient non-residential uses to
provide for the daily needs of Village residents, by phase of development, in a
form that is conveniently served by regional bus service;

Policy VOS2.5. Master Development Plan Requirements
(Third Bullet)
That the integrity of the mixed-use district is not compromised by allowing
extensive single-uses. The land use mix shall be phased to provide an adequate
mix of non-residential uses to serve residential development within each
development phase or sub-phase.

Zoning Regulations


a. Purpose and Intent Statement. The VPD District provides an area for
coordinated mixed-use developments which include Neighborhoods, each
comprised of a broad range of residential housing types, one Neighborhood
Center per Neighborhood, Recreational Space, schools, and one Village
Center that includes residential, commercial, office, Public/Civic uses, and
Public Space within a planned development. Each VPD District has
appropriate perimeter buffering and Open Space that is achieved through the
Transfer of Development Rights and density bonus programs. The variety of
land uses available in this district will allow flexibility to respond to market
demands and the needs of tenants and residents, which provides for a variety
of physically and functionally integrated land uses

b Description of Form. A Village is a collection of Neighborhoods that have
been designed so that a majority of the housing units are within a walking
distance or one-quarter mile radius of a Neighborhood Center. A Village shall
be supported by one internally designed, mixed-use Village Center (designed
specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, and Public/Civic use
and services needs of Village residents), and the Village shall generally be
surrounded by large expanses of Open Space that are designed to protect the
character of the rural landscape and provide separation between the Village
and existing low density

2. Nonresidential.
i. Village Center Commercial/Retail/Office.
Maximum Size: 300,000 gross leasable square feet.
Minimum Size: 50,000 gross leasable square feet.
Page 53 of 109
May 21, 2014
ii. Neighborhood Center Commercial/Retail/Office.

4. VillageGeneral.
iii. Village Land Use Mix by Phase: Residential to Nonresidential
Uses
(a) The residential to nonresidential land use mix shall be
determined on a case-by-case basis, consistent with these
regulations. The Village Center shall be designed
specifically to provide sufficient nonresidential uses to serve
the daily and weekly retail/commercial, office, civic and
government uses and services needs of Village residents. The
extent to which one or more Neighborhood Centers in a
Village also serves those needs shall be taken into account
when determining the mix and size of the Village Center.
(b) Each applicant for a Village shall submit a market analysis
study to determine the total amount of commercial/retail that
is based upon a methodology consistent with the
Commercial Classification System of the Future Land Use
Chapter of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan for the
determination of need for various sized Commercial Centers
and a similar methodology for other nonresidential uses. The
market analysis shall also include the following:
(1) An identification of the daily and weekly retail, office,
and public/civic needs of the Village residents according
to the residential land uses designated in the Master
Land Use Plan;
(2) An assessment that demonstrates that the nonresidential
land uses designated in the Master Land Use Plan will
be sufficient to serve those needs;
(3) An assessment which defines the mix of land uses which
includes sufficient nonresidential uses to provide for the
daily needs of Village residents by phase or sub-phase of
development.
(c) The methodology for the market analysis shall be submitted
to County staff prior to or at the pre-application meeting and
approved by County staff prior to the submittal of the Master
Land Use Plan.
(d) The market analysis study shall be reviewed as a part of the
Master Land Use Plan approval process for the rezoning of
the property and by an independent advisor retained by
Sarasota County at the expense of the applicant. If the
market analysis study is found incorrect, insufficient or
noncompliant in any regard by the independent advisor or
otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners, the
analysis shall be rejected until revised to the satisfaction of
the advisor and the Board.
Page 54 of 109
May 21, 2014
(e) Notwithstanding the results of a market analysis study
wherein the results would require a different phasing plan for
nonresidential development, the phasing plan shall commit
to providing the construction of the following:

% of total dwelling units
with certificate of
occupancy
% of total
commercial/retail/office
square footage
% of civic/government
uses*
25% 10%
50% 25% 75%
75% 50% 100%
100% 75%

d. Village Center Requirements.

4. Village Center: Land Use Mix Requirements. The following table
summarizes the mix requirements for a Village Center, as percentages of land
area.

Village Center
Mix: Developed Land min (%) max (%)
Residential 25 50
Commercial/Retail 20 40
Office 10 20
Public/Civic 10 N/A
Public Space 5 N/A
* Excludes schools. The school requirement is addressed through Fiscal Neutrality.

D. Information Supporting Direction: There are little substantive changes in policy
direction being proposed, however research that identifies supportive information for
existing and proposed policy are as follows:
a. Bohl, Charles C. Place Making: Developing Town Centers, Main Streets and
Urban Villages. Urban Land Institute Press, 2002.
This publication identifies the importance of varying uses in New Urbanism type
developments. The author highlights success stories from projects across the
United States.
b. Neal, Peter. Urban Villages and the Making of Communities. Taylor & Francis,
2003. Identifies and delivers workable solutions that define models of sustainable
and identifiable urban form.
Page 55 of 109
May 21, 2014
c. Schwanke, Dean. Mixed-Use Development Handbook (Development Handbook
Series). Urban Land Institute Press, 2
nd
Edition, 2003.
This publication contains in-depth information on planning and design and
regulatory practices on complex mixed-use projects.

E. Information Refuting Direction: There is no substantive change in direction being
proposed.

F. Analysis of Information: The introductory paragraph to the Village/Open Space
policies of 2050 states that the Village/Open Space RMA provides an opportunity for a
new form of developmentas an alternative to urban sprawl. The first Objective in
RMA is to prevent urban sprawl by guiding the development of lands into compact,
mixed-use, pedestrian friendly Villages. The provision for non-residential uses through
the establishment of mixed use Village and Neighborhood Centers is central to the
concept of Villages as an alternative to urban sprawl. It is the intent that the Village and
Neighborhood Centers provide for the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and
government use and services needs of the Village residents. The result is fewer
vehicular trips outside of the Village to reach these services, and the opportunity for
pedestrian access to these services within the Village. Without the non-residential uses
in close proximity and integrated into the residential uses, the Villages resemble other
suburban residential development typical of Sarasota County and other communities.

Comprehensive plan policy and zoning regulation require that each Village have a
minimum of one Village Center that includes at least 50,000 square feet of gross
leasable building area, to provide for the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and
government use and services needs of the Village residents. Neighborhood Centers can
provide these uses, but have no minimum requirement. The zoning regulations also
require the amount of non-residential uses to be provided be determined on a case by
case basis, and that a market analysis be completed to identify appropriate amounts. The
Village Center is also intended to be the location of higher density residential uses, and a
minimum of 15% of the land area of the Village Center must consist of residential uses.
In addition, the zoning regulations require that each Village Center be considered a
major stop on future local transit network, and transit stop facilities, to the maximum
extent feasible, shall be integrated into the design of a Village Center. The Village
Center is also required to plan for a park and ride facility to be constructed once transit
service is available. Each Village Center must provide a minimum of 5% of its land
area in Public Space. Public Spaces are defined as any publicly accessible square plaza
or green that is available for passive or active recreation. It is the intent that these Public
Spaces be integrated into the non-residential uses of the Village Center. Beyond its
functional purpose the Village Center is intended to also be a focal point that is designed
to create a sense of place, and be a community center for the Village.

It is clear that the Village Center is more than just commercial and office space. It is
commercial and office space integrated with residential uses, public space and transit
functions. However, the issue statement that generated this analysis allow for no
Village Center in the event it can be justified through the required market study is
likely intended to address the non-residential building area component of the Village
Center and not the other required components or uses. In this case the more appropriate
Page 56 of 109
May 21, 2014
analysis would be to allow for an elimination of, or a reduction in, the minimum
required non-residential component of a Village Center. Though may seem unlikely
that a market analysis for each of the North, South and Central Village areas would find
a need for less than 50,000 square feet of non-residential building to serve the Village
residents, there may be factors including other Village development in proximity that
could reduce the need for non-residential uses. To address this concern, language can be
added to policy and zoning regulation that would allow the reduction or elimination of
non-residential building square footage in a Village Center where the market study
indicates such need, or lack of need.

To further address the NU-5 issue, and in light of NU-18 recommendations that provide
for smaller Village Master Plan applications, clarity should be provided the 2050
regulations as to when a Village Center is required. Though not entirely clear, it seems
the intent of the 2050 policies and regulations are that each of the three areas designated
Village Land Use on the RMA-3 Land Use Map (North, Central and South) have at least
one Village Center, and not that each Village Master Plan project have a at least one
Village Center. Language should be added to the zoning regulation that makes this
clarification. More than one Village Center may be provided in each of the three areas
designated Village, as was addressed in the first phase of the 2050 policy and regulation
evaluation.

G. Conclusion: Provide amended language in the 2050 comprehensive plan policy and
zoning regulations that will allow a reduction or elimination of the non-residential
building square footage required within a Village Center where the market analysis
demonstrates such need, or lack of need. In addition, provide amended language in the
2050 zoning regulations to clarify that each of the three areas designated Village Land
Use on the RMA-3 Land Use Map (North, Central and South) have at least one Village
Center, and not that each Village Master Plan project have a at least one Village Center.



Policy VOS1.2a - Villages
Villages are a collection of Neighborhoods that have been designed so that a majority of
the housing units are within a walking distance or mile radius of a Neighborhood
Center. Villages shall be supported by internally designed, mixed-use Village Centers
(designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and government
use and services needs of Village residents), and the Village shall be surrounded by
large expanses of Open Space that are designed to protect the character of the rural
landscape and provide separation between Villages and existing low density rural
development.

The minimum size of a Village is intended to be sufficient to support a public
elementary school.
Page 57 of 109
May 21, 2014

Figure VOS-1 shows an Example Village Concept, and Figure VOS-3 (Examples of
Minimum Buffer Requirements) and Figure VOS-4 (Examples of Greenway RMA Edge
Treatment) shows cross-sections for an example Neighborhood within a Village.
Maximum Size: 3000 acres of Developed Area
Minimum Size: 1000 acres of Developed Area if not
adjacent to Urban Service Area
Boundary (USB). Areas separated
from the USB by I-75 are not
considered adjacent to the USB.
Minimum Open Space
outside the Developed Area:
Equal to or greater than the Developed
Area
Residential
Minimum Density
within
Developed Area:

3 du/Gross Developable Acre
Target Density: 6 du/Net Residential Acre
Maximum Density
within
Developed Area:
5 du/Gross Developable Acre or 6
du/Gross Developable Acre if the
additional units are Affordable
Housing Units
Village Center
Village Center
Maximum
Size:

100 acres
Non-Residential
Commercial/ Office
Minimum Size: 50,000 gross leasable square feet
1

Village Center Land Use Mix:
Developed Land
Minimum Land
Area
Maximum Land
Area
Residential 15% 65%
Commercial/ Office 25% 75%
Public/Civic 5% Not Applicable
Public Space 5% Not Applicable

1 May be reduced where a market analysis determines appropriate.

* * *

Page 58 of 109
May 21, 2014
Zoning Regulations

1. Residential Density.
i. Minimum Density within Developed Area: 3 du/Gross Developable
Acre.
ii. Target Density: 6 du/Net Residential Acre.
iii. Maximum Density within Developed Area: 5 du/Gross Developable
Acre or 6 du/Gross Developable Area if the additional units are
Affordable Housing Units.
Residential Density is calculated for the entire development site and not
for each individual neighborhood.
2. Nonresidential.
i. Village Center Commercial/Retail/Office.
Minimum Size: 50,000 gross leasable square feet. This amount may
be reduced or eliminated where the required market analysis
determines appropriate.
ii. Neighborhood Center Commercial/Retail/Office.
d. Village Center Requirements.
3. Number of Village Centers. There shall be no more than one Village
Center within each of the three areas (North, Central, and South)
designated Village Land Use on the RMA-3 Land Use Map a Village,
unless the applicant can demonstrate that there is a market need for
additional centers, and the centers meet all other location requirements.
* * *

Page 59 of 109
May 21, 2014
VI. Hamlet Issues (NU-7, NU-8, NU-9, OS-9b, & OS-5)

A. Issue Statement:
NU-7 Hamlet Walk-ability - Greater flexibility should be allowed in the application of the
walk-ability provisions for Hamlets.
NU-8 Hamlet Focal Points Multiple focal points should be allowed closer than the 4,000
foot separation requirement.
NU-9 400 Dwelling Unit Limit for Hamlets - The 400 unit maximum for Hamlet.
Recommend alternative limitations.
OS-9b Greenbelts between Hamlets - The two 500-foot wide Greenbelts between two
proposed Hamlets should be allowed to be reduced in width.
OS-5 Greenways as Open Space in Hamlets Greenway RMA should be allowed to be
counted toward open space within Hamlets.

B. Issue Direction Proposed: These issues are evaluated together to determine their collective
impact on the Hamlet development forms intended purpose. Generally, Hamlets are to be a
transitional form of development from the Village form (3-5 DUs/acre) to the
rural/agricultural eastern area of the county (0.2 DUs/acre). The land use intensity of Hamlets
shall be maintained at their current level while eliminating the focal point separation
requirement and simplifying the way that Hamlets derive residential density.

C. Relevant Policy & Regulatory Citations: The full text of the relevant policy and regulatory
citations for Hamlet walk-ability, focal points, dwelling unit limit, greenbelt, and Greenway
are presented here with the relevant portions highlighted in yellow.

NU-7 Hamlet Walk-ability Policies VOS 1.3, 1.4, 3.3, and 3.5
NU-8 Hamlet Focal Points Policy VOS 1.2.b
NU-9 400 Dwelling Unit Limit on Hamlets Policy VOS 1.2.b
OS-9b Greenbelts between Hamlets Policy VOS 5.1
OS-5 Greenways as Open Space in Hamlets Policy GS 3.4

Policy VOS 1.2.b. Hamlets are collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around
a crossroads that may include small-scale commercial, civic buildings or shared amenities.

Preferred Size: 50 to 150 dwelling units
Maximum Size: 400 dwelling units
Minimum Size: Determined by Master
Development Plan
Process
Minimum Density within Developed
Area:
.4 du/gross acres of Developed Area
Maximum Density within Developed
Area:
1 du/gross acres of Developed Area
Minimum Open Space outside the
Developed Area:
Equal to or greater than 1.5 times
acreage of Developed Area
Commercial/ Office:
Page 60 of 109
May 21, 2014
Minimum Size: Not Applicable

Each Hamlet is required to have a Public/Civic focal point, such as a public park.
Commercial development is limited to a nominal amount of small-scale Neighborhood
commercial uses. The Public/Civic focal points of adjacent Hamlets shall be located at least
4000 feet apart. Figure VOS-2 shows an Example Hamlet Concept.

Policy VOS1.3. Village/Open Space RMA Philosophy
Neighborhoods form the basic building block for development within the Village/Open
Space RMA and are characterized by a mix of residential housing types that are distributed
on a connected street system and the majority of housing is within a walking distance or
mile radius of a Neighborhood Center. Neighborhood Centers have a Public/Civic focal point
which may be a combination of parks, schools, public type facilities such as churches or
community centers and may include small-scale Neighborhood Oriented Commercial Uses
that are no greater than 20,000 square feet of gross floor area and internally designed to
specifically serve the needs of that Neighborhood.

Policy VOS1.4. Village/Open Space RMA Principles
characteristics to qualify as a Receiving Zone under Density Incentives Program outlined in
Objective TDR1:
Villages and Hamlets shall include a design in which the majority of housing is
within a walking distance or -mile radius of a Village or Neighborhood Center,
with the higher densities closer to the Center;

Policy VOS3.3. Street Network
Village and Hamlet developments shall be required to construct interconnected networks of
streets in a block pattern that encourages walking, reduces the number and length of
automobile trips, and conserves energy. On-street parking will be included where appropriate
to support adjacent land uses. The street networks within Villages and Hamlets shall be
connected and dead-end streets will be prohibited except when necessary next to
geographical features or at the edge of development.

Policy VOS3.5. Interconnected Bicycle/Pedestrian System
Each Village or Hamlet shall create an interconnected system of non-motorized travel
facilities for bicycle, pedestrian or multi-use features, including the provision of appropriate
transition and connections to external trails or multi-use path systems.

Policy VOS 5.1. Greenbelts
The purpose of establishing a Greenbelt around each Village and each Hamlet is to help
define these as separate and compact communities. As part of the Open Space requirement
for development within the Village/Open Space RMA, the Master Development Plan for
each Village and each Hamlet shall establish a Greenbelt that is a minimum of 500 feet wide
around the perimeter of the Developed Area that preserves Native Habitats, supplements
natural vegetation, and protects wildlife within the area. Existing agricultural uses are
Page 61 of 109
May 21, 2014
permitted within this Greenbelt. New uses are restricted within this Greenbelt to Native
Habitat and to low intensity agriculture and wetland mitigation that do not involve the
conversion of Native Habitat. Land within the Greenway RMA may be included within the
Greenbelt requirement.

Policy GS3.4 Incentives for Hamlet Development
The Board of County Commissioners may allow Greenway RMA land within a Hamlet
Master Development Plan to be identified as Open Space provided that any density rights for
transfer to Receiving Zones outside the Hamlet Master Development Plan are extinguished.

Zoning Regulations

NU-7 Hamlet Walk-ability Section 11.2.2.c.3.iii., and 11.4.
NU-8 Hamlet Focal Points Section 11.2.2.c.3.iii., and 11.2.6.d.1.
NU-9 400 Dwelling Unit Limit on Hamlets Section 11.2.2.c.ii.(b)
OS-9b Greenbelts between Hamlets Section 11.2.10.a.1.i. and ii.
OS-5 Greenways as Open Space in Hamlets Section 11.2.2.c.3.i.

Zoning Section 11.2.2. Hamlet Planned Development District (HPD) Zoning Standards.
3. Open Space.
i. A minimum open space of 60 percent is required. This open space shall
be designated as Open Space on the Master Land Use Plan, and shall
not contain individual residential lots, except that a caretaker residence
in accordance with Section 11.2.5.f.1.i.(c) shall be permitted. At their
discretion, the County Commission may permit Greenway RMA lands
within a Hamlet Master Land Use Plan to satisfy all or part of the
Open Space requirement provided that any Transfer of Development
Rights that are created for transfer to Receiving Zones outside the
Hamlet Master Land Use Plan are extinguished.
ii. Size and Location:
(a) Size: The minimum size of a Hamlet shall be determined through
the Master Land Use Plan Process.
(b) Maximum Size: 400 dwelling units.
Preferred Size: 50 to 150 dwelling units.
iii. Focal Point:
(a) Locational Requirements: The Focal Points of adjacent Hamlets
shall be located at least 4,000 feet apart. Focal Points shall be
located within a one-quarter mile radius or Walking Distance for
the majority of the residences within a Hamlet.
(b) Minimum Size: 5 acres.
Zoning Section 11.2.6. Hamlet General Design Standards.
d. General Site Design Standards.
Page 62 of 109
May 21, 2014
1. Focal Point. Each Hamlet is required to have a Focal Point that is a minimum
of five acres and is located at least 4,000 feet from any other existing Focal Point.
Zoning Section 11.2.10. Landscaping, Buffering and Parks.
a. Special Buffer Requirements.
1. Greenbelt.
i. Intent. The purpose of establishing a Greenbelt around each Hamlet,
and Village is to help define these as separate and compact
communities.
ii. Greenbelt Requirements. Each applicant for development within the
HPD and VPD shall identify on the Master Land Use Plan a Greenbelt
that is a minimum of 500 feet wide around the perimeter of the
Developed Area as part of the Open Space requirement for the
development. The Greenbelt is required to preserve Native Habitats,
supplements natural vegetation, and protects wildlife within the area.
Where adjacent property has been designated on Figure RMA-3,
Village/Open Space RMA Land Use Map as Village or Hamlet Land
Use, the ordinance rezoning the property and the Master Land Use
Plan shall designate the Greenbelt at the perimeter of the Developed
Area.
Zoning Section 11.4. Definitions.
Walking Distance: The distance a resident of average health and age may be expected to
walk for the purposes served by the Neighborhood Center, considering the available
sidewalks, streets and paths; conditions which enhance the walking experience, such as
tree canopies, shade and visual interest, or which detract from it, provided that in no
event shall "walking distance" exceed one-half mile of pedestrian travel.

Page 63 of 109
May 21, 2014
D. Information Supporting Direction:

Background
The Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy Revisited effort is to be pursued while maintaining intended
outcomes and fundamental values of 2050 Policy. One of the most significant aspects of
Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy is that it makes it possible for urban development to occur east of
the Urban Service Boundary (USB) within the Village form of development at a density that
is 750% or greater than currently allowed. Additionally, a transitional land use in the form of
Hamlets was established for those lands east of the Village land use designation, dropping
land use intensity down to relate to the rural/agricultural eastern portions of the County.
However, the intensification of land use within the Villages are only allowed if it is carried
out in a compact, mixed-use form that respects and enhances the existing rural environment
and does not add a financial burden to the County.

Therefore, 2050 Policy stands on these three main principles:

Maintaining the integrity of 2050 Policy requires that development east of the USB maintain
these three main principles. However, of these three main principles, it is the open space
principle that carries out a truly significant community wide public benefit. The New
Urbanism principle primarily benefits the public that will ultimately reside within the
developments while minimizing impacts on surrounding areas, and the Fiscal Neutrality
principle is exactly that, it is to be neutral to the existing County population.

Implementation of these principles varies within each of the 2050 forms of development
based on each forms intended purpose. It is important to recognize that each of the
development forms is intended to carry out a specific location based objective having been
mapped. Understanding the purpose for each form of development is vitally important in
establishing a basis for determining how or if changes should be made to any of the 2050
development forms standards.

The analysis provided with this report will focus on the Hamlet form of development and
how it relates to both the Village form of development and eastern rural/agricultural portions
of the County.
Page 64 of 109
May 21, 2014
2050 Development Forms
Each of these 2050 development forms has their own specific purpose:

Primarily, 2050 Policy attempts to steer development off of the eastern rural/agricultural areas of
the County into the North, Central, and South Village areas just east of the USB.

The Settlement Area is limited to that area at the southern portion of the County between the
existing USB and the Future USB. It is intended to allow a development form that fits in with the
context of the area recognizing that these lands were already identified for future development.

The light blue Hamlet area depicted on this map identifies a transitional zone within
which the land use intensity shifts from the more urban Village form of development
down to the more rural/agricultural eastern portion of the County.

Page 65 of 109
May 21, 2014
Policy VOS2.1 paragraph (c) states:
The delineation between Village land use and Hamlet land useis 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.

Countryside Line
Page 66 of 109
May 21, 2014
Village Development Form

The Village form of development (Figure VOS-1 above) is located between the USB and the
Countryside Line in the northern portion of the County. Villages are to be a mixed use compact
urban form of 2050 development. It is primarily this form of development where Sarasota 2050
RMA Policy encourages the majority of growth to take place. The Village land use is the
designation for those lands located between the USB and the Countryside Line identified within
Policy VOS2.1(c). Villages utilize both the percentage open space requirement and the Transfer
of Development Rights (TDRs) as implementation mechanisms for open space. Currently,
Greenway RMA is not allowed to be counted toward meeting the open space percentage
requirement.

Page 67 of 109
May 21, 2014
Settlement Area Development Form

The Settlement Area form of development is located in the Future Urban Area that exists
between the existing USB and the Future Urban Service Boundary line depicted on the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) in the southern portion of the County. Settlement Areas are to be an
urban form that recognizes the adjacent urban residential development. This form primarily uses
the percentage open space requirement implementation mechanism, which may be reduced to
33% if a golf course is not a part of the project. Additionally, there are no Greenways associated
with the Future Urban Area.
= Designated Settlement Area
= Urban Service Boundary
= Future Urban Service Boundary
Page 68 of 109
May 21, 2014
Hamlet Development Form

The Hamlet form of development (Figure VOS-2 above) is located east of the Countryside Line,
which is along the eastern edge of the Village designated area generally following the drainage
way of the Gum Slough and the Cow-Pen Slough. Hamlets are to be more rural in nature. They
serve as a transitional land use, from the more urban Villages west of the Countryside Line, to
the rural/agricultural eastern portion of the County. The lots are generally going to be larger than
Village development and the open space consolidated for agriculture. Hamlets primarily utilize
the percentage requirement mechanism to implement open space. Greenway RMA may be
counted towards the open space percentage requirement with Board approval. TDRs are
derivable from Greenway RMA or on-site eligible land uses in Hamlet Development Area
acreage only, and not from on-site open space.

Therefore, under the precepts of 2050 policy, Hamlets are not intended to serve as a continuation
of urbanization east of the Countryside Line. Rather, they are to assist with the implementation
of the Countryside Line as a demarcation between the two land uses. Generally, Village
development can obtain a residential density of up to 2.5 DUs / gross acre west of the
Countryside Line exclusive of Greenway, while Hamlet development can obtain a residential
density of 0.4 DUs / gross acre east of it. This is a very deliberate implementation of
transitioning down to the rural/agricultural eastern area of the County that generally is only able
to obtain a residential density of 0.2 DUs / gross acre. Policy VOS 2.1 is very clear in stating that
this is the intent of the Hamlet form, and it is within this context that these changes must be
evaluated.
Page 69 of 109
May 21, 2014
E. Information Refuting Direction: The elimination of the walk-ability standards, the 400 DU
cap, the 500 ft. greenbelt between Hamlets, and the 4000 ft. separation between focal points
would allow for the consolidation of open space if multiple Hamlets were allowed to
combine their Developed Areas into one. The proposed direction to not implement all of
these changes does not allow for the complete consolidation of open space which would
maximize agricultural uses. Encouraging agricultural uses is one of the intended purposes for
the Hamlet development form, which tends to support making all of these changes.

However, implementing all of these changes has the potential for intensifying the Hamlet
land use well above the rural/agricultural land use intensity that exists in the eastern portion
of the County. The resulting Hamlet form would be closer in intensity to a Village
neighborhood than to rural/agricultural, and at an undefined size. The direction suggested by
this report seeks to implement some of these changes while maintaining 2050 policy
objectives.

It also needs to be recognized that the ability currently exists to pursue a development form
that is not restricted by walk-ability standards, the 400 DU cap, 500 ft. greenbelt between
Hamlets, or the 4000 ft. separation between focal points. A Conservation Subdivision (CS)
currently allows this form of development at a lower residential density (0.29 DUs / gross
acre). They are also not subject to the Fiscal Neutrality requirements, nor are they mandated
to utilize public sewer and water services. The one prerequisite that exists for CS is that the
existing zoning on the property must be OUE prior to rezoning for a CS. For all other
property with existing zoning districts other than OUE, the residential density is restricted to
the Future Land Use Map designation, which for the most part is Rural at 0.2 DUs / gross
acre.

Therefore, the ability to develop without the subject restrictions has already been provided
for within policy and code in the CS form. The provisions in question are all required with
the increase in residential density from the 0.29 to 0.4 DUs / gross acre (respective density
caps for CS vs. Hamlet). Eliminating them fundamentally grants the increase in density
without any of the development form enhancements obtained through Hamlets.

The question more appropriately might then be shifted to simply increasing the density cap
within the CS form of development from 0.29 DUs / gross acre to 0.4 DUs / gross acre, and
eliminating the prerequisite of having OUE zoning. However, this would effectively
eliminate any incentive to pursue the Hamlet form of development, and render the Hamlet
useless as a transitional form of development. Again, increasing the Hamlet density further to
maintain any incentive moves the form of development closer to the urban Village form than
the rural/agricultural form with which it is to relate.

The prerequisite of having OUE zoning as of the adoption date of 2050 RMA Policy
established a density incentive of 0.29 DU/acre for those properties already zoned at the 0.2
DU/acre density level. Other zoning districts such as OUR (0.1 DU/acre) would be able to
rezone to the OUE (0.2 DU/acre) density with a CS. Eliminating this provision would
effectively transform the Rural land use designation from 0.2 DU/acre to 0.29 DU/acre.

Page 70 of 109
May 21, 2014
F. Analysis of Information: The issues being analyzed here all have the potential to impact the
Hamlet form of development to some degree. They are all interrelated with the walk-ability
directly determined by the focal point location and the focal points in turn are required to be
4000 ft. apart. The cap of 400 DUs allowed within a Hamlet directly relates to the 500 ft.
greenbelt required around each Hamlet in that it defines each Hamlet as its own
neighborhood. Introducing a change to address any one of these issues can affect the other
issues. All together, they may have the potential to significantly impact the intended purpose
of the Hamlet form of development.

The origin of these issues stem from a potential Hamlet project contemplated in 2006 on the
north side of Fruitville Road toward the eastern border of the County on +/- 4700 acres. This
potential project was seeking to implement +/-1700 DUs on +/-1700 acres of Developed
Area (DA) with +/-3000 acres of open space within 6 separate Hamlets. Nearly 2000 acres of
the open space would come from City of Sarasota owned Greenway north and east of the
project, which also would be a source of TDRs.

The questions raised by this potential Hamlet project were:
1. How do Hamlets achieve walk-ability when they are forced apart as standalone enclaves?
2. Why is there a 4000 ft. separation required between Hamlet focal points?
3. Why is there a 400 DU limit on each Hamlet?
4. Why do Hamlets need to be separated by Greenbelt which results in a 1000 ft. swath of
open space between each Hamlet?
5. Why is the ability to count Greenway towards the required percentage of open space a
Board decision on an individual Hamlet project basis?

These same issues were identified for evaluation with this 2050 Revisited process.

On the surface, these questions appear to suggest that the Hamlet form, as prescribed, is
counter to the main precepts of 2050 policy. However, that is because the main precepts of
2050 policy primarily address the Village form of development where the County intended to
concentrate the residential density in a compact urban form west of the Countryside Line.
The Village form of development is the main objective of 2050 policy. Hamlets were not
intended to dramatically increase allowed residential density, but rather minimally allow
increased residential density as an incentive for transitioning from the Village form to the
rural/agricultural form of land use in the eastern portion of the County.

Therefore, the answers to these questions are straight forward when being looked at within
the context of the Hamlet forms intended purpose as a transitional use:

1. Hamlets achieve walk-ability on an individual neighborhood basis, and are not intended
to be designed with walk-ability required from Hamlet to Hamlet. Walk-ability is easily
achievable as explained within the Phase 1 report on walk-ability, even with the largest
Hamlet DA at 400 acres. The radius of a 200 acre area (given that only half of the
housing within the Hamlet needs to be within walking distance) is 1665 ft., which
indicates that designing for all of the housing within that area to be within a half mile
(2640 ft.) is attainable.

Page 71 of 109
May 21, 2014
2. The 4000 ft. separation put an understandable number to the distance required between
focal points when designing a Hamlet. It was not set at the actual distance required
through calculation, but was set lower to encourage one focal point per Hamlet and allow
for design flexibility.

The actual distance between 2 Hamlets with the maximum of 400 DUs each is derived as
follows:

This illustration demonstrates that the 4000 ft. separation requirement between focal
points allows for +/-1700 ft. of flexibility in design (5700 ft. 4000 ft. = 1700 ft.).

The focal point separation provision primarily contributes to a strategy of having only
one focal point for each individual Hamlet. Policy does not dictate that only one focal
point be provided for each Hamlet, and the need to maintain this requirement is not
paramount to the Hamlet form. The separation distance does introduce a restriction that
can have an impact on how a neighboring property can develop as a Hamlet, which is a
possible justification for eliminating the provision.

3. The 400 DU limit on Hamlets comes from the density limitation of 1.0 DU / DA acre in
combination with the 60% open space requirement. With every 4 acres of DA there are to
be 6 acres of open space. Given the 1.0 DU / DA acre limit, it simply established a cap
based on that density limitation for the upper limit of a neighborhood size. Again, this
limitation was set fairly high to allow for flexibility compared to the desired Hamlet size
of 50 150 DUs. The intent was not to have every Hamlet at 400 DUs, but rather the
desired size of 50 150 DUs dependent on the specific design and how well it carries out
the intended purpose.

This 400 DU cap on Hamlets is already at the higher end of the upper limit for a single
neighborhood, recognizing that each Hamlet is essentially a single neighborhood with
walk-ability required. Raising this DU cap for Hamlets would transform the development
form into more of a standard sub-urban form, which violates the basic 2050 policy of
maintaining the Countryside Line as the demarcation between urban and
rural/agricultural land uses. It would also erode the foundational elements of 2050 policy
related to the discouragement of sprawl as characterized by the state of Florida.

500 ft. 500 ft.
2355 ft. 2355 ft.
Greenbelts
Radius of a 400 acre DA Radius of walk-able DA (+/-50%)
Focal Point
1320 ft.
400 acre DA 400 acre DA
Focal Point
+/- 5700 ft.
Page 72 of 109
May 21, 2014
Urban Sprawl
The following excerpt from the 2013 Florida Statutes continues to form the foundation on which
2050 policy and code is based.
FS 163.3177 Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan; studies and surveys.
* * *
(6) In addition to the requirements of subsections (1)-(5), the comprehensive plan shall include
the following elements:
(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.
* * *
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 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.
Page 73 of 109
May 21, 2014
(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 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 walk-able 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.

4. The 500 ft. greenbelt around each Hamlets DA is intended to buffer the surrounding land
uses from the proposed Hamlet development, and to clearly establish each Hamlet as its
own residential enclave or neighborhood. Unlike Villages which limit each neighborhood
to 150 acres in size, individual neighborhoods have not been provided for within Hamlets
because they are considered to be standalone neighborhoods in total. The required open
space is to be located together with each Hamlet, thus assisting with the intended purpose
of relating to the rural/agricultural land uses in the eastern portion of the County. The
greenbelt contributes to the Hamlets rural character by establishing open space around
them that will assist with retaining the areas existing character.

5. The ability to count Greenway as open space within Hamlets is addressed by Policy VOS
1.2.b., which gives the Board the authority to allow Greenway RMA designated property
to count towards the percentage of open space required within a Hamlet. Generally, there
is very limited Greenway RMA enveloped by the Hamlet land use designation. This is a
part of the reason why the decision to allow on-site Greenway RMA to count towards the
required open space percentage was left for each specific zoning request. Otherwise, as
with Villages, Greenway RMA is not counted toward the percentage of required open
space, but rather to be provided as open space in addition to the percentage requirement
as explained below for Open Space Principle.

The importance of implementing open space is central to 2050 policy, and as stated
earlier, the primary public benefit that is to be realized with allowing significant
residential density increases east of (outside of) the USB. Understanding the principle for
Page 74 of 109
May 21, 2014
the open space and how the Greenway RMA contributes toward it, is critical to any
discussion that determines whether it should be counted toward the percentage of
required open space. The ability for the Greenway RMA to be protected is a significant
consideration as a part of that discussion. If the Greenway RMA could otherwise be
developed as 5 or 10 acre ranchettes, as an excluded property from the Hamlet, then there
is a strong rationale to allow it to be counted toward the percentage of required open
space. Counting it toward the required open space percentage would encourage it be
included with the Hamlet and thus protect it as permanent open space. Therefore, a
modification of the provision appears warranted as a proper incentive that promotes 2050
policy for both Hamlets and the Greenway RMA.

Open Space Principle
Simply put, the open space principle seeks to implement an enhanced open space network
that maintains the rural character and environmental systems east of the USB.

Open space promotes the intent of maintaining rural character by:
Establishing a physical distance between Village/Hamlet development and the
existing urban and rural development east of the USB; and
Establishing a physical distance between Village/Hamlet development and the
existing major thoroughfares that provide access to the rural eastern portion of the
County; and
Establishing compact urban forms for Village/Hamlet development within a large
open landscape that surrounds the development areas.

Open space promotes the intent of maintaining environmental systems by:
Protecting/improving lands for listed species;
Protecting/improving lands that interconnect on-site habitats with off-site systems;
Protecting/improving lands for viewsheds, recreation, and historical/cultural value.

2050 Policy implements open space by first protecting those lands mapped as Greenway
RMA and then protecting those lands:
Identified as a percentage requirement of a 2050 projects land area; and
Designated as sending zones from which residential density for a Village/Hamlet is
derived through the Transfer of Development Right (TDR) program.

1) Open Space from the Percentage Requirement: The required open space percentage is a
major implementation mechanism for open space on-site aimed at maximizing the public
benefits of an interconnected open space network. It is required on a graduated scale for
each of the 2050 forms of development:
50% for Settlement Areas (A reduction to 33% may be allowed if a golf course is
not a part of the project.);
50% for Villages; and
60% for Hamlets (Greenways may count towards the open space requirement per
Sec. 11.2.9.b.1.).
Page 75 of 109
May 21, 2014
These required open space percentages represent a raising of the bar for development
if it is to take place east of (outside of) the USB. This higher standard allows for more
public benefit to be accomplished within the open space that is above and beyond the
typical levels seen in standard developments west of (inside of) the USB which can
typically have 20-30% open space. The percentage of open space is related to the
development forms proximity to the USB. The further east of the USB, the higher
percentage of open space required.

2) Open Space from Sending Zones: The Transfer of Development Right Policy is an
implementation mechanism for open space both on-site and off-site. Sarasota 2050 Policy
established a Countryside Line running north-south that generally follows the eastern
edge of the Village designations within the Village/Open Space RMA, and generally
follows the drainage ways of Gum Slough and Cow-Pen Slough. Generally, off-site
TDRs are intended to be transferred west of this Countryside Line, within the Village
designated land use area.

The Comprehensive Plans Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies the residential
density Sarasota County has established as the desired level of development intensity on
all lands pursuant to their specific land use designation on the FLUM. Primarily, all lands
upon which the Village/Open Space RMA is overlaid have a FLUM designation of
Rural. The Rural designation allows 1 dwelling unit (DU) per 5 acres or 0.2DU/acre.

According to Policy VOS1.2, Development densities greater than the underlying Rural or
Semi-Rural densities may only be achieved through the Transfer of Development Rights in
accordance with Objective TDR1, TDR2, and the associated polices

Scenario A: Existing Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy at minimum on-site open space of 60%

* - TDR transfer rate can range from 0.57 TDRs per acre to 2.0 TDRs per acre, which will be
determined by actual site characteristics/proposed land uses.
An example of a 1000 acre Hamlet
Project Gross Area = 1000 acres
Developed Area (DA) = 400 acres (40%)
Open Space Area (OS) = 600 acres (60%)

Minimum Residential Density Required
0.4DU/DA ac.
160DUs (400DA ac. X 0.4DU = 160DUs)

Residential Density Calculation on-site
116DUs (400DA ac. X 0.29DU = 116DUs)

TDRs Required from other sources
44DUs (160DUs 116DUs = 44DUs)

Other open space Protected
44ac (44DUs divided by 1.0DU* = 44ac)

Total Open Space Protected
644ac (600ac + 44ac = 644ac)
Page 76 of 109
May 21, 2014

Pursuant to Scenario A above, a 1000 acre property within the Village/Open Space RMA
currently would have 200 DUs allowed under the FLUM designation of Rural (1,000 gross
area (GA) acres x 0.2DU = 200DU). The 2050 provisions grant a residential density of
0.29DU per Developed Area (DA) acre as provided for in Zoning Regulation Section
11.2.3.c. (0.29DU/DA acre). Again, pursuant to Scenario A, a 1000 acre property within
the Village/Open Space RMA would start with 116 DUs, after calculating the base
assignment of density at 0.29DU per DA acre (400 acres x 0.29DU = 116 DUs). All
additional density necessary for a project must be derived by being transferred into the
Hamlets DA from two sources:

1) From Greenway RMA on-site or off-site of the Hamlet, and
2) From the on-site eligible land uses in Hamlet DA acreage.

A Hamlet must cluster the residential density within the DA at a minimum required density
of 0.4DU per DA acre, while maintaining the minimum 60% OS level. Therefore, pursuant to
Scenario A, a 1000 acre Hamlet is allowed 400 acres of DA with 160 DUs (400 ac. x
0.4DU = 160 DUs). Determining the number of other DUs required simply involves
calculating those DUs that are derivable from the DA (116DUs) and from other on-site DA
eligible land uses or Greenway RMA, and subtracting them from the 160 DUs required.

Greenway RMA or on-site DA eligible land use acreage DUs are calculated using Table
TDR-1 which assigns a TDR transfer rate for various existing and proposed land uses based
on the relative value that was placed on those land characteristics/uses by Policy TDR 1.3.
These transfer rates go from 0.57DU to 2.0DU per acre. Using a middle of the road transfer
rate of 1.0DU per acre for Scenario A, results in 44 DUs derivable from other eligible
sources (44ac x 1.0DU = 44 DUs).

The result is that 44 DUs are required to be transferred into the DA of Scenario As Hamlet
from the other eligible sources within the DA, which include land uses such as wetlands and
lakes. Using the same middle of the road transfer rate of 1.0DU per acre results in 44 acres
of additional open space being protected within the DA (44 DUs divided by the 1.0DU = 44
ac.). The open space being protected through the other eligible sources resulting in Scenario
A therefore is 644 acres (600 ac. + 44 ac.).

The ability to achieve higher density through TDRs from off-site sources is not required for
the Hamlet form, and is certainly a part of the reason that the sources for TDRs within
Hamlets have been restricted to Greenway RMA and eligible land uses within the DA.
Introducing TDRs from off-site Greenway RMA tends to be counter to the purpose of
Hamlets which is to be more rural/agricultural in nature as a transitional use. Transferring
residential density into a Hamlet intensifies the land use, potentially nullifying the ability for
it to serve its intended purpose.

Page 77 of 109
May 21, 2014

This method of deriving Hamlet density tends to force Hamlet DA to incorporate eligible
land uses from which TDRs can be generated. Smaller lots tend to be the result along with a
spreading out of the DA to incorporate the required eligible land uses within it. Accepting
that this is not necessarily the desired end product, there may be a way to simplify the ability
to build density within Hamlets that would maintain a more compact form of DA.

Rather than forcing the derivation of TDRs from eligible land uses within the DA, Hamlets
could be allowed to produce TDRs from the on-site open space in the same way that Villages
derive TDRs. This would eliminate the need for creating large eligible land uses within the
DA from which the TDRs are generated, resulting in a more compact form of DA. A 1000
acre Hamlet could then have 400 acres of DA that generate 116 DUs (400 ac. X 0.29 DUs/ac.
= 116 DUs), and 600 acres of Open Space that have the potential to generate 342 DUs (600
ac. X 0.57 DUs/ac. = 342 DUs) calculated at the lowest transfer rate of 0.57 DUs/acre. The
result is that the Hamlet has 458 DUs, which exceeds the 400 DU cap.

This basic change would allow all Hamlets to achieve the required density on-site,
eliminating any need to transfer density in from off-site sources. Therefore, with this change,
the ability to transfer density into a Hamlet from off-site sources should be eliminated. Given
that Hamlets are a transitional use and that the goal is not to build density within Hamlets, it
would appear that such a change would simplify application of 2050 policy while
maintaining its basic principles.

This would only involve certain modifications to Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9 Sarasota
2050 Resource Management Area Table 2 stemming from policies TDR 1.2 and 1.5.

Table 2: RMA-2: Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Sending and Receiving Zones

Sending Zones Allowable Receiving Zones
Agricultural Reserve RMA Village/Open Space RMA: Village Developed Area
Economic Development RMA
Rural Heritage/Estate RMA Village/Open Space RMA: Village Developed Area
Rural Heritage/Estate RMA
Greenway RMA Village/Open Space RMA: Village Developed Area
Urban/Suburban RMA: Settlement Area Developed Area
On-site Open Space
Developed
Area
TDRs
TDRs
Developed
Area
TDRs
Greenway RMA
This illustration shows how Hamlets can generally
develop adequate density from on-site sources. Starting
with a base of 400 acres in DA, the Hamlet starts with
116 DUs (400 ac X 0.29 DU/DA ac = 116 DUs).
Projecting that the other eligible land uses in the DA add
up to 100 acres, the total DUs would be 216 DUs using a
1.0 DU / acre transfer rate as an average from the other
eligible sources (100 ac X 1.0 DU / ac = 100 DUs). Any
on-site Greenway RMA would also be a source for
additional DUs potentially realizing the cap of 400 DUs
depending on the transfer rates from it.
Page 78 of 109
May 21, 2014
Greenway RMA on-site with a
Hamlet Master Development Plan
Village/Open Space RMA: Hamlet Developed Area
Open Space within
Village or Hamlet Land Use
Village/Open Space RMA: Village Developed Area
Open Space within Hamlet Land Use Village/Open Space RMA: Hamlet Developed Area
Open Space within Urban/Suburban RMA:
Settlement Area
Developed Area within
Approved Master
Development Plan for a
Village or Hamlet

Open Space from Greenway RMA
The mapped Greenway RMA is a major implementation mechanism for open space aimed at
preserving the environmental systems east of the USB. It is important to recognize that the
environmental systems throughout the unincorporated areas of the county are already
protected by existing Environment policy/regulations based in Chapter 2 of the
Comprehensive Plan. 2050 Policy applied a 550 ft. buffer to these protected systems and
mapped the areas as depicted on RMA-3 shown here.

When considering the benefits of the
Greenway RMA, it is important to first
consider the level of environmental
protection that Chapter 2 already
provides. Specifically, these
protections are applied to all 2050
development proposals including
Villages, Hamlets, Settlements and all
non-2050 development proposals
including large lot rural subdivisions.
By definition, the basis for establishing
the Greenway RMA includes streams
and creeks and their abutting buffer
lands (550 feet). The streams,
wetlands, mesic hammocks, and
watercourse buffers are already
afforded a high level of protection
status by Chapter 2. As such, the
environmental benefit of 2050 is the
protection of lands not currently given
that status by Chapter 2, which
primarily includes the buffer lands that
are improved pasture, developed
features, and pine flatwoods. Lands
abutting a creek or stream are a critical
element of what is known as a riparian
habitat offering numerous wildlife,
habitat, sedimentation control, and
water quality functions.
Page 79 of 109
May 21, 2014
This balance of open space with land use intensification within Villages is extremely
important to the maintenance of the environmental systems given the Villages proximity to
those systems. Therefore, implementation of open space within Villages is of primary
importance to 2050 policy. The ability for Greenway RMA to count towards the percentage
open space requirement can significantly impact the ability to achieve 2050 policy intent.

G. Conclusion: There is a significant level of importance placed on implementing open space
with 2050 forms of development. Any adjustment to these requirements must take into
account the level of impact that it may have on 2050 policy intended outcomes and
fundamental values. Proposed changes that significantly reduce the level of open space
required should not be entertained unless they include compensatory elements that enhance
the intent of 2050 policy.

While the highest level of importance is placed on open space within Villages, Hamlets also
utilize open space to carry out their intent. The emphasis on Village open space is due to the
land use intensity increase being allowed within 2050 policy and the intent to minimize
impacts from that increase through open space implementation. Village Master Land Use
Plans are required to include all Greenway RMA as open space in addition to the requirement
of one acre of open space for each acre of developed area (50% percent requirement).
Combined with a Villages requirement to derive the required residential density level
through the TDR program, Villages have the greatest potential for creating open space.

As stated, Hamlets build open space as well, but for a slightly different reason. Given the
minimal amount of Greenway RMA enveloped by the Hamlet land use designated lands,
Hamlets have been shown to primarily establish open space through the percentage
requirement. This open space is to be used to maintain and enhance the rural/agricultural
character that exists in the eastern portions of the County. Adjusting the greenbelt widths
between simultaneously approved Hamlets and eliminating the 4000 ft. separation between
focal points would contribute to the consolidation of open space. This would allow for
greater capabilities in implementing agricultural uses on larger tracts of land.

H. Proposed Policy and Regulatory Changes (if applicable):


Policy VOS 1.2.b. Hamlets are collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around
a crossroads that may include small-scale commercial, civic buildings or shared amenities.

(TABLE NOT INCLUDED)

Each Hamlet is required to have a Public/Civic focal point, such as a public park.
Commercial development is limited to a nominal amount of small-scale Neighborhood
commercial uses. The Public/Civic focal points of adjacent Hamlets shall be located at least
4000 feet apart. Figure VOS-2 shows an Example Hamlet Concept.
* * *
Page 80 of 109
May 21, 2014
Policy VOS 5.1. Greenbelts
The purpose of establishing a Greenbelt around each Village and each Hamlet is to help
define these as separate and compact communities. As part of the Open Space requirement
for development within the Village/Open Space RMA, the Master Development Plan for
each Village and each Hamlet shall establish a Greenbelt that is a minimum of 500 feet wide
around the perimeter of the Developed Area that preserves Native Habitats, supplements
natural vegetation, and protects wildlife within the area. Existing agricultural uses are
permitted within this Greenbelt. New uses are restricted within this Greenbelt to Native
Habitat and to low intensity agriculture and wetland mitigation that do not involve the
conversion of Native Habitat. Land within the Greenway RMA may be included within the
Greenbelt requirement.

To encourage the consolidation of Open Space for environmental and agricultural uses, the
Greenbelt widths between multiple Hamlet Development Areas each may be 50 feet where
adjacent Master Development Plans are approved simultaneously. Each of these adjacent
Greenbelt widths may be averaged for that common length between the Hamlet Developed
Areas, however each Greenbelt width shall be no less than 30 feet as measured
perpendicularly at any given point along the common length.
* * *
Policy GS3.4 Incentives for Hamlet Development
The Board of County Commissioners mayshall allow Greenway RMA land within a Hamlet
Master Development Plan to be identified as Open Space provided that any density rights for
transfer to Receiving Zones outside the Hamlet Master Development Plan are extinguished.
* * *
Table 2: RMA-2: Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Sending and Receiving Zones
Sending Zones Allowable Receiving Zones
Agricultural Reserve RMA Village/Open Space RMA: Village Developed Area
Rural Heritage/Estate RMA Village/Open Space RMA: Village Developed Area
Rural Heritage/Estate RMA
Greenway RMA Village/Open Space RMA: Village Developed Area
Greenway RMA on-site with a
Hamlet Master Development Plan
Village/Open Space RMA: Hamlet Developed Area
Open Space within
Village or Hamlet Land Use
Open Space within Hamlet Land Use Village/Open Space RMA: Hamlet Developed Area
Open Space within Urban/Suburban RMA:
Settlement Area
Developed Area within
Approved Master
Development Plan for a
Village or Hamlet
* * *

Page 81 of 109
May 21, 2014

Zoning Regulation

Zoning Section 11.2.2. Hamlet Planned Development District (HPD) Zoning Standards.
3. Open Space.
i. A minimum open space of 60 percent is required. This open space shall
be designated as Open Space on the Master Land Use Plan, and shall
not contain individual residential lots, except that a caretaker residence
in accordance with Section 11.2.5.f.1.i.(c) shall be permitted. At their
discretion, the County Commission may permit Greenway RMA lands
within a Hamlet Master Land Use Plan tocan satisfy all or part of the
Open Space requirement provided that any Transfer of Development
Rights that are created for transfer to Receiving Zones outside the
Hamlet Master Land Use Plan are extinguished.
ii. Size and Location:
(a) Size: The minimum size of a Hamlet shall be determined through
the Master Land Use Plan Process.
(b) Maximum Size: 400 dwelling units.
Preferred Size: 50 to 150 dwelling units.
iii. Focal Point:
(a) Locational Requirements: The Focal Points of adjacent Hamlets
shall be located at least 4,000 feet apart. Focal Points shall be
located within a one-quarter mile radius or Walking Distance for
the majority of the residences within a Hamlet.
(b) Minimum Size: 5 acres.
* * *
Zoning Section 11.2.6. Hamlet General Design Standards.
d. General Site Design Standards.
1. Focal Point. Each Hamlet is required to have a Focal Point that is a minimum
of five acres and is located at least 4,000 feet from any other existing Focal
Point.
* * *
Zoning Section 11.2.10. Landscaping, Buffering and Parks.
a. Special Buffer Requirements.
1. Greenbelt.
* * *
v. Board Authorization required for Exceptions to the Greenbelt Requirement.
The Board of County Commissioners may authorize other exceptions to the
requirement for a Greenbelt or to the minimum 500-foot width during the
review and approval process for the Master Land Use Plan for either a
Village or Hamlet development under the following conditions:
* * *
(g) Greenbelt widths between multiple Hamlet Development Areas (DA)
Page 82 of 109
May 21, 2014
each may be 50 feet where adjacent Master Land Use Plans are
approved simultaneously. Each of these adjacent Greenbelt widths may
be averaged for that common length between the Hamlet DAs, however
each Greenbelt width shall be no less than 30 feet as measured from the
DA at any given point along the common length.
* * *

Page 83 of 109
May 21, 2014
VII. Conservation Subdivisions (CS)

A. Issue Statement: When a rezoning involves an increase in residential density, there
should be a minimum size of property threshold that requires the concurrent
establishment of a Conservation Subdivision (see memorandum from Planning
Commission dated January 16, 2014 attached as Appendix A).

B. Issue Direction Proposed: Establish a 20 acre threshold for the size of a property
required to rezone as a Conservation Subdivision. This allows such property to be
rezoned in a convential manner based on the Future Land Use Map designation and
associated implementing zoning districts.

regulatory citations for Conservation Subdivisions are presented here with the relevant
portions highlighted in yellow.

Policy TDR2.1 Conservation Subdivision Intent
The creation of Conservation Subdivisions is an important program component to the
natural resource protection initiatives of the county. This alternative development option
allows for the clustering of housing units in rural areas to create permanently protected
Open Spaces that can be added to the interconnected network of conservation lands and
Open Space, pursuant to the Guiding Principles for Evaluating Development Proposals in
Native Habitats, contained in the Environment Chapter of The Sarasota County
Comprehensive Plan, that are protected in the Greenway RMA and Village/Open Space
RMA.

Policy TDR2.2 Zoning Ordinance/Land Development Regulations
The County shall amend the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Regulations to
establish specific requirements for the creation of Conservation Subdivisions in the Rural
Heritage/Estate, Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs. In
order to obtain any increase in residential density, land located within the above
described RMAs must be rezoned consistent with the Village/Open Space RMA
requirements, or be rezoned as a Conservation Subdivision. Such rezonings shall also
require compliance with Policy VOS5.2. The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Regulations shall be adopted within two years of the effective date of
the Sarasota 2050 RMA-1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposed ordinance
amending the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Regulations shall be prepared
for public hearing within one year of the effective date of the Sarasota 2050 RMA-1
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance and the Land Development
Regulations will establish general baseline regulations for Conservation Subdivisions,
based on the following guidelines:
no minimum required size of development;
minimum Open Space standards will provide that Open Space is no less than 50%
of the site;
Page 84 of 109
May 21, 2014
criteria for the form of the Open Space will ensure that the Open Space is
designed to add to or create a network of Open Spaces connected to the regional
Open Space and/or Greenway RMA;
maintenance of Open Spaces will be funded by private sources;
deed restriction or other legal instruments will be required to secure the Open
Space in perpetuity;
appropriate street standards for the size and location of the development;
appropriate Buffering standards for adjacent rural estates and agricultural
operations;
golf courses shall not be allowed in Conservation Subdivisions;
(here this item is stated as an outright prohibition whereas in the Zoning Ordinance it is
stated that golf courses are not permitted in Conservation Subdivision Open Space)
Conservation Subdivisions shall be a permitted use in zoning categories that
implement the Rural and Semi-Rural land use designations on the Comprehensive
Plans Future Land Use Map; and
the maximum density of a Conservation Subdivision shall be the maximum
density allowed by the land use designation of the land on the Comprehensive
Plans Future Land Use Map in which the Conservation Subdivision is located;
except for land that has a zoning designation of OUE-1 and is located in Hamlet
land use which shall have a maximum density of 1 unit per 3.5 acres.

Zoning Regulations

Zoning Section 4.10.6. Conservation Subdivision (CS)
a. Purpose and Intent.
1. The purpose of the Sarasota County Conservation Subdivision
Regulations are to implement the requirements of Sarasota County
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Sarasota 2050 Resource Management
Area (RMA) System Comprehensive Plan Amendment RMA-1,
Ordinance No. 2001-076 by creating the following implementation tools:
i. A set of subdivision standards that function as an alternative to
the large lot subdivision form. These regulations permit a
Conservation Subdivision form of development as a permitted
subdivision type within those properties that are zoned, OUR,
OUE, RE-1, RE-2 and RE-3.
ii. A new Conservation Subdivision overlay zoning district. All
rezoning requests that increase density within the Rural
Heritage/Estate RMA, Greenway RMA and the Agricultural
Reserve RMA as depicted and defined within the Sarasota County
Comprehensive Plan are required to be Conservation Subdivisions.
The only methods available to a property within the Village/Open
Space RMA may request a rezoning action that increases density is
through the Village Planned Development District, the Hamlet
Page 85 of 109
May 21, 2014
Planned Development District or the Conservation Subdivision
overlay district.
2. The purpose of the Sarasota County Conservation Subdivision Design
Standards are to preserve environmental systems, rural character and the
viability of agricultural land by creating greater flexibility in the design of
residential developments to achieve the following standards:
i. Create or add to an interconnected network of off-site
conservation lands and publicly protected open spaces which
extend beyond the individual subdivision boundary and function as
a part of a regional conservation strategy as expressed in the
Principles for Evaluating Development Proposals in Native
Habitats, contained in the Environment Chapter of APOXSEE;
ii. Create a network of publicly protected open spaces within an
individual subdivision and minimize the total amount of
disturbance on a site;
iii. Minimize disturbance to environmentally sensitive areas,
protect biological diversity, and maintain environmental corridors;
and
iv. Minimize the disturbance to the rural landscape elements,
preserve scenic views and existing open vistas and protect the
integrity of the existing rural community character.
3. The secondary purpose of a Conservation Subdivision is to provide
alternative subdivision standards that will support the following
objectives:
i. Facilitate the construction and maintenance of housing, streets
and other infrastructure in a more efficient manner; and
ii. Protect the viability of agricultural land.
b. Applicability.
1. Any application/petition to rezone property within the Rural
Heritage/Estate, Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve
RMAs must be rezoned consistent with the Village/Open Space RMA
requirements, or be rezoned as a Conservation Subdivision. Except as
otherwise provided herein, all development within these RMAs that are
rezoned to Conservation Subdivision Overlay, including but not limited to
(to the extent permitted by law) development undertaken by agencies of
local, regional, state, and federal government, shall be carried out in
accordance with each and every requirement of this part.
2. The applicable zoning districts determine permitted locations of
Conservation Subdivisions. Rezoning is not necessary when Conservation
Page 86 of 109
May 21, 2014
Subdivision is an alternate form of development and there is not a density
increase. Any of the following zoning districts may be developed as a
Conservation Subdivision as an alternate subdivision form; OUR, OUE,
RE-1, RE-2 and RE-3. No additional density can be achieved in the
absence of a rezoning action.
c. Permitted and Special Exception Uses and Structures.
1. See the Use Table in Section 5.1 for uses permitted in the appropriate
underlying zoning district except for the following uses.
i. Golf Courses are prohibited in Conservation Subdivision Open
Space.
d. Minimum Yard Requirements and house types permitted.
1. The Conservation Subdivision Overlay permits residential densities,
which may take the form of conservation estate housing types and
Conservation Subdivision single-family detached homes as specified in
Section 6.4.4. The minimum lot size for Conservation Subdivisions are:
i. There is no minimum lot size for a Conservation Subdivision
which are served by central utilities as long as the minimum lot
width is met as specified in Sec. 6.4.4.
ii. The minimum residential lot size for a Conservation Subdivision
that does not have central utilities is one acre. The minimum lot
size for a Conservation Subdivision that has central water and on-
site septic is one-half acre.
e. Density.
1. The gross density of a Conservation Subdivision shall not exceed the
maximum density established by the property's underlying zoning district
with the following exception:
i. Where land is designated as "Hamlet" future land use
designation under the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan,
Future Land Use Map Series, Figure RMA-3, any property
assigned an OUE-1 District designation as of the effective date of
Sarasota 2050, an owner may apply for a rezoning that would
permit a maximum gross density of one dwelling unit per 3.5 acres
when developed as a Conservation Subdivisions in accordance
with these standards.
f. Design Standards.
1. Greater flexibility and creativity in the design of residential
developments to preserve on-site environmental resources and
Page 87 of 109
May 21, 2014
preservation areas is permitted through the subdivision development
approval process and as established through the design criteria provided
herein. Conservation Subdivisions shall be organized into two
components: 1) residential development and 2) Conservation Subdivision
Open Space.
g. Residential Development.
1. The location of residential development lots shall be configured to meet
the following standards in all material respects:
i. Residential lots shall be arranged in a contiguous pattern except
as necessary to preserve the function, purpose and integrity of the
on-site natural resources and environmental systems to the
maximum extent practicable.
ii. Minimize disturbance to native habitats and other natural
features.
iii. Protect and preserve the rural character and appearance of land
when viewed from public roads and from abutting properties.
h. Residential Development Setback and Buffer Requirements.
1. The landscape buffer shall be 20 feet wide. Landscape buffer areas are
required as detailed below in order to protect and maintain the rural and
agricultural character of the area. Landscape buffer areas are common
facilities and shall be required as part of the open space around the
residential development in a Conservation Subdivision. Existing
vegetation within the buffer area shall generally be maintained in its
natural condition, but may be modified to restore the overall condition and
natural functions of the area. The minimum landscape buffer shall consist
of four canopy trees and six understory trees per 100 lineal feet and a
continuous hedge with a minimum height of three feet at planting.
2. The residential development shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet
from all Conservation Subdivision property boundary lines and road
rights-of-way. The landscape buffer described above in subsection 1., shall
be located in the required 100-foot setback and abut the entire perimeter of
the residential development.
Zoning Section 6.2.8. Conservation Subdivision Open Space.
a. Required Minimum Open Space. A minimum of 50 percent of the gross acreage
of the parcel shall be designated as Conservation Subdivision Open Space,
exclusive of individual lots.
b. Perpetual Easement. Conservation Subdivision Open Space shall be preserved
in perpetuity through the use of an irrevocable open space/conservation easement.
The easement shall be in such form as is deemed acceptable by the county
Page 88 of 109
May 21, 2014
attorney and shall be recorded for the entire property which is subject to
development including both the residential lots and the remaining open space.
Such perpetually restricted open space may be in agricultural uses subject to the
limitations within this section.
c. External Connectedness. Except as otherwise prioritized by subsection (e)
below and when off-site open space exists, Conservation Subdivision Open Space
shall be configured to create or add to a larger contiguous off-site network of
interconnected open space, particularly existing habitats, and opportunities for
restoring native habitats. Whenever opportunities exist to create connections with
existing or potential off-site open space, greenways or conservation systems on
adjoining parcels or with existing or proposed local or regional recreational trails,
such connections shall be provided. Opportunities for connections will be
determined based upon the natural features of both the subject property and
adjacent properties; the existence of connected natural systems, the existence of
the Greenway RMA, the existence of a proposed local or regional trail, or the
existence of other such features that would function and support the purpose and
intent of a Conservation Subdivision. Where Conservation Subdivision Open
Space would further support critical linkages of either an existing or proposed
local or regional recreational trail, such connection shall be made accessible to the
public for such purpose.
The configuration of the open space shall be determined on a case-by-case basis
to promote long term conservation of native habitats which are connected to other
areas of compatible land use with assurance of appropriate management in
perpetuity. Nothing herein shall be construed to require a property owner to
purchase or otherwise secure connections on lands outside of the boundaries of
the Conservation Subdivision.
d. Internal Connectedness. Conservation Subdivision Open Space shall be
configured to create connected and integrated Open Space within the subdivision
parcel to the maximum extent practicable and shall be based upon the context
sensitive site design standards and priorities that are provided in subsection (e)
below. Conservation Subdivision Open Space shall still be considered connected
if it is separated by a roadway or accessory amenity. The configuration of the
open space shall be determined on a case-by-case basis to promote long-term
conservation of native habitats which are connected to other areas of compatible
land use with assurance of appropriate management in perpetuity. Nothing herein
shall be construed to require a property owner to designate more that the
minimum required open space in the fulfillment of this provision.
e. Context Sensitive Site Design. The areas to be preserved shall be identified on a
case-by-case basis to address the individual natural features of each site. The
management guidelines shall be determined by applying the "Principles for
Evaluating Development Proposals in Native Habitat," Chapter 2, APOXSEE.
These objectives, in order of priority, are to: 1) protect listed species, 2)
Page 89 of 109
May 21, 2014
create/enhance connectivity of open space, 3) protect native habitat, and 4) restore
native habitat. The relative size and functional value of each feature shall be
assessed as a part of the site design process to determine the protection measures
required. Based on an assessment of the quality and quantity of on-site natural
resources, departures from the above prioritization are allowed. In addition to the
protection of natural features as described above, other types of allowable open
space may be provided as a secondary priority including:
1. Viewshed protection of existing and planned public roadways;
2. Continuation of agriculture uses; and
3. Recreation.
f. Maintenance of Native Habitat Areas. Protected habitat areas as defined in
Section 6.2.8.e. within the Conservation Subdivision Open Space, shall not be
converted to other uses, and shall be maintained in their natural condition and
managed to sustain or enhance their native function. These areas may be modified
to restore the overall condition and natural functions of the features.
g. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses within the Conservation Subdivision Open
Space shall include:
1. Active recreation areas, as defined by Section 6.2.7.b.2, which do not
exceed ten percent of the required minimum open space or five acres,
whichever is less. Approved equestrian facilities utilizing best
management practices shall be exempt from the above limitation.
2. Unpaved Bikepaths and trails.
3. Equestrian Trails.
4. Restoration and maintenance activities to sustain or enhance the
functions of native habitats.
5. Agricultural lands designated as required Conservation Subdivision
Open Space shall, at the time of platting, have a current Agriculture
classification for property tax purposes as determined by the Sarasota
County Property Appraiser. Agricultural lands within Conservation
Subdivision Open Space shall be required to use Best Management
Practices. The use and continuation of Agricultural Best Management
Practices shall be verified during the application process for a
Conservation Subdivision. Future uses shall be limited to those
agricultural uses that create or preserve areas intended primarily for the
raising of animals and crops, conservation, and the secondary industries
associated with agricultural production as defined by the agriculture
Page 90 of 109
May 21, 2014
characteristics in Section 5.2.2.a., excluding secondary industries
associated with agricultural production.
6. Structures shall be limited in Conservation Subdivision Open Space to
include only accessory agricultural structures where agricultural uses are
permitted, those structures permitted by subsection g.1., above and one
caretaker dwelling unit, not exceeding 2,000 square feet of floor area, on
agricultural open space of 50 acres or more. The caretaker dwelling unit
shall be excluded from the density calculation for the Conservation
Subdivision.
7. Stormwater management systems serving the Conservation Subdivision
may be located within the Conservation Subdivision Open Space,
provided the stormwater systems are unfenced and are surrounded by or
adjoin areas that are improved for use as a recreation area for use by the
cluster subdivision residents provided the system does not remove native
habitat, or compromise the long term management of natural areas within
the open space for the conservation of native habitats.
8. Landscape buffers as required in Section 4.10.6.h.
h. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited within the Conservation
Subdivision Open Space:
1. Golf Courses;
2. Internal Subdivision Streets within the residential development; and
3. Other actions that convert native habitats, or diminish their function or
connectivity to adjacent off-site conservation areas.
i. Land Management Plan. A plan for the use and maintenance of the Open Space
shall be submitted, as a part of the Master Development Plan approval process
and compliance with said plan shall become a condition of the development order
for the rezoning, where applicable, a condition of the subdivision approval and a
condition of the perpetual open space conservation easement. The Land
Management Plan shall address the following:
1. Ownership;
2. Baseline environmental assessment of the Open Space;
3. Detailed action plan for land management that addresses an initial ten-
year timeframe. The Land Management Plan shall include a schedule and
process for resubmitting a revised and updated Land Management Plan
Page 91 of 109
May 21, 2014
during the ninth year of the plan as an additional requirement for the
biannual monitoring report for that year;
4. Compatibility with the County's Environmental Lands Master Land
Management Plan when adopted;
5. Specific Responsibilities for the regular and periodic operation and
maintenance of Open Spaces by private entities including strategies for
preservation/conservation and/or restoration of native habitats to assure
the connectivity, function and quality of a network of native habitats in
perpetuity;
6. Incorporation of standards outlined in the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 299 as reviewed by the authority having jurisdiction;
7. Requirements for the submission of an bi-annual monitoring report to
the county which includes conditions and methods of enforcement of
obligations;
8. If applicable, plans for restoration of native habitats; and
9. A Fortuitous Finds Policy that clearly identifies the procedures if and
when cultural resources are identified during the regular maintenance
activities of the property. This policy shall be consistent with the Sarasota
County Fortuitous Finds Policy contained within Article III, Chapter 66
(Section 66-81) of the Sarasota County Code and the Historic Preservation
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
j. Access. Safe and convenient pedestrian access and access for maintenance
purposes shall be provided to the Open Space areas, except, however, that areas
used for agricultural purposes or for stormwater systems may be restricted.

Zoning Section 6.4.4. Conservation Subdivision Development in the OUE and RE
Districts. The following dimensional standards shall apply to all residential development
in Conservation Subdivisions.
Standards
Conservation
Estate House
CS Single-
Family
Detached
House
Lot Dimensions
(minimum)
Lot width 100 80 50 35
Yards (minimum feet)
Street yard 25 20 20 20
Page 92 of 109
May 21, 2014
Side yard (single) 10 8 6 5
Side yard (total) 20 18 15 12
Rear yard 20 10 10 10
Waterfront yard 20 20 20 20
Bulk (maximum)
Height (feet) 35 35 35 35
Building coverage 20% 40% 40% 40%

D. Information Supporting Direction: The following are excerpts from regulations
contained in the Zoning Ordinance that addresses the purpose, intent, and processing of
Conservation Subdivisions. It is the conclusion of staff that the below stated goals and
objectives of Conservation Subdivisions have not been achieved through the processing
of conservation subdivision rezone petitions (7 in total) over the past 13 years,
specifically for parcels 20 acres or less in size. The specific goals not being achieved
relate to: 1) the establishment of interconnected networks of off-site conservation lands
and publicly protected open space which extend beyond the individual subdivision
boundary contributing to external connectedness, and which are designed to function as
part of a regional conservation strategy; 2) the creation of networks of publicly protected
open spaces within individual subdivisions; and, 3) the configuration of residential
development to preserve the function, purpose, and integrity of on-site natural resources
and environmental systems, and to protect and preserve the rural character and
appearance of land when viewed from public roads and from abutting properties.

Copies of the development concept plans (shown following this discussion) for the seven
conservation subdivisions illustrate conservation open space areas and residential
configurations that do not effectively achieve the goals as stated above for conservation
subdivisions. The design and layout of the residential and open space areas depicted on
the concept plans, specifically for the parcels of 20 acres or less, do not provide for any
ability for interconnectedness of the on-site open space with off-site conservation lands
and/or publicly protected open space which extends beyond the individual subdivision
boundaries. In general, the locations where these conservation subdivisions have occurred
have limited future potential for connecting to any existing and/or future adjacent off-site
open space, greenways or conservation systems. As a result of this, the (required) on-site
open space was designed by the petitioner to enhance or maximize residential
development on the subject parcels. The concept of configuring the open space to
promote long term conservation of native habitats which are connected to other areas of
compatible land use with the assurance of appropriate management in perpetuity is lost in
the design of the overall plan, hence focusing the main design effort on achieving a
configuration to maximize residential development. Conservation subdivisions of 20
acres or less do not have sufficient area (or acreage) to creatively design the residential
and open space areas to preserve the function, purpose and integrity of the on-site natural
resources and environmental systems to the maximum extent practicable.

Page 93 of 109
May 21, 2014
SUMMARY - CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS
Page 94 of 109
May 21, 2014
2050 RMA MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS

Page 95 of 109
May 21, 2014
RZ 05-26 BARBARA ZEAGLER LOT SPLIT
Page 96 of 109
May 21, 2014
RZ 06-05 TATUM ROAD SUBDIVISION

Page 97 of 109
May 21, 2014
RZ 07-15 PALMER SUBDIVISION

Page 98 of 109
May 21, 2014
RZ 07-30 BOLEYN LAKES ESTATES

Page 99 of 109
May 21, 2014
RZ 07-35 IBIS STREET SUBDIVISION

Page 100 of 109
May 21, 2014
RZ 13-03 KURTZ SUBDIVISION

Page 101 of 109
May 21, 2014
RZ 13-06 NISLEY SUBDIVISION

Page 102 of 109
May 21, 2014
E. Information Refuting Direction: Existing CS regulations assist with preventing the
proliferation of small lot subdivisions (consisting of 5 acre lots) throughout the eastern
part of the county.

F. Analysis of Information: Future Land Use Policies TDR2.1 and TDR2.2, as contained
in the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area section of Chapter 9 (Future Land Use
Plan) of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, in essence, require that any
development of land located in the 2050 Resource Management Area System requesting
an increase in residential density must be rezoned consistent with the Village/Open Space
RMA requirements, or be rezoned as a Conservation Subdivision, irrespective of parcel
size.

Section 4.10.6. of the Zoning Ordinance, Conservation Subdivisions, contains specific
regulations (implementing language for the above mentioned policies) that require that
any proposed rezoning of property contained in the 2050 RMA land use areas that
increase density must be rezoned as a Conservation Subdivision.

The (zoning) regulations for the processing of Conservation Subdivisions contain criteria
which outlines specific features which must be designed into every development project
requiring processing as a conservation subdivision. These features primarily consist of: 1)
configuring the residential portion of the proposed development to help preserve the
function, purpose, and integrity of on-site natural resources and environmental systems,
and to help protect and preserve the rural character and appearance of land when viewed
from public roads and abutting properties; 2) the creation of networks of publicly
protected open spaces within proposed individual subdivisions; and 3) the establishment
of interconnected networks of off-site conservation lands and publicly protected open
space which extends beyond the individual subdivision boundary contributing to
external connectedness, and which are designed to function as part of a regional
conservation strategy.

The above stated three goals for conservation subdivisions have, for the most part, not
been achieved through the processing of the seven (7) conservation subdivision rezonings
which have been submitted to the County over the past 13 years.

This conclusion is primarily based on the observation that the required features to be
included in a conservation subdivision have not effectively been incorporated into the
design and layout of the proposed developments approved by the County Commission.
This conclusion is specifically true for the establishment of interconnected networks of
off-site conservation lands and publicly protected open space which extends beyond the
individual subdivision boundaries, even more so for the conservation subdivisions 20
acres or less in size.

It has been observed, and to even some degree established, that parcels of 20 acres or less
in size are not of sufficient size to effectively incorporate the required design features for
conservation subdivisions as required in the Zoning Ordinance. The design of the
development concept plans for the small area rezone petitions processed by the County
have depicted residential and open space layouts which have not facilitated the
requirements setforth in the Zoning Ordinance for conservation subdivisions. For
Page 103 of 109
May 21, 2014
example, it has been very typical to see a proposed development concept plans with half
of the property shown for (required) open space and the other half shown for the
residential lot area, with no provision made for any type of connectivity with adjacent
properties. The last petition processed by the County included the use of the PUD
provision to request waivers of the basic requirements for conservation subdivisions (e.g.,
the separation of the developable area from the conservation open space area).

G. Conclusion: The regulations/policies currently contained in the Zoning Ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan require that any property located in the Sarasota 2050 Resource
Management Area System requesting an increase in density must be processed as a
conservation subdivision. The mandatory design requirements for the development
concept plans associated with conservation subdivisions are not being met for many of
the properties having gone through the conservation subdivision process, especially
parcels 20 acres or less in size. The existing regulations/policies in the Zoning Ordinance
and Comprehensive Plan, respectively, should be amended to allow for parcels 20 acres
or less in size to be rezoned without the requirement for them to have to be processed as a
conservation subdivision, only as a conventional rezoning.



Policy TDR2.2 Zoning Ordinance/Land Development Regulations
The County shall amend the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Regulations to
establish specific requirements for the creation of Conservation Subdivisions in the Rural
Heritage/Estate, Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs. In
order to obtain any increase in residential density, land located within the above
described RMAs must be rezoned consistent with the Village/Open Space RMA
requirements, or be rezoned as a Conservation Subdivision, except for parcels 20 acres or
less in size. Such rezonings shall also require compliance with Policy VOS5.2. The
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Regulations shall be
adopted within two years of the effective date of the Sarasota 2050 RMA-1
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposed ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Regulations shall be prepared for public hearing
within one year of the effective date of the Sarasota 2050 RMA-1 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance and the Land Development Regulations will
establish general baseline regulations for Conservation Subdivisions, based on the
following guidelines:
(First bullet point only)
no minimum required size of development excluding parcels 20 acres or less in
size;
minimum Open Space standards will provide that Open Space is no less than 50%
of the site;
Page 104 of 109
May 21, 2014
criteria for the form of the Open Space will ensure that the Open Space is
designed to add to or create a network of Open Spaces connected to the regional
Open Space and/or Greenway RMA;
maintenance of Open Spaces will be funded by private sources;
deed restriction or other legal instruments will be required to secure the Open
Space in perpetuity;
appropriate street standards for the size and location of the development;
appropriate Buffering standards for adjacent rural estates and agricultural
operations;
golf courses shall not be allowed in Conservation Subdivisions;
(here this item is stated as an outright prohibition whereas in the Zoning Ordinance it is
stated that golf courses are not permitted in Conservation Subdivision Open Space)
Conservation Subdivisions shall be a permitted use in zoning categories that
implement the Rural and Semi-Rural land use designations on the Comprehensive
Plans Future Land Use Map; and
the maximum density of a Conservation Subdivision shall be the maximum
density allowed by the land use designation of the land on the Comprehensive
Plans Future Land Use Map in which the Conservation Subdivision is located;
except for land that has a zoning designation of OUE-1 and is located in Hamlet
land use which shall have a maximum density of 1 unit per 3.5 acres.
* * *

Zoning Regulations

Zoning Section 4.10.6. Conservation Subdivision (CS).
a. Purpose and Intent.
1. i. ii. A new Conservation Subdivision overlay zoning district. All rezoning requests
that increase density within the Rural Heritage/Estate RMA, Greenway RMA and the
Agricultural Reserve RMA as depicted and defined within the Sarasota County
Comprehensive Plan are required to be Conservation Subdivisions, except for parcels
20 acres or less in size. The only methods available to a property within the
Village/Open Space RMA may request a rezoning action that increases density is
through the Village Planned Development District, the Hamlet Planned Development
District or the Conservation Subdivision overlay district.

b. Applicability.
1. Any application/petition to rezone property within the Rural Heritage/Estate,
Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs must be rezoned
consistent with the Village/Open Space RMA requirements, or be rezoned as a
Conservation Subdivision, except for parcels 20 acres or less in size. Except as
otherwise provided herein, all development within these RMAs that are rezoned to
Conservation Subdivision Overlay, including but not limited to (to the extent
permitted by law) development undertaken by agencies of local, regional, state, and
Page 105 of 109
May 21, 2014
federal government, shall be carried out in accordance with each and every
requirement of this part.
* * *

e. Density.
1.i. Where land is designated as Hamlet future land use designation under the
Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map Series, Figure RMA-3,
any property assigned an OUE-1 district designation as of the effective date of
Sarasota 2050, an owner may apply for a rezoning that would permit a maximum
gross density of one dwelling unit per 3.5 acres when developed as a Conservation in
accordance with these standards.
* * *

Page 106 of 109
May 21, 2014

Conclusions: Staff recommends that the board authorize the processing of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment No. 2013-I, and the advertisement of a public hearing to consider a proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment No. 86, both associated with the following:

I. FN-1: Fiscal Neutrality 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.

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.

II. FN-1a: Fiscal Neutrality Compliance for Public Transit No changes to Sarasota 2050
policy or implementing regulations are recommended.

III. FN-2: Timing / Phasing of Development 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
Page 107 of 109
May 21, 2014
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 facilities and
services. The monitoring program established in Sarasota 2050 RMA Policy VOS2.2 is
designed to ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure and prevent additional and
disproportionate costs by adhering to the Fiscal Neutrality requirements for Village
development. Furthermore, the monitoring program can help determine if elimination of the
timing and phasing restrictions negatively impact infill and redevelopment efforts and if
strengthening of redevelopment incentives are required.

A residential capacity analysis is conducted annually to ensure that there is sufficient acreage
available to accommodate projected population growth for a ten-year planning period and
that the availability of infrastructure is financially feasible. The analysis area should,
therefore, include not only lands within the Urban Service Area, 2050 Village and Settlement
Area developments and the Affordable Housing Overlay, but recognize all areas where urban
forms of development are allowed or currently existing west of the countryside line and
within the Future Urban Area.

IV. FN-3: Affordable Housing Given the changes in the past few years in the housing market
and the economic environment, it may be appropriate to comprehensively re-examine the
objectives, policies, and implementing regulations, for providing affordable housing in
Sarasota County as a whole. It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
investigate Affordable Housing strategies County-wide, not just as it relates to Village/Open
Space RMA developments, as it is the only portion of the county where Affordable Housing
policies and regulations are prescriptive. There is a need to create a balanced housing stock
which offers housing choices affordable for all income groups throughout Sarasota County,
to mitigate the demand for affordable housing caused by new development projects and to
mitigate the shortage of affordable housing stock created by development of housing that is
affordable only to higher income households. A more integrated approach to neighborhood
development efforts is necessary to respond to the needs of those living below 120% AMI
and to increase access to stable, quality and affordable housing.

As it relates to Village/Open Space RMA Affordable Housing requirements, Staff
recommends provisions for incentivizing Affordable Housing Units for low, very low,
moderate income and workforce households including, but not limited to, inclusionary
bonuses providing additional units for every provided affordable unit, and an ability to
develop other programs. The inclusion of these changes will help to insure that new
development projects within the Village/Open Space RMA provide a fair portion of
affordable housing on site.

V. NU-5: Minimum of One Village Center Provide amended language in the 2050
comprehensive plan policy and zoning regulations that will allow a reduction or elimination
of the non-residential building square footage required within a Village Center where the
market analysis demonstrates such need, or lack of need. In addition, provide amended
language in the 2050 zoning regulations to clarify that each of the three areas designated
Village Land Use on the RMA-3 Land Use Map (North, Central and South) have at least one
Page 108 of 109
May 21, 2014
Village Center, and not that each Village Master Plan project have a at least one Village
Center.

VI. Hamlet Issues (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) There is a significant level of importance placed on
implementing open space with 2050 forms of development. Any adjustment to these
requirements must take into account the level of impact that it may have on 2050 policy
intended outcomes and fundamental values. Proposed changes that significantly reduce the
level of open space required should not be entertained unless they include compensatory
elements that enhance the intent of 2050 policy.

While the highest level of importance is placed on open space within Villages, Hamlets also
utilize open space to carry out their intent. The emphasis on Village open space is due to the
land use intensity increase being allowed within 2050 policy and the intent to minimize
impacts from that increase through open space implementation. Village Master Land Use
Plans are required to include all Greenway RMA as open space in addition to the requirement
of one acre of open space for each acre of developed area (50% percent requirement).
Combined with a Villages requirement to derive the required residential density level
through the TDR program, Villages have the greatest potential for creating open space.

As stated, Hamlets build open space as well, but for a slightly different reason. Given the
minimal amount of Greenway RMA enveloped by the Hamlet land use designated lands,
Hamlets have been shown to primarily establish open space through the percentage
requirement. This open space is to be used to maintain and enhance the rural/agricultural
character that exists in the eastern portions of the County. Adjusting the greenbelt widths
between simultaneously approved Hamlets and eliminating the 4000 ft. separation between
focal points would contribute to the consolidation of open space. This would allow for
greater capabilities in implementing agricultural uses on larger tracts of land.

VII. Conservation Subdivisions The regulations/policies currently contained in the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan require that any property located in the Sarasota
2050 Resource Management Area System requesting an increase in density must be
processed as a conservation subdivision. The mandatory design requirements for the
development concept plans associated with conservation subdivisions are not being met for
many of the properties having gone through the conservation subdivision process, especially
parcels 20 acres or less in size. The existing regulations/policies in the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan, respectively, should be amended to allow for parcels 20 acres or less in
size to be rezoned without the requirement for them to have to be processed as a conservation
subdivision, only as a conventional rezoning.

Page 109 of 109
May 21, 2014
APPENDIX A
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM DATED JANUARY 16, 2014

Sarasota 2050 Phase 3 Changes

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Sarasota 2050 Phase 3 Changes

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ATTACHMENT 1

Staff Report dated May 21, 2014

S-ar putea să vă placă și