Meeting Attendees:

Summary:

Mr. Dan Simmons, Development Patterns Committee Chair, welcomed the group and thanked them for their continued participation. The Development Patterns Committee met jointly with the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.

The purpose of the meeting was to review the Principles, Strategies and Solutions that were proposed by MSCW at the October 4, 2007 Committee meeting. Committee members were asked to provide comments to modify, delete, or add new Strategies and Solutions. Mr. Ostrodka clarified that the Committee will not make changes to the County’s policies or Land Development Code at this meeting. If a Strategy and/or Solution was not brought up for discussion by the Committee, then it was considered a “consensus recommendation” for consideration by the Task Force. If approved by the Task Force, the Strategies and Solutions will be used as the basis for the Final Shared Vision Plan.

No comments were made regarding the proposed Strategies and Solutions for Development Patterns with the exception of the “Hierarchy of Place” concept. Significant discussion regarding the Hierarchy of Place occurred during the meeting. Committee members noted that the recent stipulated settlement with the Department of Community Affairs (DOAH Case No. 06-1537GM) permits a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre in areas within the Coastal High Hazard Area that are designated for Mixed-Use Urban Development, provided that they are served by both community or public water and sanitary sewer systems. This is greater than the density considered for the “Coastal Village” land use classification (minimum average density of three units per acre; maximum average density of five units per acre). Mr. Ostrodka noted that density can be an average throughout an entire parcel. For example, it is possible to have 12 units per acre or more in some parts of a property if other parts have lower densities. The Committee decided that the proposed “Coastal Village” should be named simply “Village” since locations for the Places within the Hierarchy have not been determined yet.

There was ongoing discussion regarding the densities proposed for different land use classifications in the Hierarchy of Place. Mr. Ostrodka and Mr. Unger clarified that the Hierarchy of Place is based upon historical patterns of human settlement, as well as contemporary examples from analogue communities in Florida. The land use classifications within the Hierarchy are intended to be relative; in other words, the “Urban Center” is a more intense and dense land use than the “Rural Settlement”. The Hierarchy of Place was created to address the Issues of concern identified by the Committee, including:

• Urban sprawl
• Encroachment into hunting and outdoor recreational lands
• Loss of “sense of community” and current way of life
• Expense of utility service expansion
• Increased fire and rescue response time

Increased development densities in appropriate locations can help address these Issues by reducing the overall development footprint and the distance between homes, services, and places of employment. The Committee members stated that they prefer the character associated with a rural town, such as Perry, and did not like the images of mid-rise multi-family buildings. Mr. Simmons asked how the areas that are not used for development, particularly the “fibrous habitats” used for both silviculture and outdoor recreation, will be planned and preserved. Mr. Unger noted that the Environmental Committee is identifying sacred places to be preserved. He also noted that increased residential density where development does take place will preserve more open space than low density development because it clusters development into a smaller footprint; this may also help to protect the existing hunting lease locations.

It was noted that Taylor County is different from many other coastal communities in Florida because of the presence of the state owned conservation lands, which comprise approximately 88% of the coastline on a linear foot basis. This limits development potential along the coast and increases the value of the remaining coastal lands. Therefore, the Committee felt that coastal lands and inlands should have different development characteristics. The Committee reiterated the need to provide public access to water resources.

Mr. Simmons noted that the eventual Shared Vision Plan should be easy to understand and inspire people. Jack Brown, Taylor County Administrator, noted that the Vision should create a “theme” for downtown Perry to attract people and give them a reason to visit. Mr. Brown suggested that the City and County use the Community Redevelopment Area funds to buy abandoned buildings, refurbish them, and sell them to new businesses. Mr. Ostrodka reminded the Committee that the Task Force will consider all of the Committee recommendations for inclusion in the Shared Vision Plan. The Committees will review and rank three different land use alternatives at the December 6, 2007 meeting. The alternatives are based upon the Strategies and Solutions, as well as direction from the Task Force.

The meeting was adjourned.

Click here to download an Adobe Acrobat Reader version of this summary (111 KB)